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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why are big third party blockbusters skipping the wii u?

Soundwave on 14 June 2015
JNK said:

at least its still funny to watch this

 

 

i doubt nintendo will ever get any real 3rd party support. it would be ridicoulus if they do the same video for the next console, nobody woud take them serious.


Was predictable what would happen. Nintendo needed to release a console on par with the XB1/PS4 if they wanted support in this gen, developers weren't going to support the Wii U as they were winding down PS3/360 development. 



Around the Network
JNK on 14 June 2015
Soundwave said:
JNK said:

at least its still funny to watch this

 

 

i doubt nintendo will ever get any real 3rd party support. it would be ridicoulus if they do the same video for the next console, nobody woud take them serious.


Was predictable what would happen. Nintendo needed to release a console on par with the XB1/PS4 if they wanted support in this gen, developers weren't going to support the Wii U as they were winding down PS3/360 development. 


they even don t supported as they still supported xbox360/ps3 so doesnt care



Aerys on 14 June 2015

Do you remember thé little kid at your school no one wanted to hang with because they thought hé was a weirdo and even thé girls were ashamed to talk to him ? Hé was playing Alone in a corner with his GameBoy and everyone was staying away from him, because hé was not enough cool

This little poor kid is Nintendo :'(



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

Johnw1104 on 14 June 2015

I love the wii u but the answer is fairly obvious.... programming for the Wii U is a very different experience from the PS4/Xbox1, including the need to make use of the gamepad. This costs extra time and resources, and they tend not to feel it's worth doing as the games usually sell rather poorly.

It also doesn't help that the last few big third party games were trash (looking at you, super-late-and-overrated-Watch_Dogs) that justifiably bombed, of course.

As for your "they can still make money releasing on the Wii U", a bit of profit alone does not make the effort worth it. Look at it this way: they could make some money porting a game to the Wii U, but the time and resourcse they dedicated to making that port could go towards an effort that would net them a lot MORE profit.



DonFerrari on 14 June 2015
oniyide said:
JNK said:


I doubt AC:Rogue did more on pc as COD/Ac4 on wii u. It was pretty same mistake as watchdogs on wii u, released half year later, no marketing. At least AC has a fanbase (watchdogs didnt) and the game wasnt hated as much as watchdogs.

 

Watchdogs poor sales are definitly not wii u´s fault. If you release something way later without marketing if will suck everywhere. 

that comparison makes no sense. Why not compare the last AC game to release on Wii U and PC at the same time? Black Flag flopped on Wii U so i dont know where you are getting AC has a fanbase on Wii U it doesnt. .26mil is abysmal for a main AC title, hell the Vita one did better and that was a side story. Black Flag did .58mil on PC and thats JUST the hard copies thats not counting digital which we already know most of the sales for PC games come from there. I think 75% so this game pass the mil mark on PC alone. So yes AC does better on PC which is why it gets support. Not to mention its a freaking PC which most devs (especially western ones) use to develop games before they even work on the console version anyway. 

Dont know what Watchdogs has to do with anything that game would have flopped regardless, i could give a list of games that were late ports that sold well on non Ninty systems but it would be ignored.


Nintendo gamers are smarter than ps/ms so they won't buy sw when the best version isn't on their system. Let the dumb sony and ms fans buy subpar ports.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
mysteryman on 14 June 2015
Aerys said:

Do you remember thé little kid at your school no one wanted to hang with because they thought hé was a weirdo and even thé girls were ashamed to talk to him ? Hé was playing Alone in a corner with his GameBoy and everyone was staying away from him, because hé was not enough cool

This little poor kid is Nintendo :'(

That kid ends up as everyone else's boss.



gabzjmm23 on 14 June 2015
Johnw1104 said:

I love the wii u but the answer is fairly obvious.... programming for the Wii U is a very different experience from the PS4/Xbox1, including the need to make use of the gamepad. This costs extra time and resources, and they tend not to feel it's worth doing as the games usually sell rather poorly.

It also doesn't help that the last few big third party games were trash (looking at you, super-late-and-overrated-Watch_Dogs) that justifiably bombed, of course.

As for your "they can still make money releasing on the Wii U", a bit of profit alone does not make the effort worth it. Look at it this way: they could make some money porting a game to the Wii U, but the time and resourcse they dedicated to making that port could go towards an effort that would net them a lot MORE profit.

Game pad excuse is ridiculous because you can ignore it and just put the same thing on the gamepad screen. 

 

Inwould just say because of the of the hardware architecture Wii U have against P4/X1 has. That's it. If it is a x86 arch for Wii U, then they can release a Wii U version 



Johnw1104 on 14 June 2015
gabzjmm23 said:
Johnw1104 said:

I love the wii u but the answer is fairly obvious.... programming for the Wii U is a very different experience from the PS4/Xbox1, including the need to make use of the gamepad. This costs extra time and resources, and they tend not to feel it's worth doing as the games usually sell rather poorly.

It also doesn't help that the last few big third party games were trash (looking at you, super-late-and-overrated-Watch_Dogs) that justifiably bombed, of course.

As for your "they can still make money releasing on the Wii U", a bit of profit alone does not make the effort worth it. Look at it this way: they could make some money porting a game to the Wii U, but the time and resourcse they dedicated to making that port could go towards an effort that would net them a lot MORE profit.

Game pad excuse is ridiculous because you can ignore it and just put the same thing on the gamepad screen. 

 

Inwould just say because of the of the hardware architecture Wii U have against P4/X1 has. That's it. If it is a x86 arch for Wii U, then they can release a Wii U version 


I can't think of any 3rd party games that didn't do something with the gamepad.

Still, it's really as simple as Devs believing they could make more money devoting their resources to something else rather than a wii u port. If that wasn't the case they'd be making games for it right now.



AEGRO on 14 June 2015

This E3 is going to be rough on Nintendo. For the fans, it will be like being on the mall without a cent on your pocket. Developers announcing new games left and right for Ps4, X1 and PC but not for the Wii U.

20 minutes into the Bethesda conference and Fallout 4, Dishonored 2 and Doom are already skipping the Wii U. This will happen in every press. So rough.



coldharshtruth on 14 June 2015
Mummelmann said:
pokoko said:
Let's look at this from a broad perspective for a moment.

With Sony and Microsoft, many publishers feel that they have a strong market with partners who are willing to work with them. This, as a business, is exactly what you want.

Then you have Nintendo. Nintendo brings a small market (for third-party games) and a mentality that does not really care about working with western third-party publishers. The reason they're now a small market for third-party games, of course, can be traced back to the awful way they treated third-party developers during previous generations and because the original Playstation was a much more lucrative platform than Nintendo's offering at the time. These factors began a shift that Nintendo was not able to reverse. That leads us to now.

As it stands in the present, many publishers feel that most of their fanbase is going to have a Sony or Microsoft console. That's what they want and, at this point, the Nintendo fanbase for third-party games is so small, they'd very much like to force those people to buy a console from Sony or Microsoft.

Now, before someone goes off about how that means publishers hate Nintendo, that's not what it means. It's nothing personal. What businesses hate is redundancy and duplication of effort and expense. They hate tying up resources for a small return. With Sony and Microsoft, yes, there is duplication of effort, but both markets are robust and lucrative enough that it's well worth the effort. With Nintendo ...

So what do you do? You cut the weakest channel and hope to reclaim many of those sales you lost from people who will feel compelled to buy a second console or jump ship all together. Perhaps in the short term you're leaving some money on the table but it's probably not a lot. More importantly, you're working on the long-term goal of having the majority of the people who want your games within that principle market.

Imagine that you have three tomato plants: two are healthy and strong, one is weak and shriveled. You can only spare them, as a whole, one container of water a day. Do you split the water three ways or do you give all the water to the two strong plants so they will give you lots and lots of tomatoes in the future?


Wow, amazing post. Right along the lines of what I wasted weeks and months in the UNITY thread explaining about developer relations and efforts. Again; great post, but you're right that it won't be popular.

WOW, another stupid post. funny how the guys says 3rd parties don't like redundancy but that's exactly what they do.

Now, let's take his stupid metaphor of the plants for a second: The third plant isn't naturally like that. the problem is lack of care that could and should come from the 3rd parties. With it, it would be infinitely better than the other two (it's already better in reality but 3rd parties would make the gap much wider).