Topic: Wii U is the new PS3?

[Ian Sane]

I disagree. Third parties could have been porting PS3/360 games this whole time and for the most part, they haven't. Poor support has less to do with specs and more to do with Nintendo's lack of communication with third parties. That E3 sizzle reel seemed awesome at the time. In hindsight, those were probably the few third parties who even knew what Nintendo was planning. Don't expect support when you treat your partners like peons.

They have to bring their teams up to speed on the Wii U in order to do a port.  The Wii U was going to be on par with the other major consoles for literally only one year.  So you go to all the trouble to get your teams familiar enough with the Wii U to include it in multiplatform development that will only work for a year?  Why bother?  Plus it isn't like the weak sales are surprising to anyone that thought the weak specs would be a problem.  So if you're a third party and any company releases a console you predict will fail, why would you bother supporting it?  Everyone knew the Wii U would be lapped by the other consoles within a year and then made some assumption about how the market would react to that.  Third parties would naturally make decisions regarding support based on that knowledge.

I can't wait to see Xbox One and PS4 sales drastically drop off into nothingness come January/February. Going to be a grand time. It's then that everyone will see just how big each respective console manufacturer's audiences truly are.

Right now, there's about three-and-a-half to four million dedicated Nintendo fans...still. It'll be interesting to see the size of MS/Sony's crew.

Dedicated fans don't make up the bulk of the videogame market.  It doesn't matter who has more fans, it matters who the gamers who don't have any personal attachment to any specific company choose.  If the market had such loyalties then we would never have seen that exodus from Nintendo to Sony.  Sega probably had more dedicated fans than Sony did but that was pretty much all Sega had while Sony had the support of the general public that just goes to where the games they're interested are.

[Adrock]

They have to bring their teams up to speed on the Wii U in order to do a port.  The Wii U was going to be on par with the other major consoles for literally only one year.  So you go to all the trouble to get your teams familiar enough with the Wii U to include it in multiplatform development that will only work for a year?  Why bother?

This is not the first time we've been over this. Support for PS3/360 didn't stop abruptly when PS4/One came out. And please stop ignoring the fact that Vigil Games ported the assets for Darksiders 2 in a matter of weeks.

[pokepal148]

Isn't it a bit early to make these judgements?

[Khushrenada]

It's never too early for knee-jerk reactions!

[smallsharkbigbite]

They have to bring their teams up to speed on the Wii U in order to do a port.  The Wii U was going to be on par with the other major consoles for literally only one year.  So you go to all the trouble to get your teams familiar enough with the Wii U to include it in multiplatform development that will only work for a year?  Why bother?

This is not the first time we've been over this. Support for PS3/360 didn't stop abruptly when PS4/One came out. And please stop ignoring the fact that Vigil Games ported the assets for Darksiders 2 in a matter of weeks.

Yeah, I think that the reason Wii U isn't getting games is because Nintendo has driven 3rd parties away with policies.  Most 3rd parties can easily port from one system to another with assets.  The first thing they would do is downgrade assets to 720p.  If that's not enough they could reduce frame rate to 30 FPS.  That should be enough for 95% of the games that don't have some ridiculous physics engine.  Otherwise physics tweaks may be necessary but not impossible. 


PS3 had third parties because Sony catered to the market they were catering too.  Nintendo has largely ignored the dominant FPS market and mature horror/adventure market.  It's not enough to get one game like a Darksiders too.  You need to get all the games that most people are interested for them to take notice of Wii U as a platform that they should consider purchasing. 


The only way for Nintendo to get third parties back is to pull an MS (with the first xbox) and commit to losing money to drive third parties to the Wii U.  We all know this won't happen, but Nintendo has been ignored so long by third parties that something drastic like that is the only way to pull them back.  I'm convinced that if Wii U was more powerful or if say Nintendo drops the Wii U and comes out with a new mid-life console that is more powerful than the PS4/Xbox1 that third parties will still ignore them.  They have a business model that says they can't make money on a Nintendo platform.  And if we are realistic we have to agree.  How often has Nintendo had the worse selling version of COD or Madden or some of the games that sell boatloads now a days. 

[ymeegod]

"Vigil Games ported the assets for Darksiders 2 in a matter of weeks."

Actually they had another team working on just the WII U port.  When you factor in manhours vs copy sold do you really think it was profitable for them?

How many third party titles failed to sell 50K on the WII U?  That's your reason why 3rd parties left Nintendo, it was because the core WII U owners weren't buying the software to begin with and I really wouldn't be surprised if AC and the Batman series skip the WII U down the road in the future.

[Kytim89]

The difference between the Wii U and the PS3 is that Nintendo does not have to bleed billions of dollars trying to push their system into the market the same way Sony did by trying to get Blu-ray to be popular.

[BranDonk Kong]

I hate to say it (though I don't exactly know why), but Nintendo becoming a third party development company (for consoles at least) starts to make more sense every day.

[Stratos]

I really do think that all these good ports will dry up once devs fully extricate themselves from the PS360 gen. This is more of a trickle-down from those projects if anything. I would be happy if they kept doing WiiU ports and it is possible if sales can build over the holidays. For what it is worth, every Walmart I've gone to is clean out of Wii Us and their stock of games is visibly drained. My next concern is will they restock come January?

[BranDonk Kong]

Stratos you're crazy.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-12-02/nintendo-seen-missing-target-sony-microsoft-sales-dwarf-wii-u

If that's not a kick in the balls, I don't know what is. Microsoft and SONY did in 24 hours what Nintendo did in NINE MONTHS.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Certainly Darksiders lost money and certainly business plans don't support most third parties developing for the Wii U. 


Maybe it's semantics, but I'd argue it's a cause and effect thing and the Wii U poor sales are the effect while previous generations of poor third party relations are the cause.  Some 3rd parties left during the Gamecube era.  Most left during the Wii era.  Now there are only a few left on the Wii U.  Because the third parties already left, people that are buying a Wii U are buying with the intent of using it for Nintendo games or family centric games. 


The Wii U needs a bunch of third party games to get people to consider it a competitor to Sony/Microsoft.  I'm largely pleased with the Wii U, but I have a PS3 for third party games (and maybe eventually a PS4) and I knew exactly what I was getting with the Wii U.  It's frustrating to watch Nintendo fall like this, but it was pretty obvious that their previous generations third party losses were going to hurt their console viability in the future.   

[Kytim89]

I hate to say it (though I don't exactly know why), but Nintendo becoming a third party development company (for consoles at least) starts to make more sense every day.

Nintendo will never go third party. They will simply leave the home console market until they get their bearing back and the market will support them once again. They will simply shift their resources to developing handheld games in the mean time. The 3DS successor will be some kind of portable home console hybrid any way.

[Spak-Spang]

I don't know if I would want Nintendo to go 3rd party.  But I do think it would be interesting if Nintendo HELPED design and collaborated with another console company to make a joint console.  I don't think Nintendo would do that with Sony, though, because they are both Japanese companies and there is much bad blood between them. 

But imagine for a second, Nintendo partners with Microsoft.  Nintendo and Microsoft's development teams together create a new handheld and console experience.  Both playing to each others strengths.  Nintendo can focus on the handheld experience and connecting the experience to the future console.  The Handheld would come out first in like 5-6 years after the 3DS is a huge success. 

Then the console could come out in 7-8 years.  It is launched with a lineup including the best Microsoft and Nintendo could have to offer, and all Nintendo games and Microsoft games are exclusive to the system, and Nintendo gains support from Microsoft for its handheld division. 

It sounds like an incredible win/win scenario. 

[Stratos]

Before the XBox, Microsoft approached Nintendo to buy them and make them their gaming division. Nintendo flat out refused. They didn't want to be owned by a 'westerner'. I don't see Nintendo working with either of the major console devs.


Equally as unlikely is them teaming up with Valve or EA. I think most Nintendo fans would love to see a Nintendo-Valve teamup. I still wish that we could see a pointer-control version of Portal.

I need to get my WiiMote hooked up to my PC some time so I can dominate in TF2.

[Adrock]

Actually they had another team working on just the WII U port.  When you factor in manhours vs copy sold do you really think it was profitable for them?

Actually, TJ, according to (former) Vigil Games designer Haydn Dalton, "Initially, the base code port was tackled by our internal tech team, but as Darksiders 2 started to ramp up heavily, we handed ownership over to a separate team at THQ Montreal." So they started it themselves then handed it to another team. Ian keeps claiming that developers have to "bring their teams up to speed on the Wii U in order to do a port," and acting like it's a larger problem than it really is. Well, a designer from one of those teams that worked on a Wii U game flat-out said it's one of the easier platforms to develop for and they had their "core game up and running on it in a very short amount of time."

How many third party titles failed to sell 50K on the WII U?  That's your reason why 3rd parties left Nintendo, it was because the core WII U owners weren't buying the software to begin with and I really wouldn't be surprised if AC and the Batman series skip the WII U down the road in the future.

Based on a bunch of old ports? That's a rigged game. Releasing the entire Mass Effect Trilogy for $60 on PS3/360 weeks before a $60 port of just Mass Effect 3 on Wii was setting itself up to fail.

Here's a pretty telling reason why third party support sucks so hard on Wii U:

from Time for convincing third parties to support Wii U 'long passed,' says Bethesda's Pete Hines
"The time for convincing publishers and developers to support Wii U has long passed," Hines said. "The box is out.

"You have to do what Sony and Microsoft has been doing with us for a long time," he added. "And it's not that every time we met with them we got all the answers we wanted, but they involved us very early on and talked to folks like Bethesda and Gearbox [sic] and saying, 'here's what we're doing, here's what we're planning, here's how we think it's going to work.' To hear what we thought, from our tech guys and from an experience standpoint, what we thought.

"You have to spend an unbelievable amount of time up front doing that. If you're going to just decide, 'we're going to make a box, and this is how it's going to work and you should make games for it,' well, no. No is my answer."

He doesn't speak for every third party company, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the prevailing attitude. Sony and Microsoft keep their partners in the loop, constantly bouncing ideas off them and asking for feedback. A lot of Nintendo fans like to blame third parties entirely, but it's Nintendo too. If third parties want better communication, I don't really see how this is a problem. I'm sure some companies want ridiculous payouts for exclusive content and whatnot, but a more open channel for communication is key. Nintendo has to be exponentially more proactive and third parties have to stop thinking Nintendo console owners want their scraps as if we should just take it because it's given and do so with a smile. This is not complicated. As a Wii U owner, if you treat me like you give a ****, you can have my money.

But imagine for a second, Nintendo partners with Microsoft.  Nintendo and Microsoft's development teams together create a new handheld and console experience.  Both playing to each others strengths.

Except Microsoft is a software company trying to move into hardware. I wouldn't want Nintendo to partner with a company that apparently knew about hardware overheating problems and sent the console to market anyway. In that regard, **** Microsoft right in the face. With a tire iron.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Yeah, I'm sure the next DS/Handheld will be some Gameboy Ultra that doubles as a Wii U Controller, plays Wii U games, and is essentially the portable handheld version of the Wii U in the form of it's own GamePad with a little extra added to it.
This will be their "3rd Pillar"  of the gen and an experiment to phase out the failing Wii U by merging it with their successful handheld business.

This new handheld portable console will also have a Chromecast-like device that will allow streaming of content (2nd screen) directly to your TV using an additional HDMI port. It will be the size of a Roku just because Nintendo wants some brand presence on your shelf. It will also handle multiplayer family/party games by also allowing the use of wiimotes and connection of the sensor bar (Just Dance, Wii Sports, etc etc)

All to be announced in 2015.
you heard it here first.

[Luigi Dude]

We're still a long ways away before Nintendo releases a hybrid console.  The Wii was their most successful home console at 100 million units.  Even if the Wii U goes down as their worst selling home console, they'll still release one more home console to see if they can get Wii level sales again.

When Nintendo has a successful portable and home console, they make a lot more money then if they have just one successful hybrid console.  They're not going to say good bye to billions in potential profits even if the Wii U continues to struggle.  Since there's always the chance the next home console can be more successful, Nintendo isn't merging their systems no matter how the Wii U performs in the end.

[Kytim89]

If you look at Nintendo's history they have all ways tried to merger the home console and handhelds together. The technology exists today for them to do this to an extent with the Wii U and 3DS.  If the broadband and wi-fi technology ever improves to allow what the Wii U is doing know away from home then I think Nintendo will have the 3DS successor as powerful as say the Vita with a clam shell design, and a hi-tech screen, and the ability to play console games miles away from the home console itself.

[ymeegod]

"Based on a bunch of old ports? That's a rigged game"

Assassin's Creed IV, Batman Origins, Injustice, and hell even freaking CoD Ghosts haven't sold worth a **** on the WII U.  Even the exclusives haven't done much, Zombiu barely breaking the 1/2 million mark and not to mention Wonderful 101. 

--------------------

[Adrock]

You're citing poor sales of Wii U titles as the reason why third parties left Nintendo. While that's certainly not helping things, that's not the reason why third parties left. Rather, that's part of the reason why they haven't come back. And they won't come back if they're expecting fantastic sales on mostly old ports or if they're comparing sales on Wii U to sales on platforms that have been out for seven and eight years.

Besides skeleton support, third parties left Nintendo long before poor performance on Wii U. One of the main reasons being Nintendo sucking at communicating with them hence the rest of my previous post in response to you. This has always been a problem with Nintendo; it finally reached the tipping point when Sony gave third parties a viable alternative with the original Playstation. No one wants to deal with Nintendo's draconian policies when they don't have to. If things are ever going to change, it has to start there.

[Ian Sane]

The inferior hardware, even if it did attract ports, ultimately ensures that the Wii U will get the worst version of any multiplatform game.  Now that wouldn't be the case with PS360 ports but by this time next year the only games we'll still see on those systems will be sports games and scaled down versions of Call of Duty that only the poor kids will be stuck playing.  So maybe a third party is willing to go to the trouble to scale down their game and tweak it to get it to work on the lesser hardware.  What is the selling point to the consumer?  "Hey the Wii U has all the same games except that they're always shittier with downgraded textures and choppier framerates!"  You'll not win anybody over with that.  All you'll do is have some games for the Nintendo-only die hards to make do with, like the N64 port that's missing the FMV and red book audio or the Gamecube port that's missing the online mode.  Hey, I'm noticing a trend here!  You know why Madden doesn't sell well on Nintendo systems?  It's because it's the **** version for losers that can't afford a second console to get the "good" version.  No one who owned both a Nintendo console and another one would ever buy the inferior Nintendo version.  It's just a token effort to get a few extra sales from the Nintendo-only niche.

Though I do agree that Nintendo's policies do them no favours.  I don't think if they had their act together there but still had last gen hardware that that would have changed everything.  I think their lack of communication and their last gen hardware together creative a huge barrier of entry.  Nintendo had comparable hardware on the Gamecube but the same shitty policies and while they didn't do great they had better support than they did on any other console post-N64.  We got included in multiplatform games as often as we got excluded and until everyone else went online and Nintendo didn't, we didn't get inferior versions either.

I like the idea of Nintendo working with someone else on a console.  It would never happen but Nintendo is capable of both brilliance and massive stupidity so they would benefit greatly from a filter to kibosh the stupid ideas.  Third party wouldn't be so bad because I frankly think that game development is pretty much the only things in regards to consoles that they're good at anymore.  They don't even seem to want to make current hardware anymore.  At least if they were working on someone else's console they wouldn't be able to shoehorn in gimmick controllers or have idiotic online policies.

[Adrock]

Changing their policies and poor communication has to be the first step. Even if Wii U was closer to PS4/One, third parties would still tell Nintendo to take a hike until they start treating their partners better. I'm not claiming that better hardware wouldn't also be great, but Nintendo has proved in the past that third parties will support less powerful hardware if there's money to be made. Nintendo stuck with Gameboy for 37 years and DS trounced PSP. Opting for lower spec hardware is perhaps an additional barrier though one companies have overlooked in the past in favor of profits. If Nintendo can include higher specs and do so responsibly, they absolutely should. That's a topic for another time though. (I might finally write that topic tonight)

Ultimately, it's give and take. Nintendo shouldn't have to bow to third parties, but better communication is a reasonable request. I wouldn't even consider it a concession because it should go without saying. This is how to build stronger relationships. Since forever, Nintendo has just demanded things. Nope, back away not today, Disco Lady.

Nintendo is slow to change, but they've been known to be receptive to criticism. I'm glad Pete Hines from Bethesda put Nintendo's BS under the spotlight. For too long, third parties would regurgitate nonsense like "The controller is too unique." What? We all kind of knew Nintendo's policies were antiquated and sucky, but we would mostly hear anonymous murmurs. Now, Nintendo can't pretend it's not a problem. This time they got called out publicly while their console is struggling. It's pretty obvious what they should do. It's unfortunate that it should get to this point, but if it works (and hopefully, it will), so be it.

[Phil]

Going third-party would mean a whole change of Nintendo-- mass exodus of employees, less risks, no ability to work on games that are on hardware they're comfortable with, no features that come from Nintendo hardware that can't be found elsewhere, etc.


Those thinking it would be the same Nintendo and the same quality are sorely mistaken.

[BlackNMild2k1]

If Nintendo had reached outside of it's bubble to talk to 3rd parties and share what they were working on and ask what would you like to do with what we are building, then they may have realized further potential in the product beyond what they were setting it up to be. They could have placed more importance on tweaking small things like CPU speed and RAM to be better optimized to achieve the things it's partners wanted to do.
Now that the partners have had input, and are able to do things they want to do, they are excited to work on the hardware and produce software that does the things they were excited about.

But nope. MS or Sony might steal our ideas for a tablet/touchscreen controller or secondary screen. Someone might come to market with a FLUDD like device in their game or have their character travel by bird or boat or something stupid like that. Secrecy takes importance over Support. Ignorance over Input. Control over Cooperation.
Changes need to be made, and if it's not gonna start at leadership, then it has to start at policy.

[Adrock]

That's pretty much the way I see it. +1, good sir. You are, as always, a gentleman and a scholar.