180$ in 2014.

I would almost certainly buy Mass Effect Trilogy on Wii U. There's not a chance in hell I'll buy Mass Effect 3: Special Edition for Wii U.

Translation: We're releasing Mass Effect Trilogy on Wii U with all DLC included next year. LAWL to those who bought Mass Effect 3 at launch.

Seriously enough everyone who read anything about Mass Effect 3 for WiiU even before it came out would have known it be a big stamp of Sucker across your forehead.

You guys make me sad.

Just like Ping Pals put WayForward in a position for later glories on Nintendo systems, I hope my purchase of Mass Effect 3 for the Wii U demonstrates to BioWare that Nintendo systems could be a great home for their games, both now and in the future. If Mass Effect Trilogy comes out for the Wii U, I expect that it'll be partly because of those heroic launch day pioneers like myself who were willing to put out ourselves on the line while everyone else vacillated and exchanged jaded barbs.

I am Henny Penny. And I'm gonna try and bake some bread. Who will help me?

James Bond says "Never Say Never Again"

Your move, Bioware.

Your move.

I think buying Mass Effect 3 will only give Bioware or EA whatever message they themselves want to receive.

If we don't buy it we could be saying "we're not suckers" or "we're not interested in Mass Effect/Bioware/third party games/mature titles/RPGs".  If we buy it we could be saying "we're interested in future Mass Effect games" or "we're dumb suckers who will buy any half-baked bullshit you give us."

In both cases if Bioware or EA come to the latter conclusion, we're going to get lousier support from them.  They can reasonably come to either conclusion and will go with the one that suits what they wanted to do in the first place.  Nobody wanted to make Wii games and it showed in the third party support.  They gave us junk and if we bought it they gave us more junk and if we didn't they gave us nothing.  There was never any intention of giving us real support and a lot of that was likely because the Wii's inferior hardware did not fit into their multiplatform strategy.

If Bioware or EA wants to support the Wii U, they'll do it regardless of how many suckers buy Mass Effect 3.  However I think a release like ME3 is effectively rigged to begin with.  It's a half-assed effort that is meant to underperform and thus justify future half-assed Wii U support.

My inner fanboy utterly burns in RAGE at this type of practice that the majority of 3rd parties use on Nintendo consoles.  The only time 3rd party support lacking made sense was in the N64 days of cartridges. Since then, there has been NO reason why any Nintendo console could not receive the same amount of support (in both quality and quantity) as the other consoles. This last generation saw the closure of almost 100 game studios, big and small, because of costs associated with development, etc. I hope 3rd parties wise up by supporting the WiiU consistently and strongly because if they think that they can afford to ignore another popular (I believe) Nintendo platform, they're in for a shock.

Another 100 game studios lost this new gen the industry cannot afford and EA and Activision can suck coconuts for their tawdry entres onto the WiiU.

Well I think the weak third party support on the Wii was somewhat justified by the hardware not being comparable to the other systems and thus goofing up multiplatform development.  But the far too common routine of games coming out for the PS2 and Xbox but NOT the Gamecube drove me nuts.

Well we should at least get much stronger Japanese third party support with the Wii U.  Iwata has gotten a lot more aggressive these last few years to increase Japanese support.  He literally killed the Vita before it was launched by making Monster Hunter exclusive to Nintendo consoles and then getting a Monster Hunter game released for the 3DS exactly one week before the Vita was released in Japan.

Considering how Japanese third parties were some of the biggest loser last gen because they weren't ready for HD development and some still struggle, I wouldn't be surprised if Iwata can convince a lot of them to just stick with the Wii U by  sticking with all their PS3 assets and ignore the PS4 like he's managed to make them stick with the 3DS and ignore the Vita since the 3DS can still reuse their PSP assest for cheaper and easier development.  Plus considering some rumors point to the PS4 not launching until 2014, that would easily give Nintendo enough time to do this.

Japan support for the Wii U will be strong from how its looking.  That being said Japanese games do not have the sway in the West that they use to and how little Risk Reggie likes to take on bringing games over it does Nintendo next to no good in other markets.

It also doesn't matter if Japanese games don't have the sway they once did, a lot of them still make money.  Outside of major titles, the average Japanese game is made on a smaller budget then their Western counterparts so they don't need to be huge sellers to make a profit.  So Nintendo getting stronger Japanese support would still be a good thing for Western Wii U owners since we'd still end up getting a lot more games as a direct result because the West is still a profitable territory for many of them.

Plus for the really niche titles you do realize companies like Atlus and Xseed specialize in bringing these types of games to America don't you?  So Regge's a complete non-factor when Atlus and Xseed are responsible for these types of games in the first place.

Where is our Resident Evil, Devil May Cry, Dead Rising Capcom?

Where is our Metal Gear, Contra, Konami?

Where is our Final Fantasy, Dragon's Quest Square Enix?

Where is our Ridge Racer, Pac-Man, Dig Dug Namco?

Good luck getting any Metal Gear Solid or DMC on the WiiU. After all, Nintendo is just for kids and soccer moms now. Right? Right?

Yeah, Nintendo stepping in and funding a Ninja Gaiden 3 port and being the only ones willing to pick up Bayonetta 2 clearly illustrates that Nintendo has no desire to bring that kind of content to the Wii U.

So much this.

No matter how you slice it, EA/Bioware will do what they want.

I think the Gamecube situation is what formed a lot of the basis for the Wii situation.  Nintendo had a system that was more powerful than the Playstation 2 and on-par with the XBox... and was completely ignored by most major third party developers (which, mind you, the GCN was pretty neck-to-neck with the original XBox in overall sales during their respective lifetimes).

I really think part of the plans for the Wii was "**** You, Third Parties."  Why bother designing a top-of-the-line gaming system if it's just going to be ignored by everyone?

All I want is to play the Mass Effect Trilogy on Wii U the way it was originally intended:


Without Mass Effect 3

Eh, that seems like such an insane thing to do on purpose and it isn't good business sense either.  I think Nintendo just didn't want to move to a new system yet because for their own purposes, they felt it wasn't necessary.  They had this motion control idea and in a different world would have released it as an accessory for the Gamecube.  But knowing that the Cube was damaged goods they figured starting over fresh with a new system would be a better way for motion control to catch on.

Nintendo doesn't try to alienate third parties, they just don't think about them when they design their systems.  They design their hardware purely for their own needs and if that does not fit with third party needs, then so be it.

And they were unquestionably right about that. From a business perspective, Nintendo did absolutely the right thing by making it its own system.

This runs contrary to almost all the talk from developers about the Wii U during its development. By all accounts, Nintendo designed it with third parties in mind.

bwah-hahaha!

Its not so much Nintendo not wanting to bring that kind of content to the Wii U but other parties hesitance to let them have it.

*whoosh*

Perhaps saying they did it on purpose was too harsh, but I really get the feeling that Nintendo feels they proved for two generations that they can support hardware based virtually no nothing other than first party software.  I really don't think they're that worried about third parties by this point.

Great if XSeed and Atlus is the answer then where is my Pandora Tower, Captian Rainbow, Monster Hunter on the 3DS, EX Troopers, Jam with the Band, Disaster: Day of Crisis, , etc.

They are not here.  Xenoblade was almost not here.  Last Story was almost not here.  I'm sure if I dug through the backlog I'll probably find some more.  How about Dragon Quest online.  Were are these games if XSeed and Atlus are the solution?

They are nothing but opportunistic band-aids.  Nothing more.  The real fix is a less risk opposed NoA.  Its ok to only break even on a really niche title to add depth to your console offerings.  Shoot now you can even make it Digital only to cut the fixed cost per unit sold down.

I agree there.  Nintendo doesn't care as long as they still make money.

Nor would Microsoft, or Sony, or EA or most anyone else. That's business.

Do you lack basic reading skills?  My posts are about Japanese third party titles on the Wii U, something Reggie and NOA have nothing to do with.  So don't list Nintendo's own games that NOA didn't release because that has nothing to do with what I said.  Unless your saying NOA should publish every Japanese third party game now which is just foolish and unrealistic to expect.

Hence why for third party games that are niche for America, Atlus and Xseed will take care of those.  Which is why the Wii U doing great in Japan is a good thing for Wii U owners in the West as well because we'd still get a lot of their third party games even if they're considered niche in the West because of these two publishers. 

Let me see...

So let's dissect this. 

We are talking about "really niche titles" that is who we are referring to in this sentence.  Then you state that "companies like Atlus and Xseed specialize in bringing these types of games to America"  so your saying XSeed and Atlus are bringing them over.  You then state that Reggie has nothing to do with these games and Atlus and Xseed are responsible for these games.

So what your telling me is that "really niche titles" = Third Party Niche Titles which I didn't see in your sentence at all.  Further XSeed published a really niched title in the "Last Story" but, using your definition it must not be Niche at all therefore XSeed should not have published it.  Nintendo should have.  Out the list given I will grant you while Monster Hunter isn't that Niche it is still Niche but, to say that Captian Rainbow, Pandora Tower, Jam with the Band, and Disaster: Day of Crisis are not "really niche titles" would be patently false.  I mean I probably could succesfully argue that E.X. Troopers is less niche then that whole list minus Monster Hunter.

By how you must be defining niche being only 3rd party would make Reggie totally exempted from this because if its 1st party it couldn't be Niche.  So you trying to tell me that XSeed and Atlus should consider the whole of the Japanese gaming offerings that aren't currently being published in the States?  Only those that didn't happen to be made by Nintendo or Sony for that matter on their respective platform.

That's fine if you want to argue that but, their are plenty of "Really Niche Titles" that Reggie won't take a risk for and if won't then why should Atlus or XSeed attempt to pick them up?

Here was my first post.

You then responded to it with this.

Now if you read my first post you'd know I was talking only about Japanese third parties, so your complaints about Reggie made no sense.  Hence why my second post says this.

If you've read what I've said combined with what the rest of the tread is about that makes it very clear I'm only talking about third parties.  You're the one who keeps bringing Reggie into the mix when he has nothing to do with the third party support that's being talked about in this topic.

Well there is a financial incentive for Nintendo to care.

1. Nintendo makes a cut from every third party game sold.
2. Good third party support strengthens the console's library which can encourage system sales.
3. Good third party support results in a better product and thus increased customer satisfaction.  Satisfied customers are more likely to buy Nintendo products in the future.

Nintendo doesn't specifically MAKE money from having crappy third party support, it just doesn't hurt them enough that they're struggling, so they don't bother caring.  There also isn't some huge financial risk in having strong third party support so unless they go crazy with moneyhats, they won't lose money from it.  It hasn't hurt them enough for them to consider it a high priority.  Nintendo with strong third party support would make more money than they do now, but being slightly less insanely rich is not bad enough to force them to do something they don't really feel like doing.  I've always maintained that Nintendo has never really learned from their mistakes and it's because they have not yet been in a position where they felt they had to.  Who likes self-improvement?  Who likes admitting when you're wrong?  Might as well put those off until they're absolutely mandatory.