# [RUMOR] Activision is butthurt about Blops 2 on WiiU



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

They talk about ports being on WiiU, how WiiU owners want them but won't buy them. Which is funny because I don't think people want ports because they're usually crap. I think WiiU owners (such as myself) want a dedicated version that runs properly.



> “Activision didn’t expect much from Wii U sales of Black Ops 2, but they sure didn’t expect it to be that abysmal. Activision gave Wii U owners the best version of Blops 2 with Off TV features, and Nintendo fans didn’t support it. It’s easy for Nintendo fans to trash publishers for not giving them ports, but publishers have wisened up. They realize Nintendo fans are all talk. Nintendo fans are vocal with their mouths, but when it’s time to open their wallets, they’ll spend that $60 on New Super Mario Bros instead.”


 
It's a Nintendo launch console, so obviously people aren't going to get something like Blops 2 right away. I'd say the more there is, the bigger the fanbase will grow.



> “There’s just no enthusiasm for it. The only reason publishers are still going to bring games to Wii U is because they don’t want to damage their relationship with Nintendo.”


 
Oh that's right, forgot, Activision speaks for every publisher.

Source

It's funny, Mass Effect 3 was shipped to WiiU, while the other consoles got the trilogy release. Black Ops 2 was shipped to the WiiU but has no plans for DLC coming to it (Even though apparently they said Nuketown 2025 was going to ship with it). People just don't want poor ports. Put some effort into it, and people will buy. Don't make them feel like they're being left behind.

(dammit, forgot to put Rumor in title. Mods, help me out?)


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 2, 2013)

Why would we buy a game with the exact same shitty graphics as the PS3 and 360 versions? Also, it's Call of Duty, Nintendo fans tend not to buy that kind of crap because it's a mediocre franchise that has had it's time in the sun and has been rehashed to death.

Edit: And yes, when you do a half assed port, no one is going to buy it. It's amusing that not only once, but twice, a Call of Duty game flopped in sales, and one flopped in reviews pretty hard and that was Declassified. What does Activision expect when they hand off certain versions to smaller teams and give them the exact same time frame as the other platforms to get the games done? Activision doesn't want to provide the content and the quality, yet they have the stones to bitch when people refuse to buy their products because they are garbage.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Why would we buy a game with the exact same shitty graphics as the PS3 and 360 versions? Also, it's Call of Duty, Nintendo fans tend not to buy that kind of crap because it's a mediocre franchise that has had it's time in the sun and has been rehashed to death.


 
Well in all honesty, it was launched with a console with a bunch of other games available too. So obviously people aren't going to flock to it. Next year? Maybe.


----------



## XDel (Mar 2, 2013)

I feel the same, and honestly the main reason I end up buying (and clinging to) my Nintendo's if for those first party releases...

Metroid, Mario, Wario, Yoshi, Zelda, etc.

The thing is though that most companies are not used to thinking like Nintendo. Nintendo builds a console for it's hardware innovations generally, and they build it with a certain game play mechanic in mind, where as most developers are accustomed to churning out your run of the mill titles that play with a PSX-esque dual analog control pad, and are intended to be ported to multi-platforms using that general and well established control interface. For this reason they just keep doing what they always do and that is produce more games of this like and port them to Nintendo, treating the Nintendo like it is just any other console when in fact it is not, or at least that is not the direction Nintendo would like to take it.

I guess for 3rd party companies, they don't want to take a risk of spending too much time and money on a Nintendo only title and one that will attempt to try new things with the play mechanics. The video game world as of late has been more about playing it safe than it is about being innovative. Though I hope that gamers will eventually tire of the current gaming trends and will start to hunger for variety again, which is part of what made gaming so interesting in the late 80's and early 90's, experimentation.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 2, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Well in all honesty, it was launched with a console with a bunch of other games available too. So obviously people aren't going to flock to it. Next year? Maybe.


 
Maybe, but you have to remember that they will always be hard pressed to compete with Nintendo's IP's for sales if they release the game at any point when a big title has either just been released or is about to be released. Nintendo fans can be a bit fickle, but if anything we are devoted to the franchises that Nintendo makes and 3rd parties really haven't been good to Nintendo home consoles for many years now in terms of creating quality games and trying to match the type of appeal that Nintendo franchises have.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 2, 2013)

Shooter #5834 experienced bad sales on a launch system during a non holiday season?

I am surprised by this! What's next Activision are you going to tell us the crappy port on the Vita also had horrible sales too? (In defense of the Vita's version it was pretty crap so yeah the sales should have sucked.) 

In other news water is wet and when I put table salt in my eye it hurts.


----------



## chavosaur (Mar 2, 2013)

Blops2 on Wii-u is shit though...
It's a teribad port and they should feel bad.
Me and Devin tried for like a half hour just to make one measly private match and we couldn't even do that.
Online is crap, which is the only thing COD has going for it anyway.
Not too say I don't like COD (hell I put over 1000 hours into BLOPS), but seriously, this version of the game is just bad. Or rather, it's just the system it's for that makes it bad. There's not enough player support like there is on 360/ps3.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

chavosaur said:


> Blops2 on Wii-u is shit though...
> It's a teribad port and they should feel bad.
> Me and Devin tried for like a half hour just to make one measly private match and we couldn't even do that.
> Online is crap, which is the only thing COD has going for it anyway.
> Not too say I don't like COD (hell I put over 1000 hours into BLOPS), but seriously, this version of the game is just bad. Or rather, it's just the system it's for that makes it bad. There's not enough player support like there is on 360/ps3.


 
Weird, you must have been trying to set up a private match when the servers were going down. Me and him sat one up no problem.


----------



## Devin (Mar 2, 2013)

The thing is. People who love CoD have already got their fill on the PS3/PC/360. Give the Wii U a CoD that is released at the same time as the other version. And actually make it good. Fix the darn servers, fulfill your promises on at least Nuketown, and put a little more emphasis on the gamepad. Not too much, but make something optional like controlling pointstreaks with it or whatever.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 2, 2013)

DAE Activision bad?


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 2, 2013)

A bit off-topic , but Ea and Nintendo disagreement with Origin may be true.



Now about this thread, without bashing them on a rumor, maybe it's just time for a genre to come up and get popular.


----------



## chavosaur (Mar 2, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Weird, you must have been trying to set up a private match when the servers were going down. Me and him sat one up no problem.


May have been, not entirely sure what the problem was, we hadn't tried since.


----------



## Devin (Mar 2, 2013)

I'll kick both your arses later tonight when I get the time. Be warn SS is a mine whore. But I've learned in the ways of the C4 whoring.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

Devin said:


> I'll kick both your arses later tonight when I get the time. Be warn SS is a mine whore. But I've learned in the ways of the C4 whoring.


I use them when someone is camping  Also, you'd do well to get yourself a pro controller Devin, then you might not suck


----------



## chavosaur (Mar 2, 2013)

Devin said:


> I'll kick both your arses later tonight when I get the time. Be warn SS is a mine whore. But I've learned in the ways of the C4 whoring.


Comment on my facebook when your on, I'll take you both on ^O^ been awhile since I used my FAL   

Btw to return to the topic for a second, I think wii targeting controls should have been taken out of the game. 
Every so often there will be someone using me online, and they are such BS ways of killing people.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 2, 2013)

You going to cry Activision? Wahhhh, you gonna cry?!?

So much butthurt in their words and I should know a thing or two about that.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 2, 2013)

chavosaur said:


> Every so often there will be someone *using me online*, and they are such BS ways of killing people.


People use you online, eh? 

Anyways, so a shitty port is failing on a recently launched, slow-selling console, when has that ever not been the case?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

Devin said:


> I'll kick both your arses later tonight when I get the time. Be warn SS is a mine whore. But I've learned in the ways of the C4 whoring.


 
I actually don't know. Getting disconnected a lot from games. AND THIS IS THE BEST VERSION!?!?


----------



## chavosaur (Mar 2, 2013)

Damn apples spell check....


----------



## donaldgx (Mar 2, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> A bit off-topic , but Ea and Nintendo disagreement with Origin may be true.


 
fk EA anyway, last ea game I legitimately played on a nintendo console was FIFA 99 for n64


----------



## JoostinOnline (Mar 2, 2013)

Edit: Nevermind, I was inadvertently derailing the thread.


----------



## Devin (Mar 2, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I use them when someone is camping  Also, you'd do well to get yourself a pro controller Devin, then you might not suck


 
REALLY? BECAUSE MY GAMEPLAY FOOTAGE SHOWS YOU THROWING ONE AT THE START OF THE MATCH. 

You know it's true because I took the time to press the caps lock.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

Don't turn this into a "Nintendo releases same stuff" thread.



Devin said:


> REALLY? BECAUSE MY GAMEPLAY FOOTAGE SHOWS YOU THROWING ONE AT THE START OF THE MATCH.
> 
> You know it's true because I took the time to press the caps lock.


 
Bouncing Betty? Uh yeah, I throw them into the grass and into paths people are going to run to. Why else would I throw them? It's where I like to throw them.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Mar 2, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Don't turn this into a "Nintendo releases same stuff" thread.


Remove my quote from your post.  I got side tracked by my own frustration.


----------



## gokujr1000 (Mar 2, 2013)

@Activision
1. People don't want ports unless you can make it work as well as it does on it's native console, which you didn't manage to do Activision.
2. Don't expect everyone who buys a Nintendo console to buy the Call of Duty game when they could have any other game instead.
3. Call of Duty sucks anyway.


----------



## InuYasha (Mar 2, 2013)

There should be a law where you're not allowed to make ports for a new system for at least a year maybe 2 years...


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 2, 2013)

Maybe Black Ops 2 is just a shitty game; it's by activision after all 

Also fuck COD


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

So guys, can we like refrain ourselves from the stupid "cod suckz anywaysz" bullshit?


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 2, 2013)

FINE


[serious discussion]welp you can expect A LOT of shitty ports right from the start the same thing happened with the wii...remember THIS?![/serious discussion]


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> FINE
> 
> 
> [serious discussion]welp you can expect A LOT of shitty points right from the start the same thing happened with the wii...remember THIS?![/serious discussion]


 
I suppose that's another thing right. I mean, with the way third party was handled on the Wii.. and sort of GameCube, publishers/developers kind of have to earn the trust of the fans..


----------



## 431unknown (Mar 2, 2013)

I was finally going to grab this tomorrow while out shopping, but not now just for spite. Seriously don't make another CoD for a Nintendo platform it wouldn't  phase me one bit.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 2, 2013)

Who the hell is Calvin Hall to begin with? His about says he's an 'independent game design and gaming journalist', but he can't even check his facts. Where does he get the claim that the wiiu version is the best one? Metacritic disagrees.

As for the wiiu version selling lower than expected...I think that says more on the expectations than the game. The call of duty games weren't exactly a beacon of quality on the wii, so on the wiiu, the best activision could hope for is a sleeper hit. As already said, people aren't going to buy a whole new console to play a game they could just buy for the console they're already playing it on. And I think the different controller plays into that as well.
The sales of the next installment will be determined pretty much exclusively by mouth-to-mouth advertisement and trying the console and controls.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 2, 2013)

InuYasha said:


> There should be a law where you're not allowed to make ports for a new system for at least a year maybe 2 years...


It depends on the port but overall for home consoles there should be this rule.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 2, 2013)

InuYasha said:


> There should be a law where you're not allowed to make ports for a new system for at least a year maybe 2 years...


 






Because if there's one thing fledgling consoles need less of, it's _games_.

I can get the frustration if your new console of choice only seems to receive ports from other consoles, but ports can be a strong motivator. They're an anchor in the system's library - safe mainstays that make the system more appealing to prospective customers. It's intended to get people to think along the lines of, "Oh, if I hop onboard the Wii U hype train, I can get Mario/Zelda/etc. while still keeping up with Assassin's Creed/CoD/etc."

The trick isn't having no ports - it's in balancing them with a fair amount of exclusives.

To outright ban ports would be to outright cripple the console in its infancy.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Because if there's one thing fledgling consoles need less of, it's _games_.
> 
> I can get the frustration if your new console of choice only seems to receive ports from other consoles, but ports can be a strong motivator. They're an anchor in the system's library - safe mainstays that make the system more appealing to prospective customers. It's intended to get people to think along the lines of, "Oh, if I hop onboard the Wii U hype train, I can get Mario/Zelda/etc. while still keeping up with Assassin's Creed/CoD/etc."
> 
> ...


 
Well I'll be honest, I don't know if I can call Blops 2, or AC3 or whatever ports, mainly because they were obviously worked on at the same time, but couldn't be released until WiiU launch. Mass Effect 3 and Batman though are. But then again, ports are a pretty good thing and if done right, end up fantastic. I mean, look at the Wii and the great ports it had, 2 come to mind. Resident Evil 4 and Okami, easily the definitive versions of the game.


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 2, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> look at the Wii and the great ports it had, 2 come to mind. Resident Evil 4 and Okami, easily the definitive versions of the game.


definitive versions huh?
Okami HD - PS3
Re4 HD - PS3/360


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

Joe88 said:


> definitive versions huh?
> Okami HD - PS3
> Re4 HD - PS3/360


 
RE4 HD was shit.

Okami HD while pretty... actually I guess it did have the Move support didn't it?


----------



## NightsOwl (Mar 2, 2013)

Because having the worst version of Blops 2 is a great reason to pick it up on Wii U.

Y'know with all that DLC.... Oh...

All those bug fixes that.... create more bugs...

Uh...


----------



## Hadrian (Mar 2, 2013)

And yet Ubisoft are still supporting the Wii U with Watch Dogs and the next Assassins Creed.

People probably got it for platforms a month before the Wii U launched or simply because they KNOW they can play against others on other platforms. Then there's the fact that there are other games out there, again CoD was old news by that time. When I buy a new console, I tend to get a game that'll show off it's features and so there's games like ZombiU, NSMBU & Nintendoland that offer that. Plus with consoles that have just launched, there isn't much to play AND you've just spent a shit ton on the console so the one games you're gonna buy are ones that you feel will last...CoD isn't bad, it's just one of those "finish once and never go back" kind of titles and without knowing others with a Wii U there is little point to playing it online either.

Really only the core Nintendo fanboys would pick up a launch Wii U so why are they surprised with "abysmal" sales of a quick cheap port of a game that was old news, not exactly universally praised and in a series people are tired with?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

Hadrian said:


> And yet Ubisoft are still supporting the Wii U with Watch Dogs and the next Assassins Creed.
> 
> People probably got it for platforms a month before the Wii U launched or simply because they KNOW they can play against others on other platforms. Then there's the fact that there are other games out there, again CoD was old news by that time. When I buy a new console, I tend to get a game that'll show off it's features and so there's games like ZombiU, NSMBU & Nintendoland that offer that. Plus with consoles that have just launched, there isn't much to play AND you've just spent a shit ton on the console so the one games you're gonna buy are ones that you feel will last...CoD isn't bad, it's just one of those "finish once and never go back" kind of titles and without knowing others with a Wii U there is little point to playing it online either.
> 
> Really only the core Nintendo fanboys would pick up a launch Wii U so why are they surprised with "abysmal" sales of a quick cheap port of a game that was old news, not exactly universally praised and in a series people are tired with?


 
A bit of a side note: The story in Black Ops 2, has been praised pretty highly compared to other CoD stories. I just beat it a few nights ago, it's actually pretty damn good.


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (Mar 2, 2013)

Nintendo players don't want CoD, must mean they don't want ports of actual decent games.

Activision Logic.


----------



## jefffisher (Mar 2, 2013)

I have black ops 2 for wii u and so does my brother, that's 2 sales to the same house.
but with lack of dlc and support I will not be making that mistake again, if I could go back and not buy it I would; I'm sure my brother would have gotten no matter what but for another system for sure.


----------



## mightymuffy (Mar 2, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> So much butthurt in their words and I should know a thing or two about that.


 
Someone always has to drop the soap in the shower ehh....
Eurogamer - seems to be a bit of a dirty word on here, but their Digital Foundry report on Blops 2 states the Wii U port as being the worst one, with framerates regularly dropping lower than the PS3 version (itself apparently not a patch on the 360 version). If you're gonna push the boat out to a new console with your no1 franchise, at least put a bit of effort into it.... Sega rolled out the best version of Sonic Racing transformed onto it as a launch title, so it's not that hard...
Besides, the average CoD player bought his PS360 for pretty much nothing else: he queues up for the midnight launch, sometimes whapping a bit of boot polish on his face for the event, then spends the whole night bog eyed on multiplayer before going round to his saner gamer mates saying how the graphics piss on Battlefield 3 Ultra on a PC.... (yes I've got a few mates that've done just that a few months back - aargh!) They might spend a few minutes on FIFA, but usually it's CoD, CoD, CoD...
Why would this group buy a Wii U?!


----------



## SnAQ (Mar 2, 2013)

So Activision if angry because WiiU decides to spend their money on good games instead of garbage like Blops 2?

Great story!


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

SnAQ said:


> So Activision if angry because WiiU decides to spend their money on good games instead of garbage like Blops 2?
> 
> Great story!


 

Hey dude:


mariofanatic64 said:


> Nintendo players don't want CoD, must mean they don't want ports of actual decent games.
> 
> Activision Logic.


 

Hey guys?



ShadowSoldier said:


> So guys, can we like refrain ourselves from the stupid "cod suckz anywaysz" bullshit?


 
Thanks.


----------



## Rizsparky (Mar 2, 2013)

jefffisher said:


> but with lack of dlc and support


and they wonder why sales are down?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 2, 2013)

Hey guys, a "boo cod sux blops 2 sux" thread!

I wonder how many of you actually played it.


----------



## NightsOwl (Mar 2, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Hey guys, a "boo cod sux blops 2 sux" thread!
> 
> I wonder how many of you actually played it.


To be fair, if they didn't like any of the other CODs I doubt they'd like Blops 2.

Either way. Mindless bashing of something you obviously don't even want to give a chance is just showing how much of a bigot you are.

I don't like COD. But I don't say it sucks.

It's just not for me.

Bad game =/= Game I don't enjoy.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 2, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Hey guys, a "boo cod sux blops 2 sux" thread!
> 
> I wonder how many of you actually played it.


 
Maybe it's because I'm 14 beers in, but... but... well dammit boy, I have never been as proud of you as I am now!



NightsOwl said:


> To be fair, if they didn't like any of the other CODs I doubt they'd like Blops 2.
> 
> Either way. Mindless bashing of something you obviously don't even want to give a chance is just showing how much of a bigot you are.


 
Well that's the thing, Black Ops, and Black Ops 2, are extremely well done compared to the previous CoD's, they have insanely good stories, they're not confusing to follow or anything. Especially Black Ops 2 because it was written by David. S. Goyer, who I'm a huuuuge fan of.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 2, 2013)

NightsOwl said:


> To be fair, if they didn't like any of the other CODs I doubt they'd like Blops 2.
> 
> Either way. Mindless bashing of something you obviously don't even want to give a chance is just showing how much of a bigot you are.
> 
> ...


 
That's perfectly respectable. I'm not huge on the franchise either but I really don't hate it.

Plus people said Blops II is also a bit of a departure from the rest of the franchise. Yes it's the same engine and shooting but in terms of the single player people say it's quite different.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 2, 2013)

mariofanatic64 said:


> Nintendo players don't want CoD, must mean they don't want ports of actual decent games.
> 
> Activision Logic.


This. Seriously I had someone criticize the 3DS because it had too many Japanese games on it.


----------



## NightsOwl (Mar 2, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Maybe it's because I'm 14 beers in, but... but... well dammit boy, I have never been as proud of you as I am now!
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's the thing, Black Ops, and Black Ops 2, are extremely well done compared to the previous CoD's, they have insanely good stories, they're not confusing to follow or anything. Especially Black Ops 2 because it was written by David. S. Goyer, who I'm a huuuuge fan of.


Different strokes for different folks, like I've said. Just because people think it's over popular and _they _don't enjoy it... doesn't mean it sucks. It means it's not for them.

A bad designed game is a game that sucks. Not a game you just don't like. People don't seem to get that in the slightest. Lmfao.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 2, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> It's funny, Mass Effect 3 was shipped to WiiU, while the other consoles got the trilogy release. Black Ops 2 was shipped to the WiiU but has no plans for DLC coming to it (Even though apparently they said Nuketown 2025 was going to ship with it). People just don't want poor ports. Put some effort into it, and people will buy. Don't make them feel like they're being left behind.


 
It's funny though, because Mass Effect 3: Special Edition has all the DLC except the Leviathan DLC, on the disc. Batman Arkham City: Armored Edition, has all of the DLC, on the disc. And those games are both pretty damn good ports I think, I have them both and would put them nearly on par with a decent PC for an overall quality gaming experience. Sure, it was bullshit of EA not to release the trilogy for the Wii U and hopefully the Mass Effect 3 sales are low enough that they would be willing to port the first two games and patch ME3 to support the whole save transfer thing. Still, they are good ports regardless and have considerably better graphics then their console counterparts.

Activision should take the hint that when you don't support and don't optimize their products for a certain platform, people aren't going to buy it. Nintendo fans are like a lot of gamer's out there, they won't buy a product until reviews are out if it's a 3rd party game. The Wii U edition has a lot of problems including no DLC so Activision can stop crying.


----------



## Hadrian (Mar 2, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> A bit of a side note: The story in Black Ops 2, has been praised pretty highly compared to other CoD stories. I just beat it a few nights ago, it's actually pretty damn good.


 
The story wasn't awful, Raul Menendez was a somewhat likeable villain, though his story was quite ridiculous. The game itself was a cut above the last 4 titles. Treyarch should be given more time to develop because they had some neat ideas it felt much less "on rails" than before, kinda like the first two a little but overall it was very rushed especially the Strike Force sections. It was also less of a Michael Bay twatfest of explosions than usual, it was nice that the realised that it needed to be toned down. I don't think people gave this game a shot they just did the usual "derp derp CoD sux" routine because the trailers made it look like it was the same game again. Not something I'm yearning to play again but it was an improvement, if only Activision gave them a extra 6 months or so to really get the things that didn't work to work.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 2, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> It's funny though, because Mass Effect 3: Special Edition has all the DLC except the Leviathan DLC, on the disc. Batman Arkham City: Armored Edition, has all of the DLC, on the disc. And those games are both pretty damn good ports I think, I have them both and would put them nearly on par with a decent PC for an overall quality gaming experience. Sure, it was bullshit of EA not to release the trilogy for the Wii U and hopefully the Mass Effect 3 sales are low enough that they would be willing to port the first two games and patch ME3 to support the whole save transfer thing. Still, they are good ports regardless and have considerably better graphics then their console counterparts.
> 
> Activision should take the hint that when you don't support and don't optimize their products for a certain platform, people aren't going to buy it. Nintendo fans are like a lot of gamer's out there, they won't buy a product until reviews are out if it's a 3rd party game. The Wii U edition has a lot of problems including no DLC so Activision can stop crying.


 
...Or maybe Nintendo should have made a platform that's better to develop for or just not have an obnoxious controller that forces "optimization"?

I just find it a little spoiled to say "THEY SHOULD HAVE OPTIMIZED IT MORE". They're developing for 3 other platforms, the Wii U in no way takes priority. Be thankful you got the game honestly because they easily could have just cut it and they'd probably be better off.

EDIT: For the record I also find the say claim obnoxious of some PC players. Games are developed for multiple platforms, don't expect every developer to go out of their way for one platform and dump all this extra money on making it a bit shinier. I can't remember the last time someone cried about a game not being "Xbox 360 optimized" or "PS3 optimized". And both platforms have gotten shit ports.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 2, 2013)




----------



## supersonic124 (Mar 2, 2013)

One of the Treyarch Wii devs on COD.com said this rumor was fake


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

InuYasha said:


> There should be a law where you're not allowed to make ports for a new system for at least a year maybe 2 years...


The WiiU already has very little games that are worth a damn, and BLOPS2 happens to be one of them.

No ports for 2 years would mean no Batman, no Mass Effect 3, no BLOPS2, no Assassin's Creed 3, no Darksiders 2, no Ninja Gaiden: Razor's Edge, no Need for Speed: Most Wanted etc.

...The _"Wii U has no gaems"_ but that situation would be borderline ridiculous, the console wouldn't sell, like, at all.


the_randomizer said:


> _*Ported BlackOps 2 to Wii U, disappointed in sales*_


_*Gave two sh*ts about a brand new console and released a game for it, gets ridiculed by the console's owners*_

Like, seriously guys - Activision cared enough to release a Wii U version of their latest CoD, which is, whether you like it or not, a popular online FPS. They have a right to be slightly disappointed in the sales if their game sells much better on other platforms despite all the _"edge"_ the WiiU version has when compared to the inferior versions.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 2, 2013)

supersonic124 said:


> One of the Treyarch Wii devs on COD.com said this rumor was fake


 
Source or it didn't happen.


----------



## Windaga (Mar 2, 2013)

I'd be upset if I expected a new Nintendo console to sell half as many Call of Duty titles as on a well established, 8 year old console, too. Dunno what else they expected.


----------



## supersonic124 (Mar 2, 2013)

Don't believe me then. It was on the Callofduty.com forums but the thread got locked and deleted. 

Plus Activison can't be that upset about the sales considering the updates/support the Wii U version has been receiveing. The devs are incredibly active on the forums/miiverse. Easily the best supported Wii U title so far.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 2, 2013)

supersonic124 said:


> Don't believe me then. It was on the Callofduty.com forums but the thread got locked and deleted.
> 
> Plus Activison can't be that upset about the sales considering the updates/support the Wii U version has been receiveing. The devs are incredibly active on the forums/miiverse. Easily the best supported Wii U title so far.


 
Why did those wankers delete the thread?


----------



## Devin (Mar 2, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> A bit of a side note: The story in Black Ops 2, has been praised pretty highly compared to other CoD stories. I just beat it a few nights ago, it's actually pretty damn good.


 
Good. Told you so.


----------



## supersonic124 (Mar 2, 2013)

The OP asked for it to be deleted after A_Trey_U (wii u dev) said it was fake.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 2, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> ...Or maybe Nintendo should have made a platform that's better to develop for or just not have an obnoxious controller that forces "optimization"?
> 
> I just find it a little spoiled to say "THEY SHOULD HAVE OPTIMIZED IT MORE". They're developing for 3 other platforms, the Wii U in no way takes priority.



While I agree that it shouldn't take priority since it came out at a weird timing, we shouldn't just sit back and take anything.

Plus you blame the hardware when it set up more like a pc and said from devs that it doesn't take long to code for the controller? 

Should we bring up the past difficulty of developing for ps3?


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 2, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> ...Or maybe Nintendo should have made a platform that's better to develop for or just not have an obnoxious controller that forces "optimization"?
> 
> I just find it a little spoiled to say "THEY SHOULD HAVE OPTIMIZED IT MORE". They're developing for 3 other platforms, the Wii U in no way takes priority. Be thankful you got the game honestly because they easily could have just cut it and they'd probably be better off.
> 
> EDIT: For the record I also find the say claim obnoxious of some PC players. Games are developed for multiple platforms, don't expect every developer to go out of their way for one platform and dump all this extra money on making it a bit shinier. I can't remember the last time someone cried about a game not being "Xbox 360 optimized" or "PS3 optimized". And both platforms have gotten shit ports.


 
At least Nintendo used a processor that doesn't use a convoluted architecture like the Cell.


----------



## Rizsparky (Mar 2, 2013)

According to VGChartz the WiiU version sold 0.17million worldwide not bad for a new console but outsold 5x times by the PC version..


----------



## p1ngpong (Mar 2, 2013)

In all fairness Activision pretty much hit the nail on the head with the quote "They realize Nintendo fans are all talk. Nintendo fans are vocal with their mouths, but when it’s time to open their wallets, they’ll spend that $60 on New Super Mario Bros instead.”

Nintendo console attachment rates are horrendously low, the Wii's was something like 1:1 which is just ridiculous, while the 3DS and even DS had pretty abysmal attachment rates too. So yeah if you are a publisher why would you even bother throwing money and putting effort into a multiplatform Nintendo system game when you know it will more than likely just not sell at all and is guaranteed to sell better on any other system.


----------



## Fear Zoa (Mar 2, 2013)

I don't see why anyone who's been involved in video games for a while can honestly expect anything to sell gangbusters near launch. I bought a wii U at launch and I'm not disappointed because I know new consoles these days take time to pick up. The 3ds is starting to pick up after all, remember how "Doomed" that was.


----------



## wangtang32000 (Mar 2, 2013)

personally, I'm just bummed I brought this expecting to see DLC for the game; my little bro and I play it online quite a bit, but we were wondering why the WiiU was left out from DLC.. I'm almost thinking of trading this in to have some money ready for monster hunter 3 ultimate.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 2, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> *Nintendo console attachment rates are horrendously low, the Wii's was something like 1:1 which is just ridiculous,* while the 3DS and even DS had pretty abysmal attachment rates too. So yeah if you are a publisher why would you even bother throwing money and putting effort into a multiplatform Nintendo system game when you know it will more than likely just not sell at all and is guaranteed to sell better on any other system.


Myth.







At launch, the Wii had an attach-rate of 2 versus an attach-rate of 3.69 for the Xbox 360 and 1.09 for the PS3. It even featured a couple third-party successes such as Red Steel selling over a million worldwide and Call of Duty 3 selling a respectable amount.

Let's look at the first 20 months of the Wii.






The Wii was able to sell 33 million units of third-party games versus 29 million for the 360 and 20 million for the PS3. Contrary to popular belief, third-party software did sell on the Wii, even more than it did on the HD counterparts.

Fast-forward to December 2007 and you'll see that the Wii still has a respectable attach-rate at 8.11 versus 5.04 and 7.67 on the PS3 and 360. There were also numerous third-party games that sold well like Call of Duty: WAR at over a million, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles at 1.2 million, Resident Evil 4 at 1.9 million and Guitar Hero III at 2 million.

And now (March 2011), the Wii still features a comparable LTD attach-rate to the 360 and PS3 as shown in the image above.






Third-party games can sell on Nintendo systems. It just requires a little common-sense on the part of the publisher. Releasing a one-year old full-priced port of a single entry into a series that's getting a trilogy release on other platforms (Mass Effect 3) is one way to ensure that your game sells like shit. Releasing your game with absolutely no advertising for the Wii U version is another way to ensure your game sells like shit. Releasing a multiplatform game at a higher price for the Wii U version is yet another way to ensure your game doesn't sell.

The only pub that seems to be doing anything right is Ubisoft by cultivating a core userbase with games such as Assassin's Creed 3 and ZombiU ensuring future successes (well that remains to be seen) with later games that they release (Assassin's Creed IV, Watch Dogs).


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

soulx said:


> *Let's look at the first 20 months of the Wii.*


Got any charts about the same thing mid-way through the generation though?

The Wii had a fantastic attachment rate _at first_ because it was very cheap and very approachable for various target audiences, plus it introduced Motion Controls not as a gimmick but as a core mechanic, so it _"fascinated"_ people. This _changed_ when the 360 and the PS3 received price cuts and their libraries increased in numbers. _A lot_ of the Wii's began gathering dust then.

Myth _not_ busted unless you have data about the entirety of the generation, the _"first 20 months"_ prove nothing other than that third party software sold _in the beginning of the Wii's life cycle._



> _"It is true that the third party software sales ratio on Nintendo platforms are comparatively smaller in Japan" (...) "Wii's third party software ratio is especially low. We need to decrease the concern that only Nintendo software can sell well on Nintendo platforms and third party software cannot sell in the same volume. We will not make a trend similar to the one found for Wii in Japan now. We feel a need to have closer ties with our third party developers from the beginning."_
> 
> _~Satoru Iwata_


 
 Source


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 2, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Got any charts about the same thing mid-way through the generation though?
> 
> The Wii had a fantastic attachment rate _at first_ because it was very cheap and very approachable for various target audiences. This changed when the 360 and the PS3 received price cuts and their libraries increased in numbers. _A lot_ of the Wii's began gathering dust then.
> 
> Myth _not_ busted unless you have data about the entirety of the generation.


The lifetime to date attach-rate for the Wii is posted above and is comparable to the 360 and PS3's attach-rate. The claim was that the Wii's attach-rate was horrendously low when the LTD attach-rate proves this not to be the case so yeah, _myth busted_.

The whole point was that the Wii was a good platform for third-party games in its hey-day despite what many thought (and did not just collect dust after initial purchase). What this does prove is that Nintendo platforms aren't incompatible with third-parties. The reason this didn't last throughout its life was because third-parties simply ignored the platform (for a multitude of reasons that I won't get into right now). 

As for that Iwata quote, I'm going off North American sales data here, not Japan so I can't speak for that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

soulx said:


> The lifetime to date attach-rate for the Wii is posted above and is comparable to the 360 and PS3's attach-rate. The claim was that the Wii's attach-rate was horrendously low when the LTD attach-rate proves this not to be the case so yeah, _myth busted_.


Gamesutra? Okay.






Even after 23 months you can see that it's the worst platform for third-party out of the three.

Oh, by the way...

_Sales Thread. Gotta love those._


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 2, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Gamesutra? Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Worldwide data I'm guessing?

And that's still a very respectable attach-rate compared to the other consoles. Not at all _"horrendously low"_.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

soulx said:


> Worldwide date I'm guessing?
> 
> And that's still a very respectable attach-rate compared to the other consoles even considering how few third-party games were coming out at that point (late 2008). Not at all _"horrendously low"_.


It's _the worst out of the three_, it didn't have to be _"horrendoulsy low"_ - it was just low enough to make developers opt for the other two.

Third-party development for the Wii _"made sense"_ when the game was Multiplatform, so an additional platform only brought extra profit without increasing development time a lot, but in that case we had the specs hurdle to deal with.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 2, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> It's _the worst out of the three_, it didn't have to be _"horrendoulsy low"_ - it was just low enough to make developers opt for the other two, not to mention that the Wii was quite underpowered and limiting, so development for it had its hurdles.


A difference that low would in no way deter pubs from releasing games for the system. That's ridiculous.

Not to mention that in the North American market, it featured a consistently higher attach rate than the PS3 while still being very comparable to the 360. Third-parties had quite a few reasons for eventually ditching the Wii (specs, ancient online infrastructure, etc.) but the attach-rate was not one of the them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

soulx said:


> A difference that low would in no way deter pubs from releasing games for the system. That's ridiculous.


I slightly edited my post to say that it's a hurdle _mostly_ for multiplatform games, but even for exclusive games sometimes the specs can be a limiting factor and force the developers to alter their original artistic vision - it's not something that's desirable.



> Not to mention that in the North American market, it featured a consistently higher attach rate than the PS3 while still being very comparable to the 360. Third-parties had quite a few reasons for eventually ditching the Wii (specs, ancient online infrastructure, etc.) but the attach-rate was not one of the them.


Like I said, that's debatable. Why develop exclusives for the platform that brings the least profit out of the three? Why develop multiplatform games for it when it can actually limit what the programmers can do?

Some _"multiplatform"_ games on the Wii are actually _"exclusives"_ due to the technical limitations - think Force Unleashed 2 for example. It couldn't pull off the original so it got a different game entirely, still _"called"_ Force Unleashed 2 but in fact a different game entirely.

But I digress.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 2, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I slightly edited my post to say that it's a hurdle mostly for multiplatform games, but even for non-multiplat games sometimes the specs can be a limiting factor and force the developers to alter their original artistic vision.
> 
> Like I said, that's debatable. Why develop exclusives for the platform that brings the least profit out of the three? Why develop multiplatform games for it when it can actually limit what the programmers can do?
> 
> ...


I acknowledge the fact that the Wii had tons of hurdles preventing third-parties from bringing games over (shit specs, online, whatever). The whole initial argument was simply to disprove that the Wii had a horrid attach-rate, anyways.

In the case of the Wii U, looking at previous Nintendo platforms and using that to say third-party games on it won't sell is incorrect. It's been shown that under the right circumstances, third-party games can sell on Nintendo systems.

The whole issue with the Wii U is that most of the third-party games were year late ports with little to no advertising that are available much cheaper on other platforms. But it's way too early to ascertain the Wii U's long-term third-party outlook right now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

I agree with you on many points, I merely provided some clarification since you made it look like the Wii was exactly as good for third party development as the PS3 and the 360 _(most notably the 360 - it had the least hurdles)._ You know how much I _love_ sales threads, so I'll limit myself to saying:



soulx said:


> (...) it's way too early to ascertain the Wii U's long-term third-party outlook right now.


 
...what I think is key here. The Wii U is a very young platform and people don't yet feel the need to buy Next Generation systems - games are still released on both the 360 and the PS3 - mass audiences do not require a _"replacement"_ for their current systems yet. Once the _"Last Generation Draught"_ begins sometime next year, the real race will begin and the sales will pick up.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 2, 2013)

It's not like anyone buys a Nintendo console for third parties, let's be honest. People buy them for Nintendo games and they sell because of Nintendo games.

In Japan they get a few odd exclusives (like, I dunno Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles) that sell it a bit but in general it sells because of Nintendo games.

Like Call of Duty may have "done well" on the Wii but it's still dwarfed in comparison to every other console.


----------



## Eerpow (Mar 2, 2013)

Devs have only had devkits for 6 months, that coupled with lack of Nintendo's own titles because of the too early release date obviously has resulted in poor sales, which in turn doesn't attract developers to the system. 3rd parties won't be able to make the market grow initially, it's up to Nintendo to do that as proven with the 3DS and 3rd party Japanese developers.

Once the market has grown and the developers feel that they can invest more money on Wii U projects the attach rate will grow to an amount that's more than enough to justify more multiplats. Well that is if Nintendo can pull themselves out of this once again in the first place. The Wii U may not end up having the highest attachrate but it's still a sizable profit especially if you as a publisher want to squeeze the most out of your game.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 2, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> ...Or maybe Nintendo should have made a platform that's better to develop for or just not have an obnoxious controller that forces "optimization"?
> 
> I just find it a little spoiled to say "THEY SHOULD HAVE OPTIMIZED IT MORE". They're developing for 3 other platforms, the Wii U in no way takes priority. Be thankful you got the game honestly because they easily could have just cut it and they'd probably be better off.
> 
> EDIT: For the record I also find the say claim obnoxious of some PC players. Games are developed for multiple platforms, don't expect every developer to go out of their way for one platform and dump all this extra money on making it a bit shinier. I can't remember the last time someone cried about a game not being "Xbox 360 optimized" or "PS3 optimized". And both platforms have gotten shit ports.


 
Sorry, but I completely disagree. Developers using the piss ass excuse that "the CPU isn't powerful enough" are thinking too linear with their coding, and don't want to bother utilizing the hardware that is being given to them. If they don't want to optimize games for the Wii U because it has a more powerful GPU then the PS3 and 360, that is their problem, not Nintendo's. If they don't want to use the controller because it is different from what the generic run of the mill consoles are using, that is their problem, again, not Nintendo's problem. It's very easy to just say "we don't want to develop for this platform because we don't like having to utilize a different control scheme", but it makes you look like a fucking lazy prick when you either release a game that is poorly done, or runs badly on a more powerful platform then other versions of the game. The Wii U dominates the PS3 and 360 for graphics capabilities, developers just want to use the same mantra of making games for it as they do for the PS3 and 360, thus Wii U games haven't run properly. See, even though the PS3 and 360 have higher clocked processors, the Wii U has a graphics chip that can more then make up for the slightly slower clock speeds on the processor. If 3rd party studios don't want to make the adjustments to optimize the GPGPU, that is their own damn fault, but Nintendo has already shown in tech demos and games already out on the market that the Wii U is more powerful then the current competition.

Also, games have been optimized for the 360 and PS3, since most multiplatform games are designed for those systems since they have a larger install base then gaming PC's do. PC games are pretty poorly optimized and require patching in order to fix, or in a lot of cases, user created mods, to play them properly. If you want to see a prime example of a game that was absolutely shit at release for the PC, Dark Souls is a great one. Locked resolutions, horrible controls that required you to use a controller, rather then allowing users to customize the layout to suit their needs. Sure, you can argue that the game works best with a controller, and it does, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the game was locked at resolutions far below HD, and the game looked like complete balls until someone made a fix that unlocked resolutions and it fixed the textures and scaling, but the game still doesn't look at all like other PC games that were properly developed graphics wise.

Oh, and Skyrim was never optimized for the PS3, people still whine about how poorly done it was and in typical Bethesda fashion, they don't fix the crap they release, the PC version is still riddled with bugs too.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 2, 2013)

Eerpow said:


> Devs have only had devkits for 6 months, that coupled with lack of Nintendo's own titles because of the too early release date obviously has resulted in poor sales, which in turn doesn't attract developers to the system. 3rd parties won't be able to make the market grow initially, it's up to Nintendo to do that as proven with the 3DS and 3rd party Japanese developers.


 
I am pretty sure developers have had kits since as early as January of last year, however Nintendo was constantly updating them as they tweaked the console for release and settled on hardware that worked. They should have held off releasing the Wii U until well into 2013, it would have made for a more ideal situation in terms of the content being provided by both them and 3rd party studios. It doesn't make sense to release a system where you are only releasing one or two core games and a whole bunch of ports. Honestly, sometimes I think the Wii U as a console might be a bad idea, because Nintendo is going to get decimated for performance by Sony and Microsoft, even if it alienates their customer base and the prices are insane for their systems, 3rd parties are going to be all over making new, super high resolution games that compete with the PC and allow for them to make games for those 3 platforms at a higher level then what the Wii U is capable of. And to be honest, I'd hate to see Nintendo suffer the whole watered down ports scenario. I suppose if the Wii U will be able to run Unreal Engine 3, then maybe Nintendo is safe for a few years, it seems that the Unreal Engine 2 has a pretty damn long life span and was widely adopted by studios.


----------



## Eerpow (Mar 2, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> I am pretty sure developers have had kits since as early as January of last year, however Nintendo was constantly updating them as they tweaked the console for release and settled on hardware that worked. They should have held off releasing the Wii U until well into 2013, it would have made for a more ideal situation in terms of the content being provided by both them and 3rd party studios. It doesn't make sense to release a system where you are only releasing one or two core games and a whole bunch of ports. Honestly, sometimes I think the Wii U as a console might be a bad idea, because Nintendo is going to get decimated for performance by Sony and Microsoft, even if it alienates their customer base and the prices are insane for their systems, 3rd parties are going to be all over making new, super high resolution games that compete with the PC and allow for them to make games for those 3 platforms at a higher level then what the Wii U is capable of. And to be honest, I'd hate to see Nintendo suffer the whole watered down ports scenario. I suppose if the Wii U will be able to run Unreal Engine 3, then maybe Nintendo is safe for a few years, it seems that the Unreal Engine 2 has a pretty damn long life span and was widely adopted by studios.


Most devkits have been unusable until just a few months ago according to interviews and Nintendo themselves, Japanese developers are the only ones who have gotten priorities with devkit support.
And yes it can already run UE3 and if devs are willing to invest in Wii U development it will be able to run most if not all multiplats with mostly trivial differences, it will run the engines required unlike the Wii, with the visual quality lowered, but it's not like it will be "ugly" or "unbearable" like with many Wii multiplats.
The Wii was completely different system against its competition, however the architecture of the Wii U is the same as the PS4, GPU and CPU on the same chip, GPGPU, same disk speeds etc. it will only require some tweaking to run it like changing the low, medium and high settings in a PC game because of this.

Nintendo said before the PS4 reveal that their competition is close on an architectural level which is why they don't feel that people need to worry about hearing the same developer excuses we heard last gen. Ports are bad now because of that architectural gap between the more modern and the 6 year old hardware. That difference essentially means rewriting the engine and your game code to take advantage of it. Nintendo can't just release a platform that accommodates and replicates those old standard development environments if they want to move forwards in the industry.

And it's understandable that devs don't want to throw themselves in unknown waters when investing in platform optimizations. Nintendo needs to pull their shit together and move more units with their own titles, it's their fault for not securing a sizable and reliable market for the Wii U yet.


----------



## Scuba156 (Mar 3, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Sorry, but I completely disagree. Developers using the piss ass excuse that "the CPU isn't powerful enough" are thinking too linear with their coding, and don't want to bother utilizing the hardware that is being given to them. If they don't want to optimize games for the Wii U because it has a more powerful GPU then the PS3 and 360, that is their problem, not Nintendo's. If they don't want to use the controller because it is different from what the generic run of the mill consoles are using, that is their problem, again, not Nintendo's problem. It's very easy to just say "we don't want to develop for this platform because we don't like having to utilize a different control scheme", but it makes you look like a fucking lazy prick when you either release a game that is poorly done, or runs badly on a more powerful platform then other versions of the game. The Wii U dominates the PS3 and 360 for graphics capabilities, developers just want to use the same mantra of making games for it as they do for the PS3 and 360, thus Wii U games haven't run properly. See, even though the PS3 and 360 have higher clocked processors, the Wii U has a graphics chip that can more then make up for the slightly slower clock speeds on the processor. If 3rd party studios don't want to make the adjustments to optimize the GPGPU, that is their own damn fault, but Nintendo has already shown in tech demos and games already out on the market that the Wii U is more powerful then the current competition.
> 
> Also, games have been optimized for the 360 and PS3, since most multiplatform games are designed for those systems since they have a larger install base then gaming PC's do. PC games are pretty poorly optimized and require patching in order to fix, or in a lot of cases, user created mods, to play them properly. If you want to see a prime example of a game that was absolutely shit at release for the PC, Dark Souls is a great one. Locked resolutions, horrible controls that required you to use a controller, rather then allowing users to customize the layout to suit their needs. Sure, you can argue that the game works best with a controller, and it does, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the game was locked at resolutions far below HD, and the game looked like complete balls until someone made a fix that unlocked resolutions and it fixed the textures and scaling, but the game still doesn't look at all like other PC games that were properly developed graphics wise.
> 
> Oh, and Skyrim was never optimized for the PS3, people still whine about how poorly done it was and in typical Bethesda fashion, they don't fix the crap they release, the PC version is still riddled with bugs too.


I always laugh when people say professional developers are lazy, as if they are sitting in their lounge room coding these things. It's not like they are limited to time frames or budgets or anything.



Eerpow said:


> Most devkits have been unusable until just a few months ago according to interviews and Nintendo themselves, Japanese developers are the only ones who have gotten priorities with devkit support.


Source? I don't quite believe that games such as zombie U, AC3 and Blops were blind coded and shipped without anyway to test their code.


----------



## pwsincd (Mar 3, 2013)

supersonic124 said:


> The OP asked for it to be deleted after A_Trey_U (wii u dev) said it was fake.


 
A_TREY_U isn't at all a wiiu Dev; he is COD.com's wiiu thread mod, and doesn't have anything to offer past the news he is asked to pass on..

Example :

*Wii U DLC Posts/Threads*

*Posted by A_Trey_U on Feb 28, 2013 3:06 PM*
Hello Wii U Community,

I know many of you are curious about whether or not DLC for Black Ops 2 will be coming to the Wii U.  Unfortunately, we do not have any information that we can share at this time. 

In order to keep this forum productive, we will continue to lock threads that are started to inquire about DLC on the Wii U as they are considered spam.  Also, any threads that evolve into a DLC discussion may also be locked.

Thank you for your understanding.

A_Trey_U


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 3, 2013)

A_TREY_U?


----------



## OrGoN3 (Mar 3, 2013)

Sales would be better if there were DLC for WiiU.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Gamesutra? Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I wonder what the numbers would look like if you adjusted them for the install base... If a console sells 100 million units and the attach rate is 5:1 an VS a console that sells say 75 million units and the attach rate is 6:1...  It's ok to have a lower attach rate if your selling more software overall in the big picture. 

This also says a lot about the quality of Nintendo's first party software, Microsoft is the only other publisher that is even close... Halo probably single handedly representing that 1.4 lol 

My point being is that you can look at those numbers from several different view points, on the Sony side of things... Are you trying to say that Sony's IP is so weak that they can't even sell a single copy to every PS3 owner? That's rough...


----------



## Rizsparky (Mar 3, 2013)

OrGoN3 said:


> Sales would be better if there were DLC for WiiU.


Do people don't buy games so that they can buy DLC?


----------



## Eerpow (Mar 3, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> Source? I don't quite believe that games such as zombie U, AC3 and Blops were blind coded and shipped without anyway to test their code.


V5 of the development kit was shipped 6 months ago, the devs didn't have much freedom in the earlier versions and were pretty much developing in an environment without knowing how the final hardware was going to be.
"*This time does not come until a final version of the hardware and development tools for the version have been made available and then a base for software development has been established."

"For Wii U, such a time finally came in the latter half of last year. In this sense, we could not avoid the trial and error stage to create games which take full advantage of the hardware. I think that this is true for third-party software developers as well as Nintendo's." - *Iwata

Basically why current Wii U software haven't reached a next gen level yet. Iwata has also said that they'll most likely will double the graphical standard of today with the Wii U.


----------



## slingblade1170 (Mar 8, 2013)

I think a bit of everyone (not just Wii U players) is getting sick of CoD games. I own all of them (yes even 1 & 2) and they are all the same. If they don't switch it up and take a chance or two then it will end up just like Guitar Hero, fun but all the same. I did notice on Miiverse that the servers are all screwed up but calm down guys there will be another CoD this year, next year, year after that, they will get the servers right eventually.
I also noticed people on forums and reviews complaining about ridiculous things on great games, for example I just recently picked up my Wii U and almost did not buy Zombie U due to complaints but decided to pick it up and I F*CKING LOVE that game! The graphics may be a bit dated and the cricket bat kinda sucks but its a awesome game with a great formula.


----------

