Support NeoGAF

[Gotdatmoney]

The point i'm trying to make is that the WiiU is not a perfect console that can handle every single port of any game regardless of the product, so it's unfair to the devs to place the sole blame on them and not the hardware they were working with, especially when there are other examples of 3rd party games not running very well on the WiiU.

What the hell? Ubi announced the game. There is an expectation that they release a technically competent product. This has nothing to do with the WiiU and everything with delivering a quality product. This is the exact same shit as the AC:U incident. It's unacceptable to release a product that runs like a pile of shit regardless of the hardware. If you can't make it work then don't release. No one is saying, "hey dev A-Z that worked on the WiiU version, yall fucking blow", they're saying, what was released by Ubi the publisher is unacceptable because it is. As a consumer I expect games to run well when they are released. It being hard is not an excuse. The WiiU being weak is not an excuse. Make the necessary adjustments to your game so it runs well. Period.

You need to stop victimizing the devs. At the end of the day this is what they are putting on the market for purchase. Just because they tried really hard it doesn't make the end result any more acceptable. They are expecting people to buy this at full price. It damn well better run well.

 

[TI82]

Not to mention Ubisoft has plenty of past sales history data from ZombiU, Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed 4, and Splinter Cell Blacklist to show that their action games don't sell on that platform.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Not to mention Ubisoft has plenty of past sales history data from ZombiU, Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed 4, and Splinter Cell Blacklist to show that their action games don't sell on that platform.

What does that have to do with releasing a technically competent game? If you are saying they have no reason to care fine but that's absolutely no justification for people to not eviscerate the product they are putting out for sale.

 

[morikaze]

Nintendo doesn't need third parties. I for one welcome the 2020 Nintendo first-party development singularity.

 

[TI82]

What does that have to do with releasing a technically competent game? If you are saying they have no reason to care fine but that's absolutely no justification for people to not eviscerate the product they are putting out for sale.

People here are saying "oh they should have spent more time and money etc make it the better version" but you have to remember this is a business first and foremost. Why would you spend more money and even more time than the other versions when even when you made a dedicated acclaimed title it didn't sell?

They already spent another 6 months fixing this game up and this is what they made. Maybe the engine was too stressful on the Wii U and any further concessions would ruin the scope of the game? I dunno, just that people here need to get a grip on how they react to this kind of news. Especially when some users were saying they thought it was a great port initially!

 

[krizzx]

Not to mention Ubisoft has plenty of past sales history data from ZombiU, Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed 4, and Splinter Cell Blacklist to show that their action games don't sell on that platform.

Take ZombiU off that list. Its the best selling third party game on the console and proves the exact opposite of what you are saying.

What you mean is that their poorly ported games don't sells well. All of the game you listed were 1. Broken 2. Missing content 3. not promoted or advetrtised for the platform at all. If I recall correctly, they didn't even include the Wii U logo in commercials for SC: Blacklist.

 

[ninjablade]

What the hell? Ubi announced the game. There is an expectation that they release a technically competent product. This has nothing to do with the WiiU and everything with delivering a quality product. This is the exact same shit as the AC:U incident. It's unacceptable to release a product that runs like a pile of shit regardless of the hardware. If you can't make it work then don't release.

both batman games and micky on run like dog shit on wiiu, that's another open world games that really struggles on wiiu, I think there's also an expectation from developers as well for Nintendo to release a technically competent console for third party games. the 360/ps3 are 8 years old with a user base of over 150 million. do you think developers like the fact that they have to struggle in getting the same performance of those consoles, in a next gen console that just came out, with a very small unproven user base.

 

[krizzx]

Going back to launch ports ^

 

[ninjablade]

Going back to launch ports ^

batman origins and COD ghost are launch ports?

 

[TI82]

Take ZombiU off that list. Its the best selling third party game on the console and proves the exact opposite of what you are saying

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20..._sales_were_disappointing_no_plans_for_sequel

 

[HTupolev]

Take ZombiU off that list. Its the best selling third party game on the console and proves the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Is it? In that case, it emphasizes the point even more; if the best-selling third-party game still failed to turn a profit and was considered a sales disappointment by the publisher, that's pretty damning to the console's third-party prospects.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

People here are saying "oh they should have spent more time and money etc make it the better version" but you have to remember this is a business first and foremost. Why would you spend more money and even more time than the other versions when even when you made a dedicated acclaimed title it didn't sell?

They already spent another 6 months fixing this game up and this is what they made. Maybe the engine was too stressful on the Wii U and any further concessions would ruin the scope of the game? I dunno, just that people here need to get a grip on how they react to this kind of news. Especially when some users were saying they thought it was a great port initially!

Those people are wrong. Ubi doesn't have to spend money and time doing anything else if they don't want to but that is a totally irrelevant and frankly diversion tactic that is being played by both sides. This isn't Digital Foundry on "what watch Dogs could do to improve". Financials are totally irrelevant to the fact this is a shit port that really is not acceptable to be on the market especially as a late and full priced product. That's not arguable.

Whether it's hard or the WiiU is weak does not matter. What they released is quite simply not good enough technically for market according to a tech expert publication. Why make excuses for them irrelevant to that main point? Simple, it's dishonesty and diversion tactics by people but it's irrelevant. It wasn't okay for Assassin's Creed Unity, it isn't okay here because games are technology and they have to run in a satisfactory fashion. That's all there is to it.

 

[krizzx]

Is it? In that case, it emphasizes the point even more; if the best-selling third-party game still failed to turn a profit and was considered a sales disappointment by the publisher, that's pretty damning to the console's third-party prospects.

Whether or not it made a profit is unknown. It didn't just stop selling after lauch.They said the sales were disappointing early, but they didn't reveal any cost/profit data. Also, you have to factor in that ZombiU's dev cost were extended do to the fact that it was originally another game entirely. That game was scrapped in favor of making ZombiU.

Then there was Rayman, which sold the best on the Wii U initially.

 

[uncredited male]

Ubisoft doesn't have the resources to devote to a higher quality port of Watch Dogs on Wii U.

Kind of like AC: Unity on every platform.

 

[TI82]

I think me and Gotdat can at least agree that this version should have never been released.

Whether or not it made a profit is unknown.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20..._sales_were_disappointing_no_plans_for_sequel

 

[krizzx]

I think me and Gotdat can at least agree that this version should have never been released.


http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20..._sales_were_disappointing_no_plans_for_sequel

I said that specifically because of that link. I am well aware of that article. I read it when it was first made "over a year" ago. As I said, the game didn't stop selling.

 

[TI82]

I said that specifically because of that link.

So its not unknown. That interview wasn't at launch. It didn't turn a profit.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

both batman games and micky on run like dog shit on wiiu, that's another open world games that really struggles on wiiu, I think there's also an expectation from developers as well for Nintendo to release a technically competent console for third party games. the 360/ps3 are 8 years old with a user base of over 150 million. do you think developers like the fact that they have to struggle in getting the same performance of those consoles, in a next gen console that just came out, with a very small unproven user base.

It doesn't matter, the products that they have released are not acceptable deemed by technical experts. It's not my job or your job to make excuses for shit products. It's your job to demand better. I know you like to shit on the WiiU because it's a weak son of a bitch and that's your right but that's irrelevant to the fact that publishers who put out poor products should not be coddled with excuses. Why give 101 excuses for a bad product that a publisher still expects us thee customer to buy at full price? This isn't a WiiU thing, this is a holding publishers accountable thing. I said the same thing for TLOU (original) running like shit, said the same thing for W101, said the same thing for several games. It's not acceptable to make excuses, they need to deliver a technically competent product end of story.

Edit: And no, I place the blame on the devs and publisher because they decide what platforms to release their games on. The hardware is fixed and not foreign. If you make the commitment to release a game that titles needs to run acceptably on that hardware. If you feel the hardware can't recognize the vision then don't release. Don't release a shit product, blame the hardware but still expect people to buy it.

 

[krizzx]

So its not unknown. That interview wasn't at launch. It didn't turn a profit.

Didn't meet sells expecting doesn't mean it didn't make a profit. I could be that it didn't make enough profit, or that it broke even. Either of those would not be meeting sales expectations if the expectations were high.

 

[TI82]

Didn't meet sells expecting doesn't mean it didn't make a profit. I could be that it didn't make enough profit, or that it broke even. Either of those would not be meeting sales expectations if the expectations were extremely high.

He specifically stated that it didn't turn a profit.

 

[HTupolev]

Didn't meet sells expecting doesn't mean it didn't make a profit. I could be that it didn't make enough profit, or that it broke even. Either of those would not be meeting sales expectations if the expectations were extremely high.

The article flat-out says it was "not profitable."

 

[krizzx]

He specifically stated that it didn't turn a profit.

Yes he did, but once again, the game has still been selling.

The article flat-out says it was "not profitable."

I'm referring to now, hence the earlier statement "that was over a year ago". The game was not profitable at the start, but it has still been selling. We do not know if it has ultimately not made any profit still. I'd imagine that it has at least broke even by now.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I think me and Gotdat can at least agree that this version should have never been released.

Absolutely not if this was the state it was going to be released in at full price. I don't support shit running games. 20FPS is a slide show, not a game.

 

[HTupolev]

Yes he did, but once again, the game has still been selling.

Okay, let me get this straight. Ubisoft has seven months of sales data for a game, says the prospects are bleak, and you think it's likely that the further sales trickle is going to change the picture in terms of whether things are worth it to them? This isn't the publisher's first product, you know; they have a pretty good idea of what to look for and expect with residual sales over time, and after seven months a game will usually have sold a decent majority of its lifetime sales anyway.

I'd imagine that it has at least broke even by now.

Based on what?

 

[ninjablade]

It doesn't matter, the products that they have released are not acceptable deemed by technical experts. It's not my job or your job to make excuses for shit products. It's your job to demand better. I know you like to shit on the WiiU because it's a weak son of a bitch and that's your right but that's irrelevant to the fact that publishers who put out poor products should not be coddled with excuses. Why give 101 excuses for a bad product that a publisher still expects us thee customer to buy at full price? This isn't a WiiU thing, this is a holding publishers accountable thing. I said the same thing for TLOU (original) running like shit, said the same thing for W101, said the same thing for several games. It's not acceptable to make excuses, they need to deliver a technically competent product end of story.

I can say the same thing for the wiiu hardware, it really not acceptable for a console in 2012 not to run most games better from a console made in 2005 , we should demand better from Nintendo.

Yes he did, but once again, the game has still been selling.

[



I'm referring to now, hence the earlier statement "that was over a year ago". The game was not profitable at the start, but it has still been selling.

So what's you're argument now? the best selling third party game wasn't profitable after 7 months, and it must have kept on selling? so third party games sold good enough?

 

[TI82]

Yes he did, but once again, the game has still been selling.



I'm referring to now, hence the earlier statement "that was over a year ago". The game was not profitable at the start, but it has still been selling. We do not know if it has ultimately not made any profit still. I'd imagine that it has at least broke even by now.

Give actual evidence if you are going to make claims like this. How much has it sold this year?

 

[krizzx]

Okay, let me get this straight. Ubisoft has seven months of sales data for a game, says the prospects are bleak, and you think it's likely that the further sales trickle is going to change the picture in terms of whether things are worth it to them? This isn't the publisher's first product, you know; they have a pretty good idea of what to look for and expect with residual sales over time.

As I stated. This game has unecessary cost's added do to the fact that it was originally another game entirely that was scrapped in favor of ZombiU. It was also made during a time period where people didn't know how to work the hardware well making its costs even higher. Then there is the fact that it was a new, unhead of I.P., that it wasn't what people were asking for(they wanted online MP and other weapons), and other things. This is not just simply, "it didn't sell".

A sequel would likely cost no where near as much.

We've strayed far fromm Watch Dogs though. The point still remains, Ubisoft has a track record of releasing broken games on the system on top of slighting Wii U owners(Rayman, Ghost Recon: Future Soldier). ZombiU was no exception to this. Their sells reflect their effort.

Give actual evidence if you are going to make claims like this. How much has it sold this year?

I didn't make a claim about how much it sold. Just a suggestion that we don't know the current state of its profitability, and that its possible that it may have broke even or even made a profit now. If I knew this for certain, I wouldn't have said maybe.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I can say the same thing for the wiiu hardware, it really not acceptable for a console in 2012 not to run most games better from a console made in 2005 , we should demand better from Nintendo.

I edited this into my last post:

And no, I place the blame on the devs and publisher because they decide what platforms to release their games on. The hardware is fixed and not foreign. If you make the commitment to release a game that titles needs to run acceptably on that hardware. If you feel the hardware can't recognize the vision then don't release. Don't release a shit product, blame the hardware but still expect people to buy it.



Further more, the market did demand better from Nintendo, that's why their console is deservedly selling like shit. Why won't you place appropriate blame on the publisher of shit products? I think it's because you don't like what Nintendo did with the system which is fine but I'm not defending the WiiU, I'm trashing shit, broken products that publishers release and your refusal to do so is telling.

 

[HyperOne]

One more nail in the coffin I suppose.

I await the day I can get Pokemon on my PS4/5.

 

[lumzi23]

I have nothing against the wiiu, but the fact that most ports are worse then ancient 360/ps3 hardware is laughable to me. come on Nintendo, last gen was 8 years, at least make your new hardware easily out class last gen consoles.

I'd say that is more a developer issue than anything.

 

[krizzx]

One more nail in the coffin I suppose.

I await the day I can get Pokemon on my PS4/5.

You'll see Uncharted on a Nintendo platform before you'll see Pokemon on a PlayStation that outside of illegal emulation. Sony is losing way more money than Nintendo is.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

One more nail in the coffin I suppose.

I await the day I can get Pokemon on my PS4/5.

Keep dreaming. Nintendo will never leave the hardware market.

 

[Windom Earle]

I didn't make a claim about how much it sold. Just a suggestion that we don't know the current state of its profitability, and that its possible that it may have broke even or even made a profit now. If I knew this for certain, I wouldn't have said maybe.

And what about this claim?

"Its the best selling third party game on the console"

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

It's a shame most people don't know that arguing against krizzx is the same as talking to a brick wall.

 

[ninjablade]

As I stated. This game has unecessary cost's added do to the fact that it was originally another game entirely that was scrapped in favor of ZombiU. It was also made during a time period where people didn't know how to work the hardware well making its costs even higher. Then there is the fact that it was a new, unhead of I.P., that it wasn't what people were asking for(they wanted online MP and other weapons), and other things. This is not just simply, "it didn't sell".

A sequel would likely cost no where near as much.

We've strayed far fromm Watch Dogs though. The point still remains, Ubisoft has a track record of releasing broken games on the system on top of slighting Wii U owners(Rayman). ZombiU was no exception to this. Their sells reflect their effort.



I didn't make a claim about how much it sold. Just a suggestion that we don't know the current state of its profitability, and that its possible that it may have broke even or even made a profit now. If I knew this for certain, I wouldn't have said maybe.

You did and we do know the current state of profitability, you're really grasping for straws

Take ZombiU off that list. Its the best selling third party game on the console and proves the exact opposite of what you are saying.

I edited this into my last post:

And no, I place the blame on the devs and publisher because they decide what platforms to release their games on. The hardware is fixed and not foreign. If you make the commitment to release a game that titles needs to run acceptably on that hardware. If you feel the hardware can't recognize the vision then don't release. Don't release a shit product, blame the hardware but still expect people to buy it.



Further more, the market did demand better from Nintendo, that's why their console is deservedly selling like shit. Why won't you place appropriate blame on the publisher of shit products?[

I do put the blame on developers, but the wiiu is struggling to run most last gen games on par so this isn't just one developer's problem. this was also developed manly for nextgen, they shouldn't have release this product on wiiu/360/ps3, just like nintendo shouldn't have release just a weak system, shit happens though, and people that only own last gen consoles will buy, just like people that want Nintendo games will buy wiiu.

 

[TI82]

*crickets*

 

[Ledhead]

Sounds rough. I don't see any reason to buy this version unless you have no other choice

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I do put the blame on developers, but the wiiu is struggling to run most last gen games on par so this isn't just one developers problem. this was also developed manly for nextgen, they shouldn't have release this product on wiiu/360/ps3, just like nintendo shouldn't have release just a weak system, shit happens though, and people that only own last gen consoles will buy, just like people that want Nintendo games will buy wiiu.

You sure as hell have been downplaying it. It literally took until now for you to just admit that they didn't do a good job and it was not acceptable.

Anyway, the game they released on last gen consoles was a mess. The state they released it was embarrassingly bad but it made money so I get why they did it.

 

[ninjablade]

You sure as hell have been downplaying it. It literally took until now for you to just admit that they didn't do a good job and it was not acceptable.

Anyway, the game they released on last gen consoles was a mess. The state they released it was embarrassingly bad but it made money so I get why they did it.

yea i would be downplaying much more but having a significant disadvantage in frame rate on wiiu compared to 360 mulitplatform game has become common..

 

[Sorceror12]

WD runs better and is more consistent then sonic boom.

 

[StevieP]

yea i would be downplaying much more but having a significant frame rate disadvantage on wiiu compared to 360 mulitplatform game has become common..

MrN already made a long post to counter this constant theme you attempt to make. That you did not respond you. Go read it. Furthermore, enabling Vsync also loses you some frames. Unless of course you like tearing?

 

[TI82]

MrN already made a long post to counter this constant theme you attempt to make. That you did not respond you. Go read it. Furthermore, enabling Vsync also loses you some frames. Unless of course you like tearing?

Why enable vsync if it kills your frame rate this much?

No thanks.

 

[ninjablade]

MrN already made a long post to counter this constant theme you attempt to make. That you did not respond you. Go read it. Furthermore, enabling Vsync also loses you some frames. Unless of course you like tearing?

i already respond to him, he cherry picked some quotes and ignored the DF verdict, he even included quotes where both games were exactly the same but DF gave the nod cause of the gamepad features. I'm going by what the DF verdict is and the frame rate video, screen tearing is better then frame drops to me, unless its really bad.

 

[Raist]

Did it chart in the overall German chart?

nah, not in the top 5

UK: #13 in the WiiU charts. #1 last week was MK8, which doesn't appear in the top 40 individual, and is #29 in the all formats.
Watch_dogs was #34 (all formats) compared to #29 the week before its release on WiiU.

Germany: Didn't chart in the top 50. The only WiiU game is MK8 at #48.

 

[StevieP]

Why enable vsync if it kills your frame rate this much?

No thanks.

It's a requirement.

i already respond to him, he cherry picked some quotes and ignored the DF verdict, he even included quotes where both games were exactly the same but DF gave the nod cause of the gamepad features. I'm going by what the DF verdict is and the frame rate video, screen tearing is better then frame drops to me, unless its really bad.

Tearing IS really bad. There is no middle ground for tearing. But here you are acknowledging that your statement of "significant number of titles" is incorrect with the tacit admission that, in fact, there are ports that are ALSO identical or improved, so there's that. Fact of the matter is that the system is in the same bracket so it's going to produce similar results. Not sure why you need to continue your hilarious trolling tirade when it's already known. Watch Dogs wii u is not a good buy, and it's clear that it wasn't a focus for Ubisoft and their port team so I'm not sure why you're defending Ubisoft here.

 

[squidyj]

That looks really bad.

i wouldnt say its terrible but its completely unremarkable in every way.

 

[bobeth]

It's a requirement.



Tearing IS really bad. There is no middle ground for tearing. But here you are acknowledging that your statement of "significant number of titles" is incorrect with the tacit admission that, in fact, there are ports that are ALSO identical or improved, so there's that. Fact of the matter is that the system is in the same bracket so it's going to produce similar results. Not sure why you need to continue your hilarious trolling tirade when it's already known. Watch Dogs wii u is not a good buy, and it's clear that it wasn't a focus for Ubisoft and their port team so I'm not sure why you're defending Ubisoft here.

This is beyond ridiculous...

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Why enable vsync if it kills your frame rate this much?

No thanks.

Not even releated to WD but I dunno why console games don't let you choose V-Sync as on or off. I would take screen tearing for better frame rate personally but I know people who can't handle tearing at all.

 

[Apenheul]

I don't think anyone here has enough information about this port to put the blame on anyone. Can anyone even tell me how many people have worked on the port? I'm not trying to defend the developers necessarily but if you don't have any porting experience then you're in no position to criticize the team; you can be disappointed and disagree with choices that have been made but I've seen so much nonsense been posted in this threat that I feel it's become a console warrior thing.

Porting a game is hard work and not as straightforward as recompiling and optimizing. There's assets that need to be converted, different libraries to be included that may require different datastructures, different TRC/Lotcheck requirements, heck you might need to change the whole tools pipeline and customize it to the hardware's biases. If the code was prepared for it it takes weeks, if not it can take months. And if a new architecture gets added later on like with WD how much can you afford to rewrite and cater to the hardware's biases before you break other parts and render the engine unusable for future projects? Which memory-pool is faster for which type of resource, what's the alignment, how to make the best use of cache-memory, what causes the GPU-stalls, there's just so many things that impact performance that it's really not just a case of changing a couple of things or downscaling. Working with different architectures is always challenging, it's not simply a matter of performance-brackets and generations. It plays a role but it's often greatly overstated. Increased clockspeeds only really mean a thing if both processors belong to the same product family, and even that's oversimplifying things. Game engine teams often have years of R&D time before a game gets released and then as an afterthought some small other team gets the unfortunate task to port the whole game to a new and unanticipated architecture on a strict budget without R&D time. Think about that for a second.

 

[TI82]

Not even releated to WD but I dunno why console games don't let you choose V-Sync as on or off. I would take screen tearing for better frame rate personally but I know people who can't handle tearing at all.

Infamous Second son and The last of us remastered do.