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?

plaintruth on 13 June 2015

Because most third parties are unprofessional, either getting paid to skip nintendo platforms or skipping then out of stupidity.

Anyone saying that wii u can't handle the games or that they don't sell is just another stupid hater.

The wii u proved more than once how far from ps360 it is in specs capabilities, putting it in the same range as ps4/x1, but with less raw power.

The games sell, plenty of titles are getting 300-500k+ sales, and no amount of cherrypicking will change that. the big multiplatforms that idiots keep mentioning as having low sales(AC, COD, batman) were released when the installed base was like 3x smaller than it is now/will be in the next few months and those games STILL SOLD DECENTLY. 200-300k is surely enough to make a profit and with the bigger current installed base they would easily get 500k+.



Around the Network
JNK on 13 June 2015
DaveTheMinion13 said:
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.

yeah like the gamecube,



Soundwave on 13 June 2015
JNK said:
oniyide said:


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.


Witcher 3 is developed in Poland where labor costs are waaaaaay cheaper than most counrties. That game would probably cost double to develop elsewhere. 

Also what people don't understand is it doesn't matter if a port would be cheap. All studios have a finite number of resources, why waste a chunk of your developers time to work on a port that *maybe* will break even barely at best when you could allocate those developers to start working on Witcher IV for example? 

I'd rather invest in a project that's going to sell me another 5-6 million, rather than something that might scrape by at 200k at best. 



plaintruth 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. 

Just another retarded post from soundwave.

Zero alt neutralized -RavenXtra



Soundwave on 13 June 2015
JNK said:
DaveTheMinion13 said:
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.

yeah like the gamecube,


Aside from Sony money-hatting a few IP, the GameCube actually did have most third party franchise and a few exclusives on its own end too. 

Nintendo really screwed the pooch by going with the purple lunchbox design, being needlessly stubborn on DVD playback (really? gotta pick your battles), and making weird sequels to Mario 64, Zelda: OoT that no one asked for and thinking that single player Metroid would fill the gap of multiplayer GoldenEye/Perfect Dark (answer: nope). 



Around the Network
JNK on 13 June 2015
Soundwave said:
JNK said:


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.


Witcher 3 is developed in Poland where labor costs are waaaaaay cheaper than most counrties. That game would probably cost double to develop elsewhere. 

Also what people don't understand is it doesn't matter if a port would be cheap. All studios have a finite number of resources, why waste a chunk of your developers time to work on a port that *maybe* will break even barely at best when you could allocate those developers to start working on Witcher IV for example? 

I'd rather invest in a project that's going to sell me another 5-6 million, rather than something that might scrape by at 200k at best. 

to get new fans to your franchise from people that doesnt cared already about your games. People that like mario and zelda dont have to hate ac, gta and co. Its like the easiest methode to get new group of buyers. 



Soundwave on 13 June 2015
plaintruth said:
Soundwave said:


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. 

Just another retarded post from soundwave.


Why don't you post under your main account, rather than setting up a phony account and hiding behind it like a chicken? 



Mummelmann 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?


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.



HomokHarcos on 13 June 2015

If you can remember last generation, third party games didn't sell as well and the were poor in quality compared to their PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 counterparts.



Mystro-Sama on 13 June 2015

How can you be following this industry and not know the answer to that question? lol