Thank you for always supporting us. I would like to give a message to the backers who pledged for the Wii U version of Bloodstained.
During our Kickstarter campaign, the Wii U was at the height of its popularity, but the situation has drastically changed after the release of Nintendo Switch.
This change made it difficult to receive the necessary support from the hardware maker, which has led us to drop the Wii U development and shift the development to Nintendo Switch.
We are very sorry that it has come to this after all your support, but we hope you will understand. We would like to respond by preparing options for our backers, such as moving your pledge to another version or requesting a refund if you don’t want any other version.
We hope you will continue to support us.
The sky is blue and the moon is red. This was expected and the Wii U is dead.
On the plus side Bloodstained can go anywhere now, and this wasn't announced right before launch. Just hope they don't take as long as Yooka-Laylee did on getting transfers and even information out.
The weirdest part is that (at least for the moment) the Vita version is somehow *not* cancelled.
Also, do you think this news was submitted by enough users?
Isn't the logic that Wii U has a successor and Vita doesn't?
Did it sell modestly in Japan? I mean a lot of Visual Novels and niche japanese games tend to favor the Vita than the 3DS.
"Isn't the logic that Wii U has a successor and Vita doesn't?"
I mean, if they are already going to create a second version of the game for a defunct, unsupported system whose tech makes getting the engine to even work difficult, canning one of the platforms for that version does not make a whole lot of sense regardless.
If the Switch did not exist, all of the reasons for dropping the Wii U port would basically still apply.
"Did it sell modestly in Japan?"
It sold poorly everywhere, lol. The most recent estimate put it around 4 million worldwide, which is less than a third of what even the Wii U did.
Yeah but that's why Armature was going to port it. Might still be the case. Anyway I think this might be the best time to cancel a game for a system. We have only seen a demo from a (probably) unfinished area. There haven't been trailers and mechanics and weapons are still getting fine tuned.
Might be subjective but Rime felt more bad that it was cancelled because it "felt" like it was way into development. Though yeah, seems like nowadays the revealed games aren't what we get up ending (good or bad).
In regards to the Vita, I don't know if it's better or worse how it has been forgotten by critics. I think I've heard in the past 5 years critics bashing the Wii U, and most being very indifferent to the Vita. I wonder when it eventually fades,. will the Vita be remembered?
"Yeah but that's why Armature was going to port it. Might still be the case."
If they are going to pay for Armature to port the game to a defunct system, why not port it to both?
Or if they only want to pay Armature to port the game to just one, why not the one with better technical specs and the bigger install base?
Virtually all of the (completely valid) reasons that porting the game to the Wii U is a bad idea apply doubly so to the Vita version.
"Rime felt more bad that it was cancelled"
"I wonder when it eventually fades,. will the Vita be remembered?"
When it comes to systems that I do not own, I can generally name a lot of games that I wish I could have played on them, and I think even the most cynical Wii U hater can at least admit to having an interest in *some* of its exclusives
I honestly draw a complete blank on that when it comes to the Vita.
"Rime felt more bad that it was cancelled"
Aw sorry, that was meant to be when it was revealed it was vaporware and there was no game, and the studio disappeared for a while. Kinda felt canned then. Yep... Proofreading fail.
In regards to Wii U, it's still possible the games will not be locked like some of the Gamecube has and seemingly forever have (Eternal Darkness, Soul Calibur II Link's edition, F-Zero GX, or any other collaboration they've had in that system).
The Vita feels like most of the exclusive stuff got ports to either the PS3 or PS4. I've mainly read people commenting about Visual Novels on the Vita, and some strategy games.
If Nintendo were to port most of Wii U, I could still think of a couple of games harder to port either because of the gamepad or because it's not financially good, like Star Fox Zero, The Wonderful 101, Nintendoland, and I suppose Tokyo Mirage Sessions. I could see other stuff getting ported with some slight adjustments.
4 million is not the most recent estimate of Vita worldwide sales. The Vita has sold 15.34 million to the Wii U's 13.87 million by the most recent estimates. http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/
"4 million is not the most recent estimate of Vita worldwide sales."
Oh well in that case I stand corre-
Lol, nevermind. You had me going for a second.
Well then let's have it; what is your source for the 4 million figure you gave?
"what is your source for the 4 million figure you gave?"
Not my fault they have not given an update in the last four years. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm not familiar with how VGcharts gets their data but I appreciate you bringing it to my attention that they should not be considered a reliable source.
"Not my fault they have not given an update in the last four years."
No, but it is your fault for using that very old data and comparing it to current Wii U sales data. When Sony released those numbers the Vita was not even a year old yet in North America and Europe.
"When Sony released those numbers the Vita was not even a year old yet in North America and Europe."
Right, which is why I included the phrasing 'Most recent'.
If there were actual current official data I would have used that instead.
If Sony wants to hide that information, then this is what they get, lol.
Right, which is why I included the phrasing 'Most recent'.Well, you have to admit that that's at the very least pretty misleading. Especially when you draw conclusions from the outdated data. Least you could do was mention the data you're using is severely outdated.
What you did would be like me saying I only drink occasionally, but then not mention that the occasion is every time the clock strikes a full hour. =P
"Well, you have to admit that that's at the very least pretty misleading. Especially when you draw conclusions from the outdated data."
If Sony wants does not want people to draw conclusions from outdated information, then they should update their information, lol.
It is not hard. Nintendo manages to give an update on the Wii U's abysmal hardware sales every three months.
If Sony does not consider the last four years of Vita sales important enough to actually publish, then I am not inclined to treat them any differently.
"What you did would be like me saying I only drink occasionally"
That analogy breaks down since in this case Sony is the one doing the drinking and also the one making the vague, evasive claim about how often they drink (presumably because the truth embarrasses them). I am just reiterating what they said at face value.
Come now. Yeah, Sony could've and should've updated their data; nobody is denying that. But you were presenting that data as being recent without any sidenotes that it's not recent at all. Yes, you're technically correct in saying "most recent" but you also know that that implies that it's actually recent unless otherwise stated
"But you were presenting that data as being recent without any sidenotes that it's not recent at all."
You mean, apart from when I specifically pointed out that it was four years old?
"Yes, you're technically correct"
Yes, after the fact, you pointed it out. That's the issue. This is something you need to say at the moment you use misleading words like "most recent" unless of course your intention is to mislead, which doesn't surprise me.
It's not some imaginary deadline either... It's absolutely normal to clarify these things at the moment you say them instead of waiting until someone catches on to it.
Geez. Y'know, I have an issue with taking things too literally, but I seem to better understand the implication of certain words than you
EDIT: Also, I see your fanboy has once again given you an upvote on each of your posts. And yes, I use the word fanboy correctly here
Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. If you want to use misleading words and trollishly claim you did not do such a thing, that's fine. (At least, I don't want to believe you somehow can't understand what people are saying and what your words imply; it has to be intentional.) But I know that I can't have a proper discussion with you about this
"This is something you need to say at the moment"
No, I do not need to say it at all, let alone at your convenience. We are not in school and you are not a hall monitor.
"It's not some imaginary deadline either... It's absolutely normal to clarify these things at the moment you say them instead of waiting until someone catches on to it."
Er, no one 'caught on'. Despite the alleged vast stretch of time you seem to think passed, no one else bothered to look any information up or point anything out. I was the one who did that, lol. Outside of the one reference to VG Chartz's nonsense numbers, every bit of information exchanged in this conversation has gone exactly one way. Even now, you do not have -- and have not offered in turn -- a single bit of data on this subject that has not been volunteered by me.
(You're welcome, btw.)
The hole with your theory is that if I specifically wanted to keep anyone in the dark, the first step of my nefarious plan against an inanimate piece of metal and plastic would have been to just do what everyone else on this site does and never clarify and never link to anything. Your basic unwillingness or inability to do your own research would ensure you would never be any the wiser.
"But I know that I can't have a proper discussion with you about this"
Well, obviously. It is impossible for you to have a proper discussion with anyone when you insert yourself uninvited into their conversations (apparently on subjects you do not even care about) with the thesis 'You're a lying liar who lies and is out to get me'. That is just bad faith.
Ordinarily I would apologize for the mistake, but I am not actually sorry and in truth think your sense of entitlement regarding the speed with which it takes you to receive a peer-review-journal-level citation (on information that you are too lazy to look up yourself) is wholly unearned.
The thought of playing this game on the go is really enticing. I had moderate interest before but a Switch version could be a difference-maker.
Understandable, considering the Wii U is coming to a close (I commend most of the other indie developers for sticking with the Wii U).
In a perfect world, there would be versions for both, but they're doing it from a business perspective and it makes sense to use their resources to a more recent console.
And hey, there's at least refunds so people can take it out on that.
1. At least they're (allegedly) offering me a refund on my $60 preorder of the physical Wii U copy.
2. Unless the game is a MASSIVE upgrade over the demo, which was incredibly unimpressive and un-fun, then I'm not going to be missing out on anything. This isn't truly a "Castlevania successor" at it's current form. It's a floaty, uninspired game with very generic monster designs. Part of the great thing about (most) CV games pre-"Lord of Shadows", was that the heroes and monsters had...character. And they took so many monsters from mythology, folklore, etc. That's what made the CV series awesome.
3. They 100% should have made this fully 2D, sprite based, same with Mighty No. 9.
An obvious move. It would be financial suicide the release this game on the Wii U now. It's only been a month and it seems like even fans have moved on (the public moved on about 1.5 years ago).
So that is now four games crowdfunded under the pretense of a Wii U version not actually seeing a Wii U release. Bloodstained, Yooka-Laylee, Project C.A.R.S., and The '90s Arcade Racer. And of the latter two, one's not seeing any sort of a Nintendo release and the other's outright dead.
I've actually been keeping a running log of this stuff. Over the years, we've seen four multiplats that were meant to get Wii U versions not actually doing so, three multiplats whose Wii U version was gimped compared to other systems (even if those systems were the PS3 and 360), two games whose exclusivity were pre-empted before they were even released, and ten former Wii U-exclusives ported elsewhere (three to 3DS, two to Switch, and five to non-Nintendo systems.) Plus two other games that were slated for a Wii U release outright moved to Switch.