Dead Island Riptide, this one is funny. Truth be told not many peeps here want this game but the story is quite funny because you have a publisher essentially getting caught in a lie by the developer who seems to revel in pointing out said lie.
The first story was: Dead Island: Riptide not coming to Wii U because the engine would need to be rewritten, producer says:
"The things that are required to bring something to a new platform, you need to either really get to be integrating it deep into the engine, or you've got to [do] a port."
"Neither one of those was a satisfactory outcome for us, so we decided to do what we got platform-wise and just make sure that we can deliver the best experience we can."
Then the developer Techland contested Deep Silver's Dead Island: Riptide Wii U comments
"Wii U compatibility was coded, created, and tested months ago, back in 2012.
"There's no 'rewriting' needed to make it work on Nintendo's latest console. So the bottom line is that there were no plans to create a Wii U version but that decision had nothing to do with Chrome Engine's inability to run on that platform."
Then when questioned on Twitter about it, the publisher Deep Silver said:
Dead Island: Riptide 'not worth releasing' on Wii U
"We looked at whether it would be worth releasing on Wii U, but decided against it"
Crysis 3, this one is sad.
Firstly
Crytek 'very happy' with Wii U dev kit performance
Specs are 'very good'
Then:
Crysis 3 on the Wii U? Crytek says 'fat chance'
Then
Crytek: working with Nintendo, Crysis 3 Wii U 'a possibility'
Then:
Ex Crytek Director of Technology moves to Nintendo
Finally:
We did have Crysis 3 running on Wii U, we were very close to launching it. But there was a lack of business support between EA and Nintendo on that. Since we as a company couldn't launch on Wii U ourselves - we don't have a publishing licence - Crysis 3 on Wii U had to die.
Wow, they were close to launching it? What exactly happened between EA and Nintendo? EA seems to have killed it. IMO they should get Crytek a publishing licence and launch it on the eshop at least.
Saints row 4,
Just because. Short, sweet to the point.
Tomb Raider
"I'm always a fan of the Nintendo systems, in particular they really push interface design, and from a game design perspective it's fun to play with new interfaces," Hughes said. "Having said that, it's something that I think we would want to tailor the experience to if we were going to do it."
"All three [other console and PC versions] are really trying to deliver roughly the same experience, but delivered best on each platform, and I think something like the Wii U often asks you to do something unique based on a unique interface," Hughes added. "That's something as a gamer I love, but it's something you don't want to do half-heartedly as a developer."
So Wii U (requires-sic) you to do something unique, so instead they just wont do anything. Reminds me of the Wii 1 excuses but this time it's not really valid considering the Wii U pad and power of the console. You don't have to do anything different.
Here is their other reasoning:
"If we started building a game for the Wii U we would build it very differently and we would build it with unique functionality."
"When we started developing the game we made a conscious decision that it was all about building the game for a platform and making sure the game was specific to that platform. Given that we've been working on the game quite a while before Wii U was announced I think it would not be right to try and port it across."
The FAQ also confirmed the developer is "in the middle of discussions with a company" about a Mac version of Tomb Raider, but it is unlikely to be released at the same time as its Xbox 360, PS3 and PC counterparts.
Can someone explain to me how Tomb Raider is specific to PS3?
Can someone explain to me how Tomb Raider is specific to 360?
Can someone explain to me how Tomb Raider is specific to PC?
Acheivements? Mouse control? XBL?
Why would a Wii U version need to be built "very differently?" This is your blanket excuse at work here and was used a lot in the Wii era. They just didn't want to bother or didn't think it was worth doing the extra work.
Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2
The only reason people were asking for this was because Cox was making a CV LOS 3DS game.
Cox's frank and truthful reply is refreshing. Fair enough, a little honesty goes a long way.
"The reason why we are developing it on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 is simply because that's the amount of people we got," Cox said. "If we want to do a Wii U conversion, that's another 20 people. We just don't have the resources or the budget to do it.
"It's not to say we wouldn't do it, it's to say at this point we don't want to lose focus on what we're doing. We've got a certain way down the line, and it would be a distraction to have to do a port to another system at this point."
Cox said Konami may look at creating a Wii U port in the future, but it's not on for now.
"Game development is about managing resources," he said. "You say to yourself, can I take on another 20 people? It's just a nightmare to manage at this point. That's the only reason why we're not doing any other formats.
"Also, the MercurySteam office is at breaking point right now. It's rammed. They bought the office for 60 people, and there are 110 now. People are sitting on each other's laps almost. It's all these kind of logistical issues about the development."
This is honestly why I think a lot of games are skipping Wii U. Wii 1's rotting corpse is casting a long shadow over Nintendo's newest console. Everyone scaled up years ago, swapped a third console sku for a PC sku instead and now there is no room left and no one willing to invest and expand their operations to accomodate another sku. That's why outsourcing is used a lot.
Cox's frank answer is fine, it's the lying and BS excuses which are irritating. And test games.
Also note how many of you were hypothesising that Wii U's power gap compared to PS4 and Nextbox would mean U versions would not be feasible? Well we are talking about current gen games here. Regardless of power, 3rd parties look on Nintendo as you do a dog poo, you steer clear and occasionally poke it with a stick.
The thread of which wii u games are coming out would be much smaller and easier to keep track of. 
Saw this coming from a mile away.
Dvader said:Saw this coming from a mile away.
gamingeek said:Also note how many of you were hypothesising that Wii U's power gap compared to PS4 and Nextbox would mean U versions would not be feasible? Well we are talking about current gen games here. Regardless of power, 3rd parties look on Nintendo as you do a dog poo, you steer clear and occasionally poke it with a stick.
This^.
Even if Wii U had 8 cores and 8gb of RAM it still wouldn't be getting CV LOS2, Crysis 3, Tomb Raider etc. The system would cost a lot more and still wouldn't be selling.
Dvader said:The thread of which wii u games are coming out would be much smaller and easier to keep track of.
True Dat.
But the thread wouldn't be nearly as funny reading through all the BS.
The whole "we need something unique for the controller" bullshit was a fine excuse on the Wii. But the Wii U is actually the most standard controller Nintendo has ever made if you take the screen out of the equation. It has ALL the same inputs as the Playstation and Xbox pads. So using that as an excuse now is just completely lame.
Most of these companies just don't think working with Nintendo is worth their time. Its been this way since Sony launched the PS1. Then it got worse once Microsoft entered the arena & snagged the shooter crowd. Oh well.
edgecrusher said:The whole "we need something unique for the controller" bullshit was a fine excuse on the Wii. But the Wii U is actually the most standard controller Nintendo has ever made if you take the screen out of the equation. It has ALL the same inputs as the Playstation and Xbox pads. So using that as an excuse now is just completely lame.
Most of these companies just don't think working with Nintendo is worth their time. Its been this way since Sony launched the PS1. Then it got worse once Microsoft entered the arena & snagged the shooter crowd. Oh well.
Yeah it's sad. I have a theory on Nintendo 3rd party support, Wii certainly didn't help but to an extent there is a Pavlovian training going on here. They've taught us and we've taught them. It's a very circular system. There's been over a decade of lacklustre 3rd party support and it's going to take a similar period of investment and parity to fix things. As consumers we've learnt that they view Nintendo hardware as an afterthought, so we don't buy what we assume is second class product. 3rd parties do themselves no favours with overpriced, late ports missing features. Then they get huffy when we don't buy it and give us even worse support. A few scraps thrown here and there don't help. Gamers know where their bread is buttered as gaming doesn't exist in a vacuum. Things like Konami announcing MGS 3DS then announcing MGS trilogy for the price... and ME3 then the trilogy on other platforms? Do they think people are mugs?
GG the power simply doesn't help turn around the history of third parties ignoring Nintendo system. You can't help to change it if in a year or so the games won't be as compatitible. Yes they would never get the support of the others but if they were serious about online and were more in line with the other two systems it would help change things.
It's sad that current gen games are not making it to the U.
So you think in the shooter space everyone was scared off by the poor sales of COD? Or are they generallly concerned with the small install base not being worth the port?
aspro said:It's sad that current gen games are not making it to the U.
So you think in the shooter space everyone was scared off by the poor sales of COD? Or are they generallly concerned with the small install base not being worth the port?
Nintendo. That is the answer.
EA never supported the Dreamcast. Pricks. They gave birth to the NBA2K series as a result.
Seriously though, I think a lot of publishers must look at COD on Wii U, and think, "Well if COD can;t break through on that pltform what chance do we have?"
The other thing is, it's TOUGH to sell games right now period unless you are on the quadruple-A level, so on top of that going to such a small install base must seem like a waste of resources.
Personally, I'd love to see GTA5 (and any other late-gen game) on Wii U. It would be nice for gamers to be able to play them on the most powerful system currently available.
The truth of the matter is that the insall base is so small that sales returns would be too low to consider. The companys just wouldn't recoupe the investment cost of the port. It takes time and money to port the games and if the install base isn't there then the sales are not there.
All the other excuses read like BS to me.
Dvader said:GG the power simply doesn't help turn around the history of third parties ignoring Nintendo system. You can't help to change it if in a year or so the games won't be as compatitible. Yes they would never get the support of the others but if they were serious about online and were more in line with the other two systems it would help change things.
It's not just da-powa.
Nintendo had unprecedented sucess with Wii and DS, they earned that support. 3rd parties should have come out like a bullet train on Wii U. But all the current gen games announced recentely that are not coming out on Wii U had to have been put into production at least a year and a half ago for a port to be feasible. They didn't have confidence so they didn't support it. They chose to ignore it and that decision was made far before the U even launched so you can't even say it was due to a couple of months of low sales. When the PS3 was flagging in sales 3rd parties had the confidence to keep producing content for it, that is the difference with Nintendo whom they drop like a hot potato.
"You can't help to change it if in a year or so the games won't be as compatitible." Most of the next gen engines run on current gen and are all about scalability. Luminous engine, with that epic Square enix video works on PS3 as does FOX engine as does Cryengine 3. Battlefield 4 was shown running on the most powerful PC GPU graphics card out there, more than twice as powerful as the PS4 GPU and they took the game and scaled it back for PS3/360 because Frostbite is scalable to current gen. Watch Dogs, MGS V, Star Wars 1313, all current gen.
Ubisofts next gen games are going to be cross gen games too.
There are very few games that would truly be infeasible on lower powered hardware in some form. Check the GAF PC Low settings screenshot thread for instance.
aspro said:It's sad that current gen games are not making it to the U.
So you think in the shooter space everyone was scared off by the poor sales of COD? Or are they generallly concerned with the small install base not being worth the port?
Well from the shooters we know about, 4A games (Metro LL) took an early look at the hardware and said "meh" about the CPU but never really took more than a superficial, early look at the hardware - I don't believe they even got dev kits. Criterion dug into it and said the cpu was an apples and oranges comparison and it's unfair to look at clock speeds etc. But they also said that some devs just walked away without actually researching how to best use it.
The other two FPS are EA and EA reportedly had this fallout with Nintendo because Nintendo wouldn't let them run Origin as U's main shopfront. Crysis 3 was canned when it was very close to release, as for BF4 it doesn't look like a version was even put into play, they haven't even worked Wii U support into the Frostbite engine so obviously they've ignored the system from waaaaaaay back.
This is bad because Biowares' games and most of the new EA output is using Frostbite as well.
As for sales of games, people are comparing sales of games on a combined 140 million userbase with a 3-4 million Wii U userbase so all sales have to be expressed as a percentage for a fair comparison. PS2 games regularly outsold early next gen games.
aspro said:The other thing is, it's TOUGH to sell games right now period unless you are on the quadruple-A level, so on top of that going to such a small install base must seem like a waste of resources.
This is the thing though, Wii U will have 4-5 million userbase very soon. PS4 and Nextbox have a ZERO install base and yet they will be fully supported from the start. You have to build an audience, not just expect them to turn up. A console is called a platform for a reason; a platform has to have support or it will collapse. Most 3rd parties and dickhead gamers on message boards want Nintendo to collapse - how many years of Nintendoomed have we had now? Over a decade?
GodModeEnabled said:The truth of the matter is that the insall base is so small that sales returns would be too low to consider. The companys just wouldn't recoupe the investment cost of the port. It takes time and money to port the games and if the install base isn't there then the sales are not there.
My answer to Aspro is the same I'd give to you. Wii U will have 4-5 million userbase very soon. PS4 and Nextbox have a ZERO install base and yet they will be fully supported from the start.
EDIT: And also the PS3 comparison, it was selling poorly and hard to develop for and still it got support.
Also the cost of porting current gen games isn't that big guys.
Publishing giant insists there is no 'huge research and development investment' in Wii U
UbisoftUbisoft has today revealed that development costs for the Wii U simply are not as expensive as once believed. CEO Yves Guillemot has gone on record to say that his company "doesn't have a huge investment" in the next-gen console, despite a strong showing at this year's E3.
At a recent investors call with Ubisoft, the question arose as to how much is going into development for the new console. Guillemot made it clear to investors that many of the games being launched on the Wii U are not new games, but they are ports from Xbox 360 and the PS3.
"Out of seven games we are planning to launch five games are ports, so those are games for which there is a quite small reinvestment to do," said Guillemot. Ubisoft indicated that Wii U ports cost about 1 million euros (a little over $1.2 million).
Of course, this still leaves the new Rayman and ZombiU titles, but Ubisoft again insists that the cost of those two games is nowhere near the kind of expense that would be seen on the current HD consoles.
"The two games that are original are ZombiU and Rayman Legends, so those ones of course are more expensive but we are not talking about games today, like we were spending on Ghost Recon or Assassin's Creed. So they are much smaller of cost."
"Because as we've always said when there is such an innovation the need is not to have big production value but to concentrate on the innovation This is what we are trying on Rayman and ZombiU."
Ubisoft has been seeing positive growth in a market that has supposedly "penalized" the industry for not moving onto the next generation. The publisher recently posted its quarterly financials, seeing a 27 percent sales bump thanks in part to digital revenues as well as game sales on the Vita and 3DS
So really just over a million dollars for a port? C'mon son.
Its hard to get to a 5 million userbase with 50k sales a week..... hopefully Nintendo reveals some great games at E3 that will help breathe life into this system. My main point was that the system is on life support right now so for developers to invest a lot into it is very risky.
Yeah, so 4.5 million global we'll say for the sake of argument (but I think even Nintendo has pulled back from that expectation). Let's say 3 % of owners buy your game (which would be above average for a non-Nintendo game) that's 135,000 copies. Not worth it.
I have a feeling this thread will run and run.
Battlefield 4 is not coming to Wii U
So first Wii U "is not suitable" for a military FPS experience - guess someone should have told Activision that so Black Ops 2 could have been cancelled early.
Their reasoning:
Frostbite is going to be used by Bioware for Dragon Age and the next Mass Effect so it looks like U won't be getting those either; EA and Nintendo indeed have an unprecedented partnership.
"Imagine a shooter, like Battlefield, with jaw-dropping graphics and smooth character animations of the Frostbite engine, brought to you on a Nintendo system with that breakthrough controller."