FOREST_RANGER

I wish Nintendo--or the party that published this game--would warn that this is a video game, not a magical way to flex one's mental cognition

Only 255 votes?? Lol, this poll's probably biased towards people who want transferable purchases.

Nintendo should consider revamping their user accounts system since their downloads earnings are slowly increasing. And if Apple, Steam, Microsoft, Adobe, and Sony lets users tie purchases to their user accounts, those users have new expectations of how purchases should be handled. Regardless of what's keeping the company from enabling account-based purchases, this poll makes it clear that things might need to be rethought.

@Aviator it's a sticky situation. It sounds like the studio that developed the game were as helpless as people on this site: they discovered that it would be delayed. Developers and artists work hard to meet deadlines, but since this game is to be delayed...they probably can't help but feel unhappy about this.

@shinpichu Well, the game was just delayed for several months right before its intended release date (February 26). In addition, there is an ongoing controversy behind the publisher's rationale of delaying this game, since it's implied that its done and that it can be released to retail. So yeah, people are angry. Vowing to not buy this game does sound silly though.

I sense a Talking Point going on soon

@Knux Overreacting? It's called anger, which can make people irrational.

First of all, it was granted that this was to be a launch-window title that was already delayed once. Because it was assumed that this was going to be a launch game, interested people bought the console. Maybe the people should have given their purchase more thought, but Ubisoft is still responsible for making the decision to delay this game for another several months and making them unhappy.

EDIT: not to mention that this decision can also tarnish Nintendo's standing with the consumers, which is still bad for both companies.

Almost 400 comments in 4 hours?? Wow!

Anyway, if Ubisoft wants to release this title at around the same time-frame as the major AAA titles on the other consoles and the other games for the Wii U, be my guest.

Would just like to say: for those who aren't doing it, it might be beneficial if the unhappy users at least consider that there might be at least a tiny bit of rationale in pricing a remake (not remaster or a straight port) higher than $20. If not, then it might be harder to be content with life.

I actually think $60 is a lot for a re-release of a game, but I also think it's ridiculous to price it very low if some work is being put into it. Whatever the case may be, an Amazon holder price doesn't sound like the best indication of the final MSRP.

@shinpichu I wouldn't exactly call it a port when the lighting looks redone. That either means that the original game engine is being updated with some updated assets being worked on, or they are using a new engine and importing the materials into it. Then there's the issue of quality assurance: an updated/new engine means the potential of new bugs within the game, which must be examined and worked upon.

If they are remaking it similar to how Capcom remade Resident Evil for the GameCube, then there is at the least some justification for charging more than an HD remastered version of some game.

Good news for Nintendo! Now implement independent user accounts and let people tie their purchases to that account!

The thing is that the game looks to be a remake rather than a "remastered HD" game. This will cost money to develop, no matter how much one likes or dislikes how the screenshots look.

Meh, I'm still skeptical of a big potential performance gap between Nintendo and the competition. I don't see a good reason for Microsoft and Sony to incorporate very powerful hardware in their successors when the game-development market seems to be centered around PS360-like hardware, since many PC games seem to be ports.

@WingedFish I assume the reason why this topic is brought up because of the inevitability that if there isn't some sort of peaceful resolution upon this issue, things could get ugly. In other words, this is a serious issue that can impact the whole games industry.

Say the U.S. does decide to outlaw or put restrictions on games with guns. This can impact a portion of the industry there FPS and action shooters are popular. The biggest detriment to this phenomenon is that sales are lost, making publishers lose money. That puts up a risk of closures of game studios, platform holders losing money, and maybe even the collapse of a chunk of the console games industry in extreme cases. Heck, even Nintendo could be impacted by this in the long-term.

So, rather than directly jumping into the argument of whether guns in video-games are detrimental to the cognitive development of the youth, we need to figure out how to approach this issue (if that makes sense).

@Dark_Angel Under the optimal circumstances, yes; otherwise, Epic Mickey 2 says hi :3

I still believe there is a reason why they didn't do this. Even if they can easily enable independent save files, it's possible that legality-issues could be preventing them from making it happen. Some of the consoles' components are likely from third-parties, potentially making further reverse-engineering risky.

If there wasn't some reason why they didn't do it, whether it be good or silly, they would let it happen.

@sonicriders If you don't know already, this website doesn't like discussions of hacking, homebrew, and emulation. Just an FYI :3

Maybe it's a limitation that isn't easy to solve, preventing Nintendo from making it happen.

@Knux Keep in mind the PS save files are written to an external storage, such as a memory card or the memory stick. Save files for Nintendo consoles were always stored internally in a cartridge, which probably requires a special method to acquire them.

I wonder if Nintendo hands out developer licenses to sole-proprietor companies?

They probably don't even the capacity to handle a multiplayer game. Nevertheless, this sounds interesting.

I wonder what drove them to consider the gaming business?? Last time I checked, they were a GPU company. We'll see

That company better be working on implementing an account system that can carry licenses, so people can protect their purchases

Honestly, I just think it's natural that the console performs as it did, since money seems to be tight all around.

I wonder how the UK games industry is doing in general?

@Redeye1904 You should combine your posts into a single one ^^

I don't think I'd make much use of the features catered to cable users.

@Kirk Really, the company has been known for doing little in porting games. They don't do much to improve graphical fidelity and features when they port a game to any platform. Are you letting your anger get to you for some reason?

That'll be great for developers wanting to make RPG's for the system.

@Molotov Well, that wasn't what I'm guessing, but that may be what's on their thought. I'm just taking what's being said by the producer as the honest truth: maybe the game wasn't made for the gamepad.

Maybe they're hard-headed like Nintendo and do what their instinct tells them.

@Adam Well, all I can just say is that every action has consequenses from what I constantly witness. The implementation of online multiplayer would have given people choices, and that would mean the best of both worlds. Nevertheless, that may have consequences in itself, and it could've been consequences that drove Nintendo to exclude multiplayer. Either that, or it was too difficult to technologically do it. Or perhaps they were just lazy. Who knows... :3

@WaxxyOne The purchases are tied to both your console of choice and your LIVE profile if I remember correctly. Your situation sounds like you had replaced an old console. If that's the case, you have to have the licenses transferred to the new one.

My concern is whether Nintendo ID's will be transferrable akin to that of Xbox LIVE. I'm weary of the way they worded it in their site of having it transferrable to "future Nintendo consoles." If this kind of portable ID isn't implemented, It'll be harder to play the games with friends or people in a dormitory setting. This will especially give themselves a bad image with other people who take this setup importantly.

@Adam I'm just doing theoretical work here, but if Nintendo were to include an online component, it would ecourage players to play the game more often. Playing the game more often would mean that they're likely to lose interest in the game faster.

What I'm trying to do is justify Nintendo's actions that were already done, which is that they had done it for a reason. What you are trying to do is justify an action that wasn't physically possible for Nintendo or contradicts the game's goals. I really don't know why the company didn't incorporate it, but trying to justify why it could have existed doesn't seem to be the best idea when they are known for having it their way. Really, I wouldn't care that they implemented online multiplayer. Heck, maybe I'd enjoy it more than offline multiplayer for all I know. However, the stone is already carved, and we just have to move on.

Okay, I have another possible theory:

If Nintendo were to include online multiplayer in the game, it would probably inflate and lessen the value of the experiences in NintendoLand. This could leave consequences, such as devaluing the fun factor of local multiplayer enjoyed in a social setting. This makes it less likely to produce invaluable memories for families. And remember, Nintendo is a family-oriented company in some respects. In the end, Nintendo may shoot themselves in the foot by including online multiplayer because they'd devalue their intended experience. That may count as a design flaw, and this would make the designers decent human psychologists >:3

@Adam I'll take your word for it.

However, where there is the beauty of choice, there is an ugly side: fragmented expectations. Sometimes, I think consumers get too autonomous. While tablets become the craze, Microsoft follows the market by releasing Windows 8, which received mixed reviews. There is some value to Nintendo's hard shell :3

@Adam Just because many people say they would like to play online doesn't mean that it would be fun online. Whether it'd actually be fun online or not could have been determined if people actually played it online. And don't forget that MiiVerse exists, somewhat lessening the gap.

I really hope Nintendo will actually incorporate the ability for portable ID's in the future. That way, they can permit FRIENDS and family to play together. It'd also be more useful to college students.

I won't jump to conclusions yet, since it's obvious that they finalized the Wii U interface and online too early. It obstructs a solid speculation of whether the company will be committed to portable ID's...or not.

@Brando67854321 What makes me think Nintendo will have online in their 1st party games? I'm glad you asked.

MiiVerse

Nintendo had really embraced the internet, in a different territory though. The overwhelmingly positive reception tells me that Nintendo had put blood, sweat, tears, and brain juice into developing and bringing this service to life. They could learn so much from managing it. They could also learn more about it from using it, like when Mr. Iwata browses the service on his free time. They may capture a moment that could translate into a video game title.

I won't guarantee that they'll make one though. I'm just open to this possibility.

@Mandoble Then NintendoLand simply isn't for them. Simple as that

Personally, i wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo made a game that was made for online multiplayer (or some sort of online social experience) at some point.

@Spartacus3765 That's what Club Nintendo is for. It would be too much work and mess for Nintendo to include feedback into MiiVerse.

In defense of Nintendo, the company has some sort of reason behind their exclusion of online multiplayer. And it had to have been a good reason in their lens as a company and conglomerate of artists, whether or not we GAMERS see it as ridiculous.

For example, Nintendo may be more than trying to sell video games. Rather, they see themselves as selling experiences they envisioned. They probably believed that playing the same game online would hold a different experience they didn't intend than playing it locally. Would playing the game online really be any fun when the game's various mechanics were meant to serve people playing together in the same room? We don't know. Maybe the online, no matter how refined it is, wouldn't be much fun. Maybe it would've been a waste of money and resources to develop them.

For another example, maybe they wanted to incorporate online multiplayer into the game, but couldn't meet their deadline (DEADLINES EXIST FOR A REASON).

In this last example, maybe it was too difficult to implement online multiplayer with their limited resources. I really don't see how these game mechanics could work online, technologically speaking. Any sort of lag between these mechanics that require realtime input (accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetic orientation sensor, etc.) would probably be disasterous.

Whatever any reason it is, their conservative characteristic drove them to exclude the feature, and there's not much we can do at this point (maybe DLC?).

Honesty can sting like a bee sometimes, but I don't see a legitimate point of this article nor do I see it in the referenced article. Also,I would think that Mr. Barlow is more concerned about keeping his job than arguing which platform is better.

@WaveWitch Oh open up Wavey, everyone has preferences. If the WiiMote setup was the best setup, analog sticks would've been extinct :3

Maybe slash through some games in my Steam backlog. That will probably be Left 4 Dead 2 and Crysis.

Looks interesting.

The characters look lively and interesting.

While Drangon Quest is selling well, the Amazon Japan reviews don't seem too delightful at 3.3 average rating (or 2.3 for the standalone copy). D:

It's funny how the 3DS is doing okay in other countries while it does stellar in Japan, while the PS VITA is struggling in Japan while probably doing good in other countries. It's almost like some sort of equilibrium is being achieved

@Boy8319 Maybe because Japan is soaked with Wii owners. Seems safer to make a game for an already expanded audience than tremble in a dangerous jungle that is the Wii U and 360. A PS3 release would be more suitable aside from the Wii.

Considering that EA was a buffoon to release Crysis 2 on consoles without porting the first game to consoles sooner, I'm not surprised. It's be nice to lure the action-heavy/fps crowd though.

I take it that the goal of the law is to keep a majority of youth away from video games? That could be hard to achieve if parents have even a single gram of identity-crisis. If the major gaming countries are de-sensitized to violence and sexual content, then achieving the goal may be very difficult: the game ratings are likely to be negligent to a parent.