Odysseus said:when is nintendo going to get some new production capacity, or have they done so already?
the way things are going, i wonder if they'll even be able to stockpile enough units to have the monster holiday season we all expect them to have.
of course, they could be stockpiling units already, for all i know.
Not really. Third parties are dumb and hate money. Expect to see a lot of PS3 and 360 announcements.
Eteric Rice said:What exactly is Thursdayton, anyway?
Yeah, and it's really starting to piss me off. It's like devs are ignoring us. Bastards...
jimbo said:(i'm using estimated numbers so please let's not get into this)
jimbo said:(I think there was a thread that showed a port added about 10% to their cost)
Vagabundo said:I think there are some GAF infiltrators on the PS3 boards, there is a lot of newbie members stirring things up. The old hands there look uncomfortable with the GAF debating style.
So you don't think 3rd Parties are moving massive resources into Wii development, the results of which we'll see next year?jimbo said:Developers are NOT ignoring the Wii, nor are they being stupid.
I've said this before, but it gets ignored every time. I don't know how many more mediocre Wii game announcements its going to take before it's pretty clear, that in terms of third party support, the Wii is not going to have the same calibur that other leading consoles had in the past. Not unless the PC, the PS3 and the 360....ALL of them become totally irrelevant in the long run.
It's really easy to see why developers continue to announce most of their major projects for PS3/360. Even in the past, when developers announced exclusive/timed exclusive games for the leading console, they knew in the back of their heads that if something went wrong, and their game bombed, they could easily port their games to other consoles and make them multiplatform for a very small investment. This has not changed. The disadvantage of the Wii is that it's so drastically different than the other major players in this generation. Putting a game on the Wii IS risky, despite what some people may think. Not only does it have to be something unique and special to stand out, because you're not going to wow anyone with the graphics, but it has to be taylored to its controller.
Now think about this for a second? How easy is it to port a game to and from PC, 360 and PS3 for a developer? Pretty easy. In fact most games start on PC anyway.
So with a very small investment(I think there was a thread that showed a port added about 10% to their cost) developers can put a game on ALL 3 next-gen platforms, and now they are not LIMITED to one console's user base.
The Wii, as hot as it's selling is at about 7 million LTD. The other 3 total closer to about 20 million potential buyers(i'm using estimated numbers so please let's not get into this). So at this point in their life...a developer can pick any of the 3 next-gen consoles, and know with a quick port, they can reach up to 20 million potential buyers. Which choice is safer and offers more potential return?
And on top of that, let's do remember it's still extremely early in this generation. It's only been 6 months since all platforms hit the street. Anything can still happen.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I happen to believe the best explanation of why this continues to happen is not "because developers are stupid", or "because they want to go out of business" or even "developers just have not had enough time to shift focus(yeah right...they must have had the time to shift focus if they are announcing all of these other games)".....but rather because they are NOT stupid, and they DON'T want to go out of business and BECAUSE they looked at risk and return on investment.
ziran said:PS3 sales are terrible.
So you don't think 3rd Parties are moving massive resources into Wii development, the results of which we'll see next year?
bmf said:Jimbo,
Maybe it's just the sleep deprivation talking, but I think you're my favorite joke character.
jimbo said:A developer will put 5 games that copy Wii Sports and Wii play before they will put a massive project like Metal Gear Solid on the Wii.
:lol make sure to post some links later.F#A#Oo said:Yeah I'm fcuking with them on there too...:lol
xabre said:But they'll put a massive project on a console that can barely sell above 8k week in, week out? Righto.
jimbo said:No, they won't JUST put it on that console. They may INITIALLY develop it for that console, but they will port it. Just goes to show you, some of you have a hard time understanding this whole idea of MULTIPLATFORM GAME DEVELOPMENT.
I know it's new and all but it will come to you.
:lolF#A#Oo said:Yeah I'm fcuking with them on there too...:lol
Joke character am comfirmed total.jimbo said:How easy is it to port a game to and from PC, 360 and PS3 for a developer? Pretty easy. In fact most games start on PC anyway.
xabre said:Now I'm making a new prediction, sub-5k, coming to a media create sales thread within the next couple of weeks.
The Sphinx said:So
Does this sound familiar to you?
Company releases PS2 game.
PS2 game bombs.
Company ports bombed PS2 game to GC/XBox.
Financial success!!
Yeah. I don't remember that happening often, either.
jimbo said:Let me give you an example:
PS2 game costs $5 million to make.
P2S game sells 100,000 copies = $5 million dollars. Developer breaks even.
PS2 developers invests another 10% for Xbox port or 500k dollars. Total game development = $5.5 million
Xbox port sells 40,000 copies. Developer makes 2 million dollars.
Total game devlopment with port = 5.5 million. Total revenue after port = 7 million.
Total gross profit = 1.5 million
Rancid Mildew said:To be fair, he does have a valid point. If developers look at the market as Wii vs. everything else
7 million PC users confirmed.Xisiqomelir said:Okay, I won't.
jimbo said:Developers are NOT ignoring the Wii, nor are they being stupid.
I've said this before, but it gets ignored every time. I don't know how many more mediocre Wii game announcements its going to take before it's pretty clear, that in terms of third party support, the Wii is not going to have the same calibur that other leading consoles had in the past. Not unless the PC, the PS3 and the 360....ALL of them become totally irrelevant in the long run.
It's really easy to see why developers continue to announce most of their major projects for PS3/360. Even in the past, when developers announced exclusive/timed exclusive games for the leading console, they knew in the back of their heads that if something went wrong, and their game bombed, they could easily port their games to other consoles and make them multiplatform for a very small investment. This has not changed. The disadvantage of the Wii is that it's so drastically different than the other major players in this generation. Putting a game on the Wii IS risky, despite what some people may think. Not only does it have to be something unique and special to stand out, because you're not going to wow anyone with the graphics, but it has to be taylored to its controller.
Now think about this for a second? How easy is it to port a game to and from PC, 360 and PS3 for a developer? Pretty easy. In fact most games start on PC anyway.
So with a very small investment(I think there was a thread that showed a port added about 10% to their cost) developers can put a game on ALL 3 next-gen platforms, and now they are not LIMITED to one console's user base.
The Wii, as hot as it's selling is at about 7 million LTD. The other 3 total closer to about 20 million potential buyers(i'm using estimated numbers so please let's not get into this). So at this point in their life...a developer can pick any of the 3 next-gen consoles, and know with a quick port, they can reach up to 20 million potential buyers. Which choice is safer and offers more potential return?
And on top of that, let's do remember it's still extremely early in this generation. It's only been 6 months since all platforms hit the street. Anything can still happen.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I happen to believe the best explanation of why this continues to happen is not "because developers are stupid", or "because they want to go out of business" or even "developers just have not had enough time to shift focus(yeah right...they must have had the time to shift focus if they are announcing all of these other games)".....but rather because they are NOT stupid, and they DON'T want to go out of business and BECAUSE they looked at risk and return on investment.
Right, that's my issue with the "ports will hamstring the Wii" argument. Companies have demonstrated an unwillingness to port in the past. Take a well-known example from last gen: Soul Calibur.Rancid Mildew said:To be fair, he does have a valid point. If developers look at the market as Wii vs. everything else, Nintendo will never ever have a majority marketshare. I'm not sure if developers are indeed looking at the market that way; it's impossible to tell at this point. Personally, I'm inclined to think that they aren't based off of the IGDA report and recent game announcements. Also, it isn't that easy to port between the 360/PS3/PC. The similarities stop at the resolution output. If the Wii continues to sell, the lower development cost and the large marketshare will definitely look very attractive. At the very least, developers in Japan should shift their top notch resources to the Wii since most of their games are Japan exclusive and usually come out in Japan first. I'm sure E3 and the months following E3 will be very revealing of the type of games the Wii receives.
Pureauthor said:That's only if you include 'PC' into the everything else, which doesn't exactly have much precedent going for it. Else all games would be PC-first, then ported to consoles.
Okay.jimbo said:Massive resources as in what? Huge game projects that typically cost a lot of money and time to develop? No, I don't.
Massive resources as in lots of games, but the type of games that have been announced for the Wii and continue to get announced? Yes.
A developer will put 5 games that copy Wii Sports and Wii play before they will put a massive project like Metal Gear Solid on the Wii.
Definitely a possibility. Sony's lost their way in Japan.xabre said:Honestly, I'm one of the first people here that suggested a possible sub-10k for the PS3.
Now I'm making a new prediction, sub-5k, coming to a media create sales thread within the next couple of months.
really? I reckon they just mightRancid Mildew said:If developers look at the market as Wii vs. everything else, Nintendo will never ever have a majority marketshare.
The Sphinx said:Soul Calibur 2 was released simultaneously on all systems. The PS2 version did well, the GameCube version did quite well (outselling PS2 despite the small userbase), and the XBox version performed rather poorly. Now it was obvious the series had potential sales on at least two systems. Namco had managed to get all three versions out, they all played similarly, and from the outside at least the multi-platform release looked like a success.
No, the Xbox version was definitely the lowest selling in the States.Agent Icebeezy said:What reality are you living in. The PS2 version was the lowest amount sold in the states. I don't know elsewhere, but it was over 750k on the Xbox alone. Far from bad sales.
jimbo said:PS2 game costs $5 million to make.
P2S game sells 100,000 copies = $5 million dollars. Developer breaks even.
Wait, console games ported to the PC don't sell well?Pureauthor said:Exactly. The entire lynchpin of jimbo's predictions hinges on the PC, since a) The PS3 is performing terribly worldwide, b) the X360 is performing decently in one of the three markets, lousy in another, and is a complete joke in the third c) the Wii is the fastest selling console ever.
I'm pretty sure it already is.Rancid Mildew said:And it looks like the new PC games of the next two years such as Crysis will be too complex for even the PS3 and the 360.
The only JP example I can think of last gen is auto modellista (tanked on PS2, got quickie GC/Xbox ports to try and make some scratch). Then again, that one's pretty much the exception to the rule, even just looking at Capcom (Dragon Quarter, Chaos Legion, Clock Tower 3, Okami, God Hand, Shadow of Rome, GioGio, Haunting Ground, SFEX3, etc, etc). Far more often it seems games went in the other direction, from the other machines (Viewtiful Joe, RE4) to PS2.Pureauthor said:This isn't an example, chief. This is a potential scenario. Examples generally require actual facts and events that actually occurred to back them up.
Go find specific tites that actually did this and then you have an example. Right now you're just waffling.
Yeah, the GC/PS2 versions both passed 900k iirc (GC was close to a million).Magicpaint said:No, the Xbox version was definitely the lowest selling in the States.
Actually it was because Sony paid for it. GC & Xbox skus were in development for simultaneous release and a 360 release was in the works... in fact, some staff members working on these versions found out about the PS2 exclusivity after Famitsu announced. :/The Sphinx said:Yet Soul Calibur 3 was released on the PS2 only. Why? For whatever reason some developers just don't like releasing multiplatform games.
skinnyrattler said:Wait, console games ported to the PC don't sell well?
I think you're simplifying things a bit too much: PC game makers also have to cater with widely varrying configurations and resolutions, while console gamers have a single, unified userbase (mostly). This simplifies the graphics engine and the creation of resources a lot. To get the kind of graphics a high-end gamer machine (which you don't get via Alienware unless you're very stupid), you need a game that was built towards high-end gamer machines (that didn't even exist when the game dev started, by the way) yet is able to run, and run well enough, on many much gimpier configurations (or it can't sell period).test_account said:PC gaming will always be ahead of consoles when it comes to visuals. You get Alienware PCs that costs like $5000. If you spend this amount of money on a system you would (or should) be expecting it to be able to do better visuals than 360/PS3.
Masklinn said:I think you're simplifying things a bit too much: PC game makers also have to cater with widely varrying configurations and resolutions, while console gamers have a single, unified userbase (mostly). This simplifies the graphics engine and the creation of resources a lot. To get the kind of graphics a high-end gamer machine (which you don't get via Alienware unless you're very stupid), you need a game that was built towards high-end gamer machines (that didn't even exist when the game dev started, by the way) yet is able to run, and run well enough, on many much gimpier configurations (or it can't sell period).
My point is that a PC game doesn't come for free to the devs, and the fact that they have to bake the graphic variability in the game (and cope with more than a dozen GCs, not even taking in account the high variability of CPU performances and stuff) means that the time they have to spend on the graphics and graphics engine highers exponentially with the quality they want to output at max settings.test_account said:What do you mean with cater? Yes, PC games have much more setting when it comes to visuals which is a very good thing since then you dont nesseserally need to buy (insert piece of hardware here) to be able to play it. If you have an older computer you can "tune" the settings so it would work on your computer. If you have a newer computer you are able to have better visuals.
Buy the parts, build the box yourself.test_account said:What do you mean with Alienware is stupid btw? If you mean you can get the exact same specs they provide to a much cheaper price i would be very interested to know where.