55 replies to this topic

[Goose]

Errrrrrr unfortunatly in a few years when Devs start using up all 8GB of RAM on the PS4 Wii U probably will fall behind, heck even the Xbox One might start falling behind with it's slower RAM and it's Operating System using up 3GB of it, unfortunatly if you have be brutaly honest I really don't think Wii U was very well futureproofed

I think the Wii U is built for 5-6 years of use, while the other next gen systems are built with 10 years of use in mind. Iwata said the next Nintendo home console and handheld will be essentially the same, so games can be released on both. We'll probably see a new Nintendo console and handheld halfway through this gen that's comparable to the PS4. 

[MorbidGod]

Crytek explains word for word why they dropped support for the Wii U...

http://www.gamespot....-to-die-6404763

 

Read that quote.

Your Source:

 

"We did have Crysis 3 running on the Wii U," Yerli said. "We were very close to launching it. But there was a lack of business support between Nintendo and EA on that. Since we as a company couldn’t launch on the Wii U ourselves--we don’t have a publishing license--Crysis 3 on Wii U had to die."

 

They were very close to launching it. But there was a lack of a business support between these companies. So EA, even though they spent all the money to port CryENGINE 3 to the Wii U, even though they all ready made the game and were "close" to being completely done, they choose to say .. "Oh, well guys ... you know ... we aren't going to let you release that game." They would have made MORE money on that game -- a GAME THAT didn't even sell well on other consoles BTW -- but instead they decided to LOOSE money and cut their looses.

 

This wasn't a choice led by money. They wouldn't have had to spend more money marketing the game. All it is slapping a logo on it. It doesn't cost much to release game, at least in looking at how much it costs to actually make the game.

 

So yes, I don't care what EA says. If Nintendo sells more units, they aren't going to magically release games and make games. There are more problems there then we know and sometimes care to speculate on. I'd say it is a mix of, EA games in general don't usually sell well on Nintendo platforms, EA being in trouble for money (letting people go), a bad business deal that went south for some reason (which hurt them -- they would have made a LOT of money from Nintendo being a client of Origin), and sells of the Wii U. Yes, that is a factor, but isn't the ONLY factor.

[EvilMoogle]

Read that quote.

Your Source:

 

 

They were very close to launching it. But there was a lack of a business support between these companies. So EA, even though they spent all the money to port CryENGINE 3 to the Wii U, even though they all ready made the game and were "close" to being completely done, they choose to say .. "Oh, well guys ... you know ... we aren't going to let you release that game." They would have made MORE money on that game -- a GAME THAT didn't even sell well on other consoles BTW -- but instead they decided to LOOSE money and cut their looses.

 

This wasn't a choice led by money. They wouldn't have had to spend more money marketing the game. All it is slapping a logo on it. It doesn't cost much to release game, at least in looking at how much it costs to actually make the game.

 

So yes, I don't care what EA says. If Nintendo sells more units, they aren't going to magically release games and make games. There are more problems there then we know and sometimes care to speculate on. I'd say it is a mix of, EA games in general don't usually sell well on Nintendo platforms, EA being in trouble for money (letting people go), a bad business deal that went south for some reason (which hurt them -- they would have made a LOT of money from Nintendo being a client of Origin), and sells of the Wii U. Yes, that is a factor, but isn't the ONLY factor.

 

It was a wise decision by EA because as we all know the console isn't selling so much so why would EA release Crysis 3 on a console that isn't selling? You say the game didn't sell that well on other consoles... I am confused why would they release it on the Wii U if it didn't sell that well on other consoles? 

I personally wouldn't have purchased Crysis 3 if it was released on the Wii U. I am a huge fan of FPS games and I honestly have never had an interest in that game. I've played the first Crysis on my friend's high-end PC a few years ago and it was boring. I don't know anyone that bought Crysis 3 for the Xbox 360 or the PS3 and that's probably because the game wasn't that good.

http://www.metacriti...ame/pc/crysis-3
 

Everything EA does is in the best interest of profits. Until Nintendo sells more Wii U units you cannot say EA wouldn't be interested in making games.

I already posted this before.

http://www.techradar...atform--1159381

 

"EA's labels president Frank Gibeau said the Wii U must become a viable platform for EA to jump back in and the current strategy to avoid the Wii U like some sort of medieval plague is just a 'rational' business decision."

 

Look on the bright side, they'll come back eventually if the Wii U sells more. If not, it's not the end of the world for the Wii U but there is no point in pointing fingers at EA for Nintendo's mistakes. 

Edited by EvilMoogle, 21 June 2013 - 08:43 PM.

[MorbidGod]

It was a wise decision by EA because as we all know the console isn't selling so much so why would EA release Crysis 3 on a console that isn't selling? You say the game didn't sell that well on other consoles... I am confused why would they release it on the Wii U if it didn't sell that well on other consoles? 

I personally wouldn't have purchased Crysis 3 if it was released on the Wii U. I am a huge fan of FPS games and I honestly have never had an interest in that game. I've played the first Crysis on my friend's high-end PC a few years ago and it was boring. I don't know anyone that bought Crysis 3 for the Xbox 360 or the PS3 and that's probably because the game wasn't that good.

http://www.metacriti...ame/pc/crysis-3
 

Everything EA does is in the best interest of profits. Until Nintendo sells more Wii U units you cannot say EA wouldn't be interested in making games.

I already posted this before.

http://www.techradar...atform--1159381

 

"EA's labels president Frank Gibeau said the Wii U must become a viable platform for EA to jump back in and the current strategy to avoid the Wii U like some sort of medieval plague is just a 'rational' business decision."

 

Look on the bright side, they'll come back eventually if the Wii U sells more. If not, it's not the end of the world for the Wii U but there is no point in pointing fingers at EA for Nintendo's mistakes. 

 

 

If they didn't think that the Wii U was a viable platform, they shouldn't have started, and continued development until the very end. Selling just 300k games they would have made 15 million dollars off the Wii U version. The worst selling game EA has on the Wii U -- Need for Speed: Most Wanted -- sold 300k. I am absolutely sure Crisis 3 WOULD have sold AT LEAST that much. I would have bought it. I know others would have too.

 

Now, let me ask you. How much have they made off Crisis 3 on Wii U thus far? How many units have they sold? They all ready spent the money developing. Millions of dollars. The hours and paychecks paying those developers to make a game that never was released. That was pretty much finished. They have sold zero units. How much money is that making? 0 times 50 dollars per game?

 

Why is it a SMART business choice to waste money? Even if they just sold 20k games -- which I doubt it would have sold that bad -- they would have made one million dollars. That would have covered the release of the game. They wouldn't loose anything releasing they game.

 

But you know how much money they made off the Wii U version of the game? ZERO dollars. That's not good business.

[EvilMoogle]

If they didn't think that the Wii U was a viable platform, they shouldn't have started, and continued development until the very end. Selling just 300k games they would have made 15 million dollars off the Wii U version. The worst selling game EA has on the Wii U -- Need for Speed: Most Wanted -- sold 300k. I am absolutely sure Crisis 3 WOULD have sold AT LEAST that much. I would have bought it. I know others would have too.

 

Now, let me ask you. How much have they made off Crisis 3 on Wii U thus far? How many units have they sold? They all ready spent the money developing. Millions of dollars. The hours and paychecks paying those developers to make a game that never was released. That was pretty much finished. They have sold zero units. How much money is that making? 0 times 50 dollars per game?

 

Why is it a SMART business choice to waste money? Even if they just sold 20k games -- which I doubt it would have sold that bad -- they would have made one million dollars. That would have covered the release of the game. They wouldn't loose anything releasing they game.

 

But you know how much money they made off the Wii U version of the game? ZERO dollars. That's not good business.

 

At one point they thought the Wii U was a viable platform, but they stopped development because the direction of the Wii U changed direction.  Need for Speed: Most Wanted is a completely different game. You can't just put all EA games in one basket and just assume they will sell. You cannot be "absolutely sure" because you are not EA.

 

Crysis 3 was not being developed for the Wii U from the ground up. The amount of money they spent porting Crysis 3 to the Wii U is something only EA knows but it cannot be nearly as much as you think it cost.

 

Losses are a part of business, they are inevitable. Sometimes ideas need to be scrapped. This is very normal in business. 

 

http://www.shacknews...lopment-stopped
 

http://en.wikipedia....tarCraft:_Ghost

 

http://wow.joystiq.c...ard-speaks-out/

 

 

I'm too lazy to find more articles but those get my point across just fine. It happens. 

 

Edited by EvilMoogle, 21 June 2013 - 10:11 PM.

[SoldMyWiiU]

[MorbidGod]

 

 

At one point they thought the Wii U was a viable platform, but they stopped development because the direction of the Wii U changed direction.  Need for Speed: Most Wanted is a completely different game. You can't just put all EA games in one basket and just assume they will sell. You cannot be "absolutely sure" because you are not EA.

 

Crysis 3 was not being developed for the Wii U from the ground up. The amount of money they spent porting Crysis 3 to the Wii U is something only EA knows but it cannot be nearly as much as you think it cost.

 

Losses are a part of business, they are inevitable. Sometimes ideas need to be scrapped. This is very normal in business. 

 

http://www.shacknews...lopment-stopped
 

http://en.wikipedia....tarCraft:_Ghost

 

http://wow.joystiq.c...ard-speaks-out/

 

 

I'm too lazy to find more articles but those get my point across just fine. It happens. 

 

 

 

The point here is simple. They were almost done. Even if they only spent 500,000 to make the game, they could have easily made that up. Even if it doesn't cost as much as I think -- which is millions of dollars at the least -- then it doesn't make sense still. 20k games would have made up the 500k of development costs. And they would have made a profit, too (off that specific version). And to say it was cancelled because the Wii U was doing bad -- the game was cancelled either in Dec 2012 or Jan 2012, at the latest, and the Wii U started to do bad in Jan 2013. I say that because the Wii U version was ALMOST done, and the games were set to release in Feb (announced in March that the game "had to die"). And it's possible that almost finished means Nov 2012 -- which the Wii U was doing very well at launch. So, again, Wii U sells has very little to do with why Crisis 3 wasn't released on the Wii U. Crisis 3 poor sales EA couldn't have known before Feb 2013. The game wasn't released. So they didn't have the hindsight you and I have now.

 

It just doesn't make sense -- especially since they still released Need for Speed: Most Wanted in March 2013 -- that they would stop the development of Crisis 3 when it was almost done. That they wouldn't just release it. It just doesn't make sense. If they stopped development and didn't release Crisis 3 just because of bad sales of Wii U, then why not stop development and not release Need For Speed: Most Wanted?

 

And again, I am assuming here almost done means one or two months of being done. If almost done means 3 or four months -- THE WII U WASN'T doing bad then. So why cancel development because of good sells?

 

So, yes, this doesn't have to do with Wii U not selling well. At least not ONLY. If the Wii U starts to sell better, EA won't magically support Wii U. The only way they will is if the other factors -- whatever they might be -- become less of a factor. If EA starts to do better business, starts making money instead of loosing money, then expect better things from the company and probably more support. If not, and the other factors (I have my guess of what those are, but no one but EA knows the real reason) aren't factors any more -- then yes, of course EA will start making games for Nintendo. It's a business, if they feel they can make money on that platform, then they will try it. Assuming they think they can make money and that they can afford to try it. Again, I have before shown EA doesn't do well on any Nintendo platform, with hardly any game selling a million or more, and there is quote of someone at EA basically saying that is a reason for EA to halt development for the Wii U.

 

So to repeat myself one more time -- Wii U Poor Sales is not the only reason for EA to have cancelled Crisis 3 and other choices they have made regarding Wii U. There are other reasons. I don't think it's Bias -- I have never said that. I do think, however, there is a lot we don't know. A company hurting for money can't afford a business deal to go south. Especially if that deal meant them making a lot of money. That, in combination of EA past history on Nintendo consoles, Wii U poor sales post Jan 2013, and any other factor we simply don't know -- all point to low support form EA.

[Distractionwolf]

To reuter something I said in another post, I think there are two important factors regarding third party support. We all know the install base will grow. Everyone on this forum knows with some more Mario stuff and a Zelda, wii u will get its install base. I find it difficult to believe that if we know this stuff, a bunch of gamers in a forum, that people who get paid 6 figures to know it don't.

 

I think the reason the usual suspects don't release as frequently for Nintendo consoles is the same factor that sells Nintendo consoles in the first place. Third parties can't compete with first party Nintendo software. People, lots of people, buy Nintendo hardware for Nintendo software. The night before going out to get our wii u dreams of plumbers and gorillas, of space mercenaries and adventurer's with green tunics danced through our heads. These games cost about 60 bucks each, most people can only afford X number of games. Because so many of us buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo software if we have just 60 bucks in our pockets and are stuck with a choice between Mario and Crysis 3, most wii u owners will pick Mario. "Not me!" Says you. But be that as it may, for most Nintendo gamers that is the case.

 

And to me there isn't anything wrong with that. I miss the 16 bit days when there was an actual difference between consoles and 90% of the library wasn't multiplatform. The main reason the wii was my favorite console is because it was original and unique in its library offerings. Which is my other thing with the 3rd party argument. Its kind of BS. Wii didn't lack 3rd party support it had tons of good 3rd party games, more than anyone here has ever played I'm quite sure. They just didn't get the exact same regurgitated crap as Microsoft and Sony. They got unique stuff instead. Not that there wasn't gems on the other consoles I love my elder scrolls but really, in my eyes having a DIFFERENT library is an asset to Nintendo not a liability. I think most of the time, we Nintendo owners who come to these forums complain about nothing. I have to specify because wii u owners who don't visit forums are probably not complaining.

[MorbidGod]

To reuter something I said in another post, I think there are two important factors regarding third party support. We all know the install base will grow. Everyone on this forum knows with some more Mario stuff and a Zelda, wii u will get its install base. I find it difficult to believe that if we know this stuff, a bunch of gamers in a forum, that people who get paid 6 figures to know it don't.

I think the reason the usual suspects don't release as frequently for Nintendo consoles is the same factor that sells Nintendo consoles in the first place. Third parties can't compete with first party Nintendo software. People, lots of people, buy Nintendo hardware for Nintendo software. The night before going out to get our wii u dreams of plumbers and gorillas, of space mercenaries and adventurer's with green tunics danced through our heads. These games cost about 60 bucks each, most people can only afford X number of games. Because so many of us buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo software if we have just 60 bucks in our pockets and are stuck with a choice between Mario and Crysis 3, most wii u owners will pick Mario. "Not me!" Says you. But be that as it may, for most Nintendo gamers that is the case.

And to me there isn't anything wrong with that. I miss the 16 bit days when there was an actual difference between consoles and 90% of the library wasn't multiplatform. The main reason the wii was my favorite console is because it was original and unique in its library offerings. Which is my other thing with the 3rd party argument. Its kind of BS. Wii didn't lack 3rd party support it had tons of good 3rd party games, more than anyone here has ever played I'm quite sure. They just didn't get the exact same regurgitated crap as Microsoft and Sony. They got unique stuff instead. Not that there wasn't gems on the other consoles I love my elder scrolls but really, in my eyes having a DIFFERENT library is an asset to Nintendo not a liability. I think most of the time, we Nintendo owners who come to these forums complain about nothing. I have to specify because wii u owners who don't visit forums are probably not complaining.

Exactly.

[EvilMoogle]

The point here is simple. They were almost done. Even if they only spent 500,000 to make the game, they could have easily made that up. Even if it doesn't cost as much as I think -- which is millions of dollars at the least -- then it doesn't make sense still. 20k games would have made up the 500k of development costs. And they would have made a profit, too (off that specific version). And to say it was cancelled because the Wii U was doing bad -- the game was cancelled either in Dec 2012 or Jan 2012, at the latest, and the Wii U started to do bad in Jan 2013. I say that because the Wii U version was ALMOST done, and the games were set to release in Feb (announced in March that the game "had to die"). And it's possible that almost finished means Nov 2012 -- which the Wii U was doing very well at launch. So, again, Wii U sells has very little to do with why Crisis 3 wasn't released on the Wii U. Crisis 3 poor sales EA couldn't have known before Feb 2013. The game wasn't released. So they didn't have the hindsight you and I have now.

 

It just doesn't make sense -- especially since they still released Need for Speed: Most Wanted in March 2013 -- that they would stop the development of Crisis 3 when it was almost done. That they wouldn't just release it. It just doesn't make sense. If they stopped development and didn't release Crisis 3 just because of bad sales of Wii U, then why not stop development and not release Need For Speed: Most Wanted?

 

And again, I am assuming here almost done means one or two months of being done. If almost done means 3 or four months -- THE WII U WASN'T doing bad then. So why cancel development because of good sells?

 

So, yes, this doesn't have to do with Wii U not selling well. At least not ONLY. If the Wii U starts to sell better, EA won't magically support Wii U. The only way they will is if the other factors -- whatever they might be -- become less of a factor. If EA starts to do better business, starts making money instead of loosing money, then expect better things from the company and probably more support. If not, and the other factors (I have my guess of what those are, but no one but EA knows the real reason) aren't factors any more -- then yes, of course EA will start making games for Nintendo. It's a business, if they feel they can make money on that platform, then they will try it. Assuming they think they can make money and that they can afford to try it. Again, I have before shown EA doesn't do well on any Nintendo platform, with hardly any game selling a million or more, and there is quote of someone at EA basically saying that is a reason for EA to halt development for the Wii U.

 

So to repeat myself one more time -- Wii U Poor Sales is not the only reason for EA to have cancelled Crisis 3 and other choices they have made regarding Wii U. There are other reasons. I don't think it's Bias -- I have never said that. I do think, however, there is a lot we don't know. A company hurting for money can't afford a business deal to go south. Especially if that deal meant them making a lot of money. That, in combination of EA past history on Nintendo consoles, Wii U poor sales post Jan 2013, and any other factor we simply don't know -- all point to low support form EA.

 

EA wanted to run Origin on the Wii U, and Nintendo respectfully declined. The result is most likely what you are talking about. However, it doesn't help that Nintendo had no spine to begin with when launching the Wii U. If they had sold more consoles they would have a back-bone for 3rd party support and EA as sour as they are about Nintendo refusing to use Origin would have to release 3rd party titles because everyone else is doing it. So, I agree that poor Wii U sales aren't the only reason for the Crysis 3 cancellation but Nintendo could have easily secured their console by having a single good Nintendo exclusive like Bayonetta 2, Super Mario 3D World, Super Smash Bros., or X at launch. 

Honestly I don't understand why Nintendo would launch a console without an exclusive that really gets people thinking "I need to buy a Wii U for that amazing game." 

 

If the Wii U version of Rayman Legends, Watch Dogs, Black Flag, and Blacklist sell well we can expect to see more support from Ubisoft at least and in return other companies will maybe be interested. But, here is what I predict will happen as mentioned in a previous post by Distractionwolf "Third parties can't compete with first party Nintendo software" if people don't go out and buy these games it is very likely that the Wii U is going to turn into a secondary console once again. The lack of EA support isn't really a big deal. Let's not forget the lack of Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, GTA V on the Wii U. That is what really disappointed me. Why does everyone only think of EA when they think of a lack of 3rd party support for the Wii U? I'm not saying EA aren't the bad guys to an extent, but all I am trying to get across is that there a lot of other companies not supporting the Wii U and pointing fingers at just EA is rather silly. That is just one company, a very bad company for that matter that isn't exactly doing so well these days. 

Where is Blizzard's Diablo 3 for the Wii U? It's coming to Xbox One and PS4. Where is Bungie's Destiny for the Wii U? Square Enix's FFXV? Bethesda Softworks's Elder Scrolls Online for the Wii U? Warframe a F2P MMO shooter for the PC is coming to the PS4 that is a great free to play title from Digital Extremes that is not coming to the Wii U. Kingdom Hearts 3 can't come to the Wii U because of a pathetic DirectX 11 excuse? FFXIV: A Realm Reborn isn't coming to the Wii U which is silly because it can run on a PS3 and is coming out for the PS4 as well. What's their excuse for that? 

EA is not the only company that is not supporting the Wii U. That is my point. So unless all of these companies have some sort of secret alliance with each other to destroy the Wii U it is very unlikely that EA is solely trying to stab Nintendo in the back when they're just simply following the trend. Which leads me to think Nintendo is the problem. The world ain't all sunshines and rainbows and if I were Nintendo I would only blame myself which is what the CEO Iwata has officially said. Something went wrong in the marketing and development of the Wii U. Should they have created the GamePad? It seems they cannot do anything interesting with it so it makes you wonder why they even bothered with it instead of a building a traditional console like the PS4 and Xbox One? Should they have named a brand new console the Wii with a U slapped on the end which seemed like simply a revision of the Wii much like DS Lite, DSi, DSi XL, and 3DS.
 

The combination of Nintendo's mistakes is what lead to the lack of 3rd party support. Crysis 3 would have changed nothing, the game is old. Why would anyone buy it for the Wii U? I seriously think you are giving Crysis 3 for the Wii U far too much credit when in reality the game would have flopped horribly because it's been out on the 360, PS3 and PC for a while. Maybe you would have bought it, I don't know why you would though. There is no information on the Crysis 3 version even having Wii U features. They only said they had Crysis 3 up and running on the Wii U. For all we know they had no GamePad features implemented at all, just a bare-bone out-dated port with nothing extra special. Someone posted a video above about a guy ranting about pointless multi-plat ports to the Wii U charged at full price, lack of DLC, and no additional features. He bluntly says nobody will buy that. Would you really buy Crysis 3 for $60 with probably no DLC or additional features? 

Edited by EvilMoogle, 22 June 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[MorbidGod]

EA wanted to run Origin on the Wii U, and Nintendo respectfully declined. The result is most likely what you are talking about. However, it doesn't help that Nintendo had no spine to begin with when launching the Wii U. If they had sold more consoles they would have a back-bone for 3rd party support and EA as sour as they are about Nintendo refusing to use Origin would have to release 3rd party titles because everyone else is doing it. So, I agree that poor Wii U sales aren't the only reason for the Crysis 3 cancellation but Nintendo could have easily secured their console by having a single good Nintendo exclusive like Bayonetta 2, Super Mario 3D World, Super Smash Bros., or X at launch.

Honestly I don't understand why Nintendo would launch a console without an exclusive that really gets people thinking "I need to buy a Wii U for that amazing game."

If the Wii U version of Rayman Legends, Watch Dogs, Black Flag, and Blacklist sell well we can expect to see more support from Ubisoft at least and in return other companies will maybe be interested. But, here is what I predict will happen as mentioned in a previous post by Distractionwolf "Third parties can't compete with first party Nintendo software" if people don't go out and buy these games it is very likely that the Wii U is going to turn into a secondary console once again. The lack of EA support isn't really a big deal. Let's not forget the lack of Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, GTA V on the Wii U. That is what really disappointed me. Why does everyone only think of EA when they think of a lack of 3rd party support for the Wii U? I'm not saying EA aren't the bad guys to an extent, but all I am trying to get across is that there a lot of other companies not supporting the Wii U and pointing fingers at just EA is rather silly. That is just one company, a very bad company for that matter that isn't exactly doing so well these days.

Where is Blizzard's Diablo 3 for the Wii U? It's coming to Xbox One and PS4. Where is Bungie's Destiny for the Wii U? Square Enix's FFXV? Bethesda Softworks's Elder Scrolls Online for the Wii U? Warframe a F2P MMO shooter for the PC is coming to the PS4 that is a great free to play title from Digital Extremes that is not coming to the Wii U. Kingdom Hearts 3 can't come to the Wii U because of a pathetic DirectX 11 excuse? FFXIV: A Realm Reborn isn't coming to the Wii U which is silly because it can run on a PS3 and is coming out for the PS4 as well. What's their excuse for that?

EA is not the only company that is not supporting the Wii U. That is my point. So unless all of these companies have some sort of secret alliance with each other to destroy the Wii U it is very unlikely that EA is solely trying to stab Nintendo in the back when they're just simply following the trend. Which leads me to think Nintendo is the problem. The world ain't all sunshines and rainbows and if I were Nintendo I would only blame myself which is what the CEO Iwata has officially said. Something went wrong in the marketing and development of the Wii U. Should they have created the GamePad? It seems they cannot do anything interesting with it so it makes you wonder why they even bothered with it instead of a building a traditional console like the PS4 and Xbox One? Should they have named a brand new console the Wii with a U slapped on the end which seemed like simply a revision of the Wii much like DS Lite, DSi, DSi XL, and 3DS.

The combination of Nintendo's mistakes is what lead to the lack of 3rd party support. Crysis 3 would have changed nothing, the game is old. Why would anyone buy it for the Wii U? I seriously think you are giving Crysis 3 for the Wii U far too much credit when in reality the game would have flopped horribly because it's been out on the 360, PS3 and PC for a while. Maybe you would have bought it, I don't know why you would though. There is no information on the Crysis 3 version even having Wii U features. They only said they had Crysis 3 up and running on the Wii U. For all we know they had no GamePad features implemented at all, just a bare-bone out-dated port with nothing extra special. Someone posted a video above about a guy ranting about pointless multi-plat ports to the Wii U charged at full price, lack of DLC, and no additional features. He bluntly says nobody will buy that. Would you really buy Crysis 3 for $60 with probably no DLC or additional features?

I would have. I've never had DLC before, so I don't care. But anyway, I agree Nintendo should of had had exclusives (there own games) like they are going to this week. They made many mistakes, and some of those are causing issues with third parties.

In the case of EA, there are just many different reasons.

[Rockodoodle]

I see what you are saying- the launch didn't go well.... I got mine April and I have plenty of games to keep me busy.  By the end of the year, there will be more games than I can afford to buy- hell even now you can say that to an extent, given that I still want Zombie U, Injustice.  Donkey Kong, Mario 3D, Olympics, Mario Kart and others.... I'm please with my purchase and have my plate full with Trine, Zen Pinball, Madden, Monster Hunter, Batman Armored Edition, Nintendoland, Nano Assault and Mario Bros.....Come Christmas, there will be a far more compelling library for potential customers.

 

 

 

Why would 3rd parties develop for a console that simply isn't selling? Put yourself in the developer's shoes for just one minute and stop with the insane conspiracies. 

This fear of a console not selling at launch is exactly why Microsoft did a complete reversal of their Xbox One's policies for used games, DRM, and always online. Developers and consumers were already running to Sony because of all the doom and gloom surrounding the Xbox One. 

In this day and age you cannot have afford to have a poor launch. Nintendo messed up, seriously people this is coming from the words of the CEO himself.

 

http://www.nbcnews.c...ales-6C10378098

 

Poor marketing, poor name choice, lack of games at launch, and I think the Basic was a terrible idea and should have never been made to begin with. 

 

With all of this said, I still bought a Wii U just to play Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate. Once games like Sonic, X, DK, Mario 3D World, Smash Bros., Mario Kart 8, Pikman 3, Bayonetta 2 come out we should see more Wii U sales assuming these games are actually really good.

We still have games like Watchdogs, Assassins Creed: Black Flag, and Splinter Cell Blacklist coming to the Wii U which is a clear sign that at least the Wii U can run some great-looking games. 

 

tl;dr This is a Nintendo problem, and it is Nintendo's fault alone. They have nobody but themselves to blame for the lack of 3rd party support and poor sales. And last time I checked Activision's Black Ops 2 is on the Wii U and EA would like to return to the Wii U. 

http://www.techradar...atform--1159381

[EvilMoogle]

I see what you are saying- the launch didn't go well.... I got mine April and I have plenty of games to keep me busy.  By the end of the year, there will be more games than I can afford to buy- hell even now you can say that to an extent, given that I still want Zombie U, Injustice.  Donkey Kong, Mario 3D, Olympics, Mario Kart and others.... I'm please with my purchase and have my plate full with Trine, Zen Pinball, Madden, Monster Hunter, Batman Armored Edition, Nintendoland, Nano Assault and Mario Bros.....Come Christmas, there will be a far more compelling library for potential customers.

 

I bought mine about a month ago and I'm very happy with it. I don't think the launch was terrible, or else I wouldn't have bought one. I am on the same boat as you, there is actually a lot of games on the Wii U that I would like to still buy. 

[Super_Kami_Guru]

I sort of disagree here. I really think it's because of the lack of advertising they have done for this console. There has been one advertisement I think this whole time, and I don't remember them even playing it now. They should be demonstrating the potential of the Wii U like the "Wii would like to play" commercials. 

[Distractionwolf]

Valid point. I don't think I've seen any commercials personally. But then again I don't really watch normal TV, just Netflix and youtube. But even still, haven't run across a wii u commercial on youtube despite watching Classic Game Room, Jontron, and a few other video game shows. Not even for software. I thought for a second "wait didn't I run into a trailer for Game and Wario?" But nope. I WATCHED a trailer for game and wario on the wii u eshop by searching for it. I had to ask Nintendo to advertise to me XD

 

Also I'm with evilmoogle. I currently own Arkham City, Mario U, and Injustice. My biggest problem is NOT that there is a lack of third party support. My problem is I haven't finished the main story for Arkham yet (though its my second plat through, first on the wii u), or beaten Mario U, I beat Injustice's main story on its first night but it calls to me obsessively everyday, yet I am lusting after Zomie U and Pikmin 3 is right around the corner! I have had my wii u less than a month, I'm playing constantly and I'm back logged. If I want more 3rd party games out its only to support the consoles growth not my own library, I have it made in the shade myself.

Edited by Distractionwolf, 23 June 2013 - 03:33 AM.

[MorbidGod]

They should be advertising more. They had advertisements when the Wii U first came out. It all kinda stopped around December though, around the time the sales stopped too ... Hmmm

[ThePopiPenguin]

The Devs are just scared that their "fans" (so called hard-core gamers) will bash them for making a game for a "kiddie" console. 

[Gamejunkie]

I disagree, they're not biased. EA, Activision ect. They all are hesitant due to lack of sales in the system. Nintendo hasn't convinced anyone to buy a Wii U in the past 8 months. It's the 1st parties job to garner up people. Once there is a larger user base(like EA said) then they will bring games. Plus, some types of games just don't sell well on Nintendo systems due to Nintendo's casual group that includes family and children. Not many hardcore gamers user Wii U as their main console, so are they going to buy Watch Dogs on PS4? Or Wii U? Obviously PS4.

Agreed. Its got absolutely nothing to do with bias or hate.

[Rockodoodle]

While I get that there are adult/graphic/mature titles out there, for the most part, aren't games a rather immature endeavor?  

 

That's what I love about Nintendo- their games make me feel like a kid again.

 

 

The Devs are just scared that their "fans" (so called hard-core gamers) will bash them for making a game for a "kiddie" console. 

[3Dude]

It was a wise decision by EA because as we all know the console isn't selling so much so why would EA release Crysis 3 on a console that isn't selling? You say the game didn't sell that well on other consoles... I am confused why would they release it on the Wii U if it didn't sell that well on other consoles? 

I personally wouldn't have purchased Crysis 3 if it was released on the Wii U. I am a huge fan of FPS games and I honestly have never had an interest in that game. I've played the first Crysis on my friend's high-end PC a few years ago and it was boring. I don't know anyone that bought Crysis 3 for the Xbox 360 or the PS3 and that's probably because the game wasn't that good.

http://www.metacriti...ame/pc/crysis-3
 
Everything EA does is in the best interest of profits. Until Nintendo sells more Wii U units you cannot say EA wouldn't be interested in making games.
I already posted this before.

http://www.techradar...atform--1159381
 
"EA's labels president Frank Gibeau said the Wii U must become a viable platform for EA to jump back in and the current strategy to avoid the Wii U like some sort of medieval plague is just a 'rational' business decision."
 
Look on the bright side, they'll come back eventually if the Wii U sells more. If not, it's not the end of the world for the Wii U but there is no point in pointing fingers at EA for Nintendo's mistakes. 

Well, because they already spent the money by that point in time. The game was pretty much finished.

If it had sold 1 copy it would have saved them more money than canceling a finished product.