Lords of Shadow Studio's New Game is Coming to PS4 and Xbox One, Not Wii U

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Neronium:

Vault Citizen:
Did the Wii U stab someones mother or something? I don't get why it is getting all the third party hate? Is Nintendo that difficult to work with?

For the Japanese developers and probably some of the older developers they remembered how bad it was when Yamauchi was in charge. Look up how he treated a lot of third parties when he was in charge and you'll see why so many were eager to jump ship to Sony. Some of those old policies are still in place so 3rd parties who have been given freedom, some a little too much freedom, don't wanna go back to be restricted. That and if you look at it historically, 3rd parties lose a bunch of money when on Nintendo's console's. For the GameCube, Square Enix support it for 3 years and lost money all those years, and the same was with Capcom. When it came to the Wii, it was significantly lacking in certain areas that the other competition could easily supply, so while it had the install base, it lacked certain things some devs looked for. For the Wii U I see most of the time it's because of the install base, which is pretty bad when you consider that it was on theatkey for a year and the PS4 has almost completely caught up to its install base size in only a month and a half, and the PS4 isn't available in the Asian market yet either.

Plus, like I said earlier it's Lords of Shadow 2. Does no one remember how horrible the first game was? Complaining about it reminds me of when Wii U owners complained that they were getting Colonial Marines. Count your blessings is what I say.

I'm not that fussed about losing this particular title and I plan to buy a PS4 one day so I'm not too worried about the lack of many titles on the Wii U because I will be able to get them elsewhere, it just seems odd to me that "developer shuns Wii U" has become such a recurrent news item.

Vault Citizen:

I'm not that fussed about losing this particular title and I plan to buy a PS4 one day so I'm not too worried about the lack of many titles on the Wii U because I will be able to get them elsewhere, it just seems odd to me that "developer shuns Wii U" has become such a recurrent news item.

One thing I've noticed more actually is that people expect third party companies to have to produce a certain game or games for systems. They technically don't have to do anything, since 3rd parties are their own companies, and I've never understood the rationale that if 3rd parties make games for X system and Y system, that they have to make it for Z system. I mean they are their own companies and can choose where they want to put their games or not. While many make really stupid decisions, many seem to forget that they were appointed to their position at a point because they were believed to be qualified for that position. Iwata wasn't just made CEO instantly, Yamauchi was training him over the years in order to become it. Same goes for Steve Ballmer, as Bill Gates appointed him CEO because he both shared his vision and because he had been trained by him.

The only real case I can think of in which one of the people was handed the CEO job was Yamauchi himself back before Nintendo became a gaming company, and he refused to become CEO unless he was the only family member working at Nintendo, and his grandfather, Sekiryo, reluctantly agreed. Yamauchi wasn't really trained for the CEO position, and at the time was attending law school.

Neronium:

Vault Citizen:
Did the Wii U stab someones mother or something? I don't get why it is getting all the third party hate? Is Nintendo that difficult to work with?

For the Japanese developers and probably some of the older developers they remembered how bad it was when Yamauchi was in charge. Look up how he treated a lot of third parties when he was in charge and you'll see why so many were eager to jump ship to Sony. Some of those old policies are still in place so 3rd parties who have been given freedom, some a little too much freedom, don't wanna go back to be restricted. That and if you look at it historically, 3rd parties lose a bunch of money when on Nintendo's console's. For the GameCube, Square Enix support it for 3 years and lost money all those years, and the same was with Capcom. When it came to the Wii, it was significantly lacking in certain areas that the other competition could easily supply, so while it had the install base, it lacked certain things some devs looked for. For the Wii U I see most of the time it's because of the install base, which is pretty bad when you consider that it was on theatkey for a year and the PS4 has almost completely caught up to its install base size in only a month and a half, and the PS4 isn't available in the Asian market yet either.

Plus, like I said earlier it's Lords of Shadow 2. Does no one remember how horrible the first game was? Complaining about it reminds me of when Wii U owners complained that they were getting Colonial Marines. Count your blessings is what I say.

Firstly, it's not Lords of Shadow 2, it's an unannounced game with no relation or similarity to LOS.
Secondly, while you may not have liked LOS, the majority of people who played it thought it was at the very least ok to good, and you acting like it was the worst game ever is just silly and frankly a little immature.

Vault Citizen:
Did the Wii U stab someones mother or something? I don't get why it is getting all the third party hate? Is Nintendo that difficult to work with?

From what I understand, no, not in the LEAST. It's just that they're not doormats. They support 3rd parties, but they don't SPOIL them, unlike Sony and MS. They're basically whining that Nintendo doesn't let them stay up til 5 AM every day and eat nothing but cookies and ice cream.

Sure, some people LOVE to milk that "Yamauchi was mean to 3rd parties!" excuse, but...I've come to reject that stance, mostly because I see just how badly people take it out of context. And what is the context? That of the Gaming Crash. Let's face it, Yamauchi and Nintendo essentially gave 3rd parties (and the entire Western gaming industry) the gaming equivalent of a government bailout. What reason did they have to trust 3rd parties after that? You can't exactly Yamauchi for that line of thinking. Gaming NEEDED a hardass to put down their foot after that. And the thing is even IF the Yamauchi thing wasn't as fundamentalist as 3rd parties there's one big thing that would make that mindset stupid anyway: that was YEARS ago. Time to get over, because if you're still holding a grudge there's only one way to describe that kind of behavior: irrational.

Shocksplicer:

Firstly, it's not Lords of Shadow 2, it's an unannounced game with no relation or similarity to LOS.
Secondly, while you may not have liked LOS, the majority of people who played it thought it was at the very least ok to good, and you acting like it was the worst game ever is just silly and frankly a little immature.

My mistake, I was believing it to be Lords of Shadows 2, so that's my bad.
As for the game itself, from everyone who played it that I knew, and from what I played it was a real let down and felt really bad. Perhaps I'll give it another chance in the future, and I'm sorry for my wording on it.

Aiddon:
And what is the context? That of the Gaming Crash. Let's face it, Yamauchi and Nintendo essentially gave 3rd parties (and the entire Western gaming industry) the gaming equivalent of a government bailout. What reason did they have to trust 3rd parties after that? You can't exactly Yamauchi for that line of thinking.

And as time goes on you let up a little. You can't use the business practices that worked in the Crash that happened in the 80's, and then apply it to the modern times. Yamauchi made good decisions when it came to 3rd parties on the SNES and the NES, along with the GameBoy, but by the N64 he was still trying to use the same strategies as before, when the market had completely changed and those responsible for the crash were either long gone out of the industry, or had been bought out and put in line by their new owners. Would you use a same business strategy in the 1920's in the 1960's? More often then not no, because the market changes as do other things. A few third party publishers have gotten out of hand, but blaming all 3rd parties for it isn't fair in the slightest. It's like blaming a local priest for what an Arch Bishop does, and those 3rd parties that have gotten out of hand are facing what they've wrought now. Capcom is near broke, don't care about them, SEGA has gotten most of their act together, Square Enix is getting their act together with their new CEO, and EA is at least attempting to change (whether they succeed is up to them). Ubisoft is still being retarded, but once it gets as bad for them as it did for EA then they'll change. Even though you probably won't reply to this, one thing is certain: don't blame everyone for the actions of what a few do.

Neronium:

Shocksplicer:

Firstly, it's not Lords of Shadow 2, it's an unannounced game with no relation or similarity to LOS.
Secondly, while you may not have liked LOS, the majority of people who played it thought it was at the very least ok to good, and you acting like it was the worst game ever is just silly and frankly a little immature.

My mistake, I was believing it to be Lords of Shadows 2, so that's my bad.
As for the game itself, from everyone who played it that I knew, and from what I played it was a real let down and felt really bad. Perhaps I'll give it another chance in the future, and I'm sorry for my wording on it.

Fair enough, thanks for being polite about it

Shocksplicer:

Fair enough, thanks for being polite about it

No problem. Really I have the problem of perceiving things at times when I shouldn't. Nice talking with you. ^.^

square enix supported gamecube? when i look them up, they have exactly one gamecube game listed

also, all of the consoles have a pretty sizable library of shovelware

i'm going to have to ask for more citations behind some of these claims, especially the ones about developer restrictions i keep hearing about

edit: after further review, a lot of these claims are difficult to substantiate when i look for the pertinent information, and casts more doubt that these aren't also the types of arguments you claim are flawed

weirdguy:
square enix supported gamecube? when i look them up, they have exactly one gamecube game listed

also, all of the consoles have a pretty sizable library of shovelware

i'm going to have to ask for more citations behind some of these claims, especially the ones about developer restrictions i keep hearing about

edit: after further review, a lot of these claims are difficult to substantiate when i look for the pertinent information, and casts more doubt that these aren't also the types of arguments you claim are flawed

First of all, who are you replying to? Second of all, here's an essay about Nintendo's oppressive NES-era policies.

st0pnsw0p:

weirdguy:
square enix supported gamecube? when i look them up, they have exactly one gamecube game listed

also, all of the consoles have a pretty sizable library of shovelware

i'm going to have to ask for more citations behind some of these claims, especially the ones about developer restrictions i keep hearing about

edit: after further review, a lot of these claims are difficult to substantiate when i look for the pertinent information, and casts more doubt that these aren't also the types of arguments you claim are flawed

First of all, who are you replying to? Second of all, here's an essay about Nintendo's oppressive NES-era policies.

what about the developer restrictions since then? the console companies of today have all participated in retail abuse, but i can't guess what their other practices were.

weirdguy:
square enix supported gamecube? when i look them up, they have exactly one gamecube game listed

You should use the quote function to notify people, it'll help. For one, back then Square Enix had just formed as the merger with Squaresoft and Enix had just gone underway.
Anyway, did you ever play Crystal Chronicles? It had a lot of development out of it and was utilizing the connection with the Gameboy Advanced and the GameCube, as you couldn't play multiplayer on it without the connector cable. Square put a lot of money into the system with that, and there were problems in which the standard GameCube memory card couldn't be used to save Crystal Chronicles' data. So Square Enix dropped support of the GameCube because of the losses.
Capcom was in similar place, with Capcom releasing the Capcom Five onto the GameCube and never making any money from it, and thus the games (Viewtiful Joe, Resident Evil 4, Killer 7) were also ported to the PS2 later to try and recuperate losses.

As for the practices, st0pnsw0p linked you. I believe for one of them I got confused with the Capcom Five again, but Square Enix did lose money with Crystal Chronicles.

As for the developer restrictions today, Iwata has been trying to rebuild the relationships that were damaged but in Japanese culture time can't heal all wounds. Plus nowadays it's all about profits and 3rd parties are seeing that they won't profit if they are on the Wii U, so they decide not to do so.

weirdguy:

st0pnsw0p:

weirdguy:
square enix supported gamecube? when i look them up, they have exactly one gamecube game listed

also, all of the consoles have a pretty sizable library of shovelware

i'm going to have to ask for more citations behind some of these claims, especially the ones about developer restrictions i keep hearing about

edit: after further review, a lot of these claims are difficult to substantiate when i look for the pertinent information, and casts more doubt that these aren't also the types of arguments you claim are flawed

First of all, who are you replying to? Second of all, here's an essay about Nintendo's oppressive NES-era policies.

what about the developer restrictions since then? the console companies of today have all participated in retail abuse, but i can't guess what their other practices were.

Here's one exclusively about their third party restrictions.

st0pnsw0p:
snip

Don't forget that Yamauchi purposely made the N64 difficult to develop for, to deter what he would deem as "untalented 3rd parties" from the N64. That combine with the $25-$35 dollar price tag for a single cartridge drove away a lot of 3rd parties, and actually the plan backfired because due to the success of the SNES a lot of people wanted to get their games on a Nintendo console, and as a result a lot of more sloppily made 3rd party titles came to the N64.

Funnily enough, Sony purposely made the PS3 difficult to develop for to extend it's longevity. So in a way, Sony went full on retard and thus the CELL architecture and all of it's stupidity came to be.

What's with the 3rd consoles that a company makes that their CEOs get some of the stupidest ideas ever? N64 being purposely difficult to develop for because of Yamauchi, Sony deciding on CELL Architecture for the console, and then everything that happened with the Xbox One. It's like 3 is a number that is like bad luck for the industry, as the third generation of consoles is when the crash happened and the year it crash was 1983...

No wonder Valve hasn't been pushing to make Half Life 3. XD

'Record Stops.':
Don't mind me folks...
http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/indiana-jones-popcorn.gif
The Internet Hate Machine and the glorious Escapist N.D.F are doing my job for me.

Please, keep going...

You should share some of the popcorn you know. You know what they say, sharing is caring. Right? :3
Please? I've not eaten in days!

For a second there I was worried that the NDF would be gone without JEFFERS, but it seems I was very wrong...

OT: well considering their only two games I know of a are a barely competent waste-of-a-once-good-franchise GoW clone and that... thing on the 3DS this seems like good news for WiiU owners.

weirdguy:
what about the developer restrictions since then? the console companies of today have all participated in retail abuse, but i can't guess what their other practices were.

I've...never actually heard any complaints about Nintendo being oppressive for the last decade. Like I said, I just don't get what the logic is behind 3rd parties doing everything they can to be assholes to Nintendo. This isn't even about "install bases" or "money" anymore, never has been. People can yell those two excuses all day long, but I've yet to see a decent excuse as to why said 3rd parties also refuse to give the 3DS proper support despite it being a gold mine. This seems to me like they're just being assholes and trying to play that "starving/oppressed artist" card like it automatically makes them immune to criticism for giving an entire userbase the finger. You can't do that without looking like a douche.

Aiddon:

weirdguy:
what about the developer restrictions since then? the console companies of today have all participated in retail abuse, but i can't guess what their other practices were.

I've...never actually heard any complaints about Nintendo being oppressive for the last decade. Like I said, I just don't get what the logic is behind 3rd parties doing everything they can to be assholes to Nintendo. This isn't even about "install bases" or "money" anymore, never has been. People can yell those two excuses all day long, but I've yet to see a decent excuse as to why said 3rd parties also refuse to give the 3DS proper support despite it being a gold mine. This seems to me like they're just being assholes and trying to play that "starving/oppressed artist" card like it automatically makes them immune to criticism for giving an entire userbase the finger. You can't do that without looking like a douche.

Plenty of third parties support 3DS, it's just that a most of them are japanese developers and a lot of games aren't ported over. Western developers aren't really interested in developing for handheld systems, they prefer consoles and PC. It makes sense because, in Japan, handhelds are more popular than consoles, which is the opposite of how things are in the west.

Neronium:

'Record Stops.':
Don't mind me folks...
http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/indiana-jones-popcorn.gif
The Internet Hate Machine and the glorious Escapist N.D.F are doing my job for me.

Please, keep going...

You should share some of the popcorn you know. You know what they say, sharing is caring. Right? :3
Please? I've not eaten in days!

Sure thing. (I toss you a bag.)

The glorious Escapist N.D.F is as always the most spectacular organization on the site, I look forward to these kinds of posts because they will always arrive post haste to remedy the situation and apply their incredible knowledge to we ignorant masses. Let me reiterate, please, continue.

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/This-Gonna-Be-Good-Popcorn-Gif.gif

Shadow-Phoenix:
That's odd, I could have sworn they had no plans for the new gen consoles according to Dtoid.

http://www.destructoid.com/no-plans-for-castlevania-lords-of-shadow-2-on-next-gen-268648.phtml

It's also really retarded at this point that once again the Wii U doesn't get to have an awesome game like LOS1 and 2.

I can't wait to see the bullshit excuse as per usual and people coming to defend said excuse because they somehow think it's right to deny other gamers.

He said they have to plans to bring Lords of Shadow 2 to 8th gen (not really next, if they are already here) consoles, this article says that they are developing an unrelated game for them.

I am truly baffled by the responses in this thread. Do people really think that there is a hatred campaign going against Nintendo? You might like to think that Nintendo's platform can only make them more money but your promise to buy a whole one copy doesn't exactly help nor do the recent sales of the third party titles.

bafrali:
I am truly baffled by the responses in this thread. Do people really think that there is a hatred campaign going against Nintendo? You might like to think that Nintendo's platform can only make them more money but your promise to buy a whole one copy doesn't exactly help nor do the recent sales of the third party titles.

My problem with that line of thinking is that I don't recall many 3rd parties actively trying to sell their products on Nintendo systems. Of course I'm just being hyperbolic when it comes to companies actively despising Nintendo. What I really believe is that 3rd parties are IDIOTS. I don't know whether this is because they've gotten so used to selling to one demographic over the years or that their brains just stall when it comes to Nintendo systems, but they just REALLY don't display any sort of intelligence or logic when it comes to Nintendo systems.

For example, complaining that their titles never sell. Whenever I've seen 3rd parties (mostly Western) throw that out I've noticed one of two elements. 1) The game was poorly/cheaply made, 2) If said game WAS good, it was lazily thrown out with no hype. With the former the game would have failed regardless. You can't throw out shovelware and expect it to sell. Dress it up all you want, but crap is CRAP. In addendum, we also had the myriad titles who outright gimped themselves by removing content or being stupid in another way. One of the most egregious was Sniper Elite that outright cut out EVERYTHING but the single player. It was rewarded how it should have been: by bombing. Another was Mass Effect 3 that didn't release any DLC post release and was of course released around the same time as the Mass Effect Trilogy. I'm sorry, but how exactly did they ME3 WASN'T going to bomb when they did that? Or how about Arkham Origins that cut out multiplayer (though in all honesty Wii U owners might have dodged a bullet with that)? Why exactly should these products have gotten A+ results when clearly there was only C- effort?

With the latter (hype) that seems to just be basic logic. People whine about Nintendo's marketing, but 3rd parties' marketing on Nintendo systems is abysmal if it even exists at all. Of course aren't going to buy your product if they aren't aware it exists on the system. Seriously, how much have 3rd parties hyped ANY sort of product on Nintendo consoles? When was the last time? When did Rayman Legends, Assassin's Creed, Arkham Origins, or any other 3rd party title ever advertise their Wii U features or that they were on the Wii U at all except for the TINY Wii U logo? The only two I can think of are Scribblenauts and Deus Ex (and the later made the decision of delaying itself to try and make some quickie ports on the 360 and PS3. And both those versions bombed). Everything seems to out of its way to ignore the Wii U.

So, that's what irritates me: the lack of logic and common sense when it comes to the Wii U. I don't know WHAT it is, but it seems that every time a 3rd party tries to make a release on the 3DS or the Wii U (with the exception of Japanese companies like CAPCOM, Atlus, etc) something in their heads just stops working and suddenly all they can think is "DERP!" It just baffles me. It should not be this difficult to do the bare basic of selling a game. How exactly is it LOGICAL for 3rd parties to expect sales when they do stuff this stupid? I don't see how in any way, shape, or form Nintendo are at fault for 3rd parties' failing to sell their games.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here