Topic: why no 3rd party support

They don't know unless they try. Even if Nintendo users ignored it, it doesn't bode well to sabotage your own releases with moves like that. I'll take Ubisoft at their word and say "thanks for trying and having the guts to come out and say we didn't get enough sales" (which is what I said this morning) but EA don't have the right to say anything. If Mass Effect is such a great series why not let everybody enjoy it? Sure the chances they COULD (and probably would) get proven right but sabotaging the release is just swinging the sword when it was over the game's head.

In AC's case not, but when other consoles are getting a trilogy at least they could give the WiiU the same treatment.

Yeah that ME Trilogy skipping Wii U plus being cheaper than Wii U's ME3 probably had a huge effect on sales. Still bought it though. It was sort of surreal to be playing a game like that on a NIntendo console.

Just saying...

Ofc ports cost money but they had a bigger chance getting their investment back releasing trilogies instead of stand alone. I'm playing ME 3, i habe no idea what or why I am doing things, that comic didn't make things any clearer. Allowing people to start from the beginning opens up a game to more people, look at bayonetta 2. They are releasing the first one bundeld with the second, suddenly there are more people interested. Coincidence I think not.

Its nice to hear a console owner outside Nintendo understands where some of us come from. The general consensus is that we are blind Mario and Zelda lovers and that is all we buy (even though plenty of JRPGs have had success on Nintendo).

Kodeen wasn't the trilogy supposed to be the way of getting the original Mass Effect on PS3? Kind of like Bayonetta 2 being a way of getting the original on Wii U? It would definitely have costed something to put the original on PS3.

I actually have an alternate solution off the top of my head. Port Crysis 3 or Dead Space 3 instead. Give something that isn't so heavily story influenced. Crysis 3 was up and running on Wii U anyway (and was actually confirmed the previous year) so why not?

I guess moneyhatting is that they are making the game happen

Here is the full story of why 3rd party support is weak.

NES- Nintendo makes games for this thing that make it a smash hit and 3rd parties are lining up to make games for the system even by jumping through hoops with exclusivity and quantity limits

SNES- Genesis had made a nice piece of the market competing against the NES but the SNES came out with superior hardware and great first party games combined with relationships established from NES for great 3rd party support

N64- 2 major defining things happen. The one everyone talks about is the cartridge decision #1 but its also important to realize that Sony jumping in to the game was an electronics hardware maker and had nothing to do with games. Nintendo had been on top and was used to 3rd parties sucking up to them for the priviledge of publishing games on their system but Sony was simply making Hardware and trying to get anyone and everyone to make games for it. Final Fantasy 7 was probably the defining moment and there was sentiment that Nintendo was the big bad ogre that censors and limits game developers and Sony was that answer to that. N64 had some great games sure but it mostly only sole in north america and was the first Nintendo console to have sofware droughts and tepid 3rd party support.

Gamecube- Nintendo tries to rectify the mistakes it made with N64 and builds the "dream team" of publishers to support the console. This backfires as publishers not on the dream team scoff at this claim further alienating 3rd parties. Resident Evil they hope to be their Final Fantasy but Sony had already marketed towards a more mature audience with no censorship, something kids who grew up playing NES and SNES ate up as they were now more mature. The gamecube was late as PS2 had a big head start and was a smash hit before gamecube even came out and Nintendo's image wasn't helped by the weird looking controller and purple lunch box design when trying to appeal to the more mature gaming audience. Despite many games coming to all 3 systems non-nintendo titles don't sell very well on gamecube. Its as if the gamecube was mainly owners who upgraded their N64 and the only reason to have N64 was Nintendo games. I did not know anyone who went through the previous gen with only an N64, they eventually got Playstations too. I think most gamecube owners also had a PS2 except maybe for kids.

Wii and Wii U- the established trends coupled with power difference and the effort required to port titles well mean continued weak third party support on Nintendo consoles among the big gaming franchises. (sure wii had lots of 3rd party games targeted at casuals or attempts to cash in on the install base but it wasn't even capable of running proper ports of most games)

Part of this theory has to do with the age of the industry and how gamers grew up. I am 38 and was I think 9 years old when I got my NES. I am ancient when it comes to gamers and I don't think there are significant amount of gamers older than I am. Puberty and above wasn't really interested in the NES, videogames were toys for children back in the 80s. Sony and the playstation was the first time gaming was marketed as something mature and it came out when the kids who grew up playing NES were looking for that. Younger gamers grew up with Nintendo being kiddy, niche, or underpowered....sure some of them may have grown up with just an N64 or Gamecube as kids and fell in love with Nintendo franchises but Sony was the center of the gaming universe for PS1 and PS2 and Nintendo is more focused on making their own games than they are in making a dominant console. Sony and Microsoft entered the industry as console makers...their focus is different. Nintendo is focused on making their own games first and making their own hardware to play them on and sure also letting other people make games on their system.

It actually was more of a question as I'm not known with the term but I see where the difference lies between the two. I get the choice from ubi to release AC 3, as it is a whole new story but ME3 imo was a weird choice even if it had a comic linking all three.

Absolutely. Platinum's games often sell at a loss or a modest profit, so there is no way that they are investing any of their own cash into the port of Bayonetta that is included with the sequel. If the Mass Effect trilogy was a second party release published by Nintendo, these comparisons would hold water. But they are not, and the entire financial burden is on EA (or any third party developer) to spends the time and money to port older games from a series to the Wii U I and hope they make a profit.

There are lots of reasons why 3rd parties aren't supporting the Wii U, we will never understand or know why and there will never be 1 blanket explanation to cover the reasons why all 3rd Parties aren't supporting it.