-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Media Create Sales: Dec 14-20, 2009
- Thread starter Chris1964
- Start date
DNF said:
No, it won't manage to take any position at this list since Gold / Silver showed incredible legs but it will the 4th week and maybe the 5th at the list I originally posted.
Famitsu first 10 biggest weeks so far:
1st biggest week
[PS1] Final Fantasy VIII (Square) - 2.504.044
2nd biggest week
[PS1] Dragon Quest VII (Enix) - 1.072.286
3rd biggest week
[WII] New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Nintendo) - 570.000
4th biggest week
[GBA] Pokemon Ruby / Sapphire (Pokemon Co.) - 336.847 ->NSMBW incoming
5th biggest week
[NGB] Pokemon Gold / Silver (Nintendo) - 436.828 ->NSMBW incoming?
6th biggest week
[NGB] Pokemon Gold / Silver (Nintendo) - 573.247
7th biggest week
[NGB] Pokemon Gold / Silver (Nintendo) - 477.507
8th biggest week
[NGB] Pokemon Gold / Silver (Nintendo) - 258.734
9th biggest week
[NDS] Mario Party DS (Nintendo) - 208.094
10th biggest week
[NGB] Pokemon Gold / Silver (Nintendo) - 144.733
velvet_nitemare
Member
Pretty ballsy prediction by opiate. Interesting to see the predictions in that thread. Good reading.Road said:
I think productivity per year is a silly metric and doesn't tell you much of anything useful. Developing a good game usually takes 1.5 to 2 years minimum. All this should tell us is how staggered the development is, but we know there are high years and low years and these are often dependent on the release of key franchises. Because these are usually aligned by console launch you expect them to cluster. If Mario, Metroid and Smash Bros all hit in the same year then because the developers are on similar budgets and scheduals for Nintendo's highest quality releases then you expect a low point between the times where they finish their next projects. Trying to go faster does not help.
It's classic Miyamoto, a delayed game can be good but a bad game is bad forever. Running completely for a buisness is more-or-less what Activision, EA, and Ubisoft do. They try to run on yearly scheduals and hit their marks every time. It's highly productive but, interestingly, this has not make them more profitable than Nintendo (It does however seem to increase preception of profitability to investors, who like sales-age are concerned with numbers). Some of the most successful devs like Valve and Blizzard are also some of the least efficent. There's a subjective variable in there that will fail you everytime if you look at it like this.
It's classic Miyamoto, a delayed game can be good but a bad game is bad forever. Running completely for a buisness is more-or-less what Activision, EA, and Ubisoft do. They try to run on yearly scheduals and hit their marks every time. It's highly productive but, interestingly, this has not make them more profitable than Nintendo (It does however seem to increase preception of profitability to investors, who like sales-age are concerned with numbers). Some of the most successful devs like Valve and Blizzard are also some of the least efficent. There's a subjective variable in there that will fail you everytime if you look at it like this.
According to Media Create 2009 has probably 2 more weeks, not one like Famitsu. We used Media Create numbers and not Famitsu back then. I'll be wrong at this prediction but not 150k wrong, more like 100k or less.:lolRoad said:
(I'm trying to find anything to make the defeat softer)
Leon S. Kennedy
Member
Somnid said:
As a stock holder and fanboy, I would like to see Nintendo open up more development teams to keep interest in the wii up year round and not have to worry about third parties at all. They've been profitable for a long time so I trust their judgment.
charlequin
Banned
Leon S. Kennedy said:
While this would not be my preferred strategy for Nintendo overall by any means, I think it'd be a significantly better strategy than the one they have now.
It's certainly possible to support a system on only first-party titles, just like it's possible to do so just on third-party titles, even if neither is ideal. But that means a level of dedication to that strategy that I don't think Nintendo has employed. They seem to be thinking about software as a product (and therefore focusing effort on what will sell like gangbusters) but not as support for their hardware system, which I think is a mistake.
If Nintendo wanted to really support the system themselves and let third-parties take it or leave it, I think they'd need to alter their development/publishing strategy as follows:
- Be open to more mid-tier games. Right now Nintendo publishes, essentially, huge hits and flops, but has a weakness in franchises that sell between 200k and 600k, i.e. successful niche titles.
- Branch into Western development. Nintendo would need much more than Retro to make this work; they'd need a real dev/pub team in America and/or Europe to manage a steady flow of software produced in the West, like Sony has.
- Identify gaps and fill them. If Nintendo is going to drive their system by themselves, they need to fill every niche that buyers might care about. We already know that the biggest 18-35 male genres (shooters, sandbox games, moe RPGs, etc.) aren't going to be Nintendo's strong suit no matter what, but there's a lot they could do: arcade racer/flyer games (remember when an N64 got you games like Wave Race and Pilotwings?), gameplay-dependent RPGs (dungeon crawls and whatnot), strategy games, action games, survival horror, what have you. Basically Nintendo should have like 3-5 outfits like Intelligent Systems instead of just one, each with their own niche to focus on.
- Provide "step-up" titles. Right now, Nintendo produces the single most-successful title in certain genres -- they have the best-selling platformer. I think it's accurate to say that other 2D platformers won't sell as well, but Nintendo has the opportunity to produce something that, while it won't be as successful as NSMBW, would still do far better than something like Klonoa. Nintendo should be actively assigning teams to put together things like a YI or 2D Donkey Kong for Wii to tap into a subset of the NSMBW market with titles that lean slightly more in a core direction. (They did a good job of this in many genres on the DS.)
- Do all this and keep publishing literally everything they publish now.
EDIT: I forgot StarFox!
You're probably remembering a prediction I made. I am waiting for the last week's numbers to come in, to get a clear reading on the magnitude of my failure.JoshuaJSlone said:
There was probably another, different prediction that didn't turn out as spectacularly off as mine.
I know Charlequin is only supporting a hypothetical (that is, if Nintendo wanted to run a platform single handedly), but I don't think he has considered all the consequences of these seemingly easy tasks for Nintendo.
The simplest example is Western Developement. Nintendo is -- very deliberately and consciously -- a conservative Japanese company. In conservative Japanese culture, most businesses are fiercely demanding of their employees, expecting them to do what they're told when they're told. The company is then in turn unusually loyal to their employees: they try extremely hard to avoid layoffs, as Sony did in their recent downturn, as an example.
Well, most American employees simply don't think this way. They want more freedom to create what they want, and certainly don't want to be tied to a single company ad infinitum. Of course, they don't like it when they get laid off: look at the massive number of layoffs and dissolutions Microsoft has wrought in their publishing house as an example. Look at EA. Jobs aren't safe even if your department is doing reasonably well. More generally, it is entirely acceptable in American culture for companies to lay off people for "restructuring" or whatever other reason they might choose.
And for the most part it seems most Americans would prefer a shaky, uncertain job future with more freedom to a very secure, safe future where they are rigidly tied to a single company.
All of this is supposed to explain why Nintendo's entire corporate culture and most Western employees are at odds. The way Nintendo runs business -- its very core principles -- are not palatable to most Western developers. And it shows: most of Nintendo's attempts to branch out in to Western development (Silicon Knights, Factor 5) have ended disastrously. So, to attract a larger Western Development group in to Nintendo's first party, I think Nintendo would essentially need to change their business philosophy entirely.
I think that's a very bad idea, and as such I'd strongly recommend that Nintendo make no attempt to create first party Western development at all. Ever. Unless American employees change, I guess. I could imagine small groups of people accepting this type of culture: finding a small studio here or there. But en masse? No, not ever.
But that isn't my real point: my real point was that I don't think Charlequin had thought about all the consequences to these seemingly easy changes Nintendo could make. I think they're far more complicated, and in many cases reach significantly different conclusions. Like the example above.
The simplest example is Western Developement. Nintendo is -- very deliberately and consciously -- a conservative Japanese company. In conservative Japanese culture, most businesses are fiercely demanding of their employees, expecting them to do what they're told when they're told. The company is then in turn unusually loyal to their employees: they try extremely hard to avoid layoffs, as Sony did in their recent downturn, as an example.
Well, most American employees simply don't think this way. They want more freedom to create what they want, and certainly don't want to be tied to a single company ad infinitum. Of course, they don't like it when they get laid off: look at the massive number of layoffs and dissolutions Microsoft has wrought in their publishing house as an example. Look at EA. Jobs aren't safe even if your department is doing reasonably well. More generally, it is entirely acceptable in American culture for companies to lay off people for "restructuring" or whatever other reason they might choose.
And for the most part it seems most Americans would prefer a shaky, uncertain job future with more freedom to a very secure, safe future where they are rigidly tied to a single company.
All of this is supposed to explain why Nintendo's entire corporate culture and most Western employees are at odds. The way Nintendo runs business -- its very core principles -- are not palatable to most Western developers. And it shows: most of Nintendo's attempts to branch out in to Western development (Silicon Knights, Factor 5) have ended disastrously. So, to attract a larger Western Development group in to Nintendo's first party, I think Nintendo would essentially need to change their business philosophy entirely.
I think that's a very bad idea, and as such I'd strongly recommend that Nintendo make no attempt to create first party Western development at all. Ever. Unless American employees change, I guess. I could imagine small groups of people accepting this type of culture: finding a small studio here or there. But en masse? No, not ever.
But that isn't my real point: my real point was that I don't think Charlequin had thought about all the consequences to these seemingly easy changes Nintendo could make. I think they're far more complicated, and in many cases reach significantly different conclusions. Like the example above.
Chris1964 said:
I don't think people think of it in exactly those terms on a conscious level, but yes.
We don't expect our employers to be loyal to us. We know that they will fire us if we become momentarily unpalatable. As an example, if there is some sort of restructuring, where the department names change and organization is shifted around -- most companies do this on a seemingly bi-annual basis -- it is entirely plausible for 10% of the workforce to be laid off simply because their positions have been deemed momentarily redundant. Until the next restructuring happens, and suddenly certain positions are needed again, and they rehire.
And of course, when there are losses, heads roll very rapidly. Typically from the bottom up, but sometimes companies are more altruistic.
This means the companies are less loyal to us as employees. But at the same time, they don't expect the same sort of loyalty from us as conservative Japanese companies seem to expect from their workers. From what I can gather from friends working in Japan, it can be taboo to leave your company for another. That's so commonplace in America it is even thought about: of course you'll jump ship if another company offers you a better salary. Why wouldn't you?
Chris1964 said:
Culturally, the US is very different from Japan. What Opiate says is not wrong: what he describes is, on a basic level, what employees want. The market is largely shaped by the desires of the individuals that operate within it.
Chris1964 said:
And that's fine, but that isn't really the case in the US.
charlequin
Banned
Opiate said:
The only person calling these tasks "seemingly easy" is you. I don't think they are easy at all; honestly I think they'd have been more difficult than building and maintaining effective third-party relations would have been. I explicitly say that what I describe would call for a much higher level of dedication to that specific strategy above all else and call out that it would involve adding quite a few new elements on top of everything they're doing now, which I didn't think presented the picture as "easy" at all. The degree to which this would prove difficult is exactly the reason why I've consistently advocated a mixed 1st/3rd-party strategy for Nintendo instead of a 1st-party-only one.
I do, however, think they are all "conceivable" -- that is, one can imagine them happening, since companies are known to successfully undergo major cultural shifts and adopt new and distinct strategies under the influence of successful leaders at times -- and (this is the important part) that some significant portion of such changes would be necessary for a strategy that relies entirely on first-party development to sell the system to be sufficiently reliable and developed. From there one can independently evaluate the difficulty of these changes and determine whether such a strategy actually makes sense.
On the topic of Western developers, you are correct inasmuch as you describe the dynamic between the Japanese leadership of Nintendo and Western development studios directly, but that's why I've thought for a while that Nintendo should have had a legitimate Western arm instead of a rump marketing organization. A real Western branch could operate within the usual expectations of an American or European corporation and serve as a bridge between the motive force behind Nintendo's product lines in Japan and the distinct needs of developers in the West. Building one now would be ludicrously difficult but it's much easier to imagine a path in retrospect from the N64 era to now where that console's extremely strong Western support led to NoA and/or NoE growing and building upon that support in the future. (And of course that's a hypothetical that rapidly changes quite a bit about the future of Nintendo as a company, etc. etc.)
EDIT: You might have gotten confused by the part where I said it'd be a better strategy than what they have now, but that's really just my way of expressing how shitty I think Nintendo's platform strategy for the Wii is; any coherent and dedicated strategy would be better than what they've got on offer now.
Hmm I hadn't thought of that. With two weeks left it's not that impossible for the Wii to catch up. I only really used the MC numbers because they were easier to put up. heheChris1964 said:
Well, it's not my prediction (and I didn't doubt it, at least not publicly haha), so you guys decide.
Chris1964 said:
GameFAQs doesn't separate by region, though, so the release dates often aren't the Japanese ones. Also, it doesn't list Channels/Apps. Oh, well.
charlequin said:
RARE, RARE, RARE. Did I mention that I wish that RARE was still with Nintendo? Does anyone else think that Banjo-Kazooie might've done a million on Wii in the U.S., if RARE was still with Nintendo and had them to vet their stuff?
Opiate said:
Did I mention that thing about RARE (of the past)?
Souldriver
Member
Well, we'll never know, but considering how Rare fares now under MS, and how it fared under Nintendo....yeah. The IP's and games from Rare seem to fit Nintendo's platform, strategy and audience a lot better too.donny2112 said:
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
RARE was a money sucker and in the end of their relation with Nintendo, they turned for the shittier, SFA was shitty and all of their titles after it have been either shitty or disappointing. It doesn't help them that MS has turned them into a "casual" games company instead of trying to achieve great games where they have potential. It also hurts to see that the ports of N64 games are infinitely better than the games they release now...donny2112 said:
manueldelalas said:
> 1 million in sales between U.S. and Japan. Collectathon was over the top, but it was a good base for a game with copying Zelda. There's also the question of if they hurried up finishing that game to be able to release it before the Microsoft sale. The two events were within a month of each other, IIRC.
manueldelalas said:
Did I mention that if they were still with Nintendo that they'd then still have Nintendo to directly copy and get advice from?
manueldelalas said:
That does stink. They closed the handheld division, and they seem to be focusing them on Natal. David Wise left. Stamper Bros. are gone.
manueldelalas said:
Stop-n-Swap is back in Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie, and they added in Nuts & Bolts to the equation. Looking forward to Perfect Dark XBLA, too. Of course, 3/4 of that is from 4J Studios, IIRC.
LINK.AGE76
Member
ethelred said:
The DKC games were good, DK64 was good imo, and Star Fox 64 was also good. I liked the Banjo games back in the day, but now if I look back at them I wouldn't care. The game that I really liked and thought was good was Jet Force, that game was great imo till the spaceship part collectathon at the end happened. I think they were good, but the amount of collectathons in their games kill the mood.
ethelred said:
A lot of people don't. However they did a very good job of providing strong game output in terms of sales and in filling some holes that Nintendo didn't, particularly in regards to dry spells. They basically single-handedly saved the back half of 1997 with Goldeneye in late Summer and the last minute announcement and release of Diddy Kong Racing for the big Fall game. If the concern is current game output for Nintendo, RARE was a big help in that regard.
LINK.AGE76
Member
AniHawk said:
Your right, I don't know why I thought it was Rare. I read interviews some time ago and knew it wasn't them, but thought it was lol. I checked and the director was Takao Shimizu.
ethelred said:
Kind of agree. I thought all of their 64 efforts were very shoddy other than Goldeneye, PD, and Diddy Kong Racing, which somehow was freaking amazing. I think the DKC games are pretty good, but don't touch the other big platformers of the time on SNES\GB. God damn their character designs were awful.
LINK.AGE76
Member
leroidys said:
Wow how did I forget about Goldeneye, that game was amazing
I really liked PD too, but I think the best game they made was DKC2.
Retro Studios has become another good example of this actually.Opiate said:
Retro announced that they were intending to leave the Metroid franchise behind for a while and work on something new, but only eight months after Metroid Prime 3 launched, three of Retros most senior staff were escorted off the premises and then four months later they started a studio with EA based on the concept of extreme creative freedom.
Based on the sheer amount of rumors, it also seems whatever Retro was working on in those eight months has since been canceled, leading to Retro being quiet for so long.
2 years seems like a reasonable development cycle for your average game. So divide the number of teams Nintendo has by two, deduct 10~15% for shitcanned prototypes, and there's your expected number of games per year.freddy said:
The thing is, Nintendo isn't built to ride the wave. They are on top of the world now but they don't have their productions lined up to take advantage of it. If this gen has taught us anything, in a couple years this could all reset and they'd be back at square one. They are letting their biggest opportunity ever just pass them by.
A theory I like is that too much of what Nintendo makes has to go through Miyamoto and he can only do so much.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
A lot of Japanese companies aren't doing business that way anymore.
Nintendo probably always will, however.
Nintendo probably always will, however.
bcn-ron said:
It sort of seems like Nintendo knows they could be at the bottom again in a matter of years and that is why they will not expand rapidly in an attempt to take advantage of being in first. It's an odd conservatism that keeps them from realizing their full potential but also ensures their continued existence.
Do you happen to know if any of the major Japanese developers have adopted the democratic development model that most of the major Western studios tend to use?Segata Sanshiro said:
If they've been changing the corporate structure, I'm kind of curios if they've been changing the development culture as well.
I actually think that Miyamoto having his fingers in so much of the pie at Nintendo has been somewhat detrimental to their cause. While we are seeing a lot of good games from Nintendo they all seem to have that Miyamoto touch on them. It's not something that I can prove or can even be sure is happening but I tend to get the feeling that a lot of creativity is stifled. That type of thing is most evident when you see them deal with their western studios/partners.bcn-ron said:
I'd love to see him concentrate on his babies like Mario and Zelda instead of stretching himself thinly across so many titles.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
I don't think Nintendo really cares whether they're at the top or bottom of the marketshare list, so they're certainly not going to gamble real money (which is what they care about) to try to pull it. This gen was a happy accident for them.jay said:
Their strategy is what makes them the most successful video game company around, though.
Chris1964 said:
I'm not sure about the others but FFXIII was discounted to 7500 (about 20%) when I bought my copy on the 24th. It wording on the signs (it was on sale everywhere) seemed to indicate that it was something that SE was doing.
They may be trying to undercut the used market by being very aggressive on price; which they can do since it started out so high. Japanese used buy-back prices are quite high for new games so by chopping that 20% off the new price the used retailers may not be able to resell copies they bought back during the first week at a profit for below 7500 yen.
It's certainly an interesting strategy if that is what they are doing. I have no real feeling for whether or not it will work though.
A lot of this company pressure begins even before people enter companies.
I'm a student in one of Japan's most well-regarded universities (and I'm not saying this to show off, but it's true. The school's produced 6 Prime Ministers and has alumni from the CEOs of Samsung and Sony; even Yamauchi was a student before dropping out). I'm not on an exchange program, but enrolled as a realtime graduate student.
Even graduate school is a bit of an oddity in Japan. Japanese college graduates are expected to go to work and become (for lack of a better word) slaves to the companies. The ones (Japanese) who do decide to go gain extra skill, but most also happen to be proficient in English, so many have an already have an international outlook and may want to head overseas in the near future. Japanese schools also attract other East and Southeast Asian students who believe in this system, so it's usually Westerners who object.
Before finishing university, students are expected to do systematic job hunting, which shows the differences in what purpose a university is supposed to serve in Japan and Western countries. In Japan, you go to school not to gain knowledge, but to get a permanent, secure job. In Western countries, employment is also seen as an incentive to go to college, but knowledge and resume building is another purpose. Japanese students feel their degrees are everything they need, regardless of what their major was or what they actually studied. Japanese companies will train all hired workers anyway. Graduate school serves an even more differing purpose in Japan and elsewhere: in Japan, it lands you a job. Elsewhere, it would explicitly give you more knowledge.
What does this mean for the game industry? Well, I just mentioned this post because I can see the seeds mentioned in this thread sowing right before my very eyes, every single day, among my peers. Whether one would agree or not, Japanese society is fairly rigid. The dismantling of the core philosophies of a company like Nintendo will not happen easily.
I'm a student in one of Japan's most well-regarded universities (and I'm not saying this to show off, but it's true. The school's produced 6 Prime Ministers and has alumni from the CEOs of Samsung and Sony; even Yamauchi was a student before dropping out). I'm not on an exchange program, but enrolled as a realtime graduate student.
Even graduate school is a bit of an oddity in Japan. Japanese college graduates are expected to go to work and become (for lack of a better word) slaves to the companies. The ones (Japanese) who do decide to go gain extra skill, but most also happen to be proficient in English, so many have an already have an international outlook and may want to head overseas in the near future. Japanese schools also attract other East and Southeast Asian students who believe in this system, so it's usually Westerners who object.
Before finishing university, students are expected to do systematic job hunting, which shows the differences in what purpose a university is supposed to serve in Japan and Western countries. In Japan, you go to school not to gain knowledge, but to get a permanent, secure job. In Western countries, employment is also seen as an incentive to go to college, but knowledge and resume building is another purpose. Japanese students feel their degrees are everything they need, regardless of what their major was or what they actually studied. Japanese companies will train all hired workers anyway. Graduate school serves an even more differing purpose in Japan and elsewhere: in Japan, it lands you a job. Elsewhere, it would explicitly give you more knowledge.
What does this mean for the game industry? Well, I just mentioned this post because I can see the seeds mentioned in this thread sowing right before my very eyes, every single day, among my peers. Whether one would agree or not, Japanese society is fairly rigid. The dismantling of the core philosophies of a company like Nintendo will not happen easily.
GregLombardi
Member
I am a firm believer in the "education is what you make of it" mantra. It really is. If you want it to make you a slave, you can do that, and if you want to be a center of knowledge that doesn't make money, you can do that. Or you can be smart and take all the important pieces of what it brings and then manifest them in your own creation upon the world, which is what I personally recommend. Easier said than done though.schuelma said:
Its too bad that Nintendo has become dumb, in my personal opinion they have fully failed to leverage the Wiis success into PS2 like success. Perhaps with Super Wii?
Sohter.Nura
Member
cvxfreak said:
Yeah, I have seen this in mangas before. I know it's not a lot of good reference, but it shows how much higher education is seen differently in Japan. From what I understand, you go to college in Japan and like you said systematically job hunt, and after that you find a job in a company and stay there for... quite a while. From what I understand it's not common in Japan for people to hop around companies after college, right?
I guess it can work for the good and it can work for the bad. It's good to have employees with your company for a good amount of time, but from that you don't get a lot of cross-working experience. Specially in the games industry, I think I find that somewhat... critical?