Topic: The WiiU debacle: Is Nintendo or publishers to blame.

[Mannypon]

It has gotten so bad that I'm actually contemplating whether or not publishers just want Nintendo out of the console race entirely.  If you think about it, of course they would want a Sony and MS world since that's what they are currently living in.  Everything will be streamlined to be developed for PC and the PSbone since they are all somewhat similar.  3rd parties always complain that they never get any success on Nintendo's hardware so maybe they have just given up supporting it entirely.  Now the discussion of who's to blame for 3rd parties woes on Nintendo hardware is something best left for another thread but particularly with the WiiU, I think 3rd parties are to blame.  Very few provided any support upon release or after.  Ubisoft is the only company that put up a decent effort, everyone else released old "updates" or nothing at all.  Some (EA and now SquareEnix) have gone and even sabotaged their own releases (Mass Effect 3 announced for WiiU and a trilogy for all others soon after, Dues Ex no longer WiiU exclusive) 
 
I think its the market's focus on AAA release that has hurt Nintendo and 3rd parties on their hardware.  Publishers seem to only be looking at AAA releases to which is too risky on Nintendo platforms, especially on one just released with a small install base.  I don't see how these publishers can't from small groups to make A or AA games on a smaller budget and release them on the WiiU.  There are absolutely no games coming out so if anything with any kind of effort was released, people might just go and buy it.  People did buy a WiiU to play it, so give them things to play.  They can even use these smaller budget releases to introduce new IPs at a lower risk.  If they catch on and become established then there they go, they have themselves a new franchise.  I honestly thought the Japanese developers would be at least giving the WiiU a shot as they often don't put out AAA games yet I don't see anything.
 
Something more than bad WiiU sales must be going on with these publishers and Nintendo.  Games coming out now are games that should've been green lit around 2 years ago at the minimum.  At that time, Nintendo was coming off the Wii which sold well and no one had any idea the WiiU would be struggling this bad at this point so what excuse did they have back then to not get something in development. 
 
3rd parties always complain that their games don't sell well against Nintendo's but at the moment, they have no competition what so ever from Nintendo software as Nintendo isn't releasing much.  This is the time for 3rd parties to make their money, not later on when every Nintendo fan has picked up the WiiU specifically for Nintendo's games.  The market by then will only be for Nintendo games.  I've always had a belief that Nintendo hardware is sold to Nintendo fanboys who only game Nintendo and hardcore gamers who love Nintendo games but also have one, if not more, (or a PC) of the competitors systems.  With this setting, the Nintendo fanboys won't purchase non Nintendo games and the hardcore gamers will more than likely pick up multiplatform releases on the other guys systems as apposed to their WiiU. 
 
How the hell can Nintendo fix that?  Nintendo can only do so much, can only control themselves and they are struggling with that as it is.
 
Honestly, to answer my own thread title, I think Nintendo has spread themselves too thin between supporting the 3ds and the WiiU which it seems they have underestimated the difficulty of transitioning to the HD generation.  Nintendo should get the brunt of the blame as this is their system and they should've had their situation on lock but 3rd party publishers have no one to blame but themselves. 

For all you Game of Thrones fans, this situation reminds me of the Red Wedding and Nintendo is Robb Stark.  Nintendo is in a vulnerable position and the publishers seem to be looking to take advantage of it in a negative way.  You can even say EA are the Lannisters.   

[Nemo]

Here's my theory...

2 years ago (or whenever), Nintendo approached publishers, developers, etc. and said "Hey, we're making a new system that'll be just as powerful as the PS3 and 360, but with no install base. How would you feel about making games for this system?" Nintendo probably held console specific features close to the chest, like the controller for as long as possible.

Most developers probably said "Oh. Ummm... good luck."

[cubist]

A debacle? It's a little early, don't you think?

[Mannypon]

Well I consider the mass exodus of 3rd party support for the WiiU (even by Nintendo's standards in regards to their history with 3rd parties) to be a debacle. 
 
As for that approach, even if it were true, why wouldn't 3rd parties stay the course and support it like the other twins?  I don't think anything would've been any different had Nintendo released a system that was up to the PS4 in specs, I still believe they would've been shunned.  I think the situation would be even worse if that was the case as the system would've been even more expensive thus even less sales than what we have now.
 
With the Wii, the excuse was that it was too weak and the architecture was too different.  The WiiU comes out, and its still different architectural wise but now is strong enough to run the twins games and (I like to think, next gen games if properly speced down and effort put forth) and yet it still isn't getting the games.  So obviously it isn't about the power of the system.  Publishers just don't really want to have much to do with Nintendo, moreso now than ever before. 

[lolmonade]

They're both to blame.

Nintendo's to blame for not only trading too often on established gameplay experiences from their cash cow franchises only to dilute their brands, but failing to make a compelling case for the Wii U Gamepad other than off-TV Play.

3rd party developers are to blame because they set themselves up for failure by sending gimped versions of their products to the Wii U to die, and then using that as justification as to why they shouldn't bother developing anything for the system. 

That being said, as someone who watched all the E3 conferences, it seems like the AAA developers mostly want to move-on to the PS4/Xbox One, and I couldn't help but feel like the Wii U game lineup (mostly) looks terribly antiquated already when lined-up with Sony & Microsoft's offerings.  That doesn't bode well for 3rd party support on the Wii U, especially when developers stop supporting the PS3/Xbox 360.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Is it that time to rehash this argument.  Both are obviously to blame. 

Nintendo has long had really restrictive practices with third parties and higher fees related to licensing.  Nintendo was able to make it work because until the N64, they owned the gaming market and third parties were lining up to make games for their system.  During the N64 and Gamecube eras, they held onto those practices because Nintendo games sold Nintendo consoles and they didn't feel they needed third parties. 

They loosened the practice during the Wii period, but gamers that were interested in big third party games at picked up the other systems because of features like HD and traditional controls.  So third party games suffered on the Wii. Now with the Wii U Nintendo has architecture that is not like a PC which means there will be more effort to port games and the install base is so low that publishers don't think they can recover the cost of porting games to the Wii U so they avoid it. 

That's pretty much where Nintendo failed.  Publishers believe it or not would like 1 system to bring games to.  It would be lower cost and they wouldn't have to worry about missing a portion of potential buyers on systems that they don't have the resources to.  Publishers have a bad taste in their mouths from previous periods and don't really have a problem avoiding Nintendo consoles if there is any reason to not make a Nintendo game.  They have also been guilty of "trying out" games on Nintendo systems that have no chance of doing well.  I remember Rockstar bringing Manhunt 2 to the Gamecube as a if this does well, maybe GTA will come over.  Manhunt 2 was an awful game and panned universally in reviews.  I get GTA is a mature game, but Manhunt 2 was over the top violence and turns off a lot of hardcore gamers not in their teens. 

So there we are.  Nintendo gave publishers a reason to move on and they did.  Japanese don't admit mistakes and Nintendo still focuses on Japanese developers.  I really think if Nintendo would apologize to Western developers and try to work with them on some projects they would come around to supporting the Wii U.  Chances of that happening are pretty low though. 

[Adrock]

Nintendo shouldn't be in as deep of a hole they're in, with many of their biggest titles slated for 2014. They should be in better shape even without help from third parties so they're not even pulling their weight entirely. Nintendo needs help from third parties to broaden the library and attract potential buyers to improve sales. Third parties want sales to improve before supporting Nintendo. It's going to have to start somewhere. It's both their fault.

If third parties want Nintendo to bend over backwards the way Sony and Microsoft do, they're out of their goddamn minds. It's a silly requirement. Console manufacturers have to shoulder losses to provide more powerful hardware so third parties can push better looking games in order to sell them? And they're still not meeting their goals after selling millions? What the **** is that?

Some of their excuses definitely need to be tempered. Don't tell me that I, as a Nintendo fan, only buy Nintendo games when you are providing me no alternatives. All the people who grew up on N64 and GCN are adults now. We can buy our own games and I can't pay you for something that doesn't exist. Pitching me your scraps (a game that came out months ago on other consoles) is not cutting it. Of course those are going to sell poorly.

What can Nintendo do? They've made many significant improvements in recent years though admittedly, they shouldn't have taken so long. They can stand to embrace good ideas other companies come up with. For example, the fact that Wii U doesn't have a hard disc drive even though Nintendo recommends it over the type of memory they included in the system is mind-bogglingly absurd.

It's not really important who's to blame. Rather who's going to fix it? Really, it has to be both sides coming together for the benefit of each other.

[smallsharkbigbite]

As for that approach, even if it were true, why wouldn't 3rd parties stay the course and support it like the other twins?  I don't think anything would've been any different had Nintendo released a system that was up to the PS4 in specs, I still believe they would've been shunned.  I think the situation would be even worse if that was the case as the system would've been even more expensive thus even less sales than what we have now.
 
With the Wii, the excuse was that it was too weak and the architecture was too different.  The WiiU comes out, and its still different architectural wise but now is strong enough to run the twins games and (I like to think, next gen games if properly speced down and effort put forth) and yet it still isn't getting the games.  So obviously it isn't about the power of the system.  Publishers just don't really want to have much to do with Nintendo, moreso now than ever before.

I think the problem is that there hasn't been any compelling third party games on a Nintendo system for a long time.  If you like GTA, you have a PS3 or Xbox 360 and are probably going to buy a PS4 or Xbox 1 next generation.  So the publisher won't feel like they aren't losing anything by not putting it on the Wii U.  The gaming market has also expanded dramatically.  The PS2, Gamecube, Xbox era sold something like 190 million consoles.  This last generation has sold something like 250 million and the PS3 and Xbox 360 are still selling.  Most people that like big third party games have at least 2 consoles.  Does a Wii U version of GTA 5 gain you any significant sales?  Or does it just take sales from the PS4/Xbox 1 for people that would prefer it on the Wii U?

You also have to remember that Sony and Microsoft have often used moneyhats to secure timed exclusives or exclusive content.  Publishers expect the same from Nintendo and they won't play that game.  Call it a bribe, whatever, but if Nintendo wants content it'll probably cost them something. 

[Mannypon]

I totally agree with what everyone is saying as they all have truth in them.  I always see Nintendo's console as the buddy console to accompany either a gaming PC or Sony/MS's console.  This in turn will always hurt multiplatform releases which is why I think publishers should look to release some original smaller budget titles on the WiiU.  Not everything has to have a sky high budget.  Not everything has to look amazing.  A good game will always be a good game regardless of how it looks.  If indie publishers can make solid games with their budgets why can't a small studio make something between an indie project and a AAA project.  I almost get the feel like there is no middle ground anymore.  Its all indie releases and massive projects.  I'm sure publishers should be able to at least break even on a game of that stature. 
 
Also, where the hell are the Japanese developers?  This E3 has come and gone and I feel as if I can't remember anything major from Japan outside of MGSV and FFXV.  Are they doing anything over there or are their games so low key that they aren't getting any press or buzz.  The WiiU should be the stomping grounds for these smaller Japanese developers but I think Nintendo's success with the 3ds is hurting them on the WiiU front in their homeland. 

[Spak-Spang]

I don't think that is it exactly. 

I think 3rd parties are lazy...and have only so many resources.  Honestly, developers probably only had real specifics about the Wii U a year before launch.  The specs just kept on changing.  I am sure the publishers knew of the new controller, but may not have had any clue how well it would work or such. 

When the developers learned about the system, they already had there best teams working on projects.  Rather than delay projects and split team resources, they just decided to outsource old game development to cheaper smaller outsourced developers.  This would not have been a problem if they did original work doing this, or games that were releasing at the same time. 

Now, there is a drought of games, but it is to be expected when development of new games takes so long.  The only problem is 3rd parties had to make a decision put resources on the Wii U which has different architecture than the other systems....or focus on the new PS4 and Microsoft system. 

There will be some developers that see the "blood in the water" and leave the Wii U die peacefully.  Other developers will see this as an opportunity to make a quick buck by releasing anything on the system.  Ubisoft with the Wii comes to mind. 

Personally, I think it is still too early to see.  There are some good games coming out.  The problem is are they more compelling to play on the Wii U or just the Xbox 360 or PS3?   

[Mannypon]

Your last sentence is something I too want to keep an eye out for.  Now that the WiiU has been out for a good year, developers have had more time to learn the system's ins and outs, and the kits have matured since pre release, I really want to see how multiplatform games stack up to the PS360 versions and the PSBone versions.  I'm specifically looking at Watchdogs, Dues Ex, Ass Creed, Batman, and Splinter Cell.  I really hope serious effort was put into those games to make them stand out compared to the current gen version and at least resemble a bit of the other next gen version. 

[Khushrenada]

Well, so many people seem gung-ho about Sony now and getting a PS4 and are anti-Microsoft. Although I think part of that is because "hardcore" gamers were suddenly really worried that Sony would follow Microsoft's lead and clamp down on used games and require constant online prescence suddenly leaving Nintendo as the only company not following such policies and they couldn't live in such a world where Nintendo is the hardcore option so they are very happy they can avoid Nintendo and buy Sony instead.

Still, if the prevailing attitude holds, that means Sony would be number one this generation with Nintendo 2nd and MS a distant 3rd. I think in this case, developers would eventually have to start bringing some of these games to Nintendo because the prevailing consensus is that Microsoft is going to have an incredibly low userbase and everyone is writing them off. But people wrote off the PS3 and somehow that thing rebounded in the last few years although that might be because of the long console cycle we went through.

Anyways, ignoring possible userbase changes, if the Microsoft userbase is very low, then porting a game to Microsoft may not be worth it for developers anymore unless it is as easy as they claim or they may do it with the lockdown on used games since it probably seems a great way to keep from losing much profit on that system but if sales aren't there to help them break even or profit which didn't happen often last gen when they ported games to the two systems, then either the PS userbase will be so great to just keep it an exclusive or they'll have to try the Nintendo option that is much closer to the current graphic capabilities than last gen.

There was a lot of contraction in the games industry last gen and development costs are high. I think as long as Nintendo can stay close in the race or capture a large second percent, they may eventually get these titles more out of desperation by developers because they can't afford to keep ignoring the userbase than out of any sensible business plan on their part. If they revert back to GC marketshare, then this will be a debacle. If they can stay way ahead of Microsoft, they may be able to start seeing some relief in that regard. Of course, having that software already in the first place would help allieviate some of that pressure and provide less incentive for anyone to buy an Xbox or maybe even PS4. But they can't seem to ever get that benefit.

[azeke]

Publishers believe it or not would like 1 system to bring games to.  It would be lower cost and they wouldn't have to worry about missing a portion of potential buyers on systems that they don't have the resources to.

If that was their intention they dun goofed big time. Now so many of them have at the very least FOUR platforms (360, xbone, ps3, ps4) to target with three different architectures between them. Job well done, you made your life easier all right. That's if we don't count Wii U and PC, and quite a number of big games are also coming to either or even both of these platforms too.

[Mannypon]

Well Nintendo already has a leg up on Xbone in that MS's systems never really do well in Japan.  Nintendo will just have to beat them out in Europe and US, a tall order but maybe it's possible if MS holds true to these new demands and consumers aren't the suckers we think them to be. 

[Evan_B]

I swear, I post so infrequently on this board because all it is, is Nintendo doom and gloom.

[SixthAngel]

Terrible title but I'll reply.

Something more than bad WiiU sales must be going on with these publishers and Nintendo.  Games coming out now are games that should've been green lit around 2 years ago at the minimum.  At that time, Nintendo was coming off the Wii which sold well and no one had any idea the WiiU would be struggling this bad at this point so what excuse did they have back then to not get something in development.

This is the important point.

Games coming out for the next couple of years will have been greenlit before the consoles launched. Any lack of support has nothing to do with actual sales. Prelaunch momentum on developing titles is why PS3 got a lot of games.

This is about the business model of the big companies. They rely on their size and ability to put out high end graphics to draw in players. Developers dying from expenses is actually a positive for EA/Activision because they can use their financial muscle to simply push out or absorb the competition. Nintendo's whole philosophy and weaker hardware goes against what these companies want and how they do business. It isn't a coincidence that the two best ways to show graphics (fps and cinematic) are the big games they push out.

Despite the doom and gloom however, the U is still getting the biggest new 3rd party ip of the year, Watchdogs.

[Mannypon]

Sorry for the brash title, looking back at it, I can see how its a bit exaggerated but it helps in getting people into the thread lol.
 
I will have to disagree with Evan B's claim that this sight is all doom and gloom.  I think this site is fairly level headed for being a strictly Nintendo site.  We do have our resident grump in Ian as far as I know but he always brings positive points just in a slightly negative slant lol.  We all love Ian though, no hate here.  Even me with this thread, I know things aren't looking good at the moment but I do not share Ian's view that the WiiU will be in the discount bin this time next year.  I think once the heavy hitters start to come out, it'll pick up steam.  It won't be selling gangbusters but it'll do well enough I believe.  Once there is a healthier landscape for developers, they'll come around and by coming around, I don't expect PS4Bone support. 
 
Doom and Gloom is better suited for Neogaf for the most part lol. 

[Kytim89]

Several questions: First, can Microsoft cut the price of the XBone to $399.99 to match the price of the PS4 and still make a profit? There is no way that people will pay five hundred dollars with locked out used games and mandatory online systems. Secondly, if there is a fift dollar price difference between the PS4 and Wii U then this must imply that the PS4 is not that much more advanced than the Wii U and thus is easier to port between the two systems? Lastly, what influence would a Wii U price cut have towards its rivals?

[Mannypon]

Let me take a jab at your questions.

1.  Ignorance will sell the Xbone through its first year or 2 I think.  People won't be the wiser.  Gamers will know better but the masses will follow the labels.  I've seen posts on Facebook on how amazing the Xbone is from my dudebro friends, smh.

2.  From what I've read on Neogaf, I think the PS4 is a good bit stronger than the WiiU.  Either Sony is losing money at that price, Nintendo is making money on theirs, or other things are shifting the price such as the Gamepad.  Porting is a bit different simply by the fact that they share somewhat different architectures.  They are similar in that their GPU's are built to do the grunt of the work and the CPUs have taken a backseat (from what I've read, don't quote me).

3.  I think Nintendo will do a price cut near the launch of the other systems but I don't really see it having any affect as supply will be limited for the other 2 and the fanboys will probably pick them all up day one.  Also, I think Sony and MS are eyeing each other as competition and have accepted Nintendo will be there regardless as the buddy system since they are often doing their own thing.  I don't really think they look at Nintendo as a direct threat, especially with how things have gone for the WiiU so far. 

[pokepal148]

the issue of third parties comes down to an old proverb:
you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink from it.

[Kytim89]

Every console that has been released first and is cheapest to develop for is usually the most successful of its generation. Are there any exceptions?

[Oblivion]

The Nintendo Wii was released last out of the three systems. The SNES was released after the Genesis. The Wii U is definitely not going to win this round.

[azeke]

Every console that has been released first and is cheapest to develop for is usually the most successful of its generation. Are there any exceptions?

Wut.
PS2 was notoriously hard to develop for and had little to no documentation. It took some studios many months to simply boot up the devkit not speaking of actually developing.
First Xbox had tremendous documentation and support from the biggest software giant.
Gamecube was also easier to develop on than on PS2.
Overall ease of development have little to no effect on actual market. Once platform becomes popular you as a developer simply have no choice and WILL bend backwards and sideways if needs to be put your games on that platform.

[Traveller]

I don't get it. Nintendo should of been going hard after a port of KH3 and Metal Gear V. Plus all of the big games that are still coming to 360 and PS3.. Wii U could run these games easily.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Publishers believe it or not would like 1 system to bring games to.  It would be lower cost and they wouldn't have to worry about missing a portion of potential buyers on systems that they don't have the resources to.

If that was their intention they dun goofed big time. Now so many of them have at the very least FOUR platforms (360, xbone, ps3, ps4) to target with three different architectures between them. Job well done, you made your life easier all right. That's if we don't count Wii U and PC, and quite a number of big games are also coming to either or even both of these platforms too.

The PS3/360 are temporary support platforms until he new systems get their legs.  They also have a great deal of tools available at this point in their lives to make porting really easy.  PS4, Xbox 1, and PC have a very similar architecture and should be easier to port between the three of them.

There may never be a single console, and publishers will do what they feel makes them the most money.  They probably prefer something like the PS2 generation if they can't get a unified system.  In the PS2 generation the thought process was this.  1.  Make a PS2 game since they own the market.  2.  Let MS buy the game for xbox guaranteeing a profit.  3.  Release niche game on the Gamecube where it's not going to be lost in the volumes of PS2 games. 

That's the benefit the Wii U has.  They'll get some great games that publishers are worried about stacking against GTA, Battlefield, Mass Effect , COD, Uncharted, etc.  They just aren't going to get typically what are considered big guns. 

Well, so many people seem gung-ho about Sony now and getting a PS4 and are anti-Microsoft. Although I think part of that is because "hardcore" gamers were suddenly really worried that Sony would follow Microsoft's lead and clamp down on used games and require constant online prescence suddenly leaving Nintendo as the only company not following such policies and they couldn't live in such a world where Nintendo is the hardcore option so they are very happy they can avoid Nintendo and buy Sony instead.

I think that is mainly this site.  My buddy who has a PS3 and no Microsoft consoles is very excited about the Xbox 1.  He said they are using 300,000 servers this gen vs. 15,000 servers for the 360.  He said that Microsoft is likely to force developers to use dedicated servers and that the online experience will rock.  He was willling to overlook the negatives for this.  And looking at various online forums alot of people are excited about the games Microsoft showed.  I think it still could turn into a fight between Sony and Microsoft.  M$ also has the money to take significant losses to push consumers to this model if they don't jump in.