Watch Dogs - Everything Is Connected - Connection is Power (All Consoles)

[PaddyFancy]

Makes no sense. Why would GameStop Italy re-instate it if it was really cancelled?

[RisingForever]

I just called a nearby Gamestop and asked if Watch Dogs was available for preorder on WiiU. Got a resounding yes, so either the word hasn't spread around to all the chains yet or Kotaku is talking out of their ass.

[Jacky]

That Kotaku article just had an update

UPDATE: 2:30PM: We've contacted GameStop stores in New York and Los Angeles that say that customers can still pre-order Watch Dogs for Wii U, leading to the possibility that the cancellation order our retail source told us about was not applicable nationally. Joystiq reports that the Italian branch of GameStop told them that the de-listing of a Wii U version of the game was an error and that "tomorrow the reservation ofWatch Dogs will restart." We've not heard from GameStop U.S. yet, but will let you know if/when they respond

[PaddyFancy]

Ubisoft incompetence, because why are they not debunking this rumour if its false? Are they all off-the-clock or on their lunch break?

[Kaabiitorori]

They have figures that we don't and have been the only major third party developer to give the Wii U several chances.

Zombie U bombed, Rayman underperformed, Splinter Cell sold worst on Wii U, and both AC's sold worst on Wii U.

If they don't think Watch_Dogs a worthy investment, that's all there is to it.

You shifting the argument to "yes, well the Wii U fans would have bought their games for sure if they had tried better" brings up a point that is not only irrelevant to the topic at hand, but also highly presumptuous. You stated that canceling the game would upset Wii U owners, and he pointed out that Wii U owners hardly paid them any mind regardless. This is fact.

Expressing disappointment at the current situation is fine, but blatantly insulting one of the only major companies in the entire industry to go out of their way to support the Wii U in a meaningful way multiple times just comes off as misdirected anger.

 

You have a point on how Ubisoft is one of the few remaining 3rd Party companies supporting the Wii U. However, to what extent are they supporting the Wii U? You point out Wii U owners hardly paid them any mind regardless, as a matter of fact. You know why? Because Ubisoft didn’t deliver certain games either to a certain degree of quality or mistreated the user base, therefore losing interest on buying these games as I expressed before.

 

You cannot gimp Splinter Cell with insane loading times, lower FPS ratio, no local co-op, and then expect me to drop $60/60€/£40. You cannot devaluate your Wii U versions by not supporting them with extra content like AC III and IV. You cannot tease your Wii U with an excellent timed exclusive as Rayman Legends, then delay it with the multiplats altogether even when the Wii U version was literally completed, and then expect many of these people to buy it with their open arms.

 

Months ago, Ubisoft gave an ultimatum to Wii U owners to buy their games or else support will most likely be stopped. Ubisoft cannot mess around with a portion of a user base, give them an ultimatum, and expect to receive great sales, because if that's the case then why are they supporting the Wii U on the first place? When Ubisoft starts trying a little harder on the Wii U, that user base will buy their games on the Wii U. I bought Zombi U and Rayman Legends on retail when I had the chance and I am planning to buy Watch Dogs on release day as long as it’s not gimped or, worst case scenario, cancelled.

 

Lastly, if you think I am blatantly insulting Ubisoft for their support, they are the ones who are insulting us, the consumers, by executing such business decisions. I am expressing my disappointment with facts over the publisher’s decisions. As I said, if they want to see my money, they better stay committed to deliver a quality product that will make me glad to drop $60/60€/£40 on it. Let's hope to God that Watch Dogs on the Wii U will be the case.

 

And that’s all I gotta say.

 

EDIT: With all what's going on, I swear... can't Ubisoft come up and debunk this rumor already? This is getting out of hand... o_o

Edited January 24, 2014 by Kaabiitorori

[SuperLink]

Unfortunately guys, the lack of debunk is probably the exact reason to worry
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/446613/wii-u-version-of-watch-dogs-rumoured-to-be-scrapped/
 

"We have nothing to comment at the moment," a Ubisoft spokesperson replied.

There is literally no way this isn't bad news. If this was happening to any other system, Ubi would be quick to say "completely false, we will release the game as planned."

 

"no comment" = "what you know has changed, we can't talk about it yet, sorry."

 

This really sucks.

[Lady Soniko]

Unless Ubi have been thinking about this move for a while, and instead of debunking it as a rumour, are going with the flow to see if they can silently deport it during the rush of things? I can't honestly see them doing that, but after the shit they pulled with Legends delay, I just don't know what to believe any more.

 

Just means my Wii U is going to be sitting under my TV stand for another month or 2 until another game I want comes out.

[Sami]

You have a point on how Ubisoft is one of the few remaining 3rd Party companies supporting the Wii U. However, to what extent are they supporting the Wii U? You point out Wii U owners hardly paid them any mind regardless, as a matter of fact. You know why? Because Ubisoft didn’t deliver certain games either to a certain degree of quality or mistreated the user base, therefore losing interest on buying these games as I expressed before. You cannot gimp Splinter Cell with insane loading times, lower FPS ratio, no local co-op, and then expect me to drop $60/60€/£40. You cannot devaluate your Wii U versions by not supporting them with extra content like AC III and IV. You cannot tease your Wii U with an excellent timed exclusive as Rayman Legends, then delay it with the multiplats altogether even when the Wii U version was literally completed, and then expect many of these people to buy it with their open arms. Months ago, Ubisoft gave an ultimatum to Wii U owners to buy their games or else support will most likely be stopped. Ubisoft cannot mess around with a portion of a user base, give them an ultimatum, and expect to receive great sales, because if that's the case then why are they supporting the Wii U on the first place? When Ubisoft starts trying a little harder on the Wii U, that user base will buy their games on the Wii U. I bought Zombi U and Rayman Legends on retail when I had the chance and I am planning to buy Watch Dogs on release day as long as it’s not gimped or, worst case scenario, cancelled. Lastly, if you think I am blatantly insulting Ubisoft for their support, they are the ones who are insulting us, the consumers, by executing such business decisions. I am expressing my disappointment with facts over the publisher’s decisions. As I said, if they want to see my money, they better stay committed to deliver a quality product that will make me glad to drop $60/60€/£40 on it. Let's hope to God that Watch Dogs on the Wii U will be the case. And that’s all I gotta say. EDIT: With all what's going on, I swear... can't Ubisoft come up and debunk this rumor already? This is getting out of hand... o_o

You can come up with all the reasoning and explanations in the world, and that won't change the bottom line - all of Ubisoft's Wii U games underperformed, with all of their open world games selling absolutely horribly on the system. The Wii U sales for both AC3 and AC4, as well as Splinter Cell, accounted for roughly 1% of the multiplatform total. If there's anyone worth feeling insulted by, it's Nintendo for letting themselves get into this mess in the first place.

[Autosaver]

"no comment" = "what you know has changed, we can't talk about it yet, sorry."

 

 Italy preorders have been reinstated and every US store has no signs of a cancellation. Vendors such as Amazon have made statements saying there is no news about cancellations.

 

I wouldn't really worry about it right now.

 

Edit: Rayman Legends sold decently on Nintendo platforms. Actually, it sold the most if I recall.

[AlphaRuby]

http://www.gamezone.com/news/2014/01/24/cancelled-watch-dogs-wii-u-pre-orders-a-glitch-in-gamestop-s-system

 

It was just a glitch, Wii U owners.

 

You can all breathe now.

[SuperLink]

It performed under their expectations but so did Origins. Rayman isn't a big seller.

 

Also, even if pre-orders have been reinstated (for now), what's the explanation behind Ubisoft's "no comment"? Seriously, that's far more telling then pre-order cancellations and I want to know why Ubisoft said that instead of what should have been damage control. That's the standard procedure for things that are.. you know, actually coming out.

 

PS. I know Nintendo doom and gloom is the in thing right now and there's a good reason for it but for once just for once can we actually let people be upset that this is the case. They have every right to be, they're not Nintendo, they didn't fuck this up, they can blame Nintendo or Ubisoft or whatever if they're (understandably) angry. People have every right to be upset.

[Sami]

It was the best selling version, but Ubisoft was disappointed with the sales as a whole regardless. You could say that sales wise it was simply the least bad.

[Rinzler]

You can come up with all the reasoning and explanations in the world, and that won't change the bottom line - all of Ubisoft's Wii U games underperformed, with all of their open world games selling absolutely horribly on the system. The Wii U sales for both AC3 and AC4, as well as Splinter Cell, accounted for roughly 1% of the multiplatform total. If there's anyone worth feeling insulted by, it's Nintendo for letting themselves get into this mess in the first place.

Their games might not have underperformed if they weren't severely gimped, or in Zombi U's case extremely mediocre.

[Sami]

So then what leads you to believe Watch_Dogs would be any different, if every other game they released was gimped?

[SuperLink]

It was the best selling version, but Ubisoft was disappointed with the sales as a whole regardless. You could say that sales wise it was simply the least bad.

Ubi was disappointed with many games sales in the last few years, including Origins and Splinter Cell, that doesn't mean Nintendo is to blame especially when Legends actually performed best on Wii U. Do you expect them to say "we'll let PS3 and 360 off"?

[The Kid]

It was the best selling version, but Ubisoft was disappointed with the sales as a whole regardless. You could say that sales wise it was simply the least bad.

Is "disappointed with sales" really telling though? Expectations are not the same as actual profits. Wasn't Tomb Raider touted by Square as being disappointing sales-wise despite selling phenomenally well by any other estimation? For when it launched (near GTA5), what did they really expect?

I'm also curious on whether Wii U sales would have theoretically been higher if people weren't soured by the delay and decision to bring it multi-platform. There was a lot of anger going around when that decision was announced, with many people claiming to buy it used as some sort of revenge.

[Sami]

Ubi was disappointed with many games sales in the last few years, including Origins and Splinter Cell, that doesn't mean Nintendo is to blame especially when Legends actually performed best on Wii U. Do you expect them to say "we'll let PS3 and 360 off"?

If Rayman and Splinter Cell severely underperformed, then the likelihood of getting major sequels diminishes. In Rayman's case, we might not get a sequel at all. The data shows that these franchises don't have the pull they want and they act accordingly.

Conversely, when titles like Assassin's Creed perform very well on every system apart from the Wii U (which sold legitimately terribly), they see the data and act accordingly. If they really did cancel Watch_Dogs, then it's simply because they analyzed the data and decided the sales projections for the Wii U version didn't warrant completing and publishing the port.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be upset, I'm merely contesting the statements that Ubisoft is stupid/lazy/whatever when, unfortunate as it is, it's a perfectly feasible and justifiable business decision. It sucks, but that's just the facts.

Is "disappointed with sales" really telling though? Expectations are not the same as actual profits. Wasn't Tomb Raider touted by Square as being disappointing sales-wise despite selling phenomenally well by any other estimation? For when it launched (near GTA5), what did they really expect?

I'm also curious on whether Wii U sales would have theoretically been higher if people weren't soured by the delay and decision to bring it multi-platform. There was a lot of anger going around when that decision was announced, with many people claiming to buy it used as some sort of revenge.

Honestly I don't think Rayman really applies to this particular case anyway considering this game is much closer to Assassins Creed as far as content and projections go anyway.

But yeah, I agree with you.

[SuperLink]

Dude I'm not saying cancelling Watch Dogs Wii U is a terrible decision on their part I'm just contesting your single notion that Rayman Legends for Wii U was a failure in particular especially in comparison with their other releases.

 

Like the fact that Rayman Legends did better on Wii U could be the reason the Wii U is still getting that digital JRPG Ubisoft are making. Ubi know some games don't sell on Wii U, but some do a little better (less huge/realistic games for example).

[Sami]

Dude I'm not saying cancelling Watch Dogs Wii U is a terrible decision on their part I'm just contesting your single notion that Rayman Legends for Wii U was a failure in particular especially in comparison with their other releases. Like the fact that Rayman Legends did better on Wii U could be the reason the Wii U is still getting that digital JRPG Ubisoft are making. Ubi know some games don't sell on Wii U, but some do a little better (less huge/realistic games for example).

Oh, I wasn't referring to you when I said that, haha. I don't think you've been unreasonable for what it's worth. I don't think being disappointed or angry is unreasonable either. The entire point of my post was to debate the notion that they're stupid or whatever, and you're not the one saying that. In regards to Rayman, you may be right. We can't really tell without an official statement, after all. In that regard, I'll just stand by what I said before - even if Rayman did well on Wii U, that fact has absolutely nothing to do with Watch_Dogs' sales projections. If AC3 and AC4 both bombed, then WD probably would too. I assume we agree?

[Willsy]

Turns out, it was a glitch;

http://www.gamezone.com/news/2014/01/24/cancelled-watch-dogs-wii-u-pre-orders-a-glitch-in-gamestop-s-system

It's still coming to Wii U.

[Autosaver]

Also, even if pre-orders have been reinstated (for now), what's the explanation behind Ubisoft's "no comment"?

 

Ubisoft what?

 

Their PR?

A developer?

A manager?

The CEO?

Customer Service?

 

Depending on who answered, it could be a person with no information on what happened. If a game was pulled and they had no idea why, they may as well leave it at no comment. What if it was pulled for a reason and they said it was still coming?

 

 

No comment applied to a dozen of Wii U releases. Call of Duty? NO COMMENT. Doesn't mean it won't come.

[Sami]

They probably have a "no comment" policy on all rumors/speculation. If they start shooting down rumors that aren't true, but "no comment" on the ones that are, it'd be too easy to figure out.

[SuperLink]

They probably have a "no comment" policy on all rumors/speculation. If they start shooting down rumors that aren't true, but "no comment" on the ones that are, it'd be too easy to figure out.

Good point I guess.

 

For now I'll remain sceptical and wait for further news from Ubi's PR, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

[Conando]

They probably have a "no comment" policy on all rumors/speculation. If they start shooting down rumors that aren't true, but "no comment" on the ones that are, it'd be too easy to figure out.

 

Exactly. This is a common tactic that pretty much all publishers use. Remember how Nintendo was saying things like "no comment" on everything whether it was true or not?

[Dejimon11]

So I don't get it? What is it? I keep hearing "nothing to worry about" "it's a glitch" "no comment" make up your mind