Evlar said:
It may not be as outrageous as you think. I think there's more dynamics going on in the Wii market to make accommodation for than some of the other bandwagons pubs have successfully jumped on. Warning: speculative stuff ahead.
For example, the oft cited aversion of large swathes of the market to anything that's not got the Nintendo name on it. If this is true - I'm not sure if it is, but if it is - that's a big big problem for third parties. We can examine the reasons for it and whose to blame for it, but if that's how the situation is now, that's how it is, the blame for it doesn't really matter. It remains a problem that could be very costly (both in monetary and time investment) to try to correct.
Marketing spend may be another issue. It may be more costly to reach the Wii audience. Being risk averse themselves, this audience may need the 'reassurance' of large high-profile marketing campaigns as Nintendo has weaned them to expect. Now, we can of course argue that the rewards are potentially very rich and they can make that money back and then some. But it may be another extra risk factor...
If I were to characterize the typical constituent of this blue ocean, it seems to me that games are a relatively small part of their lives. They're faddish and quite fickle. They're not looking for big time sinks. They won't 'come to you' looking for stuff. You have to go to them - practically scream at them to get their attention and motivate them to come buy your stuff (as Nintendo does with its heavy marketing). They're aware of the ocean of shit content available and they ignore it, and it's led to a 'dependence' if you like on the Nintendo brand - reinforced also by that Nintendo marketing which I think a lot of owners have come to depend on to inform them about what's worth picking up, what the next 'thing' to buy is. The market - as with the HD market too - has a strong herd mentality, and in Wii's case, its centre of gravity is 'Nintendo', rather than around specific game brands that might come from a variety of publishers.
All of these factors, and probably more, weigh on third party entries in terms of cost/risk/difficulty and so on in trying to engage with this market IMO. They're dynamics, also, that they've probably not got a lot of experience with.
As you rightly point out pubs are quite risk averse. Too averse. That is a fault of the pubs, but I think there are perhaps more risk factors at play here than one might first appreciate. It doesn't mean with the right scale of investment a third party couldn't weather these issues and come out the other side smelling like roses, but I'm just saying there may be more challenges there beyond just re-orientating their approach to the content itself. It's a bigger marketing challenge too.
Evlar said:
Two things here.
1) I dunno how underserved this audience is. If it were underserved I doubt the platform would continue to enjoy the success it has.
WE might think looking in 'omg, lol, how can they deal with it', but THEY seem content.
If YOU feel underserved (a general you, not 'you' you Evlar), then it seems you're in a minority that isn't going to be catered to any time soon.
2) Competition in one way is fiercer on the HD systems, but on the other, competition is also fierce on Wii for reasons outlined above. Third parties largely compete amongst themselves on the HD systems for the attention of people who are much more 'engaged' with what's going on in games. On Wii you have to compete with 1) Nintendo, who is so predominant on the platform and so synonymous with the 'wii' identity people hooked onto, 2) stigma re. third party 'shit' (whoever's fault that is, 3) the marketing relationship between Nintendo and the audience and 4) the difficulty/expense of reaching that audience who aren't nearly as engaged or interested in hearing what you have to say unless you ram it down their throats with a high profile campaign. As is, for now, third parties seem happier with the competitive environment of the former (HD) systems rather than the latter kind of environment.
