Topic: Mass Effect, or: Why hoping for third party support on Wii U is a fool's game

[Anth0ny]

I think we all knew this was coming. But a couple of weeks before the Wii U version of Mass Effect 3 drops? Seriously?

[Kairon]

It's the new Capcom 5!

[the asylum]

Honestly this doesn't surprise me in the least.

Also, EA sabotaging their own game on purpose to spite Nintendo? They've done just fine without any real commitment to Nintendo platforms (read: Wii), whatever they may lose out of this is likely pocket change to them.

[Adrock]

That still doesn't make sense to me. How does spiting Nintendo in this manner end up worse for Nintendo? Did Nintendo pay EA for the port? That's the only thing I can think of that would make this worse than getting nothing. Otherwise, EA just spent money to watch a game burn. Madden supposedly being gimped on Wii U sounds like a bigger F-you. Most people won't even know so EA gets to make money off of a shoddy effort. It's less apparent and better for them than sending Mass Effect 3 off to die right after releasing a much better deal on 360 a couple weeks early.

[Anth0ny]

This isn't really a huge deal to me as I've always been a multi console owner, but you know someone is going to ask EA why there is little support for the Wii U in, say, two years, and their answer will inevitably come back to Mass Effect 3's failure. "Well, Mass Effect 3 didn't sell nearly enough copies on Wii U. There just isn't an audience for that kind of game on a Nintendo console!"

It's the classic Nintendo third party cycle.

Third party puts out "test game" on Wii:

Successful - "Great! This audience just eats up these low budget test games! Lets keep making more!"(Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition, Umbrella Chronicles, Darkside Chronicles)

Failure - "There is no market for these games on a Nintendo platform" *third party support dies*

There is no scenario where the Nintendo console gets "real" third party support unless it does exactly what the third parties demand. That is, the box needs to be as powerful as the competition, no "gimmick" controller, no weird software format (N64 cartridges and GC miniDVDs, I'm looking at you!).

They haven't had that winning formula in the eyes of the third parties since the SNES. And even still, if this theoretical "perfect" Nintendo box was someday released, I could see third parties ducking it nonetheless, in fear of competing with Nintendo's properties.

My conclusion: You need another console if you want strong third party support. Especially Western third party support. It's pretty blatantly clear that Wii U won't be getting much third party support from Western devs, as demonstrated by the complete lack of big 2013 multiplatform games (Bioshock, Tomb Raider). This will only get worse when PS4/720 drop.

I ain't even mad. Wii/PS3/360/PC master race reporting out 

[NWR_insanolord]

There is no scenario where the Nintendo console gets "real" third party support unless it does exactly what the third parties demand. That is, the box needs to be as powerful as the competition, no "gimmick" controller, no weird software format

Everything you just said is true of the Wii U for at least a year or two.

[Anth0ny]

There is no scenario where the Nintendo console gets "real" third party support unless it does exactly what the third parties demand. That is, the box needs to be as powerful as the competition, no "gimmick" controller, no weird software format

Everything you just said is true of the Wii U for at least a year or two.

Then where's Tomb Raider? Resident Evil 6? Bioshock Infinite? Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance? Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes? Grand Theft Auto IV? Just to name a few.

Just read this quote from Kojima:

"Wii U is kind of a special case," Kojima said via translator at a press Q&A last week. "The way the player interacts with the device is very different than any other device out there. So if I were to make a game for the Wii U, it would have to be a unique game."

Nintendo probably forces the third parties to make the games compatible with the controller screen, and those devs aren't willing to spend the time/money to do so. The "unique game" Kojima speaks of are the Umbrella Chronicles of the world, not the Resident Evil 6s.

[Ceric]

I'm not buying any EA games for a long while over this.  Though this more the straw that broke the camels back.

[BlackNMild2k1]

There is no scenario where the Nintendo console gets "real" third party support unless it does exactly what the third parties demand. That is, the box needs to be as powerful as the competition, no "gimmick" controller, no weird software format

Everything you just said is true of the Wii U for at least a year or two.

Then where's Tomb Raider? Resident Evil 6? Bioshock Infinite? Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance? Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes? Grand Theft Auto IV? Just to name a few.

Just read this quote from Kojima:

"Wii U is kind of a special case," Kojima said via translator at a press Q&A last week. "The way the player interacts with the device is very different than any other device out there. So if I were to make a game for the Wii U, it would have to be a unique game."

Nintendo probably forces the third parties to make the games compatible with the controller screen, and those devs aren't willing to spend the time/money to do so. The "unique game" Kojima speaks of are the Umbrella Chronicles of the world, not the Resident Evil 6s.

Nintendo doesn't force any sort of feature use upon developers. Developers don't have to use the touch screen, don't have to support off tv play, don't have to support NFC, don't have to support full game download on the eShop, don't have to support achievements, don't have to integrate Miiverse, don't have to support Wiimotes, don't have to support HD resolution or 60 fps, etc etc. Nintendo isn't forcing anybody to do anything they don't want to do.


And there is a chance we might get Tomb Raider still.
But I'm pretty sure that both RE6 & GTAV are on their way to Wii U sometime next year.

[Lithium]

This isn't really a huge deal to me as I've always been a multi console owner, but you know someone is going to ask EA why there is little support for the Wii U in, say, two years, and their answer will inevitably come back to Mass Effect 3's failure. "Well, Mass Effect 3 didn't sell nearly enough copies on Wii U. There just isn't an audience for that kind of game on a Nintendo console!"

It's the classic Nintendo third party cycle.

Third party puts out "test game" on Wii:

Successful - "Great! This audience just eats up these low budget test games! Lets keep making more!"(Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition, Umbrella Chronicles, Darkside Chronicles)

Failure - "There is no market for these games on a Nintendo platform" *third party support dies*

There is no scenario where the Nintendo console gets "real" third party support unless it does exactly what the third parties demand. That is, the box needs to be as powerful as the competition, no "gimmick" controller, no weird software format (N64 cartridges and GC miniDVDs, I'm looking at you!).

They haven't had that winning formula in the eyes of the third parties since the SNES. And even still, if this theoretical "perfect" Nintendo box was someday released, I could see third parties ducking it nonetheless, in fear of competing with Nintendo's properties.

My conclusion: You need another console if you want strong third party support. Especially Western third party support. It's pretty blatantly clear that Wii U won't be getting much third party support from Western devs, as demonstrated by the complete lack of big 2013 multiplatform games (Bioshock, Tomb Raider). This will only get worse when PS4/720 drop.

I ain't even mad. Wii/PS3/360/PC master race reporting out 

I agree, although for me its pretty frusterating for me to watch this happen for the third time in a row. I think im just going to get a 3ds XL instead of a wiiU.

[Kairon]

And there is a chance we might get Tomb Raider still.
But I'm pretty sure that both RE6 & GTAV are on their way to Wii U sometime next year.

I'm pinning all my hopes on you BlackNMild.

[NWR_insanolord]

I remember writing a story for the site during E3 about a rumor of Tomb Raider coming to Wii U. Since Nintendo doesn't seem to want to talk much about anything beyond the launch window, I think most of the games we're talking about here are still in play.

[UncleBob]

What are the odds that MS greenlit ME1/MET for the PS3 to help undermine any momentum that ME3 on the Wii U might have had?

::adjusts tin foil hat::

[NWR_insanolord]

I'm pretty sure Microsoft sees Sony as more of a threat to them than Nintendo.

[UncleBob]

At this point, the territory between Sony and Microsoft is pretty well defined and I don't think a port of a five year old game is going to change that in any way.

However - Wii U does stand a chance of mixing things up a bit.

[NWR_insanolord]

I also doubt a port of a five year old game is going to turn the Wii U into a major success. Like I said in the other thread, I doubt the Trilogy is going to be a huge seller on any platform, and most people who wanted to play the games already have. The audience of Nintendo loyalists who never had the opportunity but are still interested is almost certainly very small.

EDIT: And at the same time, the Wii U version is the one that would require the most work. 2 and 3 are already ported to PS3, so they really just need to do the first one. Putting the Trilogy on Wii U would require them to port all three games, with whatever added GamePad functionality they're planning on, and that plus the relatively small initial user base might just mean EA doesn't see it as economically worth the trouble. Really, I think that's the most logical explanation.

[UncleBob]

But it leaves out any explanation as to why MS approved the Sony port of ME1...

[NWR_insanolord]

The explanation is Microsoft's exclusivity expired. The game's coming out just over 5 years after the 360 version; the idea proposed in one of these threads that MS just didn't expect this generation to still be going on right now seems pretty plausible.

[UncleBob]

Possible, sure.

It just seems weird that something co-developed by Microsoft would get the okay to be on other platforms even after 5 years....

[ejamer]

...

EDIT: And at the same time, the Wii U version is the one that would require the most work. 2 and 3 are already ported to PS3, so they really just need to do the first one. Putting the Trilogy on Wii U would require them to port all three games, with whatever added GamePad functionality they're planning on, and that plus the relatively small initial user base might just mean EA doesn't see it as economically worth the trouble. Really, I think that's the most logical explanation.

Likely true.

I'd counter by saying that Wii U might offer the best potential for a trilogy re-release, as it's the console where people are least likely to have already played at least one of the games in the series. (It's also the console with the least competition from other games. Having the trilogy out at release would make it a "must have" for many people - doubly so if it wasn't already available/announced for every other platform.)  It will also probably take a while until original RPGs are available for the system, leaving the award-winning Mass Effect series as the best option for many people.

I find it harder to justify the release of part three from a trilogy as a stand-alone offering.

[NWR_insanolord]

The install base is the kicker. It would do very well on the Wii U relative to how many people own the system, but it's so early in its life that that's still not that many people. By the time the system is more widely owned the game would be retailing for far less than the $60 it would launch at, which is already not that much for how much work it would take to do it.

Possible, sure.

It just seems weird that something co-developed by Microsoft would get the okay to be on other platforms even after 5 years....

Bioware's a big enough name that I doubt they's sign a deal for permanent exclusivity. It was most likely a situation of "You can have it for five years if you do such and such, or else it's coming to PS3 at the same time."

[BlackNMild2k1]

https://twitter.com/masseffect/status/251081501448474624

[Evan_B]

I honestly don't know why anyone would bother with any of the games. Bioware is far from the great developer it used to be.

[broodwars]

I honestly don't know why anyone would bother with any of the games. Bioware is far from the great developer it used to be.

Would this be the "denial" part of the stages of Grief?  :

Sure, I think ME3 isn't that great of a game (despite having some great little moments), but I think their output has been pretty consistent (yes, I liked Dragon Age 2 as well, for pretty much the same reason I liked parts of ME3: the little character moments).

[Chozo Ghost]

But it leaves out any explanation as to why MS approved the Sony port of ME1...

I explained this months ago. Microsoft's exclusivity deal probably expired. ME1 came out in 2007 and it is now 5 years later. The contract was probably for 5 years, and so its over now. Do you seriously think EA would have signed the publishing rights over permanently?