UBISOFT's Wii Games

[Hellfire]

I'm only surprised because I thought they wouldn't even make an effort on the game, like I said, I don't have any sort of problem with any genre, as long as effort is put behind it. I mean the name alone... lol

I mean, look at this:

Graphics mean little specially on a title for kids, but looking at it, the most reasonable assumption would be "they're not even trying".

Good think they are trying, now make more "core" games or games that are considered flagship or whatever instead of just throwing Wii the scraps (although SHaun White Wii seems to be the best version) and I'm cool.

[Jamba]

Good think they are trying, now make more "core" games or games that are considered flagship or whatever instead of just throwing Wii the scraps (although SHaun White Wii seems to be the best version) and I'm cool.

 

I can just about understand that paragraph.

 

It's not throwing the Wii scraps. They are putting their flagship titles on the platform that would make them the most money and putting games on the Wii that would make money there.

 

And as for effort, why should they put any in? If the consumer is happy en-masse then what's the problem?

[Hellfire]

I can just about understand that paragraph.

 

It's not throwing the Wii scraps. They are putting their flagship titles on the platform that would make them the most money and putting games on the Wii that would make money there.

 

And as for effort, why should they put any in? If the consumer is happy en-masse then what's the problem?

The consumer isn't happy, that's problem. Shovelware, crappy games, casual or not, they don't sell on Wii, this is a myth. The only examples I can think of games that probably aren't that good (I dunno never played them) are Carnival Games and Deca Sports, but these were very well marketed. One thing is selling enough copies to make a profit, which in this case doesn't take a lot, just sell to "a couple" of random buyers and voila profit (the biggest reason why there's so much crap out for the Wii), another thing is saying, that customers, as a whole are happy with it, when they're clearly not.

 

I believe Ubisoft clearly said they use the money they make on these games to fund their bigger projects. Asking for them to put their A teams working on a game that uses the Wii Remote right isn't asking for much.

 

And of course that making these "Imaginezzz" titles on the Wii is the safest route to make them money, but that doesn't necessarily mean all "flagship" titles would sell the most on other consoles. On one hand, lots of games wouldn't benefit in any way from being on the Wii, because the controls wouldn't gain anything from it and the hardware could hold the game back, not to mention it's easier to make money with a game on 3 platforms than just one. That doesn't mean they can't make games like Rayman (real Rayman) or Beyond Good & Evil or other "big" games (for the record I don't condone this "big, epic, expensive= greta game" thing, it's just for easier writing) for the Wii and that they wouldn't sell. Case in point being Red Steel.

[Will]

The consumer isn't happy, that's problem. Shovelware, crappy games, casual or not, they don't sell on Wii, this is a myth. The only examples I can think of games that probably aren't that good (I dunno never played them) are Carnival Games and Deca Sports, but these were very well marketed. One thing is selling enough copies to make a profit, which in this case doesn't take a lot, just sell to "a couple" of random buyers and voila profit (the biggest reason why there's so much crap out for the Wii), another thing is saying, that customers, as a whole are happy with it, when they're clearly not.

 

I'm really not at all sure what your saying here. Do you mean crap games don't sell? Or that they do? Carnival Games and Deca Sports are the 2 top (3rd Party) games in the most popular genre of game on the Wii. Carnival Games is (imo) the best one of the lot. Yes the marketing plays a big part but so does word of mouth and actual gameplay experience (round at a friends house, in a shop etc). If the games didn't deliver what people want from them then they would fail on this 2nd point. As much as we might think they are rubbish, the cold hard facts are that these games are what the vast majority of Wii owners want to play and they are happy with the current offerings in this area.

 

I believe Ubisoft clearly said they use the money they make on these games to fund their bigger projects. Asking for them to put their A teams working on a game that uses the Wii Remote right isn't asking for much.

 

Publishers are in this business to make money. To make money on the Wii you need mini/party game compilations. These can be very cheap to make so why waste money on a massive production? Better to keep it lean and maximise profit. HD games for the PS3 & 360 require big budgets and very high quality output, hence the need for bigger A+ development studios. It's not about putting crap on the Wii and great stuff on other machines, its about maximising potential profits from the different markets each machine can offer the company.

 

And of course that making these "Imaginezzz" titles on the Wii is the safest route to make them money, but that doesn't necessarily mean all "flagship" titles would sell the most on other consoles. On one hand, lots of games wouldn't benefit in any way from being on the Wii, because the controls wouldn't gain anything from it and the hardware could hold the game back, not to mention it's easier to make money with a game on 3 platforms than just one. That doesn't mean they can't make games like Rayman (real Rayman) or Beyond Good & Evil or other "big" games (for the record I don't condone this "big, epic, expensive= greta game" thing, it's just for easier writing) for the Wii and that they wouldn't sell. Case in point being Red Steel.

 

If games can be proven to make money within the Wii market then there's a good chance they will be made. Publishers will always be weary about taking risks when there is a proven revenue stream to be had. You should also note that it's not necessarily easier to turn a profit with a game on 3 platforms as opposed to 1. It puts development costs up and if the game doesn't fit a particular platform then this can quite simply be money down the drain.

[Hellfire]

Why are you basically repeating what I said? :P

Asides from the fact that you say "the cold hard facts are that these games are what the vast majority of Wii owners want to play and they are happy with the current offerings in this area." which isn't a cold hard fact at all, because I look at Wii top sellers and I see the top selling casual games are either good, well marketed or both, the aforementioned shovelware games don't make it. Meaning the consumers, as a whole, are not happy with crappy, no-effort games. Not to mention there are loads of "core games" selling millions.

Also of course making a multiplatform game doesn't always mean more profit, but in most cases it does, because the more potential buyers outweigh the development costs.

[Emasher]

Does it really matter that there is better games out there though? I'm not a fashion expert' date=' there's probably much better clothes available than what I buy at the same price but if they do the job for me and I enjoy them then is that really such a big problem?

 

Ubi's marketing and awareness in the casual gamers mind is good enough for them to pick up these games, if other companies are failing then Ubisoft can't be blamed simply for succeeding in this segment of the market.

 

I don't think Ubisoft's games are of a lower quality than other publishers either. Which games that are aiming for the same markets do you think are so much better?[/quote']

 

I get what you're saying, but I'm sure you must not like walking into a gaming store and seeing a shelf full of shovelware right in the front.

 

Its not just the fact that they make bad games but the fact that they think they make good games, and the fact that they think the Wii is only for casual gamers.

[Hellfire]

I find this image pretty accurate for most cases :P

Like Maelstrom said

Why does the industry not treat the downmarket well? Outside of developer passion, the answer comes down to money. The upmarket games are far more profitable. It is a sure thing that the upmarket will buy the next first person shooter or epic RPG. And since the upmarket games take the most time and are costly, publishers will only put their first string teams on those games. The downmarket, that the industry thinks are its worst customers, sees these games as less profitable and cheaper to make. In their mind, it is perfectly logical to assign their fourth string teams to do these games as if they mess up, little harm is done.

 

Nintendo considered the downmarket to be the most important and put their first string teams to make games such as Wii Sports. The result is an explosion of sales with these low tier Nintendo titles. The industry looks at this and, idiotically, says, “Oh! A casual gamer boom! Quick! Let us all start making casual games to ride this wave!”

[S.C.G]

I mean, look at this:

 

lol when I first saw that for a second I thought it was a screen from a DS game. XD

[Darkspine S]

Yeah, and now it looks like this.

[jammy2211]

The consumer isn't happy, that's problem. Shovelware, crappy games, casual or not, they don't sell on Wii, this is a myth. The only examples I can think of games that probably aren't that good (I dunno never played them) are Carnival Games and Deca Sports, but these were very well marketed. One thing is selling enough copies to make a profit, which in this case doesn't take a lot, just sell to "a couple" of random buyers and voila profit (the biggest reason why there's so much crap out for the Wii), another thing is saying, that customers, as a whole are happy with it, when they're clearly not.

 

The consumer is happy, otherwise they wouldn't buy these games, and they must buy them, for companies to keep making them. The companies are only filling the apparent demand, if people buy it Ubisoft will make it, and people are buying it. Just look how successful the Imaginez series has been on DS, and now the Wii.

 

It's not really that hard to comprehend, sure enough you're not happy, and most people one these forums arn't, but the majority seem to be.

 

I believe Ubisoft clearly said they use the money they make on these games to fund their bigger projects. Asking for them to put their A teams working on a game that uses the Wii Remote right isn't asking for much.

 

I think it was a misquote but they said something like that. I don't really think a company would work in that way though, it's kind of laughable the idea they invest all their profits into something they don't think will produce more profits.

And of course that making these "Imaginezzz" titles on the Wii is the safest route to make them money, but that doesn't necessarily mean all "flagship" titles would sell the most on other consoles. On one hand, lots of games wouldn't benefit in any way from being on the Wii, because the controls wouldn't gain anything from it and the hardware could hold the game back, not to mention it's easier to make money with a game on 3 platforms than just one. That doesn't mean they can't make games like Rayman (real Rayman) or Beyond Good & Evil or other "big" games (for the record I don't condone this "big, epic, expensive= greta game" thing, it's just for easier writing) for the Wii and that they wouldn't sell. Case in point being Red Steel.

 

I think they don't sell as well on Wii though, and are at a risk to flop. Prince of Persia sold over a million copies worldwide on it's first day on the market last week, it would struggle to surpass 1 million worldwide on the Wii at all.

 

Third parties haven't had much success releasing geniune games on the Wii, there are a few exceptions such as Resident Evil 4 and Red Steel but normally the games flop, and they flop hard. Who's going to risk making anything on the scale of Prince of Persia or Beyond Good and Evil 2 on the Wii when they're guarenteed better sales and less risk on the PS360?

[gothic_hobbit]

The worst Ubisoft game I've ever played is Far Cry Vengeance.

 

Awful graphics and shoddy sound abounds in this shoddy port of an classic game

[D_prOdigy]

But the 'exceptions' are enough to take note of. The Resi series, Pro Evo, Guitar Hero, Lego series, Tiger Woods, Shaun White. This is evidence that quality and effort can and often does have a direct correlation on commercial success.

 

What I'm trying to messily get at, is that it's unfair to compare PS360 games against Wii games because, well... that's 2 consoles. If every developer had a major shift RIGHT NOW and put every single one of their mainstream games on Wii, then they'll be more successful than they would be on other consoles. You get out what you put in. And the bottom line is pretty much everyone missed a trick with Wii by taking a "wait and see" attitude. That's why everyone's still so bitter at Nintendo for making a mint with their own games.

 

Let's face it, with the possible exception of the much-hyped Halo, there haven't really been any games on the two other consoles (even if they were on both) that have sold to the scale of something like Brawl or Mario Kart or Wii Fit or Galaxy. Everything has sold 'quite well' and made publishers a 'decent' profit. Even GTA IV didn't really stick around to keep the chart alight as it did on its first week or two - and that was on two consoles for christ sake. Yet I still see Mario Kart up their every week.

 

Basically, no-one wants to be the first one to throw their support behind the system, which sends everything into a vicious cycle. The point with Prince of Persia: yes, if it was built ground-up for Wii, announced for Wii and always was a Wii game, then I see no reason at all that it wouldn't have sold as well as it did now. Oh and considering the dire sales of the original, using Beyond Good and Evil 2 is a bad example. I'm not sure I fully agree with the notion that a Wii version wouldn't sell as well as any other version. In fact, the game seems ideal for the Wii crowd more than any other,

 

I'm tired and rambling. I know what I mean though.

[jammy2211]

But the 'exceptions' are enough to take note of. The Resi series, Pro Evo, Guitar Hero, Lego series, Tiger Woods, Shaun White. This is evidence that quality and effort can and often does have a direct correlation on commercial success.

 

Wow you're really scrapping the barrel there, An EA sports series? A GameCube Port? The Lego Series, Seriously (Yeah I know they're fun but hardly the pinnacle of quality). Their success is far outdone by the likes of Carnival games, Game Party, Cooking Mama 1 / 2, Rayman RR, MySims etc.

 

What I'm trying to messily get at, is that it's unfair to compare PS360 games against Wii games because, well... that's 2 consoles. If every developer had a major shift RIGHT NOW and put every single one of their mainstream games on Wii, then they'll be more successful than they would be on other consoles. You get out what you put in. And the bottom line is pretty much everyone missed a trick with Wii by taking a "wait and see" attitude. That's why everyone's still so bitter at Nintendo for making a mint with their own games.

 

I don't think that's right, but a hypothetical situation like that makes no sense anyway. I'd imagine supply would soon outstrip demand of the games though, and software sales would suffer for titles.

 

Let's face it, with the possible exception of the much-hyped Halo, there haven't really been any games on the two other consoles (even if they were on both) that have sold to the scale of something like Brawl or Mario Kart or Wii Fit or Galaxy. Everything has sold 'quite well' and made publishers a 'decent' profit. Even GTA IV didn't really stick around to keep the chart alight as it did on its first week or two - and that was on two consoles for christ sake. Yet I still see Mario Kart up their every week.

 

GTAIV sold 10 million +, Call of Duty 4 10 million +, Halo 3 sold alot, plenty more. If a third party should be looking at the Wii and thinking they can get sales on the scale of any first party title they're seriously misguided - the best selling DS game by a third party racked up only 3 million units, and that's on a userbase of 90 million potential customers. Have third parties not made any good well marketed games on the DS? Nonsense.

 

Nintendo have a brand about them third parties can't compete with, no matter how 'perfect' they make a game to appeal to audiences and how well they market it and whatever else, Nintendo will always outsell them. The 16 best selling DS games are all First party... it's a similiar story on Wii with it's similiar userbase and appeal.

 

There is far more potential for success for third parties elsewhere then the Wii.

[Hellfire]

Look, it's obvious certain games wouldn't sell on Wii, but I though this stupid myth that 3rd party games don't sell except for crappy shovelware already stopped after so many discussions. Seriously.

 

Like I said consumers, and I mean a big percentage of consumers, enough to represent the typical owner, DON'T BUY these games, if you look at sales numbers you don't see many crummy "casual" titles selling well, not more than in other consoles that's for sure.

 

Looking at vgchartz top 50 (I know not that reliable but close enough to have an idea) I see very little of those games there. The casual titles that sold astronomically? Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Fit, Mario Party, Carnival Games and a few others, the first 3 being the ones with real astronomical numbers the only that can represent the majority of consumes that demand well made games. Notice that they're either very good and well made games, well marketed games or tie-ins from movies and whatnot. I can see 2 or 3 titles that seem like completly thoughtless shovelware to me. So I ask you, where are all of these crappy shovelware titles made by a janitor and his dog with no advertising or marketing plans that are showing most consumers are happy with these kinds of games? There are what, 40 million Wii sold? Keep that in mind.

 

Again, one thing is selling enough to make a profit, which is good enough for publishers and can be a success for a game, another thing is selling enough allowing to draw conclusions about the majority of the consumers.

 

Also: Mario & Sonic sold more than 6 mil, GH3 3.5 mil, Sonic 1.9, Lego Star Wars 1.6, Re:UC 1.3, etc and this is ignoring the fact that I stated over and over and over again, that games don't need to sell millions to be successful. Each case has to be studied, but just one example, do you think Tales of Vesperia was a better bet on 360 than Wii?

 

And I'm happy, I'm more than happy, I have loads of good games, so this doesn't affect me much, but we're not talking about that. Also, don't go misunderstanding or twisting my words like I'm saying every massive investment in 3rd parties would be a sure shot on Wii or something.

 

If this review is to be trusted, we'll see that later, Ubisoft did exactly what I'm saying needs to be done, you don't insult your customers' inteligence, you put work into it, sure it might not be the best game ever, but maybe they managed to make a perfectly fun game for the intended crowd with quality.

 

Wow you're really scrapping the barrel there, An EA sports series?

See, you lost your credibility right here :P. Ever heard of Tiger Woods 09?

 

 

GTAIV sold 10 million +, Call of Duty 4 10 million +, Halo 3 sold alot, plenty more. If a third party should be looking at the Wii and thinking they can get sales on the scale of any first party title they're seriously misguided - the best selling DS game by a third party racked up only 3 million units, and that's on a userbase of 90 million potential customers. Have third parties not made any good well marketed games on the DS? Nonsense.

You're comparing sales of games with bigger than god budgets required just to develop it with games with immensily smaller budgets needed? Wow.

[jammy2211]

Tiger Wood lost credibility when 08 came out 5 months after 07 was practically the exact same game. 09 might be okay though, doesn't take me as the sort of game people on here want to see the Wii getting though, unless we're at a stage where an above average third party effort is welcomed?

 

But yeah, that aside, I think you're missing the point with what I'm saying. Third parties have had some success on the Wii, there are times where quality reaps a good return, but a 'good seller' on the Wii for a third party has nowhere near as big of a return as a 'good seller' on the PS360. Higher developement costs mean a bigger risk, but these become insignficient if you get a big hit on the PS360. Furthermore there's less risk of a flop on PS360.

 

Where's the shovalware that sells? Everywhere... just have a browse of the vgchartz database. Tons of these games are outselling Zack and Wiki / COD5 Wii etc... Really is it that hard to find them?

 

But yeah, I'm really just asking you to put yourself in the boots of a third party developer. Why would Activision put more resources into 'proper' Wii games after COD:WaW is selling so incredibly on the HD systems but not the Wii? Ubisoft just had huge success with Prince of Persia on the HD systems, EA sports see alot more success on the HD systems, and Konami's Pro Evo etc.

 

There is more money in the HD systems for a third party... No matter what they make for the Wii or DS. It pretty much comes down to brand names in my opinion, which Nintendo have hosts of strong figures with huge widespread mainstream appeal... whereas other then Sonic third parties simply don't have, they're slowly building up a few more 'brands' with the new found Wii market mind you, whether they lead to better games is questionable.

[Hellfire]

Holy crap, where to begin and where do I bother?

 

Tiger Wood lost credibility when 08 came out 5 months after 07 was practically the exact same game. 09 might be okay though, doesn't take me as the sort of game people on here want to see the Wii getting though, unless we're at a stage where an above average third party effort is welcomed?

Tiger Woods 09 not only sold more on Wii it's also considered by many and people who don't need online gaming to live (maybe even those) the best golf game on the market

 

But yeah, that aside, I think you're missing the point with what I'm saying. Third parties have had some success on the Wii, there are times where quality reaps a good return, but a 'good seller' on the Wii for a third party has nowhere near as big of a return as a 'good seller' on the PS360. Higher developement costs mean a bigger risk, but these become insignficient if you get a big hit on the PS360. Furthermore there's less risk of a flop on PS360.

 

This doesn't make any sense and you're completely generalizing things. How can a big hit on a console with a much bigger userbase and much smaller dev costs be worse than a big hit on the opposite. I get what you're saying Cod 4 sold 10 million, yadda yadda, I know, like I said, I don't expect them to make Assassin's Creed or wtvr on Wii and that it will sell a lot, but you're seeing things in black & white and completely overshooting and exagerating it. And most of all you're forgetting the gargantuan development costs for PS3 and 360, if they don't sell lots of millions, they're immediately in the red as far as those games go.

 

Where's the shovalware that sells? Everywhere... just have a browse of the vgchartz database. Tons of these games are outselling Zack and Wiki / COD5 Wii etc... Really is it that hard to find them?

That's funny, I'm looking at the top50 and I see what, 5 or 6 shovelware titles (depending on your definition of shovelware). Hell, I see the Top 100 and I rarely see shovelware. Maybe you consider anything that's not hardcore or that's from a cartoon shovelware, I dunno, but what we're talking about are games that are completly and utterly devoid of effort in any aspect, marketing and development.

 

But yeah, I'm really just asking you to put yourself in the boots of a third party developer. Why would Activision put more resources into 'proper' Wii games after COD:WaW is selling so incredibly on the HD systems but not the Wii? Ubisoft just had huge success with Prince of Persia on the HD systems, EA sports see alot more success on the HD systems, and Konami's Pro Evo etc.

 

There is more money in the HD systems for a third party... No matter what they make for the Wii or DS. It pretty much comes down to brand names in my opinion, which Nintendo have hosts of strong figures with huge widespread mainstream appeal... whereas other then Sonic third parties simply don't have, they're slowly building up a few more 'brands' with the new found Wii market mind you, whether they lead to better games is questionable.

 

CoD5 for example is an amazing game, do you see them focusing any advertising on the Wii version? Do you see any of the big journalists, which by profession are responsible to inform readers reviewing the game? No, it's completly overlooked. You can't expect these games to sell millions like this, but they might sell enough.

Boom Blox by the way was already considered a huge success and a sequel is on its way.

 

Oh and btw:

“One thing that's different is we typically figured out who the market leader was going to be before the start of the cycle and bet with our development resources on that platform.

 

“We made the wrong call there [by betting on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360], which made this transition harder than it would otherwise be. But now we're catching up, and I think we're fine. We've got some incredibly innovative Wii titles, [and] incredibly innovative DS titles coming. And so I think that issue's sort of behind us.”

Riccitiello also said he was hopeful of pushing EA’s market share on DS and Wii up to match its dominance on PS3 and 360.

 

He commented: “Can I make a big step in that direction this year? Yes. Can I continue to make steps in that pattern? Yes. Does Nintendo want us to do it? Yes. Does the platform set itself up for that to be possible? Yes. So, it requires focus.”

 

Funnily enough (not really since they're both great games) Dead Space and Mirror's Edge sold poorly. Shaun White Wii is outselling the other versions, GH3 sold on par with 360 and much more than PS3, GHIV I believe is selling more on Wii and GH Aerosmith also sold more on Wii.

 

I'm not missing any point here, in fact you are all that I said was that I wanted them to give Wii "bigger" titles and that sales, in no way indicated that the majority of Wii owners were happy with the shovelware situation and immediately exaggerations started coming out of nowhere like I was saying all 3rd party big hits would be bigger on Wii. Some balance and perspective would be nice.

[Ganepark32]

^ Dead Space and Mirrors Edge sold poorly because of their release and almost minimal marketing (I never once saw anything for dead space and only saw one mirrors edge advert). But at least they are getting a sequel.

 

Anyways, @ Jammy2211 - there isn't more money to be made by third parties on the HD consoles. The reason? More money has to be pumped in to get the HD visuals, etc that are expected from these consoles and very few, about 5 or 6%, break even or make a profit. There is more money to be made on a Wii title than on a HD one as development costs are lower and if we look at the market to see what is selling on the console then it's easy enough for any company to knock up a similar experience and make a decent profit on the thing. I do recognise that there is the potential to lose money by bringing something new to the Wii but the fall is not as great on thw Wii as it is on the PS3/360. Why EA's sport titles sell better on the HD consoles is beyond me as they are virtually identical over all consoles. If there was more of an advertising boost for the Wii versions, then I'm sure they'd sell just as well. This is the main reason behind many of the multi-format titles released on the Wii not selling well.

 

Oh and in more on topic news, Ubisoft have announced a new and exclusive Wii title in the form of a new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fighting game.

 

http://www.ds-x2.com/news/Teenage%2BMutant%2BNinja%2BTurtles%2BComing%2BTo%2BWii%2BExclusively%2C12293,12293

[Will]

The reason? More money has to be pumped in to get the HD visuals, etc that are expected from these consoles and very few, about 5 or 6%, break even or make a profit.

 

I've seen this stat pop up a few times and can't for the life of me believe it's true. Is there any decent source to back it up? If only 5-6% of titles made a profit there wouldn't be much of an industry, I'm pretty certain we'd pull out if only 5 out of 100 titles we produce made a profit for us.

[darkjak]

That developers would earn more on making AAA titles for the PS3 than the Wii is highly unlikely.

First of all, we have the small user base on the PS3, and second we have the astronomic development costs. Porting a 360 game for the PS3 costs as much as making an equivalent game for the Wii ground up.

 

The most profitable solution should be like many developers did with the Gamecube: abandon it alltogether.

 

The PS3 has a gazilion different processors, which on paper gives it more power than the 360. Yet no game so far looks far supperior to the best 360 games. The Saturn had 2 or 3 processors, which accumulated ONE Mhz less than the PSOne. Yet Saturn games generally looked much worse. That's because, the more processors, the harder to use the power efficiently. The harder it is to do something, the more expensive.

 

Third parties have to dare to make the step to abandon the "worse" console, the way they've done in previous generations.

[jammy2211]

Got a lecture in 5 so will address some of the points later and do the whole quote thing, while trying to get my English better at explaining things.

 

As for this whole cheaper developement cost thing though, while developing the games is less I don't think it's as dramatic of a fall as you may think - and with the marketing required for a Wii game to be a bigger success that'll take a huge chunk of their budget. I've no idea how much a good marketing campaign in about 10+ different countries costs but America alone i assume is pretty steep.

 

But yeah, hopefully I'll be able to explain my actual point later. I don't think it's coming across very well at .the mo$ment, hmph.

 

That developers would earn more on making AAA titles for the PS3 than the Wii is highly unlikely.

First of all, we have the small user base on the PS3, and second we have the astronomic development costs. Porting a 360 game for the PS3 costs as much as making an equivalent game for the Wii ground up.

 

Then why did nearly every developers Fiscal Reports show their bigger turn over coming from their PS3 Divisions?

 

Source - I couldn't find a link which mentions Wii but I know Wii isn't as high as 360 .

 

Also porting from 360 to Ps3 / visa versa costs about 5% of the total dev costs... and is pretty much irellevent now anyway as games begin developement on a PC standard kit ready to port to both.

[Jamba]

This is my last post in this convo as, quite frankly I don't see any points really being raised and the classic is happening where people are sinking into detail rather than actually making a point.

 

Let's face it. This discussion is the classic Nintendo fanbase response. You're getting pissed becasue there are no good 3rd party games (well not good enough for your tastes).

 

Back in the Gamecube days it was because there wasn't the installed userbase to warrant a serious attempt at releasing a title. And if there was one then there wasn't enough advertising.

 

Now on the Wii, there is a huge userbase and you're all screaming about there being lots of shovelware. You want high budget games but you're the minority of the userbase and the vast swell aren't really that bothered (smelling the irony much?).

 

And for the love of god why does everyone seem to think that the Wii deserves anything different to what it gets?

[darkjak]

And for the love of god why does everyone seem to think that the Wii deserves anything different to what it gets?

 

Because it's market leader? Because it's the cheapest to develop for.

[BeerMonkey]

[Ganepark32]

This has just sort of degenerated into an argument. Thought it was supposed to be about Ubisoft's Wii games. And on that subject, seems people missed my news post a bit further up on this page about a new TMNT game, exclusive to the Wii.

[Deathborn]

This has just sort of degenerated into an argument. Thought it was supposed to be about Ubisoft's Wii games. And on that subject, seems people missed my news post a bit further up on this page about a new TMNT game, exclusive to the Wii.

 

Are you sure it's from Ubisoft?

http://gonintendo.com/?p=65857

I highly doubt all those japanese developpers would work for a western company.