Support NeoGAF

[ksamedi]

Well, having facts (or more to work with than a specific system bias) would probably help. Ethelred, donny, Stumpokapow and I have all laid out the basics of why at the moment it's not actually proving worthwhile for third parties to invest in the Wii; similarly, the ways in which one can largely eschew the Wii for DS/PSP development (a la Square-Enix) or Western-focused X360/PS3 development (a la Capcom) are well established.

There's very little evidence at all at the moment to suggest that developers will learn "hard lessons" for undersupporting the Wii; at best, Nintendo will stunt the Wii's sales potential by insufficiently courting third parties and they'll learn a "hard lesson," while at worst Nintendo will support the Wii well enough that it's profitable for them, and the ones learning a "hard lesson" will be the Wii purchasers who thought "market leader" would actually trasnlate to third-party games.

All I can see is that the Wii is following the footsteps of the DS. We all know what that became. The Wii has anoter aspect that is not discussed often but is certainly there and that is that it is mostly placed in the living room, right where everybody in the household has acces to it. It means that even if a casual family member buys a Wii the hardcore family member can play it as well and coud get interested watching others play. I think thats why you see stuff like Mario and DQS sell and at the same time you see WiiFit and MarioParty sell as well. What I think more though is that because the Wii is a very different technology it attracted a lot of bored games or curious gamers and when placed in the livingroom it got the attention of a lot of non gamers as well. There is a diverse selection of software selling on the Wii, even Zelda, although relativly bad did 500k.
Third parties will just be fine on the Wii, there is no doubt about that.

 

[jarrod]

I think the "3rd parties bomb on Wii" argument might have more merit if there weren't noted exceptions though. Granted the big exceptions are all resissues or spinoffs of major 3rd party brands (DQ+BH) but that might also be an indication for 3rd parties moving forward as well. And there's also smaller scale success stories (like Ghost Squad) and anime licenses still seem to be putting up okay (if still unimpressive) figures (Naruto, One Piece, Gundam, Bleach, etc).

I also don't really see the point in singling out Square Enix or Capcom as the two examples of those with non-Wii contingency plans in effect, when they're actually the only 3rd parties whose Wii games are comparatively leading their next gen sales. RE4 Wii sold bigger than Dead Rising, sooner in the platform's lifecycle for likely a miniscule fraction the investment. REUC's looking to become Capcom's best selling title in it's genre ever, it's on track to outsell all the PS2 Gun Survivors combined even. DQ Swords is the first time Square Enix (either merged or individually) have had a 500k seller within a platform's first year on market. Why would these two publishers want to abandon Wii actually, when they've had their biggest 1st games ever on the machine? Shouldn't the implication be... uh... the reverse?

 

[Diffense]

Well, having facts (or more to work with than a specific system bias) would probably help. Ethelred, donny, Stumpokapow and I have all laid out the basics of why at the moment it's not actually proving worthwhile for third parties to invest in the Wii; similarly, the ways in which one can largely eschew the Wii for DS/PSP development (a la Square-Enix) or Western-focused X360/PS3 development (a la Capcom) are well established.

Yawn...and you guys are objective?
Give me a break!

There's very little evidence at all at the moment to suggest that developers will learn "hard lessons" for undersupporting the Wii; at best, Nintendo will stunt the Wii's sales potential by insufficiently courting third parties and they'll learn a "hard lesson,"

Nintendo is supposed to get some Ninjas to force third parties to make games for Wii?

They weren't going to be there at the outset and they're not going to be there now that it's selling like crazy. It's seems more to me that third parties are ignoring the Wii rather than Nintendo ignoring third parties. Wii is the biggest elephant in the room you cannot not see it.

while at worst Nintendo will support the Wii well enough that it's profitable for them, and the ones learning a "hard lesson" will be the Wii purchasers who thought "market leader" would actually trasnlate to third-party games.

Hard lessons have already been learned. PS3's so far lukewarm reception in Japan being one of them. Thank goodness I was hampered enough by 'system bias' to see Wii and DS sales success coming from miles away!

Listen, Nintendo has had to contruct the Wii's market share on the strength of its own software. There was no choice in the matter since 3rd parties had already picked their man. Ask Microsoft.

Now Nintendo has managed to challenge those early decisions. Nintendo's presence is overbearing on their own platform and their own platform has the dominant slice of the entire market. I don't think the average person is buying Wii in anticipation of 3rd party games since Nintendo's Wii games are also selling like crazy. Nintendo has widened the appeal of *their own* games. It's like N64 or GCN really, only bigger than the competitors this time. Nintendo has not been beating Sony at Sony's game; it's been beating Sony with it's own (ie Nintendo's) game. It's doing what it always does, just better than ever.

Therefore, I don't necessarily agree that leaving all this useerbase almost exclusively to Nintendo will hurt them at all. Rather, it is third parties that have relegated themselves to a niche. What was niche is not niche anymore, and they had no say in it. Now, is it that they either hope to be profitable on less popular platforms (with higher dev costs) or want to bank on their games' abilities to sell other systems? I have some questions there so we'll see how that plays out.

In any event, there seems to be a drawing of battle lines that aren't really necessary.
As things come to a decision, there will be consequencies, fallout. It all depends on where you're placing your bets.

Anyway, rather than full out snubbing, my guess is that Wii will become more and more difficult to ignore and some third party support will come. After all, it's all about business right?

 

[Minsc]

There's very little evidence at all at the moment to suggest that developers will learn "hard lessons" for undersupporting the Wii; at best, Nintendo will stunt the Wii's sales potential by insufficiently courting third parties and they'll learn a "hard lesson," while at worst Nintendo will support the Wii well enough that it's profitable for them, and the ones learning a "hard lesson" will be the Wii purchasers who thought "market leader" would actually trasnlate to third-party games.

That's a rather bold argument to make on a system that's basically been out of stock worldwide since it's release. Sure they've had stock lately in Japan, but Nintendo is more than just Japan, and their situation elsewhere has to be considered as well when looking at their decisions financially, which is why I bring up other markets.

Also consider this. Don't you think Nintendo's new direction of first party titles targeting the more casual crowd will generate more than what they will lose insufficiently courting third parties? Especially given the way they don't need to recover lost hardware costs over the initial stages of the console's life. Does it make more sense for them to focus on courting third parties or pursuing their new interest in the casual gamer? I think you could make arguments to both sides fairly well.

I think it's more in Nintendo's own interest to build and target their console the way they have, than it is to go after the more hardcore crowd and third parties. Sure, they could offer third parties more help, no arguments there, but do you honestly think third parties are genuinely interested, even if help was offered? I think the ball's just as much in the third party's court to give Nintendo something worth having.

Nintendo seems not very worried about what third parties do, nor do I think they care about them as much as they claim to. They are letting them put out whatever they want to. For Nintendo, I think all the big money is made from hardware and 1st party software sales, and the bulk of that comes from capturing a more casual crowd of gamers.

 

[marc^o^]

3rd parties will do just fine once the wii reaches a 30 million userbase (by June), not to mention a 50 million userbase (by end 2009?).

 

[apujanata]

Well, having facts (or more to work with than a specific system bias) would probably help. Ethelred, donny, Stumpokapow and I have all laid out the basics of why at the moment it's not actually proving worthwhile for third parties to invest in the Wii; similarly, the ways in which one can largely eschew the Wii for DS/PSP development (a la Square-Enix) or Western-focused X360/PS3 development (a la Capcom) are well established.

There's very little evidence at all at the moment to suggest that developers will learn "hard lessons" for undersupporting the Wii; at best, Nintendo will stunt the Wii's sales potential by insufficiently courting third parties and they'll learn a "hard lesson," while at worst Nintendo will support the Wii well enough that it's profitable for them, and the ones learning a "hard lesson" will be the Wii purchasers who thought "market leader" would actually trasnlate to third-party games.

If a company (say Square-Enix) decided to develop only for DS/PSP, how are they supposed to grow bigger ? On previous generation, SE developed for GBA & PS2. If they only develop for PSP & NDS, they could have lowered overall sales. Why ? price for PSP and DS game are much lower (compared to PS2 and / or Wii), and that means lower revenue for publisher, which might not translate to lower profit (since DS development cost is much lower than PS2, IIRC). This option brings a bleak (but not doomed) future.

Western-focused X360/PS3 development. Has this option been proven succesful in the past, especially when comparing the past performance of PS2 vs current performance of X360+ PS3 ? I am not familiar with WW figure, so I need help here. If this option was proven unsuccefull in the future, what else can a third party do to survive (forget about growing bigger) ?

As someone mentioned, even if a publisher decided to not develop on Wii platform, they stil need to fight for customer's money against DS & Wii. The bigger Nintendo get (like they did in 2007) as publisher, the harder the life will be for other publisher. It is not doom and gloom, but it is not a rosy future either. I am not saying that by developing on Wii, third party are ensure a "happilly ever after" life, but I am not convinced that "not developing for Wii" is a viable option to attain growth, especially if Wii managed to increase or at least maintain their current markeshare (Japan and world wide) against PS3 and X360.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

There's very little evidence at all at the moment to suggest that developers will learn "hard lessons" for undersupporting the Wii

They surely will. Even though the DS is going to be the best-selling console of all time, supporting only it and ignoring the Wii entirely will cause a decline compared to last-gen when developers had successful offerings in both the portable and the home space.

 

[donny2112]

Just to clarify, what I wrote wasn't meant as reasoning why third-parties/Nintendo shouldn't be investing in core games on the Wii now. It was an attempt to determine why core games haven't seem to have been performing up to snuff through most of 2007. As I said, I am hopeful that things have already started to change some. Super Mario Galaxy's turnaround could show that Nintendo was able to either reach some of those former core customers or possibly convince some of their "new" gamers to start trying out core games. Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles (released in the Fall after SMG) will probably triple what Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition (released in the Summer) did. These are good signs that the situation could be changing. However there are definite signs that it isn't turned all the way around, yet. e.g. Soul Calibur Legends, Sengoku Basara 2 Heroes (Double Pack), Chocobo's Mystery Dungeon.

If I had to give advice to third-parties about making core games on the Wii, it would be essentially to wait. Start a low-budget core game for the Wii and wait to see if things change for core games on the Wii following Super Smash Bros. Brawl. If there are obvious signs of core games doing better, up the budget and scale for the game. If they don't, keep it low-budget to minimize the financial risk. I don't think allocating big budgets to the Wii right now would make too much sense, though, for a traditional/core game unless you're trying to actively bring in more core users (i.e. Nintendo's position).

 

[Threi]

don't you guys have anything new to argue about? Jeez try the "racist Japanese don't buy american products" debate or something. You guys have been going at the same thing over and over and over and over again...=\

 

[Pureauthor]

They surely will. Even though the DS is going to be the best-selling console of all time, supporting only it and ignoring the Wii entirely will cause a decline compared to last-gen when developers had successful offerings in both the portable and the home space.

Have you seen the GBA sales? The DS is actually bucking the trend by providing an all-around healthy software environment. Previous portables weren't good software movers on average.

don't you guys have anything new to argue about? Jeez try the "racist Japanese don't buy american products" debate or something. You guys have been going at the same thing over and over and over and over again...=\

No one's reached a consensus, from what I can see. The debate might as well continue!

 

[Xisiqomelir]

Have you seen the GBA sales? The DS is actually bucking the trend by providing an all-around healthy software environment. Previous portables weren't good software movers on average.

Sure, but last gen there was healthy PS2 and reasonable GBA, and replacing that with healthy DS and....nothing is more of a gamble than putting effort into a Wii game and marketing it properly.

 

[Pureauthor]

Sure, but last gen there was healthy PS2 and reasonable GBA, and replacing that with healthy DS and....nothing is more of a gamble than putting effort into a Wii game and marketing it properly.

Hmmm. Well, insofar as SE is concerned (which was the specific case we were discussing), they've done well on the portables, had a decent outing on the Wii, and they've yet to release anything on the HD systems. (I'm not counting FFXI here for obvious reasons) I think in their particular case, we'll need to wait a bit to see how they fare on HD, although on a personal note I think the returns won't be that good.

However, other companies have been shown to profit on the handheld and console front - most notably Capcom (which may not be a fair comparison, since I believe that they're the overall best Japanese developer by a decent margin). I don't think Capcom's pocketbook is going to be hurting anytime soon. As for a lot of other Japanese devs... well, for whatever reason they're really dragging their feet into HD generation. I don't think we can chart their data points very well yet. *shrug*

 

[Deku]

Soul Calibur Legends, Sengoku Basara 2 Heroes (Double Pack), Chocobo's Mystery Dungeon.

Those may be games found in a strandard PS2 library, but you can hardly except these titles to sell well or carry a console just because its the 'best' of their respective genres that could be found.

And even if the law of averages kick in and one of them sell decently, all 3 have baggage which could be spun and I don't see the arguments being any different.

SCL is a mediocre game and a spinoff, Sengoku Basara 2 is a premium priced ps2 port and Chocobo's Mystery Dungeon is not a title final fantasy fans let alone the hard core goes crazy about and, it's also a 'kiddie' game which did better on previous Nintendo platforms. None of them are electable.

Rather than talking about failures of 3rd party core games, I see a shortage of good games coming from third parties and it's not as if those 3rd party efforts with the branding and/or quality behind it has never sold. You mentioned UC. There's also DQ Swords and Gundam.

 

[Minsc]

This quote from Atsushi Inaba's recent interview is quite fitting:

I was annoyed by Sony’s whole behavior over the price cuts, because the opinion of the entire industry here was against them. The Wii and the DS are selling very well, but in terms of software Nintendo is obviously the best-selling developer by far. It has the best understanding of the new market it has created. Nintendo can be very happy about the situation right now, but for a developer like us, and we’re probably in the majority, the situation is difficult. Do we go with the Xbox 360? Our game then might be successful in the US, but there is no market in Japan and I don’t have the feeling it is doing that well in Europe. As for Sony, the power of the brand may be good in Japan and overseas but there are just not enough machines installed. To be honest, we almost wish for a platform on the market that is none of the above. But of course this isn’t possible, so we’ll have to adapt to the market.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Yeah, but he wasn't the only one optimistic on Wii (though he acted as though he was), and he didn't seem all that interested in conversation. He just wanted people to gather 'round and hear his dulcet tones as he spake of what he just read in Marketing class.

Late, but I agree there.

 

[ksamedi]

Just to clarify, what I wrote wasn't meant as reasoning why third-parties/Nintendo shouldn't be investing in core games on the Wii now. It was an attempt to determine why core games haven't seem to have been performing up to snuff through most of 2007. As I said, I am hopeful that things have already started to change some. Super Mario Galaxy's turnaround could show that Nintendo was able to either reach some of those former core customers or possibly convince some of their "new" gamers to start trying out core games. Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles (released in the Fall after SMG) will probably triple what Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition (released in the Summer) did. These are good signs that the situation could be changing. However there are definite signs that it isn't turned all the way around, yet. e.g. Soul Calibur Legends, Sengoku Basara 2 Heroes (Double Pack), Chocobo's Mystery Dungeon.

If I had to give advice to third-parties about making core games on the Wii, it would be essentially to wait. Start a low-budget core game for the Wii and wait to see if things change for core games on the Wii following Super Smash Bros. Brawl. If there are obvious signs of core games doing better, up the budget and scale for the game. If they don't, keep it low-budget to minimize the financial risk. I don't think allocating big budgets to the Wii right now would make too much sense, though, for a traditional/core game unless you're trying to actively bring in more core users (i.e. Nintendo's position).

While you make a good point, I hardly doubt that these titles are good measurements in judging if core titles will sell on the Wii. Your other examples like Re4 and Re UC are much better examples. Besides, third parties have developed enough low budget crap for the Wii as it is, its not smart to do it again. I think the problem is that the main teams are all still working on PS3 projects that started production way before the Wii was released.

 

[ethelred]

Yawn...and you guys are objective?
Give me a break!

Unquestionably.

don't you guys have anything new to argue about? Jeez try the "racist Japanese don't buy american products" debate or something. You guys have been going at the same thing over and over and over and over again...=\

Hey, I tried to avoid all this -- when someone started making the same old noise, I pointed out that he was wrong and he should just go back and reread all the old arguments where this was firmly established. It's not my fault people are choosing to debate it all over again.

 

[charlequin]

Nintendo is supposed to get some Ninjas to force third parties to make games for Wii?

No, they should have an active third-party development plan that involves marketing and development support (read: money) to encourage major third-parties to develop major (not random spinoff) titles for Wii. That means going to companies like Namco, Konami, and Capcom, giving them incentives to develop more big projects, and supporting the projects they do create with cross-marketing.

It only takes a certain threshold of initial success for other companies to commit to developing for the Wii, but that threshold might not be met if everyone is afraid to get in the pool (for reasons largely related to Nintendo's terrible third-party relations of ages past.) Since the Wii hardware itself and the platform of Nintendo-developed "non-game" software is unambiguously successful now, this is the area Nintendo needs to shift their energy towards.

Listen, Nintendo has had to contruct the Wii's market share on the strength of its own software. There was no choice in the matter since 3rd parties had already picked their man.

I don't disagree that Nintendo had to build the system on their own back, nor do I agree with the goofy position that Nintendo should "sell less software" or something to get third parties on board. But it's definitely not true that Japanese third parties have "picked their man" -- the problem for all those third parties is that all of the options they have are problematic compared to safe PS2 development, and as a result most of them are still in enough flux that their strategy can theoretically be shifted.

Rather, it is third parties that have relegated themselves to a niche.

This is never actually going to be true unless you believe that the market of videogamers past will actually be entirely supplanted by blue-ocean non-gamers.

That's a rather bold argument to make on a system that's basically been out of stock worldwide since it's release.

I don't think I was clear at all in that statement.

Assume that all things being equal, Nintendo isn't going to change their third-party approach at this point without an outside stimulus. That leaves two possible situations: that actually stunts their growth and they're forced to reconsider, or the Wii continues to succeed extremely well but without third party titles. The former is better for me as a consumer; the latter leaves the Wii successful economically but with an anemic library that doesn't take advantage of the system's potential for gaming.

But both situations are worse than what Nintendo could have by reaching out to third parties while continuing their current first-party development strategy; that could produce a DS-like system with something for everyone, and allow Nintendo to reap the licensing profits on blockbuster third-party titles as well as their own games.

Also consider this. Don't you think Nintendo's new direction of first party titles targeting the more casual crowd will generate more than what they will lose insufficiently courting third parties?

They're not mutually exclusive. Nintendo can continue their first party strategy and court third parties, thereby finding more success than with either strategy alone.

Sure, they could offer third parties more help, no arguments there, but do you honestly think third parties are genuinely interested, even if help was offered?

Development platform decisions are made by publishers doing cost-benefit analysis. This analysis isn't always accurate or even good, certainly, but factors like "what sort of support will the hardware manufacturer give us?" definitely play into it. At the far end, they could have paid for a few key exclusives for the early period and let their sales performance serve to draw everyone else in from there.

Western-focused X360/PS3 development. Has this option been proven succesful in the past, especially when comparing the past performance of PS2 vs current performance of X360+ PS3 ?

Capcom seems to be doing alright with it with titles like Dead Rising and Lost Planet.

Comparing it to PS2 levels isn't really helpful; no options exist for Japanese developers today which are as good as the PS2, so all of them will look bad in comparison.

As someone mentioned, even if a publisher decided to not develop on Wii platform, they stil need to fight for customer's money against DS & Wii.

To whatever degree ultra-casual purchasers of Wii are the cause of that system's poor third-party performance, that's also the degree to which Wii sales aren't "competing" for the same consumers' money as third party core titles.

 

[donny2112]

SCL is a mediocre game and a spinoff, Sengoku Basara 2 is a premium priced ps2 port and Chocobo's Mystery Dungeon is not a title final fantasy fans let alone the hard core goes crazy about and, it's also a 'kiddie' game which did better on previous Nintendo platforms. None of them are electable.

I'm purposefully trying to avoid the "find a reason for each game to have not sold well" line of thinking. I consider charlequin's concern (if we excuse every data point in a trend, we won't accept the trend until it's slapping us in the face) to be valid. Those games could possibly all be legitimately excused, but I'd just rather not go down that road. My point is that core games haven't all turned around on the Wii, and those are just some of the more prominent examples.

You mentioned UC. There's also DQ Swords and Gundam.

My discussion was about core games, not just third-party games. I already stated that I don't consider Dragon Quest Swords to fall under the core/traditional games umbrella.

 

[izakq]

I also don't really see the point in singling out Square Enix or Capcom as the two examples of those with non-Wii contingency plans in effect, when they're actually the only 3rd parties whose Wii games are comparatively leading their next gen sales. RE4 Wii sold bigger than Dead Rising, sooner in the platform's lifecycle for likely a miniscule fraction the investment.

Just curious here about Dead Rising, but wasn't it given the dreaded Z rating, which is almost the kiss of death, but still went on and sold pretty good for a game with a Z rating?

 

[Xisiqomelir]

No, they should have an active third-party development plan that involves marketing and development support (read: money) to encourage major third-parties to develop major (not random spinoff) titles for Wii. That means going to companies like Namco, Konami, and Capcom, giving them incentives to develop more big projects, and supporting the projects they do create with cross-marketing.

Nintendo never did this for the DS though, did they? I don't see them doing it for the Wii either. As far as Nintendo is concerned, that's not part of their responsibilities.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I can never get behind any plan that requires paying developers for doing what they would have done anyway.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Just curious here about Dead Rising, but wasn't it given the dreaded Z rating, which is almost the kiss of death, but still went on and sold pretty good for a game with a Z rating?

Yes but IIRC there were reports of a number of retailers covert-advertising it within the restrictive limits of the Z. Still, given the Z, and the 360, it did decent... and certainly worldwide.

 

[Weisheit]

Capcom seems to be doing alright with it with titles like Dead Rising and Lost Planet.

So third parties don"t need Nintendo?
I think that's pretty obvious. What I also think is pretty obvious at this point is Nintendo doesn't need third parties. I know you don't want to hear this but, they've done fine without them and will continue to, their not going to "stunt" Wii sales, they've hit a new market and that new market doesn't give a shit about your third parties or their software sales. It didn't take third parties to propel the DS to the heights its reached and the same is true of the Wii.

 

[liuelson]

I understand the general thesis that Nintendo would have a positive return on investment with a more aggressive 3rd party strategy. There are really 2 strategic questions in my mind:

I don't disagree that Nintendo had to build the system on their own back...most (3rd parties) are still in enough flux that their strategy can theoretically be shifted.

1. If Nintendo's "Blue Ocean" strategy was to pursue a different market because they did not want to compete with Sony and MS in the traditional market, do you think Nintendo has developed a strategic, philosophical bias towards a 1st party focus? From Nintendo's perspective, the 3rd parties were in the "Red Ocean" - and Nintendo wanted to stake as strong a position as possible in the "Blue Ocean" - not only with respect to Sony and MS, but also with respect to 3rd parties. If so, Nintendo may be willing to sacrifice some potential return on investment in exchange for creating a more dominant 1st party position in the new market.

Development platform decisions are made by publishers doing cost-benefit analysis...

2. Given that Nintendo has a lot of cash, but also some choices in how to spend that cash, is it possible that Nintendo's internal cost-benefit analyses lead them to be passive with respect to 3rd parties, and more aggressive in other potential investment opportunities? Even if one accepts that there are some profits to be made by focusing on 3rd party support, is it possible that there would be more profits to be made by focusing elsewhere? In other words, are we accounting for all of the opportunity costs in our analysis that Nintendo is dropping the ball with respect to 3rd parties?

 

[charlequin]

Nintendo never did this for the DS though, did they?

Nintendo wasn't facing a culture of resistance to developing on the DS, though. Square-Enix had fought to get on to the GBA; they, Konami, Capcom, and Sega all had profitable GBA businesses operating whose franchises transitioned to the DS with a minimum of fuss. The DS has a whole new wave of more ambitious third-party software now (things like DQIX, FFIVr, Contra 4, etc. that might not have been greenlighted on just the assumption of "the new GBA") but I don't think third parties choosing to develop for DS was ever really in danger.

As far as Nintendo is concerned, that's not part of their responsibilities.

I think that's an accurate statement of Nintendo's priorities, which is why I'm concerned that either they'll suffer (if the "non-games" market can't actually support Wii forever) or I'll suffer (when the cool possibilities of the Wiimote never get realized because no one but Nintendo will develop a AAA game for it.) :\

 

[Weisheit]

Nintendo never did this for the DS though, did they? I don't see them doing it for the Wii either. As far as Nintendo is concerned, that's not part of their responsibilities.

It's not their job. They have a console that's far less expensive to develop for (millions of dollars) and has a HUGE userbase. What more do they really need to do?

 

[The_Joint]

I can never get behind any plan that requires paying developers for doing what they would have done anyway.

Could you get behind a teensy little bit of arm twisting? :lol

 

[Pureauthor]

So third parties don"t need Nintendo?
I think that's pretty obvious. What I also think is pretty obvious at this point is Nintendo doesn't need third parties. I know you don't want to hear this but, they've done fine without them and will continue to, their not going to "stunt" Wii sales, they've hit a new market and that new market doesn't give a shit about your third parties or their software sales. It didn't take third parties to propel the DS to the heights its reached and the same is true of the Wii.

Look, no one here (I think) is worrying in the least bit about Nintendo's botton line, because they're very, very good at ensuring the bottom doesn't fall out on them. The focus here (charlequin's focus in particular) is on the Wii platform itself. Is it just going to be a massive hardware mover with few noticeable third party successes? Will it flesh itself out more as time goes on to become a well rounded platform that can support all kinds of games?

That the Wii is a success is not in doubt. Just what kind of success, and how qualified that success is, is the question.

 

[donny2112]

I can never get behind any plan that requires paying developers for doing what they would have done anyway.

In general, I agree. However if it could directly benefit Nintendo themselves, it could be seen as a good use of the money. Case in point: Nintendo included a gameplay snippet of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles for the GameCube in their commercials not long after its announcement and many months before its release. In that case, it benefited Nintendo to let the public know that "Final Fantasy" was coming to the GameCube.

I can see a similar situation coming up with Monster Hunter 3. It could benefit Nintendo to let core gamers know that core games are really coming to/already on the Wii. They've already started down this path by focusing on it during their October conference. In that case, it wasn't something that Capcom could have done anyway, since it was Nintendo's conference.

 

[charlequin]

I know you don't want to hear this but, they've done fine without them and will continue to, their not going to "stunt" Wii sales, they've hit a new market and that new market doesn't give a shit about your third parties or their software sales.

But I don't see any reason why a system that appeals purely to non-gamers is more desirable than one that appeals to everyone (besides, maybe, that Nintendo is too conservative to increase manufacturing capacity further and therefore can't afford to sell to everyone....)

EDIT: I mean, just because Wii is a huge success doesn't mean anyone should rest on their laurels, right? Why not make it a ginormous success? Why leave the dollars and yen of core gamers (enough money to drive a whole industry, historically speaking) on the table?

It didn't take third parties to propel the DS to the heights its reached and the same is true of the Wii.

Third party titles have been an integral (if far smaller than Nintendo's own offerings) part of the DS' success. Early third party successes like Tamagotchi and GBA carryover franchises like Megaman did their part to keep DS LTD sales from dipping below PSP before Nintendo launched their nongame strategy; bigger titles like FF3 came out just as the system was skyrocketing and helped lay the groundwork for today (when Nintendo can essentially let third parties handle all of the system's software support.)

I can never get behind any plan that requires paying developers for doing what they would have done anyway.

Question 1: does this mean you disapprove of Microsoft's worldwide third-party relations strategy this generation? Question 2: isn't the premise of our argument that it would be paying developers to do what they otherwise wouldn't, i.e. develop halfway decent games on Wii instead of low-effort spinoff titles and minigame collections?

 

[liuelson]

I'll suffer (when the cool possibilities of the Wiimote never get realized because no one but Nintendo will develop a AAA game for it.) :\

That the Wii is a success is not in doubt. Just what kind of success, and how qualified that success is, is the question.

Basically, my question/argument is that Nintendo may want to be the primary innovator with respect to the Wiimote. I think they've done a decent job so far, if your main concern is the actual innovation in gameplay. If you're concerned about specific IP, then yes, I can see how Nintendo's lackadaisical 3rd party approach will lead to disappointment.

 

[Weisheit]

Look, no one here (I think) is worrying in the least bit about Nintendo's botton line, because they're very, very good at ensuring the bottom doesn't fall out on them. The focus here (charlequin's focus in particular) is on the Wii platform itself. Is it just going to be a massive hardware mover with few noticeable third party successes? Will it flesh itself out more as time goes on to become a well rounded platform that can support all kinds of games?

That the Wii is a success is not in doubt. Just what kind of success, and how qualified that success is, is the question.

I just don't see the point in arguing about something (over and over again) that (to me at least) seems very unlikely to change. They don't not court third parties because they can't (clearly), they don't court them simply because (unlike their competitors) they don't need to and therefore don't (that is they don't like MS and Sony).

 

[charlequin]

Basically, my question/argument is that Nintendo may want to be the primary innovator with respect to the Wiimote.

Nintendo's internal development resources are pretty conservative despite the crazy Blue Ocean revolution. They're well suited to the new world of casual gamers and to continuing in the arcade racing/adventure/platform-type genres they've historically excelled at, but that leaves a huge world of potential genres that realistically Nintendo will not venture into.

 

[Weisheit]

But I don't see any reason why a system that appeals purely to non-gamers is more desirable than one that appeals to everyone (besides, maybe, that Nintendo is too conservative to increase manufacturing capacity further and therefore can't afford to sell to everyone....)

It does appeal to everyone, except (apparently) gamers. Sure Nintendo could more aggressively go after the core gamer, but, then they did that for years and got nowhere, besides the "casual" gaming market is likely much bigger than the core market.

Third party titles have been an integral (if far smaller than Nintendo's own offerings) part of the DS' success. Early third party successes like Tamagotchi and GBA carryover franchises like Megaman did their part to keep DS LTD sales from dipping below PSP before Nintendo launched their nongame strategy; bigger titles like FF3 came out just as the system was skyrocketing and helped lay the groundwork for today (when Nintendo can essentially let third parties handle all of the system's software support.)

I have no doubt that third parties have helped the DS keep momentum, but there was a point when it became clear that this thing was unlike anything we had seen before (sales wise) and that was because of Nintendo and their software.

 

[norinrad21]

So third parties don"t need Nintendo?
I think that's pretty obvious. What I also think is pretty obvious at this point is Nintendo doesn't need third parties. I know you don't want to hear this but, they've done fine without them and will continue to, their not going to "stunt" Wii sales, they've hit a new market and that new market doesn't give a shit about your third parties or their software sales. It didn't take third parties to propel the DS to the heights its reached and the same is true of the Wii.

That was beautiful

 

[Pureauthor]

It does appeal to everyone, except (apparently) gamers. Sure Nintendo could more aggressively go after the core gamer, but, then they did that for years and got nowhere, besides the "casual" gaming market is likely much bigger than the core market.

Isn't that kinda just a retread of the 'Nintendo will abandon real gaming and make thousands of Brain Training and Wii Sports clones!' argument?

The answer then and the answer now - anyone with a brain wants both markets.

 

[Minsc]

But both situations are worse than what Nintendo could have by reaching out to third parties while continuing their current first-party development strategy; that could produce a DS-like system with something for everyone, and allow Nintendo to reap the licensing profits on blockbuster third-party titles as well as their own games.

They're not mutually exclusive. Nintendo can continue their first party strategy and court third parties, thereby finding more success than with either strategy alone.

You definitely raise some good points. I generally agree with you that if they had unlimited resources, neglecting third parties will come back to hurt them, but financially they are a very self-reliant, conservative company right? How does Nintendo's combined income from hardware and software compare against the combined income of all third parties? Maybe Nintendo is just investing their resources where they get the most return. Perhaps this would be akin to taking out of a stable market that's growing at 30% and sticking it with a riskier market growing at 10%.

I think that's an accurate statement of Nintendo's priorities, which is why I'm concerned that either they'll suffer (if the "non-games" market can't actually support Wii forever) or I'll suffer (when the cool possibilities of the Wiimote never get realized because no one but Nintendo will develop a AAA game for it.) :\

They aren't even close to doing all they can to capture the casual market, and look at the success they're having. I wouldn't worry about those wiimote possibilities too much, if Nintendo is indeed successful in winning a huge casual market with their new control scheme, eventually the rest of the market will follow it in effort to expand more, I would think.

I can see a similar situation coming up with Monster Hunter 3. It could benefit Nintendo to let core gamers know that core games are really coming to/already on the Wii. They've already started down this path by focusing on it during their October conference. In that case, it wasn't something that Capcom could have done anyway, since it was Nintendo's conference.

MH3 is definitely a title Nintendo should invest some interest in properly advertising. It has a lot more promise (even though the series has a larger handheld following) than most third party titles I can think of to help expand their user base.

What exactly is so different about the Wii, that separates it from following the Gamecube's path? I think this is what Nintendo will be thinking, and focusing on.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

That was beautiful

I was wondering when you'd show up :lol

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

In general, I agree. However if it could directly benefit Nintendo themselves, it could be seen as a good use of the money. Case in point: Nintendo included a gameplay snippet of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles for the GameCube in their commercials not long after its announcement and many months before its release. In that case, it benefited Nintendo to let the public know that "Final Fantasy" was coming to the GameCube.

I can see a similar situation coming up with Monster Hunter 3. It could benefit Nintendo to let core gamers know that core games are really coming to/already on the Wii. They've already started down this path by focusing on it during their October conference. In that case, it wasn't something that Capcom could have done anyway, since it was Nintendo's conference.

See, this I have no problem with. Advertising these games as a benefit of the Wii is better than paying developers to market their own wares.

What bothers me is the "Nintendo should pay for developer marketing/development" that comes up at a ridiculously high rate. Somewhere the onus has to be on these third parties to assume that they're NOT Nintendo and they will have to make more of an effort in development, marketing, or both to reap the same/greater profits than Nintendo is seeing, and with games that exploit the advantages of the console.

Also, I don't buy the "Wii development is useless" crap that's going around now. Developers are treating the Wii as the PS3; an extension of the PS2 that should mean that PS2 ports and sequels as well as barely advertised games will sell because people will automatically follow it. This is not the case. They should be treating it as the PS1; a brand new system that has to prove itself all over again. These AREN'T the same games you were seeing on the SNES, the market has changed and evolved.

 

[charlequin]

It does appeal to everyone, except (apparently) gamers.

That's kind of a "you can have it in any color you want, as long as it's black" situation. :lol

Sure Nintendo could more aggressively go after the core gamer, but, then they did that for years and got nowhere,

Well: Nintendo's approach last gen was... not very good, and they had little leverage to use on anyone. Right now the success of the Wii platform gives them a much better opportunity to reach for those gamers than the GameCube could ever have hoped for. There's also a new opportunity: last gen PS2 satisfied pretty much everyone, while now I suspect there are a number of segments of the gamer marketplace who may end up settling for PS3 or DS as their primary system but who could be best served by software that would fit well on Wii.

besides the "casual" gaming market is likely much bigger than the core market.

Well, "bigger" isn't the whole picture, necessarily. Are there more people who never bought a previous console, or hadn't bought one since SNES, who might ever buy a Wii hardware system than there are core gamers who owned at least one system last gen? Maybe, but doubtful -- the ranks of casual gamers probably draw heavily from people who (say) owned a PS2 and two games last generation.

And how much will those new gamers buy from Nintendo over their lifetime ownership? If people buy Wii as a Wii Sports/Wii Fit box and are satisfied with it just doing that, they won't buy much software down the road. The expenditures of the gamer market (ranging from semi-casual on through hardcore) are much higher per capita than blue oceanites.

What bothers me is the "Nintendo should pay for developer marketing/development" that comes up at a ridiculously high rate. Somewhere the onus has to be on these third parties to assume that they're NOT Nintendo and they will have to make more of an effort in development, marketing, or both to reap the same/greater profits than Nintendo is seeing, and with games that exploit the advantages of the console.

Seriously: I don't understand why there's an argument that Nintendo shouldn't have to do this when both of their competitors in the console space do so now and have done so in the past. Sony and Microsoft are both being aggressive in wooing third parties right now. I don't think there's some special onus on Nintendo to do this or anything; I think it's a normal part of videogame competition and they should be keeping up.

 

[Pureauthor]

You know, just to go off on a slightly different tangent here, I was wondering about which Japanese 3rd parties will be hit the hardest if the market situation as it is doesn't change.

I firmly believe Capcom will come out of this smelling like a bed of roses, and in part because unlike other 'big' 3rd parties like Konami or SE, they don't have that WHOAMG instant multi-million seller franchise on name alone. Every generation or so the 'big guns' change, and Capcom's molded their company philosophy along that lines. They're always producing new stuff to keep up with the market - out of all the noticeable Japanese devs they're certainly the most protean, so they can adapt to the sudden shift in the market (and in fact they already have.)

Other companies, like SE and Konami, I believe they'll be hurt a bit. SE is churning out tonnes of DS games, and they're seeing huge success, but at the same time they're trying to appeal to the HD crowd. The Wii's a tossup for them, I think. Since the real reason HD is surviving is the American X360, they'll need to find some way to start appealing to the American X360 owners. A fair amount of their sales will go on the strength of their brand name (assuming no colossal muckup that'll ruin it, of course!), but I think they'll still see a fair bit of their sales eaten into.

Konami, on the other hand... it's pretty obvious that they're putting all their bets on MGS4. In some ways I think that franchise was perhaps the worst thing that could happen to Konami short of outright bankruptcy. They barely have time to pay attention to anything not Solid Snake anymore. MGS4 was never a big seller in Japan - and I question whether the Western market will respond positively enough to MGS4. The investment has got to be far bigger than MGS3 or 2, after all.

Next up, I think Namco will be hit pretty hard this gen, if for nothing more than that Tales appears to be floundering, and their other two major franchises both belong to a dying genre. Tales is a very Japanese game, so I'm still rather baffled by the decision to place Vesperia on the X360. They could've done some good numbers on the DS, but then they shot themselves in the foot by scaring the DS base away from Tales with TotT. Smooth move, Namco. I feel pretty safe in assumnig that Vesperia will perform disappointingly in relation to Tales' heyday. Then again, it could be because Namco is milking Tales like SE milks FF, except without the humongous brandname to base things on. Dilution is all but certain. As it stands, the one unknown factor for Tales is the Wii, but I don't feel confident. As for Soul Calibur and Tekken, they'll move decent numbers, but the series are in decline. The issue now, I believe, will be to see just what effect the inclusion of the Troll and Buckethead in SCIV have. If it works, maybe Namco might try doing licensed fighting games.

Mistwalker... well, their strategy is all but incomprehensible to me. Suffice to say they've been floundering since they were founded, and that's not good.

For relatively minor devs like Atlus, NIS, etc... I think they'll be fine. They produce very Japanese games, and what they really like is a proven software mover with low dev costs. The DS offers a very conducive environment for this sort of thing, so I'd wager a fair number are considering further DS development. The Wii is also a possibility.

Overall, that's my take on the Japanese 3rd party market (or at least the companies I give a crap about). Any (dis)agreements? Comments?

 

[Xisiqomelir]

Seriously: I don't understand why there's an argument that Nintendo shouldn't have to do this when both of their competitors in the console space do so now and have done so in the past. Sony and Microsoft are both being aggressive in wooing third parties right now. I don't think there's some special onus on Nintendo to do this or anything; I think it's a normal part of videogame competition and they should be keeping up.

How is this an industry standard practice? It's Sony and Microsoft standard practice, maybe.

EDIT: Actually, on reflection it isn't even really Sony standard practice any more. The big push to expand first party on the PS3 came from Kutaragi during its development, probably because he came to the same conclusions that Iwata did regarding the 3rd parties and their inconstancy.

 

[Pureauthor]

How is this an industry standard practice? It's Sony and Microsoft standard practice, maybe.

Well, up until rather recently, Sony was the home console industry for most practical purposes.

 

[Weisheit]

Isn't that kinda just a retread of the 'Nintendo will abandon real gaming and make thousands of Brain Training and Wii Sports clones!' argument?

No. of course they'll continue to make core games....the same bunch mostly, again and again continuing to receive support from their fans.

That's kind of a "you can have it in any color you want, as long as it's black" situation.

Not pretty, but it gets the point across I think.

And how much will those new gamers buy from Nintendo over their lifetime ownership? If people buy Wii as a Wii Sports/Wii Fit box and are satisfied with it just doing that, they won't buy much software down the road. The expenditures of the gamer market (ranging from semi-casual on through hardcore) are much higher per capita than blue oceanites.

Selling software hasn't been a problem, not for Nintendo.

 

[donny2112]

Seriously: I don't understand why there's an argument that Nintendo shouldn't have to do this when both of their competitors in the console space do so now and have done so in the past. Sony and Microsoft are both being aggressive in wooing third parties right now. I don't think there's some special onus on Nintendo to do this or anything; I think it's a normal part of videogame competition and they should be keeping up.

It's a normal part of the videogame competition, yes, but outside of the Q-fund, I don't recall Nintendo ever dipping their toes into that end of the pool. Personally, I don't think they should, either. Microsoft gains exclusive episodes for GTAIV for their money, but what about next time around? Will they have to shell out even more?

Nintendo is financially conservative first and foremost. To take part in what Sony and Microsoft are doing/have done would be a drastic change from what they normally do. You say that the need to do this drastic change. From a financial standpoint, they don't. From a gaming standpoint, they don't necessarily have to, either. They'd rather build up good relations with third-parties via non-cash means like lending out their own IPs (Starfox Assault, Donkey Konga, F-Zero GX). That is a card that Sony and Microsoft would be hard-pressed to match, since they don't have anywhere near as many recognizable and sellable IPs as Nintendo does.

There are merits to shelling out cash for games, but I don't think Nintendo has to go that route to still be able to support core games (first and third-party) on its systems.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

You know, just to go off on a slightly different tangent here, I was wondering about which Japanese 3rd parties will be hit the hardest if the market situation as it is doesn't change.

I firmly believe Capcom will come out of this smelling like a bed of roses, and in part because unlike other 'big' 3rd parties like Konami or SE, they don't have that WHOAMG instant multi-million seller franchise on name alone. Every generation or so the 'big guns' change, and Capcom's molded their company philosophy along that lines. They're always producing new stuff to keep up with the market - out of all the noticeable Japanese devs they're certainly the most protean, so they can adapt to the sudden shift in the market (and in fact they already have.)

Other companies, like SE and Konami, I believe they'll be hurt a bit. SE is churning out tonnes of DS games, and they're seeing huge success, but at the same time they're trying to appeal to the HD crowd. The Wii's a tossup for them, I think. Since the real reason HD is surviving is the American X360, they'll need to find some way to start appealing to the American X360 owners. A fair amount of their sales will go on the strength of their brand name (assuming no colossal muckup that'll ruin it, of course!), but I think they'll still see a fair bit of their sales eaten into.

Konami, on the other hand... it's pretty obvious that they're putting all their bets on MGS4. In some ways I think that franchise was perhaps the worst thing that could happen to Konami short of outright bankruptcy. They barely have time to pay attention to anything not Solid Snake anymore. MGS4 was never a big seller in Japan - and I question whether the Western market will respond positively enough to MGS4. The investment has got to be far bigger than MGS3 or 2, after all.

Next up, I think Namco will be hit pretty hard this gen, if for nothing more than that Tales appears to be floundering, and their other two major franchises both belong to a dying genre. Tales is a very Japanese game, so I'm still rather baffled by the decision to place Vesperia on the X360. They could've done some good numbers on the DS, but then they shot themselves in the foot by scaring the DS base away from Tales with TotT. Smooth move, Namco. I feel pretty safe in assumnig that Vesperia will perform disappointingly in relation to Tales' heyday. Then again, it could be because Namco is milking Tales like SE milks FF, except without the humongous brandname to base things on. Dilution is all but certain. As it stands, the one unknown factor for Tales is the Wii, but I don't feel confident. As for Soul Calibur and Tekken, they'll move decent numbers, but the series are in decline. The issue now, I believe, will be to see just what effect the inclusion of the Troll and Buckethead in SCIV have. If it works, maybe Namco might try doing licensed fighting games.

Mistwalker... well, their strategy is all but incomprehensible to me. Suffice to say they've been floundering since they were founded, and that's not good.

For relatively minor devs like Atlus, NIS, etc... I think they'll be fine. They produce very Japanese games, and what they really like is a proven software mover with low dev costs. The DS offers a very conducive environment for this sort of thing, so I'd wager a fair number are considering further DS development. The Wii is also a possibility.

Overall, that's my take on the Japanese 3rd party market (or at least the companies I give a crap about). Any (dis)agreements? Comments?

I pretty much agree. But to be fair, that's what happens to any company that so thoroughly rests on their laurels.

 

[donny2112]

Konami, on the other hand... it's pretty obvious that they're putting all their bets on MGS4. In some ways I think that franchise was perhaps the worst thing that could happen to Konami short of outright bankruptcy. They barely have time to pay attention to anything not Solid Snake anymore.

Games published by Konami released in 2007/2008 in Japan. System, title, max(LTD) I have for the game.

PS2 Winning Eleven 11: PES 2008 - 519K
PS2 J-League Winning Eleven 2007 Club Championship - 287K
PS2 Jikkyou Power Pro Baseball 14 - 271K
PS3 Winning Eleven 11: PES 2008 - 239K
PSP MGS: Portable Ops+ - 206K
PS2 Pro Baseball Spirits 4 - 185K
NDS Power Pro Kun Pocket 10 - 129K
PSP Jikkyou Powerful Pro Baseball Portable 2 - 118K
NDS Death Note - 94K
NDS Yu-Gi-Oh Duel Monsters: World Championship 2008 - 92K
WII Jikkyou Power Pro Baseball Wii - 91K
PS2 Jikkyou Power Pro Major League 2 - 78K
PS3 Pro Baseball Spirits 4 - 69K
NDS Kirarin Revolution Tsukutte Misechao! Kime*Kira Stage - 61K
NDS Tokimeki Memorial: Girl's Side 1st Love - 56K
NDS Lost in Blue 2 - 54K
NDS Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters: World Championship 2007 - 51K
PSP Yu-Gi-Oh! GX Tag Force 2 - 50K
NDS World Soccer Winning Eleven DS - Goal x Goal! - 47K
PS2 Jikkyou Power Pro Baseball 14 Ketteiban - 37K
PSP Castlevania: The Dracula X Chronicles - 29K
PS2 Metal Gear 20th Anniversary Collection - 24K
PS2 Beatmania IIDX 13: DistorteD - 24K
PSP MGS: Portable Ops+ Deluxe Pack - 24K
NDS Kirarin * Revolution: Mezase! Idol Queen - 24K
PSP Silent Hill Origins - 20K
NDS D.Gray-Man: Kami no Shitotachi - 18K
NDS Hayate no Gotoku! I am Romeo, and Romeo is I - 17K
PS2 Pop'n Music 14: Fever! - 17K
360 Winning Eleven 11: PES 2008 - 15K
PS2 Prince of Tennis: Doki-Doki Survival - 15K
NDS Lost in Blue 3 - 14K
NDS Tengen Toppa Gurren-Lagann - 11K
WII Jikkyou Power Pro Baseball Wii Ketteiban - 11K
PS2 GuitarFreaks & DrumMania Masterpiece Gold - 10K
PS2 Guitar Freaks V3 & DrumMania V3 - 8K
NDS Welcome for NANA Live Staff Applicants - 7K
PS2 Yu-Gi-Oh Duel Monsters GX: Tag Force Evolution - 7K
WII Jikkyou Power Pro Major League 2 - 7K
WII Dance Dance Revolution Hottest Party - 3K
NDS Kabushiki Baibai Trainer Kabutore! Next - 3K
PSP Coded Arms: Contagion - 3K
WII Dewy's Adventure - 1K
NDS Saeki Chizu Shiki Yumemihada: Dream Skincare - 1K

 

[Pureauthor]

A depressingly large number of titles on that list are either licensed pap, lousy iterations of their sports franchises, C-grade games, or plain rehashed sequels.

I'm not saying they don't make games aside from MGS4. I'm saying that MGS4 has sucked up the vast majority of their time, effort, and energy.

Furthermore, the sales numbers there are rather depressing.

 

[donny2112]

Furthermore, the sales numbers there are rather depressing.

Outside of the top ten or so, true. The list was more in reference to the fact that Konami seems to put out a metric ton of games each year, so they're not just a one-horse company with MGS4.