Ubisoft does it again...

[Hero-of-Time]

I dont see what the problem is. The Wii so far has been a console built around mini games and non realstic types of games. If they done something like GRAW or Rainbow Six on the Wii I doubt it would sell very well, at least compared to say 360 versions.

 

Games like that require great visuals and the inclusion of online is a must. The Wii hasnt been able to get the online aspect right yet and the visuals from a 3rd party stand point are usually not up to scratch. Also you have to look at the kind of people who are buying Wii machines, its no longer just gamers its mothers/fathers etc. They have to make a game which will appeal to them.

 

As its already been stated Nintendo is kind of playing this kind of game aswell by pushing their other style of gaming rather than the traditional kind. If the company who makes the product does this then why shouldnt the 3rd parties?

 

I suppose I can kind of look the other way as I own a 360 aswell so I can see why so many are peed off about it but again its to be expected.

[mcj metroid]

I think Ubisoft and EA have switched positions. Ubisoft used to put effort into their games and create new, original IPs such as the critically acclaimed Beyond Good and Evil. EA used to make rubbishy yearly updates of their sports titles and churn out ports.

 

Now Ubisoft are coming out with this casual games tripe (Horsez??? HORSEZ??? Who got paid for thinking up that!?) and not putting any effort into their games, whilst EA are trying with MySims, EA Playground and different takes on their titles such as Mii incorporation into a lot of them, and WiiConnect 24.

 

Exactly true. What i was saying but BETTER:)

 

I dont see what the problem is. The Wii so far has been a console built around mini games and non realstic types of games. If they done something like GRAW or Rainbow Six on the Wii I doubt it would sell very well, at least compared to say 360 versions.

 

Games like that require great visuals and the inclusion of online is a must. The Wii hasnt been able to get the online aspect right yet and the visuals from a 3rd party stand point are usually not up to scratch. Also you have to look at the kind of people who are buying Wii machines, its no longer just gamers its mothers/fathers etc. They have to make a game which will appeal to them.

 

As its already been stated Nintendo is kind of playing this kind of game aswell by pushing their other style of gaming rather than the traditional kind. If the company who makes the product does this then why shouldnt the 3rd parties?

 

I suppose I can kind of look the other way as I own a 360 aswell so I can see why so many are peed off about it but again its to be expected.

 

 

NO The games they produce are just crap.

 

if the game was good whoever it was aimed at I wouln't mind.

 

Rayman is a minigame collection and I like it. Brain acedemy is a non-gamer game and I like it. But CATZ or HORSEZ are just bad games for anyone.

 

even their hardcore games are terrible 4x4 circuit etc... Their games are just crap..

 

the way i see it they are saying. Ok our underdevoloped games are selling we don't even need to put money into our wii games.

[Kurtle Squad]

Guys; I wouldn't complain too much. Nintendo get a percentage from all 3rd party games sold.

[pedrocasilva]

Guys; I wouldn't complain too much. Nintendo get a percentage from all 3rd party games sold.

Same for Sony and Microsoft on their consoles.

 

We aren't complaining about third party support, we are saying they should put some freaking effort and not spit on us.

[Pit-Jr]

I dont see what the problem is. The Wii so far has been a console built around mini games and non realstic types of games. If they done something like GRAW or Rainbow Six on the Wii I doubt it would sell very well, at least compared to say 360 versions.

 

Games like that require great visuals and the inclusion of online is a must. The Wii hasnt been able to get the online aspect right yet and the visuals from a 3rd party stand point are usually not up to scratch. Also you have to look at the kind of people who are buying Wii machines, its no longer just gamers its mothers/fathers etc. They have to make a game which will appeal to them.

 

As its already been stated Nintendo is kind of playing this kind of game aswell by pushing their other style of gaming rather than the traditional kind. If the company who makes the product does this then why shouldnt the 3rd parties?

 

I suppose I can kind of look the other way as I own a 360 aswell so I can see why so many are peed off about it but again its to be expected.

 

Good post! Thats what i was trying to convey, but you did a far better job of it

[Hero-of-Time]

We aren't complaining about third party support, we are saying they should put some freaking effort and not spit on us.

 

I have been saying that for ages. Its great getting 3rd party support but when they are churning rubbish out then whats the point.

[Cube]

They have to make a game which will appeal to them.

 

I think Nintendo's advertising of Metroid Prime 3 is an attempt to introduce these gamers to our world of gaming. If the advert works, we may well see more 3rd party games like it.

[Hero-of-Time]

I think Nintendo's advertising of Metroid Prime 3 is an attempt to introduce these gamers to our world of gaming. If the advert works, we may well see more 3rd party games like it.

 

It will be interesting to see what kind of numbers Metroid Prime 3 pulls in compared to say Mario Party 8. If it doesnt beat that kind of game then more and more 3rd parties are going to focus on what will sell to the "non gamer".

[Gizmo]

My answer to this thread: Assassins Creed.

 

I don't care how many shitty minigame compilations they put out, and I don't care what console they are on. As long as they make games as this is all speculation based on previews and videos amazing as Assassins Creed, I will buy it. I'm not going to say "wtf minigame again im never buying from ubisoft again lul" because then I will miss out on games of that quality.

 

I know the debate is about how they are looking down on the Wii, but if thats where the money is to fund epic games like AC, which perhaps won't make as much money due to the costs of developing for the 360, PS3 and PC, then I'm fine with that. They are holding the industry back by making half assed games on one console - then driving it forward with an amazing one on another. Lets face it - big games like that won't happen on the Wii. The Wii is a completely different kind of console.

 

Saying all this, I am still a huge Wii fan. I want good games on it. But if I have to endure a couple of weak games to fund others, I'm fine. The good games will come anyway for the Wii.

[pedrocasilva]

I have been saying that for ages. Its great getting 3rd party support but when they are churning rubbish out then whats the point.

Then I don't get your previous post stating "what's the point in doing "insert name" for the Wii? It wouldn't sell as much"

 

I mean... who knows if they put some effort? who knows if Horsez wouldn't sell more on X360?

 

They're simply looking down on us.

 

Ubisoft point in very clear, they don't want to split their userbases and don't want hardcore gamers to go and buy a Wii when it won't have Splinter Cell and Assasins Creed (it's kind of the same for PS3 considering they also got some crappy ports), instead they want to convey them, so Wii is not welcome in their plan.

 

Of course, if they don't make those games for it how do they expect to sell them? publics are created based on the games a console has, and Ubisoft isn't even trying it's only natural. Well, they are trying to say "hardcore gamers, go away" because of their own selfish convenience.

 

Instead they are ignoring and making enemies out of a +10 million and growing userbase; and I sure hope that bites them in the ass some time soon.

[Hero-of-Time]

Its about picking a franchise that would work or even coming up with a new one *points at Zack and Wiki*GRAW was just an example I used and Im really cant see a game like that working on the Wii, especially with the way the online is.

 

That Horse game simply wouldnt sell more on the 360 ( shouldnt sell any on any console IMO ) due to the fact they cant shift them kind of games. I watched the GT Bonus Round the other week and they said the same thing. Games like Viva Pinata which is an awesome game didnt sell very well on the 360 as its not the kind of game that that audience wants. If RARE had made that on the Wii I imagine it would have sold a hell of alot better.

 

Like I said before it doesnt matter how good the game is or how much effort is put into making it if it doesnt match the tastes of the main audience then it simply wont sell as well as it should.

[pedrocasilva]

My answer to this thread: Assassins Creed.

90% of us in this thread would buy Assasins Creed, or any game with the same kind of effort if it was coming for the Wii

I don't care how many shitty minigame compilations they put out, and I don't care what console they are on. As long as they make games as this is all speculation based on previews and videos amazing as Assassins Creed, I will buy it. I'm not going to say "wtf minigame again im never buying from ubisoft again lul" because then I will miss out on games of that quality.

Problem is what we're getting.

 

Ubisoft is taking the profits done here and investing them on a game that isn't coming out here, and proud of that, they could at least work in some replacements.

I know the debate is about how they are looking down on the Wii, but if thats where the money is to fund epic games like AC, which perhaps won't make as much money due to the costs of developing for the 360, PS3 and PC, then I'm fine with that. They are holding the industry back by making half assed games on one console - then driving it forward with an amazing one on another. Lets face it - big games like that won't happen on the Wii. The Wii is a completely different kind of console.

Why not? Horsez is that will happen on the Wii instead? that's entirely Ubisoft's judgement.

 

Wii is as able to put out epic games as other consoles, might not be HD and all, but sell's like cakes, that alone warrants the capability of having a broad appeal and well... selling games.

 

If we go for power alone, PC would already be better for a game like Assasins Creed than PS3 or X360, but that's simply not how the market works.

 

Wii deserves way better than it's getting.

Saying all this, I am still a huge Wii fan. I want good games on it. But if I have to endure a couple of weak games to fund others, I'm fine. The good games will come anyway for the Wii.

I'm not fine, I want good games for my platform, and I refuse to buy another one just because they want me to, they're a third party not a hardware seller they have to make effort to sell to me, not tell me what I have to do.

 

If I had a X360, sure, but I still wouldn't be happy with their effort on the Wii.

Its about picking a farchise that would work or even coming up with a new one *points at Zack and Wiki*GRAW was just an example I used and Im really cant see a game like that working on the Wii, especially with the way the online is.

I disagree, I see lots of people that want realistic looking games on the Wii

 

Wii has a broad appeal and that brings every kind of gamer over, so with that said, I don't mind half assed minigames, but I also want games for my demographic, because I know there is market for that.

 

Same for Zack and Wiki, it's all good and all, but I doubt it'll sell that much, if only for the market "buy zack and wiki" campaigns; it's not the game Wii userbase eats like hot cakes, but it's bound to sell more on the wii than it would in any other platform, again, for the broad appeal.

That Horse game simply wouldnt sell more on the 360 ( should sell any on any console IMO ) due to the fact they cant shift them kind of games. I watched the GT Bonus Round the other week and they said the same thing. Games like Viva Pinata which is an awesome game didnt sell very well on the 360 as its not the kind of game that that audience wants. If RARE had made that on the Wii I imagine it would have sold a hell of alot better.

Thing is... we don't know, I doubt it would sell more on X360, but it certainly could sell more on PS2.

 

Public is created, for example "wow that console has lots of fps" that brings people with fps's in mind of course, X360 clearly has them, but there's also lots of people asking for good fps's on the Wii because of the controller, hell, Red Steel sold 1 million copies, way more than they expected, and of course Far Cry didn't, it's shit.

 

It's true X360 has a limited audience, because they didn't expand it and it's not a single game that'll do the trick, but Wii is already expanded in every way, just needs the games even if they don't surpass the X360 sales just yet, we're good money too, for good games, not shitty ones.

 

They're treating us as third rate stupid consumers that don't mind financing their good games endeavors.

Like I said before it doesnt matter how good the game is or how much effort is put into making it if it doesnt match the tastes of the main audience then it simply wont sell as well as it should.

I think that's a paper thin statement, if it was like that would RE4 Wii sell like it did?

 

The bigger the audience the bigger the public, and that means lots of small groups that get attracted into different stuff; so yeah, there's definitely a market, just like there is on DS.

 

Also... the Ocidental public leans more into the realistic looking games, so that's actually their tendency, instead of raving rabbids and zack and wiki; that's a minority.

[Hero-of-Time]

Thing is... we don't know

 

True and if we dont know then Ubisoft wont either, so they are clearly thinking why and take a risk when they can see the trends and see what sells and stick to the run of the mill games.

 

At the end of the day I buy a Nintendo console mainly for Nintendo games. I have suffered through all the dark eras like the N64 and to a certain extent the Cube era where 3rd parties didnt give them the support. I have gotten used to the lack of decent 3rd party support and although I was optimistic with the Wii so far I have been let down by just about all the 3rd party offereings. This is why I chose to be a multiformat gamer, I can still enjoy the Nintendos games aswell as other compaines.

[pedrocasilva]

True and if we dont know then Ubisoft wont either, so they are clearly thinking why and take a risk when they can see the trends and see what sells and stick to the run of the mill games.

 

At the end of the day I buy a Nintendo console mainly for Nintendo games. I have suffered through all the dark eras like the N64 and to a certain extent the Cube era where 3rd parties didnt give them the support. I have gotten used to the lack of decent 3rd party support and although I was optimistic with the Wii so far I have been let down by just about all the 3rd party offereings. This is why I chose to be a multiformat gamer, I can still enjoy the Nintendos games aswell as other compaines.

But it's still worth taking a risk with the profit they made from Wii though, don't you think?

 

I'd also say a Naruto game on X360 is pretty risky because the darn console doesn't sell on Japan, hell, it would sell 10 times as much over there on PS3. The game even uses the cross platform UE3, so why isn't it multiplatform? it's not like it's even pushing X360 making a port should be easy as hell.

 

It's also a risk at that, and a stupid risk that can only be explained through moneyhatting.

 

Making real games, with real effort for the Wii is not as risky as that, because, unlike the above... it actually makes sense, because there's a market for them. Ubisoft is simply parcial, and they pretty much already said what they think of us.

 

Most people only buy a console per generation, so considering the Wii is selling buckloads not only thanks to their core userbase (otherwise it would be GC-2) making good games for it is worth it and even advisable. I buy a console for Nintendo games, but I'll support whenever good game comes out here too, so it's a matter of effort; thing is... they have to put effort, I'm not buying crap.

[Gizmo]

To be honest I don't think the having only a Wii this generation is the best idea. No matter how much people want to say otherwise, 360 and PS3 are more suited to most of these "epic" games - the higher power is more useful than the Wiimote. As innovative as the Wiimote is, it isn't suited to everything. Take a look at probably the two biggest games coming out for the Wii in the few months - Brawl and Galaxy. While they are undoubtedly going to be awesome, they would both lose very little being on a "normal" controller. While the 4 control schemes for Brawl will surely be awesome, and the pointer / two player in Galaxy would be awesome, they aren't hugely necessary. But if the Wiimote gets me amazing things like Zack and Wiki, and amazing controls on things like MP3, it has found its place.

 

I agree that alot of more FPS games should have Wii versions simply for the fact that the controls would give so much extra - but a game like Assassins Creed would not, and therefore is more suited to the horsepower of the more powerful consoles that allow Ubisoft to create these massive, living, interactive cities. See every nook, window, every protruding brick on those buildings? You can use them to climb and free run. That wouldn't be possible on the Wii. :indeed:

[Zechs Merquise]

At the end of the day the bottom line is this:

 

1) Ubisoft are producing cheap shite for the Wii and it is CRAP

2) They are producing good games for the 360 and PS3

3) However, conversely their games on the Wii are making them a lot more profit than the games on the 360 and PS3 which are making little if any profit due to ridiculous development costs

4) Rather than pumping Wii profits back into making some steller Wii games they are simply producing more shite for the Wii (Horsez - whi the f*ck came up with that one?) to cream off the profit and bang into ever more well developed games for the 360 and PS3

 

Take those 4 points into account and they're shitting on Nintendo fans and Wii owners and using them as cash cows whilst giving great but profit less gems to SONY and Microsoft.

 

Pedro is spot on, it stinks. They should be making sure that the people buying their games and making them the big money get what they deserve - better products, whilst downscaling development for less profitable systems.

 

I for one won't be milked like this, and I stick by what I said earlier, I hope EA buy up Ubisoft and break them up and sell off what assets they have. Ubisoft are slinging us the shit and laughing whilst we lap it up.

 

All Wii owners should stick two fingers up to Ubisoft over this and stop buying their games. Hit them where it hurts!

[pedrocasilva]

To be honest I don't think the having only a Wii this generation is the best idea. No matter how much people want to say otherwise, 360 and PS3 are more suited to most of these "epic" games - the higher power is more useful than the Wiimote. As innovative as the Wiimote is, it isn't suited to everything. Take a look at probably the two biggest games coming out for the Wii in the few months - Brawl and Galaxy. While they are undoubtedly going to be awesome, they would both lose very little being on a "normal" controller. While the 4 control schemes for Brawl will surely be awesome, and the pointer / two player in Galaxy would be awesome, they aren't hugely necessary. But if the Wiimote gets me amazing things like Zack and Wiki, and amazing controls on things like MP3, it has found its place.

I disagree, otherwise we'd have to agree that was also true for GC and Xbox last gen.

 

That's not how market works, hell, look at DQ9 on DS, now that's how market works in extreme situations; epic attempts go to the best selling consoles.

 

Same with PS2, why were Final Fantasy games made for it? why not for more powerful systems, why not for the PC? Because PS2 was the market leader; market sense-wise it would be stupid to release the games elsewhere.

 

If, Assasins Creed is not profitable on X360, but Wii is profitable... then hell yes, it should be on Wii (this not what I've been saying in this thread though, but it's common sense if it was the case)

 

If Wii is profitable, they should be investing in it.

I agree that alot of more FPS games should have Wii versions simply for the fact that the controls would give so much extra - but a game like Assassins Creed would not, and therefore is more suited to the horsepower of the more powerful consoles that allow Ubisoft to create these massive, living, interactive cities. See every nook, window, every protruding brick on those buildings? You can use them to climb and free run. That wouldn't be possible on the Wii.

I doubt that, perhaps more effort, perhaps not the same game, but that variety of actions could be possible in every 3D capable platform if that was the focus.

 

Problem is not "hey Assasins Creed is not coming" we've know that for ages, thing is... what they're giving us, Wii is worth a few FPS's like you say, and we're getting shitty BiA with N64'ish graphics.

 

And they go to reuters interviews bragging how shitty their software line-up on the Wii is and how profitable it is.

[Zechs Merquise]

Its about picking a franchise that would work or even coming up with a new one *points at Zack and Wiki*GRAW was just an example I used and Im really cant see a game like that working on the Wii, especially with the way the online is.

 

I for one think that is not true, look at Red Steel, it's sold over a million copies and it was rubbish. Imagine what a decent tactical shooter with great Wii-mote controls could sell?

[Tellyn]

Pedro mentioned companies backing the market leader, which is Wii. It was previously PS2, which had an awesome lineup of games with huge support from companies such as Squeenix.

 

Now not even Square-Enix are producing proper RPGs for the Wii, bar Crystal Chronicles. Chocobo's Magical Dungeon is more their thing.

 

Don't developers realise that they can reach out to casuals with their existing IPs without the need for this childish casual crap?

[Gizmo]

I disagree, otherwise we'd have to agree that was also true for GC and Xbox last gen.

 

That's not how market works, hell, look at DQ9 on DS, now that's how market works in extreme situations; epic attempts go to the best selling consoles.

 

Same with PS2, why were Final Fantasy games made for it? why not for more powerful systems, why not for the PC? Because PS2 was the market leader; market sense-wise it would be stupid to release the games elsewhere.

 

If, Assasins Creed is not profitable on X360, but Wii is profitable... then hell yes, it should be on Wii (this not what I've been saying in this thread though, but it's common sense if it was the case)

 

I disagree with your disagreement*. The difference between the PS2 and the Xbox last gen which far, far smaller than the difference between the PS3 and the Wii. The Wii could not handle such a huge landscape like there is in Assassins Creed. It just couldn't. It wouldn't have as big crowds - something very important for the chase parts of the game. It wouldn't have as interactive buildings - important for the reconnaissance missions. The Wiimote would bring nothing to the main parts of the game, and control over the sword fighting scenes would be shaky at best. Final Fantasy being on the PS2 rather than the Xbox would mean a couple of cleaner textures.

 

But as I said already, I do agree that they need to push the Wii the same way they are pushing the Xbox with Assassins Creed. Red Steel 2 is a perfect example of what they should do - throw in proper online, improved controls and better sword fights, and you will have an awesome Wii game. While it would certainly work on the Xbox360, the sword fights won''t be as good, the controls won't be as good, and the difference in online and graphics shouldn't be big enough to make a real difference.

 

Also, don't take my sword fight references the wrong way - Red Steel and Assassins Creed have very different sword fighting mechanics.

 

*Grammars!

[pedrocasilva]

Pedro mentioned companies backing the market leader, which is Wii. It was previously PS2, which had an awesome lineup of games with huge support from companies such as Squeenix.

 

Now not even Square-Enix are producing proper RPGs for the Wii, bar Crystal Chronicles. Chocobo's Magical Dungeon is more their thing.

 

Don't developers realise that they can reach out to casuals with their existing IPs without the need for this childish casual crap?

Square-Enix was clearly cought by surprise, but I believe they're changing their ways.

 

They clearly won't cancel their PS3 games, but they wouldn't greelight them today, that much is certain, too much risk.

 

Chocobo is a fairly big game for Japan mind you, the original one, 10 years ago sold more than 1 million copies, it also didn't start development this year, considering it's clearly maturing right now and still shipping in Japan this year.

 

Chrystal Bearers is also obviously a high budget game.

 

Square-Enix plans things ahead too, for example FFXIII was in development stages for 5 years; white engine actually started as a PS2 engine, Wii was out of the cake back then and they won't show games that they just decided to make.

 

Also, DS is currently Wii's biggest competitor (it got DQ9) because the userbase is huge, Square-Enix on the short run prefers to have the system sellers there, until Wii has the proper userbase; that userbase is growing really fast though; no doubt they plan more than that; that's only what they planned on developing for Wii at launch.

 

I'm not blaming developers for being caught by surprise with the Wii, we all where... but Ubisoft is in a league of it's own.

I disagree with your disagreement*. The difference between the PS2 and the Xbox last gen which far, far smaller than the difference between the PS3 and the Wii. The Wii could not handle such a huge landscape like there is in Assassins Creed. It just couldn't. It wouldn't have as big crowds - something very important for the chase parts of the game. It wouldn't have as interactive buildings - important for the reconnaissance missions. The Wiimote would bring nothing to the main parts of the game, and control over the sword fighting scenes would be shaky at best. Final Fantasy being on the PS2 rather than the Xbox would mean a couple of cleaner textures.

I disagree, I'd go more with Wii couldn't handle as many people on screen because it's single core and hasn't got the place to run their AI, Wii has nothing wrong with the ammounts of polycounts it could output, so if that was your only focus you could output that kind of geometry, even if with toned down shaders and taking off self shadowing and stuff (and converting the textures into SD of course); now... I'm not saying Assasins Creed would run as is, I'm just saying it doesn't provide that big of a difference between what wasn't possible last gen and is right now, that said Wii is more powerful than last gen.

 

What you're saying the way you're saying is almost "Wii is only capable of that shitty BiA"

 

My point was, if X360 isn't profitable and Wii is... AC should have been made for it, because that's how market works even if Wii couldn't handle the actual AC as is.

 

Still AC started development even before the Wii boom, so it's perfectly understandable, just like FFXIII is; thing is, they ought to make better games for Wii, not brag about how crap they are.

But as I said already, I do agree that they need to push the Wii the same way they are pushing the Xbox with Assassins Creed. Red Steel 2 is a perfect example of what they should do - throw in proper online, improved controls and better sword fights, and you will have an awesome Wii game. While it would certainly work on the Xbox360, the sword fights won''t be as good, the controls won't be as good, and the difference in online and graphics shouldn't be big enough to make a real difference.

 

Also, don't take my sword fight references the wrong way - Red Steel and Assassins Creed have very different sword fighting mechanics.

 

*Grammars!

Well... I think Wii's controller is as suited for a regular gameplay as every other game (Nintendo proved it with Zelda TP, Capcom proved this with RE4, Ubisoft proved it with PoP:Rival Swords, etc) Wii is able to do way more than that when the game is made from ground though.

 

We only need effort; because Assasins Creed clearly has effort.

[Pit-Jr]

So what should Ubisoft be putting on the Wii then?

[pedrocasilva]

So what should Ubisoft be putting on the Wii then?

What if they developed a new Prince of Persia even using the same engine (Jade Engine, same as Beyond Good and Evil and Raving Rabbids) instead of throwing in the GC build of Two Thrones, renaming it "Rival Swords" and remapped the control scheme into the Wiimote?

 

They could also do a new engine or rework it all they wanted until it wasn't a engine with fallbacks for the PS2.

 

Hell, what if they did put the PoP1, 2 and 3 GC builds and did a budget bundle with a remapped control scheme?

 

Either would be best than what they did, because what they did equals to Zero effort.

 

The answer for your question... They should be making good games, just like they're doing for the X360, and they should treat us with respect since we are their customers just like everyone else.

[Noodleman]

If a load of idiots buying a shit game means Assasins Creed gets a bigger budget then i'm all for it.

[Dilli Gee]

Assassin's Creed is probably Ubisoft's most expensive game, ever. Wii definitely is helping to fund it, but ironically, Wii won't be getting the game.

 

I'm split on this. I do believe Ubisoft should invest in more original non-casual games for the Wii, but if releasing shit on Wii results in better games on my Xbox 360, I'm not fussed.