Is Destiny destined for Wii U?

  • 102 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Edited by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@YearoftheSnake5 said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

Yeah. It's pretty clear that Wii U owners just don't care about this game.

So it would seem. In comparison, the Dark Souls 2 petition has managed a little over 17,000 signatures.

The lack of a WiiU version still strikes me as odd. The old gen is dying out far faster than normal. The PS3 and 360 investment in Destiny is honestly not going to be worth it in the long run. But if they are going to go that route, I dunno why they wouldn't try WiiU as well. For as huge an investment as Destiny is, it strikes me as beyond odd to avoid the WiiU when it can easily run the game. The WiiU is going to outlast the PS3 and 360 by nature of being a newer product.

#52 Posted by UnbiasedPoster (875 posts) -

Lol

#53 Edited by Speak_Low (1097 posts) -

@nini200 said:

Lol owned by the next post

What do you mean owned? That user said he doesn't read my posts, so he couldn't be responding to me since he wouldn't know a thing I just said.

And I don't even understand his comment. Sounded like a joke he was saying out loud to himself but no one responded to it. You can technically play PS3 Destiny with or without PS+ (campaign is available for instance without a subscription, but certain MP features are locked and require PS+)

Activision/Bungie right now are thinking far more about the growing rate of the install bases, the size of the online communities, the purchasing/DLC spending habits of the gamers, etc than they care about PS+ (seriously, how much of that Sony money do they get anyways? So why would Activision/Bungie even care?)

Whether online is 100% free or a paid subscription, I don't think any of that is some prohibitive factor in their porting decisions, considering that Activision constantly makes games for PC, Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U and PS3/PS4 - all with varying business models regarding online play/subscriptions. Just shows how insignificant of a factor this is in their larger profit-seeking goals.

I'm still trying to find out from some here why it "makes sense" for Activision to continuously lose money and take a financial risk on the least profitable platform right now, when they haven't even gotten to getting a PC version out which would make far more revenue for them. I'm seeing what people personally want and desire, but the more realistic, tougher business scenario shows that it's not always concerned with what fans want. There would be far more fan wishes gratified, and less waiting and droughts, better prices for us, less DLC/sequels, more innovation, etc if we always got what we wanted and ignored the preserving self-interests of these companies.

You take the good with the bad with this industry and these companies need the clearest, safest route to profits, not losses, and so someone has to lose out sometimes and get pushed to the side. A Wii U version of Destiny will not earn them profit. I'd love to see someone post the Activision quarterly results from the last two years showing me how much money Activision makes with PS3/PS4, Xbox 360/One, and Wii/Wii U. The moment you find the data you'll have answered your own question about why Destiny is not coming to this console.

#54 Posted by Speak_Low (1097 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

The lack of a WiiU version still strikes me as odd. The old gen is dying out far faster than normal. The PS3 and 360 investment in Destiny is honestly not going to be worth it in the long run. But if they are going to go that route, I dunno why they wouldn't try WiiU as well. For as huge an investment as Destiny is, it strikes me as beyond odd to avoid the WiiU when it can easily run the game. The WiiU is going to outlast the PS3 and 360 by nature of being a newer product.

You should check out the Ubisoft earnings thread on the SW first page because it kind of relates to the Wii U's third-party support.

And here is Activision's Q1 results they recently posted:

Activision's net income in Q1 2014 was down from last year, falling from $456 million to $293 million. Next-gen sales (PS4, Xbox One and Wii U) brought in $108 million net revenue in Q1, while current-gen sales (PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii) brought in $546 million, for a console total of $654 million. That's 59 percent of Activision's total net revenue for the quarter. PC accounted for $100 million (9 percent), online did $201 million (18 percent), and mobile made $83 million (7 percent).

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/05/06/activisions-q1-2014-is-so-good-its-raising-its-2014-outlook/

The PS3/360 are still making Activision the most money right now. They didn't provide a more granular breakdown and just lumped next-gen/last-gen into big groupings, but you can see why they are still giving attention to PS3/360 which still earn the highest revenue and has the largest online community right now.

It's transitioning, obviously, and will soon be PS4/One (and PC depending on the game) in a couple of years. Activision is aware of that and have covered their bases completely. Make the game for the existing high-revenue earners (PS360), and let it slowly diminish and move effortlessly (and painlessly) into the ones with the fastest growth rates right now (PS4/One).

The Wii U would be included if it actually earned them more profits every quarter. The console obviously doesn't, and is far worse than the PC's revenue contributions and their established community. So whoever has the most weaknesses gets the least ports. Why is there still confusion about this?

Once again I keep seeing "it makes no sense" when it makes complete sense. It's not about what you want right now. The staggering long-term costs, marketing, manufacturing, porting work for Destiny Wii U are not worth it to them, and there has never been such a thing as a "free and easy port" for ambitious releases like this.

#55 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@speak_low said:

You should check out the Ubisoft earnings thread on the SW first page because it kind of relates to the Wii U's third-party support.

And here is Activision's Q1 results they recently posted:

Activision's net income in Q1 2014 was down from last year, falling from $456 million to $293 million. Next-gen sales (PS4, Xbox One and Wii U) brought in $108 million net revenue in Q1, while current-gen sales (PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii) brought in $546 million, for a console total of $654 million. That's 59 percent of Activision's total net revenue for the quarter. PC accounted for $100 million (9 percent), online did $201 million (18 percent), and mobile made $83 million (7 percent).

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/05/06/activisions-q1-2014-is-so-good-its-raising-its-2014-outlook/

The PS3/360 are still making Activision the most money right now. They didn't provide a more granular breakdown and just lumped next-gen/last-gen into big groupings, but you can see why they are still giving attention to PS3/360 which still earn the highest revenue and has the largest online community right now.

It's transitioning, obviously, and will soon be PS4/One (and PC depending on the game) in a couple of years. Activision is aware of that and have covered their bases completely. Make the game for the existing high-revenue earners (PS360), and let it slowly diminish and move effortlessly (and painlessly) into the ones with the fastest growth rates right now (PS4/One).

The Wii U would be included if it actually earned them more profits every quarter. The console obviously doesn't, and is far worse than the PC's revenue contributions and their established community. So whoever has the most weaknesses gets the least ports. Why is there still confusion about this?

Once again I keep seeing "it makes no sense" when it makes complete sense. It's not about what you want right now. The staggering long-term costs, marketing, manufacturing, porting work for Destiny Wii U are not worth it to them, and there has never been such a thing as a "free and easy port" for ambitious releases like this.

I know you have some crusade against the WiiU and everything so this is probably a waste of time "but" for the sake of giving you a chance, I'm going to explain exactly why I think a WiiU version of Destiny wouldn't be a bad idea (I'm not of the opinion that ignoring the WiiU is a terrible idea either for the majority of games however).

First of all, when you look at Ubisoft and Activision, (or EA, Take Two etc really) looking at the portion of their revenue that comes from Nintendo streams is rather misleading because these SKUs of their games are not treated as bread winners nor are they marketed as such. Activision for example will get an absurd amount of their revenue for a year from just COD which prioritizes the Sony and MS SKUs as the most important targets. That's why back when the original Wii was out, you wouldn't find out dick all about COD until weeks before release, the releases would be staggered, missing features, late etc despite the fact that all these version were obviously profitable and all sold in the realm of 1 million + units. It's the same reason why when you look at Ubisoft and a release like Rayman or Just Dance, you'll see the Nintendo Skus performing on par or better than the skus on other systems. It's because those are the prioritzed SKUS that are expected to bring in the lion share of the money. It is why when you look at Assassin's Creed the majority of the sales are on Sony and Microsoft systems. Quoting a bunch of revenue numbers isn't really good enough for me without using context to understand why they are like that. It's flawed to think Acti or Ubi are going to have any relevant chunk of their revenue come from Nintendo streams when they aren't prioritizing making those SKUs successful. A better argument to make is that they expected a certain baseline of sales even without any kind of marketing and didn't reach them so they quit which is quite frankly valid imo if they are never going to put effort into improving the sales of that SKU.

Now, the transition to current gen is going to be a quick one and it can already be seen in games like Watch Dogs or Wolfenstein for example that the majority of the sales come from the limited 12-15 million 8th Gen Systems compared to the nearly 170 million 7th Gen systems. By holiday season this year, it's going to be even more pronounced frankly as current gen dies off rapidly and next gen adoption continues to chug along at a decent pace. I'm not magic so I dunno how well current gen will make up for the drop in last gen but I'll assume it's not going to do it significantly so. I expect retraction in the market overall (well in the traditional console market, not in games as a whole). I think that looking to try and bring Destiny to the WiiU and give it a big push as the 3rd best selling sku would give Activision a chance to diversify their revenue stream by attracting new people who would be wanting to play the next big game but will only own a WiiU or are just generally interested in Nintendo systems. However, why I suggest this is because the cost of getting it up, running and on the WiiU will be small because the asset preparation is already done because they have lower level PS3/360 versions and after 2014 Christmas, those systems will die out and barely contribute anything to Activision's revenue streams while the WiiU will still be alive until 2016 minimally. I think the opportunity to build an extra fanbase and revenue stream for minimally more invested in a $500 million project makes a WiiU version worth considering. If there were no PS3/360 versions and this wasn't a $500 million plan game, I would say don't bother with a WiiU version. But if you're gonna pour a ton of money into PS3/360 versions which I frankly see dying extraordinarily fast, I would take the risk on the WiiU version. If it bombs, just don't waste your time on the expansions and DLC. If it succeeds though, you're in a way better position.

You're also exaggerating how much it would cost to port Destiny to the WiiU. It's laughable you are talking about manufacturing as if manufacturing disks and plastic cases is so bank destroying for a company like Activision when small ass publishers like X Seed do this shit all the time. They have way harder times getting into the distribution channels someone like Activision would have access to. Marketing as well is also just making me scratch my head. While I think they would have to market the WiiU version specially a little bit (which is necessary when you are trying to attract a new player base) it's a multiplatorm release so it's not going to die a poor death due to no one knowing it exists. Where as you have just made the assumption that I said Destiny on WiiU is free money (I sure as hell never ever said anything to that effect so don't put words in my mouth), I am more of the opinion that if you are going to have a $500 million project that leverages a lot of sales hope on dying platforms, it might make sense to look towards a platform that isn't going to die as fast and has the same level of hardware. That might help mitigate your losses and if you play your cards right, it may even be a solid pillar for profit.

There ya go.

#56 Posted by Micropixel (924 posts) -

As awesome as it would be to see Destiny on Wii U, I think most Wii U owners would just continue to play the hell out of Mario Kart.

Competing with Nintendo's first party exclusives is a pretty steep uphill battle. This is one of the reasons multiplats struggle on Nintendo systems and why some of them are reluctant to invest time/money/effort to port their games over.

#57 Edited by Speak_Low (1097 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

I know you have some crusade against the WiiU and everything so this is probably a waste of time "but" for the sake of giving you a chance, I'm going to explain exactly why I think a WiiU version of Destiny wouldn't be a bad idea (I'm not of the opinion that ignoring the WiiU is a terrible idea either for the majority of games however).

First of all, when you look at Ubisoft and Activision, (or EA, Take Two etc really) looking at the portion of their revenue that comes from Nintendo streams is rather misleading because these SKUs of their games are not treated as bread winners nor are they marketed as such. Activision for example will get an absurd amount of their revenue for a year from just COD which prioritizes the Sony and MS SKUs as the most important targets. That's why back when the original Wii was out, you wouldn't find out dick all about COD until weeks before release, the releases would be staggered, missing features, late etc despite the fact that all these version were obviously profitable and all sold in the realm of 1 million + units. It's the same reason why when you look at Ubisoft and a release like Rayman or Just Dance, you'll see the Nintendo Skus performing on par or better than the skus on other systems. It's because those are the prioritzed SKUS that are expected to bring in the lion share of the money. It is why when you look at Assassin's Creed the majority of the sales are on Sony and Microsoft systems. Quoting a bunch of revenue numbers isn't really good enough for me without using context to understand why they are like that. It's flawed to think Acti or Ubi are going to have any relevant chunk of their revenue come from Nintendo streams when they aren't prioritizing making those SKUs successful. A better argument to make is that they expected a certain baseline of sales even without any kind of marketing and didn't reach them so they quit which is quite frankly valid imo if they are never going to put effort into improving the sales of that SKU.

Now, the transition to current gen is going to be a quick one and it can already be seen in games like Watch Dogs or Wolfenstein for example that the majority of the sales come from the limited 12-15 million 8th Gen Systems compared to the nearly 170 million 7th Gen systems. By holiday season this year, it's going to be even more pronounced frankly as current gen dies off rapidly and next gen adoption continues to chug along at a decent pace. I'm not magic so I dunno how well current gen will make up for the drop in last gen but I'll assume it's not going to do it significantly so. I expect retraction in the market overall (well in the traditional console market, not in games as a whole). I think that looking to try and bring Destiny to the WiiU and give it a big push as the 3rd best selling sku would give Activision a chance to diversify their revenue stream by attracting new people who would be wanting to play the next big game but will only own a WiiU or are just generally interested in Nintendo systems. However, why I suggest this is because the cost of getting it up, running and on the WiiU will be small because the asset preparation is already done because they have lower level PS3/360 versions and after 2014 Christmas, those systems will die out and barely contribute anything to Activision's revenue streams while the WiiU will still be alive until 2016 minimally. I think the opportunity to build an extra fanbase and revenue stream for minimally more invested in a $500 million project makes a WiiU version worth considering. If there were no PS3/360 versions and this wasn't a $500 million plan game, I would say don't bother with a WiiU version. But if you're gonna pour a ton of money into PS3/360 versions which I frankly see dying extraordinarily fast, I would take the risk on the WiiU version. If it bombs, just don't waste your time on the expansions and DLC. If it succeeds though, you're in a way better position.

You're also exaggerating how much it would cost to port Destiny to the WiiU. It's laughable you are talking about manufacturing as if manufacturing disks and plastic cases is so bank destroying for a company like Activision when small ass publishers like X Seed do this shit all the time. They have way harder times getting into the distribution channels someone like Activision would have access to. Marketing as well is also just making me scratch my head. While I think they would have to market the WiiU version specially a little bit (which is necessary when you are trying to attract a new player base) it's a multiplatorm release so it's not going to die a poor death due to no one knowing it exists. Where as you have just made the assumption that I said Destiny on WiiU is free money (I sure as hell never ever said anything to that effect so don't put words in my mouth), I am more of the opinion that if you are going to have a $500 million project that leverages a lot of sales hope on dying platforms, it might make sense to look towards a platform that isn't going to die as fast and has the same level of hardware. That might help mitigate your losses and if you play your cards right, it may even be a solid pillar for profit.

There ya go.

I understand what you're getting at (we're going to have to just disagree on many points) but I think you are underestimating the amount of porting work required, the costs (millions) and the additional, continual work/costs (millions more) afterwards for a special game like this. Destiny is very different, bigger and a more expensive cross-gen than those other games we're used to seeing like COD, and even the "safe choice" that is PC hasn't gotten a confirmed Destiny port. This shows that they seem to be more selective this time than the average COD game. Bungie and Activision have decided, for now, that $500 million will be banked on the ones with the highest chance of return. Remember that they expect every bit of that $500 million returned, and profit on top of that. If there is even a chance of a loss on one of the platforms, they don't want to take it right now, which tells me that every bit of that budget is carefully structured and accounted in their overall fiscal plans. To us it looks like a unimportant mass of "their money" - some endless pool of expendable Activision dough. But we know that they have every drop of that (even down to $5 to $10 million) accounted for by their leading top experts and number-crunchers.

And if porting was so easy and cheap, why didn't Bioshock Infinite, Crysis 3, Far Cry 3, GTA V and others just come out on day one for Wii U (or PC as well for GTA V)? Right there should show us that porting work/costs are riskier and higher than we think. I've read countless developer articles (kind of my interest) and it's lots of develop headaches, time and money involved in cross-platform games. It doesn't even seem to matter if it's concurrent development or a much later port - there is no easy and cheap port for these types of games.

Even if you have no interest in Naughty Dog or TLOU, I suggest reading this recent interview about "Porting Hell". I like how he explains the incredible technical difficulties of porting from PS3-->PS4 and the time needed that steals people away from their current projects, and these are frank admissions from one of the leading devs who have won numerous technical awards and have lots of experience. If they find it challenging, then why would the hugely ambitious (and one of the most expensive games in history) Destiny be any easier? Naughty Dog says there is no such thing as a "port" button to simply click, and so did Criterion studios when they made the Need For Speed U game. Gamers assume that since a game is already done for Xbox 360/PS3, you just reuse assets and upgrade textures. But read any of these articles and I challenge anyone to actually find a dev saying a porting task was an easy and inexpensive job for modern AAA games. We assume it's easy because the products look so identical in the end (almost like copying and pasting), but the amount of work for consoles of different architecture, diverting of teams and precious resources, and the need for substantial profits weigh heavily on their minds, and moreso with the increasing game budgets these days.

Again, if you don't believe them, then EA, Take Two, Ubisoft, Activision and others have (rather stupidly) lost tens of BILLIONS of untapped, potential dollars by not porting 10x more than they do now. I'd like to think the managerial/financial teams at these top companies labor and pore over these figures for thousands of combined hours, and they'd understand the cost benefits a lot better than we are giving them credit for.

I know what you're saying - since Activision is footing the $500 bill, why not just throw in a Destiny Wii U and make it a few more million? But like Nintendo, they have investors and need to satisfy promises and expectations every single quarter, and to do so they need to stay with safer sources of revenue. Nintendo thinks about investors all the time too, which is why we haven't seen more Nintendo fan requests/favorites and, instead, see more "safer" choices sometimes. And if you think the Xbox 360/PS3 is an profitable uncertainty/risk and a "wait and see" kind of approach that doesn't doesn't deserve a Destiny port, than the Wii U would be even more of an uncertainty for them. I just do not understand why a Wii U Destiny is a better, safer and more profitable choice than the PS360 versions when Activision has the cold hard numbers right in front of them every quarter, proving that Sony/MS gamers are buying these games and DLC content every month and year. Activision's current growth and financial success as a company is coming from them, so why would they so quickly ignore them? We could go on and on about "unfair" outside factors this and that, but one set of sales numbers gives Activision more assurance and the other set doesn't. And when budgets balloon into record-breaking numbers like Destiny (and when Bungie has to make four platforms when they have never done so before), their restraint in a few areas doesn't seem that strange now. Bungie/Activision are spending a lot, but they also can't go willy-nilly either.

You're also saying that Activision revenue is consistently higher for PS360 and now PS4/One because there's more of a marketing push and games being made. Okay I get that, but I look at Nintendo's own 1st-party games, and outside of Mario Kart 8, they aren't selling that well either (many haven't even passed 1 million and I don't think Wonderful 101 and Pikmin are getting sequels any time soon), and Nintendo themselves, who are rich enough to foot bills like Activision, are still reporting losses - not profits - right now. I think publishers have noticed that the overall software sales for the Wii U - even for Nintendo games - is not where it should be, and this disappointing fact leaves way too much doubt for them to riskily jump in and drop additional tens of millions of dollars. For all we know, Activision could still be trying to make up for lost money from previous quarters (overall sales ARE down too, remember?) and they aren't in the mood to drop tens of millions anymore for uncertainty and hoping.

#58 Posted by DocSanchez (1648 posts) -

If people want to play Destiny and indeed any of the major multiplat titles they will have to buy a console that isn't the wii u. This much is obvious.

#59 Edited by freedomfreak (40954 posts) -

Dat install base though.

#60 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@speak_low said:

I understand what you're getting at (we're going to have to just disagree on many points) but I think you are underestimating the amount of porting work required, the costs (millions) and the additional, continual work/costs (millions more) afterwards for a special game like this. Destiny is very different, bigger and a more expensive cross-gen than those other games we're used to seeing like COD, and even the "safe choice" that is PC hasn't gotten a confirmed Destiny port. This shows that they seem to be more selective this time than the average COD game. Bungie and Activision have decided, for now, that $500 million will be banked on the ones with the highest chance of return. Remember that they expect every bit of that $500 million returned, and profit on top of that. If there is even a chance of a loss on one of the platforms, they don't want to take it right now, which tells me that every bit of that budget is carefully structured and accounted in their overall fiscal plans. To us it looks like a unimportant mass of "their money" - some endless pool of expendable Activision dough. But we know that they have every drop of that (even down to $5 to $10 million) accounted for by their leading top experts and number-crunchers.

And if porting was so easy and cheap, why didn't Bioshock Infinite, Crysis 3, Far Cry 3, GTA V and others just come out on day one for Wii U (or PC as well for GTA V)? Right there should show us that porting work/costs are riskier and higher than we think. I've read countless developer articles (kind of my interest) and it's lots of develop headaches, time and money involved in cross-platform games. It doesn't even seem to matter if it's concurrent development or a much later port - there is no easy and cheap port for these types of games.

Even if you have no interest in Naughty Dog or TLOU, I suggest reading this recent interview about "Porting Hell". I like how he explains the incredible technical difficulties of porting from PS3-->PS4 and the time needed that steals people away from their current projects, and these are frank admissions from one of the leading devs who have won numerous technical awards and have lots of experience. If they find it challenging, then why would the hugely ambitious (and one of the most expensive games in history) Destiny be any easier? Naughty Dog says there is no such thing as a "port" button to simply click, and so did Criterion studios when they made the Need For Speed U game. Gamers assume that since a game is already done for Xbox 360/PS3, you just reuse assets and upgrade textures. But read any of these articles and I challenge anyone to actually find a dev saying a porting task was an easy job for modern AAA games. We assume it's easy because the products look so identical in the end (almost like copying and pasting sometimes), but the amount of work for consoles of different architecture, diverting of teams and precious resources, and the need for substantial profits weigh heavily on their minds, and moreso with the increasing game budgets these days.

Again, if you don't believe them, then EA, Take Two, Ubisoft, Activision and others have (rather stupidly) lost tens of BILLIONS of untapped, potential dollars by not porting 10x more than they do now. I'd like to think the managerial/financial teams at these top companies labor and pore over these figures for thousands of combined hours, and they'd understand the cost benefits a lot better than we are giving them credit for.

I know what you're saying - since Activision is footing the $500 bill, why not just throw in a Destiny Wii U and make it a few more million? But like Nintendo, they have investors and need to satisfy promises and expectations every single quarter, and to do so they need to stay with safer sources of revenue. Nintendo thinks about investors all the time too, which is why we haven't seen more Nintendo fan requests/favorites and, instead, see more "safer" choices sometimes. And if you think the Xbox 360/PS3 is an profitable uncertainty/risk and a "wait and see" kind of approach that doesn't doesn't deserve a Destiny port, than the Wii U would be even more of an uncertainty for them. I just do not understand why a Wii U Destiny is a better, safer and more profitable choice than the PS360 versions when Activision has the cold hard numbers right in front of them every quarter, proving the Sony/MS gamers are buying these games and DLC content every month and year. Their growth as a company is coming form them, so why would they so quickly ignore them? We could go on and on about "unfair" outside factors this and that, but one set of sales numbers gives Activision more assurance and the other set doesn't. And when budgets balloon into record-breaking numbers like Destiny (and when Bungie has to make four platforms when they have never done so before), their restraint in a few areas doesn't seem that strange now. Bungie/Activision are spending a lot, but they also can't go willy-nilly either.

You're also saying that Activision revenue is consistently higher for PS360 and now PS4/One because of more of a marketing push and games being made. Okay I get that, but I look at Nintendo's own 1st-party games, and outside of Mario Kart 8, they aren't selling that well either (many haven't even passed 1 million and I don't think Wonderful 101 and Pikmin are getting sequels any time soon), and Nintendo themselves, who are rich enough to foot bills like Activision, are still reporting losses - not profits - right now. I think publishers have noticed that the overall software sales for the Wii U - even for Nintendo games - is not where it should be, and this fact leaves too much doubt for them to jump in and drop an additional tens of millions. For all we know, Activision could still be trying to make up for lost money from previous quarters (sales ARE down too, remember) and they aren't in the mood to drop tens of millions anymore for uncertainty.

Well first I will say, I respect that you gave an actual none troll answer. I don't like back and forthing all walls of text (my days of system warrioring to that extent are far gone) so I'll just give short responses to the major points I see.

As far as Destiny as a project, it's probably the most expensive or top 5 most expensive games ever I understand. It's also just a big project for 1 studio to undertake given 4 platforms to cover. A porting job still isn't going to be a 20 million dollar affair though, a port is still a crossing over of code. They vary in difficulty game to game but the asset creation and underlying systems of the game will be in place, porting is more making it work else where. A port will not be nearly as expensive as the original creation. The reason why GTA5, Bioshock Infinite and Far Cry 3 weren't on the WiiU was simply because there was no market and the opportunity cost wasn't worth it. Nothing to do with ability to run the game. Crysis 3 wasn't on WiiU because Nintendo and EA Suck. That said, doesn't matter because I'm not suggesting it makes sense to port those games to WiiU and never stated otherwise.

And again, porting is a game to game basis but it in general isn't as difficult as you're making it sound. Even if it requires work. Hell, even if it is difficult I'm talking about cost vs benefit here. I don't have a business degree full disclosure (well not yet anyway) so obviously I'm speculating but the argument I was making for a port is pretty much based on the idea that I think they can get more value out of all the 7th Gen level assets they created with a WiiU version. Since 7th gen systems are going to die faster than the WiiU it might be a good way to mitigate losses/extend value. If Destiny was PS4/X1 only, I wouldn't bother suggesting a WiiU version. If it was a $30 million project, I wouldn't bother suggesting a WiiU version. I'm not saying PS3/360 are a bad choice, just that Destiny is relying on a long life to make money so if 360/PS3 continue their descent it might become an issue.

As far as Nintendo reporting losses is concerned, part of that was the WiiU. However, some of that was also expansion into other areas and acquisitions. If they didn't acquire a $100 million non gaming related company last year they would have made a profit. Also, it took like 10 years to get Pikmin 3 in the first place :P the don't make Pikmin just for sales. W101 wasn't acquired just for sales. Neither was Bayonetta. It's to increase the appeal of your system and expand your value proposition of your system. There are a bunch of reasons to not make WiiU games but some of this you are overstating. A WiiU version of Destiny is not going to cost tens of millions, that's ridiculous.

#61 Posted by Nengo_Flow (9843 posts) -

its a heavy online game............ it will sell like 20 copies

#62 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72425 posts) -

@super600 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

I don't know if it would sell all that well tbh

I really doubt it would. I would probably eventually get the Wii U version if there weren't a PC version coming, but if I get this game at all, it's going to be on the PC.

None of the third party games sell well on it

The WiiU version of monster hunter is one of the best selling third party games currently. Capcom was pretty happy about how much that version of the game sold.

But it's a Wii U exclusive

#63 Posted by Cheleman (7707 posts) -

bungie, listen to me... it aint worth it.

just turn 360° and walk away.

#64 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -
@The_Last_Ride said:

@super600 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

I don't know if it would sell all that well tbh

I really doubt it would. I would probably eventually get the Wii U version if there weren't a PC version coming, but if I get this game at all, it's going to be on the PC.

None of the third party games sell well on it

The WiiU version of monster hunter is one of the best selling third party games currently. Capcom was pretty happy about how much that version of the game sold.

But it's a Wii U exclusive

It was also on the 3DS and its more of an expansion of Tri which sold about 2 million world wide on the Wii. I put 400 hours into Tri. The fact that it sold to expectations is good considering there were other ways to get your MH fix.

#65 Edited by Legend002 (7220 posts) -

Does the Wii U even have that online capability? I've been out of the loop but I heard Destiny is like an MMO shooter.

#66 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72425 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:
@The_Last_Ride said:

@super600 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

I don't know if it would sell all that well tbh

I really doubt it would. I would probably eventually get the Wii U version if there weren't a PC version coming, but if I get this game at all, it's going to be on the PC.

None of the third party games sell well on it

The WiiU version of monster hunter is one of the best selling third party games currently. Capcom was pretty happy about how much that version of the game sold.

But it's a Wii U exclusive

It was also on the 3DS and its more of an expansion of Tri which sold about 2 million world wide on the Wii. I put 400 hours into Tri. The fact that it sold to expectations is good considering there were other ways to get your MH fix.

But it's a JRPG made for Nintendo only. Destiny isn't and it's going to be the worst version compared to the next gen lineup

#67 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

But it's a JRPG made for Nintendo only. Destiny isn't and it's going to be the worst version compared to the next gen lineup

Well 1 monster hunter isn't a JRPG :P

Tri was a Nintendo only thing though not that I actually think it matters. WiiU Destiny wouldn't need to be worse than the PS3/360 versions of Destiny which do infact exist.

#68 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72425 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

But it's a JRPG made for Nintendo only. Destiny isn't and it's going to be the worst version compared to the next gen lineup

Well 1 monster hunter isn't a JRPG :P

Tri was a Nintendo only thing though not that I actually think it matters. WiiU Destiny wouldn't need to be worse than the PS3/360 versions of Destiny which do infact exist.

it clearly says open world action rpg

#69 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

@ActicEdge said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

But it's a JRPG made for Nintendo only. Destiny isn't and it's going to be the worst version compared to the next gen lineup

Well 1 monster hunter isn't a JRPG :P

Tri was a Nintendo only thing though not that I actually think it matters. WiiU Destiny wouldn't need to be worse than the PS3/360 versions of Destiny which do infact exist.

it clearly says open world action rpg

I don't give a shit what it says, I put 400 hours into Tri and it is not an open world game by any stretch of imagination. Trust me on this, Monster Hunter is not open world and it's not an RPG either. It's an action game.

#70 Posted by Guy_Brohski (299 posts) -

@super600 said:

@sam890 said:

I think the Wii U would probably blow up.

I hope you are kidding because the WiiU is stronger then both last gen consoles. It will run the game fine.

You can't really say that "the Wii U is stronger than both last gen consoles". True, it has more RAM than them, but it has a much slower CPU than ps360, and it lacks an HDD. This makes it much harder for large, complex game worlds to be rendered on the Wii U. You can probably bet that was the reason for the Wii U version of P-CARS and Watch Dogs delays.

#71 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@Guy_Brohski said:

@super600 said:

@sam890 said:

I think the Wii U would probably blow up.

I hope you are kidding because the WiiU is stronger then both last gen consoles. It will run the game fine.

You can't really say that "the Wii U is stronger than both last gen consoles". True, it has more RAM than them, but it has a much slower CPU than ps360, and it lacks an HDD. This makes it much harder for large, complex game worlds to be rendered on the Wii U. You can probably bet that was the reason for the Wii U version of P-CARS and Watch Dogs delays.

It's a much more efficient modern design. The system memory is much better, the GPU has a more modern feature set and is more efficient and it has it's own audio hardware so games don't need to use the CPU for it. The CPU from what I've read has a much lower theoretical limit but is able to achieve real world performance in the same range as the PS3/360. The CPU has different strengths and weaknesses that make coding for it different from those systems so while it is inferior in some aspects, it's not much weaker. Also, having more than double the ram the PS3/360 have should make HDD streaming far less necessary when running the same game. Something like GTA5 on the WiiU would run better just do to not having to be so memory starved.

#72 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@Guy_Brohski said:

@super600 said:

@sam890 said:

I think the Wii U would probably blow up.

I hope you are kidding because the WiiU is stronger then both last gen consoles. It will run the game fine.

You can't really say that "the Wii U is stronger than both last gen consoles". True, it has more RAM than them, but it has a much slower CPU than ps360, and it lacks an HDD. This makes it much harder for large, complex game worlds to be rendered on the Wii U. You can probably bet that was the reason for the Wii U version of P-CARS and Watch Dogs delays.

It's a much more efficient modern design. The system memory is much better, the GPU has a more modern feature set and is more efficient and it has it's own audio hardware so games don't need to use the CPU for it. The CPU from what I've read has a much lower theoretical limit but is able to achieve real world performance in the same range as the PS3/360. The CPU has different strengths and weaknesses that make coding for it different from those systems so while it is inferior in some aspects, it's not much weaker. Also, having more than double the ram the PS3/360 have should make HDD streaming far less necessary when running the same game. Something like GTA5 on the WiiU might run better if they took some time to optimize the code for the change in CPU architecture since the memory reserve is so superior.

#73 Posted by VERTIGO47 (6278 posts) -

Sheep won't buy it, that's the reality of it all. There's no point.

Without a doubt the WiiU is VERY CAPABLE of handling Destiny if 360 and PS3 has it.

#74 Posted by Zaibach (13457 posts) -

WiiU is a Nintendo IP box, major 3rd party games aren't stopping by that station anymore

#75 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72425 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@ActicEdge said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

But it's a JRPG made for Nintendo only. Destiny isn't and it's going to be the worst version compared to the next gen lineup

Well 1 monster hunter isn't a JRPG :P

Tri was a Nintendo only thing though not that I actually think it matters. WiiU Destiny wouldn't need to be worse than the PS3/360 versions of Destiny which do infact exist.

it clearly says open world action rpg

I don't give a shit what it says, I put 400 hours into Tri and it is not an open world game by any stretch of imagination. Trust me on this, Monster Hunter is not open world and it's not an RPG either. It's an action game.

Don't believe me? Go the wiki page...

#76 Posted by PapaTrop (1338 posts) -

For a full-fledged online title such as Destiny I don't think Nintendo has an online infrastructure robust enough to support it.

That, and given the sales of many other multiplat games, I don't think the Wii U is worthwhile as far as 3rd party support goes. Not for something like Destiny at least.

#77 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25600 posts) -

@YearoftheSnake5 said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

Yeah. It's pretty clear that Wii U owners just don't care about this game.

So it would seem. In comparison, the Dark Souls 2 petition has managed a little over 17,000 signatures.

It's a common misconception that WiiU owners don't care about 3rd Party titles, because most do.

However many are just accepting that 3rd Parties won't come to the system and treat WiiU or any Nintendo product as a red head step child secondary console and just get Destiny, Dark Souls 2, or any 3rd Party game on the actual system of choice.

Solid Ty does this, I (have to) do this, I'm sure Charizard does it, if Nintendoboy could he would. You could probably go on any Nintendo based forum and find out there are some if not many who do this. You also will find the hardcore Ninty fanboys who will lie and say that the Nintendo console is their main console (yes it's sad), but even if they call 3rd Party games crap if one JUST one comes up for WiiU say like Watchdogs, they'll hype it up. So don't take their word for it, WiiU owners DO want these games, but why should they get excited for a WiiU version? There's none announced and clearly the Developers don't see it as a Priority or even an Option. Heck even at launch EA and Activision wrote off WiiU by supporting their Lead Titles (Call of Duty and Mass Effect) THQ DID MORE and they were dying!

Would Dark Souls 2 have done well on WiiU? I think so. Miiverse was clearly made for that game. Destiny? same reason and Call of Duty Black Ops 2 tells me it's more welcome on that system than a 360 or PS3. BUT 3rd Party developers aren't convinced WiiU owners will bite and well WiiU owners probably wouldn't buy a Nintendo version because they would think it wouldn't be supported enough and probably gimped in someway. That's just how it's been.

#78 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25600 posts) -

@papatrop said:

For a full-fledged online title such as Destiny I don't think Nintendo has an online infrastructure robust enough to support it.

That, and given the sales of many other multiplat games, I don't think the Wii U is worthwhile as far as 3rd party support goes. Not for something like Destiny at least.

WiiU has Dragon Quest X. which is a MMO. WiiU also has multiple Online Multiplayer games on the system which play just as good as their 360 and PS3 counter parts. I think WiiU has the Online Infrastructure to handle Destiny. But 3rd Parties don't see it as Profitable nor see WiiU as a viable Console so they'll ignore it till the end of time.

#79 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

Don't believe me? Go the wiki page...

Wiki. Okay, so I should just ignore you.

#80 Edited by Guy_Brohski (299 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

@Guy_Brohski said:

@super600 said:

@sam890 said:

I think the Wii U would probably blow up.

I hope you are kidding because the WiiU is stronger then both last gen consoles. It will run the game fine.

You can't really say that "the Wii U is stronger than both last gen consoles". True, it has more RAM than them, but it has a much slower CPU than ps360, and it lacks an HDD. This makes it much harder for large, complex game worlds to be rendered on the Wii U. You can probably bet that was the reason for the Wii U version of P-CARS and Watch Dogs delays.

It's a much more efficient modern design. The system memory is much better, the GPU has a more modern feature set and is more efficient and it has it's own audio hardware so games don't need to use the CPU for it. The CPU from what I've read has a much lower theoretical limit but is able to achieve real world performance in the same range as the PS3/360. The CPU has different strengths and weaknesses that make coding for it different from those systems so while it is inferior in some aspects, it's not much weaker. Also, having more than double the ram the PS3/360 have should make HDD streaming far less necessary when running the same game. Something like GTA5 on the WiiU would run better just do to not having to be so memory starved.

If they can't get Watchdogs running properly for the Wii U and haven't even shown any gameplay for that yet despite originally having a 2013 release date and all other versions having been released months ago, I doubt that GTA V could run properly on Wii U either. Being a physics heavy, CPU intensive game probably makes it near impossible for open world games to run nicely on WiiU. When and if Watchdogs or GTA V ever make it to the Wii U matching ps360 visuals, then I will eat my words. Until then, the Wii U is unproven as a console capable of rendering GTA V or WatchDogs (or even MMO games like Destiny) level sandbox games at a playable frame rate with acceptable visuals. Again, this is likely due to CPU and lack of HDD. I hope one day I'm proven wrong..

#81 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@Guy_Brohski said:

@ActicEdge said:

@Guy_Brohski said:

@super600 said:

@sam890 said:

I think the Wii U would probably blow up.

I hope you are kidding because the WiiU is stronger then both last gen consoles. It will run the game fine.

You can't really say that "the Wii U is stronger than both last gen consoles". True, it has more RAM than them, but it has a much slower CPU than ps360, and it lacks an HDD. This makes it much harder for large, complex game worlds to be rendered on the Wii U. You can probably bet that was the reason for the Wii U version of P-CARS and Watch Dogs delays.

It's a much more efficient modern design. The system memory is much better, the GPU has a more modern feature set and is more efficient and it has it's own audio hardware so games don't need to use the CPU for it. The CPU from what I've read has a much lower theoretical limit but is able to achieve real world performance in the same range as the PS3/360. The CPU has different strengths and weaknesses that make coding for it different from those systems so while it is inferior in some aspects, it's not much weaker. Also, having more than double the ram the PS3/360 have should make HDD streaming far less necessary when running the same game. Something like GTA5 on the WiiU would run better just do to not having to be so memory starved.

If they can't get Watchdogs running properly for the Wii U and haven't even shown any gameplay for that yet despite originally having a 2013 release date and all other versions having been released months ago, I doubt that GTA V could run properly on Wii U either. Being a physics heavy, CPU intensive game probably makes it near impossible for open world games to run nicely on WiiU. When and if Watchdogs or GTA V ever make it to the Wii U matching ps360 visuals, then I will eat my words. Until then, the Wii U is unproven as a console capable of rendering GTA V or WatchDogs (or even MMO games like Destiny) level sandbox games at a playable frame rate with acceptable visuals. Again, this is likely due to CPU and lack of HDD. I hope one day I'm proven wrong..

Watch Dogs is a money thing, it's not a capability thing. If the WiiU was selling as well as the PS4 it sure as hell would have released on time. That's all it is. If you wanna just ignore the facts I presented to you about RAM, GPU, Audio unit (not even mentioning things like GPGPU functions) that's fine but if your position is that Watch Dogs and GTA5 are tech things it's pretty laughable. And jeez, Xenoblade X is open world, Assassin's Creed 3 and 4 are open world games. Watch Dogs is out in November, so what's your point on that one either. You're not right, claiming you need proof, proof and ignoring all the hardware information out there is pretty fucking stupid. But haters gonna hate so continue.

#82 Posted by jg4xchamp (48376 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

@YearoftheSnake5 said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

Yeah. It's pretty clear that Wii U owners just don't care about this game.

So it would seem. In comparison, the Dark Souls 2 petition has managed a little over 17,000 signatures.

The lack of a WiiU version still strikes me as odd. The old gen is dying out far faster than normal. The PS3 and 360 investment in Destiny is honestly not going to be worth it in the long run. But if they are going to go that route, I dunno why they wouldn't try WiiU as well. For as huge an investment as Destiny is, it strikes me as beyond odd to avoid the WiiU when it can easily run the game. The WiiU is going to outlast the PS3 and 360 by nature of being a newer product.

Economics: why waste time, effort, energy and investment on a platform that isn't going to be worth the effort.

#83 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

@ActicEdge said:

@YearoftheSnake5 said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

Yeah. It's pretty clear that Wii U owners just don't care about this game.

So it would seem. In comparison, the Dark Souls 2 petition has managed a little over 17,000 signatures.

The lack of a WiiU version still strikes me as odd. The old gen is dying out far faster than normal. The PS3 and 360 investment in Destiny is honestly not going to be worth it in the long run. But if they are going to go that route, I dunno why they wouldn't try WiiU as well. For as huge an investment as Destiny is, it strikes me as beyond odd to avoid the WiiU when it can easily run the game. The WiiU is going to outlast the PS3 and 360 by nature of being a newer product.

Economics: why waste time, effort, energy and investment on a platform that isn't going to be worth the effort.

I think that in this particular case it could turn out to be worth the effort. I stated why in this thread a bit later but I think there is a good opportunity with a Destiny WiiU version. You can read my opinion on it if you're interested. I wouldn't state this if I didn't think they could actually make money off of it.

#84 Edited by jg4xchamp (48376 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

@jg4xchamp said:

Economics: why waste time, effort, energy and investment on a platform that isn't going to be worth the effort.

I think that in this particular case it could turn out to be worth the effort. I stated why in this thread a bit later but I think there is a good opportunity with a Destiny WiiU version. You can read my opinion on it if you're interested. I wouldn't state this if I didn't think they could actually make money off of it.

It all sounds neat on paper, but the end result is the end result.

The port job isn't going to be quick n easy, as the architecture is just different enough to be a hassle. I mean come on, some devs have struggled with straight 360 ports. Admittedly most of those are tied to "THQ was going bankrupt" defense. Then you have a system where things aren't performing at the level that you want these games to perform at. From a software standpoint does the WiiU actually hold weight against the 360 n PS3? I know it's not competing that well with a PS4, and I'd assume (you can correct me on this) the Xbox One is doing better as a whole on the software sales front. Plus we don't know how successful Sony and Microsoft are in the DD space vs Nintendo.

Then you have the part where the game is an online game going to systems where the first party will bend over backwards to give Bungie exactly what they need for the game. Nintendo isn't exactly a guarantee in that department. Third party don't want to put in extra effort, as much as they want to do the same trailer, and assume that the game will get its. First party shells out just as much for third party ads, it's not just on Bungie/Activision to make that move. Nintendo themselves have not made great efforts to get more meaningful third party projects.

They've done fine getting niche Japanese companies like Platinum (legit), the dynasty warriors guys (so fucking trash), and Atlus (hopefully SMTxFire EMblem is dope), but their efforts with the west, who let's be fair here dominate the console market: I mean....Ubisoft. They've been able to get a decent relationship with Ubisoft.

#85 Edited by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

It all sounds neat on paper, but the end result is the end result.

The port job isn't going to be quick n easy, as the architecture is just different enough to be a hassle. I mean come on, some devs have struggled with straight 360 ports. Admittedly most of those are tied to "THQ was going bankrupt" defense. Then you have a system where things aren't performing at the level that you want these games to perform at. From a software standpoint does the WiiU actually hold weight against the 360 n PS3? I know it's not competing that well with a PS4, and I'd assume (you can correct me on this) the Xbox One is doing better as a whole on the software sales front. Plus we don't know how successful Sony and Microsoft are in the DD space vs Nintendo.

Then you have the part where the game is an online game going to systems where the first party will bend over backwards to give Bungie exactly what they need for the game. Nintendo isn't exactly a guarantee in that department. Third party don't want to put in extra effort, as much as they want to do the same trailer, and assume that the game will get its. First party shells out just as much for third party ads, it's not just on Bungie/Activision to make that move. Nintendo themselves have not made great efforts to get more meaningful third party projects.

They've done fine getting niche Japanese companies like Platinum (legit), the dynasty warriors guys (so fucking trash), and Atlus (hopefully SMTxFire EMblem is dope), but their efforts with the west, who let's be fair here dominate the console market: I mean....Ubisoft. They've been able to get a decent relationship with Ubisoft.

I'm not really trying to make the argument they're dumb for not doing it, I've only framed it as to why I think there is fair reason for them to do it imo. Obviously they disagree and I'm not running the show so that's that. But to port the game is something I just frankly don't see being a big deal. Ultimately, I don't even care if it "is" difficult "if" they can get it done with a fair budget. The Titanfall 360 port was hard as balls too but they got it done and it was financially rewarding in the end (I'm just using this as an example, we don't need to dissect it into every nuance).

Retail software wise the WiiU is shitting the bed, I don't think it's a very hidden thing.

"for your info though, 360 retail outperforms PS4 in the US and select parts of Europe if you ever find yourself needing that tidbit haha. X1 retail is atrocious if it isn't in US or UK and it roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of Europe it performs better retail wise than WiiU purely on releases but on sales per title its behind. I mean that by saying for example, the X1 will occupy more chart position just on the basis of it getting more releases but major software on WiiU will do better than major software on X1. Japan isn't worth discussion as its a wasteland for consoles"

Like I stated though, I think a new, highly marketed big budget game in a new franchise at the start of a generation is in a much better position to see success on Nintendo systems than games where the fanbase is already well set in stone.

Online wise, I didn't really factor it in because I really have zero idea what they would need from any 1st party to launch their game. Unless Destiny plans to use some uncommon online functionality I dunno what the big deal is though. Online works fine in any game I've played on the WiiU (granted not many). But for me, even if Nintendo doesn't reach out, it's still not a huge deal if the game can achieve success which is possible (possible like you can achieve success without Nintendo, not Destiny specifically). Preferably Nintendo would suck less and do things like the Tiger Woods motion plus deal (EA one) with publishers because that stuff really helps build relations but Nintendo gonna Nintendo.

I'm proposing Destiny because I think it can be profitable given everything we know about the market, not because I give 2 shits about playing it on the WiiU myself. (though if it's fun I wouldn't be opposed to buying it twice) It's obviously a "on paper" proposal but I don't see why the logic should be written because "well they must know better". I think it's pretty safe to say, lots of companies really "don't" know better and while I'm not saying I have the answer, you can still propose things with the knowledge you do have.

#86 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72425 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

Don't believe me? Go the wiki page...

Wiki. Okay, so I should just ignore you.

I'm just telling you what is says there...

#87 Posted by watchdogsrules (454 posts) -

this game is definitely coming out for wii u

#88 Edited by Guy_Brohski (299 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

@Guy_Brohski said:

@ActicEdge said:

@Guy_Brohski said:

@super600 said:

@sam890 said:

I think the Wii U would probably blow up.

I hope you are kidding because the WiiU is stronger then both last gen consoles. It will run the game fine.

You can't really say that "the Wii U is stronger than both last gen consoles". True, it has more RAM than them, but it has a much slower CPU than ps360, and it lacks an HDD. This makes it much harder for large, complex game worlds to be rendered on the Wii U. You can probably bet that was the reason for the Wii U version of P-CARS and Watch Dogs delays.

It's a much more efficient modern design. The system memory is much better, the GPU has a more modern feature set and is more efficient and it has it's own audio hardware so games don't need to use the CPU for it. The CPU from what I've read has a much lower theoretical limit but is able to achieve real world performance in the same range as the PS3/360. The CPU has different strengths and weaknesses that make coding for it different from those systems so while it is inferior in some aspects, it's not much weaker. Also, having more than double the ram the PS3/360 have should make HDD streaming far less necessary when running the same game. Something like GTA5 on the WiiU would run better just do to not having to be so memory starved.

If they can't get Watchdogs running properly for the Wii U and haven't even shown any gameplay for that yet despite originally having a 2013 release date and all other versions having been released months ago, I doubt that GTA V could run properly on Wii U either. Being a physics heavy, CPU intensive game probably makes it near impossible for open world games to run nicely on WiiU. When and if Watchdogs or GTA V ever make it to the Wii U matching ps360 visuals, then I will eat my words. Until then, the Wii U is unproven as a console capable of rendering GTA V or WatchDogs (or even MMO games like Destiny) level sandbox games at a playable frame rate with acceptable visuals. Again, this is likely due to CPU and lack of HDD. I hope one day I'm proven wrong..

Watch Dogs is a money thing, it's not a capability thing. If the WiiU was selling as well as the PS4 it sure as hell would have released on time. That's all it is. If you wanna just ignore the facts I presented to you about RAM, GPU, Audio unit (not even mentioning things like GPGPU functions) that's fine but if your position is that Watch Dogs and GTA5 are tech things it's pretty laughable. And jeez, Xenoblade X is open world, Assassin's Creed 3 and 4 are open world games. Watch Dogs is out in November, so what's your point on that one either. You're not right, claiming you need proof, proof and ignoring all the hardware information out there is pretty fucking stupid. But haters gonna hate so continue.

Hmmm, last I checked the Wii U has a larger installed base than Xbox One, yet the Xbox One version released on schedule. There's a problem with your argument because every day that goes by without a Wii U version of Watch Dogs on store shelves, another day goes by with zero Wii U versions sold. Wouldn't they actually get sales if the game was available? Also, most people who wanted Watch Dogs badly enough already bought it on one of the platforms it has been released on, not many will wait over six months just to buy the Wii U version when (and if) it finally comes out..

#89 Posted by Shielder7 (5152 posts) -

@super600 said:

@sam890 said:

I think the Wii U would probably blow up.

I hope you are kidding because the WiiU is stronger then both last gen consoles. It will run the game fine.

I think he's referring to the sheer shock the system would have of actually having a game put in it, would cause it to blow up.

#90 Posted by bbkkristian (14956 posts) -

@GoldenElementXL: ummmm the Wii u doesn't use friend codes...........

If it was on its way to Wii U, it would be the platform I'd get it on because of the other consoles damned online subscriptions.

#91 Edited by Shielder7 (5152 posts) -

@bbkkristian said:

@GoldenElementXL: ummmm the Wii u doesn't use friend codes...........

If it was on its way to Wii U, it would be the platform I'd get it on because of the other consoles damned online subscriptions.

PS3 doesn't have subscriptions that require online.

#92 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@Guy_Brohski said:

Hmmm, last I checked the Wii U has a larger installed base than Xbox One, yet the Xbox One version released on schedule. There's a problem with your argument because every day that goes by without a Wii U version of Watch Dogs on store shelves, another day goes by with zero Wii U versions sold. Wouldn't they actually get sales if the game was available? Also, most people who wanted Watch Dogs badly enough already bought it on one of the platforms it has been released on, not many will wait over six months just to buy the Wii U version when (and if) it finally comes out..

Just because your install base is larger, it doesn't mean you sell more games. The WiiU launched a year earlier than the X1 and is only currently ahead of it by about a million units. The X1 is the far more healthy platform in terms of releases and software sales. On top of that, roughly 1.8 million of the WiiU's units have been sold in Japan where western games are not a factor. My argument isn't flawed at all, you just don't get how sales work. They diverted resources from the WiiU version of the game to get the other versions out on time. They did this because the WiiU version in their opinion was going to sell the least and it would be better to have those other versions out in May. Watch Dogs is releasing in November on the WiiU. In my opinion they should have tried to get it out the same time as the other versions since it's destined to sell like shit now but that's not my call. Your original argument wasn't about sales though, it was about the WiiU not being able to run an open world game like Watch Dogs or GTA5. Well, when the game is out in November you'll be wrong. You're already wrong but in November you'll have your complete answer.

#93 Posted by bbkkristian (14956 posts) -

@Shielder7: my ps3's Internet does not wot with my university's wifi.

#94 Posted by xboxiphoneps3 (2379 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

I'm quite surprised Activision isn't forcing Bungie to put it on everything from 3DS/PSV to mobile.

With a $500 million+ investment, you'd think Bungie wouldn't have any say in what platform it's on (even if they don't make it). They've really got Activision in their pocket if they can stave off the Corporate Commander.

pretty sure Bungie said that $ figure is no where near $500 million and that they didnt invest no where near $500 million in Destiny

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/destiny-budget-nowhere-near-500-million-bungie-says/1100-6420802/

#95 Posted by Guy_Brohski (299 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

@Guy_Brohski said:

Hmmm, last I checked the Wii U has a larger installed base than Xbox One, yet the Xbox One version released on schedule. There's a problem with your argument because every day that goes by without a Wii U version of Watch Dogs on store shelves, another day goes by with zero Wii U versions sold. Wouldn't they actually get sales if the game was available? Also, most people who wanted Watch Dogs badly enough already bought it on one of the platforms it has been released on, not many will wait over six months just to buy the Wii U version when (and if) it finally comes out..

Just because your install base is larger, it doesn't mean you sell more games. The WiiU launched a year earlier than the X1 and is only currently ahead of it by about a million units. The X1 is the far more healthy platform in terms of releases and software sales. On top of that, roughly 1.8 million of the WiiU's units have been sold in Japan where western games are not a factor. My argument isn't flawed at all, you just don't get how sales work. They diverted resources from the WiiU version of the game to get the other versions out on time. They did this because the WiiU version in their opinion was going to sell the least and it would be better to have those other versions out in May. Watch Dogs is releasing in November on the WiiU. In my opinion they should have tried to get it out the same time as the other versions since it's destined to sell like shit now but that's not my call. Your original argument wasn't about sales though, it was about the WiiU not being able to run an open world game like Watch Dogs or GTA5. Well, when the game is out in November you'll be wrong. You're already wrong but in November you'll have your complete answer.

I think you mean "if the game comes out in November".

#96 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

@Guy_Brohski said:

I think you mean "if the game comes out in November".

Ubisoft says November. They are listing it in all their reports and saying they are launching in November. There is no reason to assume it won't release in November until they state otherwise. That's how release dates work.

#97 Posted by AmazonAngry (945 posts) -

Would be a waste of money and waste of a port. Sheep wouldnt buy it, unless they could customize their guardian to look like Mario, Samus, etc and shoot mushrooms and rainbows from their firearms.

#98 Posted by Bishop1310 (1109 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Probably not. It's not even coming to the PC any time soon either. They are pretty committed to the 4 platforms its launching on.

yeah i'd expect a pc port far before a wii u one. Just not a big enough install base on the wii u yet.

#99 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14454 posts) -

I don't see why not, seems everyone but pc will be getting the title. This is a simple and easy way for Bungie to maintain their game designed around 30fps.

#100 Edited by Guy_Brohski (299 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:

@Guy_Brohski said:

I think you mean "if the game comes out in November".

Ubisoft says November. They are listing it in all their reports and saying they are launching in November. There is no reason to assume it won't release in November until they state otherwise. That's how release dates work.

I remember when Project CARS had a solid release date for the Wii U, and Aliens: CM (yeah the game sucked, but still). But when a publisher/developer just throw a month out there without a solid launch day attached, you should be slightly worried. Also, the fact that there has been not one screenshot or game play demo for the Wii U version (Watch Dogs) might throw up a red flag also. But who knows, maybe it will come out in November, we'll just have to wait and see.