News: No Multiplayer for Batman: Arkham Origins on Nintendo Wii U Page 1

Agul 31.07.2013#1

G*** D*** THESE 3RD PARTIES. :-x This is absolutely RIDICULOUS. Why even bother. People won't purchase the Wii U version now. It's like they're deliberately creating a reason to cut support.

( Edited 31.07.2013 20:11 by Agul )

Chance favors the prepared mind.

Sonic_13 31.07.2013#2

I'm more put off by the idea of supporting an intentionally incomplete game (for the same price) than by actually missing the multiplayer.

If the game was cheaper than the other versions as a result I would be somewhat ok (though still disappointed).

The Arkham City port was great so I'm particularly disappointed.

JoshSL 31.07.2013#3

Third parties: No one buys our Wii U games
Third parties: *makes Wii U versions worse than other versions*
Third parties: IT'S A MYSTERY TO ME!
Third parties: *keeps making Wii U versions worse than other versions*
Third parties: Looks like it's time to pull support, such a shame.

Twitter | C3 Writer/Moderator | Backloggery

LKR000 31.07.2013#4

This is getting ridiculous now >.>

Nintendo Network ID: LKR000 PSN: LKR000
3DS: 1246-8696-120 GT: LKR101

PhoenixFirewalker 31.07.2013#5

I sense a secret plot within the video game industry to remove Nintendo from the gaming industry Smilie !

WP-Final 31.07.2013#6

Who the hell is making these decisions?

They have NO excuses now when the game doesn't sell on WiiU other than their own pathetic ideas.

bartje (guest) 31.07.2013#7

Wait, a game is being developed for the Nintendo WiiU?
This is fantastic news! Smilie

Oh how I do remember my N64 days and watching the pictures of the 12 games that would be released that year over and over again...made me happy man.

I hope I'm not alone in thinking less choice in products is better for my content-o-meter. I am? Wait. who are you then? ah you just want to have an argument...well guess who's alone in THAT! Now we're both alone...in our own special way. Let's cherish that....

TAG 01.08.2013#8

I'm trying to figure out why. Maybe the asymmetrical controllers are a problem? That is to say, if your multiplayer game is happening on the same screen (as opposed to online), only one person gets to use the WiiU pad and the other player has to use something else.

TAG: That American Guy

"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Romans 12:18

SirLink 01.08.2013#9

TAG said:
I'm trying to figure out why. Maybe the asymmetrical controllers are a problem? That is to say, if your multiplayer game is happening on the same screen (as opposed to online), only one person gets to use the WiiU pad and the other player has to use something else.

There's no problem like that, according to an official statement they are simply focusing on the platforms with the largest multiplayer audience. How the online multiplayer community on the Wii U is supposed to grow if third parties aren't bringing the goods is beyond me. Nintendo can't just do that for them too, otherwise everybody will only be playing Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros. instead and not care about third party games that offer online multiplayer as well.

Twitter | Backloggery

JoshSL 01.08.2013#10

Since third parties aren't the brightest with Nintendo consoles and expect everyone else to do the growing for them (when everyone else wants someone else to do it for them, it never happens at all) I'm wondering if they're also (hopefully) daft enough to start doing more online support when Mario Kart comes out. Mario Kart will have a big, long lasting online community. Nintendo's online community doesn't equate to third party online communities.. but maybe third parties will at least start trying then.

Twitter | C3 Writer/Moderator | Backloggery

J4K 01.08.2013#11

Let's explore this question: who is responsible for growing the Wii U audience, especially as related to the online community? From the posts in this topic, I'm hearing that third parties are responsible for making Nintendo's console successful. Now I'd like to hear someone explain how that makes any sense.

I understand the frustration and disappointment when news like this comes out, but I'm seeing too many folks acting like they're entitled to third party support. I think a reminder is necessary: the Wii U sold less than 200 thousand units worldwide over a three month period. I didn't see too many complaints of injustice when developers dropped the Playstation Vita - that was perfectly logical (bad sales = bad support), but somehow this isn't. Frankly, it's good to see this port is still coming, along with Call of Duty from Activision.

You guys want more? You have to buy this, warts and all. You need to see this as an opportunity to prove the Wii U audience is receptive to third parties - even if the game is missing a mode.

JoshSL 01.08.2013#12

Jacob4000 said:
Let's explore this question: who is responsible for growing the Wii U audience, especially as related to the online community? From the posts in this topic, I'm hearing that third parties are responsible for making Nintendo's console successful. Now I'd like to hear someone explain how that makes any sense.

To be fair, what makes PS or XB consoles successful? Third party games. Only Nintendo has to carry an entire console weight themselves.
Yeah Nintendo usually carries their own success, but it's not exactly fair that Nintendo fans are the only ones who don't really get third party efforts as standard. Let's forget about industry politics for a minute and think about the consumers, it makes no sense at all from a consumer perspective.

I didn't see too many complaints of injustice when developers dropped the Playstation Vita

I do, and they're just as well-warranted (I complain about it too). It's a crime that devs aren't supporting a great console like the Vita when they'll gladly walk blindly into supporting the PS4 or One even if there's no way of knowing yet whether or not they'll be successful. (everyone thought the Wii U and Vita would be before they were released, look how they turned out)

You guys want more? You have to buy this, warts and all. You need to see this as an opportunity to prove the Wii U audience is receptive to third parties - even if the game is missing a mode.

This I thoroughly agree with though. Boycotting a version of a game does nothing but say "we don't want this at all". Talking with your wallet sounds smart, but not many realise that there are literally only a few simple "statements" you can make with your wallet. Don't want vs do want. "I would appreciate this game but this factor in particular does not appeal to me however I will/will not buy this game anyway and hope that you notice this comment somewhere in the internet maelstrom and take my comment on board" doesn't really work.

Edit this post:

[quote][b]Jacob4000 said:[/b]<br/>Let's explore this question: who is responsible for growing the Wii U audience, especially as related to the online community? From the posts in this topic, I'm hearing that third parties are responsible for making [b]Nintendo's[/b] console successful. Now I'd like to hear someone explain how that makes any sense. [/quote]
To be fair, what makes PS or XB consoles successful? Third party games. Only Nintendo has to carry an entire console weight themselves.
Yeah Nintendo [i]usually [/i]carries their own success, but it's not exactly [i]fair[/i] that Nintendo fans are the only ones who don't really get third party efforts as standard. Let's forget about industry politics for a minute and think about the consumers, it makes no sense at all from a consumer perspective.

[quote]I didn't see too many complaints of injustice when developers dropped the Playstation Vita[/quote]
I do, and they're just as well-warranted (I complain about it too). It's a crime that devs aren't supporting a great console like the Vita when they'll gladly walk blindly into supporting the PS4 or One even if there's no way of knowing yet whether or not they'll be successful. (everyone thought the Wii U and Vita would be before they were released, look how they turned out)

[quote]You guys want more? You [i]have to[/i] buy this, warts and all. You need to see this as an opportunity to prove the Wii U audience is receptive to third parties - even if the game is missing a mode.[/quote]
This I thoroughly agree with though. Boycotting a version of a game does nothing but say "we don't want this at all". Talking with your wallet sounds smart, but not many realise that there are literally only a few simple "statements" you can make with your wallet. Don't want vs do want. "I would appreciate this game but this factor in particular does not appeal to me however I will/will not buy this game anyway and hope that you notice this comment somewhere in the internet maelstrom and take my comment on board" doesn't really work.

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

Twitter | C3 Writer/Moderator | Backloggery

J4K 01.08.2013#13

Whichever genius decided that backspace should take you back a page needs to be fired. Just lost my entire post. :/

Anyhow:

To be fair, what makes PS or XB consoles successful? Third party games. Only Nintendo has to carry an entire console weight themselves.

Who made that choice? Nintendo did. They've never handled third parties properly. MS and Sony have. They've created environments conducive to third party success - something Nintendo doesn't bother with.

You can't say they haven't earned that support without bothering to create their own system sellers though. MS and XBOX live would not be what they are today without Halo and Gears of War. Sony too has truly robust first party studios these days, creating some of the best games of the generation.

They have third party success because they made an effort with third parties and helped pave the way with their own games. Nintendo hasn't really bothered to the same extent, and now that they're in need, third parties are supposed to swoop in and save them? "Fair" is a pointless term in a business context. Third parties support Sony and Microsoft because they make a lot of money doing it. If there's no financial incentive to do otherwise, third parties will watch Nintendo drown. Plain and simple.

Let's forget about industry politics for a minute and think about the consumers, it makes no sense at all from a consumer perspective.

No, let's look at it from the perspective that matters: the business one. From the consumer perspective, the Wii U should be getting Gears of War, Uncharted, Halo, the Last of Us, etc. Because that would be awesome for the consumer!

From the business perspective - and these are business with shareholders and salaries and bottom lines to worry about - publishing on the Wii U is risky and likely to not be rewarded. From a purely business perspective, it does make sense for them to cut the multiplayer from the Wii U version. It's a feature that would be underutilized on the system, would involve server costs, and would create headache over DLC map-packs and other such niceties. Just port the singleplayer and forget the MP. If the game is successful and users wants the MP, reevaluate the situation next time around. That's a conservative, but rather sound business decision.

I do, and they're just as well-warranted (I complain about it too). It's a crime that devs aren't supporting a great console like the Vita when they'll gladly walk blindly into supporting the PS4 or One even if there's no way of knowing yet whether or not they'll be successful. (everyone thought the Wii U and Vita would be before they were released, look how they turned out)

I meant I hadn't seen it around here. I'm sure communities across the web were upset at declining Vita support. But here, there weren't any topics expressing outrage. People seemed to be okay with the basic logic of bad sales = bad support, something that has seemed to drop by the wayside now that the Wii U is the one suffering.

Edit this post:

Whichever genius decided that backspace should take you back a page needs to be fired. Just lost my entire post. :/

Anyhow:

[quote]To be fair, what makes PS or XB consoles successful? Third party games. Only Nintendo has to carry an entire console weight themselves.[/quote]

Who made that choice? Nintendo did. They've never handled third parties properly. MS and Sony have. They've created environments conducive to third party success - something Nintendo doesn't bother with.

You can't say they haven't earned that support without bothering to create their own system sellers though. MS and XBOX live would not be what they are today without Halo and Gears of War. Sony too has truly robust first party studios these days, creating some of the best games of the generation.

They have third party success because they made an effort with third parties and helped pave the way with their own games. Nintendo hasn't really bothered to the same extent, and now that they're in need, third parties are supposed to swoop in and save them? "Fair" is a pointless term in a business context. Third parties support Sony and Microsoft because they make a lot of money doing it. If there's no financial incentive to do otherwise, third parties will watch Nintendo drown. Plain and simple.

[quote] Let's forget about industry politics for a minute and think about the consumers, it makes no sense at all from a consumer perspective.[/quote]

No, let's look at it from the perspective that matters: the business one. From the consumer perspective, the Wii U should be getting Gears of War, Uncharted, Halo, the Last of Us, etc. Because that would be awesome for the consumer!

From the business perspective - and these are business with shareholders and salaries and bottom lines to worry about - publishing on the Wii U is risky and likely to not be rewarded. From a purely business perspective, it does make sense for them to cut the multiplayer from the Wii U version. It's a feature that would be underutilized on the system, would involve server costs, and would create headache over DLC map-packs and other such niceties. Just port the singleplayer and forget the MP. If the game is successful and users wants the MP, reevaluate the situation next time around. That's a conservative, but rather sound business decision.

[quote]I do, and they're just as well-warranted (I complain about it too). It's a crime that devs aren't supporting a great console like the Vita when they'll gladly walk blindly into supporting the PS4 or One even if there's no way of knowing yet whether or not they'll be successful. (everyone thought the Wii U and Vita would be before they were released, look how they turned out)[/quote]

I meant I hadn't seen it around here. I'm sure communities across the web were upset at declining Vita support. But here, there weren't any topics expressing outrage. People seemed to be okay with the basic logic of bad sales = bad support, something that has seemed to drop by the wayside now that the Wii U is the one suffering.

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

JudgeMethos 01.08.2013#14

I couldn't agree more. I swear. Don't they realize shoddy ports are some of the reasons folks skip over the Wii U? I plan on gettin it anyway cuz multiplayer isn't even important to me but to some that MAY have wanted it. Smh...

Hynaman 02.08.2013#15

I can understand how people are disappointed with this news but I will still get the game for WiiU. I am not a big multiplayer gamer and always prefer the single player adventure in just about all games. It is definitely a disappointment though for those that love the multiplayer aspect. I think we might need to get used to announcements like this though which is going to be even more frustrating and disappointing for the future of the WiiU. Smilie

When in doubt....Whip it out!