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.
Despite No Man Sky's rocky launch, Hello Games managed to turn it into one of the best space exploration RPGs out there.
I hate the whole concept of "comeback story" because at the end of the day it doesn't remove the core issue we had in the first place, that we were lied to, it was disappointing and it launched with bare content to what was promised for years.
Any bad game can have a comeback story if it's supported enough after launch but for me if you launch in a terrible state then you had your chance. I can applaud you for what you've done after but at the end of the day there's not much of a choice since most gamers would blank your next product if you ditched your last game so fast, it's not about repairing the game but spending your time repairing gamers trust before you launch your next product otherwise it would be dead on arrival.
With these stories and the games being updated, the only way is up most of the time so of course it's going to improve the game and feel better over all, getting better and better as time passes. No Mans Sky, Sea of Thieves, Fallout 76 etc but then you have games like Anthem, Suicide Squad, Redfall and The Avengers where the devs just clearly moved on, now if they have another product people won't be as exited for it, I mean hell Guardians of the Galaxy was a great game but because of the Avengers it didn't help its sales since people were obviously still sour at that point.
I still think despite the improvements to games like No Mans Sky and Cyberpunk along with being better now overall the games are still not up there to what was promised and hyped as for years.
If we keep celebrating these “comeback stories” then unfortunately it only strongly supports the concept that these studios / publishers can continue to push half arsed broken products out for the sake of quick sales instead of waiting until they are fully finished. We need to condemn this awful behaviour or sadly we lose all voice and power as consumers.
I feel the same way about Cyberpunk 2077. I'm glad you mentioned that. I'm not a fan of comeback stories as well. But No man sky developer was a small indie team compared to CDPR. It's worse when it's coming from a AAA developer
"Any bad game can have a comeback story if it's supported enough after launch"
You make it sound so simple and easy. It's not. After release Hello Games poured countless hours into getting their game closer to what they originally wanted, without charging a penny to anyone. That's not normal.
The reason NMS and HG are held in such high esteem and calling them liars is a weak stance is the amount of work they've put into it, for free. They're not chasing a quick buck, they've dedicated their lives over the last few years to giving their fans the game everyone wanted.
They are liars though...
We are not revising history here, I'm sorry but we're not
They built this game up for years and they launched it knowing full well it wasn't up to scratch to what they originally showed off or hyped it up to be.
"They're not chasing a quick buck, they've dedicated their lives over the last few years to giving their fans the game everyone wanted"
And like I said above most of that comes from the fact that if they had just moved on straight away nobody would have supported their next game. They've washed most of that sour taste away after supporting No Mans Sky so now they are doing a new game which more people feel like they can support and get excited for.
Anyway how can you say "You make it sound so simple and easy. It's not" and then make the point that "Hello Games poured countless hours into getting their game closer to what they originally wanted, without charging a penny to anyone"
This means that if a small team like this can turn a game around then big AAA games like Suicide Squad, Redfall, Anthem and the like should have been able to do it no problem, oh but that's right they didn't want to put the time or effort into it. They can do it but some people just decide not to.
I really enjoyed it at launch and had every trophy by August 2016.
The experience I had is no longer in the game: It was just me and my ship. It was a survival game and the feeling of loneliness in the universe was pervasive. There was no way to ruin too far from your ship and, in an emergency, you grenaded a hole in the ground to survive.
I miss that aspect, but since then, I love what they've done.
Asura Kagawa from NoobFeed writes - Vindictus: Defying Fate is the upcoming action RPG game by NEXON, and it has the potential to have a significant impact on the action role-playing genre. Expanding upon the immense universe of its 2010 predecessor Vindictus, this installment is being developed using state-of-the-art Unreal Engine 5, ensuring an immersive and graphically stunning experience.
A ton of leaked Marvel's Wolverine PS5 test gameplay have surfaced showcasing boss fights, Rage Mode, wall running, combat and more.
Scumbag journalists who post leaked gameplay for internet points are as bad as the leakers.
You can choose not to be a scumbag.
As a person with Crohn's disease i take issue with you telling people to "shit up."
Am I crazy for being glad they showed this? Like, I’ve been wanting to see something for a long time. They actually do some journalism and we hate them for it?
Hate them for giving leakers a platform.
I want to see more too. But that's up to Insomniac.
Insomniac: “have you got a good tv, with HDR”
Player: “no”
Insomniac: “your screwed”
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.
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?
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).
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.