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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Ubisoft CEO: “Nintendo has to perform this year, otherwise they will have less games”

Fusioncode on 18 June 2014
padib said:
Last I remember the PS3 was FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS and Assassin's Creed was nearly exclusive (until it later got announced to be multiplatform).

All 3rd parties supported Sony during its rough patch, but Nintendo gets the finger.

Anything new?

The PS3 and WiiU situations aren't even remotely comparable. Even at $600 the PS3 never even came close to the pitiful sales of the WiiU, and PS3 fans actually bought 3rd party games. Go take a look at sales of ACIV and COD Ghosts on WiiU, and then try to explain to me why any dev should even bother with the platform at this point. 3rd parties supported PS3 because they could actually make money on the system, clearly it's not the same on the WiiU. 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Around the Network
Arcturus on 18 June 2014
Fusioncode said:
padib said:
Last I remember the PS3 was FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS and Assassin's Creed was nearly exclusive (until it later got announced to be multiplatform).

All 3rd parties supported Sony during its rough patch, but Nintendo gets the finger.

Anything new?

The PS3 and WiiU situations aren't even remotely comparable. Even at $600 the PS3 never even came close to the pitiful sales of the WiiU, and PS3 fans actually bought 3rd party games. Go take a look at sales of ACIV and COD Ghosts on WiiU, and then try to explain to me why any dev should even bother with the platform at this point. 3rd parties supported PS3 because they could actually make money on the system, clearly it's not the same on the WiiU. 

These sales figures have been posted many times in this thread, and people still choose to ignore them.



LurkerJ on 18 June 2014
Conina said:
padib said:
Last I remember the PS3 was FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS and Assassin's Creed was nearly exclusive (until it later got announced to be multiplatform).

All 3rd parties supported Sony during its rough patch, but Nintendo gets the finger.

Anything new?

Sony got its shit together pretty fast: https://www.ubisoftgroup.com/comsite_common/en-US/images/Annual_Report_2008tcm9927542.pdf

PS3 share of Ubisoft's revenue for 04/2007 - 03/2008 (first full year after the launch window) was 20 percent.

Wii U share of Ubisoft's revenue for 04/2013 - 03/2014 (first full year after the launch window) is 3 percent.

PS3 has proven itself a good investment for Ubisoft in its first 18 months, Wii U hasn't.

A reasonable post for a change. 

I am not interested in Ubisoft games generally. At least they tried to show some support before writing the Wii U off.



Devil_Survivor on 18 June 2014
Yakuzaice said:
padib said:
Last I remember the PS3 was FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS and Assassin's Creed was nearly exclusive (until it later got announced to be multiplatform).

All 3rd parties supported Sony during its rough patch, but Nintendo gets the finger.

Anything new?

Assassin's Creed was confirmed to not be exclusive before the PS3 even launched, so it seems that Ubisoft was branching out before Sony even hit its rough patch.  I'm also not sure how that is comparable since the Wii U has gotten two AC games, three exclusives at launch, and a decent number of other games.

Sony was also coming from a much stronger position of third party sales with the PS2, and the PS3 didn't do nearly as badly as the Wii U.  That first Assassin's Creed on the PS3 also sold more in one week than the two on Wii U have sold lifetime.  It sold more in four months than all Ubisoft software has sold on Wii U in over a year and a half.

But yeah, the third parties are just being mean to Nintendo...

If your talking just unit sales then yes the PS3 did better than Wii U in the first 18 months, however when it comes to money made well...... we know how that worked out for Sony.



 

Yakuzaice on 18 June 2014
Devil_Survivor said:

If your talking just unit sales then yes the PS3 did better than Wii U in the first 18 months, however when it comes to money made well...... we know how that worked out for Sony.

Why would Ubisoft base their decisions on where to put software on money made by the platform holder?  Unless they thought there was a risk of PS3 production stopping it didn't really matter to their business.  The Wii made Nintendo a lot more money than the PS2 made Sony, but that didn't stop third parties from selling hundreds of millions more software on the PS2.



Around the Network
cfin2987@gmail.com on 18 June 2014
Blood_Tears said:
cfin2987@gmail.com said:

Would I buy a console without Ubisoft games, maybe even without EA games? Yes, I have a pc for that. Would I buy a console without Nintendo games? No, not in my current family position. Therefore, there are many people who really don't care what Ubisoft do. My EA games for the WII U are dirt and gather dust while I worry about scratching my Nintendo games I play them so much.

 

Ironically enough, Rayman is the only game I play on my console that is 3rd party, but I've grown sick of it since so many similar games have been released. If it had been released earlier, it would have sold more. Ubisoft's in and out and back in method has hurt the WII U more than anything else, then they preach about leaving because of bad sales. Legends was available, then it wasn't then it was then....well it was delayed until it was worthless.

 

Nintendo are becoming more and more self sufficient and I applaud them for that.

6.3M Wii U sales in 19 months is sufficient? 

Please read what I wrote. SELF SUFFICIENT does not mean sufficient. Also, check out my tense. Not past tense. I was also not referring to one product but a whole company i.e Nintendo and their ability to increase the number of IP's they are producing. But yeah....... what you said?



Torillian on 18 June 2014

In a further argument of what I mentioned before I think these ultimatums happen all the time. Developers quite often say "well we might develop ____ if ____ does well" such as Bandai talking about bringing over more Tales games if the ones that they have localized so far do well enough.

This seems like the same thing, Ubisoft has obviously put in some effort into growing the WiiU userbase but they've put in as much as they are willing to to try to help it out, and now they think Nintendo has to take some losses in order to help things out.

Doesn't seem much different to me from Aonuma's recent statement that he'll be watching how Hyrule Warriors does to see if putting a playable female character in a mainline Zelda would be worth the effort.



...

Teeqoz on 18 June 2014

I think it is perfectly justifiable. Those that compare it with the Xbox One has to realise that the xbone has a better attach rate for Ubi games. The Wii U either needs a bigger install base or a better attach rate for Ubi games.

Off topic: Can someone please make a thread about the Xbone+kinect+titanfall bundle being on top on the amazon chartz thingy? Link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-PC-Video-Games-Consoles/zgbs/videogames/676171011/ref=zg_bs_nav_vg_h__1_vg_h_



iceboy151 on 18 June 2014
Teeqoz said:
I think it is perfectly justifiable. Those that compare it with the Xbox One has to realise that the xbone has a better attach rate for Ubi games. The Wii U either needs a bigger install base or a better attach rate for Ubi games.

Off topic: Can someone please make a thread about the Xbone+kinect+titanfall bundle being on top on the amazon chartz thingy? Link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-PC-Video-Games-Consoles/zgbs/videogames/676171011/ref=zg_bs_nav_vg_h__1_vg_h_


32 more posts, and you can make it.



 

                          

 

oniyide on 18 June 2014
PwerlvlAmy said:
oniyide said:
PwerlvlAmy said:
Yet they're doing stuff for XB1, who has a lower install base... logic ubisoft


There games actually sell on xb1 and the system itself is doing better than WIi U in the same time fram. Logic, right?


People can try to spin it the way they want. However it still remains that going by his logic,hes harping in SMALL install bases. Using his current logic, they wouldnt be supporting XB1(at this time) due to the fact that they have an even smaller install base  than Wii U.  He makes himself out to look hypocritical. Were not talking about this or that, were talking about his direct statement which he calls out SMALL install bases(Wii U),but is 100% on board with XB1,who's install base(at this point in time) is small than Wii U.

 

Pretty straight forward. Now obviously XB1 can outsell Wii U life time sales this year or next depending on the software,however at this point in time the install base is lower for XB1 than Wii U so it makes this guys logic flawed at this point in time

you're trying to spin to make the situation look better. Why would he spin? anyone with basic knowledge knows that xbone ubi games do better than WIi U. So it woudl be stupid for them NOT to support xbone. Come on, man, you know this. he doesnt look hypocritical because that knowledge is basic common sense, the only people who think otherwise are some Ninty fans who dont want to face the truth and are looking for excuses for him to be wrong. You can hate the messenger but the words remain sound. Wii U intsall base IS small compared to the WIi U. The xbone is not the same kind of system, it has a much higher attach rate for Their games than WIi U will probably ever have. SO no the message is not wrong. WII U has to sell more to move any software thats pretty much not Nintendo. Not unlike the WIi really. So like you say its obvious.