If you want to play the new Super Smash Bros you have to have a Nintendo WiiU right? Instead, its going to be released on the more established, more successful 3DS as well. The games will not be exactly the same, but that is really minor. The game's potential audience is much larger by including the handheld, but has Nintendo lost another chance to shine a light on the WiiU? (What if the next Zelda is also cross platform like this?)
If you want to play MLB:14 The Show you have to have a PS4...no, you can get it on your PS3 too. So Sony is following the same pattern, at least with this game.
So, here are games that *could* have been exclusive to just a new console, but the company opted to release it on an older console, or a handheld version as well to spread the risk and maximize immediate profits at the expense of possibly larger install base of the new console. In a generation being marked by only an evolution of graphics and not a revolution, where there seems not to be a 'wow, I gotta upgrade' feeling, a true exclusive could really carry some heft.
Yet all three major companies are doing the same thing.
Right call? Shortsighted call? What do you think?
I hate it when companies abandon their systems and move everything to the new shiny systems. It shows good faith to the consumer AND it gives the game a better chance at succeeding.
Even though Titanfall is available on the 360 and Xbox One...it's going to be easy for gamers to see which version is superior. It shows that there is a clear jump when you move to the next platform.
I think short term - yeah you're missing out on some console sales. Long term, you will have a more satisfied user base that is more likely to stick with your brand.
Lots of factors go into this - you have multiple teams working on different versions of the 'same' game, you have games that go over-time on development and budget, and when you finally have it completed you have to see where it will fit on your upcoming release schedule.
I imagine MS would have liked to have Titan Fall up at launch of Xbox One, and Nintendo certainly would have liked to get some games out sooner on Wii U for sure...
It is probably better to have a wider release between titles like Smash on 3DS and Wii U that should be less harmful. The 3DS version is a big game to have out in the summer to give you a boost in the off season and I imagine they will do all they can to get Smash out in NOV, unless that is even out of reach at this point, who knows? I alos think people that w
This question goes back abit. Only a few minor games were released by Nintendo for both the SNES and the NES that I can think of, such as Wario's Woods, and that is hardly a system seller. I think Nintendo really hyped up the advance to 16 bits, and never looked back. The Sega Master System did get potential system sellers for the Genesis on it - Sonic, Altered Beast and Golden Axe. Two companies, two different takes 20 years ago then. I don't think Nintendo abandoned the NES user base, they just expected them to quickly move up, and there were still many 3rd party developers willing to continue to make NES games, something Sega did not really have for the SMS.
The Sega-CD, only an add-on of course, but it shows a danger in hedging. Remember Sega's own Ecco: Tides of Time game? Sure the CD game is better in some ways (the soundtrack does add to the game), but not enough better. Maybe Ecco was not a system seller, but the original Ecco was a hyped family game by Sega during the whole Mortal Kombat fatalities thing.
I have read that the Xbox360 install base is still 10x that of the Xbox One, so I would think the 360 version sells pretty well. Even if the Xbox One game is superior, is it enough to prompt buying a new system for? Instead of 'look at how great this game is' the argument is weakened to just 'and can you see that its better on the newer system/home console?" Its also a question about upgrading in the Spring, instead of the Fall. The idea of best can also confused by the PC release.
(Edit: removed accidental carriage returns)
Anyone can play Monday morning QB but things happen and you have to regroup, reload, and move on.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain this a bit, my friend? If you are discussing slipping release dates, many things happen in the lifecycle of bringing a game from concept to console.
Here the companies, all three of them, have decided early on in that development lifecycle to have a multi-platform company exclusives.
Wasn't Smash Brothers hyped back in June at E3 2013 as an upcoming Wii U, not also an upcoming 3DS game. Titanfall is being bundled with the Xbox One, so it certainly is a system seller, just could it have been even a better one? Sony too could have helped the PS4 with its baseball franchise.
Titanfall - well, they are being agressive with bundling it to Xbox One so it is a system seller, and the face of Xbox right now. That game has been the most hyped for about a year now. But I think MS is facing reality as well, they won the 2nd half of last gen and a lot of those 360 systems are users who are too poor or too disinterested to buy an xbox one, so why not put it on 360 too?
Smash - I am not sure it is as big of a game as it once was. Nintendo recently released two 2D Mario's close together on 3DS and Wii U when that launched, not sure it helped either game. I think this is a dev cycle thing - push the 3DS game out first, let it sell there, and then there is enough time-break before the 'definitive' version releases on Wii U. It is a nice franchise for the 3DS to get, it should do pretty decent. Is it bad for the Wii U to wait? Maybe - but Mario Kart is a month away, looks fantastic, they have that big game coming, and the Wii U is what it is as this point. Similar to the Vita maybe, except Nintendo has much better support for it with AAA games than Sony ever did or will ever do for Vita. The only question for the game is - will it make Christmas launch or does Nintendo have a different game to anchor the Wii U for the holidays? Zelda, perhaps? We do not know, this is a wait till E3 situation now.
It is all strategy, and playing cards as best they can be played, when they get them ready to play. It is a patch work, but I do not think MS, Sony or Nintendo are not being aggressive in pushing their new consoles, the market is only so strong , and you have to hedge bets as well. MS invested a ton into Titanfall, they are leveraging as best they can. Smash is the ultimate Nintendo fanboy game, they know what it is, they hype it continually, they know the audience. MLB is really not in the same category as those two games.
I had not realized you were so sanguine on the WiiU. On a sitcom (Big Bang Theory) the other week, the comedy was based on a character fruitlessly trying to decide between the PS4 and the Xbox One, and they used another character suggesting the "Wii" (not the WiiU) as a joke line. Its sobering when your console has become the equivalent of a wah-wah trumpet in a sit-com.
Thinking about hedging bets, does the lack of Sony and Microsoft's backwards compatibility become unfortunate in hindsight? Backwards compatibility is not cheap, and in the past was a short term measure with early models to encourage the leap without losing your old library. It could have helped, say MS here, by allowing Titanfall as a 360 only game. Sure there would not be a nifty new gen version, but MS would have gotten Titanfall to all their consoles cheaper and faster. The very success of the 360 has left many gamers with a wishlist of games to play before trading/selling off the old model towards a new, and backwards compatibility would have negated being hobbled by your previous console's very success. Once your fans upgrade, then you can make Xbox One only games. The anniversary edition of Halo 2 may follow the same Xbox One/360 path. That would leave the eventual new Halo in 2015 to encourage the jump to the Xbox One. That is possibly two years of hedging between consoles, when they could have had backwards compatibility. Two years without a real console exclusive system seller (and it still may be on Windows 8).