Mariah Carey
Member
Cromat said:
"Values" is legit; it's often used in business and economics. Just like we use the term "demand" when it's not like people are literally marching the streets demanding things.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NPD Sales Results for December 2009
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
"Values" is legit; it's often used in business and economics. Just like we use the term "demand" when it's not like people are literally marching the streets demanding things.
Fuzzy said:
In Japan Nintendo absolutely would have benefited from strong 3rd party support, which is why you have Nintendo making efforts to get stuff like Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest. your theory has been contradicted by Iwata himself.
Bel Marduk
Banned
Fuzzy said:
Do you really think Nintendo sees third parties as competition? Nobody can compete with them.
Mariah Carey
Member
Fuzzy said:
I imagine you saying this with your hands on your hips. What does it matter to you that people complain about not having the games they want on the system of their choice? Maybe they don't want to play high profile games on another system, maybe they want to play them on their Wii? Maybe game companies should stop trying to tell people what system they should buy and make games for the one the people have chosen?
schuelma said:
I think Nintendo wants big, notable third party games like Dragon Quest and Monster Hunter, the kinds of large exclusives that can drive greater hardware sales... but do they want a steady barrage of quality third party games? The kind that drives sales of systems like the PS2 and (increasingly, one thinks) the PS3 and the Xbox 360? Here I suspect not, because when it's on that scale, then you are going to see increased competition for their own software.
Unfortunately, I think it's the latter that most people here want more, because for them just a couple of press release-worthy games isn't sufficient. They want several quality games a month, right? That's where the issue arises.
freddy said:
I enjoy my Wii and think it's a pretty cool system, so I'd like more decent games from good teams. I think most people that own one would. But it's pretty clear that's not going to happen to any significant extent, so it's like... if you aren't satisfied with the content on the Wii, get another system, because after a certain point the constant bitching does get tiresome; it isn't going to change anything, so it's just the same stuff getting said over and over again.
Mariah Carey said:
They're not trying to tell you to do anything. They're making games. If you want the games badly enough and they're not on the system you own, you'll get the system they are on. If you don't want them badly enough, you won't. Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to want to play games rather than to, above all else, play the system.
Maybe I want to be 6'6" but guess what? It ain't happening. It doesn't matter to me if they bitch, I'm just trying to help them be happier gamers because they're obviously not happy right now and bitching isn't changing that. The only thing those people can do right now is buying another console to get what they want or accept that they'll be 5'9" for the rest of their life like I have.Mariah Carey said:
EDIT: Have I told you lately that I love you ethelred?
On one level I agree with you, but considering the utter lack of promotion that Nintendo puts behind their B and C tier titles, which is generally what those quality third party titles would be competing with, I'm not really sure how much competition in that space would affect them.ethelred said:
Mario and Wii Sports will sell their millions, so it's a matter of how much one thinks Nintendo worries about Excitebots and Monado selling 10k instead of 20k.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
There is a reason I bought a 360.
But I still think the entire situation is borked. The Wii should have gotten well marketed high quality titles, like any other console in history. Instead it got high quality, not marketed titles, or well marketed casual gamer oriented stuff. Nothing high caliber that utilized the platform well.
It's a lost cause at this point. They couldn't break into the market now if they wanted to. Try again on the Wii+.
Could have been such a lucrative little console too.
But I still think the entire situation is borked. The Wii should have gotten well marketed high quality titles, like any other console in history. Instead it got high quality, not marketed titles, or well marketed casual gamer oriented stuff. Nothing high caliber that utilized the platform well.
It's a lost cause at this point. They couldn't break into the market now if they wanted to. Try again on the Wii+.
Could have been such a lucrative little console too.
Why would Nintendo shell out big bucks for titles that are not even going to be exclusive or be the lead platform? The fact that the Wii has such a large install base should be reason enough for being a candidate for a multiplatform release for major franchise iterations.Fuzzy said:
lowlylowlycook
Member
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Forget Nintendo supporting third parties and vice-versa.
How the fuck did Nintendo managed to put 3.8 million Wiis on the shelves but failed to get more than 2.8 million copies of NSMBWii shipped out?
Forget Nintendo supporting third parties and vice-versa.
How the fuck did Nintendo managed to put 3.8 million Wiis on the shelves but failed to get more than 2.8 million copies of NSMBWii shipped out?
Honestly, I think the idea that platform holders should subsidise 3rd parties is a poor one and it's been hurting the industry for years. I understand it's the market reality and that Nintendo operates pretty poorly under that market reality, but if I had a choice between the current situation, or every company for themselves, I'd choose the later.
Jocchan said:
This is true. I have a 360, and we have a PS3 now, too. Thing is, I can play games like Infamous, but it's not really the way I want to play the game. I'd take dumbed down graphics in order to play the game with the remote and nunchuck on the Wii. It's really as simple as that. Sure, that's not the game the developers made, but I would want those kinds of experiences on the Wii. It doesn't have to be the exact same game, but something close would be great. I really as hoping that Dead Space Extraction would be more like the original Dead Space but with IR controls. That's the game I wanted to buy, and my guess is that it would have sold much better than Extraction did.
Once again, it makes sense for those because they'll help in Japan where they're not killing every console that has ever been released like it's doing in the US. Have you seen any big Western releases announced? No, because the Wii doesn't need help in the US. The Wii is doing so well in the US that if it didn't sell a single unit in 2010 then it would still be ahead of where the PS2 was at the same time in its life.Hero said:
ethelred said:
Yeah I can buy that..though I would argue that potentially Nintendo thought if they could get those big tentpole 3rd party releases then the smaller efforts would follow automatically, like what happened with the DS. I don't know if its Nintendo being afraid of the competition- I don't think they mind it on the DS.
Fuzzy said:
And this is why Nintendo strictly decided to partner with Capcom to push MH3 in the US territories where it ISNT popular to attempt and make the franchise as big here as it is in Japan..
The nonsense you and Eth just brought into this thread just shows that the Dec NPD thread has run its course, you people have officially gone loony and need a 1 month break. Shut it down.
freddy said:
Not really. They're not the ones initiating these endless circular debates; targeting them as equally culpable is like the old claim that complaining about racism is actually a demonstration of racism.
In any event, while I wouldn't lay the blame at their feet and while I don't get nearly as annoyed by people telling the Shoulda Woulda Coulda Chorus to just shut up and get a 360 to play the games they're bitching about wanting so badly, I personally can't stand repeating myself and I get sick of these Groundhog Day debates, which is why I've largely withdrawn from engaging in them these days.
I just wish other people would come to the realization that it's more fun to play actual games (Darksiders, Mass Effect 2, Bayonetta, and Dark Void all released this month alone!) than to keep saying the same stuff over and over and over.
schuelma said:
Nintendo barely publishes games anymore on the DS, though. By the time that large scale third party support kicked in, Nintendo was already issuing its proclamation that it was shifting development resources from the DS to the Wii, and since then they've only put out a few significant games, largely allowing those and the multitude of third party efforts to continually push hardware sales while their internal devs are focused on the Wii.
Puncture said:
What exactly have I said that is loony nonsense? I defy you to point that out.
The situation is not wholly Nintendo's fault. It's also the 3rd parties who are at fault for not being able to or not wanting to take advantage of a mass-market platform to sell their mass-market games. However, this generation's course with regard to publisher support has largely been already set, so the whole thing is moot anyway from here on out.Fuzzy said:
rpmurphy said:
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/07/22/nintendo-president-talks-grand-theft-auto/
Yep, not wholly Nintendo's fault but when things like this are said it doesn't really seem like they want what they pay lip service to.
Alright, I've had enough of a breather. Easier than I expected.
Why aren't these companies supporting the DS like crazy -- and moreover, why aren't people complaining like crazy that Western third parties continue to ignore the DS? It's got an even larger install base. What about the iPhone? It's got more than 50 Million users, and it's growing more rapidly than any gaming platform on the planet. Where's Activision? Where's Take 2? Where's Ubisoft?
The answer is that Western studios have basically never put real weight behind portables or mobile devices, so you've basically accepted it at this point. I propose that the same is happening with the Wii: despite the install base, Western third parties have decided this is a part of the game industry that isn't built to their approach.
The reason why people have been confused is that the Wii is a "home console," which had traditionally been the place third parties wanted to go. Now I suppose you need to specify "home console with a specific bent towards high end tech." They've found their box and they're clearly sticking with it.
If you're going to make any argument at all, it should be whether these major Publishers can survive by sticking in this box, which represents an increasingly small portion of the market. Just last generation, it was the PS2/Xbox/GC/PC, and the only real outlier was the GBA. Now, it's really just the PS3/360, and the PS3/360 are going to sell significantly less than PS2/Xbox did. On the other hand, the DS has exploded in comparison to the GBA, the Wii has taken a huge share of that "home console" market, the iPhone has arrived (as has the Droid), and the PC is increasingly focused on facebook apps and browser games.
EA has made a few early moves to try to enter these markets, but practically no one else has. So the argument isn't really "why not the Wii?" Third parties have successfully ignored tons of other markets for decades, so it isn't like the Wii is really quite as unique a circumstance as some would believe.
d[-_-]b said:
Why aren't these companies supporting the DS like crazy -- and moreover, why aren't people complaining like crazy that Western third parties continue to ignore the DS? It's got an even larger install base. What about the iPhone? It's got more than 50 Million users, and it's growing more rapidly than any gaming platform on the planet. Where's Activision? Where's Take 2? Where's Ubisoft?
The answer is that Western studios have basically never put real weight behind portables or mobile devices, so you've basically accepted it at this point. I propose that the same is happening with the Wii: despite the install base, Western third parties have decided this is a part of the game industry that isn't built to their approach.
The reason why people have been confused is that the Wii is a "home console," which had traditionally been the place third parties wanted to go. Now I suppose you need to specify "home console with a specific bent towards high end tech." They've found their box and they're clearly sticking with it.
If you're going to make any argument at all, it should be whether these major Publishers can survive by sticking in this box, which represents an increasingly small portion of the market. Just last generation, it was the PS2/Xbox/GC/PC, and the only real outlier was the GBA. Now, it's really just the PS3/360, and the PS3/360 are going to sell significantly less than PS2/Xbox did. On the other hand, the DS has exploded in comparison to the GBA, the Wii has taken a huge share of that "home console" market, the iPhone has arrived (as has the Droid), and the PC is increasingly focused on facebook apps and browser games.
EA has made a few early moves to try to enter these markets, but practically no one else has. So the argument isn't really "why not the Wii?" Third parties have successfully ignored tons of other markets for decades, so it isn't like the Wii is really quite as unique a circumstance as some would believe.
Mariah Carey
Member
ethelred said:
You know, I think this is the biggest sacred cow that we've seen tipped over this generation. People bought Wii for Wii Sports, sure. But "PS3 Sports" wouldn't have worked (even if we give the benefit of the doubt and had it come with a motion controller) because the PS3 still would've been $600, the game wouldn't have come with the system, and the Sony would still be pushing HD content above it. Regardless of how good the game was, the values just wouldn't be there.
People don't just buy a system for the games it currently has, they buy it because this is the platform they want to play their games on. Whether you mean to or not, you're saying when companies and the public diverge in values, that it is the public that must yield. I submit the opposite.
timetokill
Banned
I think it's clear that there are massive opportunities for western developers and publishers who build themselves from the ground up for Wii/DS and expanded market development. We're already seeing a ton in the Facebook/iPhone space, so I wonder if/when that will start to happen for the Wii/DS markets.
Yyyeah? They do have incentive, because it would push more hardware, and that would also probably push more of their own software. And even if it doesn't, hardware = $ too. For Nintendo, anyway. Furthermore, that is not exactly what you were saying. You were saying they actually do not want third-party support. I'm saying they are, at worst, indifferent.Fuzzy said:
...ethelred said:
...
This actually does not seem obviously ridiculous.
At the same time, how are you to explain Sony/MS? They have first party games too, yet we all accept that they love third party support. Why? Because it pushes their hardware, which pushes somebody's software, which at least gives them royalties. And they generally lose money on hardware. And then you have Nintendo, which tends to make big money on both hardware AND software, yet allegedly they're unwilling to even try to do the same.
Furthermore, it's not like Nintendo makes shit software. They're known for high quality just as much as anyone is. You'd think if they were intentionally shittening up their market that they would have no reason to spend much money and effort making their own games. Isn't it usually third parties that say they're afraid of competing with Nintendo?
Fuzzy said:
Oh, I'm not told this nearly often enough!
Mariah Carey said:
Oh, by all means, submit away. Be the Mini William F. Buckley you so yearn to be; stand athwart the gaming industry screaming "Stop!" Freely express your indignation and your bemusement. Say that these companies are telling you to do something you don't want to do, say they're defying the democratic will of the people, tell us all that it isn't fair, it isn't right, that as the highest selling console the Wii deserves these games.
It doesn't matter. None of it matters. It is what it is and it isn't going to change, so you can either accept things the way they are or just keep complaining nonstop in the hopes that reality will bend to your will of how and what reality should be (protip: it won't).
ZAK said:
They don't on the same level as Nintendo. And actually, as far as Microsoft goes, they've been desperately paring down their first party output for the past two years -- they passed on opportunities to buy BioWare and Bizarre, they let Bungie go, they've closed numerous studios like FASA and Ensemble, and so on. These days it seems like the extent of Microsoft's desire towards gaming output is to sponsor key third party releases so that their advertisements focus on the 360 above the PS3. Sony, of course, has much more extensive first party efforts, but nothing on the scale of Nintendo. They don't push a lot of games that do five million or whatnot.
These guys do a very different type of business as Nintendo. I don't think that's really in dispute, is it? While these systems can have a month with four or five or six heavily hyped, well advertised games being released from multiple companies, is there any doubt that right now what Nintendo just wants people to be buying is New Super Mario Bros. Wii? Do they want people making the choice between New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Mass Effect 2, Darksiders, and Bayonetta? No, they want people buying New Super Mario Bros. Wii. And that's what they want consumers buying next month, too, fwiw.
It's not a knock on them, because I think their business strategy is designed to bring in the most profit for them, as it should. But really, I think they want only as much third party software as is necessary to ensure their hardware continues selling; the main thing they want people buying, though, is their own software... and their key software, at that. If you look at the PS3 and the 360, as I said, they might be seeing three dozen "big" core games released in this year alone, but Nintendo staggers its release schedule to have a few core titles throughout the year. Those are the games they want people buying throughout the year.
And if Nintendo of America really wanted a much meatier release schedule, don't you think that at the very least they'd start with all the games Nintendo releases in Japan but which get passed up for American release? Think about why they don't. Because plugging holes in a schedule isn't their top priority; continuing to sell their tentpole releases is.
ZAK said:
Why can't it be both?
Not sure how that quote has something meaningful to what I was talking about. Reggie there seems to be talking more about the possibility of a GTA exclusive/sidestory, as such was the case with CW at the time, with North still working on the GTA4 DLC stuff (?). If it has something to do with GTA5 possibilities, that may say something, but it isn't very clear in the quote as to what was on the table. The Wii already has a lot of exclusives. More of them is not what they need.Fuzzy said:
Mariah Carey
Member
ethelred said:
You say this as though game companies aren't getting spanked and people aren't rewarding the one company that's actually listening to them. Your "reality" sounds awfully defeatist when customers have a lot less to lose: this is just a hobby to them. For game companies this is their livelihood. Things either are going to change or we're going to hear about a lot more layoffs, bankruptcies and consolidation.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Mariah Carey said:
This is silly. Games sell systems. People don't buy $200-$300 boxes to stare at them and hope. Without games it's just a hunk of plastic with no real worth.
They buy them because a game they played or saw on TV tickled their fancy, and decide "I want that game".
Mariah Carey said:
I don't really care if people get laid off. As you say, this is just a hobby for me. And I'm not so delusional as to think that my thoughts as to how things should've been are going to change an industry that is nigh monolithically grinding forward.
You're the one that sounds too invested in all this stuff. You're phrasing this like you're some kind of hostage-taker, waving a gun at the heads of those who'll lose their jobs if I don't bend knee to your argument. "Accept the superiority of Nintendo or the folks at EA get it." I don't care.
Bel Marduk said:
You mean like how Wii Music broke records and smashed the sales of all the 3rd party music games? Oh wait...
Puncture said:
Nintendo aren't doing amazing in Japan, 3rd party support easily makes a material difference to them there. Hence they go for the likes of Monster Hunter. Pushing MH3 in the west is just a quid pro quo in that Capcom get something out of it, and since they have the game anyways, it makes sense to maximise it's worldwide sales both for short term profit and for increasing the chances that they get future iterations of the franchise.
Many of the big western developers were pulled from PC to consoles by Microsoft with the Xbox. Epic, Valve, Infinity Ward, Bioware, Irrational, Bungie... Many of the blockbuster console titles of today are developed by companies that come from a PC background to make games for similar platforms.Opiate said:
That's a large part of why the Xbox has done so well. They've lured the great PC developers to bring content and design that's fresh to console gamers. And while they're supporting the Xbox, it makes sense to port to PS3. Porting to Wii or DS, however, is just not possible.
Former PC developers are best at making PC-like games for PC-like systems, so that's what they do.
Activision and Capcom are making good bank too, and neither have particularly good strategies for Nintendo platforms. People "reward" other companies with good sales too, but sometimes bad management means this doesn't result in being generally profitable. See Take Two for example.Mariah Carey said:
I don't think either Fuzzy or the Wii-focused group here are correct. I'd say it's somewhere in the middle.
In reality, I think it's extremely like that the best scenario for Nintendo would be absolute and total third party support. Sony and Microsoft would basically collapse if this happened, as their first parties aren't even remotely close to strong enough to support expensive systems of their nature. This would certainly decrease the total sales of their first party software, but overall software sales (And hardware sales) would go up so dramatically as to make up for any first party software losses by a wide margin.
The real problem is how much each party is willing to pay to get that support. If all third parties suddenly stood up one day and said, "You know what Nintendo, we're going to put our full backing behind you," I think Nintendo would be elated. But in reality, swaying third parties clearly requires financial investment, and they're reluctant to make that investment.
Not because Nintendo are noble protectors of the free market system, as some here have subtly claimed. If they thought it would be worthwhile, they'd do it -- and on rare occasions, they do, like with Monster Hunter. No, the real reason they don't normally invest in third party development is because the cost of getting those games outweighs the benefits they'd gain. Or so Nintendo thinks.
If Fuzzy/Ethelred are actually suggesting that Nintendo would turn away third party support -- freely given, major support -- then I think they're being deliberately obtuse, frankly. Which means that Nintendo wants the support, they just don't want it at the cost required.
In reality, I think it's extremely like that the best scenario for Nintendo would be absolute and total third party support. Sony and Microsoft would basically collapse if this happened, as their first parties aren't even remotely close to strong enough to support expensive systems of their nature. This would certainly decrease the total sales of their first party software, but overall software sales (And hardware sales) would go up so dramatically as to make up for any first party software losses by a wide margin.
The real problem is how much each party is willing to pay to get that support. If all third parties suddenly stood up one day and said, "You know what Nintendo, we're going to put our full backing behind you," I think Nintendo would be elated. But in reality, swaying third parties clearly requires financial investment, and they're reluctant to make that investment.
Not because Nintendo are noble protectors of the free market system, as some here have subtly claimed. If they thought it would be worthwhile, they'd do it -- and on rare occasions, they do, like with Monster Hunter. No, the real reason they don't normally invest in third party development is because the cost of getting those games outweighs the benefits they'd gain. Or so Nintendo thinks.
If Fuzzy/Ethelred are actually suggesting that Nintendo would turn away third party support -- freely given, major support -- then I think they're being deliberately obtuse, frankly. Which means that Nintendo wants the support, they just don't want it at the cost required.
Slavik81 said:
Totally agree: not arguing with that at all. I'd just add the "former" part of your "former PC developers" is pretty important: some of these companies (like Epic) have nearly dropped PC support entirely, while others (such as Infinity Ward) give it only token support now.
The PC is doing fine, of course. At last we heard, PC Gaming revenue was up in 2008 compared to 2007, and it's still selling more software (by revenue) than any other platform. It's just that software isn't being driven by most of these companies anymore, with the exception being Valve.
I don't care whether those companies close down either because I don't work for them. If a company goes under that makes a game I like I hope that another one will buy that IP and continue making good games in that franchise. If they don't, that's okay because I can count on Nintendo to keep making the games I like. Don't these pro-Nintendo people understand? I'm one of you but I'm just working at it from a different angle!ethelred said:
Pureauthor
Member
I think most Sales-Age regulars would understand why Western third parties are reluctant to throw 3rd party support behind the Wii (and the DS, and so on, and so on). I mean, I'm kinda more interested in watching the fallout. This generation has seen a lot of major changes to the industry and it's extremely engaging.
Mariah Carey
Member
ethelred said:
It's easy for things to sound more heated than they actually are on the internet. I'm not any more invested in this than you are (I, uh, actually don't even play many video games *shhh). I just see a scenario where companies aren't listening to their customers. That's just kind of stupid and deserves to get called out on.
Sho_Nuff82 said:
You took my statement a little too literally I think. As I said, "PS3 Sports" wouldn't have worked. Systems aren't just their physical boxes. They're the price, the advertising initiative, the whole package. Basically what we mean when we're discussing "market values." If it helps think in terms of "platform" rather than system.
Version 3.0
Member
Fuzzy said:
:lol Nice conspiracy theory. Again, there's a kernel of truth in your misconception: yes, Nintendo does like to be the top publisher. But Nintendo licenses other companies to make games for their systems. They have no control over whether the games that are made are big releases or not.