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?

DaveTheMinion13 on 13 June 2015

Games have a lot of problems as it is on this Gens consoles, can't imagine how bad it would be on the Wii U. Wii U isnt built to run such games I'm rather games that look more animated and cartoony. Loom at Watch Dogs, it was disaster on the Wii U from what I heard.....the Wii U just doesn't have the specs to run most AAA games imo and people complain about broken games as it is. Don't need to make it worst.
BTW I like my WII U, but I do think it's time to at least boost the specs Nintendo so it compete. Imagine a console with the power of the other two and having their first party which is great.



Preston Scott

Around the Network
pokoko on 13 June 2015

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?



Soundwave on 13 June 2015
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?


Probably one of the ten most intelligent posts ever made here though I suspect some people won't like hearing it, because the truth hurts. 



S.T.A.G.E. on 13 June 2015
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?


I've been saying this for years and it seems all for nothing though with some. I second this.



Ninja~Monkey on 13 June 2015
Ruler said:
Ninja~Monkey said:
RealGamingExpert said:
Because they don't sell and the hardware is too weak.
It just doesn't make sense for them.
Ubisoft and EA did support the Wii U at the beginning, but the games didn't sell really well.
Also developing for Wii U is harder than for PS4 / Xbox One afaik.

Hardware isn't too weak really. They still make cross-gen titles. Ubisoft did support the console but their titles didn't sell too well.
EA however never really did support the console at all.
It is true though that developing for Wii U is considered more difficult than the Twins.


Yeah but last gen had more powerfull CPUs, the wiius cpu is weaker than that of ps360. you have to utilize the gpu which is more powerfull on the wiiu

Even if that is the case that's not much of a reason I'd say. I'm sure that quite a few of the cross-gen titles haven't used the CPUs to the max.
Of course it is a part of the reason, extra work is what I might say be the biggest reason (That includes to utilize the GPU better and utilize the Gamepad etc)



Around the Network
Ninja~Monkey on 13 June 2015
PwerlvlAmy said:
Ninja~Monkey said:
PwerlvlAmy said:
i paid them under the counter not bring them, i am sorry :(

I knew it had something to do with you (sad face). But why? :o
Bring em all back! =p


because tears are what give me immortality and i dont want to lose my immortality :(

Then I shall cry no longer. But fair enough I suppose
I'd have done the same thing :p



iceboy151 on 13 June 2015
huiii said:

There is this thing called opportunity cost.


A wii u port is not exactly big money so if they spend their time porting instead of working on something that could bring in more money they "loose" that money.

WOW! I was just thinking about this a few seconds ago. Then I scroll down one post and see your comment!



 

                          

 

oniyide on 13 June 2015
Soundwave 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?


Probably one of the ten most intelligent posts ever made here though I suspect some people won't like hearing it, because the truth hurts. 

im going to copy this so every month someone asks this redundant question, this will be the answer



NintendoPie on 13 June 2015

Because everyone else is too.



JNK on 13 June 2015
oniyide said:
JNK said:

yeah i played it. And yeah they recycled alot, but still it cant be cheaper to make those games completly "from scratch" and port to 2 consoles (ports where horrible though) and make profit but just making a port, sell same numbers and dont make profit.

They still had marketing costs (risen 3 had a cgi trailer), voice action, localization costs.


They didnt make Risen 3 from scratch, thats my point. ITs as much a new game as the yearly Maddens. Your refusing to take into account the completly different architecture of the Wii u versus the others. Ninty once again put out a system for themselves first and everyone esle 2nd. Clearly if the games arent running that well on Wii U, which is something people here swear is the case then its a HW issue right there. So they either get the worst version that no on will buy or get no game at all. Ill go with option 3 they get it on there non Ninty system which is what damn near everyone does anyway.

Oh come on the budget of Risen 3 isnt even close to something of AC or COD dont care how you may want to spin that.


nah risen 3 had some new areas, new gameplay mechanics, ship fights and alot more gameplay tweaks. Its not like fifa or madden, hell all the dialioge and the voice acting + localization etc. 

Btw, lets forget risen 3. Witcher 3 cost 30 mio to made. ALOT voiceacting, incredibly huge world, 3 systems (pc, xbox ps), alot localizations, good graphics. All that 30 mio. So how much will a port from 360 to wii u cost? More then 5mio ? :D I guess 1 mio is pretty accurate.