Opinion = Publishers get what they deserve on Vita and Wii U

Here we go again. Catch 22 rears it's head up. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising given the poor sales of Vita but EA have decided to pull the same trick on Vita this year that they did last year. That is whip up last year's edition and slap this year's title on it. And then they wonder why things flop?

Take a look back at EA's stance on Wii and PSP years ago and you begin to think they are doing this type of move deliberately because they reaped lower rewards on the systems in the past. Since they didn't break big on Wii or PSP, Wii U and Vita are made to be laughed at with what are either obvious quick cash grabs or shoddy ports. The only exception to these stand outs is Most Wanted on Wii U. It is clearly a great edition and does the system some justice. Watch interviews on YouTube and you'll see Criterion wanted to put some effort into this. It would seem to me a clash of what a developer wanted was put down by the overlord who seemed to want the game to fail. We all know Need for Speed was likely ready for launch. Yet EA held it back.

So what about EA's stance on Vita? You may remember, but in case you don't have a look here.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006...

EA are one of the biggest publishers on the planet and they set a big example for what others do. So their influence on Wii U and Vita will have an effect overall. Look back however and it isn't only EA that has set themselves up to fall. The much anticipated Declassified could have been the game that showed the difference between Vita and it's competition. Instead of delivering what could have been a true "console quality CoD on the go" Activision passed it off to some lower key dev and then say "no CoD for you Vita owners". Well what did they expect? It flopped because you didn't treat it how you should have.

Rayman Legends could easily have sold Wii U given the fanbase loves their platformers, but instead Ubisoft delayed it (note it was finished) to release it simultaneously across other formats. Looking at how developers treat the fanbases on these systems can you really blame people for lacking trust in the games they throw out? What do you think would happen to Fifa 14 on PS4 if it was actually a port of Fifa 13? It would flop. Capcom is another offender here. They threw out two late ports of games which flopped and then RE Revelations failed to appear when we all know it could have easily been a perfect fit for Vita. Then there are bad ports of 3DS games Vita got when we all know it could get something far greater.

Many big companies have been slamming Vita and Wii U after they didn't see the sales they expected. But if they expect gold mines on late or shoddy ports which don't hold up to other versions, they are barking up the wrong tree. Just because you can't find success on a system does not give you the right to thrash it, the manufacturer and more importantly the fanbase. You throw out Fifa 12 on Wii U and call it Fifa 13, its going to flop. You throw out Fifa 13 on Vita and call it Fifa 14, its going to flop.

Vita and Wii U owners should look at this from another stand point. This is how they treat our systems in general. Vita and Wii U get left in the cold when the games flop but what do they expect after what they do to the fanbases? So who's loss is it really that games skip the systems? If all we get given is poor versions of other existing games what are we missing?

You can blame Vita or Nintendo but the answer is really obvious. It isn't them at fault. It is lazy developers and publishers. They can blame the fanbase or system but they are the ultimate responsibility for their products. To me companies intentionally want their games to fail just so they don't have to juggle resources around so many systems. It is also my opinion that they are mistreating the systems far too soon. EA clearly don't care about Wii U or Vita, but they will look well if the other two systems they are gambling so heavy on fail to meet their expectations. Do note, they have said their entire sports library isn't meeting their pre-order expectations on either PS4 or Xbox One. But what do you think? Do they deserve a shot in the foot for being so quick to assume those which reaped rewards for them now will reap rewards later?

EA employees simply put it like this. "It doesn't make us money so the system sucks". Except EA, you are not the dictator of this industry. They make less money on these other platforms so they treat them lower. You deserve what you get. A harsh opinion? True but it is how I view it. EA, Namco and Capcom cannot declare systems suck just because they don't find success on them. It just infuriates the fanbases all the more. Considering PSP sold over 70 million and Wii sold 100 million, there are clearly a lot of people who disagree with these suits.

[XboxFun]

In all honesty though, why should EA invest money into the Vita when they know it won't sell or make a good return?

People should be happy that EA even cared enough to keep putting a game on that system.

Vita doesn't have the install base to warrant a full blown release from 3rd parties for any type of huge AAA game.

[rainslacker]

Tell that to Ubisoft with the release of Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation. Believe the last number I saw a few months ago it was over 500K sold, and is considered a solid game(after the updates).

I don't know what these companies are expecting to sell, but 500K units on a fairly new console with a "low" install base is pretty decent, particularly for a game like liberation which was created in tandem with AC3.

What the blog points out is that publishers can't expect to release old rehashed ports on a new system and expect them to sell gang busters. To make matters worse, they use these sales as their motivations to not continue development on the systems. People on these systems are itching for big new games. The niche titles do reasonably well because they're niche. The big titles are mostly coming from 1st party, and they are selling well. The publishers have it backwards. It's not the system that sells the game, but the game that sells itself.

[EXVirtual]

Whether or not it´s Nintendo´s fault (I agree it isn´t), they have to do something about it. People aren´t willing to buy a console with barebones online, limited 3rd party support and when they get the 3rd party support, they´re gimped versions of the game. But to get 3rd party support, they need the install base. Because of the fact that the Wii sold like hotcakes, Activision would make COD with N64 level graphics.
Same goes for the Vita. It does have a good list of JRPGs, my favourite genre, but very few get localised. To be honest, it would help if they got a megaton. Maybe Type-0?

[porkChop]

Type-0 HD would be huge for the Vita. That would definitely move units. The PSP version actually looks pretty good on the Vita.

http://gematsu.com/wp-conte...

All they'd really need to do is make the game run in the Vita's native resolution, update the character models, slap some high quality AA on, update the menu/UI design, and maybe upmix the audio. It certainly wouldn't need a full remake, and most things would only need a slight touch-up.

[SilentNegotiator]

Of course you can't blame Nintendo and Sony for bad third party games (though they are closed platforms; nothing stopping them from a little quality control).

But you can't blame third parties for Vita and Wii U doing poorly. It is not the burden of third parties to make a console successful. Third parties are nomads; they go where the money is.

It's Sony's fault for trying to compete with a $250 handheld in a time when everyone has a cell phone. It's Nintendo's fault for throwing away their access to the casual console market without doing enough to attract gamers on the other end of the spectrum, not satisfying developers, giving little first party support for the first year, and using a gimmick that no one is impressed with in 2013 (single touch touchscreen).

[tehpees3]

I am not blaming third parties for the sales of the systems. That is entirely the fault of the manufacturer. Its up to them to get systems in hands. I'm blaming them for the messes they create. If Black-ops on Vita lived up to what people were expecting do you still think it would have flopped? It would have at least got Vita out the pit.

[SilentNegotiator]

I'm just saying; Sony and Nintendo put their systems in a rotten place to sell well and that didn't help third party sales, along with the quality of the games themselves, of course.

It's not worth overlooking the console manufacturers' hands in it. If sales were more consistent (and much higher), we wouldn't see so many publishers waving off the idea of near-future development.

If Vita had been at a competitive price long ago and Wii U with more first party games to get it jumpstarted, sales would be much better and the likes of Ubisoft, EA, and other big publishers wouldn't be ABLE to wave off the idea of increasing Wii U support.

As for declassified, they definitely got what they deserved for that turd. But that doesn't mean it would affect their support for Vita if it were selling well enough to show them that it was a viable platform.

[SilentNegotiator]

"As for declassified, they definitely got what they deserved for that turd. But that doesn't mean it would affect their support for Vita if it were selling well enough to show them that it was a viable platform"

If VITA were selling well enough, I meant by "it".

[MacDonagh]

I think that publishers in general have double standards when it comes to consoles that don't sell out the gate.
Quote from Ubisoft's CEO Yves Guillemot "We must find a way to ensure the creativity of those games could have a big enough audience," he says. "We hope it will take off. At the moment, we've said 'let's do through Christmas and see where we are from there.' to explain the reasoning behind Rayman Legends becoming multi-platform.

The reason why that stance is hypocritical is because Ubisoft supported the PS3 while it was at it's lowest ebb around about the 2006-2008 era. They even made exclusive titles for it like Haze and a PS Move game called Racket Sports.

So let me get this straight. It's perfectly fine to support a throwaway peripheral like the PS Move and to support a failing (at the time) console like the PS3 for two-three years but it's not okay to support a home console from Nintendo because the sales don't reach a million? Cute.

Rayman Legends would've sold a solid number if they released it when it was ready for the Wii U because there was an empty window with little to no competition. Now the game is doomed for the bargain bin since it is up against both Zelda: Wind Waker and the colossus that is GTA V.

The Vita also seems to have incredibly lacklustre support at this time. Hopefully things will change for it because it is a good handheld, if it's given it's chance to show what it can really do.

Here's a video of the Wii U's community reacting to the news of the delay of Rayman; despite it being finished.

[SilentNegotiator]

For starters, in order to make the comparison to the throw away Move game, they would have had to CONTINUE to support the Move. Ubisoft gave Wii U a shot and it didn't work out and now they're diminishing support. Unless you have a follow up Move-only Ubisoft game, you don't have any example of hypocrisy.

Secondly, PS3 was never "failing". PS3 absolutely never did as poorly as Wii U has in the last few months. Fanboys don't even have the "Well, it's doing better than PS3 did in this number of months" excuse any more, which was only true because people rushed out to buy a system that was supposed to be sold out for months.

Third, Rayman isn't "competing" with GTAV or a Zelda remaster.

[MacDonagh]

"For starters, in order to make the comparison to the throw away Move game, they would have had to CONTINUE to support the Move."

Which they did until they realised it was silly considering that the Wii had the whole "motion control" thing down.

"Ubisoft gave Wii U a shot and it didn't work out and now they're diminishing support"

Zombie U sold 500K copies for about 3.5 million Wii U owners. It's a pretty good attach rate considering the small size of the install base.

Not to mention that the game in question was also a port of the game Killer Freaks from Outer Space which was supposed to be multi-platform in the beginning of the project. Now ZombiU probably had to have a bit more development time for the Wii U but it wasn't built from the ground-up.

Either they are telling porky pies or they blew their load on "marketing" and prayed for a miracle. Either/or.

"Unless you have a follow up Move-only Ubisoft game, you don't have any example of hypocrisy."

For Ubisoft continually supporting Sony during it's darkest period? Hardly!

"Secondly, PS3 was never "failing"."

That's not how I recall it. The console launch didn't go well and they didn't find their audience for at least two years. Not to mention that they took hefty losses because the first iteration of their consoles were too expensive.

http://www.pcworld.com/arti...

"Fanboys don't even have the "Well, it's doing better than PS3 did in this number of months" excuse any more, which was only true because people rushed out to buy a system that was supposed to be sold out for months."

In a time of disappearing returns and plunging hardware sales; it's not surprising to see consoles like the Wii U and the Vita are struggling. I also think that both the PS4 and the Xbox One are also going to have a hard time finding their market space because of the way things are going economically. Xbox One will especially have a difficult time because of the negative press it has attracted.

"Third, Rayman isn't "competing" with GTAV or a Zelda remaster."

It's releasing in the same window as those games. It's DOA. People will save money to buy GTA V than buy Rayman. It's destined for the bargain bin, even if it gets 10/10s.