Support NeoGAF

[hednik4am]

oh come on, are you crazy or what? NINE?(regarding that you let him play MW)

I really can't believe that a nine year old kid says:"Wii is boring, let me play some MW on the PS3". I know dozens of parents with Wii-PS3/xbox360 consoles combination myself and for pretty much all their kids the Wii is the console of choice all the time. especially when they are that young.

Yes that is how old he is...but you can't make the blanket statement that I've made the wrong decision. Its not so much the M rating that stops from letting him play. He constantly tells me how over the top it is and how unreal it is. He may be young but he's not ignorant. GTA is clearly off limits for him and if there is something I dont like that objectionable I pause the game and we talk about it. Hes a good student, respectful, doesn't use "bad" langauge and like wise we don't use it around him. Deeply interested in world events and compasionate about the goings on of this world.

I never stated the Wii was boring in attempting to be puzzled about the extremely high Wii sales... I stated it wasn't something he could really get in to. We all have our experiences and mine just lean toward him seeing the Wii as a toy and I feel thats how so many of these new kids with Wii's will see it.

 

[Cruzader]

no, that's not it since third party AAA games sell at the same ratio as the 360 versions.

it's something about the current Sony 1st party games themselves that have left the mass market cold (relative to MW, AC2, GTA IV, anyway).

I'm sure God Of War III and GT5 will do great, though.

Yea I agree. I mean its just weird that 3rd party titles do well on PS3 but 1st party it always like just doing ok numbers. I have no doubt both GOW3 and GT5 along with FF13(both platforms) will do really well. Some of the best sellers on PS3 no doubt but new exclusives such as MAG, WKC and maybe Yakuza 3 will not sell very well. I can already tell. Specially Heavy Rain...I have no doubt this game will do bad.

I dont think its a "new IP" thing either. I do think it has to do with marketing and the like. Mass Effect 2 comes out like in 2 weeks or so and I have seen ads on TV for it already. I have no doubt in my mind this game will sell really well. On the other hand, Sony always puts ads on release day or something which is stupid but there's still many more reasons why 1st games dont sell. Wish some journalists would write something about this. Its 2010 already and most 1st party titles havent sold that well. I think Sony should do something.

 

[gamergirly]

Very much agreed. I used an analogy some time ago: let's say I'm a professional Football player. As such, it should be absolutely fair to say that I am good at sports. Now, let's say that Football suddenly falls entirely out of fashion, and I'm forced to quit playing sports or play Basketball. Does anyone seriously think I can simply wake up one day and be incredible at Basketball? I'm good at sports, it should be easy! And yet, despite both careers falling under the monicker of "sport," and despite everyone agreeing that I'm very good at sports, I'm not actually suited to compete in Basketball at the highest levels. It requires slightly different physical characteristics (i.e. taller) and a different skill set that I need to cultivate over years of play.

Similarly, it should be fairly apparent by now that the Wii has a slightly different audience.They still fall under the category of "game," but it's different enough that a large company that's supposed to be "good at making games" may not actually be very good in this case, because it requires a different skill set.

Nintendo faithful don't like to hear this, because it sounds like I'm suggesting that the major third parties focus on the PS3/360 -- and I am, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's what they're good at, so stick with it. However, HD faithful don't seem to like the suggestion that these companies have failed on the Wii because they aren't skilled enough, because it implies it's a failing of the companies, rather than of the Wii system. And it is a failling of these companies, but it's a totally understandable one. It's like saying, "You are not highly skilled at everything" as a character flaw. Of course companies are going to be stronger at certain skills and weaker at others. Because the "traditional" gamer market has been gradually evolving for 30 years, virtually every major 3rd party in existance built their empires by honing just this set of skills.

There's no reason why EA, Sega, Square-Enix, Rockstar, or any of the dozen powerhouse 3rd party developers dont have multiple, million+ selling games on the Nintendo Wii. They're fucking developing and advertising the WRONG games. Period. If you're a 3rd party developer, you must be in a meeting somewhere scratching your head because you're missing out on a WHOLE other market. There's so much potential here its ridiculous.

 

[Dabookerman]

If you own a Wii and haven't bought Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, let it be known that I hate you a little bit.

You must hate at least 98% of all Wii owners.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

Very much agreed. I used an analogy some time ago: let's say I'm a professional Football player. As such, it should be absolutely fair to say that I am good at sports. Now, let's say that Football suddenly falls entirely out of fashion, and I'm forced to quit playing sports or play Basketball. Does anyone seriously think I can simply wake up one day and be incredible at Basketball? I'm good at sports, it should be easy! And yet, despite both careers falling under the monicker of "sport," and despite everyone agreeing that I'm very good at sports, I'm not actually suited to compete in Basketball at the highest levels. It requires slightly different physical characteristics (i.e. taller) and a different skill set that I need to cultivate over years of play.

Similarly, it should be fairly apparent by now that the Wii has a slightly different audience.They still fall under the category of "game," but it's different enough that a large company that's supposed to be "good at making games" may not actually be very good in this case, because it requires a different skill set.

Nintendo faithful don't like to hear this, because it sounds like I'm suggesting that the major third parties focus on the PS3/360 -- and I am, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's what they're good at, so stick with it. However, HD faithful don't seem to like the suggestion that these companies have failed on the Wii because they aren't skilled enough, because it implies it's a failing of the companies, rather than of the Wii system. And it is a failling of these companies, but it's a totally understandable one. It's like saying, "You are not highly skilled at everything" as a character flaw. Of course companies are going to be stronger at certain skills and weaker at others. Because the "traditional" gamer market has been gradually evolving for 30 years, virtually every major 3rd party in existance built their empires by honing just this set of skills.

But 3rd parties are in fact not good enough at making PS360 games to make any money. So really they are more akin to semi-professional football players at best (Would EA be profitable if all it's employees took extra jobs as restocking shelves?). It's just that they all think that they are Kurt Warner and if they just got a chance they'd by Super Bowl MVPs.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Alright, cracking some data knuckles, here are some interesting tidbits.

Both PS3 and Wii had their biggest single-month percentage growths since December 2007. Since with a larger userbase it takes more and more actual unit growth to get the same percent, it goes to show how much bigger December 2009 was for both than December 2008.

Percentage growth from previous LTD

PS3 December 2007: 32.6%
PS3 December 2008: 12.0%
PS3 December 2009: 13.9%

Wii December 2007: 22.4%
Wii December 2008: 14.0%
Wii December 2009: 16.3%


System: Average weeks ownership (Average purchase date)
Wii: 68.0 (September 14, 2008)
PS3: 68.5 (September 10, 2008)
X360: 96.6 (February 26, 2008)
Last month PS3 became the system with the shortest average ownership, but Wii has taken that back. Still very close, though.

Wii's giant month is bigger than some systems have done in entire years. Looking particularly at PS3 since it's the slow man of this generation (and we have public data for it), Wii sold more in December than PS3 did in its first 16 tracked months, November 2006 - February 2008.

 

[Effect]

I believe the primary appeal of the PSP games is the ad hoc local multiplayer. By contrast, the console versions have online that cost $$.

Also I think due to the length of the game and how much time a player had to put into it, it might be easier to get through it if you can carry it around with you instead of having to wait until you get home to play. I think it was said when Capcom designed Monster Hunter Tri they addressed how much time one needed to devote to the game compared with the past versions.

I think Animal Crossing is similar in that regard as well. The game design seems to work better if you could take out your DS and play for several minutes then put it away. Same could be for Monster Hunter on the PSP. Do a few quest while on the train, at lunch, when relaxing at home, then turn it off and go about your business. No need to sit down in front of the TV for a play session.

 

[neo2046]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19297345&postcount=352

:')

And for those who missed it:

Yes! Mario & Luigi RPG 3 breaks 1 million copies !!

 

[manueldelalas]

You must hate at least 98% of all Wii owners.

More like 99,9%

 

[Sohter.Nura]

Well, my post was in response to the hypothetical question of what Nintendo would need to do to improve third party support for their console.

It's why I said the premise of that hypothetical is the million dollar question - do they want to change the situation or are they happy as is?

Well, I mean, it'd be best if they could sell more software from third parties, but they ARE selling 10 million units of software in the top 10, you know?

So I'm not sure if it's that much of a big deal for them.

 

[hednik4am]

There's no reason why EA, Sega, Square-Enix, Rockstar, or any of the dozen powerhouse 3rd party developers dont have multiple, million+ selling games on the Nintendo Wii. They're fucking developing and advertising the WRONG games. Period. If you're a 3rd party developer, you must be in a meeting somewhere scratching your head because you're missing out on a WHOLE other market. There's so much potential here its ridiculous.

how sure are you that this new market will even want to buy the games even if they are good ? Its like a parent who buys a toy for their child or scene it for the family, they play what comes with it. Is the Wii seen in the gerneral publics eye as really a platform ? ... how many nes's were sold with the only game that really ever got played on it was Super Mario and duck hunt ?

 

[Lord Error]

So can someone tell me a few reasons why Sony's 1st party titles never do that well?? I mean if you always see NPDs, the best selling software is always 3rd party stuff on PS3. They always break 1 million easier or have an easier time doing do. I know that not all 3rd party software, just the AAA titles.(COD/Madden/GTA). But even then, 1st party titles never sell like they should. Like why does Batman: AA, sell more then Infamous(or ratchet) in its first month? Obviously both came out in different times but still batman sold more.(maybe bad example, sorry) Why? Like I feel these games should be selling over 900K easily in its first month but most of the time do 1/3 of that.

Forgive my ignorance but to me, it seems like these titles never sell that well unless we are talking long term.

It's a good question, and I think part of the reason is that SCE doesn't have the tradition or the mindshare of being a big, quality developer. When you say Nintendo, Capcom, Sega - people instantly think "Oh, I know them, yes, quality stuff! They made something new? I'm buying it". Each of these companies has deeply rooted quality franchises that people know and love from their youth, that they played on arcade machines and then on their home consoles, and grew up with them. Each one of them, (Microsoft included!) launched their consoles with a landmark game that changed the industry in some way, and people know that, even if they don't think about it. They established themselves in people's mind from day one basically as a developer.

SCE on the other hand, came out with hardware that changed the industry in some way, but their software was largely crap during those first five years. They didn't launch their console with any such landmark game that would etch themselves as the developer in people's minds, they instead let 3rd parties do that, and 3rd parties became what's associated with Playstation the most. Sure, later on they published Crash and Gran Turismo, but Crash was always to be seen as a copy and second fiddle to Mario, and Gran Turismo was something people loved playing but couldn't really identify with in any way. It also didn't come at launch, and I actually doubt most people even know Sony's internal team makes it, that's how much freedom and separation PD came to have from them.

During PS2 days they of course improved significantly, but it's only with PS3 that they turned themselves into a real quality software powerhouse. But they missed the boat to do that with their two consoles that were market leaders, and now they are stuck in the situation that they make their best stuff on a console that's not owned by nearly as many people,and their brand is not traditionally associated with them as a developer, as they missed that boat when they launched the brand :\

Sony first party titles have not been able to effectively tap into the militaristic or superman fantasies of the 18-35 year old male gamer.

ok, that's oversimplifying, but it's all I got for R&C and Uncharted sales. KZ2 and Resistance would seem aimed directly at that market yet audiences haven't really gravitated to them on the same level as MW

But now they have this. I hate to say it because I love their output so much, but their best developers seem to make the games they would love to play the most, not what's necessarily going to sell the most to their target audience. They pour their heart and souls into something that like minded people are going to love, but the like minded people are either not in large enough numbers among their console owners, or if they are, their marketing doesn't manage to entice them to learn about it. I do agree that they market their games too conservatively somehow. Always waiting until the launch day to put out the TV ad, always failing to build the hype outside of the internet crowd. Big 3rd party often not only have the advantage of their companies knowing how to advertise them better (Assassin's Creed comes to mind) but they also benefit from the word of mouth because of a larger pool of people has a chance of talking about them at workplace, school, etc. so even a single console owner would have a bigger chance to learn about them.

 

[artist]

Biggest shock obviously the Wii number.

Smaller shock PS3 outselling 360.

 

[EDarkness]

Very much agreed. I used an analogy some time ago: let's say I'm a professional Football player. As such, it should be absolutely fair to say that I am good at sports. Now, let's say that Football suddenly falls entirely out of fashion, and I'm forced to quit playing sports or play Basketball. Does anyone seriously think I can simply wake up one day and be incredible at Basketball? I'm good at sports, it should be easy! And yet, despite both careers falling under the monicker of "sport," and despite everyone agreeing that I'm very good at sports, I'm not actually suited to compete in Basketball at the highest levels. It requires slightly different physical characteristics (i.e. taller) and a different skill set that I need to cultivate over years of play.

Similarly, it should be fairly apparent by now that the Wii has a slightly different audience.They still fall under the category of "game," but it's different enough that a large company that's supposed to be "good at making games" may not actually be very good in this case, because it requires a different skill set.

Nintendo faithful don't like to hear this, because it sounds like I'm suggesting that the major third parties focus on the PS3/360 -- and I am, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's what they're good at, so stick with it. However, HD faithful don't seem to like the suggestion that these companies have failed on the Wii because they aren't skilled enough, because it implies it's a failing of the companies, rather than of the Wii system. And it is a failling of these companies, but it's a totally understandable one. It's like saying, "You are not highly skilled at everything" as a character flaw. Of course companies are going to be stronger at certain skills and weaker at others. Because the "traditional" gamer market has been gradually evolving for 30 years, virtually every major 3rd party in existance built their empires by honing just this set of skills.

I don't buy it. The Wii is no different than a PS2 which they were fine making games for back then. They don't need to change their mentality. Instead they've spent all this time talking about how the Wii is "different" and that's a bunch of BS. Making a game like Bioshock on the Wii is the same as making it on the 360. Sure, they lose some graphic fidelity, but the core principles for making the game and what makes it fun are the same. Okay, so they can't make "Mario Kart", but maybe that's okay. How about just making the games that they know how to make...but on the Wii? That's what's bugging me the most about this.

They KNOW what makes games fun and cool for their demographic. There's nothing stopping them from making them on the Wii except themselves.

 

[LCGeek]

Resting on their laurels as far as only releasing software in a generation that is most likely going into an 8-10 year cycle, especially in the face of your competition releasing new, possible game changing, hardware.

What's your basis that they are resting on their laurels? Most of their tactics this generation have been anything but especially when you look at Wiifit and other products that isn't resting on their laurels. Keep hoping the competition does something game changing the last 3 years have shown otherwise.

 

[JudgeN]

There's no reason why EA, Sega, Square-Enix, Rockstar, or any of the dozen powerhouse 3rd party developers dont have multiple, million+ selling games on the Nintendo Wii. They're fucking developing and advertising the WRONG games. Period. If you're a 3rd party developer, you must be in a meeting somewhere scratching your head because you're missing out on a WHOLE other market. There's so much potential here its ridiculous.

So take your best teams off HD and give them to the WII, develop a game (give them at least 2 years to make) with broad appeal + advertisements = profits!!!!

ITS SO SIMPLE just like everything else in the world right?

I don't buy it. The Wii is no different than a PS2 which they were fine making games for back then. They don't need to change their mentality. Instead they've spent all this time talking about how the Wii is "different" and that's a bunch of BS. Making a game like Bioshock on the Wii is the same as making it on the 360. Sure, they lose some graphic fidelity, but the core principles for making the game and what makes it fun are the same. Okay, so they can't make "Mario Kart", but maybe that's okay. How about just making the games that they know how to make...but on the Wii? That's what's bugging me the most about this.

They KNOW what makes games fun and cool for their demographic. There's nothing stopping them from making them on the Wii except themselves.

But this isn't expanding to your audience, which I thought is what the Wii was about? This putting out the same hardcore stuff just on the Wii. But if that's what you want, just buy a 360/PS3/PC?

 

[gamergirly]

how sure are you that this new market will even want to buy the games even if they are good ? Its like a parent who buys a toy for their child or scene it for the family, they play what comes with it. Is the Wii seen in the gerneral publics eye as really a platform ? ... how many nes's were sold with the only game that really ever got played on it was Super Mario and duck hunt ?

All it takes is One.

 

[LCfiner]

I don't buy it. The Wii is no different than a PS2 which they were fine making games for back then. They don't need to change their mentality. Instead they've spent all this time talking about how the Wii is "different" and that's a bunch of BS. Making a game like Bioshock on the Wii is the same as making it on the 360. Sure, they lose some graphic fidelity, but the core principles for making the game and what makes it fun are the same. Okay, so they can't make "Mario Kart", but maybe that's okay. How about just making the games that they know how to make...but on the Wii? That's what's bugging me the most about this.

They KNOW what makes games fun and cool for their demographic. There's nothing stopping them from making them on the Wii except themselves.

But the Wii is very different from the PS2. you don't seem to be getting that. Nintendo sells the Wii to people on the very basis that it's different from all other gaming systems that came before it.

Sure, once could make Bioshock for the Wii (or port System Shock 2 for it) but that's not the game the developers wanted to make. I would also challenge you that the experience would NOT be the same.

The fidelity of the graphics and water effects in Bioshock really helped the atmosphere and overall experience. I'm not convinced that motion controls in lieu of that fidelity would make it better.

 

[botticus]

So take your best teams off HD and give them to the WII, develop a game (give them at least 2 years to make) with broad appeal + advertisements = profits!!!!

ITS SO SIMPLE just like everything else in the world right?

Given all the public posturing the last few weeks, publishers seem to be planning to doing just that, but switching from Wii to HD instead. So I guess it makes sense to some people!

 

[gollumsluvslave]

Jesus.

Disapointing results for MS (10% YOY decline), great for Sony and Holy Shit awesome for Nintendo.

3.81 million!

 

[ShinNL]

So take your best teams off HD and give them to the WII, develop a game (give them at least 2 years to make) with broad appeal + advertisements = profits!!!!

ITS SO SIMPLE just like everything else in the world right?



But this isn't expanding to your audience, which I thought is what the Wii was about? This putting out the same hardcore stuff just on the Wii. But if that's what you want, just buy a 360/PS3/PC?

Only 1 answer for this.

lol "hardcore".

 

[selig]

how sure are you that this new market will even want to buy the games even if they are good ? Its like a parent who buys a toy for their child or scene it for the family, they play what comes with it. Is the Wii seen in the gerneral publics eye as really a platform ? ... how many nes's were sold with the only game that really ever got played on it was Super Mario and duck hunt ?

oh ffs, nobody cares about that new market. You know why this 3rd party-discussion keeps popping up? Because its so ridiculous obvious how to solve the problem. Release ONE high quality-game. If that bombs you´d have a real reason to stop such games.

We talked about the term "solid" before, but that´s really the problem: On the Wii, "solid" games are the "blockbusters". You have shit and you have solid. And that´s the base of a discussion thats about "should 3rd parties stop supporting the WII?"

>_______________<

And by the way, while we´re at pointing out the obvious:

F*CK GAMING JOURNALISTS
What was the last time when IGN, Gametrailers, Gamespot or whoever treated a third-party Wii-game like they do with the big hyped HD-games? That´s also a big problem. The guys that report about our industry are ignoring the Wii. They often openly admit that they dont like it. And then promising games get near to no coverage. I seriously wonder: What´s holding Geoff Keighly off of talking about SH Wii on an episode of the Bonus Round? In other words: Do publishers have to pay "journalists" for coverage? If so: >____<

 

[Jocchan]

Do they? Nintendo is being met with incredible success without this additional 3rd party support and the best selling Wii games are all Nintendo published. Why would they have any interest in changing that? The Wii has all it needs.

Yes, for now and for a few years.
But let's assume they can't manage to come up with ideas as compelling as Wii Sports or Wii Fit, once motion controls get old and everyone has them, on a regular basis to keep this audience interested. Where would this leave them?
That's why I said they should be trying to get third parties on board in the long run (not now on the Wii, it's too late for that and the market for the games they make is largely compromised), because focusing on their current success - even though it may last for some more years, I'm of course not calling it a fad - would be pretty short-sighted.

Very much agreed. I used an analogy some time ago: let's say I'm a professional Football player. As such, it should be absolutely fair to say that I am good at sports. Now, let's say that Football suddenly falls entirely out of fashion, and I'm forced to quit playing sports or play Basketball. Does anyone seriously think I can simply wake up one day and be incredible at Basketball? I'm good at sports, it should be easy! And yet, despite both careers falling under the monicker of "sport," and despite everyone agreeing that I'm very good at sports, I'm not actually suited to compete in Basketball at the highest levels. It requires slightly different physical characteristics (i.e. taller) and a different skill set that I need to cultivate over years of play.

Similarly, it should be fairly apparent by now that the Wii has a slightly different audience.They still fall under the category of "game," but it's different enough that a large company that's supposed to be "good at making games" may not actually be very good in this case, because it requires a different skill set.

Nintendo faithful don't like to hear this, because it sounds like I'm suggesting that the major third parties focus on the PS3/360 -- and I am, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's what they're good at, so stick with it. However, HD faithful don't seem to like the suggestion that these companies have failed on the Wii because they aren't skilled enough, because it implies it's a failing of the companies, rather than of the Wii system. And it is a failling of these companies, but it's a totally understandable one. It's like saying, "You are not highly skilled at everything" as a character flaw. Of course companies are going to be stronger at certain skills and weaker at others. Because the "traditional" gamer market has been gradually evolving for 30 years, virtually every major 3rd party in existance built their empires by honing just this set of skills.

I agree, except I think the situation you're describing is the current one and not the one we were presented with in 2006 and 2007.
Consoles by themselves are just made of plastic and metal, they don't have inherently the ability to attract one chunk of the gaming population instead of the other (well, they actually do but to a certain extent). What really defines an audience is the software library, especially in its early stages because everything that comes next is a consequence of that.
Had third parties released games built around the strengths of the system and Wii SKUs for their multiplatform titles developed with comparable effort as their HD counterparts from the very beginning, we would be discussing a very different situation (better or worse I can't tell, but surely different).
Right now focusing on the Wii for their traditional games would be, of course, useless and I agree they should focus on what they do better and develop for PS3, 360 and PC.

Quoting for the new page because everyone hates the last post in a page

how sure are you that this new market will even want to buy the games even if they are good ? Its like a parent who buys a toy for their child or scene it for the family, they play what comes with it. Is the Wii seen in the gerneral publics eye as really a platform ? ... how many nes's were sold with the only game that really ever got played on it was Super Mario and duck hunt ?

The Wii has really good software sales, though.

 

[EDarkness]

But this isn't expanding to your audience, which I thought is what the Wii was about? This putting out the same hardcore stuff just on the Wii. But if that's what you want, just buy a 360/PS3/PC?

Who came up with this "expanding" business? That's not why I bought a Wii, and I'm sure that's the same for many people. It's the business guys who came up with this stuff. I bought a Wii because I liked the idea of traditional games with motion controls. Sure the basic game can be made on a 360 (and I have a 360), but that's not what I want either. I'd love to play a game like Infamous with IR controls. My roommate was waiting for Mercenaries 2 with IR controls. In the beginning there was this notion that these games could come, but they never did. My roommate has since given up waiting and picked up a PS3, but he told me the other day that he would buy any of the games he has already if they added IR control to them.

But the Wii is very different from the PS2. you don't seem to be getting that. Nintendo sells the Wii to people on the very basis that it's different from all other gaming systems that came before it.

Sure, once could make Bioshock for the Wii (or port System Shock 2 for it) but that's not the game the developers wanted to make. I would also challenge you that the experience would NOT be the same.

The fidelity of the graphics and water effects in Bioshock really helped the atmosphere and overall experience. I'm not convinced that motion controls in lieu of that fidelity would make it better.

There is nothing different about the Wii vs. the PS2 as far as how to make games for it. The philosophies are the same, but the Wii adds motion controls to the mix and even then they can fall back on the classic controller if they simply refuse to go the motion control route. Nintendo doesn't force companies to use it, either.

Here's the rub, some people will go for the motion controls, some for the graphics....everyone wins. As long as the quality of the versions were equal, then gamers get to choose what's more important to them and buy the appropriate version. Of course the experience wouldn't be the same, because in one case someone would be using dual analog and another they'd be using IR.

For example, The Force Unleased released on all three systems, but I think it's generally regarded that the Wii version was better. In my person opinion (having played both), I'd agree with that. Now the Wii version doesn't have all the fancy graphics and physics, but the game just plays better in my opinion. No reason why that can't be the case for other games as well.

 

[gamergirly]

So take your best teams off HD and give them to the WII, develop a game (give them at least 2 years to make) with broad appeal + advertisements = profits!!!!

ITS SO SIMPLE just like everything else in the world right?

Noone said it's simple. But looking at what's been released by 3rd parties, they are games that are either shovelware or "clones". You can create your own platformer that's not Super Mario Bros. You can create an action/adventure/rpg that's not The Legend of Zelda. Why do you think the library for the video game industry is so huge? For example, if every developer had 100% cloned Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy 1, that's all we would have now. But as it is, even that genre had different choices and favoritism for games.

1)On rails games? Doesnt work.

2)Nintendo simulation clones like Petz(mostly DS here)? Doesnt work.

3)Ported PS3/360 user-based games for the user-base Wii? Doesnt work.

4)Good games with little advertising or push like FF: Crystal Bearers? Doesnt work.

The only way they're going to break the mode is for Nintendo to get serious about funding and working with 3rd party developers for Wii exclusive, original games. They should be able to lead 3rd parties on that example given how excellent their OWN games are selling.

 

[Starchasing]

There's no reason why EA, Sega, Square-Enix, Rockstar, or any of the dozen powerhouse 3rd party developers dont have multiple, million+ selling games on the Nintendo Wii. They're fucking developing and advertising the WRONG games. Period. If you're a 3rd party developer, you must be in a meeting somewhere scratching your head because you're missing out on a WHOLE other market. There's so much potential here its ridiculous.

I think that DS and Wii changed the market. Some companies will adapt, some will become niche , some will die.

 

[LCGeek]

So take your best teams off HD and give them to the WII, develop a game (give them at least 2 years to make) with broad appeal + advertisements = profits!!!!

ITS SO SIMPLE just like everything else in the world right?

Staying the course of the last 3 generations has worked so well for these companies too. So simple indeed.

 

[LCfiner]

Who came up with this "expanding" business? That's not why I bought a Wii, and I'm sure that's the same for many people. It's the business guys who came up with this stuff. I bought a Wii because I liked the idea of traditional games with motion controls. Sure the basic game can be made on a 360 (and I have a 360), but that's not what I want either. I'd love to play a game like Infamous with IR controls. My roommate was waiting for Mercenaries 2 with IR controls. In the beginning there was this notion that these games could come, but they never did. My roommate has since given up waiting and picked up a PS3, but he told me the other day that he would buy any of the games he has already if they added IR control to them.

well, sucks to be you, then.

Nintendo came up with the idea of "expanding" business. You don't seem to realize that you bought a system that was aiming to reach an audience that is the complete opposite of you.

If Wii Sports didn't clue you in and then Wii Fit didn't hammer it through your head then I don't know what else we can say to convince you.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I don't think making a PS3/360 game is simple, either.

But third parties know how to do it by now. They don't know what makes a successful Wii game and would prefer any answers that aren't "large budget", "top teams", or "marketing".

 

[BowieZ]

Very much agreed. I used an analogy some time ago: let's say I'm a professional Football player. As such, it should be absolutely fair to say that I am good at sports. Now, let's say that Football suddenly falls entirely out of fashion, and I'm forced to quit playing sports or play Basketball. Does anyone seriously think I can simply wake up one day and be incredible at Basketball? I'm good at sports, it should be easy! And yet, despite both careers falling under the monicker of "sport," and despite everyone agreeing that I'm very good at sports, I'm not actually suited to compete in Basketball at the highest levels. It requires slightly different physical characteristics (i.e. taller) and a different skill set that I need to cultivate over years of play.

Similarly, it should be fairly apparent by now that the Wii has a slightly different audience.They still fall under the category of "game," but it's different enough that a large company that's supposed to be "good at making games" may not actually be very good in this case, because it requires a different skill set.

Nintendo faithful don't like to hear this, because it sounds like I'm suggesting that the major third parties focus on the PS3/360 -- and I am, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's what they're good at, so stick with it. However, HD faithful don't seem to like the suggestion that these companies have failed on the Wii because they aren't skilled enough, because it implies it's a failing of the companies, rather than of the Wii system. And it is a failling of these companies, but it's a totally understandable one. It's like saying, "You are not highly skilled at everything" as a character flaw. Of course companies are going to be stronger at certain skills and weaker at others. Because the "traditional" gamer market has been gradually evolving for 30 years, virtually every major 3rd party in existance built their empires by honing just this set of skills.

This analogy doesn't seem very accurate. Developers aren't good at making good quality games on a slightly graphically inferior system? Where were these people for the past 20 years? And what games did they enjoy playing??

That they have no skill making profitable quality games for Wii is moot anyway. It's the publishing executives who have no skill. And that's the point. We all agree they suck at it. But some people think there's a risk in trying, others think there's a risk in NOT trying.

He's nine, I know a little young for the game but we talked about the objectionable stuff and I laid down rules. He knows its not real and some blood and language is far from a big thing I've got to worry about, its the you aren't cool anymore when hes 13 and all that crap coming that I worry about haha.

People at work see the exact same thing when they buy there kid a Wii and they get bored with it (even with NSMBWII) and then te parents have buyers remorse. Not that its not a good system or inferior I just think it doesnt keep the kids wanting to come back for more.

Kids get bored of most things pretty quickly. If all of your coworkers' younger children are thoroughly engaged by a repertory of PS360 software, then that's a valid point.

 

[ShinNL]

In other words: Do publishers have to pay "journalists" for coverage? If so: >____<

Actually, I believe that's the case. Journalists get free flights, stays at hotel, parties and whatnot to review blockbuster games. For publishers it's almost like running a campaign. But in the same logical sense, the % of Wii owners reading stuff that these journalist write (game sites, game magazines) is so low that even I wouldn't run these kind of campaigns for Wii games. I know about this because the most popular Dutch magazine used to write about these things (I don't read it anymore ever since I discovered GAF though). You actually have to be quite gutsy to write nothing good after receiving such a welcome party, because the next time you might not be invited or even sent an early review copy.

well, sucks to be you, then.

Nintendo came up with the idea of "expanding" business. You don't seem to realize that you bought a system that was aiming to reach an audience that is the complete opposite of you.

If Wii Sports didn't clue you in and then Wii Fit didn't hammer it through your head then I don't know what else we can say to convince you.

Yeah, because we never got games like Trauma Center, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime and No More Heroes. Oh wait.

 

[Cruzader]

It's a good question, and I think part of the reason is that SCE doesn't have the tradition or the mindshare of being a big, quality developer. When you say Nintendo, Capcom, Sega - people instantly think "Oh, I know them, yes, quality stuff! They made something new? I'm buying it". Each of these companies has deeply rooted quality franchises that people know and love from their youth, that they played on arcade machines and then on their home consoles, and grew up with them. Each one of them, (Microsoft included!) launched their consoles with a landmark game that changed the industry in some way, and people know that, even if they don't think about it. They established themselves in people's mind from day one basically as a developer.

SCE on the other hand, came out with hardware that changed the industry in some way, but their software was largely crap during those first five years. They didn't launch their console with any such landmark game that would etch themselves as the developer in people's minds, they instead let 3rd parties do that, and 3rd parties became what's associated with Playstation the most. Sure, later on they published Crash and Gran Turismo, but Crash was always to be seen as a copy and second fiddle to Mario, and Gran Turismo was something people loved playing but couldn't really identify with in any way. It also didn't come at launch, and I actually doubt most people even know Sony's internal team makes it, that's how much freedom and separation PD came to have from them.

During PS2 days they of course improved significantly, but it's only with PS3 that they turned themselves into a real quality software powerhouse. But they missed the boat to do that with their two consoles that were market leaders, and now they are stuck in the situation that they make their best stuff on a console that's not owned by nearly as many people,and their brand is not traditionally associated with them as a developer, as they missed that boat when they launched the brand :\


But now they have this. I hate to say it because I love their output so much, but their best developers seem to make the games they would love to play the most, not what's necessarily going to sell the most to their target audience. They pour their heart and souls into something that like minded people are going to love, but the like minded people are either not in large enough numbers among their console owners, or if they are, their marketing doesn't manage to entice them to learn about it. I do agree that they market their games too conservatively somehow. Always waiting until the launch day to put out the TV ad, always failing to build the hype outside of the internet crowd. Big 3rd party often not only have the advantage of their companies knowing how to advertise them better (Assassin's Creed comes to mind) but they also benefit from the word of mouth because of a larger pool of people has a chance of talking about them at workplace, school, etc. so even a single console owner would have a bigger chance to learn about them.

Holy shit, I love what you wrote. It makes sense and stuff :lol I for one write like a tard.

Anyhow it does make sense that PS3 devs keep making these games that they probably always dreamed of but sadly the install base either doesnt get the point or ain there. Or maybe their games dont really offer what gamers want...the "meta-game" as Jaffe put it recently seems more important and I feel some of Sony's titles are missing that.

Great post though.

 

[Opiate]

Speak of the devil! After my "Wii requires slightly different skill set" shpiel, I see this. I think it's quite an excellent example. This is from an EEDAR article about the cumulative year end results:

In reality, decreased sales in 2009 had more to do with a lack of innovation than economic recession. The growth of our industry now rests more on innovation than it ever has before, especially since non-traditional and casual markets consist of a larger share than in previous years. No longer can developers update a few maps, design some new weapons, add a few new characters, then throw a roman numeral at the end of the box and call it a “sequel”. That may work for core targeted games (Action, Shooters, and RPGs), but this strategy is not ideal for non-traditional and casual gamers.

Case in point: most sequels targeted to the mainstream and casual markets actually underperform in comparison to the original, which is the opposite to what has traditionally been the case for core targeted games. If you examine the Nintendo Wii and DS platforms (the current primary platform for this audience) Boom Blox outsold Boom Blox 2 (Wii); Brain Age outsold Brain Age 2 (DS); Guitar Hero III bested World Tour (Wii); The Bigs crushed The Bigs 2 (Wii); Mario & Sonic at the Olympics (Wii) is on track to outperform its Winter counterpart; Rayman Raving Rabbids (Wii) (2006) outsold its 2007 release; and lastly the original Cooking Mama (Wii, DS) (2006) has out sold all sequel versions combined.

EEDAR believes Nintendo understands the mindset of its consumers the best, which is why Nintendo rarely releases sequels within the same generation and, if they do, they are years apart. A good example of this is Mario Kart. Instead of releasing an annual Mario Kart title, Nintendo opts to only release one Mario Kart per hardware generation.

 

[markatisu]

Given all the public posturing the last few weeks, publishers seem to be planning to doing just that, but switching from Wii to HD instead. So I guess it makes sense to some people!

However that would imply they were on Wii to begin with, which they were not.

I think thats what I find so absurd about the whole viewpoint from developers and publishers, we already knew they were focusing their efforts on HD because that is what makes them money and they are good (experienced) at.

But yet they seem to grandstand that they are leaving Wii development, as if they had been doing it and doing it hard since 2006.

I have a 360 and a PS3 and go to each when a game comes out I want, but I still get annoyed as hell at the attitude of 3rd party developers and publishers on the Wii.

 

[Alcibiades]

Similarly, it should be fairly apparent by now that the Wii has a slightly different audience.They still fall under the category of "game," but it's different enough that a large company that's supposed to be "good at making games" may not actually be very good in this case, because it requires a different skill set.

I'm not so sure that the Wii audience being different automatically means only a particular skill set can make successful games on it.

We know that all sorts of games at all ESRB-ratings have been successful on Wii.

Non-games: Wii-Fit, EA Sports Active
Casual games: Rock Band, Boom Blox, Wii Sports Resort
Hardcore games: Metroid Prime 3, Force Unleashed, Monster Hunter 3 (in Japan)
M-rated hardcore games: RE4, World at War, NMH

Sure, two of those categories (non-games and casual games) might exist to a greater extent on Wii, but that hasn't stopped hardcore and M-rated hardcore games from succeeding as well - made using the same skill set used to make some of the popular games on the 360/PS3.

The idea that the Wii audience is "slightly different" could be misinterpreted. Sure it's different, it's much bigger and more diverse. It's also slightly similar in that many traditional games (Mario Kart, NSMBWii) - games not made for the soccor mom and granny audience - are succeeding.

You can't say the Wii audience is casual, soccer mom, older, non-gamer, hardcore, core, bridge, untapped, discerning, easy-to-please, hard-to-please, etc... because in using ANY of those terms you are only decribing a subset of the audience. The audience is too big to make any general statements about.

I agree making Wii Fit and Resident Evil 4 required a different skill set. I don't agree that the Wii audience should be labeled as only supporting games made with a particular skill set though.

The evidence we have in terms of game sales shows that hardcore games you'd never find grandpas or soccer moms playing (like Smash Bros. Brawl) can succeed in addition to casual and non-game stuff like sports and fitness games.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

well, sucks to be you, then.

Nintendo came up with the idea of "expanding" business. You don't seem to realize that you bought a system that was aiming to reach an audience that is the complete opposite of you.

Expanding makes something the complete opposite? This is Eddie Murphy Nutty Professor logic.

 

[EDarkness]

well, sucks to be you, then.

Nintendo came up with the idea of "expanding" business. You don't seem to realize that you bought a system that was aiming to reach an audience that is the complete opposite of you.

If Wii Sports didn't clue you in and then Wii Fit didn't hammer it through your head then I don't know what else we can say to convince you.

Funny how people forget what the launch of the Wii was like. There were no "casual"/"hardcore" debates at that time. It was all promise of games the system could play. Anyone remember the rollout for Red Steel? Or how about all the speculation about how FPS games would play after we saw the first trailers for the Wii? It's easy to look back with current data and say "that's how it was", when in reality it wasn't that way.

 

[Jocchan]

Speak of the devil! After my "Wii requires slightly different skill set" shpiel, I see this. I think it's quite an excellent example. This is from an EEDAR article about the cumulative year end results:

In reality, decreased sales in 2009 had more to do with a lack of innovation than economic recession. The growth of our industry now rests more on innovation than it ever has before, especially since non-traditional and casual markets consist of a larger share than in previous years. No longer can developers update a few maps, design some new weapons, add a few new characters, then throw a roman numeral at the end of the box and call it a “sequel”. That may work for core targeted games (Action, Shooters, and RPGs), but this strategy is not ideal for non-traditional and casual gamers.

Case in point: most sequels targeted to the mainstream and casual markets actually underperform in comparison to the original, which is the opposite to what has traditionally been the case for core targeted games. If you examine the Nintendo Wii and DS platforms (the current primary platform for this audience) Boom Blox outsold Boom Blox 2 (Wii); Brain Age outsold Brain Age 2 (DS); Guitar Hero III bested World Tour (Wii); The Bigs crushed The Bigs 2 (Wii); Mario & Sonic at the Olympics (Wii) is on track to outperform its Winter counterpart; Rayman Raving Rabbids (Wii) (2006) outsold its 2007 release; and lastly the original Cooking Mama (Wii, DS) (2006) has out sold all sequel versions combined.

EEDAR believes Nintendo understands the mindset of its consumers the best, which is why Nintendo rarely releases sequels within the same generation and, if they do, they are years apart. A good example of this is Mario Kart. Instead of releasing an annual Mario Kart title, Nintendo opts to only release one Mario Kart per hardware generation.

It's true and we keep getting examples of this.
I might add this is also one of the reasons why the lightgun genre, a genre not exactly known for its innovations and variety, oversaturated so quickly on the Wii: most of these customers feel no need to shell out more money for another game that plays largely the same as the one they already got, especially not if the game is sold at full price.

 

[LCfiner]

Yeah, because we never got games like Trauma Center, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime and No More Heroes. Oh wait.

I think you misinterpreted my post. I'm not saying that core titles shouldn't be made for the Wii or that the entire existing library of core titles are no good. I'm saying that expecting the same type and number of core games in the library as the PS2 on the Wii was foolish.

please note that the games you mentioned are all specifically well suited to the motion and pointer controls of the Wii. Trauma center on the PS2 would not be nearly as good an experience.

Expanding makes something the complete opposite? This is Eddie Murphy Nutty Professor logic.

Well, let's look at the critical reaction to Wii Sports from traditional gamers writing for web sites and compare that to the popular reaction. reviews for the game were almost uniformly middling as they were comparing it to the traditional, core experiences they were used to. Only a few reviews were hailing the game as something revolutionary and special.

meanwhile, the game became the killer app for the Wii and cemented its place as the Hot Thing to get.

that's all I meant by "opposite". Most of the reaction for that key title from core gamers was opposite the reaction from the mass public.

inserts Wiifitonellen.gif

 

[pr0cs]

I really don't see any non-Nintendo developer doing well on the Wii.. it just seems to be THE Nintendo machine. There seem to be a bunch of decent non-Nintendo games out this year and none of them really sold well in relation to the audience they have at their disposal.

 

[Talamius]

Third parties baffle me sometimes. If you really want to make an easy buck on the Wii and you have an extensive back catalog of classic arcade/8-bit/16-bit era IP, remake time! Capcom and Konami have figured this out. EA is starting to do so with NBA Jam. So why isn't this idea becoming more common?

 

[jay]

EEDAR believes Nintendo understands the mindset of its consumers the best, which is why Nintendo rarely releases sequels within the same generation and, if they do, they are years apart. A good example of this is Mario Kart. Instead of releasing an annual Mario Kart title, Nintendo opts to only release one Mario Kart per hardware generation.[/i]

This is obviously a strategy Nintendo has taken and why it's always been stupid of people to demand more 2d Mario immediately.

 

[poppabk]

Is any reason, why the PSP game success, that definetly made the franchise grewth in a very significant manner, surpassing greatly the sales of the PS2 games, aren't take into account when talking about Tri performance and always is compared with the PS2 games? I know one is a console game and the other is a portable game and all, but I refuse to believe that the franchise as a whole was as important and big when the PS2 games were released as when it was released on the Wii.

Sorry for the OT, (this is a NPD thread) but it always bothered me since I never understood it...

Well ask yourself this - why did the Monster Hunter Franchise increase massively when it moved from the great for selling software PS2 to the usually horrendous for selling software PSP? Answer that question and find the answer to why Nintendo hardly ever releases a proper version of the second best selling franchise of all time on a console - and it will all dovetail nicely together.

 

[hednik4am]

oh ffs, nobody cares about that new market. You know why this 3rd party-discussion keeps popping up? Because its so ridiculous obvious how to solve the problem. Release ONE high quality-game. If that bombs you´d have a real reason to stop such games.

We talked about the term "solid" before, but that´s really the problem: On the Wii, "solid" games are the "blockbusters". You have shit and you have solid. And that´s the base of a discussion thats about "should 3rd parties stop supporting the WII?"

>_______________<

You can't call that a new market... its a 25 year old market that "lost" its way from 1995 ro 2005. Thats plain and simple. Can epic mickey be that title that is that one solid game, maybe since I do trust Warren Spector to give it all he's got.

 

[Owzers]

I don't think making a PS3/360 game is simple, either.

But third parties know how to do it by now. They don't know what makes a successful Wii game and would prefer any answers that aren't "large budget", "top teams", or "marketing".

Very true, although i'd argue that most don't even know how to make PS3/360 games, or even fun games in general, let alone GOOD motion controlled games.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Speak of the devil! After my "Wii requires slightly different skill set" shpiel, I see this. I think it's quite an excellent example. This is from an EEDAR article about the cumulative year end results:

In reality, decreased sales in 2009 had more to do with a lack of innovation than economic recession. The growth of our industry now rests more on innovation than it ever has before, especially since non-traditional and casual markets consist of a larger share than in previous years. No longer can developers update a few maps, design some new weapons, add a few new characters, then throw a roman numeral at the end of the box and call it a “sequel”. That may work for core targeted games (Action, Shooters, and RPGs), but this strategy is not ideal for non-traditional and casual gamers.

Case in point: most sequels targeted to the mainstream and casual markets actually underperform in comparison to the original, which is the opposite to what has traditionally been the case for core targeted games. If you examine the Nintendo Wii and DS platforms (the current primary platform for this audience) Boom Blox outsold Boom Blox 2 (Wii); Brain Age outsold Brain Age 2 (DS); Guitar Hero III bested World Tour (Wii); The Bigs crushed The Bigs 2 (Wii); Mario & Sonic at the Olympics (Wii) is on track to outperform its Winter counterpart; Rayman Raving Rabbids (Wii) (2006) outsold its 2007 release; and lastly the original Cooking Mama (Wii, DS) (2006) has out sold all sequel versions combined.

EEDAR believes Nintendo understands the mindset of its consumers the best, which is why Nintendo rarely releases sequels within the same generation and, if they do, they are years apart. A good example of this is Mario Kart. Instead of releasing an annual Mario Kart title, Nintendo opts to only release one Mario Kart per hardware generation.

I've been saying this for years, but it can be broken down even simpler.

Every third party needs to ask themselves, "Why does the consumer need this game?" If they can't answer it with anything beyond marketing spin, then their game is going to flop.

Let's look at Capcom in this instance. They came out with one of the first original rail shooters on the Wii, tied to a popular brand name that built up a good base on the Gamecube prior, was released on the promise of new and better things if it succeeded, and was a co-op experience that was not entirely bad.

Then, two years later, they release another one at a time when the market was flooded with rail shooters.

Someone that bought Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles will see Darkside Chronicles on the shelf and ask themselves the following questions:

- Do I really need another one of these games when I already have the last one?
- Is there anything really different about this one?
- Was anything cool added that would make this worth $50 in addition to the game I already own?

And if the answer is no, why would they buy it? They still have Umbrella Chronicles! They haven't memorized zombie locations, they don't give a shit about operation Javier, they wanted a fun shooter to play two years ago and that shooter is just as playable today. So now the game is just selling to people who are interested in Resident Evil lore, which I don't think there's very many of. Capcom's biggest mistake with making a sequel to Umbrella Chronicles was making a sequel to Umbrella Chronicles. Casual gamers don't like iterative sequels without much improvement. At least not these.

The thing is, the people who buy games like this seem weird to us. To a GAFer who wants to play Darkside Chronicles, a bigger headshot window is a huge deal, RE2 levels are a selling point, the last game came out two years ago and they consumed it in a week, so they're hungry for more. A casual who doesn't want a new one after enjoying the first one is just stupid to GAF.

I wonder when people are going to realize they're not stupid, they're normal.

 

[ShinNL]

I think you misinterpreted my post. I'm not saying that core titles shouldn't be made for the Wii or that the entire existing library of core titles are no good. I'm saying that expecting the same type and number of core games in the library as the PS2 on the Wii was foolish.

please note that the games you mentioned are all specifically well suited to the motion and pointer controls of the Wii. Trauma center on the PS2 would not be nearly as good an experience.

1. Why do you think it's foolish? The examples I listed were released quite early, so I actually thought it was pretty logical to expect more of these type of games. Instead 3rd parties were releasing tests. Then sequels on their tests if it worked out.

2. 50% of those listed games actually don't use much of the motion/pointer controls (Mario Galaxy, No More Heroes).

In other words, you have no arguments and calling people "foolish" is nothing more than a troll.

 

[Archie]

I know we got Beatles and Guitar Hero 5 numbers, but have we got any Tony Hawk Ride, DJ Hero or Band Hero numbers? I want to see how badly the plastic toy empire is crumbling.

 

[LosDaddie]

Good month all around. Very happy about the Wii's success.

And great sales for L4D2! I need to play the game more.

 

[dialmydrive]

More like 99,9%

at least youre being honest.