You're finally getting warm, good sir.

After all the hard work promoting this before/during/after E3 last year and having a demo on the eshop for a while you would think this game has had enough advertisement already... The peops that were lining up to buy have officially just been shat on

I say those 3 games alone will last me around 3 months. Pikmin 2 was a lengthy game, and I expect Pikmin 3 to last as long as the Wii Zeldas, which took me around 40 hours in the first playthrough and 25 in the second. The 40 hour playthrough was in a span of one month. Lego City will probably have alot of secret stuff too, besides the missions that will take a while. Then there's MH3U. I'm not really quite sure how long that will take me adding the online features. I expect that game to last me 60 hours not counting online, but I don't know how the online works for that game either, so MH3U playtime would be an uneducated guess from my perspective. If you truly master each game, it will take a LONG time to beat these games.
The only people who buy the other console versions of Rayman Legends, will be the ones who don't have a Wii U. I'm surprised people looked at COD BO 2's currently online count and still bought the other console version, because there's still tons of people online anyway. I can stand 5,000 less people online than the other console, which has been around for 6-7 years. 5,000 players VS. 10,000 or even 15,000 isn't a bad count for 1/3 of a year since release if you ask me.

Ubisoft can kiss my big fat hairy a**e, another DEMO, awful, I did not even bother getting the first DEMO, I knew I wanted Rayman Legends as it was one of the main reasons I bought a Wii U "at launch"

I just want the full game to experience, playing to many DEMO's just take away that special feel of a new game feeling extra fresh the first time you play it etc.

I truly can't believe that Nintendo can't convince Ubisoft to do a U-turn and release this game as promised, surely Nintendo know it was one of there biggest games to be coming out in the early life of the Wii U, I tell you right here & now that if the Wii U version is held back to tie in with the PS3/Xbox 360 release it will hardly sell at all on the Wii U, mark my words, Nintendo should do all they possibly can to sort this mess out, they must know it was a vital early release, surely?

Also just imagine how many sales the Wii U will lose over the Aliens: CM delay and now Rayman Legends.

Anyone now who owns a PS3/Xbox 360 is almost certain to get Aliens: CM next week! rather than wait for a Wii U release date (whenever that will be), where as if the Wii U version had come out at the same time I'm convinced it would have sold much better.

As for Rayman Legends, I'm sure most people who have the choice will now pick it up on a platform with the added incentive of achievements/trophies to unlock, if they now pick the game up at all that is.

Huge blow for Nintendo and the Wii U, period.

I still say Wii U versions of games will be worth waiting for compared to other consoles. COD:BO II is the first COD game I've ever boughten because of Wii U, and wouldn't have boughten it for any other system. The motion controls and gamepad make the other console versions look like nothing to me, because it has more features and uniqueness, truly, IMO. Maybe when people compare Rayman Legends for all consoles when it's released, I think alot of people will see the difference. I know the game seems to be far away now, but now alot of gamers will be able to have fun with Rayman. There will be alot of other exclusive Wii U games to play in between the next month and September(since it's droughty for the next month or so). I think it's for the best, even though it caught alot of people off guard.

I'm sorry but that was true all along and just about the stupidest explanation for this move I can think of.

No, I suspect that Bankai is closer to the truth here with a twist suggested by Slapshot in the comments of one of the front page articles. I think it went like this: Ubisoft wants to avoid a repeat of Origins so they talk to Nintendo pre-E3 about sharing the stage to help promote the new Rayman game; in exchange they'll give them an exclusivity window - nothing official mind you like a written contract. The Wii U launches and Ubisoft doesn't quite get the bang they hoped for Zombi U and the new Rabbids game from the Wii U launch so the suits get a bit nervous. They decide to try to hold Nintendo over a fire a couple of weeks prior to release date - knowing fans are waiting and there's no big all-new release for the system until March - by trying to get some kind of exclusivity deal last-minute. Nintendo doesn't blink, so they say, "fine, we weren't joking so we're going to delay for a multiplatform release."

What seems to have happened since is that either they were so arrogant they thought they could be truthful or they had a green PR person think they could get by with a glib and largely truthful response to a query about the reason for the reschedule.

In any event Ubisoft deserves what they get from this. I just hope folk stick to their guns and it has some impact on the way these companies do business.

See and that is what I don't understand. Ubisoft is worried because yhe WiiU isn't selling as well so they make Rayman Legends multiplatform in order to maximize profits. So you want to boycott the game making sure Rayman Legends doesn't sell as well on the WiiU as other systems to show Ubisoft they should have supported the WiiU better? It doesn't make any sense

Sorry about any gramer issues. I posted this from my phone

This is probably the closest example of reality. Either that or Ubisoft are complete morons that delay games at the last minute instead of being smart enough to let people know before the same month it was apparently supposed to be released in. Considering their success, I'd have to assume the former.

I'm "bumping" my main topic post because it was locked (Sigh! Oh well). I hope you guys have the time to read this:

When it was announced that Rayman Legends would go multiplatform, which caused a delay, I wasn't sure what the big deal was, other than it was strictly a business decision on Ubisoft. Sucks? Yes. But there was just too much outcry for my taste.

Yet little did I realize that Microsoft may have played a hand in this, albeit indirectly.

It seems that Microsoft will not release their games to the Xbox 360 if there are no simultaneous releases. Now, I thought that there were simultaneous releases to keep the consumers happy, but little did I realize that all the simultaneous releases might have been manipulated because of MS's policy. Think about this. Why did only the PS3 (after the Wii) released No More Heroes for the HD console?

Wow, Microsoft, what a way to do business with the developers! And shame on you Ubisoft for not standing up to it!

Here's the Link: http://www.edge-online.com/news/microsoft-demands-simultaneou...

Thanks to Zakattacks from YouTube for the info.

I'm probably going to buy this game used now. I had my heart set on this game and now Ubisoft's all "lolnope!"

Well to heck with them then.

They should have thought of that before delaying something that was promised to the consumers.

@Sdcazares: Again, if that's true it's not news to anyone - especially Ubisoft who have published many titles on Xbox and PS3 and Wii. Am I to believe that they forgot this? No, I don't think so.

@DefHalan: the point of the boycott is not to tell Ubisoft "if only you had released on time you would have had more sales" the point is to say "you said you were going to give us a Q1 release and now you're not doing that so screw you." This isn't about showing them what a great fanbase there is on Wii U it's saying that you shouldn't take that base for granted and if you pull crap like this you're not going to have as big a market for your software on that platform.

For the individual it's down to what you're prepared to do on principle and really that's a question only each person can answer. I personally won't put up with anything for the sake of a game or even an entire publisher's output. There are always other games to play.

so awesome

@Blizzaga
They should have thought about what before they delayed it? The idea is that they delayed it because they were worried the WiiU version wouldn't sell well because of the lower than expected install base. They wanted to port it onto other systems to maximize their profits, to make sure it does well.

sdcazares1980 brings up a good point. It may not have been Ubisoft's fault. Games get delayed all the time and their have been plenty that get delayed weeks before the release date. If you want to make a difference then boycott the Xbox 360/PS3 versions. Show Ubisoft that porting the game was a waste of money. I am done, I feel like I am talking to a wall and you guys just want something to be mad about. You don't want to discuss the situation

Microsoft are able to get away with that because they are in such a strong position in the games market. It's a bit unscrupulous - like their timed exclusives, but Ubisoft are probably very confident that Rayman Legends will sell very well on the X360.

We'll see how that goes.

http://www.change.org/petitions/ubisoft-entertainment-s-a-kee...

petition

I can't help but feel that Ubisoft truly believed that most would of us would not be able to see how the statements they have made don't fit with their recent actions. Let's take a look at some comments. When the whole thing hit the fan one of the statements that was made was:

”We decided to give the fans what they wanted while at the same time broadening the audience exposed to this innovative and memorable game."

I don't believe anyone could look at that statement without the benefit of recent history and find fault with it. The problem is that we do have recent/current history to weigh actions against these words. Farcry 3, Watchdogs, Splinter Cell, these are all games that are published by the company making the above statement. However, for some reason they do not feel that it would apply in the cases of these games. One has to wonder.........why not? Aren't the Wii U owners (aka former Ubisoft fans) wanting these games and seeing how you want to "give the fans what they want", shouldn't these be released to the Wii U platform and thus "broaden the audience exposed to these innovative and memorable games."

Ubisoft later stated:

" We usually release all of our platforms simultaneously (aside from PC). We've made special exception sometimes in the past but it's definitely just on a case by case basis and not our standard practice. In this case, Ubisoft recently decided they wanted to release the game on multiple platforms so the decision was made to launch them all at the same time rather than separately. I know it's not an elaborate, 'convincing' answer, but it's the simple truth."

Again, if it is company policy then you can't really argue with that, even it if puts a completed game on the shelf for 7 months. However, very recent history tells a different tale. When Assassin's Creed 3 was released it did so to PS3 and Xbox360 platforms on 10/30/12, with a Wii U release 11/18/12 in NA and 11/30/12 in EU. Here is my question: Why didn't Ubisoft decide not to follow their company policy and release these simultaneously, esp since we are only talking about a 2 week period of time? Why was this event a "special exception"? One could argue that the Wii U wasn't released until 11/18/12, so why hold back the other completed games? What a minute....isn't that the case with the Wii U Rayman? Even most 5 year old children would detect there being an unfair treatment. I also find it interesting that within hours of this statement being made Ubisoft was now searching for a new PR professional. To be honest, I was really surprised when I read Ubisoft just blatantly admitting there was no other reason for the delay. Apparently, executives at Ubisoft were also surprised and felt the need to teach someone a lesson. After all, how dare Sarah Irvin simply tell people the truth? For the record I admire her giving a truthful answer and I know she will land on her feet. Believe it or not, honesty and integrity are still valued by many businesses today. For the executives, I guess it is always easier to make decisions when you can always hide behind a wall of "many factors weigh into these type of situations" responses. I do have to agree with they last part Sarah's statement that it was indeed not convincing.

While not admissible in a court of law as any type of evidence, I also find it interesting the timing of these announcements. If a company has made what they believe to be a decision that will make many people happy they tend to make these early in the week. This allows them to bask in the warm glow of consumer approval pouring into their inboxes and forums during normal working hours. Bad news is later in the week, that way if it goes as bad as they fear, then by the time they get back into work on Monday most of the people they have upset have become upset by something else and they don't have to deal with the issue when it is a fresh wound. I have no doubt that the executives at Ubisoft feel that by Monday the major backlash of their decision would have quelled. That could be possible.

The release of another demo I really find to be knee jerk. Perhaps they were surprised by how vehemently the news was received. Perhaps they felt that the negativity of the delay would be balanced or at least mellowed by the positive comments from PS3 and 360 owners happy to be able to get the game. In either case, it didn't go well for them and, perhaps in a bit of a Friday panic, they ended up throwing gasoline on the fire. I honestly don't think they know how to fix this. If Microsoft's policy is that no one gets a game before they do, then they really have no option. I don't know if there is any truth to that statement, but that is the story that is being offered. However, I don't believe that should save Ubisoft from being destroyed in the public forum of the internet because that is a decision they made. Ubisoft decided they wanted to have Rayman on the 360 platform and realized that if they did that they would need to delay the release of the Wii U version. They weighed the pros and cons and decided that they could weather the storm of the Wii U side to get the additional revenue from the 360 side. Whether that was a good decision or not we probably won't know until Monday and ultimately in September. Will the hostility directed at Ubisoft die down over the weekend? Their post on Facebook regarding the new demo is approaching 2,000 comments (almost all of them negative)

If any good has come out of this, I have to say that I have enjoyed seeing PS3 and 360 owners siding with owners of the Wii U and saying "Wow, that was really stupid" By and large, when it comes to exclusives, the only time a gamer cares is when it isn't on their system. If there is a game they enjoy and it is then made available to more gamers on other systems, they don't really seem to mind at all. We just don't want to be left out. I may be hunted down and shot for saying this, but I wouldn't mind at all if Mario or Zelda was released on the 360 or PS3. They are fun games, why not let everyone enjoy them?

Continuing the Tangent made in this thread: http://www.nintendolife.com/forums/other_gaming/next_xbox_alw...

It's a good thing you're not in charge of Ubisoft, then. You'd probably run them to the ground with that attitude. Either you miss out on millions of potential customers, or you play by their rules. It's really that simple.

Their customers would've been mad no matter what they did. That's the part no ones realizing through all of this. If they released the Wii U Version first, their Xbox and PS3 customers would be mad. Especially the Microsoft customers if it doesn't come out on their system at all. Now they're only angering the Wii U fanbase - their smallest potential consumer-base. Again, it's the lesser of two evils. Granted, I hope the games get delayed until after GTAV and the other big games come out, because right now they really are screwed no matter what they do, but if it's out of they're control, there's nothing anyone can do.

So Microsoft might have had a hand in this whole delay fiasco eh? Yet another reason for me to despise that company...

claps sarcasticaly Good job!