Topic: Wii U - e3 is over... now what?

[gbuell]

Interesting to say that Apple doesn't care about gaming, since all their advertising for the iPod Touch touts it as an amazing gaming device and they have multiple game demos onstage at every new iOS device event. However, I do agree that they won't be at E3 themselves, just because they never go to conferences or trade shows that they don't control anymore. They don't even go to Macworld anymore.

[shingi_70]

There hasn't been an Alan Wake 2 yet (Nightmare is not a sequel, per the developer themselves), so how can there be an Alan Wake 3?

And Smart Glass has been **** on by most people, and rightfully so.

I meant two but it still will be the third game in the series.


And why rightfully so. For what I use smart glass for (a remote and 2nd screen for my xbox) it works perfectly and similar to having an apple TV with an ios device.


That and Microsoft is going to pay to makes sure it has developer support.

[TJ Spyke]

If you have to pay developers to support your devices, that is a sign it is not popular among them. It's like the PSP.

[shingi_70]

If you have to pay developers to support your devices, that is a sign it is not popular among them. It's like the PSP.

That's not a sign of that at all. Its called supporting an emerging platform and getting an edge.
Kinect is popular but Microsoft still has been paying developers to add in Kinect voice and motion support. Why because developers need incentive to raise already high development costs for something that will only benefit one platform.
Android is very popular and the galaxy line of phones sell tens of millions of units yet, Samsung had to pay flipboard and have it as a timed exclusive on the galaxy S 3. Not because android was unpopular but brecuase flipboard is a small group of people who run into time and money constraints when adding a new platform.

Comparing smart glass as a platform to the PSP is misguided as best
Seeing as it has been downloaded up to a million+ times between ios/android. (Not counting windows phone/8 numbers).
I personally think move would be doing a bit better as a product if there would have been incentives given for developers to input it until games like call of duty. Sony obviously isn't in a post ion where they could do this but that's how the game works. You either incentive the developers/business to get them onto your platform more quickly (Google has grown Google+ this way) or you buy them put right (Google buying sparrow or twitter buying tweet deck)

[TJ Spyke]

If you can't get support for your platform without having to bribe developers to do so, then that is a sign you don't have faith in it and that you are worried it will fail otherwise.

[shingi_70]

How do you figure that. Its pretty much the opposite where if you care about getting your platform noticed by consumer eyes your going to do anything you can too.

As a developer even if you wanted ton support a platform wouldn't you be glad that a bigger company is going to help subsidize development of the product.

Were seeing this now happen all over the tech industry. Multiple companiess (Microsoft,Netflix, and amazon) are now investing in production studios and paying to get content on to their platforms. Netlfix is paying for arrested development season 4 and its going to be exclusive to netlfix. The same with the AMC show the killing it was being cancelled but netflux stopped in and said for exclusive rights we will pay for the next season to air on AMC.

That shows that they as a company are interested in staying competitive. It also makes me want to keep my Netflix sub instead of looking at competiting services.
Or take a look at the upcoming blackberry 10 launch. They have been aggressive in courting companies to develop for their platform having a ton of incentives and outright paying where they need to. That shows they understand that to compete in a market dominated with two giants (ios and android) and where someone else is rapidly gaining market share to be the third ecosystem pillar (windows phone) they can't sit on their laurels and hope for developers to jump on.

They tried to do that once and instead and developers never jumped on because without having the giants which help gain people onto your platform (your is could be amazing) then the smaller 5 team guys like flipboard or pocket will join.
And that's all ignoring the fact that a big part of the games industry in the big three bank rolling exclusive content.

[TJ Spyke]

It just reeks of desperation if a developer was not gonna support your platform until you paid them to do it. It's like bribing a girl to go out with you when she otherwise would not have done it.

[shingi_70]

It just reeks of desperation if a developer was not gonna support your platform until you paid them to do it. It's like bribing a girl to go out with you when she otherwise would not have done it.

But if the developer doesn't have the money or man power tpd o of than how is giving them it desperate.

I mean this is a pretty common practice in the industry.


Also in terms of something like Kinect or smart glass it comes down too budget. Even if they want to add in Kinect features it adds to the budget and might not be worth it top make one SKU better than the other two. That's where Microsoft comes in and says we will pay for development and marketing in exchange for you to add that feature. Its a win-win on both sides.


If it were truly desperate then these tactics wouldn't be used join the first place were they.


As a content holder your supposed to make your platform attractive by any means you can, if you sit around wondering if your going to look desperate you end up like skny and rim on the cusp of desperation anyway.

[TJ Spyke]

It's not common at all. There have been plenty of games where the developer had no on intention of porting it until the console maker paid them to do it.

You don't see a successful console  manufacturer having to bribe developers to release a game for them. It's one thing to finance a game through publishing it, it's another to have to pay them just to make the game for your system.

[broodwars]

It's not common at all. There have been plenty of games where the developer had no on intention of porting it until the console maker paid them to do it.

You don't see a successful console  manufacturer having to bribe developers to release a game for them. It's one thing to finance a game through publishing it, it's another to have to pay them just to make the game for your system.

*points to the Wii U and then points to Bayonetta 2 (and the other Platinum Wii U games).*

So then, does that mean Nintendo was desperate? That the Wii U was doomed to be an unsuccessful console?  Does Microsoft and Sony continually paying developers for exclusive DLC make them "desperate" when the game was already destined to sell well on their consoles anyway?

Console manufacturers used to pay developers to make games for their platforms all the time, though it's less common now that the major platforms have common infrastructure (making ports inevitable anyway). It's a calculated business move to try to open up new markets.  Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but it doesn't make the platform holder "desperate".

[TJ Spyke]

Not about failure to read: "It's one thing to finance a game through publishing it". Bayonetta 2 would not exist it Nintendo wasn't publishing it. It's not Nintendo having to bribe Sega to make a Wii U version of the game.

[ymeegod]

? WTF?

Nintendo is just like anybody else and they approached multiple developers with cash or other "bribes" in hand.  Trine 2, Batman, Mass Effect, Ninja Gaiden, ect all appeared on the WII U because Nintendo themselves approached the publisher/developer.

Exclusive rights don't came cheap (monster hunter 4 must have costed a pretty penny but in ensured the failure of the Vita so it's going be worth it).

[tendoboy1984]

*points to the Wii U and then points to Bayonetta 2 (and the other Platinum Wii U games).*

So then, does that mean Nintendo was desperate? That the Wii U was doomed to be an unsuccessful console? 

In the eyes of the analysts... yes.

[Adrock]

Christian Svensson from Capcom recently said, "With regard to WiiU, in general we’re looking forward, not back so late ports are generally not on the table."

Wii U Daily is saying this rules out Resident Evil 6, Dragon's Dogma, DmC: Devil May Cry, and Street Fighter X Tekken, but they may be reading too far into it. Monster Hunter Tri is not only older than all of those games, but it was already ported to 3DS before being ported to Wii U. There's your "in general" right there. Could mean just MH3, could mean more games, like the ones Wii U Daily reported. Who knows? And just because Capcom doesn't handle the ports themselves doesn't mean the ports don't exist. So... What does Svensson's quote really tell us? Not a whole hell of a lot considering. Keep in mind that Resident Evil: Revelaitons director Koshi Nakanshi said a few months ago that the Wii U GamePad would let his team "create a very unique and fun Resident Evil game" and "there are lots of things [he would] like to try on it." No ports, but what about original titles? More sound bites that could mean something or nothing.

Point being, don't let these quotes scare/excite you. I still believe with the current state of the industry that it would be foolish for many 3rd parties to pass on porting their major titles to Wii U given how easy it apparently is to do so.

[shingi_70]

When I saw that quote the first thing I thought was monster hunter Tron Ultimate is a port of a 3ds which is a port of a Wii title.

[TJ Spyke]

Monster Hunter will sell millions in Japan, those other titles listed will never crack 1 million in Japan. That is the big difference.

[NWR_insanolord]

There's also a decent chance Nintendo is paying them to put Monster Hunter on Wii U, which I doubt would be the case for those other games.

[Adrock]

Wouldn't those other games help Nintendo more everywhere else in the world?

[NWR_insanolord]

Nintendo doesn't care about the doing well rest of the world anywhere near as much as they care about doing well in Japan.

[shingi_70]

Why would Nintendo put priority to Japan a country where the console market is rapidly shrinking in favor of a portable market instead of catering to america/Europe where the console/set top box market is expected to be the place where the next big eco system battle will take place.

Seems like the type of mistake that could kill Nintendo who should be trying to build up its brand and ecosystem before the next generation of Xbox/apples TV/Google TV hit the market.

[tendoboy1984]

Christian Svensson from Capcom recently said, "With regard to WiiU, in general we’re looking forward, not back so late ports are generally not on the table."

What he means by that comment is this:


Capcom will support the Wii U with more original titles going forward (including new multiplatform games), instead of porting old Xbox 360/PS3 games to the system.

[NWR_insanolord]

Why would Nintendo put priority to Japan a country where the console market is rapidly shrinking in favor of a portable market instead of catering to america/Europe where the console/set top box market is expected to be the place where the next big eco system battle will take place.

Seems like the type of mistake that could kill Nintendo who should be trying to build up its brand and ecosystem before the next generation of Xbox/apples TV/Google TV hit the market.

I'm not saying it makes sense, just that that's what's going on. Western markets have never been a priority for Nintendo; they want them, for sure, but not at the expense of any perceived advantage in Japan.

[tendoboy1984]

Why would Nintendo put priority to Japan a country where the console market is rapidly shrinking in favor of a portable market instead of catering to america/Europe where the console/set top box market is expected to be the place where the next big eco system battle will take place.

Seems like the type of mistake that could kill Nintendo who should be trying to build up its brand and ecosystem before the next generation of Xbox/apples TV/Google TV hit the market.

Because Nintendo is a Japanese company, and their cultural mindset doesn't understand the Western gaming market.


Sony is also Japanese, but their Western branches have plenty of input when it comes to making games and designing hardware. Nintendo doesn't give their regional branches that same freedom.

[shingi_70]

I understand why Nintendo still carters to mostly Japan but I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. If

I do agree that NOA and NOE being mostly figurehead organizations. I think that Nintendo should loosen the regions habit and let noa and noe do more when it comes to development.

I am expecting Nintendo to get some sort of a wake up call when they see woo fit U which is arguably there biggest title do way below expectations.

[ShyGuy]

So if Capcom plans support moving forward, what do they have announced
on the horizon?

Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate (Wii U)

Lost Planet 3 (360,PS3,PC)

Devil May Cry (360, PS3)

Remember Me (360, PS3, PC)

Dark Stalker Resurrection (360, PS3)

Monster Hunter 4 (3DS)

Ace Attorney 5 (3DS)

Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen (360, PS3)

Which ones of those is it likely for the Wii U to get a version?