Wii U - General Discussion Thread

[quote name='Strell']As others have mentioned, if you remove the whole "exclusive now multiplayer" from the discussion entirely, it still looks like a stupid move on Ubi's part. They are sending Rayman out to die once again. Again. After all that whining about the first one not selling well, they are doing THE EXACT SAME THING AGAIN.

This is Homer Simpson "I invested in pumpkins, I think they'll peak around November" logic.[/QUOTE]

I really think some business analyst looked at raw sales numbers over the life of the title rather than the pathetic 50,000 it sold at launch and determined this was a title that's the next Assassin's Creed waiting to happen. Why would we tie up Assassin's Creed to just one console and launch it in Spring?!?
 
I'm not sure I understand the comparison to Assassin's Creed. Ubi can't be stupid enough to think those sales numbers on WiiU would mirror Rayman. Not only is it a different crowd, but AC had immediate alternatives that most gamers could choose--and usually at cheaper prices. I normally buy AC for PS3, but paid the higher price to have something to play on WiiU and show support. Likewise, I would have paid full price for Rayman on Day 1 to have something new to play (as would most other WiiU owners I'm surmising), which is something I would normally reserve for only AAA titles... which I don't assign to Rayman normally. I think Ubi execs mis-read the sales they could have generated from this. If nothing else, release the WiiU version now and then re-release some type of enhanced or "GOTY edition" for WiiU simultaneously with the other versions in the fall.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']I'm not sure I understand the comparison to Assassin's Creed. Ubi can't be stupid enough to think those sales numbers on WiiU would mirror Rayman. Not only is it a different crowd, but AC had immediate alternatives that most gamers could choose--and usually at cheaper prices. I normally buy AC for PS3, but paid the higher price to have something to play on WiiU and show support. Likewise, I would have paid full price for Rayman on Day 1 to have something new to play (as would most other WiiU owners I'm surmising), which is something I would normally reserve for only AAA titles... which I don't assign to Rayman normally. I think Ubi execs mis-read the sales they could have generated from this. If nothing else, release the WiiU version now and then re-release some type of enhanced or "GOTY edition" for WiiU simultaneously with the other versions in the fall.[/QUOTE]
They could of released the game now and then made the extra content either free or paid DLC with the PS3/360 versions getting the full content because they are out later. I don't see how it's not a great idea to do this. Not only do you generate sales for Rayman, you get extra interest in the game by having DLC for it. Releasing it in September is basically death. Hell, any game not GTA V is pretty much casting death in September.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']I'm not sure I understand the comparison to Assassin's Creed. Ubi can't be stupid enough to think those sales numbers on WiiU would mirror Rayman. Not only is it a different crowd, but AC had immediate alternatives that most gamers could choose--and usually at cheaper prices. I normally buy AC for PS3, but paid the higher price to have something to play on WiiU and show support. Likewise, I would have paid full price for Rayman on Day 1 to have something new to play (as would most other WiiU owners I'm surmising), which is something I would normally reserve for only AAA titles... which I don't assign to Rayman normally. I think Ubi execs mis-read the sales they could have generated from this. If nothing else, release the WiiU version now and then re-release some type of enhanced or "GOTY edition" for WiiU simultaneously with the other versions in the fall.[/QUOTE]

Same here, but it was a Day 1 purchase for us because the old lady and I loved Origins and the demo of the new one seemed to improve upon it. But now, Ubi can suck (and eventually choke on) a dick, for all I care.
 
[quote name='007']http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/08/zombiu-invades-wii-u-deluxe-set

So, I guess that Zombi U bundle is confirmed for the US. I'm also guessing that Nintendo went with this decision before this whole debacle.

It's actually a pretty decent bundle, though I hate that NintendoLand is a download now. Strange to see Nintendo so aggresively courting the older crowd, too.[/QUOTE]

Reading Activision's quote on Wii U's launch, it sounds like they were happy with COD sales but not Skylanders sales, which is a shock to me. But then again, BLOPS2 on Wii U is pretty good from what I hear.

NL as a download isn't a bad thing IMO. I wish I could have the option to make it a download, because I'd play it a lot more that way.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I know a lot of people liked Rayman Origins but personally, the only thing this game had going for it was that it was coming during the post launch drought. I'm not saying it looked like a bad game but it's one of those games that is really easy to overlook when there's other games coming out. Look at Origins, almost no one bought that game at the launch price of $50. It wasn't until it dropped into the $20-30 range that people starting picking it up. They've painted themselves into the same corner at this point. [/QUOTE]

When I went to the Wii U Experience, Rayman Legends was probably the best title they showed. Better than the Wonderful 101, IMO.

I can kinda understand Origins failure. The Rayman franchise has kinda rotted on the vine with only the Raving Rabbids games to show for it in recent years. Also, 2D platformers aren't really sexy for non-Nintendo consoles. But, since people did eventually discover Origins, all the talk about Legends being on the Wii U and it looking like one of the better titles on the console, it looked like a really strong opportunity for both Nintendo and Ubisoft to help each other. Instead, Ubisoft screws Nintendo here, and might screw themselves from the standpoint that people who might have been willing to pay a launch price now might reconsider, not to mention that Ubisoft had an opportunity with having little competition for people's dollars for the Wii U. I personally don't get this decision at all.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Reading Activision's quote on Wii U's launch, it sounds like they were happy with COD sales but not Skylanders sales, which is a shock to me. But then again, BLOPS2 on Wii U is pretty good from what I hear.

NL as a download isn't a bad thing IMO. I wish I could have the option to make it a download, because I'd play it a lot more that way.[/QUOTE]

The Activision quote was interesting, yeah, but it makes sense... for a Nintendo system, this was a pretty heavily older-skewed launch. Outside of the two Nintendo titles, the biggest 'family' oriented games were Scribblenauts and the ended-up-disappointing Epic Mickey 2. That was balanced out by Zombi U, Ninja Gaiden 3, Assassin's Creed 3, Black Ops 2, Mass Effect 3, Darksiders 2, and Batman. The family-friendliest game in that list is Batman... the rest are pretty firmly games that are for an older crowd. Unless they want Mario or, uh, Funky Barn or some licensed title, the younger set was really left out of the launch.

In a way, that's actually not terrible for Nintendo. They managed to sell respectable amounts of consoles, and it's much easier to correct a lack of push for the young audience than for the older set. It's almost cliche at this point, but a console-only Pokemon would correct it almost single-handedly.

... and I somewhat agree about the download thing, I just like to own physical things. I'm still happy and amazed that Nintendo actually threw in a real case for NintendoLand in the original Deluxe set.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']I'm not sure I understand the comparison to Assassin's Creed. Ubi can't be stupid enough to think those sales numbers on WiiU would mirror Rayman. Not only is it a different crowd, but AC had immediate alternatives that most gamers could choose--and usually at cheaper prices. I normally buy AC for PS3, but paid the higher price to have something to play on WiiU and show support. Likewise, I would have paid full price for Rayman on Day 1 to have something new to play (as would most other WiiU owners I'm surmising), which is something I would normally reserve for only AAA titles... which I don't assign to Rayman normally. I think Ubi execs mis-read the sales they could have generated from this. If nothing else, release the WiiU version now and then re-release some type of enhanced or "GOTY edition" for WiiU simultaneously with the other versions in the fall.[/QUOTE]

Day 1 full price purchase?

What the hell are you doing on CheapAssGamer?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Reading Activision's quote on Wii U's launch, it sounds like they were happy with COD sales but not Skylanders sales, which is a shock to me. But then again, BLOPS2 on Wii U is pretty good from what I hear.

NL as a download isn't a bad thing IMO. I wish I could have the option to make it a download, because I'd play it a lot more that way.[/QUOTE]

It's a complete first world problem, but I am too lazy to play disc based games. When it's up on the menu I remember it exists.

I just wish downloads were cheaper, transferable or I could just install games from a disc.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Reading Activision's quote on Wii U's launch, it sounds like they were happy with COD sales but not Skylanders sales, which is a shock to me.[/QUOTE]

Why is it a shock?

1) Call of Duty is Call of f'n Duty. It selling bajillions is like the sun coming up in the morning: of course it's going to happen.

2) I haven't followed Skylanders, but I'm not sure of its series longevity. Also, since it uses the toys in gameplay (right?), that may lead to people who are into it not wanting to get a "new" version - they're invested in what they've already bought. Again, I may be totally misunderstanding the series here.

3) That demographic (young children, right?) has very little overlap with the early adopter demo.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']I'm not sure I understand the comparison to Assassin's Creed. Ubi can't be stupid enough to think those sales numbers on WiiU would mirror Rayman. Not only is it a different crowd, but AC had immediate alternatives that most gamers could choose--and usually at cheaper prices. I normally buy AC for PS3, but paid the higher price to have something to play on WiiU and show support. Likewise, I would have paid full price for Rayman on Day 1 to have something new to play (as would most other WiiU owners I'm surmising), which is something I would normally reserve for only AAA titles... which I don't assign to Rayman normally. I think Ubi execs mis-read the sales they could have generated from this. If nothing else, release the WiiU version now and then re-release some type of enhanced or "GOTY edition" for WiiU simultaneously with the other versions in the fall.[/QUOTE]

The Assassin's Creed comparison was purely for hyperbole. Your sentiment is the same as mine, all they've done is shoot themselves in the foot by delaying this game. What I was attempting to point out in my hyperbole about Assassin's Creed is that by moving this game to Fall, they're essentially saying "yes, we believe this is a strong franchise that can compete with the hectic fall releases." They're wrong, they're dead wrong. The last one may have been critically well received it flopped in its initial month of release, selling only 50,000 copies. It took price drops to $20-30 before people even paid attention to it, despite all the critical praise.

I would surmise that part of the reason you're seeing outcry from the developers on this is 2-fold. The first is obviously that they busted their ass to make a release date, which they did only to find out Ubi was shelving the game for 7 months. Talk about a big ol' middle finger right to their face... The second is that they know launching in the fall is a death sentence for this game. Sure there will still be people who buy it and pay attention but they had an almost captive audience with a February Wii U release. Now they're going up against the big boys and if Ubisoft thinks this is going to help sales, they're sorely mistaken.

I think the primary reason people are upset about this isn't because the game is now multi-platform (I mean it's Ubisoft for god's sake, the only company that's probably worse about console "exclusives" is Capcom) but rather because they were looking forward to playing a new game on their relatively new console when nothing else was coming out. Wii U owners will still buy this game but in light of what's going to start coming out later this year... Wonderful 101, Pikmin 3, Wind Waker HD, Mario Kart (maybe), Bayonetta 2, Lego City Undercover, this thing will be lucky to get shelf space at this point.

It just boggles the mind who would think a completed game sitting on a shelf for 7 months is somehow going to make them more money than a game coming out when the only thing you're hearing about the system is "we need more games"
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']It just boggles the mind who would think a completed game sitting on a shelf for 7 months is somehow going to make them more money than a game coming out when the only thing you're hearing about the system is "we need more games"[/QUOTE]

At the very least, release the product now and the other editions down the line. Take advantage of a Wii U userbase hungry for releases now, who very likely won't be by the 3rd quarter of the year.
 
Supposedly, the reason for the Wii U version having to wait is that Microsoft has a stipulation that says any multiplatform games cannot release on other platforms prior to Microsoft's version. I have no way of verifying this. It would explain the situation somewhat.
 
The new Skylanders game lets you use all of the previous series' toys and increases the level cap for them while offering new toys to better take advantage of what the game offers. Also, everything about the game besides the disc itself is multiplatform, so you could play the original on Xbox 360 and then get Giants for the Wii U without needing to buy anything but a copy of the game for Wii U.

There's a new game coming out this fall that supposedly requires a new Portal of Power, which will be the biggest hurdle that the series will have to overcome in order to have the legs to continue on.
 
[quote name='Strell']Supposedly, the reason for the Wii U version having to wait is that Microsoft has a stipulation that says any multiplatform games cannot release on other platforms prior to Microsoft's version. I have no way of verifying this. It would explain the situation somewhat.[/QUOTE]
Now that you mention it, that isn't the first time I've heard that rumor.
 
Goldeneye Reloaded, though.

There appear to be some games (HOTD Overkill, No More Heroes come to mind immediately) that came to PS3 but not 360. Rumor could be accurate, or it's just that those games were easy to port to use w/ Move.
 
There were a number of Wii-to-PS3 ports just because those games translate well to Move, so I don't think that has anything to do with the MS policy.

To fly in the face of that policy, Retro City Rampage released on PC and PSN a few months before the XBLA version eventually hit. I don't think that policy has much to do with Rayman Legends, as it just seems like an Ubisoft move by the suits running the company.

Edit: https://www.facebook.com/ubisoft/posts/10151284871242293

As an apology for the delay, they will be making a new exclusive Rayman Legends demo for Wii U, which will certainly settle the issue.
 
"We're bringing you your food late because that guy over there doesn't want you to eat your pizza before he gets his pizza. Yes, I know you sat down four hours before him. How about I draw a picture of a penis on your napkin, so you can look at it while you wait? Don't worry, I'm not drawing that guy a penis. He has to suffer with his penisless napkin."
 
[quote name='Strell']"We're bringing you your food late because that guy over there doesn't want you to eat your pizza before he gets his pizza. Yes, I know you sat down four hours before him. How about I draw a picture of a penis on your napkin, so you can look at it while you wait? Don't worry, I'm not drawing that guy a penis. He has to suffer with his penisless napkin."[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

Well, that pretty much sums up the situation perfectly except you should add that by the time your pizza is ready, lobster will be available...
 
[quote name='Strell']Supposedly, the reason for the Wii U version having to wait is that Microsoft has a stipulation that says any multiplatform games cannot release on other platforms prior to Microsoft's version. I have no way of verifying this. It would explain the situation somewhat.[/QUOTE]

Unreal Tournament 3 says bogus. Although on 360 it had Gears of War 2 skins and an extra map on it. Same goes for Rayman Raving Rabbids 1.
 
[quote name='maximumzero']Okie dokie.

Kameo: Exclusive
Amped 3: Exclusive
Condemed: Criminal Origins: Exclusive
Project Gotham Racing 3: Exclusive
Perfect Dark Zero: Exclusive
Ridge Racer 6: Exclusive
Dead or Alive 4: Exclusive
Full Auto: Exclusive
The Outfit: Exclusive
Rumble Roses XX: Exclusive[/QUOTE]

I realize it is all a matter of opinion, but to me NintendoLand and NSMB just by themselves are a greater launch lineup than all that crap combined. And I say that having completed neither of those games and not having turned on my Wii U in nearly 2 months.

[quote name='sp00ge']Same here, but it was a Day 1 purchase for us because the old lady and I loved Origins and the demo of the new one seemed to improve upon it. But now, Ubi can suck (and eventually choke on) a dick, for all I care.[/QUOTE]

Now, now, Sp00ge, I don't have to mod an ex-mod, do I? ;)

[quote name='mykevermin']
2) I haven't followed Skylanders, but I'm not sure of its series longevity. Also, since it uses the toys in gameplay (right?), that may lead to people who are into it not wanting to get a "new" version - they're invested in what they've already bought. Again, I may be totally misunderstanding the series here. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, as Frisky said, the figures from the old game work in the new one. I would have expected the Wii U Skylanders Giants to sell decently so it would be somewhat surprising if it didn't. But didn't it come later than for the other systems? I seem to remember it coming out a few weeks to a month after the other versions which by itself could explain the poor sales. Everyone who wanted it already picked it up for the Wii or 360/PS3 (Edit: to expand on this: I think the game came out before the Wii U but even when the Wii U launched, Skylanders Giants wasn't available immediately). I bought the PS3 version just because that's where we had been playing the first game. Plus there was the "Portal Owner's Pack" for the older systems which was cheaper (you could use the portal you already had from the first game). Obviously that wasn't available for the Wii U.

[quote name='Strell']"We're bringing you your food late because that guy over there doesn't want you to eat your pizza before he gets his pizza. Yes, I know you sat down four hours before him. How about I draw a picture of a penis on your napkin, so you can look at it while you wait? Don't worry, I'm not drawing that guy a penis. He has to suffer with his penisless napkin."[/QUOTE]

Strell, you continue to amuse after all these years.
 
[quote name='Strell']Supposedly, the reason for the Wii U version having to wait is that Microsoft has a stipulation that says any multiplatform games cannot release on other platforms prior to Microsoft's version. I have no way of verifying this. It would explain the situation somewhat.[/QUOTE]


Final fantasy XIII seems to explain that.
 
[quote name='maximumzero']Okie dokie.
I'm not trying to argue that the Wii U's launch is better than what other console launches are like, I'm just trying to argue that you have a poor long-term memory, because the first six months of any console release are generally dry as hell, this isn't a problem exclusive to the Wii U.[/QUOTE]

That's interesting considering I didn't own or was interested in the 360 much until Nov. 2011. You know when it actually had games out worth owning and all. ;)

And I think my memory is not in question, it's a matter of apathy, whether I care or not that is called into question. :D

And I agree about the dry spell, however announcing the same franchises and tired concepts for a new system....again. Is where Nintendo is failing yet again.

Anyone ever notice that they used to release systems later, that were more powerful than the competition and experimented with reinventing their games with new and fresh concepts.

I want THAT Nintendo back.
 
[quote name='Erad30']I am dissapointed but I'll probably still buy it in September. Although people seem to have a damn short memory. Nearly every console launch is like this-A bunch of of undercooked launch titles with a few select gems, sparse releases for the first couple months, then software starts getting regular. Don't we have Lego City Undercover, Wonderful 101, Pikmin 3 & Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate all just on the horizon? Sounds good to me. That's more titles coming out for the Wii U I'm interested in than are coming out for any other system in the next 7 months at this point. You can't compare the library to systems that have been out for 8 years, but how about current/upcoming releases? I can only count a handful that are remotely interesting and most aren't due out for months. If it wasn't for my backlog pretty much all my consoles would be gathering dust for the next several months.[/QUOTE]

i can give you 4-5 games just coming out this spring that will be big sellers on 360/ps3
 
Hope Capcom actually prices MH3 accordingly, this is 2 year old after all. blah who am i kidding this is Capcom were talking about here.

[quote name='TimboSliceGB']i can give you 4-5 games just coming out this spring that will be big sellers on 360/ps3[/QUOTE]

speaking of that, its funny how people think Rayman would be sent out to die in September with some AAA titles coming around that time but then act completely oblivious as to whats about to come out from now to April. Even more worse is the people that now will now not buy the game completely just to spite Ubisoft, yes good job giving them such easy ammunition to not only not give you any multiplatform games on the system but maybe not give any exclusives at all.
 
He should have the option to do either, frankly. Nintendo's digital distribution model is absurd, their response to this situation very awful (and confusing). Are you defending their digital practices?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']He should have the option to do either, frankly. Nintendo's digital distribution model is absurd, their response to this situation very awful (and confusing). Are you defending their digital practices?[/QUOTE]

This. Just read that article and it just makes me mad for Jon. I mean he did what naturally what anyone would do on reaction to getting a lemon which is take the damn thing back. What gets me is not only can Nintendo clearly see in their systems that he has indeed purchased all those games and understand what he was trying to do, they give him only half of his total investment that he cant even use to rebuy the games he owned and which ends up being useless because the wii u shop channel functions differently from the Wii's version.


"What annoys me about all the geeks in this thread wagging their finger at Jon is this shit is so easy to manage on the back end. Seriously, this crap is bush league and any company that was willing to take the time could design the infrastructure to avoid this in the first place.
Unique ID's are not a new thing. Exchanges at a brick and mortar outlet without calling the OEM first are not a new thing. Verify his identity, disassociate the unique ID in the returned console (its in their system) and associate it with a new one.
Its a 5 minute phone call, hell, it should be a web interface action that requires a couple forms of verification (like, oh, I don't know, the banking information he used to buy the software) and then you're done.
Bush league...and Nintendo is a bunch of assholes for not doing right by this guy, especially since they can see his purchase history in their own God damned system."


that comment couldn't have said it any better.
 
While I can see how it might be upsetting to lose $400 worth of Wii Shop games, I'd have been thrilled to wipe those out and get $200 credit on the new Wii U Shop! I wish they had that sort of program as an alternative to transferring them. I'd gladly wipe away my Wii VC games that I haven't touched in 4 years for half their value on the new shop. They are pretty useless on the Wii channel even though I was able to transfer mine and my system works just fine - I'm sure I'll play them as often there as I did before (ie, not at all). Man, what a deal he got! I was expecting some sort of horror story from that link but that is actually a great solution from Nintendo given their horrible digital distribution model which I am in no way defending. But given that they seem to be stuck with that model, this solution would have worked for me. Of course, $400 worth of eShop money would have been nicer...

[quote name='renique46']
speaking of that, its funny how people think Rayman would be sent out to die in September with some AAA titles coming around that time but then act completely oblivious as to whats about to come out from now to April. Even more worse is the people that now will now not buy the game completely just to spite Ubisoft, yes good job giving them such easy ammunition to not only not give you any multiplatform games on the system but maybe not give any exclusives at all.[/QUOTE]

The point it that the Wii U version, which is already done, would do much better coming out now vs. in the Fall. There might be a few games coming in the next few months (though nothing I am interested in) so now would have been a great time vs. the Fall when there is definitely a lot more stuff, by any measure you can think of.

There will even be more available for the Wii U itself in the Fall - so just on that system alone it would be better suited to come out now when people are starving for content. Shuffling it off to the Fall when we not only have the last big current-gen games coming out but also probably one if not both next gen MS/Sony systems just consigns it to even further obscurity.

And my big F U to Ubisoft will consist of me getting it when it is dirt cheap like every other Ubisoft title I've gotten (with the exception of the Wii launch Raving Rabbids game). I would have paid more to get Rayman Legends now with the lack of other content on the Wii U and other new games in general - but in the Fall there is no reason/incentive to do that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you defending their digital practices?[/QUOTE]

Of course it could be better, but for now you just have to play by their rules. He didn't, and unfortunately he looks to be paying the price for it.
 
[quote name='renique46']Hope Capcom actually prices MH3 accordingly, this is 2 year old after all. blah who am i kidding this is Capcom were talking about here.[/QUOTE]

From what I've seen it's in some strange limbo where it's not a completely new game, but it's way way way more content than an "expansion". New areas, tons of new monsters to hunt (though a good handful are just more powerful re-skins of existing beasts), new items, a second chacha for soloing, save transfer ability between WiiU and 3DS versions (which I'm pumped about), etc.

I'm really hoping for some sort of "buy WiiU and 3DS versions, get 20 off" or some such. I travel for work so it'd be great to farm solo on the road, then get home to WiiU and jump online with the same character.
 
Yeah, the new Monster Hunter has waaaaayyyy more content then the last console one we got in America, 2 of my friends who are really into the series (I am as well, already have a Wii U though) are looking at getting the new ZombiU bundle now since it has the Pro controller and they can use that for MH, especially since the main reason we all have/are getting the console currently is Monster Hunter.
 
[quote name='maximumzero']
I'm not trying to argue that the Wii U's launch is better than what other console launches are like, I'm just trying to argue that you have a poor long-term memory, because the first six months of any console release are generally dry as hell, this isn't a problem exclusive to the Wii U.[/QUOTE]

My memory is fine, the response was expected. Multiplatform day and date releases(a given at launch) are not the same as pushing out year old titles as new. Sports titles are always going to spread like a disease to every console imaginable. That leaves only a handful of titles in the argument, only one of which had a launch 6 months or greater after the the other console releases (Burnout Revenge). The rest were either simultaneous releases or within a month of the launch on another console.

But yeah, first 6 months are always painful.

[quote name='io']I realize it is all a matter of opinion, but to me NintendoLand and NSMB just by themselves are a greater launch lineup than all that crap combined. And I say that having completed neither of those games and not having turned on my Wii U in nearly 2 months.[/QUOTE]

Strawman argument at its finest. Also spoken like someone who hasn't played Condemned or Kameo... wait, oh you haven't played any game on that list have you? :lol: Both of those were fantastic. Gotham, DoA and Amped were all pretty well regarded at the time. Full Auto was fun for what it was...filler until we got Burnout. The rest were a mixed bag of mediocre to poor.

Is MarioU better than most of that list? Sure, hardly going out on a limb there even if you haven't played any of those games. Nintendoland on the other hand? Maybe better than the mediocre to bad titles, but even at that at least those were full games. No offense but you clearly didn't take part in the 360 launch so arguing from a place of knowledge is a fallacy, even if it's presented as an opinion.
 
[quote name='Sir_Fragalot']They could of released the game now and then made the extra content either free or paid DLC with the PS3/360 versions getting the full content because they are out later. I don't see how it's not a great idea to do this. Not only do you generate sales for Rayman, you get extra interest in the game by having DLC for it. Releasing it in September is basically death. Hell, any game not GTA V is pretty much casting death in September.[/QUOTE]

I said that same thing in another thread... release it now for WiiU, then do some sort of enhanced version to appear alongside the other versions in 6 months. (And possibly have a slight name change since it will be different functionality from WiiU version anyway and to keep with Ubi's promise of exclusivity at the outset.)
 
[quote name='MoCiWe']Yeah, the new Monster Hunter has waaaaayyyy more content then the last console one we got in America, 2 of my friends who are really into the series (I am as well, already have a Wii U though) are looking at getting the new ZombiU bundle now since it has the Pro controller and they can use that for MH, especially since the main reason we all have/are getting the console currently is Monster Hunter.[/QUOTE]

So what's this game about?
 
[quote name='Strell']Supposedly, the reason for the Wii U version having to wait is that Microsoft has a stipulation that says any multiplatform games cannot release on other platforms prior to Microsoft's version. I have no way of verifying this. It would explain the situation somewhat.[/QUOTE]

A name change should be able to get around that... it won't be the same game anyway without the touchpad on the other systems.
 
[quote name='moothemagiccow']So what's this game about?[/QUOTE]

Basically hunting monsters lol, it has both a single player and multi player aspect to it. The single player has a really shallow story (A monster is causing panic/trouble to the nearby village and you have to kill it), but that's not the main point at all. They both have a quest system where you go to a board and pick out a quest, then you go out to a zone and do whatever that quest wants, which could be killing small monsters, killing bigger "boss" monsters (there's more of these then small ones, 22 small, 51 big), gathering items, capturing monsters with traps, or even just taking the time to get materials for stuff you need.

After you kill monsters you can carve them which gives you pieces like scales and bones, which you can use to create weapons and armors (there are a lot of each of these, since a lot of the different weapons/armors have a set for each of the monsters). When you play offline either for the single player or the multi part (you can do all the quests solo), you can have up to 2 npc helpers go on the quests with you to help out, but online you can have up to 3 other players, or those 2 npcs if you don't have enough people.

As I said before there are a lot of different weapons/armors, for weapon types there is Sword and Shield, Dual Swords, Great Sword, Long Sword, Switch Axe, Hammer, Hunting Horn, Lance, Gunlance, Bow, Light Bowgun, and Heavy Bowgun.

I could just type a lot of random stuff up on it since I enjoy the series a lot, but if you want to get an idea of what's all there you could look on the wiki (unless you want to keep everything a secret) at this link:
http://monsterhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Portal:MH3U
 
[quote name='maximumzero']Of course it could be better, but for now you just have to play by their rules.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure you understand business particularly well. Businesses should act in a way that respects those who spent money towards the business, and entices people who have not yet to do so.

Their action disrespects the consumer, disrespects best practices of digital distribution, and makes me (a potential consumer) reluctant to get into purchasing digital products for the Wii U (that I don't own, to be fair).

This is not a case of a customer eating all but 1/2 a slice of pizza and asking for a full refund, the dude isn't fucking over Nintendo in any way. The dude just wants what he paid for. From the outside looking in, if Nintendo responded by giving him what he already paid for, they'd look good to me. "Yeah, sweet, they took care of him, that's a company I respect!"

Instead, they give him half the value in a format that won't buy him *any* of the titles he already bought. Confusing, confounding, and a douche move.

"Play by their rules" is not a mandate. I choose to not play at all. Nintendo kinda fucked this consumer, so given the choice to buy or not buy a Wii system, given the choice to buy or not buy their digital content, steps like this are making me reluctant to dive in. So, sure, blame the victim dude. Defend the multimillion-dollar company; they need the free public relations from you. Your shortsightedness is that Nintendo's move here is just continuing to increase my reluctance to get a Wii U and buy games from their shop. That's "their rules," but that doesn't make the rules sensible or smart. At all.
 
[quote name='maximumzero']Of course it could be better, but for now you just have to play by their rules. He didn't, and unfortunately he looks to be paying the price for it.[/QUOTE]
Their "Rules" aren't clear. When you establish a Wii U for the first time, the system asks you if you already have an NNID that you would like to use on the system. THIS IS NOT AN OPTION. He was mislead that the system functioned like the other consoles on the market and allowed activation transfers.

Additionally, nintendo has commented in the past that purchases lost due to destroyed, defective, or stolen units can be replaced if you provide their team with proof (dead console, police report, etc).

He did complicate things using the store warranty- but that's something nintendo should have worked out with the stores that sell their product.

Where Nintendo fucked up was in 2 spots:

1) They credited him $200 instead of giving back his actual content (valuing over $400). I think they have a $200 cap on credits, because I went through the same thing last month and lost $300 in VC games ending at the nice, round number of $200 (search back through this thread for details).

2) They credited him to the wrong store. He can't replace any of his content with the money they gave him. Arguably- he can buy newer things, but that's not the same.

Beyond that- the guy probably had to spend another week jumping through hoops to get his Club Nintendo account tied to his new system.

At the end of the day- the guy was a loyal Nintendo fan who spent a lot more money in the Wii Shop than was reasonably expected by Nintendo (like me) and who was likely to repeat this in the future console cycle. Unfortunately, their ability to work through these issues is so clumsy that he probably won't spend a dime in their digital shop this generation.
 
I spent $3 in Nintendo's 3DS shop for Pokemon dream radar and that is all I am spending until they fix this mess. If i somehow manage to lose that game i have only lost $3 and i really don't care and plus i have already played the game enough to justify my $3. As far as the Wii goes I spent nothing out of my own pocket but I did have a lot of promotional points from that Pepsi rock band promo some of which I still have believe it or not. It's not unusual that a person would think to return their console, so it's up to Nintendo to allow for situations like that which they obviously have taken into account that things like this could happen. They really should be bending over for these fans, but they are not especially fans that spend this much and are clearly diehard fans. If I ever get a Wii U I consider myself warned about the system transfer and e-shop problems and I probably won't be spending a dime with their e-shop.
 
[quote name='nbballard']Their "Rules" aren't clear. When you establish a Wii U for the first time, the system asks you if you already have an NNID that you would like to use on the system. THIS IS NOT AN OPTION. He was mislead that the system functioned like the other consoles on the market and allowed activation transfers.

Additionally, nintendo has commented in the past that purchases lost due to destroyed, defective, or stolen units can be replaced if you provide their team with proof (dead console, police report, etc).

He did complicate things using the store warranty- but that's something nintendo should have worked out with the stores that sell their product.

Where Nintendo fucked up was in 2 spots:

1) They credited him $200 instead of giving back his actual content (valuing over $400). I think they have a $200 cap on credits, because I went through the same thing last month and lost $300 in VC games ending at the nice, round number of $200 (search back through this thread for details).

2) They credited him to the wrong store. He can't replace any of his content with the money they gave him. Arguably- he can buy newer things, but that's not the same.

Beyond that- the guy probably had to spend another week jumping through hoops to get his Club Nintendo account tied to his new system.

At the end of the day- the guy was a loyal Nintendo fan who spent a lot more money in the Wii Shop than was reasonably expected by Nintendo (like me) and who was likely to repeat this in the future console cycle. Unfortunately, their ability to work through these issues is so clumsy that he probably won't spend a dime in their digital shop this generation.[/QUOTE]

The whole NNID is very, very misleading. It sounds like on the surface, it pretends to function just like iTunes, Steam, PSN, or XBL - your content is linked to their servers, not hardware, and you can access any owned content from any legit device. When I finally picked up a Vita, I was seriously impressed by how much online is integrated into the system and was able to download PSP/PSX/etc content that I had already paid for.

The fact that these kinds of stories are happening so close to launch is scary. I bet as the system ages and consoles die, or they release the inevitable refit version with new colors and bigger internal storage, people will buy new ones expecting them to transfer software with their NNID. And it should, it's 2013 for fucks sake!

I really don't believe they can push a successful digital distribution model and maintain this archaic approach to DRM.
 
[quote name='johnnypark']The whole NNID is very, very misleading. It sounds like on the surface, it pretends to function just like iTunes, Steam, PSN, or XBL - your content is linked to their servers, not hardware, and you can access any owned content from any legit device. When I finally picked up a Vita, I was seriously impressed by how much online is integrated into the system and was able to download PSP/PSX/etc content that I had already paid for.

The fact that these kinds of stories are happening so close to launch is scary. I bet as the system ages and consoles die, or they release the inevitable refit version with new colors and bigger internal storage, people will buy new ones expecting them to transfer software with their NNID. And it should, it's 2013 for fucks sake!

I really don't believe they can push a successful digital distribution model and maintain this archaic approach to DRM.[/QUOTE]

While it Nintendo's system sucks, I have yet to find a system that does it right. Sony is clearly closest to getting it right, but I am nervous about the DRM coming in the next gen. The idea that games must be always online to play and tied to IDs doesn't fill me with confidence.
 
If Apple's iTunes Match wasn't so clunky, it would be an amazing system overall.

Being able to play games I bought on PS3 on my Vita is great and all (really, it is), but I'm going to hold my breath until the PS4 is released later this month. I'm still a bit sore about PS2 BC disappearing this generation, and have concerns about whether or not the next Playstation and Xbox will play the digital games I've purchased. They bloody better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top