@pixelman Pachter doesn't give a flip whining fanboys; he's an "industry" analyst. He doesn't have a vendetta against Nintendo at all, he just doesn't see the Wii U achieving near the success it needs to keep Nintendo as a viable component in the home console market.
Wii U is being sold at a loss, as well as the 3DS. With the Wii U sales trickling down and the 3DS sales exploding - Nintendo is bleeding a lot of money that it can't subsidize elsewhere - Nintendo is a gaming-only company, just as Thomas stated in his feature today. Not only that, but the tie-in ratio for games in the Wii U is low too, meaning that it's only helping to alleviate the loss taken at the sale of the hardware. Nintendo is staying afloat right now by it's software sales on the 3DS - not the Wii U.
If the Wii U continues to not catch on to the mainstream and doesn't find itself selling a lot of third party titles - where the majority of revenue comes in to every major publisher: licensing and royalty fees from third parties - the Wii U could actually end up not making Nintendo a great profit overall, which could in fact lead to Nintendo exiting the home console market going forward.
It's for this reason that Pachter is stating what he is stating. He's basing his analysis off of these facts, not that he "love some other company." I know that this isn't an industry site, but readers here are ill-informed on the industry aspect of the Nintendo's business and that's why the reaction to his comments is so over-the-top.
@Jeff_Lowe There are so many ways that this article could have gone so very wrong, but I feel that you did a great job staying on subject. It wouldn't have hurt to have maybe put a line or two to say that: "Yes, video games can have a negative impact on gamers' daily lives. There's proof that video games can create addictions, social isolation, financial instabilities, etc., but there isn't any proof that video games have create violent tendencies within gamers."
This quick little statement would have balanced the piece - giving it a very grounded, realistic mood - while still keeping your very positive 'feel' and angle that you gave us.
I really enjoyed reading your piece Jeff. I look forward to seeing your future work here at NL.
I highly encourage everyone to buy this game on WiiWare if you haven't gotten the chance to play it elsewhere. I had a blast reviewing it for the Vita last year!
"A $20,000 gift to the fans."
I think Nintendo should cut Brian a check for $20k USD if it fails to sell enough copies for him to get anything in return. This games doesn't just deserve to be on WiiWare, but Wiiware should be honoured by this game being a part of it!
@ThomasBW84 Thanks for the reply Tom. The point I was trying to make is that for a "Talking Point," the article is heavily slanted into one direction, without ever really giving a polar opposite to 'talk' about. Using Eurogamer's Real Racing 3 review alone, without giving any sort of credit to any of the game's other reviews that all score higher than it gives the article a near extreme unbalance too. In short, anyone who doesn't follow the industry outside of the typical gamer has no idea about why Real Racing 3 is a freemium title (yes, there's actually a very significant reason as to why the game is what it is - it's a show-off title for mobile gaming that everyone can play it without spending a single dime on it. Also, the team/publisher spent a lot of money on it and it has to make its money back somehow - right?), or how micro-transactions actually are implemented properly into a game.
Loyal Nintendo gamers don't have any real experience with micro-transactions, so this information is needed for an argument against the subject. You also specifically speak towards EA's full retail titles that include micro-transactions, which are by far one of the shining examples of how to do it properly. They're there, but they are barely even noticeable and have extremely little to no affect to the game's fundamental design. In fact, with Dead Space 3 I only know about them because of following the industry, I haven't encountered them in game at all as of yet.
I'm a bit confused on how micro-transactions are taking money away from the industry, when they are in fact adding to it. Here's another angle to think about: online multiplayer keeps gamers busy for hundreds/thousands of hours on one single $60 purchase, yet a dollar here and there are for micro-transactions are more harmful? I think these small transactions are minute and will never catch-on with full retail titles - gamers have to actually start buying them to make it something substantial. Real Racing 3 is not a retail title, it's an entirely different demographic that's aimed an an much different group of people.
There's some really great point in your piece, I just feel that it's very unfair and uninformative to those that know little on this subject, as it doesn't pertain to "Nintendo" very much at all.
@AlbertoC "You can't begin to charge on 60 USD games what you charge on 5 or 10 or freebie, ad-supported, smartphone ones."
Why can't it? Because who says so? Game publishers/developers can do whatever they likes, whenever they like, as long as it pleases the investors and brings in capital to the company.
See, this is why the way things are written matter. This piece makes it sound as if Dead Space 3's micro-transactions are a vital/necessary part of the game, like they are with the freemium models. They aren't at all and if you actually play the game you will know this. The "micro-transactions" are nothing more than instant DLC options and they aren't advertised or thrown in your face either. In fact, I've never even seen an in prompt to purchase any of them for that matter.
So, DLC is praised here to high heaven when it makes its way to Nintendo's consoles years late, but micro-transactions aren't?
Dead Space 3's micro-transactions aren't upfront and noticeable. Also, they aren't integrated into the gameplay at all. They are there for the certain few that desire to break the basic gameplay apart by allowing them to purchase the things they don't want to actually achieve in game. It's a win for the developer and a loss for the gamer who is wasting his money away.
As long as a full priced retail title doesn't build itself around micro-transactions - something that EA has not done - I don't see thing wrong with it. It's completely optional.
As for micros-transactions affecting online multiplayer, well, that's an easy one too. If the developer wants to keep gamers involved in its games - don't allow micro-transactions to be utilised with the online elements of the title. If said developer was to allow boosting micro-transactions in the online components of a full priced retail title, gamers would most likely not continue supporting said developer and the issue resolves itself. That's the way the fundamental basics of how the industry works - it's just that simplistic.
Real Racing 3 holds a 71 average on Metacritic, with IGN (and three other sites) awarding the game at or above the 90% mark. Eurogamer has the lowest marks for the title, and while I'm not discrediting their review, it's clearly far below the average and the majority of people feel quite differently about the title, including myself.
Intrusive micro-transactions are there primarily for the Free to Play model. In the mobile front, this works because the amount of games on offer are so extensive and cheap that you have to have a 'hook' to keep gamers around. Real Racing 3 is so intrusive because its guaranteed to amaze casual gamers into playing it with its fantastic visuals and amazing online multiplayer options. The team has done several interviews discussing this and there's a good reason why it's chosen this approach with Real Racing 3 - the model works for high end mobile titles.
@aaronsullivan This is a MMO - not your average shooter. You can almost certainly rule out any local co-op. Instead, you'll most likely (or better yet, almost certainly) be paying a monthly fee to access the online servers.
Third party games, especially those geared towards hardcore shooter fans, sell poorly on Nintendo's platforms. If the rumours are that Destiny will come along with a monthly online fee, I doubt Bungie would even break even releasing this on Wii U.
This news just shows the the 12% for the overall year of 2012 is still continuing into 2013. It's not surprising in the least and with the excitement now building for the PS4 and Xbox 720, Wii U sales will most likely continue to trickle along until full details on those two consoles emerge.
I'm beginning to get burned out on these articles. Today one say this, tomorrow the other says something else - I think the point has been made on both sides quite clearly by now.
I'm glad to see that the team is going multiplatform. Journey and Flower are absolutely amazing games and I have no doubt that whatever next Jenova Chen is cooking up will be incredible once again.
@gazamataz I agree! The simple fact that the Unity Engine is diligently being ever formatted for work better for the Wii U is nothing but a good thing for the console and its owners. Independent developers have a hard time affording a great gaming engine to develop on and the Unity Engine offers them a powerful tool to bring great games to the Wii U eShop. With its wild variety of unique control interfaces and system power, I think the indie gaming scene is going to be great on the console. The only hindrance there is here, is that downloads are being tied to the console. Hopefully this recent story about the loyal gamer losing his games will get Nintendo on the ball to rectify this poor business decision.
@SCAR392 I think you're missing something here mate - this was at the DICE Summit in Las Vegas. This isn't the company "DICE" speaking directly, but this is top developers all throughout the entire triple-A development communities convening together at one of the larger yearly development conferences. This is one of the conferences where they sit down and discuss trends and where they should be putting their focus within the gaming community. Even though they might be competitive firms working against each other, they do work together as a whole as well to keep the dedicated gaming platforms thriving.
You are correct though, the Wii U is the newest console on the market, but this news is especially bad because these (again) are the guys who will bring the big triple-A third party titles to the console, but they don't see it as a viable console at this point in time, nor the near future. They're looking past the Wii U and at the next consoles from Sony and Microsoft. These are businesses mate, not your friends. They are looking for big profits and they clearly don't see that in the Wii U at this time, which isn't good for the system.
I'm really glad you guys decided to run this article. I'd read this yesterday and it really bums me out that this happen to this guy. I sold off a Wii with over $200 worth of downloadable material on it and I've not purchased much from Nintendo's online stores ever since.
That isn't good at all for the platform. It's very early in the life cycle, yes, but for these developers to be talking in this manner, it seems that they feel that even if the system starts to sell, that they won't be able to move their third party games on the console. Let's hope that the talk of boycotts doesn't see more third parties shying away from releasing their games on the console in the future.
@Mk_II Yes, but these developers don't develop "Mario Kart" and "Wind Waker HD." What they are saying is that they're seeing a continuing trend where Nintendo gamers don't typically spend their money on third party games. Unless the install base of the console surges upward with those first party releases, we could potentially see third party titles dwindle down even further for the console, leading it to be a console that's primarily only for Nintendo's games and not a mainstream console.
I know grown adults who love Skylanders! They bought it for their little ones and now they have done went off and gotten themselves hooked on the series. Haha
@Chriiis He is colleague of mine - I have no control over what he says and does. My comments to @DePapier were meant to be helpful, not hurtful, and from his last response, it seems that he took it in the manner that I intended it to be.
@DePapier Thing is man, it isn't all about "winning" or "losing" here. The ones who actually are "losing" in this situation are the Wii U owners who were anticipating Rayman Legends release here in a few weeks, but now have to wait 7 months for it to release. This is why I said what I did, because it's the business end of the industry - the one that many gamers don't pay daily attention to and often times understand how cut-throat it truly is - that makes the decisions, not the gamers. Gamers like to think that there is 'loyalty' amongst the games we play and sometimes there is, but for the most part, the only loyalty they have is with money. Why do think we don't get yearly/biyearly F-Zero, Pilot Wings, Kid Icarus, Star Fox, Balloon Fighter etc etc., releases from Nintendo? It isn't that Nintendo doesn't want to appease their loyal fans, but it is (most likely) afraid that they won't make a substantial profit from those titles. Nintendo is a business and it is out to make a profit, just like most every other company.
This is a bad deal for gamers and this is a bad deal for Nintendo and its struggling console. It's the publisher that's done this, not the passionate development team that is bringing us Rayman Legends. While we might not support this decision (and the contracts behind it) - could you image being one of the developers who has spent the past few years developing this title, only to now hear of it being boycotted?
There's always two-sides to every coin my friend. I encourage you to dig into how gaming publishers do business. This is by far nothing compared to how they acquire their IPs right out from under the passionate developers who created them.
@Chriiis There's one thing that you should know: @Bankai is a colleague of mine. Yes, he might not be very good with "gamers," but he is incredible in his work on the journalistic and business end of the gaming industry. The man knows his stuff, that much I can absolutely guarantee you.
Also, I didn't "go off" on @DePapier either. I might have given him a bit of, what you would call a "life lesson," but I didn't go off on him. I can tell that he is very passionate about the gaming industry and I only wanted him to realise that arguing about things that your passionate about online is futile, but having a conversation about them can be extremely lucrative to all the parties involved. Even if sometimes our opinions don't agree on things as gamers, we don't have to result to name calling and arguments.
@DePapier Firstly, I've read several of your 'arguments' the past two days and I'm not about to get into one of them with you - I'll put that right up front. But, did you not watch Nintendo's E3 presentation? Have you not watched any of Nintendo's live presentations where they showed off Rayman Legends? Reggie has been quite liberal with the word "exclusive." I don't need to prove anything with that claim. There is nothing wrong with him doing so either, as the contract between Nintendo and Ubisoft was most likely a "timed exclusive," so at the point in time before the game was announced to be a multiplatform release - which is not supposed to happen until after the game has been available on the market for a set number of months - there is absolutely nothing wrong with them doing so. But, with that said, if you're going to do this, you better know that your contractual agreement is absolutely secure. Otherwise, it can be a major blow to both parties involved.
Yes, one of Ubisoft's trailers did indeed say, and I quote: "Coming Christmas 2012 Exclusively on Wii U".
Let me break this down for you: this clearly states that Rayman Legends will only be available on the Wii U for Christmas 2012. This doesn't state that it's is an "exclusive title for Wii U," only that it will be exclusive at this one point in time. This is nothing more than simple wordplays that are used within the gaming industry. This is completely acceptable for a timed exclusive title as well, but it is also the reason that Ubisoft has danced around the questions about the game going multiplatform. The reason for this, is because of the "timed exclusive" contractual agreement between Nintendo and Ubisoft that I've already previously detailed.
Also, if you're going to claim that my comments need "proof" and that they don't "make sense" - do not question my comments and then post a link to your "proof", when your own link is contradictory to what you're claiming and agreeable my own. Did you miss this part of the article in your own link that you provided?
"However, even if the game is an exclusive when it launches on the Wii U, there is still the chance it could come to other consoles at a later date, making it more appropriately considered as a timed exclusive. At E3 2012, Ubisoft themselves were unclear over whether the game was a hands-down Wii U exclusive or whether there was a chance it might go multiplatform eventually. It's worth noting that the game's predecessor, 2011's Rayman Origins, was a multiplatform release."
There's an old adage that goes: "Think before you speak." It's is sometimes hard to do verbally - I'll admit that much is true - but it isn't very hard to do when your typing your words. I've seen your comments as of late and from someone who used to get furious years' ago about simple things, just take a breather and think about what you're saying (typing) before you do so. You might actually be talking to someone who very much knows a lot more about these things than you yourself do. Heck, you just might be talking to a developer, journalist or PR person that can easily disguise themselves behind an avatar, screen name and simple text changes. You can actually learn a lot of things about the industry when you stop arguing and start having discussions. I'm not trying to be rude here, but you've made it quite obvious that you don't know as much as you think you know - this industry provides videogames, but the passion for those games only lies within the gamers and the developers. Money talks an entirely different language my friend.
Again, I'm not trying to be rude here, I read that you were taking business classes yesterday, and I wish you well in them and your future endeavours. But this is a little life lesson from someone you don't know, but one that will go very well for you going forward. It's obvious that you're passionate about the gaming industry, but arguing does nothing for anyone (not even yourself), it only blinds you to what you want to think/see and keeps you from learning more about the things that you're arguing about.
@Koto I don't so much mind paying more for either a Sony or Microsoft console - I use them everyday for multimedia purposes, but I don't do this with Nintendo's consoles.
It's a good deal, but it isn't enough to change my mind about buying the console and I doubt it will many others. If it was, say, around $249 I would be interested, but I don't care what they throw in this box - I'm not paying $400 for a Nintendo console.
@Sean_Aaron Absolutely correct. Nintendo is in no place to criticise Ubisoft publicly, that's for Nintendo's fans to do, not the parent company itself. Thomas used the Digital Spy piece for this article, but a top executive at Ubisoft spoke to IGN yesterday about this situation and though he said the same thing, he also went on to say that Ubisoft has several big unannounced Wii U titles (most likely multiplatform) in the pipeline as well, so Nintendo can't do anything but accept the blow and keep on going as if this escapade never happened in the first place.
One thing that Nintendo does need to do, is stop spewing the "exclusive" word around so freely. Yes, they can do this if they have a timed exclusive, but they need to make dang sure that they're 100% secured before they so openly throw those words around.
Just in the past few months, I've netted a few exclusive news breaks. But I always dig like crazy (in multiple languages) to see if I do, in fact, have the exclusive break. If I find one single thing - I don't care if it's a personal blog - I drop the "exclusive" out of my post. That way I know for certain that my credibility is covered and I don't have to worry about any kind of backlash afterwards.
There's lessons to be learned here, for all of us. Fans do need to realise that they don't own these games until it is actually in their hand and that in the world of business, promises are all but irrelevant - paper and money is the what makes the decisions. I know we love our games (I do just as much as anybody else here), but I urge those who feel pain from this to start paying attention to how this industry actually works. It's fascinating, but it is also one of the most cut-throat industries there is.
@Sean_Aaron "I can't believe that Nintendo is too happy about this."
You know, I'm surprised that Nintendo didn't stop this from happening. Nintendo has been the one who has thrown the "exclusive" word around with Rayman Legends for months now and I'm sure that enough money would have kept this from happening. Not only will the game sell well on the Wii U, but it will also move consoles for it as well.
I get the feeling that it probably did try to do something, but maybe Ubisoft's demands were unreasonable. I doubt we will ever know the truth though.
All that the poll that shows that half of the loyal Nintendo community here - at the largest Nintendo fan site in the world - is going to do, is make third party developers even more skeptical about bringing thier titles to the Wii U, especially as a timed exclusive.
I know the situation is a bad one, but Wii U owners boycotting Rayman Legends aren't hurting Ubisoft - they're hurting themselves. It's a high profile title that other third party developers will be watching very closely. If it doesn't sell, it could keep them from bringing their games to the console. It would be different if the Wii U was selling better, but it isn't and not only does the console need to start selling, but the games need to shift units as well.
This is, I think, why @Bankai was being so blunt in his statements. Even though Ubisoft played a shady card, they still control the deck in play. They own the game's IP and they can do as they please, even if that's bad for the consumer. Ubisoft is a very powerful company and one that's heavily invested into Nintendo. Sometimes actions have unintended concequences and I only hope that this doesn't become one of them.
@K1LLEGAL No problem at all man and I appreciate you asking too. I also agree with everything you've said, even to the point that I don't care too much for Ubisoft's games in particular either, with a major exception to Rayman Origins, of which I absolutely adore. The game goes most anywhere that my Vita goes. Haha Oh, and Uplay is just like EA's Origins - they're both an intrusive pain in the rear and completely necessary as well.
It is indeed a very strange story and one that I feel will live on for a very long time within the industry. This is one of the most hurtful things I can remember a major publisher doing to its loyal fans. The fans have a reason to be upset and I only hope that they do the right things and release the game on the Wii U in three weeks. Though, I don't blame anyone who doesn't pick the game it after all of this either.
@bboy2970 Dude, don't blame this on other gamers. It isn't their fault one bit. This was a business decision by Ubisoft, not Xbox 360 or PS3 owners or their respective parent owners.
@K1LLEGAL Sure, I've said it a few times already, but primarily because from a logical business decision (I did sales for Pepsi years' ago, so I know a little something about it), there would be no reason to not release the finished game on the Wii U as scheduled, even if it was to go multiplatform in the future. Pushing the game back, solely because of the this decision would potentially be suicide for its sales on the Wii U, because of the immense backlash against Ubisoft from loyal fans - fans who were just recently teased with an exclusive demo to get their anticipation boiling for what looks to be one of the best platformers ever developed into their hands.
I see absolutely no logical explanation as to why they would do this. None. From there, the only logical explanation for such a delay is that something major crept up late into the game's testing that was overly difficult for the team to get a handle on. Maybe it was a memory leak, which we've seen the effects of and how difficult they are to get a handle on with Bethesda's Fallout 3 on the PlayStation 3. Then again, maybe a great idea was sparked and they just had to implement some great new feature into the game (my one assumption that I made).
It could have been a number of things, but not this. I'm a journalist and I also just flat-out don't have a bit of a bias within me. I have my preferences, but I don't have a bias and that allows me to make my assessments off of the facts up to that point in time, and not off of an emotion. In journalism, it isn't always about being right or wrong. It's better to stay with the facts and make your best assessments from there, or you risk damaging your credibility. In this situation, I did just as I would have if I was publishing about this piece here. Yes, I knew that I could be fighting in the wrong corner, but I was fighting on the side where the was something factual to build my assessments upon. Turns out, the fans' emotions rang true and I tell you this much, I wish I would have been right - I don't care a bit that I was on the wrong side of the fence, but I care very deeply about what Ubisoft has done. I also feel very deeply for all of the Wii U owners who were so excited about getting Rayman Legends in a few weeks. Ubisoft has really upset me with this one. I don't like seeing loyal fans being treated this way one bit.
I'm stunned and confused by this revelation, and it's severely diminished the way that I look at Ubisoft right now too.
A quote from Xavier Poix, managing director of Rayman Legends:
"“When we saw all the comments when we announced the game would be focused on Wii U, all of the people that have both the PlayStation 3 and 360 were really disappointed,” Poix told IGN. “So we thought it was making more sense to also bring the game to where it was originally from. That means Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. So we decided to go for a multiplatform launch simultaneously.”"
Yes, I've said a lot on this topic today, but I stand by the fact that I stuck with the facts and not emotions, but now that there's hard evidence on why the game has been delayed on the Wii U, here's the only thing I've got to say: Ubisoft is low-life piece of sh*t for doing this to all of the Rayman Legends fans that have been hotly anticipating the game's release!
@moomoo Ubisoft's Facebook page is ran by one of their PR people (possibly outsourced), so I wouldn't take that on a word-for-word basis, so that's why I was going off of what Guillemont state only.
Just thinking here, but my best guess is that the reason they aren't going to keep it as a "timed exclusive" after this delay is likely based an a few things:
1) This is probably the most important reason - it's getting into the holiday sales season and Ubisoft wants to have the game released on all platforms for maximum sales potential.
2) If the new gaming consoles do release at the end of the year, which I do think at least one of them most likely will, the game will need to have the maximum availability to keep from being completely overshadowed. Again, this is another reason that I feel that this delay is something more than it at first seems to be. Ubisoft would be crazy to purposely move a high profile title into this madness (that also includes the release of GTA 5 ).
3) Sales are already going to be lost by this delay for the Wii U consumers already, so is a "time exclusive" really going to have much of an effect against all of the new Wii U titles that will release by then? Just my opinion here - I don't think it would make much of a difference.
4) While they're taking away the "exclusivity" aspect of the game for Wii U, they can now ramp up the marketing at release for the Wii U - showing off all of its exclusive features (including yet to be seen features that will most likely now make it into the final release). This could potentially have an even larger effect than the now lost exclusivity if they put enough hype behind it.
I think once the shock wears off a bit - 7 months is plenty long enough - all will go well for the title on the Wii U. It's still shaping up to be a definitive platformer on the console that potentially rivals Nintendo's offerings, just like it did yesterday, before this news broke loose. It makes brilliant use of Wii U's multitude of unique control features already and it'll be a great title to add to a Wii U owner's library.
@Neram This isn't exclusive to Nintendo, this is a market wide trend. The market is absolutely flooded with games and for these third party developers to make a substantial profit, they need to get their games on as many consoles as possible.
@theblackdragon I do remember that, but at every showing that I can recall, nobody from Ubisoft said that it "was a console exclusive," only that it "had console exclusive features." Wordplays, they're a royal pain in the rear! If I remember correctly, Nintendo has heralded it as "exclusive," just as they did Ninja Gaiden III: Razor's Edge. They can do this, because it was a "timed exclusive," which they aren't obligated to disclose, if they don't desire to do so.
If Rayman Legends was indeed already packaged and about to ship out to retailers on the Wii U (which I doubt that it was) - Ubisoft top executives are a bunch of ****** idiots!
@Chriiis Apology gladly accepted. And no, I could never do that here or anywhere else. I mean, how could a former Nintendo Life writer ever hate Nintendo fans - it just isn't possible!
@CanisWolfred Yes, yes, yes! I meant to drop that in my last post (I really need to get back to cleaning my house and playing Ni No Kuni), but I forgot to add that. If they delay for the Wii U was, say, 3-4 months, then there really isn't a reason to not go with a simultaneous release any longer.
I'm willing to bet that Ubisoft is going to make up for this delay on the Wii U to loyal fans of the game after launch with more exclusive content and free DLC!
@SCAR392 And you should if that is what you want. The game will very likely be in its ultimate version on the Wii U.
@moomoo How do you know that they didn't just delay the announcement of the game's delay why they were securing the multiplatform deals with Sony and Microsoft?
I just don't buy this whole idea that "Ubisoft is punishing Wii U owners." I'm sorry, I just don't buy it one bit.
@Chriiis Sorry, if I that came off as me saying that you were "biased," because that wasn't my intention - I apologize for that.
The story that I linked to was the original source of the story. I also write news for the industry myself and I know how to read between the lines - I'm actually quite good at it. Journalist write things to make them seem like they're something/more than what they are. This is why things get pulled out of context and things become "exclusive" when they aren't. It's overly easy to do this when you've got a passionate group of gamers who are biased and the rumours (and site hits) come flying in - no, I'm not speaking about Nintendo Life when I say this.
Anyhow, back on topic, the game was delayed. It happens and it almost always happens for the best of the game. From a business perspective, the sooner they get the game out on the Wii U, the more profit Ubisoft will potentially find. That tells me that something game-breaking was found and needed fixing or they might (yes, I'm about to make an assumption here, as it has no substantial evidence to make it in any way plausible) be adding another feature to the title that could take months to complete. We don't know exactly what is causing this delay, but whatever it is, it is keeping the game from releasing in the near future when the sales potential on the Wii U is at its highest. This latter part is where I get the basis for my previous comment. Ubisoft is looking for maximum profit. If they could release Rayman Legends in the final form they desire it to be in within the next few month, they would.
But they aren't doing so - are they? So the "assumption" is that the other piece of news of the game going multiplatform is the reason, when there is no substantial evidence to prove this to be so.
What we do know is that Ubisoft's development tools are extensive and multiplatform ports are everyday business for the company. Their development teams and resources are matched by no other third party publisher/developer in the industry as well. They've got the manpower to port the game over no problem. This leads me to believe that the delay on the Wii U is just that - a delay on the Wii U. Otherwise they would be launching the game as soon as possible for maximum profits.
Comments 1,712
Re: Pandora's Tower Will Be Invading North America in April
I've had my preorder secured since the day Amazon starting taking them.
Re: Pachter: Wii U Will Sell Between 30 to 50 Million Units During Its Lifetime
@pixelman Pachter doesn't give a flip whining fanboys; he's an "industry" analyst. He doesn't have a vendetta against Nintendo at all, he just doesn't see the Wii U achieving near the success it needs to keep Nintendo as a viable component in the home console market.
Wii U is being sold at a loss, as well as the 3DS. With the Wii U sales trickling down and the 3DS sales exploding - Nintendo is bleeding a lot of money that it can't subsidize elsewhere - Nintendo is a gaming-only company, just as Thomas stated in his feature today. Not only that, but the tie-in ratio for games in the Wii U is low too, meaning that it's only helping to alleviate the loss taken at the sale of the hardware. Nintendo is staying afloat right now by it's software sales on the 3DS - not the Wii U.
If the Wii U continues to not catch on to the mainstream and doesn't find itself selling a lot of third party titles - where the majority of revenue comes in to every major publisher: licensing and royalty fees from third parties - the Wii U could actually end up not making Nintendo a great profit overall, which could in fact lead to Nintendo exiting the home console market going forward.
It's for this reason that Pachter is stating what he is stating. He's basing his analysis off of these facts, not that he "love some other company." I know that this isn't an industry site, but readers here are ill-informed on the industry aspect of the Nintendo's business and that's why the reaction to his comments is so over-the-top.
Re: Miyamoto: Mobile Competition Actually Helps Wii U
Yes, because the Wii U is selling just as great as mobile devices. Err... wait...
Re: Talking Point: NFC and AR - Two Cool Extras That Need Some Love
NFC and AR are two things that I can easily live without.
Re: Review: Retro City Rampage (WiiWare)
I absolutely love having this game in portable format on Vita - awesome little retro-inspired title.
Re: Talking Point: The Positive Power of Gaming
@Jeff_Lowe There are so many ways that this article could have gone so very wrong, but I feel that you did a great job staying on subject. It wouldn't have hurt to have maybe put a line or two to say that: "Yes, video games can have a negative impact on gamers' daily lives. There's proof that video games can create addictions, social isolation, financial instabilities, etc., but there isn't any proof that video games have create violent tendencies within gamers."
This quick little statement would have balanced the piece - giving it a very grounded, realistic mood - while still keeping your very positive 'feel' and angle that you gave us.
I really enjoyed reading your piece Jeff. I look forward to seeing your future work here at NL.
Re: Talking Point: The Positive Power of Gaming
Great read Jeff!
This is indeed a refreshing piece to come across here at NL. Looking forward to seeing what else you've got up your sleeve.
Re: Interview: Vblank Entertainment On Bringing a Retro Rampage to WiiWare
I highly encourage everyone to buy this game on WiiWare if you haven't gotten the chance to play it elsewhere. I had a blast reviewing it for the Vita last year!
"A $20,000 gift to the fans."
I think Nintendo should cut Brian a check for $20k USD if it fails to sell enough copies for him to get anything in return. This games doesn't just deserve to be on WiiWare, but Wiiware should be honoured by this game being a part of it!
Re: Talking Point: The Slippery Slope of Micro-Transactions
@ThomasBW84 Thanks for the reply Tom. The point I was trying to make is that for a "Talking Point," the article is heavily slanted into one direction, without ever really giving a polar opposite to 'talk' about. Using Eurogamer's Real Racing 3 review alone, without giving any sort of credit to any of the game's other reviews that all score higher than it gives the article a near extreme unbalance too. In short, anyone who doesn't follow the industry outside of the typical gamer has no idea about why Real Racing 3 is a freemium title (yes, there's actually a very significant reason as to why the game is what it is - it's a show-off title for mobile gaming that everyone can play it without spending a single dime on it. Also, the team/publisher spent a lot of money on it and it has to make its money back somehow - right?), or how micro-transactions actually are implemented properly into a game.
Loyal Nintendo gamers don't have any real experience with micro-transactions, so this information is needed for an argument against the subject. You also specifically speak towards EA's full retail titles that include micro-transactions, which are by far one of the shining examples of how to do it properly. They're there, but they are barely even noticeable and have extremely little to no affect to the game's fundamental design. In fact, with Dead Space 3 I only know about them because of following the industry, I haven't encountered them in game at all as of yet.
I'm a bit confused on how micro-transactions are taking money away from the industry, when they are in fact adding to it. Here's another angle to think about: online multiplayer keeps gamers busy for hundreds/thousands of hours on one single $60 purchase, yet a dollar here and there are for micro-transactions are more harmful? I think these small transactions are minute and will never catch-on with full retail titles - gamers have to actually start buying them to make it something substantial. Real Racing 3 is not a retail title, it's an entirely different demographic that's aimed an an much different group of people.
There's some really great point in your piece, I just feel that it's very unfair and uninformative to those that know little on this subject, as it doesn't pertain to "Nintendo" very much at all.
Re: Talking Point: The Slippery Slope of Micro-Transactions
@EvisceratorX I wouldn't hold your breath for too long waiting.
Re: Talking Point: The Slippery Slope of Micro-Transactions
@AlbertoC "You can't begin to charge on 60 USD games what you charge on 5 or 10 or freebie, ad-supported, smartphone ones."
Why can't it? Because who says so? Game publishers/developers can do whatever they likes, whenever they like, as long as it pleases the investors and brings in capital to the company.
See, this is why the way things are written matter. This piece makes it sound as if Dead Space 3's micro-transactions are a vital/necessary part of the game, like they are with the freemium models. They aren't at all and if you actually play the game you will know this. The "micro-transactions" are nothing more than instant DLC options and they aren't advertised or thrown in your face either. In fact, I've never even seen an in prompt to purchase any of them for that matter.
Re: Talking Point: The Slippery Slope of Micro-Transactions
So, DLC is praised here to high heaven when it makes its way to Nintendo's consoles years late, but micro-transactions aren't?
Dead Space 3's micro-transactions aren't upfront and noticeable. Also, they aren't integrated into the gameplay at all. They are there for the certain few that desire to break the basic gameplay apart by allowing them to purchase the things they don't want to actually achieve in game. It's a win for the developer and a loss for the gamer who is wasting his money away.
As long as a full priced retail title doesn't build itself around micro-transactions - something that EA has not done - I don't see thing wrong with it. It's completely optional.
As for micros-transactions affecting online multiplayer, well, that's an easy one too. If the developer wants to keep gamers involved in its games - don't allow micro-transactions to be utilised with the online elements of the title. If said developer was to allow boosting micro-transactions in the online components of a full priced retail title, gamers would most likely not continue supporting said developer and the issue resolves itself. That's the way the fundamental basics of how the industry works - it's just that simplistic.
Real Racing 3 holds a 71 average on Metacritic, with IGN (and three other sites) awarding the game at or above the 90% mark. Eurogamer has the lowest marks for the title, and while I'm not discrediting their review, it's clearly far below the average and the majority of people feel quite differently about the title, including myself.
Intrusive micro-transactions are there primarily for the Free to Play model. In the mobile front, this works because the amount of games on offer are so extensive and cheap that you have to have a 'hook' to keep gamers around. Real Racing 3 is so intrusive because its guaranteed to amaze casual gamers into playing it with its fantastic visuals and amazing online multiplayer options. The team has done several interviews discussing this and there's a good reason why it's chosen this approach with Real Racing 3 - the model works for high end mobile titles.
Re: Rumour: Rayman Creator To Part Company With Ubisoft
Good for him. Michael Ancel is one of the best in the industry and he'll do just fine on his own.
Re: Developer Says Watch_Dogs Will Offer The "Same Experience" On All Consoles
The "same gameplay experiences" does not mean equalling ports.
Re: "Emergency Maintenance" Planned For Nintendo Online Services on 26th February
I'm sorry, but calling scheduled maintenance and "emergency," is just tacky.
Re: It Doesn't Look Like Bungie's Next Epic Is Coming To Wii U
@aaronsullivan This is a MMO - not your average shooter. You can almost certainly rule out any local co-op. Instead, you'll most likely (or better yet, almost certainly) be paying a monthly fee to access the online servers.
Re: It Doesn't Look Like Bungie's Next Epic Is Coming To Wii U
Third party games, especially those geared towards hardcore shooter fans, sell poorly on Nintendo's platforms. If the rumours are that Destiny will come along with a monthly online fee, I doubt Bungie would even break even releasing this on Wii U.
Re: Sony Trolls Nintendo Ahead of PlayStation 4 Announcement
The fact that people are trash talking Sony's games and obviously have no idea what they're talking about is funnier than this the article was.
Re: Criterion Lavishes Nintendo and Wii U With Praise
@The_Fox Yep, me too.
Re: Latest U.S. Sales Show Decline in Video Game Market, Slow Wii U Momentum
This news just shows the the 12% for the overall year of 2012 is still continuing into 2013. It's not surprising in the least and with the excitement now building for the PS4 and Xbox 720, Wii U sales will most likely continue to trickle along until full details on those two consoles emerge.
Re: Criterion Lavishes Nintendo and Wii U With Praise
I'm beginning to get burned out on these articles. Today one say this, tomorrow the other says something else - I think the point has been made on both sides quite clearly by now.
Re: 3DS eShop Sale is Underway in North America and Europe
I'll definitely be grabbing Sakura Samurai.
Re: Wii U Should Do As Well As The Wii, Says Developer
I think the chances of this happening are very slim. Just being real here.
Re: Journey Developer's Next Game Could Be Coming To The Wii U
I'm glad to see that the team is going multiplatform. Journey and Flower are absolutely amazing games and I have no doubt that whatever next Jenova Chen is cooking up will be incredible once again.
Re: Developer States That Wii U Woes Were a Focus At DICE
@gazamataz I agree! The simple fact that the Unity Engine is diligently being ever formatted for work better for the Wii U is nothing but a good thing for the console and its owners. Independent developers have a hard time affording a great gaming engine to develop on and the Unity Engine offers them a powerful tool to bring great games to the Wii U eShop. With its wild variety of unique control interfaces and system power, I think the indie gaming scene is going to be great on the console. The only hindrance there is here, is that downloads are being tied to the console. Hopefully this recent story about the loyal gamer losing his games will get Nintendo on the ball to rectify this poor business decision.
Re: Developer States That Wii U Woes Were a Focus At DICE
@SCAR392 I think you're missing something here mate - this was at the DICE Summit in Las Vegas. This isn't the company "DICE" speaking directly, but this is top developers all throughout the entire triple-A development communities convening together at one of the larger yearly development conferences. This is one of the conferences where they sit down and discuss trends and where they should be putting their focus within the gaming community. Even though they might be competitive firms working against each other, they do work together as a whole as well to keep the dedicated gaming platforms thriving.
You are correct though, the Wii U is the newest console on the market, but this news is especially bad because these (again) are the guys who will bring the big triple-A third party titles to the console, but they don't see it as a viable console at this point in time, nor the near future. They're looking past the Wii U and at the next consoles from Sony and Microsoft. These are businesses mate, not your friends. They are looking for big profits and they clearly don't see that in the Wii U at this time, which isn't good for the system.
Re: Talking Point: This Fan's Tragic Tale Highlights The Problem With Nintendo's Approach To Download Purchases
I'm really glad you guys decided to run this article. I'd read this yesterday and it really bums me out that this happen to this guy. I sold off a Wii with over $200 worth of downloadable material on it and I've not purchased much from Nintendo's online stores ever since.
Re: Developer States That Wii U Woes Were a Focus At DICE
That isn't good at all for the platform. It's very early in the life cycle, yes, but for these developers to be talking in this manner, it seems that they feel that even if the system starts to sell, that they won't be able to move their third party games on the console. Let's hope that the talk of boycotts doesn't see more third parties shying away from releasing their games on the console in the future.
@Mk_II Yes, but these developers don't develop "Mario Kart" and "Wind Waker HD." What they are saying is that they're seeing a continuing trend where Nintendo gamers don't typically spend their money on third party games. Unless the install base of the console surges upward with those first party releases, we could potentially see third party titles dwindle down even further for the console, leading it to be a console that's primarily only for Nintendo's games and not a mainstream console.
Re: Activision's Bobby Kotick Is Disappointed With The Launch Of The Wii U
I know grown adults who love Skylanders! They bought it for their little ones and now they have done went off and gotten themselves hooked on the series. Haha
Re: Reaction: The Rayman Legends Delay Is a Low Blow, But The Apocalypse Isn't Here
@Chriiis He is colleague of mine - I have no control over what he says and does. My comments to @DePapier were meant to be helpful, not hurtful, and from his last response, it seems that he took it in the manner that I intended it to be.
Re: Reaction: The Rayman Legends Delay Is a Low Blow, But The Apocalypse Isn't Here
@DePapier Thing is man, it isn't all about "winning" or "losing" here. The ones who actually are "losing" in this situation are the Wii U owners who were anticipating Rayman Legends release here in a few weeks, but now have to wait 7 months for it to release. This is why I said what I did, because it's the business end of the industry - the one that many gamers don't pay daily attention to and often times understand how cut-throat it truly is - that makes the decisions, not the gamers. Gamers like to think that there is 'loyalty' amongst the games we play and sometimes there is, but for the most part, the only loyalty they have is with money. Why do think we don't get yearly/biyearly F-Zero, Pilot Wings, Kid Icarus, Star Fox, Balloon Fighter etc etc., releases from Nintendo? It isn't that Nintendo doesn't want to appease their loyal fans, but it is (most likely) afraid that they won't make a substantial profit from those titles. Nintendo is a business and it is out to make a profit, just like most every other company.
This is a bad deal for gamers and this is a bad deal for Nintendo and its struggling console. It's the publisher that's done this, not the passionate development team that is bringing us Rayman Legends. While we might not support this decision (and the contracts behind it) - could you image being one of the developers who has spent the past few years developing this title, only to now hear of it being boycotted?
There's always two-sides to every coin my friend. I encourage you to dig into how gaming publishers do business. This is by far nothing compared to how they acquire their IPs right out from under the passionate developers who created them.
@Chriiis There's one thing that you should know: @Bankai is a colleague of mine. Yes, he might not be very good with "gamers," but he is incredible in his work on the journalistic and business end of the gaming industry. The man knows his stuff, that much I can absolutely guarantee you.
Also, I didn't "go off" on @DePapier either. I might have given him a bit of, what you would call a "life lesson," but I didn't go off on him. I can tell that he is very passionate about the gaming industry and I only wanted him to realise that arguing about things that your passionate about online is futile, but having a conversation about them can be extremely lucrative to all the parties involved. Even if sometimes our opinions don't agree on things as gamers, we don't have to result to name calling and arguments.
Re: Reaction: The Rayman Legends Delay Is a Low Blow, But The Apocalypse Isn't Here
@DePapier Firstly, I've read several of your 'arguments' the past two days and I'm not about to get into one of them with you - I'll put that right up front. But, did you not watch Nintendo's E3 presentation? Have you not watched any of Nintendo's live presentations where they showed off Rayman Legends? Reggie has been quite liberal with the word "exclusive." I don't need to prove anything with that claim. There is nothing wrong with him doing so either, as the contract between Nintendo and Ubisoft was most likely a "timed exclusive," so at the point in time before the game was announced to be a multiplatform release - which is not supposed to happen until after the game has been available on the market for a set number of months - there is absolutely nothing wrong with them doing so. But, with that said, if you're going to do this, you better know that your contractual agreement is absolutely secure. Otherwise, it can be a major blow to both parties involved.
Yes, one of Ubisoft's trailers did indeed say, and I quote: "Coming Christmas 2012 Exclusively on Wii U".
Let me break this down for you: this clearly states that Rayman Legends will only be available on the Wii U for Christmas 2012. This doesn't state that it's is an "exclusive title for Wii U," only that it will be exclusive at this one point in time. This is nothing more than simple wordplays that are used within the gaming industry. This is completely acceptable for a timed exclusive title as well, but it is also the reason that Ubisoft has danced around the questions about the game going multiplatform. The reason for this, is because of the "timed exclusive" contractual agreement between Nintendo and Ubisoft that I've already previously detailed.
Also, if you're going to claim that my comments need "proof" and that they don't "make sense" - do not question my comments and then post a link to your "proof", when your own link is contradictory to what you're claiming and agreeable my own. Did you miss this part of the article in your own link that you provided?
"However, even if the game is an exclusive when it launches on the Wii U, there is still the chance it could come to other consoles at a later date, making it more appropriately considered as a timed exclusive. At E3 2012, Ubisoft themselves were unclear over whether the game was a hands-down Wii U exclusive or whether there was a chance it might go multiplatform eventually. It's worth noting that the game's predecessor, 2011's Rayman Origins, was a multiplatform release."
There's an old adage that goes: "Think before you speak." It's is sometimes hard to do verbally - I'll admit that much is true - but it isn't very hard to do when your typing your words. I've seen your comments as of late and from someone who used to get furious years' ago about simple things, just take a breather and think about what you're saying (typing) before you do so. You might actually be talking to someone who very much knows a lot more about these things than you yourself do. Heck, you just might be talking to a developer, journalist or PR person that can easily disguise themselves behind an avatar, screen name and simple text changes. You can actually learn a lot of things about the industry when you stop arguing and start having discussions. I'm not trying to be rude here, but you've made it quite obvious that you don't know as much as you think you know - this industry provides videogames, but the passion for those games only lies within the gamers and the developers. Money talks an entirely different language my friend.
Again, I'm not trying to be rude here, I read that you were taking business classes yesterday, and I wish you well in them and your future endeavours. But this is a little life lesson from someone you don't know, but one that will go very well for you going forward. It's obvious that you're passionate about the gaming industry, but arguing does nothing for anyone (not even yourself), it only blinds you to what you want to think/see and keeps you from learning more about the things that you're arguing about.
Re: New ZombiU Hardware Bundle Shuffling Towards North America
@Koto I don't so much mind paying more for either a Sony or Microsoft console - I use them everyday for multimedia purposes, but I don't do this with Nintendo's consoles.
Re: New ZombiU Hardware Bundle Shuffling Towards North America
It's a good deal, but it isn't enough to change my mind about buying the console and I doubt it will many others. If it was, say, around $249 I would be interested, but I don't care what they throw in this box - I'm not paying $400 for a Nintendo console.
Re: Reaction: The Rayman Legends Delay Is a Low Blow, But The Apocalypse Isn't Here
@Sean_Aaron Absolutely correct. Nintendo is in no place to criticise Ubisoft publicly, that's for Nintendo's fans to do, not the parent company itself. Thomas used the Digital Spy piece for this article, but a top executive at Ubisoft spoke to IGN yesterday about this situation and though he said the same thing, he also went on to say that Ubisoft has several big unannounced Wii U titles (most likely multiplatform) in the pipeline as well, so Nintendo can't do anything but accept the blow and keep on going as if this escapade never happened in the first place.
One thing that Nintendo does need to do, is stop spewing the "exclusive" word around so freely. Yes, they can do this if they have a timed exclusive, but they need to make dang sure that they're 100% secured before they so openly throw those words around.
Just in the past few months, I've netted a few exclusive news breaks. But I always dig like crazy (in multiple languages) to see if I do, in fact, have the exclusive break. If I find one single thing - I don't care if it's a personal blog - I drop the "exclusive" out of my post. That way I know for certain that my credibility is covered and I don't have to worry about any kind of backlash afterwards.
There's lessons to be learned here, for all of us. Fans do need to realise that they don't own these games until it is actually in their hand and that in the world of business, promises are all but irrelevant - paper and money is the what makes the decisions. I know we love our games (I do just as much as anybody else here), but I urge those who feel pain from this to start paying attention to how this industry actually works. It's fascinating, but it is also one of the most cut-throat industries there is.
Re: Reaction: The Rayman Legends Delay Is a Low Blow, But The Apocalypse Isn't Here
@Sean_Aaron "I can't believe that Nintendo is too happy about this."
You know, I'm surprised that Nintendo didn't stop this from happening. Nintendo has been the one who has thrown the "exclusive" word around with Rayman Legends for months now and I'm sure that enough money would have kept this from happening. Not only will the game sell well on the Wii U, but it will also move consoles for it as well.
I get the feeling that it probably did try to do something, but maybe Ubisoft's demands were unreasonable. I doubt we will ever know the truth though.
Re: Reaction: The Rayman Legends Delay Is a Low Blow, But The Apocalypse Isn't Here
All that the poll that shows that half of the loyal Nintendo community here - at the largest Nintendo fan site in the world - is going to do, is make third party developers even more skeptical about bringing thier titles to the Wii U, especially as a timed exclusive.
I know the situation is a bad one, but Wii U owners boycotting Rayman Legends aren't hurting Ubisoft - they're hurting themselves. It's a high profile title that other third party developers will be watching very closely. If it doesn't sell, it could keep them from bringing their games to the console. It would be different if the Wii U was selling better, but it isn't and not only does the console need to start selling, but the games need to shift units as well.
This is, I think, why @Bankai was being so blunt in his statements. Even though Ubisoft played a shady card, they still control the deck in play. They own the game's IP and they can do as they please, even if that's bad for the consumer. Ubisoft is a very powerful company and one that's heavily invested into Nintendo. Sometimes actions have unintended concequences and I only hope that this doesn't become one of them.
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@K1LLEGAL No problem at all man and I appreciate you asking too. I also agree with everything you've said, even to the point that I don't care too much for Ubisoft's games in particular either, with a major exception to Rayman Origins, of which I absolutely adore. The game goes most anywhere that my Vita goes. Haha Oh, and Uplay is just like EA's Origins - they're both an intrusive pain in the rear and completely necessary as well.
It is indeed a very strange story and one that I feel will live on for a very long time within the industry. This is one of the most hurtful things I can remember a major publisher doing to its loyal fans. The fans have a reason to be upset and I only hope that they do the right things and release the game on the Wii U in three weeks. Though, I don't blame anyone who doesn't pick the game it after all of this either.
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@bboy2970 Dude, don't blame this on other gamers. It isn't their fault one bit. This was a business decision by Ubisoft, not Xbox 360 or PS3 owners or their respective parent owners.
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@K1LLEGAL Sure, I've said it a few times already, but primarily because from a logical business decision (I did sales for Pepsi years' ago, so I know a little something about it), there would be no reason to not release the finished game on the Wii U as scheduled, even if it was to go multiplatform in the future. Pushing the game back, solely because of the this decision would potentially be suicide for its sales on the Wii U, because of the immense backlash against Ubisoft from loyal fans - fans who were just recently teased with an exclusive demo to get their anticipation boiling for what looks to be one of the best platformers ever developed into their hands.
I see absolutely no logical explanation as to why they would do this. None. From there, the only logical explanation for such a delay is that something major crept up late into the game's testing that was overly difficult for the team to get a handle on. Maybe it was a memory leak, which we've seen the effects of and how difficult they are to get a handle on with Bethesda's Fallout 3 on the PlayStation 3. Then again, maybe a great idea was sparked and they just had to implement some great new feature into the game (my one assumption that I made).
It could have been a number of things, but not this. I'm a journalist and I also just flat-out don't have a bit of a bias within me. I have my preferences, but I don't have a bias and that allows me to make my assessments off of the facts up to that point in time, and not off of an emotion. In journalism, it isn't always about being right or wrong. It's better to stay with the facts and make your best assessments from there, or you risk damaging your credibility. In this situation, I did just as I would have if I was publishing about this piece here. Yes, I knew that I could be fighting in the wrong corner, but I was fighting on the side where the was something factual to build my assessments upon. Turns out, the fans' emotions rang true and I tell you this much, I wish I would have been right - I don't care a bit that I was on the wrong side of the fence, but I care very deeply about what Ubisoft has done. I also feel very deeply for all of the Wii U owners who were so excited about getting Rayman Legends in a few weeks. Ubisoft has really upset me with this one. I don't like seeing loyal fans being treated this way one bit.
I'm stunned and confused by this revelation, and it's severely diminished the way that I look at Ubisoft right now too.
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
A quote from Xavier Poix, managing director of Rayman Legends:
"“When we saw all the comments when we announced the game would be focused on Wii U, all of the people that have both the PlayStation 3 and 360 were really disappointed,” Poix told IGN. “So we thought it was making more sense to also bring the game to where it was originally from. That means Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. So we decided to go for a multiplatform launch simultaneously.”"
Yes, I've said a lot on this topic today, but I stand by the fact that I stuck with the facts and not emotions, but now that there's hard evidence on why the game has been delayed on the Wii U, here's the only thing I've got to say: Ubisoft is low-life piece of sh*t for doing this to all of the Rayman Legends fans that have been hotly anticipating the game's release!
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@moomoo Ubisoft's Facebook page is ran by one of their PR people (possibly outsourced), so I wouldn't take that on a word-for-word basis, so that's why I was going off of what Guillemont state only.
Just thinking here, but my best guess is that the reason they aren't going to keep it as a "timed exclusive" after this delay is likely based an a few things:
1) This is probably the most important reason - it's getting into the holiday sales season and Ubisoft wants to have the game released on all platforms for maximum sales potential.
2) If the new gaming consoles do release at the end of the year, which I do think at least one of them most likely will, the game will need to have the maximum availability to keep from being completely overshadowed. Again, this is another reason that I feel that this delay is something more than it at first seems to be. Ubisoft would be crazy to purposely move a high profile title into this madness (that also includes the release of GTA 5 ).
3) Sales are already going to be lost by this delay for the Wii U consumers already, so is a "time exclusive" really going to have much of an effect against all of the new Wii U titles that will release by then? Just my opinion here - I don't think it would make much of a difference.
4) While they're taking away the "exclusivity" aspect of the game for Wii U, they can now ramp up the marketing at release for the Wii U - showing off all of its exclusive features (including yet to be seen features that will most likely now make it into the final release). This could potentially have an even larger effect than the now lost exclusivity if they put enough hype behind it.
I think once the shock wears off a bit - 7 months is plenty long enough - all will go well for the title on the Wii U. It's still shaping up to be a definitive platformer on the console that potentially rivals Nintendo's offerings, just like it did yesterday, before this news broke loose. It makes brilliant use of Wii U's multitude of unique control features already and it'll be a great title to add to a Wii U owner's library.
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@Neram This isn't exclusive to Nintendo, this is a market wide trend. The market is absolutely flooded with games and for these third party developers to make a substantial profit, they need to get their games on as many consoles as possible.
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@theblackdragon @moomoo That would be hilarious!
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@theblackdragon I do remember that, but at every showing that I can recall, nobody from Ubisoft said that it "was a console exclusive," only that it "had console exclusive features." Wordplays, they're a royal pain in the rear! If I remember correctly, Nintendo has heralded it as "exclusive," just as they did Ninja Gaiden III: Razor's Edge. They can do this, because it was a "timed exclusive," which they aren't obligated to disclose, if they don't desire to do so.
If Rayman Legends was indeed already packaged and about to ship out to retailers on the Wii U (which I doubt that it was) - Ubisoft top executives are a bunch of ****** idiots!
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@Chriiis Apology gladly accepted. And no, I could never do that here or anywhere else. I mean, how could a former Nintendo Life writer ever hate Nintendo fans - it just isn't possible!
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@TBD I would bring you some Advil if I could - I know you probably need it right about now!
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@CanisWolfred Yes, yes, yes! I meant to drop that in my last post (I really need to get back to cleaning my house and playing Ni No Kuni), but I forgot to add that. If they delay for the Wii U was, say, 3-4 months, then there really isn't a reason to not go with a simultaneous release any longer.
I'm willing to bet that Ubisoft is going to make up for this delay on the Wii U to loyal fans of the game after launch with more exclusive content and free DLC!
@SCAR392 And you should if that is what you want. The game will very likely be in its ultimate version on the Wii U.
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@moomoo How do you know that they didn't just delay the announcement of the game's delay why they were securing the multiplatform deals with Sony and Microsoft?
I just don't buy this whole idea that "Ubisoft is punishing Wii U owners." I'm sorry, I just don't buy it one bit.
Re: Rayman Legends No Longer a Wii U Exclusive, Delayed to September
@Chriiis Sorry, if I that came off as me saying that you were "biased," because that wasn't my intention - I apologize for that.
The story that I linked to was the original source of the story. I also write news for the industry myself and I know how to read between the lines - I'm actually quite good at it. Journalist write things to make them seem like they're something/more than what they are. This is why things get pulled out of context and things become "exclusive" when they aren't. It's overly easy to do this when you've got a passionate group of gamers who are biased and the rumours (and site hits) come flying in - no, I'm not speaking about Nintendo Life when I say this.
Anyhow, back on topic, the game was delayed. It happens and it almost always happens for the best of the game. From a business perspective, the sooner they get the game out on the Wii U, the more profit Ubisoft will potentially find. That tells me that something game-breaking was found and needed fixing or they might (yes, I'm about to make an assumption here, as it has no substantial evidence to make it in any way plausible) be adding another feature to the title that could take months to complete. We don't know exactly what is causing this delay, but whatever it is, it is keeping the game from releasing in the near future when the sales potential on the Wii U is at its highest. This latter part is where I get the basis for my previous comment. Ubisoft is looking for maximum profit. If they could release Rayman Legends in the final form they desire it to be in within the next few month, they would.
But they aren't doing so - are they? So the "assumption" is that the other piece of news of the game going multiplatform is the reason, when there is no substantial evidence to prove this to be so.
What we do know is that Ubisoft's development tools are extensive and multiplatform ports are everyday business for the company. Their development teams and resources are matched by no other third party publisher/developer in the industry as well. They've got the manpower to port the game over no problem. This leads me to believe that the delay on the Wii U is just that - a delay on the Wii U. Otherwise they would be launching the game as soon as possible for maximum profits.