|
Are you getting the Wii U? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
9031 | 65.25% |
| No |
|
1191 | 8.60% |
| Maybe |
|
808 | 5.84% |
| I'm an idiot |
|
460 | 3.32% |
| Waluigi |
|
1603 | 11.58% |
| Waa |
|
748 | 5.40% |
| Total: | 13841 votes | ||
|
What an awful business choice for Ubisoft. Unless something's terribly wrong with the game, delaying a game that has to be practically completed for a simultaneous launch just doesn't make sense, especially when you have a big release lined up for a system that's starved for games. I wasn't planning on picking up Legends at launch though because I haven't played Origins yet, so at least this gives me time to bang that out. On a brighter side, the Wii U version of Sonic and Sega All Star Racing: Transformed sold 260,000 copies on WiiU, a little over a fourth of it's total sales of 930,000. Guess we'll at least get strong support from Sega.  edit: can't math deadwing fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Feb 7, 2013 |
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Well, it just means that now I'll probably forget about picking it up anyway. It was a guaranteed sale if it came out this month, but in September it'll be competing against everything Nintendo reveals at E3 this year so...yeah, good luck with that Ubisoft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Ubisoft posted:"[the delay is] really about the fans. It’s really about having a very interesting universe, a mix of craziness and poetry mixed all together. We are very happy that we can bring that to many, many Rayman fans and the more we can, the better.” We do it for the fans.  Edit: I wonder how this news reflects Ubisoft's current relationship with Nintendo. Not too long ago, Ubisoft announced that Nintendo was publishing Rayman Legends in Japan. The Operative fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Feb 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Atomicated posted:Looks like Rayman Legends is delayed until September. It's also coming to 360 and PS3 which I mention because you could infer that Murphy levels must not be a major focus of the game if it's getting ported to other consoles. What the gently caress, why not just release the completed WiiU version now and the other versions later? Goddamn it Ubisoft I already waited four months to play this game now I have to wait another seven? Goddamn it gently caress EDIT: I'm canceling my preorder and Ubisoft can go gently caress themselves, jesus loving christ
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
I...don't see the benefit of no longer being the biggest release on a console desperate for new games for a several month window. edit: Porting it to other systems makes perfect sense. Going from "only game in town" to "one in a sea of others" seems nuts. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Feb 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
I'm seriously just baffled. I wasn't that excited for Legends, honestly, but I was gonna get it. If it's coming out in September, I'm really not going to bother with it at all. Add in the early eShop demo and the fact that they have the recognition of being literally the only game with in-store Wii U demos and the whole thing is just absolutely confusing. What could they possibly gain from this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Atomicated posted:Looks like Rayman Legends is delayed until September. It's also coming to 360 and PS3 which I mention because you could infer that Murphy levels must not be a major focus of the game if it's getting ported to other consoles. Wow, I guess ZombiU must have really bombed or something. I was looking forward to Rayman, but on the plus side this does give me more time to catch up with my Wii/DS/3DS backlog.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I...don't see the benefit of no longer being the biggest release on a console desperate for new games for a several month window. Unless Wii U hardware and software sales are so abysmal that not even being a platform exclusive would've helped it. It makes perfect sense to release on other platforms. The market on Xbox and PS3 is like an order of magnitude larger. I mean it's perfectly possible that 90% of Wii U software buyers is still a smaller number than 5% of Xbox and PS3 software buyers. Note I don't mean just the number of people who've bought the console, but the number who did so and continue to purchase software for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
The Monarch posted:Unless Wii U hardware and software sales are so abysmal that not even being a platform exclusive would've helped it. We can't continue to purchase software if there is no software to purhcase
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I...don't see the benefit of no longer being the biggest release on a console desperate for new games for a several month window. Porting it to other systems months later would take a toll on sales of those versions, as the initial buzz on the game will be gone by the time the 360/PS3 ports are out. I would speculate Ubisoft just revised their projected sales figures for the Wii U version downward (perhaps significantly), and was left with the impression that even if it was the only thing on Wii U out for some time, the sales of the Wii U version would not be robust enough to trade off against the loss you would incur by having the 360 and PS3 versions launch with the reputation of being a 7 month old game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Ubisoft basically said that there is a significant number of people who want to play Rayman but don't want a Wii U. They're quoted as saying as much over in Alex's article on Giant Bomb. Nintendo obviously wasn't going to pay them enough for the exclusive compared to what they believe they can make as a late gen game before the Orbis and Durango drop this holiday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
What a terrible decision on Ubisoft's part. Christ, I had to re-read September a few times because I couldn't believe it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Porting it to other systems months later would take a toll on sales of those versions, as the initial buzz on the game will be gone by the time the 360/PS3 ports are out. Clearly the sensible alternative is to release it next to a bunch of big name titles, a tactic that worked wonders for Origins
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
The Monarch posted:Unless Wii U hardware and software sales are so abysmal that not even being a platform exclusive would've helped it. I don't think anyone is particularly miffed by the game coming to the PS3 and 360. As far as I know, most of us expected as much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
I can get the reasoning behind it, but it's just really disrespectful to the consumer to straight up tell us "we're sitting on a completed game for seven months because of money--I MEAN THE FANS!! The fans."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Bland posted:Clearly the sensible alternative is to release it next to a bunch of big name titles, a tactic that worked wonders for Origins Ubisoft seems to do this a lot for their marquee releases. They did it with pretty much every Prince of Persia since the Sands of Time which sold well but not amazingly well. They did it again with BG&E which was an interesting release in that it came out at the same time alongside Sands of Time. So you had both of these critically acclaimed titles that holiday season from Ubisoft trying to capture the same audience across three/four platforms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Bland posted:Clearly the sensible alternative is to release it next to a bunch of big name titles, a tactic that worked wonders for Origins September is still the very early part of the fall crush of games. If it comes out, say, September 3, that would put it 2 weeks before GTA and likely either releasing alongside or 1 week after Madden, which is basically the signifier of the start of Fall Gaming. Origins, on the other hand, was released basically at the end. The only major game that came out after Origins that year was Skyward Sword. They probably want to avoid that window as much as they can, but they probably figure that a simultaneous release has better sales prospects than a Wii U first/360&PS3 later strategy, even if the former places them into the early part of the fall release window.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Ubisoft: Because joining THQ is a priority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Ubisoft: Because joining THQ is a priority. Yes, selling this game on platforms whose install base is an order of magnitude bigger will surely sink Ubisoft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Bobnumerotres posted:What a terrible decision on Ubisoft's part. Christ, I had to re-read September a few times because I couldn't believe it. It's actually a smart business decision on Ubisoft's part since they'd be releasing a game over three consoles in a more busy quarter of the year as opposed to the lull that you see in Jan - March AND to a larger userbase. Business-wise it's a good move, obviously it's annoying for those of us with a WiiU since we were expecting the game literally next month. Take off your Nintendo tinted glasses and put their decision in perspective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is bothered by seeing it ported. What's bothersome is delaying the game for simultaneous release with the ports. It's a nonsensical decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Crowbear posted:Yes, selling this game on platforms that have an order of magnitude bigger install base will surely sink Ubisoft. It's not going to put up big numbers in the first place. Origins was ported to everything under the sun and barely hit 2 mil. No one really cares that it's going multiplat, we're pissed that they're delaying a complete game for 7 months.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:They probably want to avoid that window as much as they can, but they probably figure that a simultaneous release has better sales prospects than a Wii U first/360&PS3 later strategy, even if the former places them into the early part of the fall release window. It probably helps ensure them against any potential backlash from the previous release if any should arise. When Ninja Gaiden 3 was coming to Wii U, a lot of people were confused as to what was new and improved with Razor's Edge and most knew NG3 as "the really bad one". If some horrible problem were to arise with Legends then in 7 months the people on different platforms might know it for said problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
They're delaying the Wii U version so that they don't have to market the game twice, and so that whatever hype they can generate doesn't die out in the wait for the other versions. It's a perfectly sensible business decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Policenaut posted:It probably helps ensure them against any potential backlash from the previous release if any should arise. When Ninja Gaiden 3 was coming to Wii U, a lot of people were confused as to what was new and improved with Razor's Edge and most knew NG3 as "the really bad one". If some horrible problem were to arise with Legends then in 7 months the people on different platforms might know it for said problem. And I suppose Razor's Edge is going to do gangbusters on the consoles that originally had NG3? That seems like an even dumber decision than porting NG3 in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I don't think anyone is bothered by seeing it ported. What's bothersome is delaying the game for simultaneous release with the ports. It's a nonsensical decision. As somebody above said, I would bet by that time the WiiU version could easily be found for $20 to $30 and it would 'devalue' the release on the other two consoles, so they're delaying it for all consoles so they can sell it for full price. Crowbear posted:They're delaying the Wii U version so that they don't have to market the game twice, and so that whatever hype they can generate doesn't die out in the wait for the other versions. Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Artix74 posted:And I suppose Razor's Edge is going to do gangbusters on the consoles that originally had NG3? That seems like an even dumber decision than porting NG3 in the first place. Eh, at this point Tecmo Koei is going to port every thing to every thing no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Crowbear posted:They're delaying the Wii U version so that they don't have to market the game twice, and so that whatever hype they can generate doesn't die out in the wait for the other versions. This is assuming Ubisoft are going to put any effort into marketing it at all, which would make a change
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Unisoft market this? The hilariousness knows no bounds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
It's also a likely a bad sign for Wii U's sales strength. Ubisoft seemed perfectly happy to release a Wii U version with the option of releasing 360/PS3 ports down the line, but something, perhaps this last fall's figures, has caused a revision of their projections and a last-minute change of course. The stuff myself and others are explaining here isn't something that just dawned on Ubisoft in the last few days, which means they're seeing something that has spooked them into retreating to a safer position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Because removing one of the key reasons that people had to buy a Wii U in the first place is a surefire way to make more people buy it (and therefore justify making exclusives for it).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Artix74 posted:Because removing one of the key reasons that people had to buy a Wii U in the first place is a surefire way to make more people buy it (and therefore justify making exclusives for it). It is not Ubisoft's job to make the WiiU a success. They don't care if the WiiU is a success. I'm still skeptical that this will increase their revenue overall versus releasing it as an exclusive and releasing the port later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Artix74 posted:Because removing one of the key reasons that people had to buy a Wii U in the first place is a surefire way to make more people buy it (and therefore justify making exclusives for it). If Rayman were a Nintendo property, you'd be right. But Ubisoft is a third-party publisher and doesn't have the stake in the platform's success that you're trying to attribute to them. They're not going to eat a loss in hopes that their loss can help establish Nintendo's platform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
It wasn't my intention to say that Ubisoft has a responsibility to make the Wii U a success (but I can see how it came off that way, and I apologize). All the publishers/developers keep saying it's not economical to make a game for it, and they're probably right. But it ends up putting us in the Vita problem. No one wants to make a game for it because the install base isn't big enough/not enough people buy that kind of software. But no one makes games for it, so there's no reason to get a Wii U. This is not to completely absolve Nintendo of failing to spread out some early releases or get some new stuff in the eShop, but Nintendo was touting this as one of their exclusives and a reason to get a Wii U. E: We've been down this road before. It was called the N64 and the Gamecube. Nintendo can't carry the console by themselves, but it seems like all the third party publishers are demanding they do and then they might get around to eventually putting some games out on it. Maybe. Artix fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Feb 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Artix74 posted:It wasn't my intention to say that Ubisoft has a responsibility to make the Wii U a success (but I can see how it came off that way, and I apologize). All the publishers/developers keep saying it's not economical to make a game for it, and they're probably right. But it ends up putting us in the Vita problem. No one wants to make a game for it because the install base isn't big enough/not enough people buy that kind of software. But no one makes games for it, so there's no reason to get a Wii U. This is not to completely absolve Nintendo of failing to spread out some early releases or get some new stuff in the eShop, but Nintendo was touting this as one of their exclusives and a reason to get a Wii U. Right, but it's more of a tragedy of the commons (but in reverse). Nintendo needs to convince a bunch of them at the same time to commit, while ALSO convincing them that if a bunch of them release games, they won't all cannibalize each others' sales.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Of course it makes sense as a business decision. But for their image it's atrocious. We're not talking about a delay when the game is already far off, it's three weeks from the original release date, literally later this month, and the game is for all intents and purposes completed. If that's how they're going to treat the fans, then I don't really want their game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:It's actually a smart business decision on Ubisoft's part since they'd be releasing a game over three consoles in a more busy quarter of the year as opposed to the lull that you see in Jan - March AND to a larger userbase. Business-wise it's a good move, obviously it's annoying for those of us with a WiiU since we were expecting the game literally next month. Take off your Nintendo tinted glasses and put their decision in perspective. Perhaps, but then why wasn't the original release date set for that quarter instead? It's not like Ubisoft all the sudden decided that it was going to bring the game to the 360/PS3 over night or even in the past couple months. That strikes me as something that would have been decided a while ago. The Wii U sales are under Nintendo's original projection but they aren't anything close to being considered terrible by any stretch except in the minds of Nintendo doom and gloomers. Not enough to warrant a sudden change like this one (I think?) I mean, Ubisoft has been around the block to say the least. What gives?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
It's ironic that Rayman is now trapped in development hell because Origins was created specifically to avoid development hell by having a small team and a scaleable engine. Even though the release was this close, there must be some cold feet that prompted this. They should have never tried to loving experiment with console-iphone synergy with this game, and just made a fun sequel, like Mario Galaxy 2. You don't need to reinvent the wheel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Xavier434 posted:Perhaps, but then why wasn't the original release date set for that quarter instead? It's not like Ubisoft all the sudden decided that it was going to bring the game to the 360/PS3 over night or even in the past couple months. That strikes me as something that would have been decided a while ago. The Wii U sales are under Nintendo's original projection but they aren't anything close to being considered terrible by any stretch except in the minds of Nintendo doom and gloomers. Not enough to warrant a sudden change like this one (I think?) They could have been in negotiation with Nintendo to keep it exclusive (and releasing this month to plug a huge hole in the Wii U release schedule) and had that fall through recently. And even if the Wii U hardware sales have been fine, how has the 3rd party attach rate been? We know that NSMB and Nintendoland did well, but did ZombiU actually sell a respectable number of copies? That could be what scared Ubisoft off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
If Nintendo wants good third party support again, here's the secret: release a system with comparable capabilities and price to the competition at the same time as the competition, with a sensical architecture and no gimmicks that require extensive development time to take into account. Like for example, if the competition uses a large disc format, don't use cartridges. Or if the competition can play media, maybe make your thing able to do that also. Maybe next gen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 19:07
|
|