30 replies to this topic

[jalio_the_brave]

It's not the fact that the console is underpowered. It has to do with 1 thing:

 

Money

 

And the reason why 3rd party publishers see the Xbox One and PS4 as viable gaming machines is because they can ensure DRM.

 

While this seems so anti-consumerist for that to be the reason for abandoning Nintendo, it makes sense. 

 

If Square Enix's Tomb Raider breaks 3 mil and is considered a failure, there is a showing trend that 3rd party publishers need to make money.

 

And DRM ensures just a few more dollars that they wouldn't have if they didn't support it.

 

Nintendo is not going to implement DRM. It never was really an issue for them, and I don't think it ever will be. That being said, now we see why 3rd parties aren't going to support the system. Because they can't make an easy buck.

 

Sure, Wii U sales need to pick up for a true reason to develop for the console. But studios are going to make excuses as to why they can't develop on Wii U, even if it becomes the best selling console of the generation.

 

Sure, that may entice some publishers to come back. But in the end, they're always going to find a way to skirt around the subject of supporting the system. They'll make the argument that their games aren't going to be able to sell while competing with Nintendo's first party offerings. When in fact they had this GIANT time window to release these games before Nintendo's heavy hitters.

 

On top of that, where are we seeing the majority of the 3rd party support for Nintendo? Eastern Publishers.

 

Western Publishers, on the other hand, seem so engulfed in the corporal and financial aspect of the gaming industry. Western publishers are the biggest proponent of DRM. We see so many cases where the actual development teams working under these publishers had games ready for the Wii U. The fact that EA made CryTek can Crysis 3, or the fact that Rayman was delayed, and that most developers had to come out and apologize to the gamers in some way. Not the publishers, but the developers.

 

I honestly think this trend will prevail until 3rd parties come crashing under their own weight. AAA Games cost way too much to develop nowadays, and eventually they'll have to resort to "crawling back" to Nintendo.

 

DRM and all of this corporate mumbo jumbo going on is going to bite the gaming world as we know it in the butt eventually. Eventually it'll get its act together, but it'll be a long time coming.

 

It's unfortunate for us as Nintendo gamers, but at the same time, it seems to be an inevitable evil in this day and age.

 

Thoughts. Please let me know if I'm just way out on left field here.

[Julio93]

The more Wii U owners the more likely you'll get a multiplat on Wii U, but hearing that chick in the ubisoft press conference that the Wii U is an abandoned system really effects the way people feel about the Wii U, Ubisoft has a ton of money and are willing to put games on all platforms, I don't see them doing that for Wii U next year because of the new consoles.

 

I mean buying a multiplat on Wii U just seems so off, like AC3 for instance, I feel like i'm not getting the same experience or improved on current gen. Exclusive makes it much more easier than just a simple port. Rayman Legends on the otherhand just butchered the crap out of the Wii U version and making the PsVita version the best one.

[Nintyfan86]

It's not the fact that the console is underpowered. It has to do with 1 thing:

 

Money

 

And the reason why 3rd party publishers see the Xbox One and PS4 as viable gaming machines is because they can ensure DRM.

 

While this seems so anti-consumerist for that to be the reason for abandoning Nintendo, it makes sense. 

 

If Square Enix's Tomb Raider breaks 3 mil and is considered a failure, there is a showing trend that 3rd party publishers need to make money.

 

And DRM ensures just a few more dollars that they wouldn't have if they didn't support it.

 

Nintendo is not going to implement DRM. It never was really an issue for them, and I don't think it ever will be. That being said, now we see why 3rd parties aren't going to support the system. Because they can't make an easy buck.

 

Sure, Wii U sales need to pick up for a true reason to develop for the console. But studios are going to make excuses as to why they can't develop on Wii U, even if it becomes the best selling console of the generation.

 

Sure, that may entice some publishers to come back. But in the end, they're always going to find a way to skirt around the subject of supporting the system. They'll make the argument that their games aren't going to be able to sell while competing with Nintendo's first party offerings. When in fact they had this GIANT time window to release these games before Nintendo's heavy hitters.

 

On top of that, where are we seeing the majority of the 3rd party support for Nintendo? Eastern Publishers.

 

Western Publishers, on the other hand, seem so engulfed in the corporal and financial aspect of the gaming industry. Western publishers are the biggest proponent of DRM. We see so many cases where the actual development teams working under these publishers had games ready for the Wii U. The fact that EA made CryTek can Crysis 3, or the fact that Rayman was delayed, and that most developers had to come out and apologize to the gamers in some way. Not the publishers, but the developers.

 

I honestly think this trend will prevail until 3rd parties come crashing under their own weight. AAA Games cost way too much to develop nowadays, and eventually they'll have to resort to "crawling back" to Nintendo.

 

DRM and all of this corporate mumbo jumbo going on is going to bite the gaming world as we know it in the butt eventually. Eventually it'll get its act together, but it'll be a long time coming.

 

It's unfortunate for us as Nintendo gamers, but at the same time, it seems to be an inevitable evil in this day and age.

 

Thoughts. Please let me know if I'm just way out on left field here.

I believe your right on the money  . I have a different angle to explore for discussion:

 

Reggie said, years ago, that this industry cannot survive on a model where the consumer buys software to play with it once or twice. I am paraphrasing, because this was a video interview from around 2005 (I believe).

 

Fast forward to recent times. A big game comes out on Tuesday. Back when I would preorder locally, I would be unfortunate enough to visit Gamestop two weeks straight (I love preordering online now, call me anti social, but I like buying stuff without being asked to buy more stuff). On that second week, I would see several copies of this game, that is only 7 days old, back on the shelf in the used section. Someone traded in their $60 purchase for $30 or so of credit. This is insane for many reasons, but let us ignore the obvious financial ramifications, and focus on the fact that someone got bored with the software in 7 days or less. 

 

I would get bored of the game in this span of time too, but I would shelve it, replay it later, or so on. If it was terrible, I would wait and revisit it later (this was rare, as I would wait for reviews instead of preordering random stuff). 

 

Now, I would not see quality titles back en mass. There would always be a few back, but not the quality games. Mario Galaxy never came back until a good while later (maybe one, two copies at a time in 2008). In other words, Nintendo does not have high used game turnover (in all likelihood, or they would be on board). 

 

However, games with shiny graphics and little depth are always back, for $5 bucks less. Guess what people buy? 

 

Well, as the turnover ratio for used purchases of that title increases, the ROI of that title decreases for the publisher. The solution? Quality over quantity. 1 Madden every 3 years with roster updates. That would not make as much money as DRM. 

 

More Off Topic Discussion Points

 

DRM may backfire. That's right. Little Timmy could take Madden 14 and get credit towards Madden 15. Now he can't. Uh oh. Now Timmy has to mow lawns, beg mommy for money, or go seek gainful employment. If Timmy goes outside to do these things, he might decide something else is worth the money he was going to use on Madden 15, like little Susie, the dog walker in the neighborhood. Alternatively, Big Tom, Timmy's dad, might be so upset that he can't unload his out of date Battlefield 4 game to get Call of Duty 17 (w/ Bomb Sniffing Tuna!), that he decides to use his new Xbox to watch TV. Upon seeing Timmy's interest in Susie, Tom sells the Xbox to a friend. The cycle repeats. 

 

Once that bottom line contracts, the policy will stop. Thoughts?

[Mignaga]

No one buys 3rd party games on Wii U. 

 

It's not anybody's fault but our own. You're over complicating things.

Edited by Mignaga, 11 June 2013 - 09:29 PM.

[jalio_the_brave]

I believe your right on the money . I have a different angle to explore for discussion:

Reggie said, years ago, that this industry cannot survive on a model where the consumer buys software to play with it once or twice. I am paraphrasing, because this was a video interview from around 2005 (I believe).

Fast forward to recent times. A big game comes out on Tuesday. Back when I would preorder locally, I would be unfortunate enough to visit Gamestop two weeks straight (I love preordering online now, call me anti social, but I like buying stuff without being asked to buy more stuff). On that second week, I would see several copies of this game, that is only 7 days old, back on the shelf in the used section. Someone traded in their $60 purchase for $30 or so of credit. This is insane for many reasons, but let us ignore the obvious financial ramifications, and focus on the fact that someone got bored with the software in 7 days or less.

I would get bored of the game in this span of time too, but I would shelve it, replay it later, or so on. If it was terrible, I would wait and revisit it later (this was rare, as I would wait for reviews instead of preordering random stuff).

Now, I would not see quality titles back en mass. There would always be a few back, but not the quality games. Mario Galaxy never came back until a good while later (maybe one, two copies at a time in 2008). In other words, Nintendo does not have high used game turnover (in all likelihood, or they would be on board).

However, games with shiny graphics and little depth are always back, for $5 bucks less. Guess what people buy?

Well, as the turnover ratio for used purchases of that title increases, the ROI of that title decreases for the publisher. The solution? Quality over quantity. 1 Madden every 3 years with roster updates. That would not make as much money as DRM.

More Off Topic Discussion Points

DRM may backfire. That's right. Little Timmy could take Madden 14 and get credit towards Madden 15. Now he can't. Uh oh. Now Timmy has to mow lawns, beg mommy for money, or go seek gainful employment. If Timmy goes outside to do these things, he might decide something else is worth the money he was going to use on Madden 15, like little Susie, the dog walker in the neighborhood. Alternatively, Big Tom, Timmy's dad, might be so upset that he can't unload his out of date Battlefield 4 game to get Call of Duty 17 (w/ Bomb Sniffing Tuna!), that he decides to use his new Xbox to watch TV. Upon seeing Timmy's interest in Susie, Tom sells the Xbox to a friend. The cycle repeats.

Once that bottom line contracts, the policy will stop. Thoughts?

I hope to God it backfires. Everyone in the industry need a smack of common sense.

Make quality games, take risks, and by doing so focus less on making things prettier, but rather on making them fun to play. You lower costs, make money, and will probably have more fun (god forbid) than spending development rescources in making next gen arm hair physics..

[SoldMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

OP is right, it's very sad but true looks like ima need a PS4, I was really convinced by Nintendo that Wii U would be the only console I needed this this gen and I belived them, boy how wrong I was.................

[MorbidGod]

I agree actually. It is possible that's a key factor.

[magiciandude]

No one buys 3rd party games on Wii U. 

 

It's not anybody's fault but our own. You're over complicating things.

How is it our fault when 3rd party developers have been giving us half-*** version of a multiplat game? 

[Alex Wolfers]

Sony doesn't have DRM. The problem is most likely DLC. Sometimes you have to give a whining kid what it wants to keep everyone happy.

[Mignaga]

How is it our fault when 3rd party developers have been giving us half-*** version of a multiplat game? 

 

Really, because the launch of the Wii U had a bunch of great 3rd party games that weren't watered down, but look at what sold. It was Mario, and Nintendo Land. We're lucky we're even getting the watered down versions of games at this point.

[Nintyfan86]

Really, because the launch of the Wii U had a bunch of great 3rd party games that weren't watered down, but look at what sold. It was Mario, and Nintendo Land. We're lucky we're even getting the watered down versions of games at this point.

Well, I am inclined to disagree with late ports running under par or sent to die as being considered great. This was a collective screw up of Nintendo and the third parties. I mean, how do you release Mass Effect 3 on one console, and a trilogy on another?

Anyway, this ties into my point. We, as consumers, are better off buying it elsewhere in that case. However, if they optimize the game, and add well thought out gamepad support, you have a product that stands a chance. A Zombie U over Assassin's Creed.

You keep Zombie U. You trade AC in when 4 comes out (maybe). You want a better option? Support AC with cheaper episodic content every quarter. Guess what can't be traded and now has built in DRM? You could sell the discs as well, but I can assure you most will download, beat, and delete. Why do you think Nintendo is timing the digital release of the SLU game so long before the actual disc hits?


Anyway,quality over quantity, games in a collection over the resell rack. That is the best DRM.

[Mignaga]

Well, I am inclined to disagree with late ports running under par or sent to die as being considered great. This was a collective screw up of Nintendo and the third parties. I mean, how do you release Mass Effect 3 on one console, and a trilogy on another?

Anyway, this ties into my point. We, as consumers, are better off buying it elsewhere in that case. However, if they optimize the game, and add well thought out gamepad support, you have a product that stands a chance. A Zombie U over Assassin's Creed.

You keep Zombie U. You trade AC in when 4 comes out (maybe). You want a better option? Support AC with cheaper episodic content every quarter. Guess what can't be traded and now has built in DRM? You could sell the discs as well, but I can assure you most will download, beat, and delete. Why do you think Nintendo is timing the digital release of the SLU game so long before the actual disc hits?


Anyway,quality over quantity, games in a collection over the resell rack. That is the best DRM.

 

Ok, so you have Mass Effect (which is still a solid version of the game), but name all 3rd party game on Wii U at launch that weren't nearly as good as their 360, or PS3 brethren. I know that I can name more that were equally as solid, or even better than those other versions. Even still, no one bought the games, and as such, 3rd parties are shying away from a console that doesn't sell units of their games. Despite popular belief, publishers aren't out to get Nintendo, or Nintendo gamers, and they'd be more than willing to put their games on the platform, if they sold on there, but they don't, and that's one of the sole deciding factors of why the Wii U is struggling with 3rd parties. If you want to see more 3rd parties on Wii U, start buying them, even if they are the crappier ports, because they're not just going to fall into our laps because we whine about not having them.

 

Also, I'm not talking about DRM at all, and I'm not sure if that was meant for someone else, but I'm not going to respond to that bit.

[ChrisTerror]

OP is right, it's very sad but true looks like ima need a PS4, I was really convinced by Nintendo that Wii U would be the only console I needed this this gen and I belived them, boy how wrong I was.................

 

You sir, are the only other person i have seen on these forums that said exactly how i feel....

[Mitch]

It's not our fault as a consumer, it's Nintendos fault

Nintendo builds Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games

They use their mammoth triple A 1st party games to choke out the 3rd party titles so that they can rake in their own tidy profits

The sick twisted cycle of Nintendo

[AndyG]

Im sure developers have had enough time to get a handle on programming for WiiU.

AC3 is a pretty good example, that game had a long list of problems from frame rate to texture swap between distances but im confident that developers now have a strong enough hold to start properly utilising the system.

In fact i might preorder Watch Dogs but i want to see more footage before doing so just in case.

Im sure developers have had enough time to get a handle on programming for WiiU.

AC3 is a pretty good example, that game had a long list of problems from frame rate to texture swap between distances but im confident that developers now have a strong enough hold to start properly utilising the system.

In fact i might preorder Watch Dogs but i want to see more footage before doing so just in case.

[Nollog]

Third parties "tried" at launch.

They ported year-old games to it.

 

If it was any other console those would sell well.

Just look at the amount of pre-orders for the xbox1, gamers are idiots.

[Eskimo_sam]

look i honestly think its all about the trend .. whats hot whats new whats the best. which is microsony majority rules and unfortunatly nintendo is minority and will continue to be untill they get their heads out of there ass get rid of iwata and get with the program !!!! IM SICK OF SIDE SCROLLERS ITS 2013!!!!!

[Nollog]

look i honestly think its all about the trend .. whats hot whats new whats the best. which is microsony majority rules and unfortunatly nintendo is minority and will continue to be untill they get their heads out of there ass get rid of iwata and get with the program !!!! IM SICK OF SIDE SCROLLERS ITS 2013!!!!!

so your theory is for Nintendo to compete with third parties even more?

[BanjoKazooie]

look i honestly think its all about the trend .. whats hot whats new whats the best. which is microsony majority rules and unfortunatly nintendo is minority and will continue to be untill they get their heads out of there ass get rid of iwata and get with the program !!!! IM SICK OF SIDE SCROLLERS ITS 2013!!!!!

I love sidescrollers it being 2013 has absolutely nothing to do with sidescrollers not being good. They are fun and addicting! People like me are why Ninty keeps making sidescrollers.

[Nintyfan86]

Ok, so you have Mass Effect (which is still a solid version of the game), but name all 3rd party game on Wii U at launch that weren't nearly as good as their 360, or PS3 brethren. I know that I can name more that were equally as solid, or even better than those other versions. Even still, no one bought the games, and as such, 3rd parties are shying away from a console that doesn't sell units of their games. Despite popular belief, publishers aren't out to get Nintendo, or Nintendo gamers, and they'd be more than willing to put their games on the platform, if they sold on there, but they don't, and that's one of the sole deciding factors of why the Wii U is struggling with 3rd parties. If you want to see more 3rd parties on Wii U, start buying them, even if they are the crappier ports, because they're not just going to fall into our laps because we whine about not having them.

 

Also, I'm not talking about DRM at all, and I'm not sure if that was meant for someone else, but I'm not going to respond to that bit.

I agree, third parties are not out to get Nintendo. I do not think that they understand the Nintendo consumer, and I really do not think that Nintendo helps them with this aspect.

 

For example, Microsoft and Sony spend a lot of time creating this market for their hardware that is similar, and third parties really spend the time to understand that market. I do not blame them, as they can develop one game, and get similar  sales from each. However, Nintendo makes hardware for their games, as they are unable to successfully make the Halo's and Uncharted's (their admission). They are also not going to benefit from selling hardware at a loss, as games are the only income stream they have. Microsoft and Sony have several for their hardware.

 

Now, third parties at, at this point, do not have the incentive to put their cut/paste games on the Nintendo machine for 2 reasons:

 

1. The target market for those games wants the better version, which is on the higher powered machine.
2. The remaining component of the market that owns a Nintendo machine is not interested.

So, how do combat this if you are Iwata? You more or less work with third parties to share your philosophy and help them make money, which utilizes your resources for a lower present value than utilizing those resources on the next IP installment (but arguably enhance the hardware's value), or you compromise with a solution that helps you and them (gamepad over wii motes).

 

Now back to launch ports:

 

The titles launched within a reasonable time frame are the only ones that can be judged under the circumstances. It is not far, after 6-7 years of HD competitors, to presume the market will accept a port, with nothing of value added, for full price, of a game released a year ago. It is also unreasonable to expect people to buy things they do not like in order to gain more third party support. In short, this is Nintendo's mess, and they need to fix it.

 

I look forward to your response on this, and yes, the DRM comments were meant as a follow up on the other post. I apologize for including them in that response, yet I did not want 15 people screaming at me for double posting, LOL.