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

Forums - Nintendo - Ubisoft responds to Wii-owners upset with quality of titles

sc94597 on 01 June 2008
jman8 said:
sc94597 said:
jman8 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
jman8 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
BTW, the "companies aren't nice" line is bullshit, because that argument didn't hold water for Nintendo in the NES days, and it doesn't hold water for UIbisoft now.

Games are a business, but ALSO an artistic medium. One developer outright denying their best work, with NO REAL REASON, is bullshit.

And defending that is bullshit, because I don't think you'd respect the HD consoles getting crap games to avoid HD development costs.

Hey, I totally understand why you're upset. If Ubisoft pulled this shit on my PS3, I'd be upset too. But I would look at from Ubisoft's perspective and understand that they did what they thought was best for the company. If it turned out other companies followed Ubisoft's example, I would be pretty pissed I wasted $600. But when you spend money on systems early on in their lives, the risk you take is that the games you want don't show up on your system of choice. When it doesn't work out how you wanted, you either stick with your system or get a different one. I wish my Dreamcast could have lived on longer but lack of third party support (especially the lack of EA sports games) had a hand in defeating that system. I moved on to the PS2 and Gamecube.


The Dreamcast was losing money, and sales slowed when the PS2 came along. And this is not spending on the Wii early in it's life. The system is well along. There has been no real proof big budget games don't sell on the Wii, so Ubisoft pretending it is so is what is really pissing us off.

That's also what merkh isn't acknowledging. It's that Ubisoft is telling lies to justify their position.


You're right! But there's also no proof for the opposite. There is no proof that a big budget title from a third party will do great on the Wii. However, there is ample proof that big budget titles will sell great on the PS3 and 360. Therefore it is riskier to make a big budget Wii game than big budget PS360 game. There is also proof that bad to mediocre games like Petz and Red Steel and RRR2 can sell pretty well on the Wii. So what incentive does Ubisoft have to deviate from their current formula that seems to be working pretty well?


Then why don't they make their low budget games good?


 Because it's easier to make a bad game than a good game. And when the bad game still sells decently, why put in the extra effort to make it good? If you could get B+ all the time on your school work when all you do is fill out your name, why would you actually do the 3 hours worth of work in order to get an A-? 


 Maybe, because more people will buy it. 



Around the Network
brute on 01 June 2008
merkh66 said:
sc94597 said:

Then why don't they make their low budget games good?


 What a stupid question...


yeah it wasnt a very smart questio,low budget games cant be good



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

sc94597 on 01 June 2008
merkh66 said:
sc94597 said:
jman8 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
jman8 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
BTW, the "companies aren't nice" line is bullshit, because that argument didn't hold water for Nintendo in the NES days, and it doesn't hold water for UIbisoft now.

Games are a business, but ALSO an artistic medium. One developer outright denying their best work, with NO REAL REASON, is bullshit.

And defending that is bullshit, because I don't think you'd respect the HD consoles getting crap games to avoid HD development costs.

Hey, I totally understand why you're upset. If Ubisoft pulled this shit on my PS3, I'd be upset too. But I would look at from Ubisoft's perspective and understand that they did what they thought was best for the company. If it turned out other companies followed Ubisoft's example, I would be pretty pissed I wasted $600. But when you spend money on systems early on in their lives, the risk you take is that the games you want don't show up on your system of choice. When it doesn't work out how you wanted, you either stick with your system or get a different one. I wish my Dreamcast could have lived on longer but lack of third party support (especially the lack of EA sports games) had a hand in defeating that system. I moved on to the PS2 and Gamecube.


The Dreamcast was losing money, and sales slowed when the PS2 came along. And this is not spending on the Wii early in it's life. The system is well along. There has been no real proof big budget games don't sell on the Wii, so Ubisoft pretending it is so is what is really pissing us off.

That's also what merkh isn't acknowledging. It's that Ubisoft is telling lies to justify their position.


You're right! But there's also no proof for the opposite. There is no proof that a big budget title from a third party will do great on the Wii. However, there is ample proof that big budget titles will sell great on the PS3 and 360. Therefore it is riskier to make a big budget Wii game than big budget PS360 game. There is also proof that bad to mediocre games like Petz and Red Steel and RRR2 can sell pretty well on the Wii. So what incentive does Ubisoft have to deviate from their current formula that seems to be working pretty well?


Then why don't they make their low budget games good?


 What a stupid question...


 Thanks for you thoughts.



brute on 01 June 2008

^ok maybe he shouldnt have called it stupid,but that wasnt a very good question



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

sc94597 on 01 June 2008
brute said:
merkh66 said:
sc94597 said:

Then why don't they make their low budget games good?


 What a stupid question...


yeah it wasnt a very smart questio,low budget games cant be good

Are you serious? SO no more heroes wasn't good? Wii sports wasn't good? Wii play wasn't good? zack and wiki wasn't good? The conduit a low budget game doesn't look good so far? I hope you were sarcastic.

 



Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 01 June 2008
jman8 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
jman8 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
BTW, the "companies aren't nice" line is bullshit, because that argument didn't hold water for Nintendo in the NES days, and it doesn't hold water for UIbisoft now.

Games are a business, but ALSO an artistic medium. One developer outright denying their best work, with NO REAL REASON, is bullshit.

And defending that is bullshit, because I don't think you'd respect the HD consoles getting crap games to avoid HD development costs.

Hey, I totally understand why you're upset. If Ubisoft pulled this shit on my PS3, I'd be upset too. But I would look at from Ubisoft's perspective and understand that they did what they thought was best for the company. If it turned out other companies followed Ubisoft's example, I would be pretty pissed I wasted $600. But when you spend money on systems early on in their lives, the risk you take is that the games you want don't show up on your system of choice. When it doesn't work out how you wanted, you either stick with your system or get a different one. I wish my Dreamcast could have lived on longer but lack of third party support (especially the lack of EA sports games) had a hand in defeating that system. I moved on to the PS2 and Gamecube.


The Dreamcast was losing money, and sales slowed when the PS2 came along. And this is not spending on the Wii early in it's life. The system is well along. There has been no real proof big budget games don't sell on the Wii, so Ubisoft pretending it is so is what is really pissing us off.

That's also what merkh isn't acknowledging. It's that Ubisoft is telling lies to justify their position.


You're right! But there's also no proof for the opposite. There is no proof that a big budget title from a third party will do great on the Wii. However, there is ample proof that big budget titles will sell great on the PS3 and 360. Therefore it is riskier to make a big budget Wii game than big budget PS360 game. There is also proof that bad to mediocre games like Petz and Red Steel and RRR2 can sell pretty well on the Wii. So what incentive does Ubisoft have to deviate from their current formula that seems to be working pretty well?


But your point is that the Wii is a bigger ris. If no such games have been made, that claim if a bigger risk has no meaning. If the games actually were made, then we would have a profitable:flop ratio to determine the risk. There isn't any, so your claim is false.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

merkh66 on 01 June 2008
sc94597 said:
merkh66 said:
sc94597 said:
jman8 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
jman8 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
BTW, the "companies aren't nice" line is bullshit, because that argument didn't hold water for Nintendo in the NES days, and it doesn't hold water for UIbisoft now.

Games are a business, but ALSO an artistic medium. One developer outright denying their best work, with NO REAL REASON, is bullshit.

And defending that is bullshit, because I don't think you'd respect the HD consoles getting crap games to avoid HD development costs.

Hey, I totally understand why you're upset. If Ubisoft pulled this shit on my PS3, I'd be upset too. But I would look at from Ubisoft's perspective and understand that they did what they thought was best for the company. If it turned out other companies followed Ubisoft's example, I would be pretty pissed I wasted $600. But when you spend money on systems early on in their lives, the risk you take is that the games you want don't show up on your system of choice. When it doesn't work out how you wanted, you either stick with your system or get a different one. I wish my Dreamcast could have lived on longer but lack of third party support (especially the lack of EA sports games) had a hand in defeating that system. I moved on to the PS2 and Gamecube.


The Dreamcast was losing money, and sales slowed when the PS2 came along. And this is not spending on the Wii early in it's life. The system is well along. There has been no real proof big budget games don't sell on the Wii, so Ubisoft pretending it is so is what is really pissing us off.

That's also what merkh isn't acknowledging. It's that Ubisoft is telling lies to justify their position.


You're right! But there's also no proof for the opposite. There is no proof that a big budget title from a third party will do great on the Wii. However, there is ample proof that big budget titles will sell great on the PS3 and 360. Therefore it is riskier to make a big budget Wii game than big budget PS360 game. There is also proof that bad to mediocre games like Petz and Red Steel and RRR2 can sell pretty well on the Wii. So what incentive does Ubisoft have to deviate from their current formula that seems to be working pretty well?


Then why don't they make their low budget games good?


What a stupid question...


Thanks for you thoughts.


 What I meant was you act as thought they had the choice of making it good or bad and they deliberatly choose bad just to piss Wii owners off, even if it cost the same for both.



brute on 01 June 2008
sc94597 said:
brute said:
merkh66 said:
sc94597 said:

Then why don't they make their low budget games good?


 What a stupid question...


yeah it wasnt a very smart questio,low budget games cant be good

Are you serious? SO no more heroes wasn't good? Wii sports wasn't good? Wii play wasn't good? zack and wiki wasn't good? The conduit a low budget game doesn't look good so far? I hope you were sarcastic.

 

i was talking about the ubisoft low budget games,i bet theyre waisting way less money producing it then what capcom wasted for zack and wiki

 



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

Bored4life on 01 June 2008
sc94597 said:
brute said:
merkh66 said:
sc94597 said:

Then why don't they make their low budget games good?


What a stupid question...


yeah it wasnt a very smart questio,low budget games cant be good

Are you serious? SO no more heroes wasn't good? Wii sports wasn't good? Wii play wasn't good? zack and wiki wasn't good? The conduit a low budget game doesn't look good so far? I hope you were sarcastic.

 


 This is because many of the 'real' gamers live in a Blockbuster mentallity



Prediction:
Disney will make KH3 with Nintendo.Yes,KH3 will be a Disney/Nintendo crossover.

Save the industry,Kill a Hardcore gamer

Stopped buying Ubisoft games.Will not buy Red Steel 2.Let them struggle on HD. Click here for a solution:CLICK
ALERT: I have also exposed a UBI'Z'OFT viral marketer in THIS thread.Read my posts, see the set up and watch how everything crumbles on page 8. Please learn from this experience.

merkh66 on 01 June 2008
sc94597 said:
brute said:
merkh66 said:
sc94597 said:

Then why don't they make their low budget games good?


What a stupid question...


yeah it wasnt a very smart questio,low budget games cant be good

Are you serious? SO no more heroes wasn't good? Wii sports wasn't good? Wii play wasn't good? zack and wiki wasn't good? The conduit a low budget game doesn't look good so far? I hope you were sarcastic.

 


 I think he was using the ever so popular sarcasm.