As much as I hate it, I can't blame 3rd party companies for skipping Wii U

#11zado19Posted 4/20/2013 9:49:58 AM
From: P_A_N_D_A_M_A_N | #003
*Nintendo gives Third Parties a chance to shine*
*Third Parties blame Nintendo for their games not selling and console sales being slow*
*Nintendo releases big games to increase console sales*
*Third Parties complain that they can't compete with Nintendo's sales*

Rinse, and repeat.

question: why do third parties try to COMPETE with Nintendo???
---
A new Mewtwo form knows no forum. This should be in the Vita forum. That's how important it is. - ADHDguitar
#12MilesTeg420Posted 4/20/2013 9:57:27 AM
Nintendo shipped final dev kits late. Lets not forget it wasn't an ideal situation for third parties either. Nintendo also failed on generating any interest in the platform as well, with no system selling software to inspire confidence.

Tracking below the Cube is not good, especially as Wii/360/PS3 sold around 250 million units last generation, and the 360/PS3 will continue to sell for some time. The market should be bigger.

E3 games reveal + price cut before the new consoles come out is what will happen.
#13SlimeSwayzePosted 4/20/2013 9:58:50 AM
No matter how you try to spin it, the fault lies with Nintendo and the gamers themselves far more than the third parties, who have time and time again brought games to Nintendo consoles only to see them bomb. Blame the gamers for not buying them, or blame Nintendo for targeting a demographic that only buys very specific types of games. You can't blame publishers for passing on what has become a very bad bet.
---
Currently Playing: Too many to report.
#14squatch22Posted 4/20/2013 10:05:30 AM
If devs arent prepared to make an effort for Nintendo, they cant expect their games to sell.
No wonder so many devs went under last gen, chasing after POWEEERRRR and graphics so much.
---
Nintendo: Leading the way for others to follow.
http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/1/9/b/gfs_75574_2_16.jpg
#15IokuaPosted 4/20/2013 10:09:34 AM
I blame third parties for skipping it, especially in the face of diminishing returns graphically and exponentially higher dev costs as generations progress. If third parties want a suitable market for their products on the Wii U, then they should be making an effort. This is not a zero risk business.
---
Welcome to gamefaqs, where poverty is an illegal activity.
#16FayeLadyPosted 4/20/2013 10:16:53 AM
Iokua posted...
I blame third parties for skipping it, especially in the face of diminishing returns graphically and exponentially higher dev costs as generations progress. If third parties want a suitable market for their products on the Wii U, then they should be making an effort. This is not a zero risk business.


But it is very much an estimated risk business. Its hard to blame companies for not porting some of their popular games to the platform when some of the companies that do are being punished for it.
---
If I support the game company, then I won't be supporting the blank DVD business.
#17Xcalibur02Posted 4/20/2013 10:50:57 AM(edited)
FayeLady posted...
Iokua posted...
I blame third parties for skipping it, especially in the face of diminishing returns graphically and exponentially higher dev costs as generations progress. If third parties want a suitable market for their products on the Wii U, then they should be making an effort. This is not a zero risk business.


But it is very much an estimated risk business. Its hard to blame companies for not porting some of their popular games to the platform when some of the companies that do are being punished for it.


Then maybe they should stop churning out lazy ports for systems that it won't sell on and start making new games that'll suit the console.
---
Grammar: The difference between knowing your **** and knowing you're ****
#18FayeLadyPosted 4/20/2013 10:55:45 AM
Xcalibur02 posted...
FayeLady posted...
Iokua posted...
I blame third parties for skipping it, especially in the face of diminishing returns graphically and exponentially higher dev costs as generations progress. If third parties want a suitable market for their products on the Wii U, then they should be making an effort. This is not a zero risk business.


But it is very much an estimated risk business. Its hard to blame companies for not porting some of their popular games to the platform when some of the companies that do are being punished for it.


Then maybe they should stop churning out lazy ports for systems that it won't sell on and start making new games that'll suit the console.


I'm sure they will, but when (and not before) the platform has a base of users ready to buy. You'll never convince them to take bigger risks when their smaller risks are doing so poor.
---
If I support the game company, then I won't be supporting the blank DVD business.
#19crowe_1Posted 4/20/2013 12:40:08 PM
FayeLady posted...
Xcalibur02 posted...
FayeLady posted...
Iokua posted...
I blame third parties for skipping it, especially in the face of diminishing returns graphically and exponentially higher dev costs as generations progress. If third parties want a suitable market for their products on the Wii U, then they should be making an effort. This is not a zero risk business.


But it is very much an estimated risk business. Its hard to blame companies for not porting some of their popular games to the platform when some of the companies that do are being punished for it.


Then maybe they should stop churning out lazy ports for systems that it won't sell on and start making new games that'll suit the console.


I'm sure they will, but when (and not before) the platform has a base of users ready to buy. You'll never convince them to take bigger risks when their smaller risks are doing so poor.


Many of the third party efforts so far, though, have not been so much "risks" as "destined failures". Why should I buy Mass Effect 3 on Wii U when it's been out for 8 months on other platforms, is now half price or less on those platforms, has more DLC available, and has fewer reported performance issues on other platforms? Who expected this to sell? Especially with the ME Trilogy released a week before on PS360 for the same price?

Why should I buy Batman when I played it a year ago and the complete GotY edition can easily be found for $20-30? Especially when the gaming media blasted Armored Edition to hell for relative performance issues?

Same with Need for Speed, and I'm sure Deus Ex. Everyone who wanted to play these games have done so already.

You know what might have sold on Wii U? Tomb Raider. Reboot of a classic franchise, rave reviews, hyped to hell. A more competent build than the ps360 versions released simultaneously with those, that was praised by the gaming media, might have sold. But I guess Wii U came too late in the game's development to justify a port.

Basically, for games to sell, third parties need to:
1. Hype the hell out of their games. There were Tomb Raider, Dead Space, and Bioshock Infinite commercials up the wazoo when those games released making bloody sure that the masses knew that they existed.
2. Make games that will get a 90+ metacritic score. Throw some money around to get good reviews from the bgger sites. I'd be willing to bet that the better selling games these days generally get pretty fantastic critical receptions.
3. Release day-and date with competing versions, with performance irrefutably better than PS360 versions, and make sure that everybody knows it. Basically, at this point the U version can be top dog, and it should be.
4. IF releasing a year-old game, price it competitively from the get go compared to other versions.

It's not rocket science. So far I don't think any third party game has fulfilled even two of those criteria. How many "successful", or high-selling games, DO meet those criteria?

tl;dr: Garbage in; garbage out. Devs can't expect consumers to swallow sub-par products, especially with such a high entry fee.
---
My SSBM combo vids:
http://www.youtube.com/user/crowe1
#20FayeLadyPosted 4/20/2013 12:55:52 PM
Basically, for games to sell, third parties need to:
1. Hype the hell out of their games. There were Tomb Raider, Dead Space, and Bioshock Infinite commercials up the wazoo when those games released making bloody sure that the masses knew that they existed.
2. Make games that will get a 90+ metacritic score. Throw some money around to get good reviews from the bgger sites. I'd be willing to bet that the better selling games these days generally get pretty fantastic critical receptions.
3. Release day-and date with competing versions, with performance irrefutably better than PS360 versions, and make sure that everybody knows it. Basically, at this point the U version can be top dog, and it should be.
4. IF releasing a year-old game, price it competitively from the get go compared to other versions.


These things would cost far more money, way more than any company is going to spend on a platform that may or may not have a future. If some one did want to take a risk on something unsure they could spend 5% of the budget for what you recommend on a really great Ouya game.

Games like Bioshock, Tomb Raider and Dead Space are proven brands, they can spend marketing dollars on those brands and win, lose or draw at least the risk was justified.

Where is the benefit to any 3rd party to spend their time and effort making the Wii U version any better than the PS3 and 360 version? They wont make a higher commission on it than any of the other versions, and they have no stock in one fanbase lording it over the other.

People in this topic seem to be blinded by their love of Nintendo. I doubt any of them are blaming the same third parties for lack of Vita support. The same logical business decisions are leaving the Wii U where it is.
---
If I support the game company, then I won't be supporting the blank DVD business.