Support NeoGAF

[schuelma]

Only if that single title fails to propel hardware sales for that time period, or is likely not to do so.



Define "should".

Sure, if Wii sales start to tank then Nintendo will have repeated the same mistake as they made last year. In that scenario, I wholeheartedly agree that Nintendo "should" have released more games.

If Wii sales remain steady and healthy until their next major game release (which is likely to be SMG2), then I'm not so sure.
.

That argument makes no sense- just because a risk ends up working doesn't mean the risk had to be taken. What is the possible upside to having zero notable releases for 3 months or more? The only possible upside I see is spacing out big releases, but if you need to do that at this point in the Wii's lifespan then the system is screwed.

I think NSMB Wii has shown itself to be of a different caliber than either Animal Crossing or Wii Music. The comparison is unfair to make.

Why is it unfair? Maybe Nintendo is a bit smarter in relying on the same strategy since NSMB Wii is a different animal, but its still the same strategy and just makes Nintendo look dumber for using it last year with Animal Crossing.

 

[duckroll]

i've been noticing this since last year when so many publishers started announcing more PSP games, and looking at that list it's become even more obvious. it can't be ignored - why is the PSP's upcoming release list so much bigger nowadays?

The same reason why the DS got tons of titles from Japan in the last year or two. Console gaming is dying and portables are the new wave. It's not really exclusive to the PSP, but it's just that it took a while for the consumers to arrive on the PSP. More demand = more supply.

 

[gerg]

Right. Running a risk that works in someone's favor is only worthwhile if the level of success produced by that risk is far in excess of the success they could obtain normally through operating conservatively.

In other words, the risks taken in the design and market positioning of the DS and Wii should be applauded since they were huge risks but produced a monumental payoff that it's likely Nintendo could not have possibly achieved through any other strategy, while releasing nothing for their system for three months is a risk with no particular upside -- when it "works" all that means is that it didn't screw them over, not that it produced a particularly great result, and therefore there's no reason to comment positively on it.

In a sense, I agree with this.

On the other hand, this argument seems to stem back to "Nintendo should have attracted third-party support in 2007", and so I think there's room (as duckroll has argued) to question what Nintendo could pragmatically do in the immediate future.

And I also don't see the problem with accepting minismising expenditure as a viable and worthwhile goal. This is my major problem with your last sentence - what are we expecting as a great result for the Wii in the immediate future? Should it be selling 100k units a week? What is our frame of reference?

 

[duckroll]

In a sense, I agree with this.

On the other hand, this argument seems to stem back to "Nintendo should have attracted third-party support in 2007", and so I think there's room (as duckroll has argued) to question what Nintendo could pragmatically do in the immediate future.

And I also don't see the problem with accepting minismising expenditure as a viable and worthwhile goal. This is my major problem with your last sentence - what are we expecting as a great result for the Wii in the immediate future? Should it be selling 100k units a week? What is our frame of reference?

I don't think there needs to be a frame of reference. The comment and consensus is that the Wii release schedule now is EMPTY. It's a desert. There are no new releases announced from first or third parties for the next few months. That is bad. It doesn't matter if the Wii keeps selling, because this just means that there are still lots of people who are picking up the system to play something regardless of the fact that there's nothing new coming out. That doesn't change the fact that for everyone who already has the Wii, there is nothing new coming out and that is alarming and puzzling. Do you get this?

 

[Somnid]

It's not like Nintendo can commission games, especially good ones for a particular part of the year. They have to be planning this out 2 year in advance and a lot of stuff can happen in the time (for example, 3rd parties walking away despite record sales). Their internal devs are the most important for selling consoles but they need time to finish projects (which is affected by when they finished their previous project). There's no way they could make up the rest without high quality 3rd party titles and even if they could it wouldn't sell systems.

 

[Nirolak]

Nintendo took the same risk last year (and with more titles) and failed. If you think that Wii sales will remain steady until the next big release get ready to be unpleasantly surprised. Maybe they will be over last year but all the hype NSMBW has built will be lost. So back to the beginning for Nintendo.
That's why I insist that Galaxy 2 must be out this Golden Week. It won't be a system seller but it will help to maintain Wii gamer base active. After all the game was supposed to be almost completed since last year. I don't think what I say is something strange but what common logic suggests.

This depends a lot on what "almost done" means.

To some developers like DICE, this means the game is coming out in a month, while to others like Blizzard, it means the game could be 1.5 years out.

Were I to compare the historic development cycles of Nintendo's core games to one of these companies, it'd probably be much closer to Blizzard.

Of course, I agree that it would make a ton of business sense to release it then, but I agree with duckroll in that if it's not done, it's not coming out.

 

[gerg]

That argument makes no sense- just because a risk ends up working doesn't mean the risk had to be taken. What is the possible upside to having zero notable releases for 3 months or more? The only possible upside I see is spacing out big releases, but if you need to do that at this point in the Wii's lifespan then the system is screwed.

It seems to me that Nintendo operates on a goal of making as much money as possible by spending as little money as possible. This would be the "upside" of frugality - you spend less money.

Furthermore, I'd like to make it clear that I agree that, from a software perspective, I agree that Nintendo's lack of a releases is a bad thing.

Why is it unfair?

Because your argument seems to be that Nintendo shouldn't release a game that may potentially uphold Wii sales because it has released titles that haven't upheld sales. Unless I am mistaken, you seem to be presuming your conclusion in your premise.

Maybe Nintendo is a bit smarter in relying on the same strategy since NSMB Wii is a different animal, but its still the same strategy and just makes Nintendo look dumber for using it last year with Animal Crossing.

I'm not arguing that risk is always a good thing; it is not. I'm simply don't agree that risk is always a bad thing.

I don't think there needs to be a frame of reference. The comment and consensus is that the Wii release schedule now is EMPTY. It's a desert. There are no new releases announced from first or third parties for the next few months. That is bad. It doesn't matter if the Wii keeps selling, because this just means that there are still lots of people who are picking up the system to play something regardless of the fact that there's nothing new coming out. That doesn't change the fact that for everyone who already has the Wii, there is nothing new coming out and that is alarming and puzzling. Do you get this?

As I have said, from a software perspective, I agree that not releasing games is a very bad thing. A healthy software environment demands regular releases, something which Nintendo is evidently failing to uphold.

 

[schuelma]

In a sense, I agree with this.

On the other hand, this argument seems to stem back to "Nintendo should have attracted third-party support in 2007", and so I think there's room (as duckroll has argued) to question what Nintendo could pragmatically do in the immediate future.

Here is what Nintendo could have done about March last year

"Wow, our whole release a big game and have it drive hardware for 5 months didn't really work out this time"

"Well, we do have NSMB Wii for this holiday- that's going to be a MONSTER"

"True, but I think it might be very competent of us if we have other software ready to go for Q1 2010 just to be safe"

"Sir, 3rd parties hate us though"

"Really? Damn it. Well, we are Nintendo. We have like 20 billions dollars right? I bet we can develop/buy off one or two titles betwen January and April that we can release that might sell over fifty thousand copies right?"

"That's not a bad idea...."

 

[duckroll]

It seems to me that Nintendo operates on a goal of making as much money as possible by spending as little money as possible. This would be the "upside" of frugality - you spend less money.

How are they spending LESS money though? All their studios still have people employed. Everyone who is employed is salaried. They are maintaining a huge overhead monthly, and by not having any releases come out that means they're spending as much money as possible to make as little back as possible. If Nintendo had one tiny development studio and they release 1 game a year because of that, and that 1 game sells 4-5 million, and there is nothing else released, I would agree. Such is clearly not the case. Nintendo is spending money on development, but there is just nothing coming out!

 

[Chris1964]

This depends a lot on what "almost done" means.

To some developers like DICE, this means the game is coming out in a month, while to others like Blizzard, it means the game could be 1.5 years out.

Were I to compare the historic development cycles of Nintendo's core games to one of these companies, it'd probably be much closer to Blizzard.

Of course, I agree that it would make a ton of business sense to release it then, but I agree with duckroll in that if it's not done, it's not coming out.

Miyamoto himself said at gametrailers TV this (November 6)

''We're in the middle of finalizing the game, the ideas that we've created, almost entirely new courses for Super Mario Galaxy 2. Of course we've added some new abilities for Mario. And the goal is to take the system and the gameplay of the original Super Mario Galaxy and turn it into something that's a little more expanded and offers a great deal of challenge for people that enjoyed that first game.''

What do you think?

 

[duckroll]

Miyamoto himself said at gametrailers TV this (November 6)

''We're in the middle of finalizing the game, the ideas that we've created, almost entirely new courses for Super Mario Galaxy 2. Of course we've added some new abilities for Mario. And the goal is to take the system and the gameplay of the original Super Mario Galaxy and turn it into something that's a little more expanded and offers a great deal of challenge for people that enjoyed that first game.''

What do you think?

Finalizing a game can take a year. It's never expected to of course, and whether it is allowed to depends on the level of quality control. When you are content complete, it does not mean a game is ready for release.

 

[Chris1964]

Finalizing a game can take a year. It's never expected to of course, and whether it is allowed to depends on the level of quality control. When you are content complete, it does not mean a game is ready for release.

I would agree if it wasn't the sequel to Galaxy. The engine was almost ready from the beginning. Even 6 months look like a long time for finalizing Galaxy 2 (personal opinion).

 

[ElFly]

I doubt it'd be a good idea to release Mario Galaxy 2 so soon after NSMBWii.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't have something else ready for february/march/april.

 

[duckroll]

I would agree if it wasn't the sequel to Galaxy. The engine was almost ready from the beginning. Even 6 months look like a long time for finalizing Galaxy 2 (personal opinion).

I don't think being a sequel, or having an engine ready has any bearing on the final touches a game goes through in development. Like I said, it can be content complete, meaning all the stages are done, the graphics, sounds, etc are all implemented, and the game is finished. Yet credit is often not given to what separates a good developer and a great developer. The extra polish is spending extra time to tune the completed game and to ensure everything is just right and well paced to the expectations of the team. It could be really minor tweaks, but there are things which you would not be able to correct or tune until you can play a finished product.

Now I'm not saying this is what Galaxy 2 is going through. It could totally be complete and just sitting on Iwata's desk waiting for him to decide to hit a big red launch button. I'm simply saying that just because it was almost finish in September does not mean it is automatically able to make an April date.

 

[ksamedi]

Nintendo's software output has been fine for the Wii. Nintendo software alone is selling the Wii console right now so no one can argue that their output has been bad. What we can say, though, is that Nintendo handled the third party situation quite badly. They should have supported third parties more way back when the Wii was launched and teach them more about the audience and how they should market and sell their games. Third parties have not seen any significant succes on Wii because they don't know how to make a game for it and they would rather go to a platform where they know what sells even if it isn't selling like it used to. Nintendo should make it less risky for these third parties because obviously, they know how to make stuff sell on both DS and Wii.

 

[Somnid]

Look at Nintendo's sales and you'll see 1 great title can be worth 10 good ones in sales. Extra development isn't and shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Spiegel]

And I call bullshit. The biggest third parties on the PSP right now are Square Enix, Capcom, Bandai Namco, Konami, Nippon Ichi and Sega. Sega is the only one who can be said to have jumped onboard starting in 2008, and in response to Monster Hunter and/or userbase and/or whatever. As for the others....

Using garaph, third party games released each year (not counting best re-releases):

2005 = 37
2006 = 60
2007 = 33
2008 = 42
2009 = 74 (+games added after the release of the Top 500)
2010 = It wouldn't surprise me if ends >100

I don't see where I'm wrong. It's pretty obvious that third parties jumped off board in 2005 (games have a development time of at least a year and that's why 2006 is the best year until 2009), they jumped on board again in 2008 and we are seeing that now. (2009 and 2010)

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Sidestepping this particular conversation thread slightly...

What games do we know Nintendo have in development that should be out this year? Off the top of my head:

• Cosmic Walker
• Kensax
• Line Attack Heroes
• Metroid: Other M
• Span Smasher
• Start With 100 Conversations
• Super Mario Galaxy 2
• Zangeki no Reginleiv

Beyond that, we perhaps should be expecting:

• The Legend of Zelda Wii
• Wii Relax (or whatever the Vitality Sensor software turns out to be called)

...and whatever mystery game turns out to be revealed in Nintendo Dream. Is there anything I've missed?

There's also the possibility of more stealth releases like PokePark (just over 6 weeks from announcement to release!), I suppose.

Nintendo's software output has been fine for the Wii. Nintendo software alone is selling the Wii console right now so no one can argue that their output has been bad. What we can say, though, is that Nintendo handled the third party situation quite badly. They should have supported third parties more way back when the Wii was launched and teach them more about the audience and how they should market and sell their games. Third parties have not seen any significant succes on Wii because they don't know how to make a game for it and they would rather go to a platform where they know what sells even if it isn't selling like it used to. Nintendo should make it less risky for these third parties because obviously, they know how to make stuff sell on both DS and Wii.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this.

This line of thinking (the Wii is some magical, weird system that only Nintendo have the key to unlock) is exactly what led to the mess we have now. Third parties seem to have panicked themselves into believing that the games they excelled at producing were suddenly not viable on the system. If they had treated it as they did any other successful system and brought their best titles to it, just as many devs did when the DS took off, there would have been a far healthier marketplace for their games now.

Instead, they came late, produced cheap spin-offs, tried to build Wii-specific versions that lost sight of what made people buy them in the first place (Soul Calibur Legends? SM: Katana?) etc...

Of course Nintendo could have made things easier, though not by imparting some mystical insight but by coaxing third parties over the edge with shared publishing costs, marketing and other incentives to bring the games they excelled in to the platform.

 

[gerg]

How are they spending LESS money though? All their studios still have people employed. Everyone who is employed is salaried. They are maintaining a huge overhead monthly, and by not having any releases come out that means they're spending as much money as possible to make as little back as possible. If Nintendo had one tiny development studio and they release 1 game a year because of that, and that 1 game sells 4-5 million, and there is nothing else released, I would agree. Such is clearly not the case. Nintendo is spending money on development, but there is just nothing coming out!

Considering my point, I think it comes down to whether or not you get fewer hardware sales by releasing two games such that their appeal "overlaps" than if you were to spread out those releases and maximising the potential reach of both those games. If this does not occur, and by delaying a game you simply delay the game's pre-determined maximum hardware sales (rather than actually make that number bigger), then I'm happy to concede the point.

Although, this would not be to discredit my theory of the benefits of generally spending less, but to agree that it is inapplicable to the process at hand (this being the actually timing of a game's release, as opposed to the amount you spend on marketing the title, for example).

 

[Stumpokapow]

Is there anything I've missed?

Nope, your Wii list is complete based on what we know right now. Of course they have plenty of teams who ought to have projects complete, but getting into "Untitled Retro Studios Game" is stupid.

 

[schuelma]

Sidestepping this particular conversation thread slightly...

What games do we know Nintendo have in development that should be out this year? Off the top of my head:

• Cosmic Walker
• Kensax
• Line Attack Heroes
• Metroid: Other M
• Span Smasher
• Start With 100 Conversations
• Super Mario Galaxy 2
• Zangeki no Reginleiv

Beyond that, we perhaps should be expecting:

• The Legend of Zelda Wii
• Wii Relax (or whatever the Vitality Sensor software turns out to be called)

...and whatever mystery game turns out to be revealed in Nintendo Dream. Is there anything I've missed?

There's also the possibility of more stealth releases like PokePark (just over 6 weeks from announcement to release!), I suppose.

I assume Monado at least for Japan.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I assume Monado at least for Japan.

There really is no date given for Monado, but yes that could quite possibly make 2010.

... I guess we might want to include KIRBY WII as well!

 

[duckroll]

Using garaph, third party games released each year (not counting best re-releases):

2005 = 37
2006 = 60
2007 = 33
2008 = 42
2009 = 74 (+games added after the release of the Top 500)
2010 = It wouldn't surprise me if ends >100

I don't see where I'm wrong. It's pretty obvious that third parties jumped off board in 2005 (games have a development time of at least a year and that's why 2006 is the best year until 2009), they jumped on board again in 2008 and we are seeing that now. (2009 and 2010)

My point is that it has nothing to do with the tech whatsoever, but everything to do with the userbase. Whether the PSP has the tech level of the PS1, or the PS2, or the DC, or the GC, does not really factor in. I've proven that the big publishers have always been on the PSP supporting the PSP, and as such they helped to build up the userbase and identify the strengths of the system in terms of appeal (multiplayer, 3D action). This has nothing to do with the tech.

Many smaller publishers definitely jumped off the PSP after the launch, guess why? Because their games TANKED on it. It wasn't because "the PS2 was alive and the PSP has similar tech", it's because "their games did not sell on the PSP and people were not buying jack shit".

 

[Nirolak]

I would agree if it wasn't the sequel to Galaxy. The engine was almost ready from the beginning. Even 6 months look like a long time for finalizing Galaxy 2 (personal opinion).

I don't think being a sequel, or having an engine ready has any bearing on the final touches a game goes through in development. Like I said, it can be content complete, meaning all the stages are done, the graphics, sounds, etc are all implemented, and the game is finished. Yet credit is often not given to what separates a good developer and a great developer. The extra polish is spending extra time to tune the completed game and to ensure everything is just right and well paced to the expectations of the team. It could be really minor tweaks, but there are things which you would not be able to correct or tune until you can play a finished product.

Now I'm not saying this is what Galaxy 2 is going through. It could totally be complete and just sitting on Iwata's desk waiting for him to decide to hit a big red launch button. I'm simply saying that just because it was almost finish in September does not mean it is automatically able to make an April date.

I would like to add to this in that Bungie announced in this month's Edge (which was probably written at least two weeks ago) that it's now possible to play through the entire Halo: Reach campaign, yet the game is probably not coming out until at least the end of September. So in this case, we're looking at a game built on well established concept with an engine that's based upon their previous one, yet is taking at least approximately eight months from having all their content to actually releasing.

Fallout 3 was also actually built on the Oblivion engine and was content complete in sometime between February and May 2008, but despite releasing at the end of October, it was still a horrendous buggy mess with things as severe as crash bugs because they didn't take enough time to finish the game, so finalizing can definitely take quite some time.

But yeah, the game could totally be done, but I don't think that statement guarantees that by any means.

 

[Vilix]

It seems to me that Nintendo operates on a goal of making as much money as possible by spending as little money as possible. This would be the "upside" of frugality - you spend less money.

It's also called "good business".

 

[Spiegel]

My point is that it has nothing to do with the tech whatsoever, but everything to do with the userbase. Whether the PSP has the tech level of the PS1, or the PS2, or the DC, or the GC, does not really factor in. I've proven that the big publishers have always been on the PSP supporting the PSP, and as such they helped to build up the userbase and identify the strengths of the system in terms of appeal (multiplayer, 3D action). This has nothing to do with the tech.

Many smaller publishers definitely jumped off the PSP after the launch, guess why? Because their games TANKED on it. It wasn't because "the PS2 was alive and the PSP has similar tech", it's because "their games did not sell on the PSP and people were not buying jack shit".

We agree to disagree here.

In my opinion, if psp didn't have tech advantage compared to ds, it never would have made this "comeback". For obvious reasons.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Well to be honest, I don't think this is Nintendo not wanting to release anything. As a developer and publisher they can only do so much. If games they are publishing are not ready because other developers are taking their time (hellooooo Cosmic Walker!) then aside from pressuring the developer to hurry up, Nintendo can't do much more. As for their first party output, most of their games sell very well and they have a few titles a year.

The problem is clearly that outside of Nintendo, third party support for the Wii is really drying up and is pretty much dead. Look at the upcoming preorder list for all consoles: http://gmstar.com/yoyakulist.html

That's really, really sad. It's not funny, just sad. Even a publisher like MMV now has more upcoming PS360 games than Wii games. So yeah, it's certainly a problem and something Nintendo probably wants to fix but they might honestly not know how.

I'm pretty much convinced that the only way they can change this now is a new console. They would once again have to capture people's imaginations.

I said it the other thread, but I think the best way to get third parties on board is to use Tegra 2 on their new handheld, and Tegra 3 for their console. That way resources can be used on both and switched between machines.

It's sad, but really it can't be undone at this point.

Only thing that could have an effect is if Nintendo somehow gets DQX next year.

 

[duckroll]

We agree to disagree here.

In my opinion, if psp didn't have tech advantage compared to ds, it neverwould have made this "comeback". For obvious reasons.

I don't think you understand. My dispute to begin with is you claiming that the tech is both responsible for the PSP losing support, and for it regaining support. I call bullshit on that because at no point did the PSP's tech have any bearing on it losing support. It lost support because games were not selling. The publishers who stuck with the system were directly responsible for it "turning the corner" so to speak. The PSP is what it is, it's pointless debating about what it would be like if it didn't have the tech advantage, because if it didn't have the tech advantage it wouldn't even exist. The entire point of the device was being a sort of game portable that was not seen before. That has only helped it, it has never hurt it. What hurt it was just that it took some time to cultivate its own niche and find its place in the industry. If the major publishers in Japan did not stick with it all the way, it would not have made this comeback.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Only thing that could have an effect is if Nintendo somehow gets DQIX next year.

Ummm...

Anyway, I don't see DQX being a gamechanger, even if it came in 2010. "Tentpole" releases like that will sell incredibly well, boost hardware briefly and then... well, if there's no steady stream of software coming on its heels, then all you're going to see is another slump.

 

[gerg]

I don't think you understand. My dispute to begin with is you claiming that the tech is both responsible for the PSP losing support, and for it regaining support. I call bullshit on that because at no point did the PSP's tech have any bearing on it losing support. It lost support because games were not selling. The publishers who stuck with the system were directly responsible for it "turning the corner" so to speak. The PSP is what it is, it's pointless debating about what it would be like if it didn't have the tech advantage, because if it didn't have the tech advantage it wouldn't even exist. The entire point of the device was being a sort of game portable that was not seen before. That has only helped it, it has never hurt it. What hurt it was just that it took some time to cultivate its own niche and find its place in the industry. If the major publishers in Japan did not stick with it all the way, it would not have made this comeback.

I think the way to resolve this argument is to suggest that the PSP's technology was necessary, but not sufficient, to its success (or lack thereof, as the case may be). Looking at Monster Hunter and presuming that as what sparked the PSP's (short-lived) revival, I think it's fair to suggest that without Monster Hunter the PSP would not have sold so much during 2008 and 2009, but that without the technological capabilities it is likely that the game may not have been as popular as it was on the PSP in the first place.

BTW, shall I presume you don't have anything to add to my last post? I'm intrigued as to whether or not I suggested was possible...

 

[[Nintex]]

Yes, Wii software supply has dried up. Nintendo has a bunch of heavy hitters in production(Zelda/Mario/Metroid, but those'll take a while to come out). But it's not only the Wii though, the DS has great third party support but on the first party side I think the only game Nintendo has announced is Golden Sun.

I'm not sure what Iwata and friends are smoking and I'd certainly like some. But it doesn't seem very smart to have these development teams sitting around without releasing anything. Not to mention that there are tons of Nintendo systems in households right now. You'd think they'd take advantage of the 'Nintendo-minded' audience by releasing more Nintendo games.

After REGINLEIV they simply have to announce the release window for either Metroid, Mario or Zelda or announce new games at least in Japan. When you look at their releaselist it seems that Nintendo has abandoned the Wii along with the third parties. NOA and NoE still have quite a stockpile to localize so they don't have to worry about worldwide releases.

 

[charlequin]

This line of thinking (the Wii is some magical, weird system that only Nintendo have the key to unlock) is exactly what led to the mess we have now. Third parties seem to have panicked themselves into believing that the games they excelled at producing were suddenly not viable on the system. If they had treated it as they did any other successful system and brought their best titles to it, just as many devs did when the DS took off, there would have been a far healthier marketplace for their games now.

Instead, they came late, produced cheap spin-offs, tried to build Wii-specific versions that lost sight of what made people buy them in the first place (Soul Calibur Legends? SM: Katana?) etc...

Of course Nintendo could have made things easier, though not by imparting some mystical insight but by coaxing third parties over the edge with shared publishing costs, marketing and other incentives to bring the games they excelled in to the platform.

I am 100% in agreement with every part of this.

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

So is the new Nintendo Dream out yet, or is it coming out tomorrow?

 

[Spiegel]

I don't think you understand. My dispute to begin with is you claiming that the tech is both responsible for the PSP losing support, and for it regaining support. I call bullshit on that because at no point did the PSP's tech have any bearing on it losing support. It lost support because games were not selling. The publishers who stuck with the system were directly responsible for it "turning the corner" so to speak. The PSP is what it is, it's pointless debating about what it would be like if it didn't have the tech advantage, because if it didn't have the tech advantage it wouldn't even exist. The entire point of the device was being a sort of game portable that was not seen before. That has only helped it, it has never hurt it. What hurt it was just that it took some time to cultivate its own niche and find its place in the industry. If the major publishers in Japan did not stick with it all the way, it would not have made this comeback.

That's true, and why weren't they selling? Because the majority of the early support consisted on lite versions of ps2 games and ports of psx and ps2 games. Obviously, they weren't going to sell as good as other new games on ps2.

Third parties weren't willing to make new "ps2-style" games on psp because they already had a console with a bigger and proven userbase to put those games on (ps2).

So yeah, in my opinion the tech has everything to do with the failure and the late success of the psp.

 

[Hero of Legend]

So is the new Nintendo Dream out yet, or is it coming out tomorrow?

The issue that's revealing the game is actually next month's issue coming out on Feb 21st.

 

[ksamedi]

Sidestepping this particular conversation thread slightly...

What games do we know Nintendo have in development that should be out this year? Off the top of my head:

• Cosmic Walker
• Kensax
• Line Attack Heroes
• Metroid: Other M
• Span Smasher
• Start With 100 Conversations
• Super Mario Galaxy 2
• Zangeki no Reginleiv

Beyond that, we perhaps should be expecting:

• The Legend of Zelda Wii
• Wii Relax (or whatever the Vitality Sensor software turns out to be called)

...and whatever mystery game turns out to be revealed in Nintendo Dream. Is there anything I've missed?

There's also the possibility of more stealth releases like PokePark (just over 6 weeks from announcement to release!), I suppose.



I'm sorry, but I don't buy this.

This line of thinking (the Wii is some magical, weird system that only Nintendo have the key to unlock) is exactly what led to the mess we have now. Third parties seem to have panicked themselves into believing that the games they excelled at producing were suddenly not viable on the system. If they had treated it as they did any other successful system and brought their best titles to it, just as many devs did when the DS took off, there would have been a far healthier marketplace for their games now.

Instead, they came late, produced cheap spin-offs, tried to build Wii-specific versions that lost sight of what made people buy them in the first place (Soul Calibur Legends? SM: Katana?) etc...

Of course Nintendo could have made things easier, though not by imparting some mystical insight but by coaxing third parties over the edge with shared publishing costs, marketing and other incentives to bring the games they excelled in to the platform.

f you mean with the best of third parties being unique experiences with effort put behind them then yeah, I agree with what you said. Otherwise, I don't. They brought their best titles to the PS3/360 and look how those platforms perform relative to the PS2 or even Wii. People are bored with these games and want new types of experiences. I'm not saying everything should be Wiifit or Wii sports but could also be new experiences in the RPG or any other genre. HD platforms are much better suited for traditional experiences anyway and thats why they sell better on those platforms. What makes you believe these traditional titles will suddenly do large numbers or have any meaningful effect on Wii?

 

[duckroll]

That's true, and why weren't they selling? Because the majority of the early support consisted on lite versions of ps2 games and ports of psx and ps2 games. Obviously, they weren't going to sell as good as other new games on ps2.

Third parties weren't willing to make new "ps2-style" games on psp because they already had a console with a bigger and proven userbase to put those games on (ps2).

So yeah, in my opinion the tech has everything to do with the failure and the late success of the psp.

No, the poor sales had nothing to do with it being lite versions of PS2 games and ports of PSX and PS2 games. In fact, those are the games which sold the BEST from the launch of the PSP. The games that largely bombed were super lazy Saturn ports from Atlus, and a whole lot of original RPGs/SRPGs/action games/etc, from various publishers which no one really wanted. A significant number of these titles were actually published by Sony themselves, and when the sales were bad, they obviously scaled back.

I honestly cannot think of any significant PS1/PS2 port to the PSP that can be considered a failure. The various Tales games, some of the Gundam games, FFT, Monster Hunter, etc. Maybe you want to refresh my memory?

 

[Eteric Rice]

f you mean with the best of third parties being unique experiences with effort put behind them then yeah, I agree with what you said. Otherwise, I don't. They brought their best titles to the PS3/360 and look how those platforms perform relative to the PS2 or even Wii. People are bored with these games and want new types of experiences. I'm not saying everything should be Wiifit or Wii sports but could also be new experiences in the RPG or any other genre. HD platforms are much better suited for traditional experiences anyway and thats why they sell better on those platforms. What makes you believe these traditional titles will suddenly do large numbers or have any meaningful effect on Wii?

I really kind of feel RPGs should have been on the Wii, while action games like Bayonetta, DMC, Dead Rising, etc, should have been on the HD consoles.

I think RPGs could have really found good success on the Wii if they had put them there early on.

I'm really surprised that developers are unwilling to try something different on the Wii. I mean, most of the stuff we have now is the same stuff as last gen.

I also get the feeling that when the Wand and Natal come out, a lot of developers are going to shun the Wii completely since those games will work on the PS3 and 360 now. Stuff will be watered down and ported to the Wii.

I really think Nintendo should consider a new console or something while they have the Wii's success on their side. I'm not sure how they could go about it, though.

 

[gerg]

I really think Nintendo should consider a new console or something while they have the Wii's success on their side. I'm not sure how they could go about it, though.

The situation with the Wii is very asymmetric, though. On the one hand, in Japan a lack of third-party support is undeniably a weakness that needs to be fixed asap, unless Nintendo is really pinning all its hopes on the Vitality Sensor as the "next big thing".

In America, however... they just pushed 3.8 million sales in December, and that's with third-party support that has been just as bad as (and, arguably, even worse than) their third-party support in Japan. And there's a good chance that the Wii's sales next year will be very much the same. In everywhere that isn't Japan, the last thing Nintendo should want to do is curtail the Wii's success.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I really kind of feel RPGs should have been on the Wii, while action games like Bayonetta, DMC, Dead Rising, etc, should have been on the HD consoles.

I think RPGs could have really found good success on the Wii if they had put them there early on.

but RPGs found plenty of success on the DS, plenty of success on the PSP, plenty of success when Microsoft moneyhatted them, and plenty of success in this new post-PS3 Slim world...

I also get the feeling that when the Wand and Natal come out, a lot of developers are going to shun the Wii completely since those games will work on the PS3 and 360 now. Stuff will be watered down and ported to the Wii.

Provided--note that I don't think this is going to happen but I'm indulging your hypothetical--that Natal and the Wand take off and thus game sales are not significantly impeded by low hardware bases, why shouldn't developers follow that strategy?

I mean, if the Wii's feature set is:
+ Motion controls
+ Large user base
- User base doesn't buy Company X's games
- Low horsepower

and the Natal/Wand feature set is:
+ Motion controls
+ High horsepower
+ Enthusiastic user base
- Small user base

why not develop for the twins and downport to the Wii?

 

[gamergirly]

I really kind of feel RPGs should have been on the Wii, while action games like Bayonetta, DMC, Dead Rising, etc, should have been on the HD consoles.

I think RPGs could have really found good success on the Wii if they had put them there early on.

I'm really surprised that developers are unwilling to try something different on the Wii. I mean, most of the stuff we have now is the same stuff as last gen.

I also get the feeling that when the Wand and Natal come out, a lot of developers are going to shun the Wii completely since those games will work on the PS3 and 360 now. Stuff will be watered down and ported to the Wii.

I really think Nintendo should consider a new console or something while they have the Wii's success on their side. I'm not sure how they could go about it, though.

I think that rpgs is an area where they could really expand on the Wii. We only had FF:CB to be honest

 

[Chris1964]

I think that rpgs is an area where they could really expand on the Wii. We only had FF:CB to be honest

Crystal Bearers isn't RPG.

 

[gamergirly]

Crystal Bearers isn't RPG.

It is

 

[krea]

ToG is a RPG and wasn't very successful.

 

[Glass Soldier]

I think that rpgs is an area where they could have really expanded on the Wii.

fixed?

I think it might be too late now.

 

[Chris1964]

It is

You have a strange definition of what RPG is. Is Zelda rpg too?

 

[gamergirly]

You have a strange definition of what RPG is. Is Zelda rpg too?

No

 

[d+pad]

Isn't it likely that some of these Wii titles have been killed (for whatever reason)?

Cosmic Walker
Kensax
Line Attack Heroes
Span Smasher
Start With 100 Conversations

I'm just not sure we should be expecting them anymore. Assuming they have been killed, that would leave just five known first-party games that are being worked on for the Wii, right?

Zangeki no Reginleiv
Super Mario Galaxy 2
Metroid: Other M
Zelda Wii
Wii Relax

Ugh. Nintendo is such a strange company sometimes... Thankfully there are other systems to keep us busy while we wait for the sleeping (or maybe drunk?) giant

 

[Spiegel]

No, the poor sales had nothing to do with it being lite versions of PS2 games and ports of PSX and PS2 games. In fact, those are the games which sold the BEST from the launch of the PSP. The games that largely bombed were super lazy Saturn ports from Atlus, and a whole lot of original RPGs/SRPGs/action games/etc, from various publishers which no one really wanted. A significant number of these titles were actually published by Sony themselves, and when the sales were bad, they obviously scaled back.

I honestly cannot think of any significant PS1/PS2 port to the PSP that can be considered a failure. The various Tales games, some of the Gundam games, FFT, Monster Hunter, etc. Maybe you want to refresh my memory?

So you are agreeing with me then?. Support dried up because third parties only gave psp lite versions of ps2 games, ports and shitty no-name games.

And this situation was caused because psp was too hi-tech for 2004/06. PSP was a "ps2 again" released on a time when ps2 was still having its best years. Developers already had the ps2 to put their "ps2-style" games and the ds had more potential for lower budget "handheld-style" games.

 

[Glass Soldier]

Isn't it likely that some of these Wii titles have been killed (for whatever reason)?

Cosmic Walker
Kensax
Line Attack Heroes
Span Smasher
Start With 100 Conversations

Line Attack Heroes and Span Smasher were at E3, in playable form if I remember correctly. Don't know about the others though.