Lords of Shadow Studio's New Game is Coming to PS4 and Xbox One, Not Wii U
- Thread starter Alex Co
- Start date
See, here's what you're doing: There is a specific situation where this worked out. One situation. Then you're asking companies to wager a not inconsiderable sum on this situation playing out in exactly the same way the last one did with no reference except one instance where it worked out and the assumption that the Wii U saga will end up playing out in the same way the PS3 did despite minimal parallels beyond a small initial install base.weirdguy said:
It's surprisingly easy to wager somebody else's money on a risk you aren't taking.
That's the thing about Nintendo; the kind of relationship they want to garner with 3rd parties is symbiotic and independent. However, it seems to me that most 3rd parties want to be parasitic. Nintendo is willing to meet 3rd parties halfway, but 3rd parties refuse to do the other half, expecting Nintendo to do more work than should be expected. And if they're going to be like that, then what's the point? Better to just expand their own company and repertoire just for the sake of their sanity.Dragonbums said:
it's also easy to make assumptions on the basis of things people never actually made an honest effort to tryFalterfire said:
it's not they're even guaranteed success, it's just that failure is assumed to be the most likely outcome when we don't even know that because we don't have any examples of actually good games on the wii u failing even with a reasonable business plan
The Wii U is a different animal than the Xbox One and PS4 and they don't think it has a big enough install base to justify the port? Companies don't avoid a certain console out of spite. This is a calculated risk.Shadow-Phoenix said:
Edit: Seriously, guys. There is no industry wide conspiracy against Nintendo. Money talks.
Except the Wii U far exceeds the power of the PS2. Thus making it a really bad analogy. A better analogy would be making FF 13 on the Xbox 360 and PS3 as opposed to the Xbox 1 and PS4 which automatically makes your entire argument fall apart because there is a very good chance this game will be on those systems at some point therefore cementing the fact that they aren't making a Wii U version because they don't want to.Mcoffey said:
The problem with the install base thing right now though is that Sony and Microsoft currently have a smaller install base than the Wii U as well. Meaning that it would make no sense for them to make ports on two consoles with the lower userbase and exclude the one with the highest install base.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Meaning that install base is one of many factors for why the Wii U isn't getting this game.
The new systems' install bases are still growing rapidly. The consoles just came out, after all. Sony and Microsoft have also never been shy about incentivizing porting to their systems either. Again, money talks. If they aren't porting to a certain system, there is a reason.Dragonbums said:
Um actually the PS4's install base and the Wii U's install base are basically even. Sony just reported a few days ago that they have sold 4.2 million PS4's and the Wii U's current install base is about 4.3 million. Also remember that the PS4 and Xbox One aren't available worldwide yet. PS4 launches in Asian regions in February, and Xbox One has the unknown "2014" so who knows when it'll launch into Asian markets.Dragonbums said:
Let me add another point against your argument that I'm surprised you can't seem to figure. Most if not all of the third party publishers that made games for the Wii (not the Wii-U) lost money. Most core styled titles released on the Wii flopped. Japanese AS WELL as Western markets.weirdguy said:
The Wii is the second best selling console of all time yet most companies couldn't sell games to people at even passable numbers without pandering to a casual market that Nintendo's rigorous marketing created. Games like Murumasa: The Demon Blade was not going to sell to the market that throws money at Wii Fit pads that clearly are inaccurate pieces of gimmick tech that are now obsolete. Games like Just Dance got annual sales on the Wii while games like Xenoblade Chronicles become critically acclaimed, yet struggle to sell even after a massive campaign and successful petition to get the game localized.
It's reasons like this that fans of Nintendo always ignore when they speak the now frankly silly question, "Why don't companies make games for Nintendo's console?" They also are woefully unaware that they are the loud minority when it comes to people that don't know the answer to that question. You've gotta realize, a lot of people who bought the Wii were unbelievable pissed that there was so much shovelware shoved into their faces. They were also pissed that the motion control support that was so damn touted for the console dropped sharply after the console's second year on the market. Also was pretty flawed to begin with, AND was implemented in very gimmicky ways. A lot of those people figured that they could pass on a Nintendo console generation with the Wii-U, as they know that the first party titles are going to follow the same formula they've been following for the past 30 years with minor improvements and the third party titles being good will be few and far between (as well as pretty niche frankly. Most of the best 3rd party Nintendo exclusives are Eastern releases.)
So a lot of people left the Nintendo ship this gen.
Third party publishers are looking at the sales of the console and thinking that the market for that console is so fragmented that spending the money to make a game that's not shovelware for the Wii-U it's literally not big enough to mean anything but a financial loss. And a big one. The PS4 has been on the market just under 3 months and has shipped as many units as the Wii-Units as Nintendo has managed to move in well over a year. X1's have almost caught up as well.
Now can people who argue for Nintendo please take what I've just said and commit it to memory. These are the arguments that you are failing to argue against, and yet continue to ignore over and over again. You ask why its not working out for your favourite console and get angry with people when answers are presented then proceed to argue with straw man, anecdotal evidence and pseudo-intelligent ad hominem one-liners.
Question. Why do 3rd party developers not make games for WiiU?
Answer. Because they dont have to.
I dont get why people get annoyed, no company is under any obligation to make games for every console available. Granted the WiiU lacks 3rd party support, but then people only buy Nintendo consoles for its first party software. Although i realize 3rd party releases would make waiting for those 1st party titles a lot easier.
Answer. Because they dont have to.
I dont get why people get annoyed, no company is under any obligation to make games for every console available. Granted the WiiU lacks 3rd party support, but then people only buy Nintendo consoles for its first party software. Although i realize 3rd party releases would make waiting for those 1st party titles a lot easier.
Did the Wii U stab someones mother or something? I don't get why it is getting all the third party hate? Is Nintendo that difficult to work with?
For the Japanese developers and probably some of the older developers they remembered how bad it was when Yamauchi was in charge. Look up how he treated a lot of third parties when he was in charge and you'll see why so many were eager to jump ship to Sony. Some of those old policies are still in place so 3rd parties who have been given freedom, some a little too much freedom, don't wanna go back to be restricted. That and if you look at it historically, 3rd parties lose a bunch of money when on Nintendo's console's. For the GameCube, Square Enix support it for 3 years and lost money all those years, and the same was with Capcom. When it came to the Wii, it was significantly lacking in certain areas that the other competition could easily supply, so while it had the install base, it lacked certain things some devs looked for. For the Wii U I see most of the time it's because of the install base, which is pretty bad when you consider that it was on theatkey for a year and the PS4 has almost completely caught up to its install base size in only a month and a half, and the PS4 isn't available in the Asian market yet either.Vault Citizen said:
Plus, like I said earlier it's Lords of Shadow 2. Does no one remember how horrible the first game was? Complaining about it reminds me of when Wii U owners complained that they were getting Colonial Marines. Count your blessings is what I say.
I'm not that fussed about losing this particular title and I plan to buy a PS4 one day so I'm not too worried about the lack of many titles on the Wii U because I will be able to get them elsewhere, it just seems odd to me that "developer shuns Wii U" has become such a recurrent news item.Neronium said:
One thing I've noticed more actually is that people expect third party companies to have to produce a certain game or games for systems. They technically don't have to do anything, since 3rd parties are their own companies, and I've never understood the rationale that if 3rd parties make games for X system and Y system, that they have to make it for Z system. I mean they are their own companies and can choose where they want to put their games or not. While many make really stupid decisions, many seem to forget that they were appointed to their position at a point because they were believed to be qualified for that position. Iwata wasn't just made CEO instantly, Yamauchi was training him over the years in order to become it. Same goes for Steve Ballmer, as Bill Gates appointed him CEO because he both shared his vision and because he had been trained by him.Vault Citizen said:
The only real case I can think of in which one of the people was handed the CEO job was Yamauchi himself back before Nintendo became a gaming company, and he refused to become CEO unless he was the only family member working at Nintendo, and his grandfather, Sekiryo, reluctantly agreed. Yamauchi wasn't really trained for the CEO position, and at the time was attending law school.
Firstly, it's not Lords of Shadow 2, it's an unannounced game with no relation or similarity to LOS.Neronium said:
Secondly, while you may not have liked LOS, the majority of people who played it thought it was at the very least ok to good, and you acting like it was the worst game ever is just silly and frankly a little immature.
From what I understand, no, not in the LEAST. It's just that they're not doormats. They support 3rd parties, but they don't SPOIL them, unlike Sony and MS. They're basically whining that Nintendo doesn't let them stay up til 5 AM every day and eat nothing but cookies and ice cream.Vault Citizen said:
Sure, some people LOVE to milk that "Yamauchi was mean to 3rd parties!" excuse, but...I've come to reject that stance, mostly because I see just how badly people take it out of context. And what is the context? That of the Gaming Crash. Let's face it, Yamauchi and Nintendo essentially gave 3rd parties (and the entire Western gaming industry) the gaming equivalent of a government bailout. What reason did they have to trust 3rd parties after that? You can't exactly Yamauchi for that line of thinking. Gaming NEEDED a hardass to put down their foot after that. And the thing is even IF the Yamauchi thing wasn't as fundamentalist as 3rd parties there's one big thing that would make that mindset stupid anyway: that was YEARS ago. Time to get over, because if you're still holding a grudge there's only one way to describe that kind of behavior: irrational.
My mistake, I was believing it to be Lords of Shadows 2, so that's my bad.Shocksplicer said:
As for the game itself, from everyone who played it that I knew, and from what I played it was a real let down and felt really bad. Perhaps I'll give it another chance in the future, and I'm sorry for my wording on it.
And as time goes on you let up a little. You can't use the business practices that worked in the Crash that happened in the 80's, and then apply it to the modern times. Yamauchi made good decisions when it came to 3rd parties on the SNES and the NES, along with the GameBoy, but by the N64 he was still trying to use the same strategies as before, when the market had completely changed and those responsible for the crash were either long gone out of the industry, or had been bought out and put in line by their new owners. Would you use a same business strategy in the 1920's in the 1960's? More often then not no, because the market changes as do other things. A few third party publishers have gotten out of hand, but blaming all 3rd parties for it isn't fair in the slightest. It's like blaming a local priest for what an Arch Bishop does, and those 3rd parties that have gotten out of hand are facing what they've wrought now. Capcom is near broke, don't care about them, SEGA has gotten most of their act together, Square Enix is getting their act together with their new CEO, and EA is at least attempting to change (whether they succeed is up to them). Ubisoft is still being retarded, but once it gets as bad for them as it did for EA then they'll change. Even though you probably won't reply to this, one thing is certain: don't blame everyone for the actions of what a few do.Aiddon said: