@New Forms

A very fair and solid point, and one that's never far from my mind as I made the choice to pass on the game. There are really pros and cons to the situation. I am planning to at least write them a letter to explain my thoughts, so hopefully that will show it isn't just "lack of install base" and some lost sales are "Don't delay a finished game 9 months after you promised it for launch."

I get why they did it, I do. I just don't agree with why they did it. If their reasoning was "we want more money" (which whether it came from MS or not is the case) then the only punishment they'll care about is getting less money because of that choice.

What they could have done, even if it was total PR BS, is said "the game isn't ready" and then LATER announced the multi-console release. Not "We aren't going to give you the game we promised as an exclusive because we want more money, so wait 9 months." That's just not something I can get behind with my dollars.

So you're saying Mass Effect on PS3 would have sold more copies if they had delayed the original for almost a year to release at the same time? I guess I hadn't considered that. Kind of lousy, but if that's the way it is I guess I can't argue what gamers do. (At the same time, seems to me that sales of that game were hardly hurting in general. They made a mint.)

@New Forms

The Wii U install base wasn't there? That doesn't stop every other developer on the planet from making games for unproven next-gen systems all the time.

Late ports sell worse than the original? Then why weren't the dozens of multiplatform games that released last on Wii/Wii U delayed to coincide with that system's release? And I'm sure Rayman will do better in September now that it's going up against GTA5, and on the Wii U, Pikmin 3 and TW101. As opposed to nothing in February.

The message I'd be sending Ubi Soft by buying Rayman for the Wii U is that they can screw over Nintendo fans in the most gauche way possible and I'd still buy their game at full price.

The weak 3rd-party support was kicked off by them not releasing Legends in February. It would've filled in a critical gap in the Wii U's lineup and gotten the system some sorely-needed positive press prior to E3. Now it's gotta play catch-up; part of this is Nintendo's fault, but Ubi sweeping the rug out from under them certainly didn't help matters.

I don't mean to come across as aggressive but this is a really sore spot for me. I made a Top Ten list back when this delay happened about why it was such an awful decision, and I had trouble keeping the list down to ONLY ten.

@TriforceBun

I can see that you're passionate about this issue but please do not confuse the messager with the message. I'm not the one that delayed Legends, I'm only relaying the rationale behind it, fair or unfair, as stated by the devs themselves.

Well yeah man, I'm not mad at YOU. I just find all possible reasons for this move very unsatisfactory.

New Forms said:

The Wii U install base simply wasn't there, or more specifically, 3rd party-purchasing install base.

Late ports generally never sell close to the original because by then it is a known product and the hype has died down (see BioShock & Mass Effect to PS3, etc.).

It sure sounds like you're buying into their rationale and not just relaying it.

@TriforceBun

Yeah, unsatisfactory is a good way to put it.

I actually understand the buisness economics that drove the descision to delay the game for multi release. It can feel like a bitter pill, but I've learned not to take this kind of thing personally. It happens all the time in the industry (game delays, platform hopping). I always feel sad when franchises I love die on the vine for lack of support (Wipeout, PGR, Metal Arms, etc.). Kind of a different situation, but the same principal.

In the end it's like they say, it's only buisness.

@TriforceBun

Honestly the "nothing vs. GTA/Pikmin" thing is the biggest reason why I feel like it's such a stupid delay to make. How many MORE games would they have sold if it had been the big game of February for a console with starving gamers vs. putting it into the gluttony of a near-holiday release? I think a lot. I don't have data to prove it or anything, but I think it would be a LOT. I was aching for something earlier in the year to play, and now I have too much and more on the way. Instead of Rayman being at the top of my list, it is like 5th or 6th WITHOUT my frustration of the delay.

I think there's something to be said for being that "launch game" that sells way more than it would if it wasn't a launch game. And February was close enough. How many fewer copies would Red Steel have sold if not having been a launch game? ZombiU? Heck, even like Waverace back in the day.

Launch window is such a huge, huge boost. I just don't see that number being made up by 360/PS3 owners who are getting huge titles very soon and already have a gigantic library of stuff to play (not to mention it isn't a game suited to that audience anyway).

TriforceBun said:

I still feel bitter about this game. I know that's probably kind of childish, but it was such a kick in the junk to Nintendo.

Yeah, to Nintendo. Not to you as a gamer. Isn't it nice that more people get to play this game?

@GelatinousEncore

It's be a lot nicer if it wasn't arbitrarily delayed 7 months for that purpose. It's not about the game being multiplatform.

If you like this game, please buy it. The only thing boycotting the game does is prove to Ubisoft that Wii U owners only buy Nintendo games. Just buy the games you like, folks.

TriforceBun said:

@GelatinousEncore

It's be a lot nicer if it wasn't arbitrarily delayed 7 months for that purpose. It's not about the game being multiplatform.

Sure, but what are you gonna do. It came when it came... you're only punishing yourself if you don't buy a game you were excited about because you're angry at Ubisoft. If you don't buy it just for this reason it'll just make Ubisoft release even less games on the Wii U. If they get too many more Zombi U's sales-wise, I don't know how much they're gonna care for the Wii U when they start developing for next gen.

You're a free man, though. I know I'll be having a great time next week.

@PogueSquadron

It also shows that there are still some people out there unwilling to be walked over if they feel strongly about something.

Will it amount to anything? Who knows. If we all stop believing in certain things, though, and just let others have their way, when that way is the norm we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. In this case, like all capitalism, we vote with our dollars. Ubisoft will know via letter than my dollars didn't go to them because of their "kick in the junk" as Matthew put it. I don't reward companies that do the business equivalent of crotch shots. I don't support that type of business.

And it may just be me, and may amount to nothing, and in the end we're all dust. Life's funny like that.

At this point ignoring the game is kinda not supporting the Wii U.

I'm with everyone who says what Ubi did was pure shit but that time has passed and now we can vote with our dollars by supporting a quality Wii U game.

Ubi is actually showing the Wii U love, they just panicked over a game they thought wouldn't sell, especially on a struggling system. Wrong or not, there was a business decision behind it. I agree that it wasn't personal. They'd have been happy to leave it as a Wii U exclusive if the system was selling better.

And online aside, their Splinter Cell port is amazing.

Some reviews are claiming that the 360/PS3 versions are the ones to go with now, though... and I have to admit, I hate the idea of my character control being ripped away from me while I'm forced to do all of the Murphy touch screen crap. Hmmm.

@carlosrox

Yeah. If this were another company, EA for example, it would be a much harder pill to swallow. But with Ubi being one of the better third party supporters of the Wii U (AC III & IV, Zombi U, Watch Dogs, etc.), I'm more inclined to go with the flow.

Now, If we want complain about someone, how about EA releasing the Wii U version of ME3 at the same time as releasing the HD trilogy on the other consoles and then throwing a hissy fit when it doesn't sell...

Heads up: I think the online challenges in the Challenge App are going dark tomorrow.

@Hinph
Why in the hell would those versions be better for any reason? I call bullshit.

@Hinph
Maybe, but I wouldn't trust reviewers of progressive Wii U software, just like I didn't trust reviewers of progressive Wii software.

@-JKR- I dunno, I think that's pretty silly. The game, by all accounts so far is supposed to be really really good. It uses the Gamepad arguably better than any Nintendo game has thus far. It's got colorful fun graphics and tight gameplay. It even has most of Rayman Legends actually in it. Online leaderboards, local co-op, etc.

I get people are mad that it was delayed, but games are delayed all the time. Nintendo delayed Twilight Princess forever, to the point where they practically moved it to another console. Would people have boycotted it if Nintendo was more frank with us? "Well, no one is really buying GameCube games anymore so we decided to delay it." I know it's not the same situation, but in the end, the game is the final product. And we had to wait what, 8 months? What's the big deal, really? Ubisoft won't care what people's rationale for not buying the game was. They just see the numbers.

Bottom line, if you like this game and want to see more games like it, any reason to not buy it is silly IMO (unless you're like me and probably can't afford it). They won't see that people didn't buy the game and will turn around and say "you know, no one bought this game because we were assholes. Lets give them a sequel."

I just think of Michel Ancel talking about the delay. He was frustrated with it too, obviously, but the last thing he'd want is for people to not play it. What a slap in the face to him that would be if the fans boycotted the game they liked purely out of spite of Ubisoft.

@PogueSquadron

It's his decision to work at Ubisoft and give them that control. I agree, it's probably a very lousy feeling that some people won't play the game because of what they did, and not what he did. Maybe it will be a push to work for a less-greedy publisher, who knows? That's part of the "con" list when you work for a big greedy publisher. You don't get to make your choices about your games, they do. The pro side is you get healthcare and a paycheck.

I disagree with what Ubisoft did, and I'm going to show them via what I buy. I know it's easy to look at ME as the bad guy in this situation, and that's okay if you want to view it like that. In this instance I'm standing up for what I believe in, which is there's more to business than bottom lines. To me that stance is worth more than playing a fun video game or trying to support a console I ALREADY supported when I bought it at launch, waiting for Rayman to enjoy in February. It's a way I want to live my life, and is no different than if someone made a video game about sacrificing humans on a pagan alter and me not buying that based on my personal beliefs either. I'm not going to riot, or act violently, I'm just going to stand up for what I believe and not make a purchase I would have made if they hadn't acted purely out of greed.