By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - E3 insider lists Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare for Wii U

Yakuzaice on 03 June 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:

You seem pretty confused.

We're talking about Tales games releasing on Nintendo systems in the Western hemisphere. They sell very very well on Nintendo systems outside of Japan. Tales of Xillia only sold 250k in the US and 120k in Europe. Meanwhile, Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World sold 200k in the US and 40k in Europe. In comparison to Xillia, Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World sold very well. Tales of Graces sold similar numbers. There's no evidence here that shows Tales games *don't* sell well on Nintendo systems. So, the question here is... Why not release them on Nintendo systems?

RPGs tend to sell very well on Nintendo systems in general. There's overwhelming evidence to prove this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7gDbpr0fJo

I'm pretty sure I'm not the confused one here.

The first post of yours that I quoted said "Namco refuses to release this series on Nintendo systems".

Even if we take it to mean release in the west, it simply isn't true.  The last Tales game to be released on a Nintendo system came out in the west, as well as Dawn of the New World as you illustrated in this post.  I wouldn't classify that as Namco refusing to release them in the west.  I also explained in my previous post about the overall lack of handheld Tales games coming to the west as well as reasons for Graces not coming over.  It simply made more economical sense to focus their resources on a Japanese port for the PS3 rather than a western release on the Wii based on sales of Vesperia PS3 in Japan and DotNW in the west.

Your next post made the claim that "There's overwhelming evidence that the Tales games do better on Nintendo systems in the West".

Now in this post you provide evidence that Xilia on the PS3 did better than DotNW on the Wii in the west, and have changed your argument to that they just sell well.  I'm also not sure why you are saying Xillia "only" sold that or that DotNW sold "very well" compared to Xillia.  Xillia did 479k outside of Japan, DotNW did 263k.  I don't know how you went from there being overwhelming evidence that Tales games do better on Nintendo systems in the west to saying a game did very well for selling 45% less than a Tales game on a non-Nintendo system.



Around the Network
QuintonMcLeod on 03 June 2014
Yakuzaice said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

You seem pretty confused.

We're talking about Tales games releasing on Nintendo systems in the Western hemisphere. They sell very very well on Nintendo systems outside of Japan. Tales of Xillia only sold 250k in the US and 120k in Europe. Meanwhile, Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World sold 200k in the US and 40k in Europe. In comparison to Xillia, Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World sold very well. Tales of Graces sold similar numbers. There's no evidence here that shows Tales games *don't* sell well on Nintendo systems. So, the question here is... Why not release them on Nintendo systems?

RPGs tend to sell very well on Nintendo systems in general. There's overwhelming evidence to prove this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7gDbpr0fJo

I'm pretty sure I'm not the confused one here.

The first post of yours that I quoted said "Namco refuses to release this series on Nintendo systems".

Even if we take it to mean release in the west, it simply isn't true.  The last Tales game to be released on a Nintendo system came out in the west, as well as Dawn of the New World as you illustrated in this post.  I wouldn't classify that as Namco refusing to release them in the west.  I also explained in my previous post about the overall lack of handheld Tales games coming to the west as well as reasons for Graces not coming over.  It simply made more economical sense to focus their resources on a Japanese port for the PS3 rather than a western release on the Wii based on sales of Vesperia PS3 in Japan and DotNW in the west.

Your next post made the claim that "There's overwhelming evidence that the Tales games do better on Nintendo systems in the West".

Now in this post you provide evidence that Xilia on the PS3 did better than DotNW on the Wii in the west, and have changed your argument to that they just sell well.  I'm also not sure why you are saying Xillia "only" sold that or that DotNW sold "very well" compared to Xillia.  Xillia did 479k outside of Japan, DotNW did 263k.  I don't know how you went from there being overwhelming evidence that Tales games do better on Nintendo systems in the west to saying a game did very well for selling 45% less than a Tales game on a non-Nintendo system.


You certainly sound confused.

Namco refuses to release Tales games on Nintendo systems in the west, even though they perform very well. The numbers show it. Watch the Youtube video I linked.



oniyide on 03 June 2014
Mr Khan said:
oniyide said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Think it through: advertising only comes from Microsoft, but not the actual console announcements. It could be an issue that Microsoft tried to get the very announcements buried, but that Activision refused for PS due to the revenue received there, but agreed to go MS-exclusive advertising while burying the very existence of the Nintendo versions.


This *did* start in 2010 when that MS/Activision deal first surfaced, after all.

?? what does annoucements have to do with advertisment? those are two different entities. Again MS has no reason to bury Nintendo versions because they sell the worse by FAR. Hell even when the wii was on top those versions sold worse.  Even if what you say is true, why keep doing it when it was clear the Nintendo versions were selling worse and worse as time went on. Hell the wii U ones cant even sell a quarter mil. So i have thought it through and it makes no finacial sense for MS to do this.

the Wii u versions remind me of TV shows that have low ratings, they get renewed or annouced at the last minute becasue frankly Acti themselves might be iffy on even putting the games on the system

Aye, but the games themselves are only announced about 6-7 months in advance, well beyond the timeframe where they would have to *know* whether they're at least making a Wii U version or not. Unless they're afraid of something like Watch Dogs where the other versions hit a development crunch and they have to pull staff to make sure they get out on time, but that wouldn't explain the persistent pattern for four years.

At least you're providing alternate explanations, though. This is discussion and not mere hot air.

but only Treyarch works on the Wii U versions, hell they are the only ones to have EVER worked on the WIi and WIi U versions of those games. From my understanding Treyarch doesnt even get started on the versions of the games until well after development has started on the games themselves proper, which would explain why the Wii/U version gets annouced later, in case Acti pulls the plug they can fall back on "we never said it was coming" Hell i wouldnt eve be surprised if Treyarch has their own mini dev team with them that works SOLELY on the Wii/U versions of the game.



oniyide on 03 June 2014
TheLastStarFighter said:
Dunban67 said:
Mr Khan said:
Dunban67 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Again, you have to provide an explanation of equal or better value, or don't shoot mine down. I agree that the Wii U version presents no threat to the sales of an PS/XB versions, but then why would Activision hurt a version of their own game by acting like it doesn't exist when it does? It makes more sense to think that, as part of that exclusive content deal they signed with Microsoft, for instance, that Nintendo versions of the game have to be announced later. Not a whole separate deal to bury the Nintendo versions, but part of another promotional deal.

But why would they exclude just Nintendo?   Since they are no threat it's not worth excluding them 

to say the only explanation is MSFT or Sony must have paid off Activision to keep the Wii u version silent is like saying you heard a sound in the woods you could not identify therefore the only explanation is that it was Bigfoot 

I keep hearing this, and then hearing no other viable explanation. Feel free to shoot me down, but you should at least come up with an alternative of some kind.

You want me to prove there is no Bigfoot?  Your explanation is not viable or reasonable to assume -  the actual reason(s) could be one or more of many including the Wii u represents insignificant sales for them or they are waiting to see if Wii u hardware sales pick up enough to make a difference or waiting to see how active the current COD Wii u players are when it gets closer to release or it could have something to do that Ony Activision and Nintenndo are aware of that we may never find out -  it could be for many other reasons more reasonable than Sony or MSFT buying off Activision to delay, cancel or keep quiet keep the Wii u version-  

But what you're saying doesn't make sense.  The Wii U version of Ghosts was barely even announced and it was done so just before release.  The game was not developed in a month or two, the Wii U port team was surely working on it long before that, most likely since the last version was ported.  Not spending dollars advertizing the Nintendo version makes perfect sense, but not admitting its existence does not.  If Advanced Warfare is currently being ported for Wii U, it should be on the COD website with all the other versions.  But it's not, and the only reasonable explaination is MS paying for it not to be included so that a third potential option for COD players doesn't emgerge and eat into the XBox market as Playstation has done.  If Wii U versions were promoted - complete with free online - that market could potentiall grow.  Any smart company knows the best way to beat competition is to never let it begin.


problem with this is is the Nintendo versions pose no theart so its unlikely MS would waste money to do such a thing. Lets be CLEAR WIi U and the Wii versions POSE no and will NEVER pose a threat to the xbox version. ALL and EARLY DLC, better support for online, more players on it, demograph some of the reasons of the top of my head that the Wii U version will always lag behind? free online? LOL if they didnt care last gen when Both Sony AND Ninty had free online why would they care know, money is no issue for COD players, hell it has some of the most expensive DLC out there for a reason. Their is no potential for Wii U version to eat into anything. Hell even at its peak the WIi version still paled in comparison to both 360 and PS3 individually, so all of a sudden its supposed to rise from the ashes on a system that is much less popular to boot? get real.



BuckStud on 03 June 2014
oniyide said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
Dunban67 said:
Mr Khan said:
Dunban67 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Again, you have to provide an explanation of equal or better value, or don't shoot mine down. I agree that the Wii U version presents no threat to the sales of an PS/XB versions, but then why would Activision hurt a version of their own game by acting like it doesn't exist when it does? It makes more sense to think that, as part of that exclusive content deal they signed with Microsoft, for instance, that Nintendo versions of the game have to be announced later. Not a whole separate deal to bury the Nintendo versions, but part of another promotional deal.

But why would they exclude just Nintendo?   Since they are no threat it's not worth excluding them 

to say the only explanation is MSFT or Sony must have paid off Activision to keep the Wii u version silent is like saying you heard a sound in the woods you could not identify therefore the only explanation is that it was Bigfoot 

I keep hearing this, and then hearing no other viable explanation. Feel free to shoot me down, but you should at least come up with an alternative of some kind.

You want me to prove there is no Bigfoot?  Your explanation is not viable or reasonable to assume -  the actual reason(s) could be one or more of many including the Wii u represents insignificant sales for them or they are waiting to see if Wii u hardware sales pick up enough to make a difference or waiting to see how active the current COD Wii u players are when it gets closer to release or it could have something to do that Ony Activision and Nintenndo are aware of that we may never find out -  it could be for many other reasons more reasonable than Sony or MSFT buying off Activision to delay, cancel or keep quiet keep the Wii u version-  

But what you're saying doesn't make sense.  The Wii U version of Ghosts was barely even announced and it was done so just before release.  The game was not developed in a month or two, the Wii U port team was surely working on it long before that, most likely since the last version was ported.  Not spending dollars advertizing the Nintendo version makes perfect sense, but not admitting its existence does not.  If Advanced Warfare is currently being ported for Wii U, it should be on the COD website with all the other versions.  But it's not, and the only reasonable explaination is MS paying for it not to be included so that a third potential option for COD players doesn't emgerge and eat into the XBox market as Playstation has done.  If Wii U versions were promoted - complete with free online - that market could potentiall grow.  Any smart company knows the best way to beat competition is to never let it begin.


problem with this is is the Nintendo versions pose no theart so its unlikely MS would waste money to do such a thing. Lets be CLEAR WIi U and the Wii versions POSE no and will NEVER pose a threat to the xbox version. ALL and EARLY DLC, better support for online, more players on it, demograph some of the reasons of the top of my head that the Wii U version will always lag behind? free online? LOL if they didnt care last gen when Both Sony AND Ninty had free online why would they care know, money is no issue for COD players, hell it has some of the most expensive DLC out there for a reason. Their is no potential for Wii U version to eat into anything. Hell even at its peak the WIi version still paled in comparison to both 360 and PS3 individually, so all of a sudden its supposed to rise from the ashes on a system that is much less popular to boot? get real.
That’s an ignorant comment.  Of coarse a Wii U version threatens both MS and Sony to some (small) extent.  So, Jimmy wants a new system for his birthday. He’s a huge COD fan, but what’s this...I can get the new COD and also play Mario Kart 8, Super Mario 3D World, Super Smash Bros. etc if I get a Wii U... and the Wii U is cheaper?!? Competition is just that. While in “your” mind, you wouldn’t buy a Wii U over the other two if COD comes out for it, you can’t speak for everyone.





Stop hating and start playing.

Around the Network
oniyide on 03 June 2014
BuckStud said:
oniyide said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

But what you're saying doesn't make sense.  The Wii U version of Ghosts was barely even announced and it was done so just before release.  The game was not developed in a month or two, the Wii U port team was surely working on it long before that, most likely since the last version was ported.  Not spending dollars advertizing the Nintendo version makes perfect sense, but not admitting its existence does not.  If Advanced Warfare is currently being ported for Wii U, it should be on the COD website with all the other versions.  But it's not, and the only reasonable explaination is MS paying for it not to be included so that a third potential option for COD players doesn't emgerge and eat into the XBox market as Playstation has done.  If Wii U versions were promoted - complete with free online - that market could potentiall grow.  Any smart company knows the best way to beat competition is to never let it begin.


problem with this is is the Nintendo versions pose no theart so its unlikely MS would waste money to do such a thing. Lets be CLEAR WIi U and the Wii versions POSE no and will NEVER pose a threat to the xbox version. ALL and EARLY DLC, better support for online, more players on it, demograph some of the reasons of the top of my head that the Wii U version will always lag behind? free online? LOL if they didnt care last gen when Both Sony AND Ninty had free online why would they care know, money is no issue for COD players, hell it has some of the most expensive DLC out there for a reason. Their is no potential for Wii U version to eat into anything. Hell even at its peak the WIi version still paled in comparison to both 360 and PS3 individually, so all of a sudden its supposed to rise from the ashes on a system that is much less popular to boot? get real.
That’s an ignorant comment.  Of coarse a Wii U version threatens both MS and Sony to some (small) extent.  So, Jimmy wants a new system for his birthday. He’s a huge COD fan, but what’s this...I can get the new COD and also play Mario Kart 8, Super Mario 3D World, Super Smash Bros. etc if I get a Wii U... and the Wii U is cheaper?!? Competition is just that. While in “your” mind, you wouldn’t buy a Wii U over the other two if COD comes out for it, you can’t speak for everyone.


you're right i cant, but i can speak for most people. We are on a sales website and clearly people are NOT picking the WIi U version so tell me again how it poses a threat to MS or Sony versions? Not to mention they are getting the game on TWO of their platforms. Again lets get real. Unless you believe the WIi U version of AW will do anywhere near the numbers on Wii U that it will do on any other system.



Yakuzaice on 04 June 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:

You certainly sound confused.

Namco refuses to release Tales games on Nintendo systems in the west, even though they perform very well. The numbers show it. Watch the Youtube video I linked.

So I guess you aren't even bothering to read my posts.  Namco hasn't refused to release Tales games on Nintendo systems in the west because they have released Tales games on Nintendo systems in the west.  Your own post debunked your claim that there is overwhelming evidence that Tales games do better on Nintendo systems in the west.

I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video because you can't formulate a consistent argument.



QuintonMcLeod on 05 June 2014
Yakuzaice said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

You certainly sound confused.

Namco refuses to release Tales games on Nintendo systems in the west, even though they perform very well. The numbers show it. Watch the Youtube video I linked.

So I guess you aren't even bothering to read my posts.  Namco hasn't refused to release Tales games on Nintendo systems in the west because they have released Tales games on Nintendo systems in the west.  Your own post debunked your claim that there is overwhelming evidence that Tales games do better on Nintendo systems in the west.

I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video because you can't formulate a consistent argument.

I did read your post. I just didn't need to give you a long drawn out response, because it's evident that you're very confused.

1) My first post wasn't geared to you. It was in response to another post. So, obviously it's not going to be broken down so you (specifically) can understand.

2) I've broken down my meaning multiple times. I'm trying to clarify it for you now, and you're still trying to make sense of my older posts.

3) I've posted two links so far clarifying what I'm trying to say. Apparently you've neglected to check out both links. I can't help you if you refuse to check the sources in which I'm formulating my opinion.

4) There have been 5 Tales games that have not been released on Nintendo systems outside of Japan. That's right. Five. Then there's two others that are coming out that do not have any indication of being released on Nintendo platforms, period. If that isn't a clear indication, then I don't know what is. To me, it feels as though you fail to see the forest for the trees. Check out my links and form your own opinion. If you disagree, fine - but don't throw out my opinion because you failed to do your own research.



the2real4mafol on 05 June 2014

Quite likely but i have no real interest in it and i don't think the E3 reveal of the game will change that



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Yakuzaice on 05 June 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:

I did read your post. I just didn't need to give you a long drawn out response, because it's evident that you're very confused.

1) My first post wasn't geared to you. It was in response to another post. So, obviously it's not going to be broken down so you (specifically) can understand.

2) I've broken down my meaning multiple times. I'm trying to clarify it for you now, and you're still trying to make sense of my older posts.

3) I've posted two links so far clarifying what I'm trying to say. Apparently you've neglected to check out both links. I can't help you if you refuse to check the sources in which I'm formulating my opinion.

4) There have been 5 Tales games that have not been released on Nintendo systems outside of Japan. That's right. Five. Then there's two others that are coming out that do not have any indication of being released on Nintendo platforms, period. If that isn't a clear indication, then I don't know what is. To me, it feels as though you fail to see the forest for the trees. Check out my links and form your own opinion. If you disagree, fine - but don't throw out my opinion because you failed to do your own research.

2. I'm trying to clarify the meaning of your other posts because you change your arguments and then say that I am confused.  The strangest one was where you tried to make out DotNW selling significantly less than Xillia in the west as a win for DotNW.  Especially after your previous claim about how much better Tales games sell on Nintendo systems in the west. 

3.  Your first link merely said Symphonia was the most successful Tales game in the west and gave some reasons why.  It didn't say Namco refuses to release Tales games on Nintendo systems in the west.  If you follow through to the Destructoid article, he does mention that their main audience is Japan.  This supports what I have been saying about Graces.  Considering DotNW didn't do that well in the west, Graces didn't do that well in Japan, and the Vesperia port sold great in Japan, it made sense for Namco to focus on getting Graces out in Japan on the PS3 rather than a western release for the Wii version.  They managed to get the Japanese PS3 port out in less than a year.  It took a further 15 months to release in the US on PS3 and nearly two years to come out in Europe.  By that time Wii sales had fallen off.

Your second link was that half hour youtube video.  You are crazy if you expect someone to sit through thirty minutes of some random person on youtube to supplement your argument.

4. I think the PSP alone has five Tales games that weren't released in the west.  I don't think any of the PS2 games got a full western release (for some reason VGC has European sales for Legendia, but it doesn't seem to have been released there).  The PS3 has one that didn't come over, and it wouldn't surprise me if Zestiria doesn't make it.  The PS3 will probably be dead in the west by the time it would.  Chances seem pretty slim that Innocence on the Vita will come over.

I'm not sure which two games you are talking about.  The only two I know coming out are Zestiria and Reve Unitia.  Zestiria shouldn't matter since your argument was about Nintendo platform Tales games getting released in the west, not Nintendo platforms getting Tales games.  Reve Unitia is coming to a Nintendo platform, but hasn't been announced for the west as of yet.  If you mean the western releases of Xillia 2 and Hearts, I'm not sure what you would expect.  Xillia 2 wasn't on a Nintendo platform to begin with, and the DS is pretty much dead (so is the Vita, but at least if that release did well they'd have more of a chance to capitalize on it with subsequent games).