Topic: Watch_Dogs for all systems

I'm willing to bet the screenshots aren't from the Wii U version

Well if they don't want money from my Steam wallet that's fine by me. Just means I have more money to spend on other games. Maybe I'll just not add any extra funds for a bit and instead spend that money on another Wii U game. Like Captain Toad. You know, something that actually runs at 60fps

While I agree with that it isn't really how the business is working currently. If a company's game isn't selling well on 1 system but selling well on the other 2 then they will just stop supporting that 1 system. By them not making money on Wii U but making money with Microsoft and Sony (I say it like this because the 360 and PS3 are still being supported) then instead of changing things to try to make money in 1/3rd the market they will just keep pushing the other 2/3rds of the market until they make profit. So if the consumer wants the games those companies are making then the consumer needs to show those companies they can make money on the other 1/3rd the market. If Wii U owners don't want more 3rd Party support then don't support them. Destiny and Watch_Dogs have shown that owners of Xbox One, PS4, Xbox 360, and PS3 will support a company even when they make a mediocre title (according to reviews) and as a result those platforms become the primary target (or only target) of those companies. Wii U owners claim they will only buy the best games but when Nintendo makes a mediocre game we buy it (New Super Mario Bros. U as much as I enjoy this game it is only mediocre) Why? Companies tried to cut corners to make profit on Wii U (removing features like Multiplayer or not continuing to put money twards QA and development for DLC) but it didn't help, the Wii U audience left them to fail. But then people complain that they still want 3rd Party games. Why is this? You can tell me all you want that the ports weren't of good quality and that is why you didn't support them but that doesn't matter to the businesses. If they aren't making money in the Wii U market then they aren't going to support it. If you think of the Wii U market from a business side (not development or consumer side) then a lot of choices make sense. The developers don't get to choose platforms very often, the publishers and business people do. But people will point out all the reasons why I am wrong and we shouldn't support 3rd Party attempts to make profit on Wii U because they aren't willing to take a loss. I wish ports were better too but I wish more that 3rd Party support was better on Wii U. My friends would all be buying Wii Us if it had 3rd Party support but they can't justify buying a system for 1 game (Bayonetta 2, cause they already have a 3DS and don't need 2 versions of Smash) So Whatever. I might get Watch_Dogs as long as I feel they are delivering a good experience, which the multiplayer (going into other people's single-player game) was the main reason I was interested in this game anyways.

Sorry for the wall of text.

@DefHalen
Ya, and I totally agree that people should be supporting the GOOD 3rd party games, but a lot of what is out there wasn't good enough, and that's the 3rd parties' fault. I've probably said this a million times, but I would have bought Madden for Wii U. The "gimpness" of that game made me decide NOT to purchase that game. If the quality is sub-par, people have a reason not to buy those games, and it's impossible to blame those people by saying they should have bought them, anyway.

Ubisoft putting Watch Dogs on Wii U is a total non-issue. They know most of the people who cared probably already bought it, it's late, it might be missing features, etc. That tells me that Ubisoft doesn't care how well it does. They are releasing Watch Dogs, just because. Watch Dogs on Wii U isn't a "buy or else" sort of deal by looking at the way they have treated it, which is what people are saying is the reason Wii U is lacking support.

Also, there is no doubt in my mind that 3rd parties are refraining from putting games on Wii U, because they are failing to understand the hardware. Releasing Wii U ports that are identical to 7th gen versions makes Nintendo and 3rd parties look bad, because it means 3rd parties don't understand the hardware, and it makes Nintendo look like they released a "weak" machine. They were more capable of releasing games on Wii U when only 7th gen Xbox and PS were around, because there was nothing better anyway, and I think that is why Watch Dogs is being released on Wii U, in the first place.

3rd parties haven't put nearly as much effort into Wii U as they have other 8th gen consoles, so sub-par performance should have been expected, unless they are delusional, and I stand by that.

Serious tl;dr, though I got through half of it before giving up.

Anyways, the difference between Watch Dogs and New SMB is bigger than you say it is. For a start on metacritic it has a score that's 4-7% less depending on what platform it was on and that's without counting the Wii U/PS3/360 versions. Secondly New SMB U didn't come with a wave of insane hype, it did what it said on the tin and did it decently. Watch Dogs was marketed as the next GTA and fell well short. And lets not ignore the fact that New SMB U was both a launch title and part of a fair chunk of Wii U bundles.

As for the "my friends won't buy a console for one game". Well that's the case for all new platforms not just the Wii U. Going by metacritic there are more 90%+ and 85%+ games on Wii U than XBOne and PS4 combined ATM. And I'm not going to bother counting but by just by eyeing the list it looks like the same is true for 80%+ games. But people are more than happy to buy those platforms so clearly they'll jump on a platform before it has "more than one game worth getting".

@SCAR392
@skywake

I agree with both your points. My point was more towards there are many different ways to view the subject and some people get too caught up in their view without looking at other perspectives

NSMB.U was also released when there were the fewest games available; AKA, launch. Anybody who actually cared about Wii U would have bought more than just NSMB.U.

At launch, I bought NSMB.U, ZombiU, CoD Black Ops II, Nano Assault Neo, and Mighty Switch Force HD Edition. During launch, I buy whatever I can, because there are no reviews and why would I buy a console unless I want games, right? I ended up buying Sonic Racing snd Tekken, too, because they weren't nearly as gimped as Madden and FIFA or that shovelware game that showed up(30 Party Games). So ya, @skywake is right; if only having one game to buy the console for isn't enough, then people would have refrained from buying PS4 or Xbox One, because there wasn't much to choose there, either, and most of what is coming out is the yearly releases; just like 7th gen. If you consider that CoD Ghosts was still on Wii U, and basically no one knew what the game would look like on Wii U, until they bought it and put it in their console, then people were biased in the first place, which is why people were more critical on Wii U.

The people who have bought Xbox One or PS4 already, were going to do so, regardless of what Nintendo will do or did.

Well the PS4 has more games announced that my friends care about than the Wii U which they (for some reason aren't excited for Zelda or Xenoblade) only want Bayonetta 2. My friends seem more interested in Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts... why am I friends with these people lol jk

I really do want 3rd parties to succeed on the Wii U, but efforts like this are clearly unacceptable. Late, lazy, and overpriced. I think the worst offender is still EA with Mass Effect 3 though. $60 for Mass Effect 3 on Wii U or $50 for all three games bundled together on PS3/XB360. What a joke.

As far as I'm concerned, Ubisoft can sit in syrup and let the bees get them. Much like EA.

I support 3rd parties that support me.

@DefHalen
That's part of the confusion, though. If your friends care about Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts, then why buy PS4 over Xbox One? There has to be more reason than 3rd party support if you're deciding between Xbox One and PS4, because of those shared games. I like Xbox One's exclusives, online, and Kinect more, so those are my reasons for having it over PS4, but buying a console for 3rd party support ultimately isn't a good enough reason with multiple machines running the same games.

@renaryuugufan92
You can't blame fans, regardless. As I mentioned earlier, consumers ultimately have the say in what they buy, which means you can't blame them. They are trying to sell US stuff. You are right that developers are having a harder time supporting Wii U, in terms of hardware, but that doesn't mean Wii U is incapable, either, which is a conclusion many people had. If developers didn't have enough time to port games, that issue goes further back, and shouldn't effect future support for consumer sake. They still released the game, and not everyone bought the games. If everyone understands why 3rd parties are struggling, and consumers won't support the end product, then that would mean they haven't done anything worthwhile for anyone yet. If no one holds blame, then that includes Nintendo. For all we know, Nintendo might of thought that 3rd parties would have enough time to get launch ports out. That could easily be a factor, too, so it doesn't make sense why anyone would point the finger at anyone.
Crysis 3 doesn't even have anything to do with the support, To my understanding, the game was already running on Wii U. EA decided not to release it. Those are all internal issues, because if EA is their publisher, they should have known it was being worked on in the first place. EA refused to release a game that not only lacked prior entries on Wii U, but they had no knowledge about it. It was never in EA's(the publisher) plans to begin with.

At the end of the day, you can't blame consumers, period. Whether it was Nintendo's fault, 3rd parties' fault, or both, consumers will NEVER have the blame for any of that, especially if the product lacks quality or we never got the game in the first place. Far Cry 3 and 4 have their own reasons for not being on Wii U, which is lack of previous entry on that line of consoles(unless you seriously want to bring in the Wii port of Far Cry into the mix), and no way to know whether said game will sell, unless it is released. It's impossible to blame consumers for Far Cry not selling on Wii U, because it is nonexistent.

This is it exactly. You can't blame the consumer for not buying the crap they throw at us. We have to spend our hard-earned money on these games. How dare Ubi and EA think they can give us an unfinished/gimped/lesser version of a game we'll just buy it like brainless drones? Do they think we're so starved for games we'll just slobber over anything they toss at us? We are not starving for games by any means. And any idiot will tell you that if you put out a fully-fleshed out version of a game on the Wii U, it would sell.

Does that take more effort? Of course. Nintendo screwed up a bit in that department. By making the Wii U the weakest of the machines, they definitely made it more difficult to port a game. Something will be missing. It reminds me of Call of Duty: World at War. That game was fantastic on the Wii, but it was missing so many maps and game-types ... and it was already much uglier than the PS360 versions.

I get it, no one wants to buy that version of COD:WaW when you can have the full experience on another console. On the other hand, publishers and developers also can't just toss us unfinished games and expect us to buy them simply because otherwise we wouldn't get that game. And there are games that have no business being gimped. FIFA and Madden are the same every year. If my GameCube could run a full version of Madden, then my Wii U can run it too, even if the graphics are "dumbed down" for the Wii U.

In the end, it's up to the publishers and developers to make a game we want to buy. Yes, they have a hurdle to jump, since the Wii U doesn't have the capabilities of the PS4/XBO, but if they don't take the time to make a worthwhile game, then they can't expect us to spend our money on that game. And to punish us for not buying their swill by giving us bum-scoop like Watch_Dogs is insulting.

This game would have to be unbelievably good for me to get it. Right now, there's nothing that will make me get this game. I refuse to give Ubi my money when they don't cater to me. I'm the consumer, not them.

The third party games won't get better if everyone keeps buying the crappy ports to ''support'' 3rd party games. It only tells them that Wii U owners will buy anything for the sake of supporting 3rd party products. Sure, they'll put the blame on us and say that we don't like [insert whatever their excuse is], but the truth is, they know very well that they did a terrible job at porting the game over to the Wii U, and they know very well that that's the reason most Wii U owners don't bother with crappy ports.

I thought Ubisoft were good to stay by Nintendo, until I took a step back and realized what COULD be happening. It, to me, seems like some sort of attempt at taking down Nintendo. EA backing out of Nintendo was a big blow, at least in the media. 'No console can survive without EA games support,' I remember reading an article comparing the Wii U to the Dreamcast. - Anyway, it all feels a little bit orchestrated to me.

Remember, EA have, or at least did at one point, own shares in Ubisoft.

I want Nintendo to prove to everybody that they can still kick butt on their own, and then I will STILL not buy EA or Ubi games when they come back. I don't see the appeal anyway, all their games are throwaway 'hits' that last 10 minutes.

It seems a lot of people view what businesses do very personally. Businesses go where the money is. The reason why Wii U would get a "gimped" port would be to save money in a chance to make a profit on the system. I understand not wanting a "gimped" version but if they started making money off their ports it doesn't send the message "Wii U owners are fine with buying bad games" instead it would send the message "Wii U owners want our products." Then, since they see Wii U owners want their products, the Wii U starts to get some priority during development. This would lead to better quality ports.

I think it is silly when people are saying these 3rd Party companies want Nintendo to fail or they think Wii U owners are idiots. It isn't some grand conspiracy, it is just business.

@DefHalen
I don't think there us some conspiracy, but I refuse to buy a "gimped" game, either. Like I said, there's no way to legitimately say that 3rd parties are impossible to sell on Wii U, when the games were gimped or lacked value, in the first place.

If there is any reason to buy or not buy a 3rd party game, consumers have that right to decide, and we've already seen it on multiple occasions. It doesn't need anymore explaining. Madden 13 being "gimped" is a deal breaker for people who want the game. End of story.

Even the games that were not gimped sucked in sales pretty bad. Be it the price, language, the really weak support of Nintendo consoles from Nintendo, that's why they suck so bad with third party. MS with X1 did the same thing and didn't learn the lesson from them, limiting themselves with 13 countries and look how it turned out. Now when they "branched" to more countries, the sales started picking up (well, that and getting rid of kinect on the start).

Yes, but when people start saying things such as

These aren't true. There is no conspiracy against Nintendo and if 3rd Parties actually made money on Wii U then the Wii U would get more priority leading to better games. If you don't want to buy a game because it is "gimped" then don't buy it. Just don't understand when people try to make it anything other than a business problem.

@DefHalen
Well ya, but then people are saying that Nintendo fans/consumers are to blame. Consumers will never be able to be blamed for something like Madden being "gimped", Watch Dogs being delayed, or even Project Cars being delayed. Those types of situations are going on within the industry. It effects the consumers on Wii U, but it will never truly be their fault when something like that happens.

The only reason why those games got delayed, is because they can't work on ×86 and (Wii U)PowerPC, simultaneously, and ×86 is the majority. This isn't anything reflective about Wii U or its install base.

Yes, but when those consumers are willing to buy a PS4/Xbone for 3rd Party games, like many people suggest, you prove to 3rd Parties that you don't care about 3rd Party games being on Wii U. When you refuse to support 3rd Parties on Wii U because they "gimped" that version then you show you don't want 3rd party games on Wii U. It is a money decision from the 3rd Party Company perspective. If you want 3rd Party games on Wii U then you should purchase 3rd Party games on Wii U. It doesn't matter if the game is gimped from a business point of view, if a game doesn't sell well on a particular system then they aren't going to keep supporting that system. Currently it seems that the only feature missing on the Wii U version of Watch_Dogs is DLC, which makes it one of the least gimped ports we have seen in a long time. I don't care if you buy the game or not. Just don't complain about the lack of 3rd Party support and when it finally comes not buy it. It is the job of the consumers to show companies what they want, just like it is the job of the suppliers to try to provide what we want. Money is what talks

That turned out longer than I was expecting.

@DefHalen
Well, 3rd parties putting out gimped games shows they didn't give a damn, or were unable to give a damn. If I refuse to buy Watch Dogs, because it lacks DLC, I'm showing that I won't buy a game that will lack DLC support. It's simple. That's just an example, though. If I buy Watch Dogs, it will probably be on Wii U. I've already had the chance to buy it on Xbox One, and I still wasn't convinced, so the Wii U version is the one I'm looking at to make a decision.