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

[ejamer]

Great news, Nintendo fans! Mass Effect is coming to the Wii U with an updated version of the least popular game in the series, Mass Effect 3. It will be available at launch - just days after other systems get a complete trilogy version of the series released at the same price point!


Why do publishers cannibalize their sales this way? How many copies of ME3 does EA expect to sell on Wii U at launch if it's clearly offering much less content than you get on other consoles?


Resident Evil 4 is coming to GameCube... oh yeah, and a PS2 release is on the way with more features and game modes!  Metal Gear Solid 3DS is pretty cool for anyone wanting to revisit the series... assuming you don't want the HD collection that was released at almost the same time and price. You want Mass Effect? Experience the game how it was meant to be played by starting with part three on Wii U instead of buying the complete trilogy on a single disc for 360, likely with DLC included, for the same price a couple of weeks before Nintendo's system  launches. (Don't worry: PS3 is also getting the full trilogy shortly after, and it will also be available for PC. Nobody gets left out!)

Maybe I'm jumping the gun and we'll hear an announcement that the Mass Effect game coming out on Wii U is actually going to contain the full trilogy. Maybe the new features and improvements for a Wii U version are enough to differentiate it in the minds of many gamers. But I'm not holding my breath.

At least expectations for less than average third party support are being set appropriately very early on.
 

[NWR_Neal]

As dumb as it sounds, EA probably isn't mentioning Wii U for the Trilogy until ME3 on Wii U is out. The PR for the Trilogy only mentions the 360 release. Wii U will probably be with the PS3/PC versions in the nebulous "later" release window.

But yea, it's dumb. Real dumb.

[Pixelated Pixies]

Wow. That's pretty dumb.

[Caterkiller]

Well hmmm... Guess I'm not getting ME3 if there is a chance for this trilogy. That's some old bull ship.

[NWR_insanolord]

To me, this gives more credence to the rumors of EA being upset with Nintendo over Nintendo's refusal to go all in with EA's online system. The story I saw mentioned that EA was working on a Mass Effect trilogy release for Wii U that they backed out of before the deal went through.

[Ceric]

I think everyone would be better served if EA just waited and put a non-enhanced full trilogy on Wii U.  I know it be a shame it doesn't use the screen for something nifty but at least you be able to play it in the bathroom.

Anyone who knows anything won't get the Stand Alone Wii U Version of 3 & Anyone who does is going to fill burned by EA when the Trilogy comes out.  This looks to be an obvious Lose Lose for everyone Involved...

[Kairon]

ARGH! I was planning to get Mass Effect 3 at launch! Now I don't know what to do... Lose lose is the only way to describe it! RRAAAARRGGHH!!!!

[azeke]

Well, i know who doesn't get my money then.

[Kairon]

Calmed down thought: 360 owners are actually in the same situation, but just time extended. Remove the ruthless value impetus from the equation and my path is clear: One Mass Effect in the hand is worth three in the Bush. ME3 remains on my buy list.

[regin]

I'd rather have a $60 port of just the first game if they're pulling the old "test game" on us. There's no way I'm starting with the third game in a franchise like this.

[MysticGohan]

Atleast it's not an year old port :p And it would be impossible for them to due the ME Trilogy. as ME1 was published by Microsoft, so anything outside 360 and PC will likely not see it, hence why PS3 got ME2 and a comic to make choices.      Same will be for ME3 on Wii U. I'm fine with it, as I have ME2 for PC, and I've been wanting ME3, and Wii U sounds perfect for it, especially with the game pad

[Ian Sane]

I can't tell if EA is just really fucking stupid OR they don't really want to support the Wii U and ME3 is MEANT to fail so they can tell their stockholders they tried but it didn't work out.  Now that seems to be pretty stupid business sense but, remember, businesses are run by human beings and human beings are all too willing to inflict self-injury for ridiculously petty reasons.

This is an industry where Sega of Japan pretty much destroyed Sega because they were jealous of Sega of America's succeess, success that BENEFITTED Sega of Japan.  Any sort of immature nonsense is a realistic possibility.

[NWR_insanolord]

And it would be impossible for them to due the ME Trilogy. as ME1 was published by Microsoft, so anything outside 360 and PC will likely not see it

The PS3 is getting it too, so Microsoft's exclusivity must have expired.

[Spak-Spang]

EA is just really dumb...if you know you are going to make a complete trilogy game...why not spend the time and create it for the new system first...release it as an exclusive reap the rewards of lots of bucks...and when people complain they want that experience on the 360 and PS3...then give it to them...and bam instant more free money.

[Ian Sane]

Thinking about it, laziness might be the cause here.  ME2 and 3 already exist on the PS3 so really they're just making a PS3 port of ME1 and almost no work is needed for the Xbox 360.  For the Wii U ALL three games still have to be ported.  So maybe they just settled on one of them to cheap out on development and picked the newest one since it would look the least dated on the shelves.

[broodwars]

I'm of two minds when it comes to the news of this release:

On the one hand...

...Hey, now I can finally play the full Mass Effect series on the platform I actually most enjoy playing games on (PS3)!

*ahem* (but yeah, I'll be getting the PS3 version)

...EA really has no business releasing ME3 on Wii U.  I've said it before, but it's the end of the trilogy. It's a game that's worthless played on its own.  If they were going to do a Trilogy release for PS3, they should have just held the Wii U version of ME3 for that.  It's the only way people should play that series.  Future Wii U owners are right to be angry at this announcement.

On the other hand...

...EA put more of a genuine effort into making good (or at-least-decent) quality games on Wii than most 3rd parties did IIRC. I worked at EA during the Wii years, and I think I helped make a pretty good Tiger Woods game in Tiger 12: the Masters.  The people I worked with may not have been regular Wii players, but we all wanted to make a good game that really did the Wii justice and I think we succeeded.  Personally, I think we put out the superior version of that game, considering some of the features the Wii version had that the PS3/360 versions didn't.

And it wasn't just the Tiger games.  There were Boom Blox, Dead Space Ignition, and from what I understand were pretty decent versions of Madden as well.  I can understand if those didn't appeal to you, but they weren't bad games and apparently none of them sold well.  EA got burned badly by the Wii, so if that rumored EA partnership with Nintendo for online did go down badly, I can totally understand why they're only putting a token effort out now.  Nintendo gamers have not had a good track record of buying their games, so why should they give a **** about them now for Wii U?  I think they should, but I can understand why they don't.  What possible reason should they have to believe that the Wii U will be any better to them than the Wii was?

As for Mass Effects 1 and 2, they probably look at those right now as not worth the effort on Wii U.  The Wii U version of ME3 is done by now.  Maybe they can't justify that cost and time for making Wii U versions of ME1 and 2 right now with more useless Wii U Gamepad functionality shoved-in, whereas it's a pretty simple porting job from the 360 to PS3 (and the 360 version probably required very little work to just shove the DLC on, considering all 3 games already released on that platform).

Honestly, this isn't the game I would get upset about in terms of future support. EA's just trying to capitalize on a game sinking in relevance with every passing day.  ME3 was a worthless game on Wii U from the moment EA announced it.  I'd keep an eye on what they announce with Dead Space 3 and Dragon Age 3 in regards to Wii U.  That'll be the real test.

[Ian Sane]

Off the top of my head I think the newest EA game I own is Madden.






...94 for the Super Nintendo.  Even ignoring EA's "evil empire" reputation they really just don't often make games that appeal to me.  I'm not actively trying to avoid them, I just have never felt the desire to buy their games.  I wonder if other Nintendo fans feel the same way and their poor Wii sales reflected that.

[Louieturkey]

And it would be impossible for them to due the ME Trilogy. as ME1 was published by Microsoft, so anything outside 360 and PC will likely not see it

The PS3 is getting it too, so Microsoft's exclusivity must have expired.

This is the thing that I don't get.  Why is it okay now to release ME1 on PS3 but it wasn't before?  I thought that Microsoft put money into ME1 and published it themselves, essentially funding the game.  Is this a sign that Bayonetta 2 really isn't Wii U exclusive permanently?  ME1 has always seemed like the closest comparison for B2.  Now I'm not so sure.

[broodwars]

And it would be impossible for them to due the ME Trilogy. as ME1 was published by Microsoft, so anything outside 360 and PC will likely not see it

The PS3 is getting it too, so Microsoft's exclusivity must have expired.

This is the thing that I don't get.  Why is it okay now to release ME1 on PS3 but it wasn't before?  I thought that Microsoft put money into ME1 and published it themselves, essentially funding the game.  Is this a sign that Bayonetta 2 really isn't Wii U exclusive permanently?  ME1 has always seemed like the closest comparison for B2.  Now I'm not so sure.

It was probably some form of timed exclusivity (roughly 5 years, based on the original's November 2007 release), based on how long Microsoft and EA/Bioware thought this generation would go.  But we've gone far longer, so here we are.

[Louieturkey]

Honestly, this isn't the game I would get upset about in terms of future support. EA's just trying to capitalize on a game sinking in relevance with every passing day.  ME3 was a worthless game on Wii U from the moment EA announced it.  I'd keep an eye on what they announce with Dead Space 3 and Dragon Age 3 in regards to Wii U.  That'll be the real test.

I'd pick up a DS or DA Trilogy on the Wii U (when I get a Wii U), even if I did own them on the PS3.

[Louieturkey]

And it would be impossible for them to due the ME Trilogy. as ME1 was published by Microsoft, so anything outside 360 and PC will likely not see it

The PS3 is getting it too, so Microsoft's exclusivity must have expired.

This is the thing that I don't get.  Why is it okay now to release ME1 on PS3 but it wasn't before?  I thought that Microsoft put money into ME1 and published it themselves, essentially funding the game.  Is this a sign that Bayonetta 2 really isn't Wii U exclusive permanently?  ME1 has always seemed like the closest comparison for B2.  Now I'm not so sure.

It was probably some form of timed exclusivity (roughly 5 years, based on the original's November 2007 release), based on how long Microsoft and EA/Bioware thought this generation would go.  But we've gone far longer, so here we are.

That's a very good point.  Maybe Nintendo's deal with Platinum is similar.  I'm still hoping they fund a port of the first game to the Wii U as well.  Seems stupid to have the second one and not the first, especially when you're funding and publishing the second one (I say that knowing about the Project Zero/Fatal Frame series).

[Chozo Ghost]

Let's not forget that I predicted this was going to happen months ago. I deserve credit for that.

[Louieturkey]

Let's not forget that I predicted this was going to happen months ago. I deserve credit for that.

Congrats.  You finally said something that came true.  There's a first for everything. :

+1 to you.

[broodwars]

Let's not forget that I predicted this was going to happen months ago. I deserve credit for that.

Michael Pachter would be proud of your correct:incorrect prediction ratio.

[Adrock]

To me, this gives more credence to the rumors of EA being upset with Nintendo over Nintendo's refusal to go all in with EA's online system. The story I saw mentioned that EA was working on a Mass Effect trilogy release for Wii U that they backed out of before the deal went through.

That's a possibility though I can't wrap my mind around the idea of EA sabotaging their own game. Why not just not release anything if they're that butt hurt? I know they may want people to double dip and some may, but it has a big chance of back firing. Even if EA were upset, they have a responsibility to themselves to make money and Mass Effect 3 on Wii U has a lot going against it to begin with. If anything, this seems more likely rather than outright cannibalizing their own game which ultimately screws themselves over. Maybe EA will realize that this doesn't make sense and will delay the Wii U version of ME3 until they can port the the 1st 2. Maybe?

[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?

[Spak-Spang]

You know what this is...it is simple actually.  It is stupid managers trying to figure out what to do...and Fing up, because these executives don't really understand about gaming and its audience. 

Act 1:  Wii U is coming out.  We should prepare some games for launch...what should we do. 

"Well, it is an unproven system...let's not spend too much money on the project...what is the biggest game we released last year?  Madden series is always big...ok, do a quick port of last year's with a new roster and throw in some Wii U exclusive screen stuff...next.  Well Mass Effect 3 is a huge game, use that."

"But...it is a trilogy..."  Who cares people will buy it...its big.    Wii U Mass Effect 3 is born.


Act 2 (Decision 2)  Hey Mass Effect 1 exclusivity with Microsoft is ending...we can now sell it on PS3.

Excellent release it as part of a trilogy...it should be easy to port that one game right?  And ME 2 and 3 are done.  Great compilation...create the game everyone wants to play...a seemless story. 

"Hey how about that Nintendo Mass Effect 3...won't this hurt that...we could port 1 and 2 other to the system...it actually wouldn't be too difficult."

"It won't hurt the sales...Nintendo owners don't buy other systems...don't be stupid."

[Adrock]

Tinfoil hat thought: What if this was the plan all along? Announce Mass Effect 3 for Wii U then a few months down the line announce that the Wii U version is actually the entire trilogy all for $60, kind of like those informercials that supposedly double or triple the value by giving you extra things when really that's pretty much the entire deal from the get go.

[Chozo Ghost]

Tinfoil hat thought: What if this was the plan all along? Announce Mass Effect 3 for Wii U then a few months down the line announce that the Wii U version is actually the entire trilogy all for $60, kind of like those informercials that supposedly double or triple the value by giving you extra things when really that's pretty much the entire deal from the get go.

That would be a smart move. Obviously they couldn't announce it was the trilogy coming to Wii U because that would have hurt sales of ME3 for PS360, so by announcing it as ME3 for the Wii U no one gets upset, and then at the last minute they can reveal that what the Wii U is actually getting is the trilogy all along.

Hopefully that's how it turns out, but we shall see.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Tinfoil hat thought: What if this was the plan all along? Announce Mass Effect 3 for Wii U then a few months down the line announce that the Wii U version is actually the entire trilogy all for $60, kind of like those informercials that supposedly double or triple the value by giving you extra things when really that's pretty much the entire deal from the get go.

I had that same thought earlier today, only in a different thread. (see below)

But there is an off chance that Mass Effect Trilogy IS the game coming to Wii U at launch, and that is the game they had planned all along. It might not have been shown off that way since publishing contract was still in effect and then they effectively get to reveal the game for Wii U twice and build the hype for release. (this is the only thing that would make sense).
The reason for the motion comic's existence would be explained away by the hope that people buying it for Wii U may have already played the first 2 games, but have no way of transferring over their saved games. Motion comic allows them to start off on the third game with similar status as they may have left off after the ME2.
we can only hope...

edit: directed @ Tendoboy

Unless you read the part where I said that ME3 may have been the game they were planning all along.... (as in what if there is no stand-alone ME3 for Wii U and the game they have been showing this entire time was the trilogy?)

it's doubtful, but that makes much more sense than purposely kneecapping their own release as it seems they are doing right now.

Could be waiting on the next wave of announcements at Nintendo's request....
("It might not have been shown off that way since publishing contract was still in effect and then they effectively get to reveal the game for Wii U twice and build the hype for release.")
but that is just based on the whole "what if" scenario.

[Adrock]

I see. You win this round (not counting all the other rounds you may have won).

All in all, it would be a great strategy for reasons stated too many times to need repeating. I probably wouldn't pick up the trilogy at $60, but I'd be tempted to get it eventually.

[Chozo Ghost]

$60 for the trilogy is only $20 per game, which is very reasonable.

[Adrock]

I didn't say it wasn't reasonable. However, I bought all 3 for my brother on 360 for $60 and I'm also currently fucking broke. What do you want me to do?

[UncleBob]

Whore yourself out for games and crack.

It's what I do.

[Adrock]

That's how I pay the rent. I need more money for drugs and games.

[Chozo Ghost]

I bought all 3 for my brother

I wish I had a sibling like you.

[Louieturkey]

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....

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.

This I think is correct.  The leaked Durango documents pointed to a 2011/2012 release of the new system.  So it would make sense then that ME1 was available when the new system was released. 

[Louieturkey]

That's how I pay the rent. I need more money for drugs and games.

I heard organs can get you good money.  You only need one kidney after all.

[Chozo Ghost]

That's how I pay the rent. I need more money for drugs and games.

I heard organs can get you good money.  You only need one kidney after all.

Maybe, but isn't it good to have the other one as a backup in case the other one fails? I think we would all live longer if we had two hearts. We only have one, and then when it fails you die instantly. On the other hand, the Kidney is a less critical organ but we have two of them. Why is that?

[Louieturkey]

That's how I pay the rent. I need more money for drugs and games.

I heard organs can get you good money.  You only need one kidney after all.

Maybe, but isn't it good to have the other one as a backup in case the other one fails? I think we would all live longer if we had two hearts. We only have one, and then when it fails you die instantly. On the other hand, the Kidney is a less critical organ but we have two of them. Why is that?

Actually, you can live if you heart stops pumping on its own.  They now have life support systems and if the person is able to get a heart transplant, they can still live longer.  But yes, it's nice to have two kidneys, but people donate one of their kidneys to save other people's lives all the time.

[Chozo Ghost]

I know you can get a transplant and there are machines, but I'm just thinking how weird it is that evolution (or a divine creator if you prefer) set humans up to have two kidneys and so on, but there's only one heart even though the heart is basically the most critical and important organ other than the brain. So the less important organs you get a back up, but the most important one of all you only have one. I just think its weird how that is.

I've read in the Star Trek universe the Klingons have at least two hearts and stuff, and that was because of how they are warriors and always suffering injuries and stuff which makes them more resilient. Star Trek is of course fiction, but this makes sense. Why aren't humans like that? If Darwinism is about the survival of the fittest then having a backup heart is obviously something that would increase the fitness of an organism, so why hasn't this happened? Yet we have two kidneys and two lungs and so forth? Why?

[Stogi]

Any chance Ni No Kuni could be ported from the PS3 to the Wii u? Seems like a perfect console for RPG's.

[broodwars]

Any chance Ni No Kuni could be ported from the PS3 to the Wii u? Seems like a perfect console for RPG's.

"Could it?" I don't see why not.  "Would it?" Probably not.  Post-SNES Nintendo consoles have historically been especially pathetically bad when it comes to RPG support, and I don't see why a game that IIRC didn't sell very well in Japan would be ported to another console for it to fail on.  Frankly, I'm surprised Namco-Bandai is even bothering with an NA version of the PS3 game after how the Japanese version did (only a couple hundred thousand IIRC, which is poor considering how much money had to have gone into the game given the Gibli connection), though I'm glad they are.

[Stogi]

Really....it did that poor? Even the DS version?

[NeoStar9X]

I was honestly interested in Mass Effect 3. I have the first two on the 360 but I don't pay for Xbox Live Gold so continuing with the game there made no sense as the multiplayer is a big part of the 3rd game. I was willing to overlook the price considering it's a launch game, seemingly remasterd, and I was getting a discount from NewEgg. The stunt they pulled has really annoyed me to be hones. EA really is run in a very stupid way. I can understand wanting to have a title they can point to as an excuse to not further support the Wii U but to act like this and sabotage games before the system is even out is crazy.

Third party support was always going to be a gamble. There are some that treat this industry like a business while there are some that do indeed let their personal bias influence their actions in a negative way when it comes to Nintendo. The only thing I can do in response is not be taken advantage of. That means ignoring companies that clearly don't want my money or have any intention of actually earning it. Which is fine for me as it saves me money in the long run.

So going forward I'll just continue my policy of not buying EA games. Which should be easy since they don't want to put them on the Wii U at all or in a full fashion.