Atarifever wrote:When Raretronic announced a high def Banjoo, they probably weren't sure a modern take on the completely dead 3D platforming collect-athon genre was going to sell well. I mean, obviously Microsoft has felt that way for years, doing very little with that particular franchise. So it's a little silly to claim that somehow Playtronic knew this would be some smash hit project before they put it up. Good for them they made $2 million. The day before they didn't know if they'd make two dollars.
Really? "The creators of a '90s nostalgia property are doing it again!" is peak crowdfunding bait - Mighty No. 9, Armikrog, Broken Age, Elite: Dangerous, Shenmue 3, Reading Rainbow, Mystery Science Theater 3000, friggin' Star Citizen. There was zero question that this would be huge. The idea that the least popular console of the seventh generation would be important to drumming up interest in one of the biggest franchises of the fifth is bizarre anyway; the people who grew up with Nintendo in the '90s had clearly moved on to other brands by 2015 (and Rare's biggest fans probably bought the 360 over the original Wii, for that matter).
Atarifever wrote:You can claim all day that this is conspiracy theory stuff. However, I'm not claiming an elaborate conspiracy at all. I'm claiming it was easy for ex-Rare guys to say they'd make a Wii U port too, back before they knew how much money they would make. I'm claiming they likely assumed a new Banjo game would appeal to Nintendo fans. I'm claiming they likely assumed Nintendo fansites, videogame press, and gamers would like the story of a new Banjo game coming to a Nintendo system. I'm claiming at the start of this, they intended to make a Wii U port. You somehow think all of that is too amazing to be believed. I cannot imagine why. None of it could be anything other than the obvious truth, unless you think the people at Playtronic are drooling imbeciles.
The shady part is fishing for donations and press on Kickstarter, then just dropping whatever you don't want to work on in the end, once you know who you do and don't need, and once you've taken every possible advantage in the meantime. I don't see how the story, as it played out, looks like anything else.
I apologize for misunderstanding and misconstruing your narrative; it is more internally consistent than I had thought. What's still missing is the actual financial incentive. They had nothing to lose by releasing a Wii U version, but in canceling it, they not only shed backer funds but wasted practically the entire development budget, making the decision as late in development as they did - and given that lateness, the Wii U and Switch versions had to have been simultaneous projects, so it's not like Playtonic needed to abandon one to complete the other; with the resources on hand, they could have had their cake and eaten it too with both ports. They lost money on this choice, plain and simple.
Besides, I don't like to presume malice (or negligence) over misfortune, especially when the stated misfortune specifically fits Unity's track record on the Wii U. A technical failure such as Playtonic claim is entirely probable. Together, that and the absence of any gain from electively abandoning the project give their story a lot of weight.