Support NeoGAF

[Tenbatsu]

Monster Hunter 3 is going to be huge. If Capcom's gained the ability to do something this generation, it's build hype.

I think the game can make 1 Million in Japan. At the very least, Capcom will try to make it happen.

Yes you are right. Capcom is really building hype for MH3 Tri in Japan with collaboration weapons with Shonen mangas and gaming magazines. Really clever marketing push there.

Here is MH3 Promotion Plan:

 

[Johann]

The thing is though if Nintendo doesn't wise up they might as well go back from being the Gamecube because it will become an inevitable future. Yes Nintendo owns the casual market as well as the majority market NOW, but what happens if Microsoft, SONY, or God could only imagine Apple make a casual focused console along with all of the serious gamer goodies at a low friendly price? And what if the products are marketed just as, if not better then Nintendo's product? They'd be destroyed. Hell it doesn't even need to be that big of an undertake just have SONY and Microsoft make casual centric consoles that also offer a lot of third party serious gamer games and watch them take a huge chunk of Nintendo's market share.

My point is if Nintendo doesn't start taking things more seriously then other companies will stand up and start taking serious market share away from Nintendo by offering what Nintendo offers and more.

Yes I realize that being big on third party deals isn't very "Nintendo" but if they don't significantly change their ways then they'll never get the taste of market leader ever again.

A company can't just change its focus and image at the drop of a hat. Sony and Microsoft's identity is defined by great graphics/sound and cinematics. This is where Nintendo's advantage as an independent comes in. They can easily change third image and focus. Sony and Microsoft have an unmalleable identity and focus as long as they are representing their companies and enjoying their wealth and resources.

There is also the question of whether they can make a hit game like Wii Sports that will attract the casual audience. So far, they've soon nothing but incompetence when trying to capture that audience. We can see that the 360 being priced cheaper than the Wii hasn't helped it outsell the Wii. Not even having a children's Saturday morning cartoon is going to help a casual game if it doesn't have the depth and accessibility of a game like Wii Sports. There is a great hunger for software that can only exist on the Wii.

If Sony, Microsoft or even Apple were to make a motion sensing controller for their consoles, they question remains if they can replicate a system seller like Wii Sports. All of these companies would be heavily reliant on third-parties. Their first-party casual efforts are weak and derivative. However, Nintendo seems to be the only developer that is capable of making that 15+ million sold system seller. No third party has come to replicating their success with the casual audience on any platform. Even a PC hit like Sims 2 took three times as long to sell as much as Mario Kart Wii. This is due to Nintendo's unique method of developing software alongside hardware. Their software is tailor made for the console and as a result, they dominate the sales charts of both the console and overall sales. You could let all the big third-parties attempt to casual games for your console and chances are that they won't duplicate even a fraction of a hit like Wii Sports. The competition simply won't be able to make the next Wii Sports if the first-party continues to be hopeless with causal games and if third-parties don't receive an unprecedented level of influence on the design of the hardware (which would be incredibly chaotic and expensive). I'd sooner believe that Nintendo would make the next Halo than Sony or Microsoft replicating the success of Wii Sports.

Microsoft wants Nintendo and Sony to get not a money battle with them. Anytime Nintendo doesn't spend on first-party/R&D or Sony forgoes moneyhatting third-party, especially Japanese developers, is a victory for them. Microsoft can't compete with Nintendo's first party or Sony's (former) third party dominance but it's a great success if they can get them to take focus off that and compete in areas in which Microsoft's money will always win. For example, Sony's attempt to enter Microsoft's shooter market (and forgo solidifying their then lion's share of third-party exclusives) was a complete disaster. They simply want to bleed the competition out of the market since they are willing to go much further into the red than the competition.

You just don't get third-party support overnight with just cash. You get a lot of duds before the good stuff. When Microsoft asked Tetsuya Mizuguchi to make a hit game for them, he turned around and got Phantagram to make generic hack and slash game. Then they had to fund Infinite Undiscovery before they got Star Ocean 4. You effectively have to subsidize developers for years before they start making hits for your system and filling out genres.

If Nintendo wants to do this, they have to be willing to go into the red for years before they get to the good stuff. This is why Nintendo is reluctant getting into deals with third-parties. As mentioned before, they've had several dealings with third-parties backfire on them. It's a losing strategy and the fruits of your labor could potentially leave you. They learned that the hard way. Only sheer and utter dominance of the market will get you support, such as with the DS.

I personally think they could do more to improve the third-party situation but I can understand if they think money is better spent on making the next Wii Sports level hit.

 

[Eteric Rice]

One thing that I want to note is that it seems it's "never" actually to late to breathe life back into a platform. The PSP proved that pretty well. I mean, hell, a little over a year and a half ago we all thought the thing was dead and burried. Now it's doing really well.

Nintendo needs to try to push to get some of Japan's big franchises. They also need to try to get Japan hyped about games again. This whole "remain silent until just before release" is annoying. They need to post teasers to the general public, and spark interest again.

 

[BishopLamont]

One thing that I want to note is that it seems it's "never" actually to late to breathe life back into a platform. The PSP proved that pretty well. I mean, hell, a little over a year and a half ago we all thought the thing was dead and burried. Now it's doing really well.

Nintendo needs to try to push to get some of Japan's big franchises. They also need to try to get Japan hyped about games again. This whole "remain silent until just before release" is annoying. They need to post teasers to the general public, and spark interest again.

PSP was never anywhere dead though, hardware sales have always been good. It was the software selling part that was problematic. Software sales are better now due to redesigns, better software support and because Japan has largely converted to handhelds. As much as the DS was killing the PSP, it also helped it.

 

[Eteric Rice]

PSP was never anywhere dead though, hardware sales have always been good. It was the software selling part that was problematic. Software sales are better now due to redesigns, better software support and because Japan has largely converted to handhelds. As much as the DS was killing the PSP, it also helped it.

The Wii has already sold a ton of hardware, so they pretty much have the same problem. The Wii needs to sell more software. It also needs to get the kotaku gamers to jump on board.

 

[Jokeropia]

PSP was never anywhere dead though, hardware sales have always been good.

PSP hung around the low 20k's for some fairly extended periods as well actually.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

But still, it is at least now a big name (although a handheld big name, and was 2nd tier when it was last on consoles), cavets aside it is still the biggest Japanese game to hit the system ever. Even then, it's a smaller game then DMC4, MGS4, RE5, SC4, SF4...

I really have to disagree with that. Yes it's the PSP responsible for its big popularity and not all of that will translate back to home sales, but MHP2G has sold more than the immediate predecessors to those five games combined.

Heck, not even taking portable stuff into account, PS2 Monster Hunter 2 did better than Street Fighter III, any SoulCalibur, or any Devil May Cry.

PSP hung around the low 20k's for some fairly extended periods as well actually.

It never hit the 13K low Wii did weeks recently, but yeah. In 2005 I see a time when MC had it ranging from 19.0 to 25.4K for 18 weeks straight. Then there's a period in 2006 where it ranged from 16.7K to 25.9K for 9 weeks. It might be that those periods would be worse if exacerbated by current economic/flu stuff, but that's impossible-to-measure speculation.

 

[charlequin]

when money is pouring in left and right and you have an opportunity to servery cripple your competitors you should take it

This is pretty much the argument I'm making, yes. You have to spend money to make money. There's a reason that companies very rarely maintain the kind of cash reserves Nintendo has, and that reason is that it isn't a good way to run your business as profitably as possible. Nintendo have been far too risk-averse.

What's stopping from Microsoft, SONY, Apple, or whoever the hell to take the Wii's controller and market and really push toward it?

In fairness, what's stopping them is (a) a complete inability to make anything but the most pitiful gestures towards such software due to a development culture that doesn't understand it, and (b) the fact that taking a casual core-audience and expanding it to hit a large part of the "core gamer" market is easy, while taking an extreme hardcore core-audience and expanding it to include much of the casual audience is ludicrously difficult.

There is absolutely enough blame to go around, but I do believe that the bulk of that blame lies on the shoulders of the 3rd-party publishers.

But there isn't a strong correlation between third parties' attentions towards the Wii and their overall level of success, while Nintendo is actually the one suffering a collapse of demand for their system -- and third parties are a large, collective group of competitors who would have had to act essentially in concert to change how things have played out, while Nintendo could have easily done so by acting alone.

Basically, the Wii's current downturn is directly attributable to Nintendo's failure in just the same way that any other console's is. Doing one thing right (i.e. the hardware design and first party lineup) doesn't mean you get a free pass on the thing you did wrong.

And really, at the start of this gen, what could Nintendo realistically have accomplished with 3rd-parties who had their head so far in the sand?

Not had an unrealistic fixation on getting numbered sequels to game series known for their visual glitz like so many of their fans still do, for one thing.

You are correct to assert that there was no way Resident Evil 5 or Final Fantasy XIII was going to come out on the Wii; both games were unquestionably well into development before Wii proved itself a success. Nor were other, very similar games going to go anywhere but where the trailblazers were going. Nintendo just needed to accept this (like you say) but then plan an alternate strategy around this challenge.

What Nintendo should have done instead was make trying out new or forgotten IPs -- something publishers always want to do in order to find the hits of tomorrow, but often feel isn't worth the cost -- easy and cheap. Nintendo should have cut deals for relatively high-budget exclusives that would be backed up by free dev kits, huge co-marketing deals, and budget coverage in exchange for a higher licensing fee after the budget is recouped. Then, have each partner dev put together a team and build whatever they want -- a revival of an old franchise, a new idea that didn't seem cost-effective, a successful series that seemed particularly well-suited to Wii controls, whatever.

Not everything that comes out of such a deal is going to be a huge success, but you really only need one big surprise hit to come out of it to shape the perception of your console in a positive way. And when it works, everyone wins -- a third-party makes money on a successful new IP that was a no-risk investment for them, Nintendo recoups their costs out of their higher royalty rate, and the system benefits from greater attention from the market.

Once the program is well-ensconced, people are seeing the flood of third-party titles (all heavily promoted by Nintendo themselves) hitting the system, you can ease back on the overall expenditures (switching to lesser marketing partnerships and only partial budget protection) until the ecosystem is supporting itself.

(Once again, people may notice that what I'm describing is basically the 360's US third-party strategy, and for good reason: Microsoft's 360 strategy has officially usurped the PSX's as the most effective third-party strategy ever.)

I think Nintendo learned that they can't count on 3rd-parties back in the N64 days.

Nintendo spent the NES and SNES era brutalizing and extorting their third parties, then lost them to a competitor who treated these developers as valued partners and undercut Nintendo's ludicrous prices in the N64 era. Drawing the conclusion "third-parties can't be trusted" from that experience is insipid; the correct conclusions to draw are "third-parties can need to be courted" and "you shouldn't rest on your laurels," neither of which Nintendo seems to be able to apply now that they are once again successful.

One thing that I want to note is that it seems it's "never" actually to late to breathe life back into a platform.

Right. Each month that passes makes changing a console's momentum that much harder (to the degree that accomplishing it in year three is probably tens of times harder than doing it upfront) but it's never impossible.

 

[Moor-Angol]

I didn't find inside the promotion plan : give money to Famitsu for a (at least) 39/40 review

 

[slaughterking]

It also needs to get the kotaku gamers to jump on board.

Heh, kotaku gamers.

 

[gantz85]

Nintnedo will just sit back and laugh when they go out of business becuase they're stubborn. Third parties in japan have fucked up, plain and simple. I expect many of them will have gone under by this point next year and good riddance.

It's hard to understand how, when Nintendo's Chairman commented that fortune is fickle and that Sony's leadership in the market can be compromised at anytime (during the PS2 years), that Nintendo fanboys don't see how this could apply to Nintendo itself. Plenty of them are acting all high and mighty with stupid GIFs, but if fortune is fickle Nintendo certainly doesn't have a monopoly on it.

Nintendo needed to have given more incentives for third parties to get on board. Sony's arrogance saw them thinking that the "first 5 million" PS3 adoptions would come almost instantly because of the huge PS2 fanbase and look at how the adoption crawled. Nintendo had the upperhand and didn't cash it on third party support, that's that.

I think it's somewhat understandable when Nintendo has been such a profitable company for so long and one that can put out entire generations of consoles that is sustained by its AAAA IPs in Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong and more. The entire GC generation passed by with Nintendo in a dismal third place but standing shoulder to shoulder to Sony's game division in profit; even edging them out if I recall correctly. They're insular, they don't even NEED third party support to be profitable, to be honest.

The success of the Wii has only driven that message in harder. Nintendo don't feel like they need to pander to third parties, and that it should be third parties coming in to take advantage of the market leadership. In some instances they have, like Capcom with Monster Hunter 3, Square Enix with DQX and such. But it's just not enough. If you don't believe that the profile or to be more specific, actual user composition of the Wii consumerbase is not substantially different from the PS3 or 360 then you're terribly wrong. The hardcore reside on the HD platforms in Japan and we're talking about a relatively small population with HUGE purchasing power because they sped a disproportionate amount on games compared to the normal user. If Nintendo had managed to perform a better migration of these users to the platform thus far things would have been much better.

At the end of the day though, Nintendo still has a good hand in MH3 and DQX. They can use them to force adoption or migration, but I suspect it won't have that large of an effect. It'll moderately increase hardware uptake but not by much. I think the Wii will continue a general trend downwards in Japan.

PS3 won't fare much better I think. Even with a price drop it will be hard to see it exceed an 8 million userbase this generation (Wii's current userbase in JP).

 

[markatisu]

I really have to disagree with that. Yes it's the PSP responsible for its big popularity and not all of that will translate back to home sales, but MHP2G has sold more than the immediate predecessors to those five games combined.

Heck, not even taking portable stuff into account, PS2 Monster Hunter 2 did better than Street Fighter III, any SoulCalibur, or any Devil May Cry.

I had similar thoughts, I think a lot of people are going to be shocked at the amount MH3 sells on Wii. I do not think it will be the 2-4m range (unless it has very big legs and no Portable version is announced for quite a while), but I think it will easily get to 1m-2m. For a AAA third party Wii game in Japan that would make a statement.

 

[sphinx]

while the discussion in this thread is very interessting, people really have a short memory:

for around 10 goddamn years, nintendo struggled to keep their home consoles relevant because thrid parties dissed them. The gamecube was so horribly disregarded by pretty much everyone that I think Nintendo didn't even ask third parties ( at least not with much hope) if they wanted to support the Wii, since they knew the anwser would be a huge middle finger.

Nintendo began with the wii solo and they knew it, 3rd parties didn't take a wait-n-see approach, they didn't want to consider there was a console by nintendo this generation.

As such, nintendo works like they've been doing for the last 10 years: On their own.

why people here believe nintendo is to blame for the current state of things in the videogame market after being treated like shit for so long by 3rd parties is mindblowing.

3rd parties and ONLY 3rd parties are the ones who must choose their platforms wisely ( meaning = the console leader ) not the other way around, not the market leader beg and moan for support.

Nintendo is the one taking the money now, WHY do they need 3rd parties? They've never needed them!!! It's either Gamecube failure or Wii success and nintend always prevails, 3rd parties on board or not. it's THEIR loss when nintendo is on top like now. Nintendo doesn't loss shit and these theories that in next generations it could backfire that nintendo hasn't courted develoeprs is bullshit.

 

[gantz85]

Nintendo is the one taking the money now, WHY do they need 3rd parties? They've never needed them!!! It's either Gamecube failure or Wii success and nintend always prevails, 3rd parties on board or not. it's THEIR loss when nintendo is on top like now. Nintendo doesn't loss shit and these theories that in next generations it could backfire that nintendo hasn't courted develoeprs is bullshit.

You're basically on the same track that I was except for this point.

Nintendo has been extremely successful because it has been really good at milking its franchises throughout the GC period and prior. For the Wii it came out with an unprecedented smash hit and is continuing to push forward although the momentum has slowed recently.

You're then assuming that whatever worked for Nintendo in the past -- milking their AAAA IPs (Mario, etc.) -- will continue to hold them in good stead. I honestly don't think if it's as simple as that. The public has a short memory, even if the Italian pumbler is one of the most iconic figures in gaming or even public history. By amassing third party support it can help reduce the risk burden placed on their own IPs for success.

 

[Dalthien]

Hey charlequin,

Good discussion. I think we actually agree more than disagree, but to continue the discussion...

This is pretty much the argument I'm making, yes. You have to spend money to make money. There's a reason that companies very rarely maintain the kind of cash reserves Nintendo has, and that reason is that it isn't a good way to run your business as profitably as possible. Nintendo have been far too risk-averse.

Nintendo is far and away the top of the pack in this industry when it comes to long-term consistency and overall volume in profits. No one else even comes close. Trying to suggest that Nintendo should follow the lead of others in this industry when it comes to profits is just downright ridiculous.

But there isn't a strong correlation between third parties' attentions towards the Wii and their overall level of success, while Nintendo is actually the one suffering a collapse of demand for their system -- and third parties are a large, collective group of competitors who would have had to act essentially in concert to change how things have played out, while Nintendo could have easily done so by acting alone.

You didn't really just use the word 'easily' did you? Nintendo just successfully pulled off the greatest turnaround this industry has ever seen, but it should have been so easy to fix this one little problem. How could they have missed it? There's nothing to it. Everyone makes these huge turnarounds all the time. It's so easy!

Basically, the Wii's current downturn is directly attributable to Nintendo's failure in just the same way that any other console's is. Doing one thing right (i.e. the hardware design and first party lineup) doesn't mean you get a free pass on the thing you did wrong.

Yeah, Nintendo is responsible for the success or failure of the Wii. It is their product, and they take the blame or credit for it.

But the discussion was related to 3rd-parties. Nintendo will be just fine. With or without 3rd-parties, Nintendo will still continue to sell tons of 1st-party software.

As donny pointed out in the beginning of all this, the discussion was that 3rd-parties have left themselves without a home console market by choosing to ignore the market leader. Using Captain Smoker's spreadsheet (thanks Captain Smoker!), Nintendo has sold 22.1 million units of 1st-party software on the Wii. Nintendo has actually published 51.4% of all software sold in the current gen home console market (PS3, Wii, X360 combined). 3rd-parties have sold a combined 18 million units of software across all current gen home console systems (360,PS3,Wii). Factoring in Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo 1st-party software, 3rd-parties have sold less than 42% of the home console market. Less than 42% for all 3rd-parties combined! That is an absolutely pathetic number.

At best, 3rd-party top titles are only matching sales of previous iterations, even though development costs are considerably higher. In most cases, top tier titles are selling worse than previous iterations, but again the development costs are still considerably higher. By choosing to avoid bringing their top tier titles to the market leader, they have essentially left themselves without a home console market to sell their product to. They have shunned the market leader, and the other two systems are too small to even begin to resemble the market from previous generations.

You are correct to assert that there was no way Resident Evil 5 or Final Fantasy XIII was going to come out on the Wii; both games were unquestionably well into development before Wii proved itself a success. Nor were other, very similar games going to go anywhere but where the trailblazers were going. Nintendo just needed to accept this (like you say) but then plan an alternate strategy around this challenge.

But they did develop an alternate strategy. As Iwata has just mentioned recently, their strategy was to come out of the gate and hit the market hard with a strong slate of 1st-party software in order to build up a sizable userbase for the Wii. Then the 3rd-parties would take notice of the strength of the Wii platform and bring their own strong efforts to the Wii near the end of year two. In this way, the 3rd-parties would arrive in time to fill out the gaps that would arise due to Nintendo's all-out blitz in the early portions of the system's life.

The part about 3rd-parties didn't work out as planned, but they definitely had a strategy in place. And on the whole, it was a masterpiece of a strategy that was executed brilliantly. The transformational shift from the Gamecube to the Wii has been absolutely unprecedented, and has left market analysts worldwide looking like complete buffoons. No strategy works out perfectly, but when taken as a whole, Nintendo's strategy was carried out far better than anyone could have ever imagined at the beginning of this generation.

Once again, people may notice that what I'm describing is basically the 360's US third-party strategy, and for good reason: Microsoft's 360 strategy has officially usurped the PSX's as the most effective third-party strategy ever.

Really? Heck, the Wii sold more 3rd-party software in 2008 than the 360 did in the USA. It's kind of hard to deem something the most effective 3rd-party strategy ever when it isn't even the current market leader.

Nintendo spent the NES and SNES era brutalizing and extorting their third parties, then lost them to a competitor who treated these developers as valued partners and undercut Nintendo's ludicrous prices in the N64 era. Drawing the conclusion "third-parties can't be trusted" from that experience is insipid; the correct conclusions to draw are "third-parties can need to be courted" and "you shouldn't rest on your laurels," neither of which Nintendo seems to be able to apply now that they are once again successful.

I agree with all your points and conclusions here. But my comment was in relation to donny 's comments about Nintendo's financial forecasts. I do believe that Nintendo does not want to formally commit to rosy financial forecasts based upon 3rd-party efforts.

 

[Datschge]

There's a reason that companies very rarely maintain the kind of cash reserves Nintendo has, and that reason is that it isn't a good way to run your business as profitably as possible. Nintendo have been far too risk-averse.

Did you write the above with a straight face? Considering that Nintendo is currently churning in record revenues and profits exactly due to risk takings in the handheld and console market where innovations were pretty static after Nintendo practically created those markets two decades ago. Considering Nintendo, without wanting a diverse business portfolio, was only able to do this kind of risk taking since they rely on having massive liquid cash as security for investors and subcontractors, especially after the steady market share downward trend they faced. And the liquid cash is more necessary than ever considering that Nintendo is maneuvering itself into a hugely increased market which, as well as the potential fall from grace again, need respective bigger security. And the best idea you are able to come up is having Nintendo giving up their liquid cash reserve and throwing that at all the risk averse companies instead? Can I have your crack?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It's hard to understand how, when Nintendo's Chairman commented that fortune is fickle and that Sony's leadership in the market can be compromised at anytime (during the PS2 years), that Nintendo fanboys don't see how this could apply to Nintendo itself. Plenty of them are acting all high and mighty with stupid GIFs, but if fortune is fickle Nintendo certainly doesn't have a monopoly on it.

Nintendo seems to realize this, which is probably why they're permanently in "squirrel storing nuts for winter" mode. It's like they're buckling down for a century-long dry spell or something.

The hardcore reside on the HD platforms in Japan and we're talking about a relatively small population with HUGE purchasing power because they sped a disproportionate amount on games compared to the normal user.

The problem is, if this is the case they've apparently spent that disproportionate amount on the upfront hardware cost, because it doesn't show in software sales. Well, I guess the X360 tie ratio is higher, but that's beyond relatively small population.

 

[gantz85]

The problem is, if this is the case they've apparently spent that disproportionate amount on the upfront hardware cost, because it doesn't show in software sales. Well, I guess the X360 tie ratio is higher, but that's beyond relatively small population.

Really? I'm extremely surprised if this is the case : O

Can I have the stats for JP tie ratios and all that jazz? Units sold blah..

 

[BishopLamont]

The Wii has already sold a ton of hardware, so they pretty much have the same problem. The Wii needs to sell more software. It also needs to get the kotaku gamers to jump on board.

The Wii doesn't have a problem selling software. If we're talking about third party software, well then that's on third parties to solve, there's only so much Nintendo can and is willing to do. This is the only generation where the market leader in both handheld and console is forced to hand bags of money over to third parties to develop for their consoles, ridiculously absurd (DS excluding, since third parties were more wiser on that platform). With the economy's downturn, it makes things a whole lot clearer. I don't think Nintendo even cares that much, their software still sells and they're still bringing in alot of money, I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's third parties that are losing out.

PSP hung around the low 20k's for some fairly extended periods as well actually.

The Wii has been doing <20k for months now. That's different then the PSP's situation.

 

[RyuKanSan]

quick question:

last generation did Sony invest heavily in 3rd parties...or was it a given that since the ps2 had this large userbase that they would automatically put their AAA games on it?

if the latter is true, why isn't this the case for Nintendo this generation?

 

[BishopLamont]

quick question:

last generation did Sony invest heavily in 3rd parties...or was it a given that since the ps2 had this large userbase that they would automatically put their AAA games on it?

if the latter is true, why isn't this the case for Nintendo this generation?

Third parties gave the PS2 full support from the get-go like you thought, so logically they did the same thing when it came to the PS3 and banked on it too. That's why Nintendo isn't getting the support. One big example: FFXIII was announced for the PS3 before we even knew anything about the next-gen of consoles.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Really? I'm extremely surprised if this is the case : O

Can I have the stats for JP tie ratios and all that jazz? Units sold blah..

Others have somewhat more comprehensive software data than I do, but going with what I have with Famitsu through the week starting April 20 (I'm just getting to work adding in the double week that followed)...

Wii software: 27,328,145
Wii hardware: 8,020,280
Wii tie: 3.4

PS3 software: 9,293,211
PS3 hardware: 3,117,925
PS3 tie: 3.0

X360 software: 4,421,066
X360 hardware: 1,028,572
X360 tie: 4.3

Since there's more software not in there, take those as "greater than or equal to" values I guess.

quick question:

last generation did Sony invest heavily in 3rd parties...or was it a given that since the ps2 had this large userbase that they would automatically put their AAA games on it?

if the latter is true, why isn't this the case for Nintendo this generation?

They didn't need to do the work with PS2, because they were already the presumed market leaders due to whatever they did with PS1.

 

[d[-_-]b]

Others have somewhat more comprehensive software data than I do, but going with what I have with Famitsu through the week starting April 20 (I'm just getting to work adding in the double week that followed)...

Wii software: 27,328,145
Wii hardware: 8,020,280
Wii tie: 3.4

PS3 software: 9,293,211
PS3 hardware: 3,117,925
PS3 tie: 3.0

X360 software: 4,421,066
X360 hardware: 1,028,572
X360 tie: 4.3


Since there's more software not in there, take those as "greater than or equal to" values I guess.

Can we get a breakdown of first/third party software sales out of those total software sold?

 

[Datschge]

...or was it a given that since the ps2 had this large userbase that they would automatically put their AAA games on it?

I don't know if you were around back then, but the PS2 was initially often laughed at as a DVD player with video playing capability, since as such it sold great without having any major games released for it initially. The major 3rd party games started appearing roughly two years in when the PS2 was a solid market leader already. According to Iwata's QA that's the same timescale Nintendo expected for DS and Wii. With the DS this worked out, with the Wii it didn't for reasons "unknown".

 

[gantz85]

Can we get a breakdown of first/third party software sales out of those total software sold?

Sounds good.

Tie ratio looking great for Nintendo though.

 

[BishopLamont]

Can we get a breakdown of first/third party software sales out of those total software sold?

Here's PS3's:

PS3 software: 9,293,211
PS3 third party software: 9,293,211 (roughly)

I don't know if you were around back then, but the PS2 was initially often laughed at as a DVD player with video playing capability, since as such it sold great without having any major games released for it initially. The major games started appearing roughly two years in when the PS2 was a solid market leader. According to Iwata's QA that's the same timescale Nintendo expected for DS and Wii. With the DS this worked out, with the Wii it didn't for reasons "unknown".

and games take 2+ years to develop.

lol? no first party on PS3 in Japan?

Statistical noise.

 

[d[-_-]b]

Here's PS3's:

PS3 software: 9,293,211
PS3 third party software: 9,293,211 (roughly)

lol? no first party on PS3 in Japan?

 

[RyuKanSan]

it kinda of sounds like a blind "follow the leader." cept it didnt work in this generation

 

[charlequin]

Nintendo is far and away the top of the pack in this industry when it comes to long-term consistency and overall volume in profits. No one else even comes close. Trying to suggest that Nintendo should follow the lead of others in this industry when it comes to profits is just downright ridiculous.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that across the board. Nintendo's plan to break from the pack on graphical upgrades and instead focus on new control styles was obviously a fantastic idea with both DS and Wii. Furthermore, both other manufacturers consistently take on too much risk in some areas, and in comparison Nintendo's policy of pricing hardware is a fairly wise choice that has allowed them to survive lean periods of sales.

But that doesn't mean that Nintendo's arch-conservatism is therefore correct across the board. Maintaining a cash cushion against downturns is wise, but Nintendo's is excessively huge. A better use of that money would be to invest it towards new profitable ventures -- third-party partnerships, more extensive downloadable content releases, new features for DS and Wii customers, etc.

(Re: "easily," perhaps that's a strong word, but whatever effort it would have taken third-parties as a whole to accomplish this goal, Nintendo could have accomplished it 10 times more easily.)

Yeah, Nintendo is responsible for the success or failure of the Wii. It is their product, and they take the blame or credit for it.

But the discussion was related to 3rd-parties.

The Wii has gone from an unquestioned success to a (temporary) failure in Japan, and the reason why is tightly bound up in third-party relations -- because the problem is that there isn't enough software, or diverse enough software, to satisfy purchasers anymore.

You could make an argument here that the problem is just that Nintendo didn't commission enough internal projects, but I'm not sure that's really an ideal answer -- the amount of development that the most talented teams inside Nintendo can take on is limited by their size, so after a certain point good third-party software is almost certain to more efficiently support a console compared to trying to squeeze out a full palette of software from a single publishing house.

As donny pointed out in the beginning of all this, the discussion was that 3rd-parties have left themselves without a home console market by choosing to ignore the market leader.

But how much of a problem is this in reality? Are console gamer dollars better than handheld gamer dollars somehow?

If there's a real "problem" in play numerically in today's market, it's the bigger platform split between the Western and Eastern markets: DS and PSP are the dominating platforms at home, while the DS sells mostly first-party software and the PSP is essentially dead in the US; 360 has excellent software sales and the PS3 reasonably solid ones over here, while in Japan both are unambiguous loser systems. But the obvious solution to arbitrage this situation is to develop PS360 titles with a Western appeal while hitting DS and PSP with titles that fit their own markets -- i.e. the strategy that's put Capcom at the top of the heap in terms of Japanese third parties this generation.

I don't disagree that there was a possibility for a different market, where third-party Wii games sold well in both territories and provided a PS2-lite "safe" development environment, but any one given third-party isn't going to be making their own decisions based on what will happen to the whole market -- only to what will make their own numbers look the best. In many individual cases, the specifics of their existing products (all those FF, RE, etc. titles that obviously were going to go HD), business arrangements (like the first-party money that put Tales, etc. on the systems they were on), and other factors kept most companies from seeing much benefit in diving in alone to the Wii, and only some of them really seem to have unambiguously made a bad call for their own purposes in retrospect.

But they did develop an alternate strategy. As Iwata has just mentioned recently, their strategy was to come out of the gate and hit the market hard with a strong slate of 1st-party software in order build up a sizable userbase for the Wii. Then the 3rd-parties would take notice of the strength of the Wii platform and bring their own strong efforts to the Wii near the end of year two.

Let me rephrase: they needed to develop an alternate strategy that wasn't shitty.

(I would argue that this strategy is self-evidently shitty because it didn't work, and also because it trusts third-parties to act in what you perceive as their best interest rather than in truly taking the "untrustworthy third-parties" idea to heart and trying to push them into doing what you want.)

And on the whole, it was a masterpiece of a strategy that was executed brilliantly.

I don't think you can really mush everything together here. The Wii strategy (release a low-power system with expanded-market software and an innovative new control scheme) worked brilliantly, but the basics of that strategy are completely agnostic to third-party relations; you could do everything that actually made Wii a success and still take a very different approach to getting other developers on board. It's very specifically in this latter part that I'm isolating the poor strategy on Nintendo's part.

Really? Heck, the Wii sold more 3rd-party software in 2008 than the 360 did in the USA. It's kind of hard to deem something the most effective 3rd-party strategy ever when it isn't even the current market leader.

Being the market leader is a separate metric of success from whether one's third-party strategy is good -- which is really the point I'm trying to drive home here. The 360's strategy has allowed Microsoft to form ongoing collaborations with many developers, to pare down their own internal teams while continuing to offer lots of exclusive (or console-exclusive, or time-exclusive) titles, to dominate third-party console exclusives even in Japan where they should by rights have none (without having to pay-in-full for many of them)... It's hard to point to almost any point where Microsoft could actively be doing better in terms of dealing with third parties.

I do believe that Nintendo does not want to formally commit to rosy financial forecasts based upon 3rd-party efforts.

Fair.

Did you write the above with a straight face?

Yes, I did. Nintendo is fundamentally an extremely conservative company; even the "risk" that was the Wii was only really possible because they had essentially zero console marketshare to really challenge, and the DS -- their one true big market risk -- was undertaken with a massive "third pillar" hedge built in to protect them from its possible failure.

Again, nothing I said is untrue: companies generally don't keep cash on hand above a certain point because that cash is better invested into projects that will produce a better ROI, Nintendo keeps far more cash than most, and taking on more major initiatives that step outside of Nintendo's extremely small comfort bubble (unwilling to deal with third-parties, unwilling to consider radically reinventing their existing IPs and adding more diverse new IPs to their stable, unwilling to take a chance on localizing franchises or working with more Western developers in general, etc.) would almost certainly be beneficial for them as a whole and help shore up some of their current weaknesses without actually harming their fundamental successes.

 

[gtj1092]

Why do people assume that if major third party games were available on the Wii from day one that the people who purchased those games for PS360 would of forgone their purchase of an HD console and purchased a Wii and those games instead?

Only if those games were exclusive to Wii(those forcing the rest of us to purchase a Wii to play the games we wanted), do I think that there would be a significant change in the situation that the market is in today.

 

[Datschge]

and games take 2+ years to develop.

Of course this mostly depend on the kind and scale of the game itself as well as how messed up the management is. The latter seems to be the bigger problem this gen.

 

[Dalthien]

Can we get a breakdown of first/third party software sales out of those total software sold?

Using Captain Smoker's charts (based on Famitsu data),

Wii:

Total software - 28,419,003
1st-party - 22,129,233
3rd-party - 6,289,770

PS3:

Total software - 9,967,364
1st-party - 2,251,004
3rd-party - 7,716,360

360:

Total software - 4,673,422
1st-party - 690,012
3rd-party - 3,983,410

 

[d[-_-]b]

Using Captain Smoker's charts (based on Famitsu data),

Wii:

Total software - 28,419,003
1st-party - 22,129,233
3rd-party - 6,289,770

PS3:

Total software - 9,967,364
1st-party - 2,251,004
3rd-party - 7,716,360

360:

Total software - 4,673,422
1st-party - 690,012
3rd-party - 3,983,410

And thanks both of you for the data...
Well proof enough for me third parties are doing something wrong....

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Can we get a breakdown of first/third party software sales out of those total software sold?

Wii
Nintendo/Pokémon: 35 games for 21,763,967
Other: 92 games for 5,564,178

PS3
SCE: 24 games for 2,217,374
Other: 73 games for 7,075,837

X360
Microsoft: 25 games for 985,643
Other: 159 games for 3,435,423


Note that for all of these, budget releases add to the game count.

As a related point, Nintendo is nearing the top numbers sold by any publisher on PS2. The top is Konami, whose current total is 21,878,025. However, if we combine Square Enix, Square, and Enix as if they were one company through the whole generation, they're currently at 25,261,690.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

I don't know if you were around back then, but the PS2 was initially often laughed at as a DVD player with video playing capability, since as such it sold great without having any major games released for it initially. The major 3rd party games started appearing roughly two years in when the PS2 was a solid market leader already. According to Iwata's QA that's the same timescale Nintendo expected for DS and Wii. With the DS this worked out, with the Wii it didn't for reasons "unknown".

Sony had the support, but a lot of the stronger games took a year to materialize due to factors like the learning curve for the new platform, and reluctance to move away from it's very strong predecessor. The huge examples are FFX, MGS2, GT3, and GTAIII. Any system being dry for truly great software during it's first year is nothing new. The market leader being dry for great 3rd party software two years in seems a lot more unique. I was rather surprised when we didn't get many announcements for the Wii last E3.

A halfway decent reference is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_2_games

and it's sortable - more so if you import it into a spreadsheet.

It might also be worth looking at other systems that data is available for.

Edit: Thread is moving way too fast.

 

[charlequin]

last generation did Sony invest heavily in 3rd parties...or was it a given that since the ps2 had this large userbase that they would automatically put their AAA games on it?

Sony carried over positive relationships that they forged during the PSX generation by giving third parties excellent deals far better than what Nintendo was offering, providing co-promotional agreements, and so on. (The advantage of launching the successor to a market-leader system with strong third-party support is that you have a lot less work to do to carry over that support this time around.) The third-party development didn't really take off until year ~2 of the PS2's release, but it's not because almost anyone was seriously considering going somewhere else.

 

[Neo C.]

Again, nothing I said is untrue: companies generally don't keep cash on hand above a certain point because that cash is better invested into projects that will produce a better ROI, Nintendo keeps far more cash than most, and taking on more major initiatives that step outside of Nintendo's extremely small comfort bubble (unwilling to deal with third-parties, unwilling to consider radically reinventing their existing IPs and adding more diverse new IPs to their stable, unwilling to take a chance on localizing franchises or working with more Western developers in general, etc.) would almost certainly be beneficial for them as a whole and help shore up some of their current weaknesses without actually harming their fundamental successes.

While I agree that Nintendo is quite conservative financial wise, I don't think they have too much money in the bank. On contrary I would bet the business will be even more risky in the next generation and a major failure could result in bigger loss than MS and Sony have experienced in the last two gen.
A lot of companies (whatever products they make) are saving money like crazy right now, the financial crisis shows that those companies which can make investment on their own are the winner this time.


Also, interests are quite high because of the financial crisis, 10% or more isn't anything special currently. A lot of actually healthy companies are in trouble now because they can't get the credits for their business.

 

[RyuKanSan]

Others have somewhat more comprehensive software data than I do, but going with what I have with Famitsu through the week starting April 20 (I'm just getting to work adding in the double week that followed)...

Wii software: 27,328,145
Wii hardware: 8,020,280
Wii tie: 3.4

PS3 software: 9,293,211
PS3 hardware: 3,117,925
PS3 tie: 3.0

X360 software: 4,421,066
X360 hardware: 1,028,572
X360 tie: 4.3

Since there's more software not in there, take those as "greater than or equal to" values I guess.

so wat does this mean exactly

 

[Datschge]

Yes, I did. Nintendo is fundamentally an extremely conservative company; even the "risk" that was the Wii was only really possible because they had essentially zero console marketshare to really challenge, and the DS -- their one true big market risk -- was undertaken with a massive "third pillar" hedge built in to protect them from its possible failure.

Again, nothing I said is untrue: companies generally don't keep cash on hand above a certain point because that cash is better invested into projects that will produce a better ROI, Nintendo keeps far more cash than most, and taking on more major initiatives that step outside of Nintendo's extremely small comfort bubble (unwilling to deal with third-parties, unwilling to consider radically reinventing their existing IPs and adding more diverse new IPs to their stable, unwilling to take a chance on localizing franchises or working with more Western developers in general, etc.) would almost certainly be beneficial for them as a whole and help shore up some of their current weaknesses without actually harming their fundamental successes.

But you are completely ridiculing yourself by comparing a single market company that Nintendo is with the kind of conglomerate companies that Sony is and that Microsoft tries to be. Sony and Microsoft have the massive revenue streams completely independent from their video game business which can and do keep them afloat as companies even while they are regularly gathering above nine digits losses in their video game business itself. The mere fact that they are diversified helps with investors and subcontractors not dropping support at the first sight of a crisis. Nintendo has not this luxury at all, their video game is the core business which needs to offer all security necessary. If Nintendo's video game business goes down the drain market share wise (like from N64 to GC) the cash reserve is the only part which keeps the company afloat, without it investors and subcontractors would quickly lose interest and Nintendo would go the way of Sega (just look up Sega's history after Isao Okawa, who financed it with personal money, died in 2001).

You could make the point Nintendo should diversify to get on the same level as Sony and Microsoft for not having to rely on liquid cash reserve anymore. But even in that case risk-averse companies in the video game industry are the last to see a cent of such investments.

 

[Glix]

As for the B-level titles, Nintendo has actually done a fairly decent job of getting the 3rd-parties to bring those over to the Wii. They've had spinoffs for stuff like Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Soul Calibur. And they've had other stuff like DragonBall Z, One Piece, Trauma Center, Gundam, Bleach, Harvest Moon, Tales of Symphonia, Victorious Boxers, MySims, Cooking Mama, Sonic, Nights, Naruto, Opoona, etc

You see, when you look at it like this, there really is a lot of 3rd party support.

The problem is, that a lot of these games were BAD, especially the early ones.
Stuff like RE:UC really made me feel like the Wii was home of the quick cash in, that game could have been really great if done well.

Sega has really tried, I believe that all the way. Like, the Sonic games have been pretty bad, but at least they seemed to have the same amount of work and love put in them as the HD Sonic games coming out.

Lastly, the motion controls are a HUGE problem. Except when they fit a game perfectly (Boom Blox) they DO NOT OFFER THE LEVEL OF CONTROL NEEDED FOR ANY TYPE OF QUALITY HARDCORE GAMING EXPERIENCE. I'M REALLY HOPING THAT WIIMOTION + WILL USHER IN A NEW ERA OF WII SOFTWARE, BOTH THIRD AND FIRST PARTY. Think about it, if a company offered a wheel, that worked at the level of Wiimote + wheel shell, they would be laughed out of the industry. Using the N brand light gun shell is a horrible joke. This controller is somewhat brilliant at first blush, but I have soured on it TREMENDOUSLY, and I'm really hoping WM+ will be the answer I have been looking for.

Stealth edit: Imagine the Taiko drums that shipped with the PS2 version, or the Samba Maracas for the DC worked as poorly as their Wii-mote Controlled ports. Those games never would have been as popular as they became. The Wiimote makes the Wii a system of compromises both graphically and with the input device. I guess 3rd parties aren't willing to put their heart and soul and $ into a system where they have to make so many compromises.

 

[charlequin]

But you are completely ridiculing yourself by comparing a single market company that Nintendo is with the kind of conglomerate companies that Sony is and that Microsoft tries to be. Sony and Microsoft have the massive revenue streams completely independent from their video game business which can and do keep them afloat as companies even while they are regularly gathering above nine digits losses in their video game business itself.

At best, you're not making an argument that Nintendo isn't fucking up in this context, only that market forces are forcing them to fuck up, which, well... :lol

Really, though, this is just obscuring the sheer quantity of held cash Nintendo has -- $9 billion (not even incorporating other cash-like assets like short-term investments), accompanied by a lack of debt. Now, I'm not advocating that their immediate reaction to every stimulus should be to dip into this reserve, but when an opportunity to make an investment with a solid return appears, they should be aiming to take advantage of it rather than passing it up -- and their cash reserves prove that they always have the ability to do so when such an opportunity comes up. Investments in third-party relationships have a proven track record, and if Nintendo had actually tried to make some this generation they might not be looking at their console slip into PS3-like pathetic Japanese sales.

 

[Datschge]

At best, you're not making an argument that Nintendo isn't fucking up in this context, only that market forces are forcing them to fuck up, which, well...

Eh? Given the choice and generalizing everything like you do, about whose state would one be more worried in the current environment: Nintendo or 3rd parties?

Now, I'm not advocating that their immediate reaction to every stimulus should be to dip into this reserve, but when an opportunity to make an investment with a solid return appears, they should be aiming to take advantage of it rather than passing it up -- and their cash reserves prove that they always have the ability to do so when such an opportunity comes up.

So far so good, and the financial results briefings and QA's repeatedly showed that Nintendo is looking at making investments in areas where industry defining technologies and inventions may arise. And that they have been doing for ages (I recall investments in Rambus and other extra fast RAM memory development, holographic memory storage etc. surely plenty other stuff I can't recall or missed altogether). DS and Wii are the most obvious product realizations of this approach which wouldn't have been possible to be realized as industry surprises otherwise.

Investments in third-party relationships have a proven track record, and if Nintendo had actually tried to make some this generation they might not be looking at their console slip into PS3-like pathetic Japanese sales.

I don't see the "proven track record" you are talking about here, unless you mean the proven money pit that is Microsoft (arguably) better 3rd party relations. I'm not even sure if by "proven track record" you mean actual profitable investments in third-party relationships. One such in Nintendo's case are the Western releases of the Prof. Layton game, and it looks like Nintendo aims to do the same with Dragon Quest and possibly Monster Hunter 3 in the West. What cases of investments in third-party relationships which are already proven to be profitable for Nintendo (and as such silly for them to not to realize) are you thinking there are?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Why would nintendo Kowtow to publishers that left them high and dry not so much as 5 years ago?

The only thing Nintendo "owes" third party publishers is a successful platform to release games on. This is precisely what they did with the DS, it should have been no different with the Wii.

As it stands, third parties now have a choice; either get their asses on the winning team or die a slow, painful death. The companies that positioned themselves properly will inevitably take their place.

 

[Dalthien]

Investments in third-party relationships have a proven track record, and if Nintendo had actually tried to make some this generation they might not be looking at their console slip into PS3-like pathetic Japanese sales.

Edit: Datschge already beat me to this point. Oh well.

What exactly is your definition of 'proven track record'?

A proven track record of ensuring that you get a better selection of 3rd-party titles released on your system? Yeah, I'll buy that.

A proven track record of increased profitability? I haven't seen any proof whatsoever of this. Taking Microsoft as your supposed best 3rd-party strategy ever (which I find to be a laughable statement given that the 360 isn't even the current 3rd-party system leader in North America), I have yet to see any proven track record of investing in 3rd parties leading to profits.

The XBox lost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4 billion. And even with all the added investments in 3rd-party relations, the 360 is currently sitting at another $3 billion or $4 billion loss. Even with a profitable final few years on the market, the best case scenario for the 360 is probably something like a $2 billion or $2.5 billion loss.

Granted, there are numerous reasons for those losses, but I surely don't see any 'proven track record' that all of Microsoft's vaunted 3rd-party efforts have resulted in increased profitability.

Since fiscal year 2002, Microsoft has lost nearly $7 billion in the gaming division. Meanwhile in that same timeframe Nintendo has made about $16.5 billion in profits. Yet, you can't seem to lavish enough praise on Microsoft's strategies, and enough condemnation of Nintendo's strategies when it comes to 3rd-party relations. I suppose if your goal is to get more quality games on your system, then sure, Microsoft has certainly achieved that goal. If the goal is to actually bolster profitability - then no, I haven't seen any 'proven track record' at all from Microsoft's end.

 

[Pureauthor]

Why would nintendo Kowtow to publishers that left them high and dry not so much as 5 years ago?

*looks at weekly Wii sales*

Oh, I could think of a couple reasons.

The only thing Nintendo "owes" third party publishers is a successful platform to release games on. This is precisely what they did with the DS, it should have been no different with the Wii.

As it stands, third parties now have a choice; either get their asses on the winning team or die a slow, painful death. The companies that positioned themselves properly will inevitably take their place.

What is the 'winning team' here? As of right, now, it's not the Wii - it's stumbling as badly as the PS3 is, and I hope no one here denies that the PS3 is a humongous screwup.

Will 3rd parties suffer? Yes, they will, and probably more than Nintendo. But to claim that Nintendo doesn't (or shouldn't) give a rat's arse seems to me to be wholly incorrect.

 

[kswiston]

Using Captain Smoker's charts (based on Famitsu data),

Wii:

Total software - 28,419,003
1st-party - 22,129,233
3rd-party - 6,289,770

PS3:

Total software - 9,967,364
1st-party - 2,251,004
3rd-party - 7,716,360

360:

Total software - 4,673,422
1st-party - 690,012
3rd-party - 3,983,410

It's crazy that the top 5 wii games account for nearly half of the total software sales (~13.4M units between them) this late in the generation. Compare that to the top 5 for both the PS3 and 360 (which make up ~20-25% of their systems' total software sales), and it's clear that Wii's software total is skewed towards a few mega hits even more so than is usually the case at this point in a console's life. Pretty hard for third parties to make up much of the total software when most Wii owners are just buying the same 5-6 first party games.

 

[Scum]

I think Nintendo should just throw some revenue @ SNES , PS1 and PS2 remakes for the Wii.
They can start with Terranigma and Secret of Evermore. :3

On a side note, I'm just well and truely disappointed at the ineptitude and lack of versatility of 3rd party developers this gen. They'll all be well and truly fucked if everyone decides that handheld gaming is the onlyway to go...

 

[BishopLamont]

*looks at weekly Wii sales*

Oh, I could think of a couple reasons.



What is the 'winning team' here? As of right, now, it's not the Wii - it's stumbling as badly as the PS3 is, and I hope no one here denies that the PS3 is a humongous screwup.

Will 3rd parties suffer? Yes, they will, and probably more than Nintendo. But to claim that Nintendo doesn't (or shouldn't) give a rat's arse seems to me to be wholly incorrect.

Of course Nintendo cares, the more the merrier, but I doubt they're losing sleep over it. Oh and the winning team is the Wii, check the LTD sales, not the weekly sales.

It's crazy that the top 5 wii games account for nearly half of the total software sales (~13.4M units between them) this late in the generation. Compare that to the top 5 for both the PS3 and 360 (which make up ~20-25% of their systems' total software sales), and it's clear that Wii's software total is skewed towards a few mega hits even more so than is usually the case at this point in a console's life. Pretty hard for third parties to make up much of the total software when most Wii owners are just buying the same 5-6 first party games.

Why do you think they're buying these same games? Here's a hint: third party games.

 

[Zen]

Why do you think they're all buying the same games?

For the most part they are.

Sure third party games sell somewhat, but nowhere near at the same rate or volume (relative to install base on the 'volume' bit) as they do on the 360/PS3 do in Japan.

 

[Spirit Icana]

I think Nintendo should just throw some revenue @ SNES , PS1 and PS2 remakes for the Wii.
They can start with Terranigma and Secret of Evermore. :3

On a side note, I'm just well and truely disappointed at the ineptitude and lack of versatility of 3rd party developers this gen. They'll all be well and truly fucked if everyone decides that handheld gaming is the onlyway to go...

What a drunken backsided opinion, Scum.