Topic: Nintendo and Ubisoft's relationship needs to END! (opinion)

....Yeah it was. lol

As for the Watchdogs port, it was a bad game to begin with, let alone a bad game that was available on 5 or 6 other platforms before it came to the Wii U. By the time the Wii U version came out pretty much anyone who wanted the game had it on another platform. You can't put ports of games out six months after you put them on every other platform and expect to sell them at full retail. I mean, if someone wanted Watchdogs in that six month period and only had a Wii U, they could buy a used version for the 360 for about $20 and a used 360 for about $70-80, so for an extra $40 more than the price of the Wii U version they could have the game AND an extra console to play.

As for the comment that companies shouldn't think of money first, actually they should. But by not releasing games in a timely manner and then severely gimping them, they aren't thinking money first because even the worst businessman in the world should realize you won't make your investment back doing that. Then again, you can also write off losses on taxes at the end of the year and maybe they were using the Wii U version of Watchdogs as a loss leader so they could offset the profits that they made from the other platforms versions.

ACU is basically a last-gen game anyway. The only difference between it and Black Flag is that Unity has tons of NPCs... that add nothing to the experience... and drop frame rates heavily... and are bugged as hell. Apparently Rogue is actually a pretty solid though. I wouldn't mind having it on Wii U.

Ubisoft in general though dug themselves into a huge hole this year, not just with Nintendo. They've managed to piss off almost every group of gamer on the planet through various issues. if EA proved anything to us though, it's that gamers are hypocrites and will buy whatever s*** you shovel at them anyway.

Assassin's Creed Unity was poorly optimised, the reason it ran so poorly had nothing to do with the size of the crowds or the impressive visuals. Turns out on the PC version the bottleneck was in software not hardware. They built the geometry of the buildings in such a way that the game was doing way too many draw calls. So the game would hit the draw call limit and graphics card would sit, waiting for a chance to do something, spitting out a frame as fast as it could and then waiting again. PS4 and XBOne performance was better was because their draw call limits were higher than DirectX's so they could actually use more of the hardware. We're talking buildings here, I'm sure they could have optimised the game so that the Wii U could render buildings. It just needed to be in development for another six months or so.

Rayman Legends was a joke, it was originally advertised as an exclusive. When I pre-ordered my Wii U for launch it was one of only two or three games at launch I wanted to get for the system. Now I can understand them wanting to port it to other platforms, I could understand the delay early on because we all know that AC:Unity could have used that. What was BS was the massive delay which was obviously just so that it could also launch on PS3/360 at the same time. What a load. Plus we know that it was ready for release because not only did they give us a pretty large demo thing but this was also a thing:

If you don't remember that's a photo of Michel Ancel and the developers of the game holding a sign that reads "Release Rayman, Support to Ubi Montpellier" as a protest to the decision from Ubisoft to delay the game 'till September. That photo was taken in December the year before.

IIRC, they couldn't have ported it to other platforms later, due to the rules on other console's eShops.

Platinum is a developer, but not a publisher. Platinum's Wii U titles was produced in co-development with Nintendo SPD Production Group 2, which Ubisoft's titles has never been.

What is this partnership deal between Ubisoft and Nintendo you're talking about?

True, Microsoft has a strict rule in which a game can only be released on Xbox consoles if it's released first there.

1. I guess that explains it a bit
2. That's the dumbest policy for all involved. Both for XBox and non-XBox gamers as well as publishers and devs
3. But what about all of the PS4 timed exclusives then?
4. Seems like a dumb move on Ubisoft's part anyway. I reckon if it was a launch title it would have more than made up for the sales they didn't get on 360 anyways

Yes, it was a dumb move. And probably the worst decision sales-wise for Wii U sales was that free Rayman game with weekly and daily challenges that they released on Wii U during the extended delay. If a gamer is playing a demo version with new content every day for many months, who fun is it to actually get the game after that?

Both Sony and Microsoft have parity agreements for temporary exclusives. Nintendo, unfortunately, does not.

I can't get over how many people say "If company-X did___it would've sold more. Others just come to the simple conclusion that 3rd party games don't sell on Nintendo platforms.

Ever stop to think that maybe all these games didn't sell well because the Wii U didn't sell well? With mostly ports and a severe lack of first-party titles at launch, not to mention poor marketing, NO games sell on Wii U. Also Nintendo didn't form strong enough partnerships before hand when it comes to 3rd parties continuously making games for the platform, ensuring there would be NO continuous support if the sales dipped even slightly.

The sad fact is Nintendo's lack of any sort of parity agreement meant there was no way 3rd party support could even help sale systems. Nintendo's philosophy has always been "we'll make the games that will sale systems, you other studios are welcome to give our platform a shot if you like" doesn't work very well for them any more. This mindset is why most of us mainly focus on first-party software. Nintendo treats third parties like second-class citizens (a meme I've been hearing a lot lately) and they in turn treat us similarly.

Ubisofts customers are the share holders, not the gamers

Are you speaking generally, or for Rayman Legends?

Because this is rubbish if you're talking about Rayman. You think that delaying a launch title is ever a good business decision? By the time Rayman Legends was actually released, there were 3.9 million Wii Us sold. The vast majority of those, 78%, were sold in the first month of it being on the market. The Wii U sold over 3 million consoles at launch, and you think that Rayman Legends, a heavily marketed title announced as a Wii U exclusive to an audience that it has historically sold very well with, was not significantly impacted by being delayed.

Hell, look at what Ubisoft DID release at launch. ZombiU was an M-rated game, a new IP, and on a system that historically has shown very little interest in violent M games. It outsold Rayman Legends on Wii U 2 to 1.

Yes, the sales were significantly impacted. Even being that late, Rayman Legends for Wii U managed to outsell the Xbox One and Xbox 360 versions combined, so fat lot of good that did for Ubisoft to delay it just for that audience.

Indie developers seem to generally have very good relationships with Nintendo nowadays, and studios like Curve are putting many games on the Wii U. I find it hard to believe that 3rd party publisher get worse treatment than indie developers. The point is that Nintendo treat all developers equally (even if they chose to put some extra focus on games that the feel are particularly good, like Shovel Knight) - there's no way for a major studio to pay for advertisement space on the eShop. Personally, I like that approach.

@SpookyMeths
I was speaking generally. Otherwise I agree with you. Even if Rayman Legends released in Feburary and they kept the illusion of exclusivity it would've sold better.

@jariw
Yes, Nintendo treats all studios equally. However, I think many developers on Wii U make games for eshop mostly due to brand loyalty. They don't always expect their games to sell big numbers (just ask that Retro City Rampage guy about WiiWare). Also look at indies who are more indifferent . Skullgirls dev for example has just a maybe, maybe not attitiude and, I'm not sure but I think the Outlast guy practically laughed at the idea of his horror game coming to Wii U.

In other words, profit is almost a non-issue for the little guys. It's more about exposure and the sheer love of the game (and Nintendo).

You have got to be trolling with this one.

My response was regarding "Nintendo treats third parties like second-class citizens", I'm not sure how this response is related to that.

But FWIW, profit is an issue for studios like Yacht Club, Curve, Image & Form, etc. That's what make them being able to make new games. However, they will break even much earlier than big studios. Yacht Club had an article about the way they cut costs on the Shovel Knight project in August, using approaches that big studios couldn't use.

I disagree. The challenges made me play the game in a way i'd never have played the demo alone. After that i was even more interested in the full title.

1. I remember soemthing about MS not allowing it in Xbox if they have it to Wii U first.
2. Advertising costs money. I doubt it would have been profitable to have commercials for a game, especially only for the platform that it would probably sell worst on. It's not like Nintendo and Ubi signed a contract about it. It's not they're job to try and promote Wii U for Nintenedo.
3. 8-player Smash? I fail to see your point here. AC:U as thousands of NPCs on screen at once I believe. Not to mention SSB Wii U didn't achieve very good graphics, to the point where they were dissapointing and not enough of an improvement from the last game.
4. Nintendo would be stupid to tell to Ubisoft to go away; they need all the games they can get. Nintendo would also be throwing money out the window for no reason. There's no reason to burn bridges that don't cost money.

Um that hasn't happened already? (apart from non 'mature games')

I was never a big fan of Ubisoft's games, but they are the most honorable 3rd party Nintendo has.

Say what you want, ZombiU, Assassin's Creed III and IV, Rayman Legends, Splinter Cell, Child of Light, and Watch_Dogs may not be great but they are still good. Each of those games has its shiny moments.

Ubisoft earned my respect
by putting their Wii U games on cheap-ass sales (most games for 9.99€ or 14.99€ in less than a year!!!),
by not cancelling Watch_Dogs,
by not doing lazy ports (they're no worse than other ports),
by releasing the amazing and free Rayman Legends Challenges App that is worth more than many games for 10 bucks.

I had a good time exploring the worlds of Assassin's Creed, and I'm positively scared by ZombiU.
Rayman Legends is the best platformer not made by Nintendo, and Splinter Cell has some of the best graphics on Wii U.

Fanboyism and hating is for the weak.