Treyarch Isn't Working on Call of Duty: Black Ops III For Wii U, Though Activision is Noncommittal

So... it's not coming Wii U.... ok. I hope the next console Nintendo release, people will actually look at it as next gen.

I guess Nintendo should have made their console the equivalent of a four year old middle of the line PC too.

@ikki5 Somehow I have doubts that the NX (assuming it is a Wii U successor) will be taken too seriously by the big third party developers/publishers unless Nintendo can do something to attract them back to porting games to it, and the people who buy the console support the third party games and not just Nintendo's own 1st party ones.

I think that Nintendo's fans need to make peace with the idea that the Wii-U will remain a platform for Nintendo titles and little else. Fill in the corners with a few nice indie titles and a smattering of VC titles and the console has a decent menu to choose from.

I don't know where the NX will take us, but as long as Nintendo pumps out great games there will always be an open input on my TVs.

He is right that ports shouldn't be bothered with.

The only time they were ever ok were Arcade -> Console/Computer.

@Inkling "What a baby."

Oh well, not like there arnt enough FPS games these days anyway. I see a future where they become the new old Sports games stores don't want or can't get rid of....

That is a pity. Im not a huge COD fan but i think Wii U owners would like to know the option is there.

I buy Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games. Should Nintendo release their games for microwave ovens, that's what I'd get to play them. For other games, there's the PC. I don't have a big interest in the few PS/Xbox exclusives.

Devil's 3rd anyone? sips tea

I would have bought it for sure like the other two, but I understand why they aren't bringing it. They are a business after all, they need sales

As I said in the forum thread, I see this as Activision taking note on how successful Splatoon is and deciding whether a port is announced or not afterwards. If Splatoon flops because of the "can't play in friend lobbies" misinterpretation or no voice chat then Activision can easily sum up with "There's no audience for shooters on Nintendo platforms".

I am still shocked that Wiiu owners actually thought this game would have come to the Wiiu. Cause really?You can connect your account to a website? Wow! Still you guys have Devil's third which is a shooter as well, but will sell like crap,but not my problem,the game looks amazing tho.And @kensredemption So your system isn't getting this game so you're done with the company? Fanboy much?

It probably won't come to the Wii U then, which is a little disappointing since BO2 was pretty great (I enjoyed it a lot more than Ghosts anyway). It doesn't matter much to me, though, because I'm not much of an FPS fan. The only reason I have the two CoD games on the Wii U is because I got BO2 for $15 and Ghosts as a gift.

I'm not surprised at all. It's Nintendo's fault for releasing a console on par with PS360 specs.

To be honest I can't see why people would want this on WiiU. It isn't like this would have sold great.

I rather you people have your attention focused on Devil's Third and Splatoon. Two great titles coming to WiiU that actually have work put into them and not your standard copy and paste.

@unrandomsam Really? Did you ever have an Amiga, ST or any of the 8-bit micros? Most of the coin-op conversions for those were pretty dire...

@liljmoore Im in two minds about Devil's Third. When I first saw it announced I thought it looked amazing. But now, I'm not so sure. Plus I am surprised that Nintendo haven't shown off anything more since last E3 which again worries me.

Didn't expect this to come to wii u on a console that has the same specs as last gen it just wasn't gonna happen. Hopefully Nintendo can offer something different with their next console over the competition like Sega did with the dreamcast because if it's just the same as ps4 and Xbox one its bye bye Nintendo.

@liljmoore "I rather you people have your attention focused on Devil's Third"
That's something i hope a lot of people can agree with.

@FragRed I'm also sort of in the same boat with that. I didn't like the look of it at first too. but the MP hooked me right on it. I also wish they show it off more but that's what E3 is for. Which I hope we see how improved it is from last year

Rather have Splatoon anyways

@wizzgamer A lot of people don't seem to want Nintendo to create a console that is something different to the competitors, they want an ordinary controller and specs that can at least be on par, but ideally more powerful, than the PS4.

But Nintendo saying that the next console will change the way we play games, suggests it will be different though I am concerned about the specs.

Is Mech Piloting confirmed for Black Ops III? This is a very important question, the fate of my entire concern for this game rests on the answer.

@liljmoore I agree, that is what E3 is for and I am guessing they chose not to show it off in the last Direct because they wanted to surprise us with how much it has improved visually and gameplay wise. What we saw last year I think was essentially the PS3/Xbox 360 game that was in development. Now Nintendo has been on board and helping to make the game, I am hoping they have bought it up to their quality threshold.

@PanurgeJr

What does that make the Wii U then? A 6 year old PC?

@Fragrance True but if Nintendo makes a console on par spec wise with ps4 and Xbox one and normal pad who is going to buy it when they already have either a ps4 or xbox one. 3rd party developers won't get on board straight away as they will want to see how it sells,first which will probably make it sell even less than the WiI U. So Nintendo simply has to offer something different with obviously higher specs.

Glad to see there was a post for this, better to have a place for people to comment than pretend nothing ever happened.

And there really wasn't anything all that great in the vid anyway, but from a "Console" perspective, yeah Wii U could have used it.

Though Wii U not getting this makes more sense to me than Wii U getting Guitar Hero Live. I still don't get that one. I guess it will make sense when Wii U doen'st get a season pass or DLC or something that compeltley gimps it.

I can see all the little kids on Miivers throwing hissy fits over this one.

Very sad and disappointing (if somewhat expected) news. Too bad, "Black Ops" are my favourite entries in the franchise since the original "Modern Warfare" and I will be sad to miss out on it's third entry, but I won't purchase new hardware to play it.

@kensredemption

According to your user info you game on all platforms and don't descriminate, so how come you are always one of the loudest complainers when a game doesn't come to the Wii U? Why not buy it for one of the other systems you supposedly own, rather than boycotting a third party release that doesn't come out on Nintendo? I don't get it.

@FragRed That's part of the problem: the critics and analysts kept saying that Nintendo needed to drop the Wii and release a console on par with the 360/PS3. That's exactly what Nintendo did with Wii U. Didn't work out very well. Now they are doing the same thing and are saying that Nintendo needs to just release a console on par with the XB1/PS4. If Nintendo does that with the NX (assuming it's a home console of course), it'll go down the exact same way. People will just wait for the XB4/PS5 that will surely "blow the NX out of the water." NX has to be on par with the XB4/PS5.

Devil's Third looked rough last year because it switched graphics engines mid development. The game kinda went through development hell.

Whatever happened to the "scalable" game engines that would make it so easy to make games for everything between smartphones and high end PCs?

@FragRed I hope they take it a step up and help promote Devil's Third. They really need to help push sales for games like this on their console.

Bayonetta 2 could have sold much better if they got special bundles, Ads on TV, and Youtube. Nintendo's marketing has been terrible. I really wish their marketing department would step make it known that there are great games on the WiiU besides 3d World, Mario Kart 8, and Smash Bros

@IceClimbers True, they did say that about Nintendo dropping the Wii and release a system on par with the Xbox 360/PS3. However, Nintendo did kinda screw it up because aside from the people who follow Nintendo and video gaming websites, they did a shockingly bad job at marketing the console. It could have easily sold so much better, but they literally did a reversal on the way the Wii had been heavily promoted on TV etc.

@arojilla
+1
Have also a PS4

@liljmoore My thinking is that Nintendo have become so conservative with their money that they have decided that they must pull money out of the marketing department and rely on the random TV commercial here and there and advertising on video gaming websites where everyone already knows it's existence. And Nintendo have said last year they don't plan to make use of TV as much anymore for promoting their products which further suggests less marketing money will be spent.

Bit of a shame kind for those who enjoy the cod series.gotta laugh at those saying it's good that this doesn't come while praying for Kingdom hearts to arrive tho .cos a game with Disney characters being the only 3rd party success is EXACTLY what nintendo need in the long term bigger picture :-/

@liljmoore Bayo 2 did get ads on TV. Nintendo just made the mistake of having an exclusivity deal with Adult Swim, where there's very limited ad space that Smash, Fantasy Life, WoW and CoD were also competing for ad space.

Was a good idea of them to partner up with Playboy for that game though.

@FragRed That's true. Their marketing was horrible. Also didn't help that their development resources were focused on 3DS games to turn that system's situation around. The 3DS's bad launch hurt the Wii U big time.

The fate of nintendo is worrying me more and more... I just hope the NX will be a global success

Don't really care, already got a PS4 for games like this

NX cannot come soon enough.
Which is a shame. The wii u, in my opinion is THE best home console ever made. However it's spec and timing could not have been worse. They hung onto the success of the wii far too long. If they'd have launch the wii u in 2010 wed have seen games like battlefield, CoD and GTA V being proposed for it no problem. Sounds ridiculous but very very much more than possible, if not true.

Launching a new platform that is comparatively and seriously underpowered just as all third parties start to focus on the higher powered and (considered) next gen, they instantly count themselves out of a lot of new software. The wii u will continue to demonstrate the sheer quality of nintendo's software developers for the next year, more importantly I hope the wii u gives nintendo the experience it requires to hone it's skills in HD, digital media and online infrastructure so that when NX arrives, it becomes everything that Wii U should have been and then some.

The 2016/2017 release window for NX gives nintendo an edge for the first time in a long time as the most powerful console available. Taking that mantel leaves no trump card with any other console As quality and innovation have been nintendos trump cards since 1983.

I only hope zelda is delayed for redevelopment as an NX launch title. There would be no bigger warning shot from Nintendo than having the biggest and most stunning game they've ever produced to lead the charge of NX. A tactic they should have employed with skyward sword. Releasing such an amazing game so late when the user base of wii had dropped off majorly when it could have been a wii u launch game a year later instead of mario bros u was a huge missed opportunity.

Come on NX. We believe in nintendo, always have always will, it's down to NX to wake up the masses as to why we bleed red and white.

@Grumblevolcano the truth hurts. Well said.

@IceClimbers That's my point on TV ad with Nintendo. Adult Swim only comes on Saturdays and that's late night, early morning.

That's terrible advertising for such a great game. Why not Espn, AMC, TNT, FX. Why not promote with sports stars or celebrity's? This is really bad for Nintendo if they think TV or sport events aren't good for advertising

That's one of the reason why I'm considering to build a gaming PC. But even so, the Wii U will still be my primary console.

Overall, I'm not interested in this game at all. Ghosts and Advanced Warfare were horrible. I'm kinda done with the CoD franchise. More interested in other shooters. Battlefront looks better than this, but all of the content cut from that game is discouraging me from getting it. Seriously, no space battles, Clone Wars era, or Galactic Conquest?! WTF, EA/DICE?

@IceClimbers
Exactly. Hardware power solves nothing. All that does is gives us an uber powerful console with a fanbase that still has no interest in these games. And guess what the deciding factor is in porting? Interest in the games, which equals SALES POTENTIAL.

Hard fact of life is, we will never see more than a handful of multiplats on Nintendo platforms. Not now, not on NX, not ever. Better to swallow that pill now than later. Just being powerful solves nothing. Why on earth would a publisher port a game just because the platform is "capable"? Knowing no one is going to actually buy the game? I don't understand the thought process behind power = games (games that no one cares about or wants to play).

The Wii U was built with the "power = games" philosophy in mind. Right on par with PS3 and 360, which at the time were getting the most games in the industry. And a few publishers were sold on this crummy logic and were deceived into porting their games, where they utterly crashed and burned, left to rot in the bargain bin. Now people say "but the PS4, if it were just as powerful as the PS4" as if the outcome is somehow going to be any different.

The statistics show only 1-2% of Wii U owners actually buy western 3rd party games when they're ported. Which means for every 1-2 people on this site complaining about not getting those games, there's 98 Wii U owners who couldn't care less.

Shame.

Only pointer controls would make me buy COD.

I guess we'll have to wait for Treyarch to tell us whether there will be a Wii U version or not.

To be honest, I'm not surprised. There isn't a market for FPS on Nintendo consoles, besides, the amount of players actually playing on CoD games (even at release and after Christmas) are abysmally low.

surprise surprise -_-

Wait? People thought this would come to Wii U? Personally, I haven't bought a COD game since mw2, but I'm glad that game companies are finally transitioning away from the ps3 and 360. No offense to the Wii U, as it's my favorite system right now, but I'm glad we didn't get a crappy port of this game. And I'm glad that game companies are finally starting to develop for JUST next gen consoles and PC.

Watch as the let EA develop the game for wii u lol

While Call of Duty is not my favorite thing in the world, I hate to see another game that is capable of running on the Wii U not appearing on the Wii U. Of the most played games on my Wii U, third party games take most of the Top 10 spots.

@HollywoodHogan Perhaps the tech is on par with what PCs offered at that time, but the machine itself is distinct from a PC. Bone4 is not. Nor is it quite as next-gen as the simplistic narrative suggests. And from what I've seen absolutely none of the power advantage it has over Wii U is being put towards gameplay that Wii U can't handle. It's being put towards more polygons and more effects. AAA devs would tell you that they are loath to sacrifice the immersion that creates, ignoring the irony, largest in an FPS, that the greatest immersion is found when the controller feels like a gun, not when the water effects are at their shiniest. With a little work a Wii U/Wiimote scheme could be the definitive way to play any FPS.

As for sales, Blops3 wouldn't have to sell well enough to fund development, just well enough to fund the porting costs. All of the preproduction, most of the assets, a lot of the work--the money has already been spent on them whether there is a Wii U version or not. There are more Wii Us out there than people who listen to the constant stream of claims of failure realize, and it wouldn't take that much of an attach rate for Activision to make money.

FPS is synonymous with PS/PC/XB. I don't buy Nintendo systems for those and I suspect many others are the same. I also highly doubt Rockstar would make GTA for the NX, whatever the NX is going to turn out to be.

@DiscoGentleman Yeah but the dreamcast would have been a success if they hadn't tried to cut corners by not using Dvds as most people who bought the ps2 at launch only bought it because it had Dvd playback as dvd players at the time were expensive. What I mean is Nintendo need to offer something different as just releasing a console on par with ps4 or xbox one now Is pointless as most people will already have one of those consoles so they wouldn't bother with nintendos offering they have to offer something different unique/innovative but with specs on par with ps4.

sigh I was a fool to hope...

So much for the linking the Nintendo Network to your damn site Activision, you don't want to give us the game but want our consumers info. Such hackers you are.

Totally overrateted shooter franchise. Do not care at all for it, on any platform.

Why because Nintendo doesn't do anything to bring on the 3rd-parties.

WAAAY over rated franchise that really sucks anyways, why would we want this crap?

Meh, the reason 3rd parties do terribly is because they port the wii u version months after initial release. Release a game at the same time, with the same dlc and other goods, and we'll see what happens, but 3rd parties rarely if ever, treat the wii u the same way they do the other platforms. It's not a Nintendo owners fault they don't want to be screwed over by 3rd parties.

@PanurgeJr

There are 30 million Bone4's and 10 million Wii Us out there. Makes more sense to develop for those Bone4's, plus the Bone4 is more powerful than the Wii U, which makes it all the more humorous when you criticize the power of the Bone4.

Also, I can tell by your use of the term 'Bone4' that you are a mature and intelligent person who is capable of having a non-bias opinion on this issue.

@hydeks Because it's a popular and well-selling franchise for a reason. Then again, there are Mario fans who decried Nintendo for making competant Mario games just because they didn't reinvent the wheel with every iteration, so maybe this isn't the best fanbase to release any game for ever.

OK, can you stop reporting on this franchise now?

On the bright side, it's only Call of Duty.

@tbuck Hey, that's nice. I wouldn't mind having a PS4, or an Xbox One, I like some of their exclusives, it's just that I don't have a lot of time to play so I need to prioritize. And for me Nintendo (Wii U / 3DS) and a PC complement very well. Best of both worlds. I already have a HUGE backlog so it would be crazy to add another console.

I literally couldnt care less to be honest.
Take your existing COD:Whatever copy for WiiU, scribble a new number on the cover and boom, youve got your new game.

Jokes aside, im not really surprised.
And lets be honest here, most WiiU owners arent really their target audience.

Also, correct me if im wrong here, but havent those obscure "not comming to WiiU" games all been rather DLC heavy ?
Lets take Resident Evil Revelations 2 as an example. The WiiU would have been THE prime console for it, since the first game has been a Nintendo exclusive for quite some time and therefore, already established its audience.
And yet, the Nintendo platform is the only one it didnt show up on. And its extremely DLC heavy (released in episodes)
The same with most other games, all leaving out much if not all of their DLC, all while many developers praised the eShop in general.

Could it be, that Nintendo has some sort of policy in place that rubs publishers the wrong way when it comes to DLC ? That they have a policy preventing stuff like DLC scamming, on disc DLC or something similar ?

Granted, its a random thought that crossed my mind and i could be heavily wrong here. But think of it, when did Assassins Creed stop comming to the WiiU ? When they introduced micro transactions instead of regular DLC scenarios like in AC3.
Arkham Origins ? Left out DLC. LEGO games ? No DLC.

All the while Nintendo games implement DLC in a rather unique way. The DLC data is recieved through update patches, you simply by licenses to use them on the eShop.

And DLC being the industries go to cash cow these days, youd think that this isnt something they want to omiss completely.

So could it actually be Nintendos DLC policy that keeps Devs / Publishers from turning their back towards the system ? Because they cant simply load it up with season passes and DLC packs ?

Sorry to piss on the ps4 fanboys parade but Treyarch never said it isn't coming to Wii U. We won't find out if it does until at least E3. The reason being Microsoft pays a crap ton of money to show off the game at their press conference and if everybody knows its coming out for360/ps3/Wii u they'll hold off buying a console. This has been the norm for Nintendo fans since WAW on Wii so I don't know why websites like Nintendo life post articles like this. Maybe click bait?

Crap. I'm genuinely disappointed. I like a good FPS every once in a while. Wish someone else would take a serious stab at the genre for Wii U. Someone who could do an amazing exclusive.

When i think about it they did announce there would be no more call of duty games coming to the wii u this console generation.

@capitalism The fanboy damage control is strong with this one. Cause you sound so salty with this news, and why would anyone make a third party game for the Wiiu knowing it will sell like garbage? Tell me please i'm dying to know. And one last thing just because they don't release a game for your system doesn't mean it's for personal reason. This is a business,if they don't get money here they leave is simple as that.

@HollywoodHogan I did not deny that the Wii U is less powerful than either the Xbox One or PlayStation 4, but neither did I criticize their power; I accorded them their rightful places. You also seem to have completely missed my point about development. Of course if the decision is to develop for one console the Wii U is not the proper choice, for it would not be as profitable. But that is not the decision. The cost of developing for a second system is not twice the cost of developing for the first, which means that the revenue generated by the second system does not have to equal that by the first in order to be the proper decision. It has to cover the additional costs only.

This is to say nothing of what the decision would do for future Activision titles. In the entire chicken/egg relationship that Nintendo console owners have with third party publishers it is true that third parties stay away because of poor sales, but it is also true that poor sales result from third party attitudes as well. And with Activision bringing a new Guitar Hero soon there will be people who pass on it if they perceive that that's all Activision intends to bring them, that the limits of how seriously Activision takes Wii U are how it can serve for party games. A minimal effect, but very real, and one that may quite possibly shift the scales one way or the other in a very close decision.

As for "Bone4," I chose to abbreviate to save time and space. I hate long answers.

Sign this petition to bring black ops 3 to Wii U
https://www.change.org/p/treyarch-bring-black-ops-3-to-wii-u?just_created=true

@ikki5 Sign this petition to bring black ops 3 to Wii U
https://www.change.org/p/treyarch-bring-black-ops-3-to-wii-u?just_created=true

A much bigger black eye on the Wii U than not having cawadoody is the fact that is has ZERO annual sports games. No Madden. No FIFA. Hell, no WWE. It's pathetic. Why anyone who isn't a die-hard Nintendo fan would want anything to do with Wii U, I can't imagine.

@Einherjar It's an interesting way of looking at the situation but I think you're wrong. Injustice: Gods Amongst Us had a fair amount of DLC. Resident Evil Revelations had a fair amount of DLC. Recently, Watch Dogs had DLC (although not the last bit). Think Splinter Cell: Blacklist has DLC as well?

The only reason Batman Arkham Origins didn't have DLC was because they didn't think it was worth creating for the Wii U version when it wouldn't sell. Criterion didn't bother to put any DLC together for Need For Speed Most Wanted U for the same reason. With Batman: Arkham Origins, they couldn't even be bothered including the multiplayer mode on Wii U.

@PanurgeJr yes instead of a old slow ppc and a 6 year old graphics card

@HollywoodHogan Because I abhor the fact that I'm being coerced into paying for an allegedly premium service to play a game online when it used to be complimentary, and this release pattern by third party developers, to me, is indicative of their blatant pandering to the mainstream demographic that cares more about visuals than game quality.

Besides, despite the fact that I own all three current-gen consoles, I don't often indulge in third-party developments because they don't push the envelope the same way they usually do on Nintendo systems. The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct is one such game. Poorly written as it was, it was as close to classic Call of Duty/Medal of Honor as FPS games will ever get again, and it's definitive edition that made the most of its gameplay was on the Wii U.

That's not to say the PS4 and XBO don't get great games. Frankly I love Bloodborne, Knack, Project Spark and Dead Rising 3, but games of that enjoyment level and quality for me come too few and too far between. Why would I bother paying to play a handful of games I actually like online when there are so much more I enjoy on the Wii U?

I could also make the assumption that Treyarch's just become lazy like so many other developers and the quality of their games doesn't meet Nintendo's standards, but that's a bit of a stretch.

Anyway, you assume an awful lot about me by creeping around on my profile which I haven't edited in months. You know what they say about what you assume...

[WARNING SPOILERS FOR TROLLS & FANBOYS!!!]

people who bought wii u don't really care ether way cuz its all to be expected.
wii have in are wakes X splatoon devils third star fox and others to be broadcast at e3 wii also usaul have two or more console anyway and if you a day one adapter like me your library is HEFTY HEFTY HEFTY ya fanboys struggling with wimpy wimpy wimpy dlc

The only surprise here is that there is no mention of the X360 or PS3 versions, which I expect will happen, though this might be the last year they do occur. The X360 and PS3 audience is simply still too large to ignore compared to the smaller but quickly growing PS4 and XBO audiences.

Nintendo fans have a history of not supporting 3rd parties, or shooters for that matter, so it's simply a waste of Activision's time to do a Wii U port. As I figured, just because Treyarch is making the game doesn't mean anything, particularly as they are focused on the full game as is.

At this point, if Nintendo fans want great 3rd party games on the same system as Mario and Zelda, then they should start championing Nintendo to just go 3rd party so it can actually happen. A bummer, but nothing here is a surprise, except that the X360 and PS3 versions haven't really been announced yet, but I can see why they'd hold off on those ports. They want this Call of Duty to be a fully "next-gen" title first and foremost.

You know, this upsets me, but I think the pain of not getting the big third party games this fall will be numbed with Xenoblade Chronicles X, Splatoon, Star Fox, and the backlog I already have.

Don't get me wrong, I am upset, but I do have games I can play and there are other games I'm looking forward to. I'll just buy those instead. Activision'll be fine not getting my money because there are millions of others who will be giving their cash to them.

I'll stay optimistic for more third party support on Nintendo's next console, but for now, I'll live with what I have and eagerly await SMTxFE and Zelda U.

No. Never.

@kensredemption

What are these "Nintendo standards" you're talking about, and why would they "frighten" Treyarch? A developer who, by the way, have really no say on which platform the game goes to.

Realistically, Nintendo's average game scores are no different from Sony, Microsoft, EA, Take Two or a about a dozen other publishers. Quality-wise, Nintendo is no different than their contemporaries in the industry.

@kyuubikid213

So you like it better that you have to pay high prices for gimmicky consoles that offer next to no incentives for 3rd party developers or publishers (thus losing support), and that it's preferable for the company to just struggle on the outskirts of the industry?

Nintendo would be better off third party at this point. They make fun games. They make piss-poor consoles.

@Quorthon High prices for gimmicky consoles only fits one console in the past...ever. The Xbox One.

$300 for a Wii U with a new controller that's basically a tablet that allows for dual screen gaming and/or off-TV play is far from expensive or gimmicky.

No incentives for 3rd parties is their fault. If they released the games people wanted (exactly as it was on other platforms), there'd be an audience for them on Nintendo consoles. End of story. That was an excuse with the Wii with it's different control method and it being underpowered compared to the PS3 and 360, but that's not the case with the Wii U which is more powerful than the consoles previously mentioned and not so outclassed by the PS4 and One that it'd be completely impossible for third party games to run on it.

Nintendo struggling on the outskirts? Are you serious? Show me someone that doesn't know Mario Kart or Smash Bros. and I'll show you someone who doesn't care about gaming period. Yes, the Wii U is in a tough spot, but Nintendo's not "struggling." The 3DS with 44+ million sales and a wide variety of games says "hello."

And no. Nintendo would not be better off as a third party developer. They are far from making piss-poor consoles. Again, referencing the 7th generation, how many hundreds of thousands of people's Xbox 360s red ringed? How many PS3s "yellow lighted"? Okay. Compare those numbers to Wii failures. Right. Thought so. And if you're saying this to say the Wii U's not a graphical powerhouse, please remind me when that's what was necessary to make a good console. Oh, yeah. That's right. This past generation when that's all anyone cared about. Pretty visuals first, actual game second.

Seriously, this new mentality towards Nintendo lately is pissing me off.

@Danrenfroe2016 Wasn't my point...

People who want Nintendo to go 3rd party are the same ones who want Apple to license OS X & iOS to other makers.

@kyuubikid213 "$300 for a Wii U with a new controller that's basically a tablet that allows for dual screen gaming " That barley any developer uses for games!Only thing the gamepad is used for is off tv play and a stupid map. Wow! Two things anybody can see on the TV! And of course the Wii was a failure it was advertised to parents and families who knew nothing of games. And whenever you like it or not,Nintendo won't last forever if they keep doing consoles like the Wiiu. Even with there IP's and handhelds, there luck will run eventually.

@Quorthon Agreed with the first part of your post about Nintendo consoles. But i don't agree with Nintendo going third party. Why? Because the industry needs them, you can like this or not is the truth. The gaming industry needs the big 3 to keep going. Cause if one goes down,what makes you think the other two won't follow? And either way there not going anywhere they got there handhelds,IP'S and fanboys to keep them afloat for a while. But i will admit they cannot make a console,without putting some gimmicky crap plaguing it example the Wiiu.

@Inkling fixed that for you.

@TwilightAngel
I guess you're trying to get under my skin with this...fact of the matter is, Off-TV Play and a larger offscreen map are amazing features and I don't get why so many people like you shun it.

What's better? Having to pause the game constantly to see the map of the area or being able to see a large map in the palm of your hands at any given time? Having to give up your family room TV and stop playing games because someone else wants to watch something or being able to bring your game down to the GamePad and gaming on? Having to get up and turn on your TV and sit down to play a game or picking up your controller and gaming right there in bed on lazy mornings?

Then of course, there's the Kinect that doesn't exist anymore. I wonder which of the two is truly a gimmick...?

I can't believe anyone would be surprised by this. Nintendo is competing with mobile, not the other consoles or PC.

@kyuubikid213 Both are gimmicky but one is at least somewhat successful and the other is just there until it get's killed off. And guess which one is going to get killed off. I'll give you a hint it starts with a W and it ends with a U. And i'm not going to even respond what you just said about the map and off tv play being useful and amazing,cause wow! I'm at a lost for words and that doesn't mean a good thing.

@kyuubikid213 I actually agree with you on uses for the gamepad. Map/Inventory and Off-screen play are good uses, if not the most creative uses. Personally I believe the gamepad is best suited for asynchronous multiplayer, but even in regular co-op dual screens are way better than split screens. I'm still waiting on a Dungeons and Dragons like game with a Game(pad) master personally.

@kyuubikid213 I think the reason why people shun it is because it is a controller that is barely used for except that, it doesn't add anything to your experience except that you can play when someone else uses the TV. If the gamepad wasn't there and it was just a normal controller, the system itself would have been (or should have been) a lot cheaper as tablets are not that cheap and what you get from it for what you pay for, isn't really worth it.

@kyuubikid213 Everyone that champions the WiiU talks about using the pad as a map/inventory but what happens when you off-play and you're not using your TV, on a game that requires dual screen gaming? Does the game automatically switch to a system, where now you have to pause and look at your inventory/map on the same screen like a regular game?

As a young kid i always thought this was a cool concept to have a lil screen light up on your pad. But now that its out in the open, tried and tested. I don't think it works unless the 2nd screen is within your eye level (DS). I can't imagine having to constantly look up and then look down every couple of minutes be all that fun

Why does splatoon excite me more.....
I guess coz its new and this just looks like another call of duty and I'm bored of that franchise now

Wow, so many comments in so little time about a subject we already settled over a year ago.

Remember: 95% of Nintendo's audience is family gamers who want fun, kid friendly, quality games. They are mainly aged 3-11, and 30-40. A lot of this market plays on tablets.

95% of the XS4's audience want games with an 18 certificate on them- they are mainly aged from 7-25. This is the mainstay of the gaming community and they play COD.

This isn't a criticism on either choice- it's just fact. Note that all 'kid friendly' games tend to do terrible on the PB1 aside from Minecraft.

Black Ops 2 on Wii U used th gamepad really well and I had some great 2 player dual screen co-op, and also using the same set up for two of us to play online. The Wii U version had a good online community, no 13 year old idiots and no adults who have the maturity of a 13 year old idiot.

@Technosphile
That annoys me too. The lack of actual sport games is the only thing I don't understand. Maybe this year a Fifa 16 ore NBA2k16.

So Wii U loses out on yet another game that's pretty much like the one before it, while it's going to have Devil's Third and Splatoon.

This is disappointing, but not unexpected. It just further reiterates that the Wii U is not the console of choice if you want to play triple A third party games. It's probably too late to get third party games back to the Wii U, but Nintendo needs to do everything possible to encourage them to the Wii U's successor. Hopefully Nintendo will make something more powerful than the current playstation and xbox for their next home console and give it an architecture that's easy to work with.

This is nothing of surprise and the only logical step for CoD to do. This vicious circle of 3rd party vs Wii U customer cannot be solved thus the only way it out is ... well taking the exit and abondoning WiiU (maybe Nintendo altogether). These games just don't sell and nobody is to blame. Why would anybody buy a inferior, unoptimized, non-post-launch-supported and probably delayed version of games? On the other hand, why would any dev spend the time and resources to optimize it's port just for it to not sell in the end anyway? So who's wrong? Sure, the consumer could buy those games "just to support" 3rd parties, but that would send the message "they'll buy any crap we give them, why would we put more effort into these?". On the other hand, 3rd parties could try to put more effort into these ports to improve their image among Wii U owners. But they are a business after all, I'm sure this isn't worth it.

On the topic of CoD not coming to WiiU: I don't care. It's coming to PC and I don't care there aswell. My first CoD was Black Ops on PS3. I then bought MW3, Blops2 and Ghosts all on Day One. The games became worse with every new entry. Ghosts is the first video game in my 16 years of gaming that I regretted spending money on. I'll just wait for Titanfall 2 to come. I'm done with CoD. Heck, I'd gladly trade Blops 2 and Ghosts on Wii U for actually good games like Witcher 2 and Dark Souls. These are the 3rd party games I'd love to see on Wii U. Oh well, I'm glad that I have a gaming PC besides my Wii U.

@ToxieDogg Yes, but all of these games miss quite a lot of their DLC.
And lets face it, we live in a time, where developers first care about the DLC, THEN about the fact that the game runs properly.
Most recent examples ? AS Unity (PC) and Mortal Kombat X (PC).
Both games didnt run and both games first recieved a patch that fixed DLC issues, THEN they fixed the game.

So, for me, its rather hard to imagine devs would just say "nah, we dont need to release the stuff we make quite a lot of money with these days"

But yeah, its just a theory, a DLC theory

If Treyarch isn't handling the Wii U version, then it's likely that no-one is.

This game being a sci-fi setting, not made by Infinity Ward, and perhaps only coming to PS4, Xbox One, and PC, does mean it will be the least selling entry in the series for many many years though.

Activision is however fully aware that the franchise is winding down in popularity, so I'm guessing they're satisfied with trying to rake in some new interest from sci-fi geeks.

Well I still have loads of fun playing multiplayer on Ghosts and Black Ops 2, you cannot beat Wiimote controls. So I'd love Black Ops 3 to come to Wii U, but doubt it will. I will not go back to Dual Analogue controls for COD.

@DESS-M-8 You're correct, and for some unknown reason, this NX system will be the highlight to see if Nintendo can make a good comeback. Nintendo really needs to start thinking straight, instead of diving in the money bin...because the bin is getting empty. They need 3rd party support, they need a system that is just as good as the PS4 and XONE...or better, but they also need all of those games on it with new ones not being delayed or forgotten about. Nintendo should be giving some money to other companies, to make exclusives for them. They also need sports titles, more action, adventure, RPG, shooters, strategy and simulation games made for their consoles, and cannot just rely on indie download games and a few of their own games. This next system...and I hope...is going to either put nintendo back in the game, or...which I really hope it doesn't...put nintendo in the grave.

Often it will be better than http://goo.gl/2BPnlz Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare

I thought about COD BO 3 on my Wii U for a second I thought it might be good and I might get it if it releases on Wii U then I thought NO I will be to busy with STARFOX ( hopefully ), Xenoblade X , Yoshi's Woolly World, and Splatoon Especially Xenoblade X not to mention the games I want that are comming to the 3DS so no big deal to me .

@Will-75 I honestly think Xenoblade X should also be (hopefully), the Treehouse stream on Friday still being the Japanese version really makes me doubt a 2015 release (not to mention the vague "later this year" end to the stream.

@electrolite77 yep - add in a lack of variety in driving games and fighting games... I dont play Call of Duty as its not a game I'm interested in, but its the overall lack of diversity with Wii U that is a problem, as so many games skip the console.

@FLUX_CAPACITOR

I'm going by average game scores, of which, Nintendo is really no different. As I have repeatedly noted before.

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2014-releases
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2013-releases
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2012-releases
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2011-releases
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2010-releases

Nintendo is neither better or worse than Sony, MS, Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, or a host of other publishers when you look at the data. And Nintendo fans seem frequently fond of "forgetting" about how many zero-quality gaffes come from the company. Wii Music? Flingsmash? Pokemon Rumble U? Seemingly repeatedly trucking out Urban Champion for some idiotic reason. The list goes on. Nintendo has more than their fair share of crap churned out exactly the opposite of this fabled image the fanboys hold.

Nintendo makes some great games, but they also make a lot of crap. They're a good publisher, but really no different than their contemporaries. That's simply reality.

By the way, did you know the Nintendo Seal of Quality had nothing to do with quality at all? Seems like a lot of people simply do not understand this. It wasn't about "quality." It was about who was or was not an authorized, licensed developer for the NES. Calling it a "seal of quality" was clever marketing making anything not licensed "look bad."

This series of games, has been getting worse and worse over the past 4-5 years. It is nkw at a point, where it is so far in the future, when it comes to weapons and tech, that it is unbelievable.

This series needs to die quickly, and another game needs to take its place. What that game would be, I do not know. But surely, there are devs out there that can come up with better ideas than the yearly dribble from the CoD series.

@TwilightAngel

You did not explain why the industry needs all three companies making consoles, and seem to be just assuming that if Nintendo went 3rd party they'd "magically disappear."

Here's the thing--Nintendo fans love to talk about how great Nintendo's games are, how amazing the company is, and then turn right around and say they don't want the company to reach larger audiences which is precisely what would happen if they went 3rd party. Or, and this one is particularly amusing--suddenly turn a 180 and say that if Nintendo's games were on other systems, they wouldn't get sales seemingly because all of a sudden they have no confidence in Nintendo's oft-touted "quality." As if Nintendo fans believe that if Nintendo games were on other hardware, they wouldn't be able to compete against "superior games" from other developers. This is the exact moment when Nintendo fans no longer defend Nintendo, they suddenly, very clearly claim that "Nintendo would fail" in open competition on another platform.

It's more obvious than ever that the Wii was a fluke--a fad that hit the masses at just the right time, but it was another shot in the dark for Nintendo, the third in a line of four consoles seemingly made by throwing darts at a map of gimmicks. The N64, GameCube, Wii, and Wii U all had their bizarre differences that helped prevent them from wider industry acceptance, and despite the sales of the Wii, it clearly had no lasting value, either to gaming or Nintendo as it's gimmicks were promptly dropped by literally everyone else in the industry, and have been largely marginalized by Nintendo who now have a console with technically 5 different functional controllers--six with the GC adapter. That is not consumer friendly. The Wii did not influence the industry or inspire a new age--the biggest innovations from the last generation--those that survived the generation all came from Microsoft--how we deal with indies, user accounts, Achievements, online gaming infrastructure, digital shops, finally making the consoles multi-use entertainment hubs, etc. Even the very layout of the X360 controller has become an industry standard cloned by an absurd number of phone/mobile and PC controllers. Hell, many latter-day PC games are made with the X360 controller in mind when it comes to how they approach controllers.

Nintendo has been on a downward trend with their consoles ever since the NES--each console sells less than the previous model, with only the DS and Wii being flukes to break this pattern--but immediately after the DS and Wii, the trend continued. Out of curiosity, about a month or so ago, I analyzed sales of the 3DS, and found that it may well be selling worse than the GBA, meaning that it is the worst-selling Nintendo portable (the GBC was technically still just the original Game Boy, but with color, so they are not separate).

The GBA sold around 81 million in 5 years, and the 3DS has sold just over 50 million in 4 years. It will not sell a magical 30 million this year--it's a continuing trend.

If Nintendo is really so important and influential in the industry, why does their hardware continue this sluggish fall? They are clearly not reaching people with their hardware anymore. Nintendo is not seen as competitive and they are not even considered when people are buying new game hardware. This automatically marginalizes their impact and reach.

If Nintendo is so great, then Nintendo fans should be championing them doing something to reach wider masses and more consumers--and the best way for them to do that now is to go third party. And in their mobile deals with DeNA, they are playing the part of a third party as they will be putting software on a platform created by someone else. I have no doubts at all that they will make a fortune in this endeavor because they are finally adopting the behaviors of a third party and will be able to reach a much more massive audience.

Honestly, I think it all comes down to a selfish, narcissistic fanboyism. An attitude of "I want Nintendo for me, and I don't wanna share them with others." rather than championing Nintendo's strong history and wanting them to reach the audiences they deserve. The Wii showed that people will buy Nintendo's games on hardware that is popular--and if those games are on hardware people actually want or already have (PS4/XBO or mobile, respectively), then they will make vastly more money and influence the industry far more than if they keep churning out malingering consoles nobody but the most ardent fanboys want.

In all honesty, has any Nintendo console been taken super seriously by 3rd parties since the SNES? (not talking portables here).
We'll get a flutter here, a piece of scrap there,
a half-baked one, a "modified" version,
a "full of Nintendo fanfare so they will buy it" (this one I don't mind, but it's sad that they need to do it),
a Year old port sold at full price, a year delayed port for full price,
on and on and on.
They've never fully cared about Nintendo, but then they're only in it for the cash, which is why the Wii had more support, but less substance.
There is no win win for Nintendo and 3rd parties, unless they come together and build something.

We can count the pitiful 3rd party releases in the next few months on our fingers, two of them are Lego games, and one is a budget 10 year old port that is releasing on the same day as Splatoon!

I could honestly care less whether black ops 3 comes out for Wii U, it's just not my genre, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't. Nintendo is going solo with the Wii U more than any other console in the past, so it needs to embrace all VC games, promote the Nindies, and start compiling a list of 3rd parties it can work with to help develop a more diverse (but compelling) list of games for Wii U. It's clear that no third party is willingly adding Wii U support, but there is no need to wallow in disappointment either!

@kyuubikid213

There is much wrong with your post. The Wii U is indeed very outclassed by the PS4 and XBO. The Wii U is an Xbox 360 with 4 times the RAM. That is literally the hardware of the Wii U--also noting that it has far less storage space.

Blaming third parties for Nintendo's failures is beyond ridiculous. Third parties did not force the Wii or Wii U to be underpowered. Third parties did not prevent the Wii or Wii U from having adequate internal storage or harddrives. Third parties did not build a lackluster, antiquated online infrastructure. Third parties did not create bizarre controllers that added little to gaming--but actually took away quite a bit.

Rumor has it that one third party, however, did influence Nintendo to make at least one decision--Activision may be the reason Nintendo finally evolved to using clickable analog sticks. Take this with a grain of salt as it's largely unsubstantiated, but if a third party did influence Nintendo in some way, and it was this one, this is a reason to champion Activision's actions: http://wiiudaily.com/2012/07/activision-nintendo-wii-u-pro-controller/

The Wii U is way behind the XBO and PS4 technically. Perhaps you've heard of the Unreal engine? Well, Wii U can't handle Unreal 4, and Unreal is the most commonly used engine in modern gaming (although Unity is gaining ground due to it's appeal to indies), which means the Wii U is automatically not going to be friendly to a great many 3rd party games. In the same way the Wii received zero games made on Unreal 3.

The rest of your post comes off as unfocused rambling. Sure, there were failed X360s and PS3s, so what? They both still sold over 80 million consoles, and if those consoles were "so bad," logically the successors would not be selling so well, and both the PS4 and XBO have been noted as outselling their predecessors. Yes, even the XBO, which outsold the Wii U in about the same amount of time it took the Wii to outsell the X360. So what's the point of your comment here? If you wanted to claim that MS and Sony are low-quality and Nintendo is high quality, then you're now stuck having to explain why Nintendo is selling way behind the "low quality" consoles. Ultimately, that paragraph whittled down to "these consoles are low quality even though they sell way better than Nintendo."

For instance, the Vita is a high quality game system, though I can very easily point to the reasons it isn't selling--first and foremost is the ridiculously expensive and limited storage, some initially terrible marketing, the way the PSP limped it's way to irrelevance (thus lowering consumer confidence in the then-upcoming Vita), and the hefty rise of mobile.

And yes, Nintendo is struggling on the outskirts. Most gamers have heard of Mario Kart and Smash Bros. So what? We have now seen that it doesn't matter how many people know about those games--those games do not sell hardware. Period. Even Nintendo's biggest and most recognizable games are failing to move hardware. And after three years of painful losses (notable as the first they've faced since getting into gaming), and their hardware selling well below previous machines, it's pretty clear that yes, Nintendo is simply "lingering on the outskirts." Again, the Wii U's sales are below that of the Dreamcast and GameCube.

The rest of the industry seems to be simply waiting for Nintendo to walk away from hardware development. See my previous post (#125 in here) as to why they should.

@Quorthon
Thank you for your essay proving me wrong.

I will never again say anything without a large amount of evidence.

Nintendo should go third party because clearly they're just a trash irrelevant company now and no one cares about them. Double standards don't matter. Putting in actual effort to make games doesn't matter. Nintendo's a failure. The Wii was a failure. The 3DS is a failure. Everything Nintendo is terrible. I hope the NX is actually an announcement of them going third party.

I'm just a blind, stupid fanboy because I own Nintendo consoles. I'm so glad there's nothing redeeming about this company. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Are you finally satisfied? Damn.

I bet if Nintendo went third party, their games wouldn't sell and then gamers would cry out about how Nintendo should just leave the industry and how it'd be so much better without them.

It was obvious it wasn't coming. It also didn't come to Wii U for Advanced Warfare, despite some clues on their website. I own Ghosts on WiiU and I've been playing it multiplayer for a good long while. I know the player counts and they aren't impressive, although the game is fun and I'm glad we have it.

@Quorthon
I agree with a lot that you are saying. I don't think that there needs to be 3 consoles in the market, but I believe there will always be 3. PS4 and XBONE are so similar, its just in the minute differences and the fanboyisms that keep both companies going (pepsi v coke as healthy competition is important). The outlier is clearly Nintendo here, with the most unique lineup and device of the 3 consoles, however it's also clear that the market isn't favouring difference or creativity. In fact the body of the market usually tosses uniqueness aside, but that slowly erodes a market over time.

The Wii was a very good thing for the market, but the Wii U was not able to transcend that, many people still don't understand the Wii U, and that is fully Nintendo's fault for resting on their laurels, for being unable to communicate & SHOW it's value and difference, the name was the first mistake, and it just went downhill from there. The more you have to explain something to someone the less they are going to understand it, and they'll just move on, the Wii needed next to zero explanation, and therefore was swift to access and understand.

I think there is HUGE value in having Nintendo continue to make consoles, it allows them the creative freedom under their own roof, no need to comply with the other console makers. It allows them to try new things & be bold in execution, not worrying about # units sold or what sells to the market, sure they think of these things, and have games that rake in the cash, but they can also expand and deliver different games with new experiences without worrying about the bottom line.

Sega is the perfect example for why Nintendo shouldn't go 3rd party, what is unique and original about Sega anymore? Diluting Sonic and tarnishing the brand because the name "sells". Sega isn't trying anything new anymore, and the best offerings are their "indie" style games, This would murder creativity in the industry, and it would be a sad day for gaming, maybe not at first, but in the long run.

@RoomB31
I dunno what you're talking about. The Wii was bad. Nintendo is bad.

They shouldn't make video games anymore. No one cares.

Microsoft is the most likely of the Big 3 to go third party before anyone else. The XB1 is not setting the world on fire and the price cut hurt their revenue which is only going to renew investors calls to drop Xbox hardware development.

@Tazcat2011 That's wrong.
According to these numbers from VGChartz (it doesn't matter that it's VGChartz) http://www.vgchartz.com/
Wii U: 9.2 million
XB1: 12.0 milliion
PS4: 21 million
3DS: 52 million
Vita: 10.3 million

The One is outselling the Wii U, so it's relevant enough to stay. Also, it's got third party support. No one cares about handheld sales. Nintendo's the one that needs to (and should) go third party...althought, it'd just be better if they sold off their IPs and left the industry all together.

Splatoon gets my $60

@kyuubikid213 I'll believe that XB1 number if you can find a real source. MS has never released sold numbers only shipped.

@Tazcat2011
The industry doesn't care if it's just shipped units or sold. Fact of the matter is the One is getting third party support the Wii U isn't.

It's like Quorthon and TwilightAngel say, Nintendo's becoming irrelevant (implying they already aren't) and should just leave the industry or just go third party.

@kyuubikid213 Investors care if product is pulling through or not.

@Tazcat2011 Investors? What? Nonono. You don't understand... You see, 12 million is bigger than 9 million. It doesn't matter about the actual behind-the-scenes of it all. The One has more sales and more support from the rest of the industry.

You ask anyone on the street which new game console they'll buy and they will pick between either the PS4 or One. The Wii U (and Nintendo) aren't even a factor to the average consumer.

Nintendo is bad. They should just leave the industry already. [/angry and salty sarcasm]

@kyuubikid213 haha, you got me. Well played sir.

Claiming that going 3rd party actually helps Nintendo makes me laugh. Seriously, look at the sales numbers of the games that sell on PS4/XOne. The games that sell are all gritty shooters and sports games and generally mature rated games. Heck, just watch a Nintendo video on youtube and I swear that you'll find comments like "look at those kiddy games" from those mature gamers. There simply is no audience for Nintendo games on those consoles.
Also, just trying to imagine a future without Nintendo as a hardware manufacturer makes me shudder. You'll see a generation of consoles with even less differences as already is between XOne and PS4. Nintendo might suck at being up-to-date with hardware (which Xone and PS4 are aswell, but who cares obviously) but at least they try to offer new ways of gameplay. Although this has severly backfired this time. Nintendo just needs to make the hardware as similar as possible to Sony's and Microsoft's so that there are no more excuses for devs to be made while still trying to offer something new.

@RoomB31

Bear with me when I say this, as it could be easily misread, but I just wanted to note that I find incredibly fanboyish to make the "difference or creativity" comment about Nintendo and to act as if Nintendo is somehow more different or creative than anyone else, and that everyone else is just some kind of drone that doesn't want difference or creativity.

To be fair, Nintendo is different when they make consoles because they lack the confidence or understanding to be competitive, so they go running for gimmicky differences hoping that if they throw enough crap at the wall, some of it (like the Wii) will temporarily stick.

But when it comes to games, come on. Nintendo may be slightly different from popular tropes these days, but they still just churn out the same stuff over and over again. Personally, I didn't get burned out on Zelda games because Nintendo was "too different or creative." I got burned out on them because almost every Zelda game is the exact same predictable game over and over again, right down to recycled plots, characters, weapons, items, enemies, and dungeons. Mario Kart 8 is really no different than the Mario Kart games that came before. Nintendo banks on remakes and ports more than any other publisher or console maker, and I personally found DKC: Tropical Freeze, Super Mario U, Smash Bros, and Mario Kart all yawn-inducing in their lack of differences and overall sameness within their franchises. They are afraid to grow or experiment, and no amount of upside-down tracks changed the way Mario Kart ultimately plays. For all the crap gamers give Activision or Ubisoft for annual, samey, repetitive releases--Nintendo is no different. Frankly, Rayman Origins and Legends had more originality, creativity, and ingenuity than any Nintendo platformer I've played in two or three generations.

There is creativity, real orginality all over his industry these days. To act like Nintendo is the only place that does it is cruelly ignorant and dismissive to so many creative developers and teams out there. Sorry for the rant, but as Nintendo fans, we really need to outgrow knee-jerk reactions like "well, I guess nobody likes creativity anymore as only Nintendo is creative." Yes, I've made that foolhardy statement in the past as well, and I'm not proud of it as it was said without knowing of so much of what this industry offers. Rogue Legacy, for instance, features more creativity and originality to it's formula in a 10-minute session than the last three Metroid side-scrollers (including Other M) combined.

Sorry for the rant, I get that we're all fans of Nintendo, but to make any comment that the rest of the industry is somehow "not creative or original" while pretending that Nintendo is a solitary island of creativity in a sea of mediocrity is flatly damaging to our image as Nintendo fans and to the image of Nintendo as a whole. Nintendo can be woefully, creatively bankrupt--and we have a list of lame-ass Mario Party games to show it. The borderline insulting pricing of games like Pokemon Shuffle and Rusty's Real Deal Baseball show that they aren't subtle in trying to dig money from our pockets.

It also borders on a ridiculous kind of conspiracy theory to say "well, people just don't want creativity anymore, and that's why Nintendo is failing." The more likely answer is that people don't want the kind of bizarre differences and gimmicks that keep coming from Nintendo's "creativity." People hate the GamePad. The Wii is widely hated by gamers as a whole in large part due to the waggle nonsense shoehorned into so many games--or used as the backbone of some of the worst games of the last generation.

Nintendo is in this boat, not because "people don't like creativity" or because everyone is boring. Nintendo is not magically creative compared to the rest of the industry software-wise, and consumers simply have no interest in their absurd and often annoying "creativity" (gimmicks) on the hardware side.

Again, sorry for the rant, but this is a poor way to address Nintendo or the industry as a whole. I mean, we talk of "well Nintendo can try new things and be creative on their own," but when it comes to the games themselves, they aren't. Almost every single game they've made for the Wii U would play exactly the same on any other console. Sony doesn't have some kind of magical restrictions that would prevent XCX or Splatoon from existing. Nintendo would even likely be free to make the game with the ridiculously limited online on any other platform. Nintendo delivered 3 Zelda remakes over a 4-year span this generation. That "creativity" certainly wouldn't be curtailed by them being third party. Where are they doing things or making games they wouldn't be able to make elsewhere? Are they making AO-rated games that Sony and MS don't allow on their consoles?

Sure, they're free to do what they want now, but it's not like they're doing anything that can't be done or wouldn't be acceptable on other platforms--if anything, on other platforms, they'd have way more opportunities and options since the online infrastructures and hardware heft are superior everywhere else.

Frankly, the most creative and original games on the Wii U--Rayman Legends, ZombiU, Wonderful 101--were all adamantly ignored by Nintendo fans. It seems that the last thing even Nintendo fans want is creativity or something new, but Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros, and the Wind Waker remake all found sales.

As I've noted before, the problem isn't creativity or originality. For Nintendo fans, the determination more often than not, comes down to "Is it a Mario, Zelda, or Pokemon game?" In which case, they will sell, regardless of creativity or originality, while actual creative and original games--like Rayman Legends or Wonderful 101, will be ignored. If Nintendo fans really, truly care about originality and creativity so much, then Rayman Legends and Zombi U should have seriously outsold New Super Mario U and Wind Waker HD.

@kyuubikid213

That was an incredibly childish response.

Very unfortunate that you went that route.

@Nintendo69 Devil's Third? Yes please.

Glancing at what's selling on XB & PS it seems consumers are sticking to what's familiar. Even a critically acclaimed title like Shadow of Mordor isn't seeking very well on any platform. (current gen, last gen & PC). To accuse Nintendo fans of being the only ones stuck in a rut is just silly.

@Quorthon
the creative ideology was about making a hardware/software synthesis, something that can't necessarily be done on other platforms that Nintendo didn't develop. It's true that Nintendo hasn't embraced their hardware nearly as much this gen in terms of its unique properties, which is unfortunate, because it is these moments of interaction which I refer to. Of course there are hints of that uniqueness in a lot of games, but they don't fully embrace them.

Is it not arguable that Nintendo could end up like Sega if they went 3rd party? I'd like an opinion on this.

I'd argue that Zombii U and Wonderful 101 would have gone largely unnoticed on other platforms as well, (first they'd have to be re-tweaked to remove gamepad functionality of course). And Rayman Legends was largely ignored by the gaming public as a whole, so I'm not sure why you tout this game as an example, as the PS3 version sold a handful more than the Wii U.

I'm not denying that Nintendo uses its IP's to make money, but I'd argue that they aren't just rehashing the same title over and over again, the 3D Mario's are case in point. I also don't see Nintendo releasing these games every year like clockwork. Even if Nintendo isn't that different from how they use their IP's like every other publisher, they still have value in the market, and Nintendo hardware is still seen as progressive, even if it doesn't always work, or isn't always utilized.

So...can we all agree that everyone buys what they like and are wary of something different and new? That's why there are "hidden gems" in game libraries.

Yes. It's a fact that Mario, Call of Duty, and Halo will sell and a fair amount of people will buy those games. That doesn't mean the gamers that like those particular franchises turn their noses up at any other game, just that they're not sure of what this new IP will be and a vast majority of us would feel burned if we spent $60 on a new game that ended up being terrible.

Also, I'm only pointing a finger at third parties because, unless I'm completely wrong and this world has changed, games sell hardware. Yeah, Nintendo has to hold up their end, but if third parties actually put in effort, they could sell systems with their products.

I do find it a little funny that someone brought up Nintendo rehashing their franchises when we're on a Call of Duty: Black Ops III article.

@kyuubikid213 Yes, the irony is indeed rich. It's like independent movies, sometimes you have to wade thorough a lot of garbage to find a gem and some people just don't care to do that. I don't fault anyone for what they like, gaming has enough diversity to satisfy everyone.

Nintendo wants to be the family friendly system that everyone can play. The problem is the mainstream gamer is more interested in mature titles such as Battlefield, Call of Duty, GTA, Mortal Kombat, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Street Fighter, and so on. Those games have mainstream appeal and there's simply no interest at all in bringing them over to the Wii U. It's a shame really.

I don't know how Nintendo is going to pull themselves out of this. How do you promote yourselves as a family friendly console and still attract mature mainstream game development? Not only that but Bayonetta 2 sales have only helped to scare of 3rd parties. If that game didn't sell then why should 3rd parties take the risk with any other mature title? It's just not worth it for them. The lack of sports titles is also a huge issue for many people out there.

Nintendo did not promote this system properly from the start. That's my opinion. Those first family oriented TV spots were absolutely atrocious and quite frankly, embarrassing. Nintendo needs to take a page out of Sony's marketing play book.

@Einherjar I'll advance your theory, as I think it is part of the problem. Why release a DLC heavy game on the console when the basic console model doesn't have enough storage to hold much more than the hardware OS and the "Deluxe" model has as much storage as the basic revised Xbox 360 (which has an easy upgrade path of USB flash storage)? Developers design for the system in the box, and in that regard the Wii U is very lacking.

It's wonderful once you get a HDD, but let's be honest and admit that most do not bother with this. Having recently had to salvage data from a dying HDD, I will tell you that not a lot fits on that internal storage (even with the deluxe model).

@Yorumi

I agree that they haven't been used most of the time in meaningful ways, I still don't see them as gimmicks, and also don't agree that motion didn't add a lot to a lot of Wii games, I think some were overused maybe even unnecessary, but a lot of innovation happened that gen on all consoles.

Off tv play is the most used feature, not a gimmick. The rest is iffy, but I've seen some nice implementation across a lot of different games. The problem is that nintendo introduces these features, but really only gets one gen to figure it out, therefore having a lot of implementation being not fully developed, or having features feeling tech demo-esque.

I just don't believe they should stop doing it, because it only takes one idea to have an incredible impact.

@RoomB31

My point on ZombiU and Wonderful 101 wasn't about whether or not that they would sell on other consoles, but that there is a clear hypocrisy among Nintendo fans--who champion "originality and creativity," yet ignore those very games on in favor of "same old" Mario and Zelda games.

That, ultimately, Nintendo fans are exactly like the rest of modern gaming that is overly shy and cautious about new or different franchises, games, or concepts. Indeed, I think Nintendo fans are far more likely to run to the comforting familiarity of a safety blanket than the average gamer. Bulletstorm was a bold reinvention that failed to recoup it's costs (unfortunately, as the game was brilliant), but I think it still sold better than, say, Wonderful 101, Sin & Punishment, ZombiU, etc.

For all these conversations where Nintendo fans are championing Nintendo's "creativity and originality," they certainly aren't spending their money there. They're buying the same old games over and over again, while criticizing anyone else for doing it.

Ultimately, core Mario and Zelda fans are no different than core Call of Duty or Madden fans. Slap that logo on the front, and they'll buy it, regardless of quality, creativity, originality, evolution, or repetitiveness. Nintendo understands this, which is why they are so frequently against major innovation in their own franchises--this is why almost every Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, Pokemon, etc. game follows a strict set of rules and standards and features.

Ultimately, Nintendo fans want formulaic, predictable games just like the bulk of the gaming public. They just like to pretend they're different and superior.

In the end, the people who actually want creativity and originality are the people like me, who put their money where their mouth is--I own Sin & Punishment, Wonderful 101, ZombiU, Rayman Legends, and Bulletstorm, MadWorld, Deadly Creatures, and so forth. I grow tired of samey-experiences fairly quickly, and crave new experiences. I will not buy Ocarina of Time every time it's re-re-re-released, just as I will not buy Call of Duty every single year, but if something markedly different appears, it'll have my attention.

@RoomB31

In gaming, there is a very easy way to tell if something is a gimmick, or an innovation. Innovations transcend generations, become industry norms, and evolve the industry forward--like the analog stick on the N64 (arguably Nintendo's last true innovation). Innovations also improve what came before in some manner, which is why they stick around.

The innovations MS brought to console gaming have now transcended generations--the way indie games are handled, Achievements, user accounts/profiles, online infrastructure, etc.

The Wii Remote was a gimmick as it did not have longevity, added next to nothing to gaming as a whole, was frequently noted to be a backslide in many capacities ("waggle to jump" being one of the worst concepts ever squeezed out of gaming), and the Wii Remote itself is largely dead now. It's industry influence was to create a couple more ill-fated and quickly resigned gimmicks and little else.

As for the GamePad, MS and Sony did not have any interest in cloning the idea, most consumers see it as a huge turn-off, it hasn't revolutionized gaming or reinvented anything, and to be perfectly frank, if off-TV play is the best it can do, that's actually the opposite of why we buy home consoles. For that matter, off-TV play does not actually change anything or improve games in any way.

@kyuubikid213

Concerning 3rd parties on Nintendo consoles, pointing the blame at the 3rd parties is wrong in almost every argument you could make. Nintendo is who botched this.

Nintendo is who limited the hardware power so that many new games will simply not run, nor can they be easily ported to the system.

Nintendo is who failed to build a modern online infrastructure in the system.

Nintendo is who refused to put a bloody harddrive in the console. Put yourself in the shoes of any 3rd party publisher, how much money are you going to want to invest to put DLC on a console that really doesn't have the storage space to hold that DLC? Sure, we can buy an external HDD for the Wii U (I did), but from a corporate standpoint, it's extremely irresponsible to bank on what consumers "might do." Suffice to say, Nintendo basically ensured that third party publishers would be leery of the console since it can't handle new engines and doesn't have any storage space for DLC.

That is NINTENDO'S FAULT, not the fault of the 3rd parties. Nintendo designed hardware unfriendly to them. Blaming third parties for Nintendo's failing is just nonsensical.

@Quorthon, could you stop generalizing the entire Nintendo fanbase? Please?

Also, your Bulletstorm example falls flat on it's face as it launched on the PS3 and 360 at a time when there were quite a few of those out there whereas Wonderful 101 and ZombiU were launch or launch window titles.

I also own MadWorld, Geist, and a handful of other different games. What's your point? Say what you will about Nintendo gamers, but as you've said, that's the majority of the gaming public.

And if anyone likes to pretend to be superior and different, it's people like you who think that just because you own some of the hidden gems and shun the popular for the sake of it.

I'll admit that I've given Call of Duty it's fair share of crap, but if we're being totally honest here, there's a much MUCH larger difference between Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario 3D World. A MUCH larger difference between Pokemon Red and Pokemon Omega Ruby. What's Call of Duty really changed and altered since the earlier iterations? Online, perks, and some dogs.

@MajinSoul

If you want Nintendo to make their hardware as similar as possible to MS and Sony, they might as well just go third party.

The more MS and Sony become alike, the sooner we can get to a unified gaming platform.

Well I do hope they make a port as WiiU is the only way ill play multiplayer. However if not I'll get it for PC and play the rest of my WiiU backlog.

@kyuubikid213

What evidence do you have that I "shun the popular just to do it?" What a moronic thing to say. I noted that I deliberately look out for bizarre and rare gems, but I play a wide variety of games, so I also have some Call of Duty titles, Far Cry 4, and whatnot. I think the best value in gaming is to simply be well-rounded and give everything a try. I neither ignore a game for "looking kiddie," nor to do stupidly claim "all shooters are the same." I'll give 'em all a shot first.

But by all means, way to run to an ad hominem as soon as possible. My comments about Nintendo fans are general statements which do not define every single person, only general, majority consumers therein, observing sales patterns and behavior.

For instance: Nintendo fans will routinely champion Nintendo as "creative and original and different," as positives, but they clearly do not support "creative and original and different" games in substantial, or supportive numbers.

What has Call of Duty changed over the years? I don't know, because I haven't played all of them. But whatever small changes those franchises make are no different than the small changes Super Mario games make. Ultimately, Mario games still play the same way, either get to the exit or get the Star/Shine, but overall design remains consistent, which is why you can pick up and play any Call of Duty or Mario game. These are both casual franchises built around familiarity.

You also have a strange false dichotomy between dismissing Bulletstorm and defending the low sales of Wonderful 101 and Zombi U. What does "launch games" have to do with anything (W101 was actually not a launch game)? Twilight Princess was also a launch game, and that had about the best sales of any Zelda title. Killzone 3 was also a 2011 shooter, like Bulletstorm, and it sold much better. This data backs up my point, and contradicts yours. Yours was not very focused to begin with, though, as all you had was "Bulletstorm didn't sell because there was lots of shooters then."

@Quorthon
Well, first off, that's completely wrong because EA had no problem releasing Battlefield 4 on 360 even though there were millions of those without harddrives...

And Ubisoft did the same with Watch_Dogs

So, there goes that argument.

Also, it's not like the PS4 or One are completey different from their 7th gen counterparts because for the majority of their first years on the market, they got cross-gen ports and not much else. A short list I can think of are Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, Destiny, Watch_Dogs, Battlefield 4, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, Wolfenstein: The New Order, Tomb Raider, The Last of Us, Alien: Isolation, Shadow of Mordor, Farcry 4, Titanfall, and Dragon Age Inquisition. If these same developers are to be believed, it wasn't THAT difficult to port the 360 version to the Wii U, so yes, I will continue to blame third parties for not porting these games (among others) to the Wii U, thus causing the system to not seem worth it to gaming consumers.

Sure, Nintendo has a different architecture, but not porting because it'd be "too hard" is just developer laziness. Remember back in the early 2000s when a game could come out on the PC, Xbox, PS2, GameCube, and GBA? And the game had different features based on the hardware it was on? That's what developers should strive to do now, but they don't because if they can't drag and drop the code between systems, they can't be bothered. I will stand by this until someone proves otherwise.

I'll admit Nintendo's made their mistakes, but all of this is not their fault.

@Quorthon, I never said Bulletstorm didn't sell well because there were a lot of shooters. I was saying that comparing Bulletstorm's sales to the sales of Wonderful 101 and ZombiU was silly because Bulletstorm launched at a time when there were tens of millions of PS3s and 360s and ZombiU and Wonderful 101 launched on a console with a few million units at best. Even if only 30% of the userbase bought either game, the numbers would have Bulletstorm higher.

Also, what are you trying to do? Twilight Princess and Killzone 3? You're honestly trying to tell me that two games from well known and beloved franchises are comparable to a new IP? Isn't that what this whole argument is about anyway?? It doesn't matter if they were launch titles because they were Twilight Princess and Killzone 3! Pay attention before you start trying to point out my contradictions.

And another thing, a unified gaming console would be a terrible thing because there'd be no competition and the hardware developer could make whatever piece of crap they wanted to and we'd HAVE to buy it because there'd be nothing else.

@Yorumi
I'm not saying that because I like it and therefore it is better. I'm saying that because I can actively look at the games and see what's changed over the years. Can you objectively look at Call of Duty and show me the same level of changes?

I don't hate Call of Duty. Let's get that straight. But my earliest entry in the series is Call of Duty 2: Big Red One and my latest entry is Call of Duty Black Ops II and, to be honest, there's not much that I can sit there and say "Oh cool! That's a nice new edition!" I like the games, but there aren't any significant differences I can point out.

@kyuubikid213 The difference between this generation and the Gamecube generation is twofold. First, the cost of developing a "AAA" title has skyrocketed as player expectations have grown. Games are developed with this idea of selling millions instead of setting a realistic budget. This is how the Tomb Raider reboot was considered a failure initially for only selling 3.4 million copies. Just stop and think about that for a second. A game that made over $6 million in sales for the publisher at the time was considered a failure. (30% take on a $60 game).

Second, back then there were a lot more publishers in business compared to today when there are only a handful of Major Publishers that have gobbled everything up. Now corporate money is involved, and they are a risk adverse bunch. Much like the movie industry, the video game industry has become about the blockbuster. To the point that the middle of the market is gone and only Nintendo seems to have any interest in bringing it back with titles like Capt. Toad and Kirby: Rainbow Curse (with mixed results)

So the problem becomes why lose money on porting a game to a system that will not make a profit? Outside of getting gamer goodwill, it is a horrible business plan.

EDIT: It kills me because I've enjoyed a lot of games on the Wii U like Assassin's Creed and Batman: Arkham Origins but I cannot argue with the business reasons for it. At the same time, I do hold publishers a little responsible for putting inferior product out for the console and then acting surprised that it didn't sell.

@Yorumi
I never said that. Of course PC hardware would continue to improve, but it's not like there'd be any competition to truly strive to improve the system. It'd be whatever it was and that would be it.

Sure, it could be a 4K uncapped framerate console and be literally the best thing ever, but then what? What incentive would there be to make it truly extraordinary as opposed to just GOOD. That's what competition does. Competition fuels that fire to make developers make something that stands above the rest...at least, that's what they try to do.

@Yorumi
What's different about Call of Duty? You shoot people, watch a cutscene, shoot people, watch something explode, and shoot people. Credits.

Dec 2007 500 million was spent on games for XB 360, 150 million came from two games alone. Big titles/sequels sell, they aren't going anywhere.

@Darknyht
And that's my point. If they would actually take the risk, they could make it so the console they'd port it to wouldn't be a "system that would not make profit."

The ONLY reason the Wii U is in the position it is in now is because third parties avoided it. Is that a cause of Nintendo not using x86 architecture for easy porting? Yeah, but these same developers have already proven that's not exactly a big issue as we do have Batman Arkham City: Armored Edition, Assassin's Creed III, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, Mass Effect 3: Special Edition, Call of Duty: Black Ops II, and Call of Duty: Ghosts. All of those third party ports that were functional, but no. They stopped porting and stopped putting effort into the ports they DID bring over.

Let's be completely honest here. If you had a Wii U and a 360 and Game Z was coming out for both of them, would you get the 360 version which has promised DLC and patch support or would you get the Wii U version that has multiplayer removed for some reason? Obviously the 360 version because you're getting the proper experience. Now if it was the reverse? If in some alternate universe, the Wii U version had a ton of extra features got the games on time, I highly doubt people would avoid that version of the game.

@kyuubikid213 Those initial ports that everyone justifiably dislikes was them taking a risk. The history already showed that third party on Nintendo was a losing proposition (go look at Wii third party sales data). So the industry put out older titles ported at a budget to the console and they flopped. Even the specifically developed titles for the console flopped (ZombiU, Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2 and Rayman Legends). So they stopped before they lost more money.

Now you can point out the stupidity of porting games people probably already owned to the console, especially when most studies showed consumers owned multiple consoles. But you cannot say they didn't try.

If you want third parties like Ubisoft back, the answer is simple: Go buy every third party Wii U product you can (retail, not used) and convince everyone you can to do the same. Put up the sales data that shows there is an interest. The same with DLC content if you want it. Prove that 9.5 million Wii U consoles can be just as profitable as the 10.5 million Xbox One consoles in the market and I will guarantee that third parties will notice.

@Yorumi
...then you're not talking about a unified console. You're talking about a temporary monopoly on the home console industry.

Prove Mario is more different than CoD? Okay. Off the top of my head...

MARIO:
New items.
Added Overworld Map.
Yoshi (temporarily)
Added Multiplayer.
Gave Mario new moves besides just jumping.
3D environments.
New kinds of level types (shadow themed levels for example in 3D World)
Plessie.
Interacting with the levels via GamePad
(Temporary Changes)
Completely new style of game with Sunshine.
Game Modes like Coin Rush

CALL OF DUTY:
New weapons (although they all still shoot bullets into faces)
Perks (including dogs)
Online
Verticality (finally) In AW
Prestige
Zombies
New game Modes.
DLC

@Darknyht
Again, why would someone intentionally buy an inferior version of a game? If the Wii U versions of the later multiplats were up to par with the PS3 and 360 versions, we wouldn't be in this position because the Wii U versions wouldn't be outright missing game modes or just be inferior games overall.

I do buy third party titles (I own Bayonetta 2, Black Ops II, and Assassin's Creed among others), but when the rest of the third party releases on Wii U are intentionally neutered ports because developers have the thought that "They won't sell anyway, so why will I try?" I'm not going to support that.

Besides, If I do support neutered releases on the Wii U, we'll just be in the same position. It'd likely be something along the lines of "Here's Destiny on the Wii U! A year late with no upcoming DLC, but that's what you guys want, right? It won't bother you!"

@Yorumi
Right. Please...

Tell me more about how the multiplayer in Super Mario Bros. is the EXACT SAME as the mulitplayer in Super Mario 3D World... Oh wait. It's not.

Also, please tell me how 3D doesn't change the game. It's not like a 3D environment changes the way level design works or anything. It's not like a 3D world opens up gaming possibilities or anything. What? 3D DOES change how a game works? You're serious?? Oh man...

You were so caught up in trying to find a contradiction in my logic that you just made yourself look foolish. Please. Pay attention and think.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've grown tired of this topic and am off to play Halo with my friend. Bye.

EDIT: Also, I already stated in comment #165 that I like the Call of Duty series so you're wrong there to. Bye.

@kyuubikid213 I didn't say you weren't right in buying those titles elsewhere, but the net result is that it confirmed the publishers bias towards the Wii U. They stopped publishing anything on the console because nothing they put on the console sold, even the new or unique IP with the exception of Just Dance and Lego games. That is exactly the same pattern that the Wii followed before it.

Let's say you are a tomato seller. If history showed you that trying to sell tomatoes at the local farmer's market cost you more than you spent to bring them to market in the first place, would you continue selling there? I would guess not. You may keep a presence there selling limited quantities just for marketing purposes and appearances, but your best product would go to the markets you made a profit. It's simple economics.

Ubisoft tried for multiple titles (ZombiU, Assassin's Creed III, Assassin's Creed IV, and finally Watch_Dogs) and no one bought them. So why would they bother to bring AC: Liberation HD or AC: Rouge to the Wii U market?

Seriously just play what you like. If it were not for COD, Mario, Halo, AC etc games like Journey, Bayonetta 2 and Okami wouldn't exist.

Fingers crossed - I would definitely pick up a Wii U version.

BLOPS 2 and Ghosts were apparently ported by a small team of less than 40 people in under four months - so it could still be done....Can't see it though.

Hello

Ubisoft is not a good example of third parties and the Wii U. AC III had delayed DLC, ACIV didn't get any and Watch Dogs came out 6 months after everybody else when the hype was over and the mediocre reviews were out. On top of that the debacle of AC Unity. Ubisoft represents the worst of the "just ship it, we'll fix it later" attitude that has certainly made me less than excited about any of their future projects.

@Darknyht Then again, lets take the PS4 for comparison, which packs a whoping 500 GB right from the get go...that is filled almost as fast as the DX WiiU model is, due to every game having a mandatory installation + huge update files.
My usual example: Diablo 3. Put the disc in and say bye to 50GB already.
Adding the fact that some games randomly tale a couple of high res screenshots and videos all the time, and even that HDD is quickly filled to the brim. WITHOUT the option to quickly hook up an external HDD or even transfer stuff from point A to point B (no HDD swap without wiping it)

The WiiUs solution might not be the best, but its far from the worst, as its HDD compatibility is the best option in the long run.
And with 32GB, you could easily support disc based games with plenty of DLC.

who cares SPLATOON!

@kyuubikid213 I was not gonna reply to cause all of your comment is just salty fanboy nonsense. But this "It's like Quorthon and TwilightAngel say, Nintendo's becoming irrelevant (implying they already aren't) and should just leave the industry or just go third party." I never said Nintendo should go third party. I said in a comment to Quorthon about his comment towards Nintendo going third party and i repeat "I don't agree with Nintendo going third party. Why? Because the industry needs them, you can like this or not is the truth" Don't know why you said that you must be blind as a bat with those fanboy goggles you're wearing. God people like you give me giant headaches.

@Darknyht Honestly those AA games are what I miss the most in this era of gaming. Developers/publishers only want to make the AAA games, but those smaller games always seemed to have more personality. I miss those hidden gems. I miss the time when game companies would experiment and produced some weird, classic, and often unforgetable experiences.

Fortunately we have the Indie community and they seem more willing to take some risks, so who knows? Maybe some of those indie companies might turn into the next AA studios?

@TwilightAngel Okay, I'm not sure if you got it...but my "salty fanboy comments" were all sarcasm. A parody of those that are on this site that rarely have anything positive to say about Nintendo and are quick to understate any positive news.

And I'm no fanboy. So, I'd appreciate it if you stopped that.

@Samuel-Flutter It's not all doom & gloom on the indie scene. I think Nintendo seems committed to indies: they helped Platinum when Sega bailed, the New 3ds is getting unity support and they seem to be promoting ASA fairly well too. I hope the platinum deal made both sides money so that relationship will continue to grow.

BTW I'm not saying others don't support indies too.

@Quorthon how high are you, bro?

Nintendo need to appeal to a wider audience. I will bet half those that bought the Wii U will not be queuing up for its successor.

Nintendo makes damn good games but apart from a dwindling fanbase no one really cares, few care enough to buy a console to play them.

This is Nintendo's problem. Mass appeal. Nintendo is in a popularity contest and right now the sales indicate it's the kid with acne and severe bad breath.

When games like CoD skip the Wii U its not good. I am no fan of the franchise but what harm could it do being on the Wii U? I say games like CoD because they are guaranteed to make a good profit so some risk could be taken.

Funny enough Nintendo describe the NX exactly the same way they describe the Wii and Wii U. I can see more gimmicks coming.

@Tazcat2011 Oh I know. I have plenty of Indie titles to keep me busy. I had to get Steam in order to grab those gems that pass Nintendo hardware by. I like that indie developers are able to experiment more than AAA developers can. It reminds me of times before developers saw what worked and what didn't and began to "imitate" one another. Not that there aren't gems that come from the AAA scene mind you. I just hope that indie developers continue to support Nintendo's consoles.

@Hotfusion
That's true. The fact that Nintendo makes the best games means nothing to 90% of people, all they are interested in is buying the next console that has their favorite brand name on it whether it be Xbox or Playstation.

I think that it'll eventually lead to a crash though, as people will at some point get bored of continually buying the same sub par games. Hopefully Nintendo will be there to pick up the pieces again and save the industry.

@kyuubikid213 How in gods name can anyone know that? Were not there while you write the comment in sarcasm. And not a fanboy? Read your comments again,but you know what i'm done with you,cause your comments just wow. Don't reply to this,cause i'm not gonna respond.

@Quorthon Honestly, with all of the news surrounding Konami and looking at it alongside Sega and Capcom's current states, I don't think Nintendo would do very well at all as a 3rd party.

If Nintendo went 3rd party, they'd be flinging Mario and Zelda at a wall much like Sega is doing with Sonic in hopes that one would stick and actually make decent profit. Nintendo's other franchises like Metroid would be in the same dark closet that Mega Man, Shenmue, Bomberman, and all of the other Capcom, Sega, and Konami franchises are, never to be seen again outside of re-releases.

When it comes to console gaming, it's either indie or AAA. A and AA games are pretty much no more. There's a reason companies are stooping to anti-consumer policies and abusive microtransactions/DLC and games that are released in pieces. AAA gaming is becoming more and more unprofitable.

This system will collapse upon itself as people get fed up. The gaming industry is a giant bubble ready to burst. Nintendo will do no better as a 3rd party.

Besides, there's no audience for their games outside of pre-existing Nintendo fans. That number isn't large enough for AAA console multiplats to be profitable for them. Sales mean nothing if games aren't profitable - they won't be able to reach the number of sales that would be required to reach any decent amount of profitability.

Japanese development is becoming irrelevant in console gaming whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, this also means that many iconic franchises will inevitably die, or they will become mobile-specific games that are lower quality. Or they'll be on the side of pachinko machines in Japan. Maybe Nintendo should take that up. Gaming will become unprofitable for them.

Time for an industry crash (or at least AAA gaming).

@FragRed

I'm not rooting for this, but the easiest way for Nintendo get third parties on board with NX, at least early on, would be to go all digital. As somebody who prefers physical copies of games I hate that this is where the industry is headed but reality has to be faced at some point and this is the sad reality. Companies want total control of these games and all digital does that.

@Gamer83 With DeNA now firmly on board I would imagine Nintendo's infrastructure for all consoles going forward, and especially with NX as it will be a brand new system, digital will be something Nintendo can easily and heavily push. However Nintendo aren't exactly known for their cheap 1st party games when it comes to being digital.

@Hotfusion I agree about the Wii U successor being gimmick heavy, ever since the GC sold rather poor Nintendo has always been about the gimmicks with their consoles. I wouldn't be surprised if the smartphone games are Nintendo's way of getting away with not having to stick to the traditional console approach (powerhouse, standard controller). If they make huge profits on the smartphone games, they can easily accept loses from the gimmicky consoles.

Don't get me wrong, the Wii U is a fantastic console (joint favourite with the GC) but the fact that smartphone games are Nintendo's solution to poor Wii U sales is very frustrating!

Here's the way I see it.

Wii U only needs one good online "military shooter" to keep the population of players in one place.

Black ops 2 was well optimised for the system so why not roll with that?

• Give all multiplayer maps away as free DLC to expand upon the original game.
• Sell the "Zombies" maps individually and at a discount as a pack of 4 (3 for the price of 4)
• Sell personalisation packs for the game to recuperate the costs of giving away the multiplayer maps free, adding some nintendo exclusive weapon skins along with those available on other systems.
• Double XP weekends activated whenever the latest CoD title receives one on other platforms

Personally I see that as problem solved.

@IceClimbers

There is an audience for their games outside of Nintendo fans and their mobile titles will show this. There are Nintendo fans everywhere, but Nintendo's generally off-putting hardware ideas continue driving those people away. Most of them are gamers more like me--they want Nintendo games as much as they want third party, but since they can't get third party on the Nintendo system, they walk away. The Wii showed that Nintendo's games will sell if on hardware with high enough sales, as Mario Kart Wii sold 35 million copies. Sure, it helped that it was regularly packed with Wii consoles, but it shows that if on a platform that already has sales, then Nintendo's games will have sales.

I think it's ridiculous to look at the struggles of Capcom, Konami, or Sega and say "well, third party isn't working for them, so it won't work for Nintendo." That makes no sense, whatsoever. Besides, what's the point? That Konami, Sega, and Capcom should make their own hardware? Why not look at EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, or Take Two? They're all third party, and they own this industry. Square-Enix may actually be on a return these days with the revival of so many franchises (like Tomb Raider and Deus Ex) and their mobile arm.

I simply do not follow the logic. For that matter, I'm once again super surprised to see the usual confidence in Nintendo vanish completely when talking about them going third party. All of a sudden, Nintendo would just, what, fail massively if third party? Guess what, they're already failing. They've been failing at the console game for four generations and despite the sales of the Wii, almost nothing positive (except for money) came from it.

The Wii further damaged relations with third parties, it further damaged relations with gamers, it died an early, malingering death. People see Nintendo as gimmicky and faddish more than ever before. The Wii was so disliked, the majority of this industry didn't even want to give the Wii U a chance.

For that matter, A and AA games still exist and just as many as AAA still find their audiences. What do you think Atlus games are? They aren't AAA titles, they're flatly A and AA-levels. There are a lot of indie studios growing into A and AA levels--which we should champion.

Here's what I'd really like explained: Why do so many Nintendo fans have untold levels of blind faith and confidence in Nintendo to "survive forever" with terrible hardware that doesn't sell, but suddenly have no confidence in the company at all for them to be third party?

Why, why do you think Nintendo would suddenly become a terrible developer and publisher just because they'd go third party?

They were third party once before, you know, and they carried some weight. Donkey Kong was notable as a selling point for the ColecoVision back in 1982/83 before the crash.

Here's how a staggering number of you guys have answered the third party comments in a conversation:

Nintendo fan/fanboy: "Nintendo is the bestest game company ever and the highest quality game company ever!! Their games are the best!"

Critical thinker: "They should maybe go third party, they have no idea how to sell consoles."

Nintendo fan/fanboy: "Nintendo wouldn't survive if they were third party, they aren't high quality enough, and their games would be terrible now for some reason."

Am I really one of the only people that looks at Nintendo, and sees a company who could literally control this industry as a third party? You think MS or Sony or even Valve wouldn't bend over backwards to get access to that back catalog? If there's one thing we know about Nintendo, it's that this company over-estimates the value of their own games and designs, so they'd force MS, Sony, Valve, whoever to fight for the rights and freedom they want. And Sony, MS, or Valve would--I have no doubt--bend to the whims of Nintendo, especially--as I would expect--exclusive rights were on the line.

Nintendo fans love to champion Nintendo as the best company ever, but when talking about them going third party, all of a sudden Nintendo is the weakest, most inept company ever and they would wither away to nothing overnight. If Nintendo was so inept that they couldn't survive as a third party, then they wouldn't deserve to survive at all.

@kyuubikid213

A unified console would be more like regular DVD/Blu-Ray players. No one ever said "one console only," but a unified platform--like how Android works on multiple devices.

A unified console, a hybrid of Blu-Ray players and set-top boxes, would still require digital shops from different companies--a shop from Microsoft, a shop from Sony, a shop from Nintendo--even shops from EA, Activision, Square-Enix, Capcom. Something EA would no-doubt support in a heartbeat as they've already tinkered with the idea of direct streaming through Xfinity boxes.

All you see is one console made by one company which is absurdly unrealistic. An actual unified console would be multiple versions of the hardware, from multiple companies, but all of them able to play the same games, with someone like the ESA determining a new generational "minimum" every 5 years.

We are this close to a unified platform now. All we need is for MS and Sony to realize how alike they are and to find a way to develop a unified OS that works on multiple devices--or for that matter, Valve. Which is precisely what the Steam Machines are being designed to do.

@Darknyht

Referring to comment #166: To be fair to the third parties, many put out very high quality games, even definitive editions, and they still failed to find sales. The first year of every new console (post PS1 era) always sees last-gen ports which are used as a learning tool and to get some income to fund the full next-gen projects--and these were still profitable on the XBO and PS4, but not so on the Wii U, where fans ignored them. Arkham City, Mass Effect 3, Tekken Tag 2, Ninja Gaiden 3, etc. Several games were released on the Wii U with the utmost developer confidence and effort, and they still struggled to find sales.

Along with having no place to store DLC and the low sales of games that were high quality, it's no wonder third parties walked away from the Wii U in record time.

But why would they stick around when their options for DLC and online are gimped by Nintendo and the Nintendo fans don't support them anyway? I don't hold any animosity toward third parties for walking away from the Wii U. Many of them put in serious efforts and were still met with hostility. The message Nintendo fans sent was a clear, "we don't want to support your games, but we'll be angry if you leave." If I were a third party watching on the sidelines, I wouldn't even bother with the company in the first place given that.

Eh, it was irritating when they were making 360/PS3 ports of games, but skipping Wii U, but if they're specifically developing this new installment for newer hardware, I completely understand it skipping out. The Wii U isn't as strong as the XB1/PS4, after all. Shame that Advanced Warfare skipped out last time around, though. Really wanted to try out the exosuit gameplay.

@kyuubikid213

Concerning your nonsensical #162 comment, no those companies did not have a problem putting games on the X360 because the consoles without much storage space were only the X360 Arcade models, which were only sold for about two years--2 out of 10 years--and they were clearly not the major selling models, as every other X360 featured a harddrive, and every X360 being sold by the time Battlefield 4 came out had a harrdrive built-in. This is a laughably weak argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Retail_configurations

You're remembrance of the 6th generation is also rather dubious, and to just call developers "lazy" is an absurdly illogical notion. First off, most developers are affiliated with a publisher, unless they are indie and self-publishing digital titles. Publishers often have the final say in where a game goes, and which platform it ends up on, and which features it'll have. So to call the developers "lazy" is choosing to have the maximum amount of ignorance as to how the industry actually works.

Publishers, for that matter, are not going to want to commit games to consoles where they are not profitable. Many publishers worked with their developers to put in serious efforts on the Wii U and were ignored anyway (before you stupidly try to pull the "they were all just ports of last-gen games" nonsense, remember that the XBO and PS4--and PS3, X360, Wii, PS2, Dreamcast, GC, XB all also featured a wealth of last-gen ports their first year, and on MS and Sony systems, those games still sold).

The other major difference between now and then is that, for one thing, the PS2, XB, and GC were all very similar hardware, thus making porting easier, and these days, most major games are engine-driven, and the Wii U already can't handle at least one next-gen engine, and will be unable to handle others as the generation drives on. That is an automatic strike against the console, one that is entirely Nintendo's fault.

Also, sticking with something "until someone proves you wrong" is arguing from a losing position from the beginning. Any good argument or stance must be held up on it's own, and demonstrated on it's own, and supported by evidence made by the stater of the argument. To just run around believing nonsense until something is "disproven" is massively, personally irresponsible. For one thing, "negatives" cannot generally be proven. Like saying "prove to me giant invisible elves didn't knock down the World Trade Center! Until you can prove it wasn't giant invisible elves, I'm just going to believe it!" No one can prove that, but that doesn't mean it's smart to believe it was giant invisible elves.

That is essentially how you made your point. "It was giant invisible elves, and I'm going to believe it until someone disproves me." No, kid, prove your point first, or you don't have a point to begin with. Putting that in there is effectively an admission that you are wrong and you know you are.

I'm just surprise how surprise people are about Call of Duty Black Ops III not coming to the Wii U. I mean, isn't it that obvious? I hate that I have to get other system to play games like this or Mortal Kombat X. People say "People don't buy Nintendo for 3rd party games..." but what about back in the NES/SNES/N64 days? Most of the 3rd party stuff was rule on Nintendo systems. I don't get it...3rd party stuff was SO GREAT on Nintendo platforms back then. What happen?? sigh I don't know man...I don't know...

@Quorthon Really, everybody know that you hate the Wii. The Wii was a fluke and Nintendo's success with it should always be discounted. Yes, it was a fad that broke all sorts of records in sells. Like selling 3.8 million in one month (December 2009)... Also, according to you Quorthon, Nintendo's portable systems are failures as well(since Nintendo failed 4 times in a row whatever that suppose to mean)...even though, most likely they are most profitable due to higher margins and lower overall cost development cost.

I'm going to keep this short sweet and simple. Third parties treated Wii customers like dog fecal matter. Nintendo, stepped up and reach a new freaking market yet the “industry” didn’t even make an honest effort to engage that new market. Instead of developing good games given the power that the Wii had (like Nintendo) they gave the Wii audience delayed ports, mini game collection galore and glitch ridden games. In turn, this leads to mid-level developers to close up shops due the “industry” focus expensive to develop on sub 720p PS3 and Xbox 360 (Yes, I said sub 720p because most of the games don’t even run in native 720p let alone 1080p). You don’t need a lot of power to make good and engaging games and clearly indicated by Nintendo first party sales. Furthermore, this increase in power lead to longer and more costlier video game development cycle which gave rise to this day 1 dlc and on disc dlc and other sketchy stuff the “industry” have to turn a profit. Whereas the Wii was cheap to develop for and, most likely, there was some familiarity due to the Wii and Gamecube similar architecture. I don’t know of any other “industry” except the “gaming industry” where a platform would be disregarded for lower development cost like the Wii was.

And don’t get me started on the 3DS launch that Nintendo, themselves, gave to third party developers and what did they release on it? Trash, filth and tragedy. So please leave us alone on this “Nintendo fans” don’t buy third parties when a lot of the time they leave us no choice to disregard their games until they reach bargain bin prices…

Oh yeah, @Quorthon, do the math on the revenues that Nintendo will lose to going third party. From the top of my head Nintendo get about 60% of the cost of the retail game vs 30% like a third party developer and publisher would have gotten. Also, you would have to remove the money Nintendo makes from third party publishing games on their platforms, loss of selling accessories and the money generated from selling the consoles as well…

I’m not trying to say Nintendo is completely blameless in this mess. (Better launch games for the Wii U, especially tailored around the gamepad and better marketing would have help profusely) However, you think third party blameless you need to reexamine the evidence and history.

@Malakai And where are all those people that made the wii a commercial success that it was? They sure as hell ain't enjoying the wiiu with the rest of the nintendo community.
How where third party's supposed to treat the wii? Third party's are not going to jump through flaming hoops to port games to a system that had GCN power under the hood.Especially when nintendo makes no effort to work with these dev's, and just releases a system without asking for any kind of feedback.

@Ninty4thewin there are now 3 different studies developing CoD games: Treyarch, Infinity Ward, and Sledgehammer. So the devs actually have ~3 years per game.

This doesn't surprise me though. I don't play CoD anymore, but more choice for the consumer is always better.

@Superryanworld

It's the typical blame game. "Its the developers fault".

The fact that when Nintendo was the power in gaming they treated the developers badly is usually forgotten. Read up on the history of Nintendo.

What goes around usually comes around. Bullying the devs, charging developers ridiculous amounts of money for the N64 cartridge, then the GC proprietary disc. Building weak puny systems at a time when eye candy sells huge amount of games for devs, etc.

@DiscoGentleman specs do matter in this case as 3rd party developers aren't porting their games over to Wii U because of its low specs then people aren't buying the systen so specs do play a part so I'm afraid your the one who is misinformed. Obviously the quality of games play a huge part too but with no 3rd party games the console will fall flat on its face.