Topic: I don't understand the thinking of Western Devs

I don't think that's true at all since for the we didn't even know that the Gamepad stuff was going to be in the game till E3. That said I'd imagne there's more than 200,000 people who only play on nintendo consoles hence the sales since they didn't get a chance to play the games on eariler systems.

How is that relevant information? I said the wii u's sales in batman games are insulting compared to other consoles. Despite getting a release alongside other systems arkham origins sold even substantially worse than city at around 150k, or 1/4th less than city. So yeah, still crappy. There was no people waiting this time around.

@JamesCoote You forgot about money MS paid EA and there was a PC version. It also speculated, and the likely scenario that EA made TitanFall an XBone exclusive thinking that the One would be doing better than the PS4.

@Sentinator There is a point where a game won't run on less powerful hardware no matter what is done, the game will just break without the power. Example, no matter how hard you tried, an Original Xbox or PS2 won't run Skyrim (or Wii). There is a business side to things, yes, but it might be a different game in order to port it. Sometimes the business side is that the money is on more powerful consoles and use the power to make it a better game so sells more Ben though the less powerful system won't have a chance to run it. And since the port would be a different game, the power would the have prevented the original game from going on the less powerful system.

@jaz007
Dude go read the Titanfall Final Hours

http://finalhoursoftitanfall.com/

The game went over budget and had essentially ran out of money, EA was going to can the game when Microsoft came in and would fun the rest of the development for exclusive to Microsoft platforms.

A couple different reasons. Essentially, Microsoft was talking with them about Durango very early on and courting them to move Titanfall over to that. They asked Sony if they could talk to them about the next Playstation, but Sony constantly said they weren't ready to discuss. It even mentions Sony were willing to help Respawn to get a Vita version of the game. It mentions that they essentially pleaded with Sony, saying "Listen, things are about to be locked in behind the scenes. If you want this, please talk to us", which Sony again declined.

It also mentions that at a point later in development, Zampella and West sat down with Riccitiello to tell him that they didn't have enough manpower to develop for any consoles other than Xbone and, maybe, PC, and that Respawn was essentially out of money and the game would need to be delayed and that they'd cut single player. EA ended up having to find the funding for the project with a first party, and Microsoft were willing to put up the money to actually finish the game.

It's relevant because you implied that both versions sold 5 million each like Wii U sold 200,000 each. Origins sold 1 million copies for PS3 with an 80 million user base, that sounds like even a bigger failure to me. The same people who bought City bought Origins more or less - the install base didn't really grow yet that much. By 2015, it's going to be bigger so there'll be more sales. Origins didn't have the game pad support either - if you invest in it, it can be a big hit with a large install base.

Of course we knew - the game pad was shown already so it was obvious they'll use that. At least I figured that much. I happily waited the year, basically like the situation now with Watch Dogs. But maybe I'm not rememering it correctly... I did wait for months might have been after E3, pretty sure we knew there was a version coming before, and e3 just showed the details.

Not saying we didn't know about the game but no one knew about the Gamepad features other than a Map and HUD which would be obvious.

Also your going about it wrong, games are usually built within budgets and Arkham Origins reused alot of the resources from Aslyum and City meaning if was a much cheaper game to make in the long run. Warner probably doesn't care about that (how did it do on all the systems it was on).

My initial point about the thing is business is put before everything else. Its been stated by several people who came out and said it, some more politely than others. Team Ninja's head said the Metro team was using the slow processor speed to justify a business decision. Activision have behind the scenes said publishers don't give Nintendo fans ports because "we're all talk". Square Enix used the DX11 card and wrapped up with the line "BTW we don't sell on Nintendo" with Kingdom Hearts 3. Namco was more polite about it and said Soul Calibur 2 would get there if there is a demand. Don't get me started on the EA sports guy and anyone else at EA. The dude was arrogant.

But I'm done anyway. I guarantee that provided Ghosts and ACIV showed strong attach rates at Christmas EA would have been begging Nintendo for forgiveness. Especially after they've outright said XBO games aren't meeting their expectations.

The difference in architecture and power contrives to the costs of developing he game who affects possible profits which feeds into the business decision. Of course it's a contributing factor

The extra power doesn't make a better game they just end up overdoing it so you end up with how a game runs on a PC that is not quite powerful enough for the settings you have it on at best and unplayable at worst.

However designing stuff for one system then porting it to a more powerful one has ended up with some of the best flawless versions of games in the past. (Arcade or Dreamcast ports to Gamecube or Xbox).

@Shingei_70 Did not know that, thanks for sharing.

Western Devs don't see WiiU as a console.

I think part of the 3rd Party problem on Wii U can be put on Nintendo. Not that Nintendo should pay money for 3rd Party or advertise for them but look at the games Nintendo makes. If you are 3rd Party and you see the games Nintendo makes for its market what games are you going to want to make for that market? Since Nintendo makes a lot of platformers or games with art styles that allow younger audiences (but aren't exclusive for them, a fact a lot of people forget) you would think platformers with more colorful graphics. If you are making a "mature" title but Nintendo isn't gearing their own games to "older" audiences then you should put your game where your audience is, on the other consoles. If you are making a colorful platformer then there are two kinds of thought: A) The Wii U is perfect for this as their audience is our audience, or B) since you are a developer you know how good Nintendo games are, you have probably played them before, and if your game isn't up to the Nintendo standard you might aim for different audiences that may not play Nintendo games and in turn may not compare them to Nintendo games.

I know what you are thinking, wouldn't (B) also apply for other types of games? While it normally would PS3/X360 have higher install bases which means even if their audience has played better games than yours there is a more likely chance to sell it. The biggest problem with the 3rd Party debate right now are the last gen consoles. PS3/X360 are still the safer bet for developers. Developers are using this time to learn PS4/Xone Architecture under the budget of a PS3/X360. Also because their audience is on PS3/X360 it is more likely that audience will continue onto PS4/Xone. The fact of the matter is that today's games are being made on last gen technology. Sure the PS4/Xone can crank out better graphics but the game engines are designed for last gen. It will take time for a Game Engine to come out built for the current gen, it may be shorter time than normal as PS4/Xone are closer to PC architecture and Sony/Microsoft were more open about their hardware pre-launch.

So if Nintendo wants more 3rd Party support, and why wouldn't they, then Nintendo needs to develop more games that reach the "older" audiences. This doesn't mean it has to be a "Mature" title but Mario Kart, Smash Bros, X, Bayonetta 2, and even Wonderful 101 are good steps. I do think a shooter would help * cough * Star Fox * cough * but at least Nintendo is seeing the problem. This is my opinion on the subject and I bet plenty of you can point holes in my theory but ask yourself this question, if you are making Bioshock Infinite 2 why would you target the Wii U? To bring something new a fresh to the system that people have been asking for? That doesn't really work when your investors are risking their money.

Stop saying 1 million to try and prove a point. It sold much much closer to two million than one. That's way more misleading than anything you took from my posts because you're flat out stating it.

Thanks for saying the instill base wasn't there. That was my entire point for the last few pages. Wii u has technical hurdles that are difficult and people like you excpect them to go the extra mile and put gamepad support. I'm saying why should they when the fanbase isn't there. Saying "it will be" isn't a good argument or very convincing as even with a drought in games Wii U owners didn't shell out money. Combine that with the arguments being made by others that there are plenty of people who only game on Wii u, and the picture is clear. They tested the waters with multiple games, Wii U owners didn't bite, so they're dropping them.

It's that simple.

That's such an exageration some games are broken yes, but most games run good enough on PS3/360 better than they run in older PCs

I don't care about anything other than 60fps games now or ever which discounts almost the entire library of PS3/360 games. Not interested in a downgraded user experience or stuff like framerate drops either. (PS4 Tomb Raider is terrible there is no way I could play it for any length of time like that).

Even on very modest hardware Sega's Arcade division manages to get it right 100% of the time.

If it is the best version and there are no problems with it whatsoever (Which is how it should be) like Gamecube Sonic Adventure 2 Battle then I want that version.

(The things that annoy me the most are none 60fps games / framerate drops / load times / aliasing (Jagged lines) the choices made by people making those games has always been concentrate on everything I don't care about at the expense of what I do).