Support NeoGAF

[Thunder Monkey]

All you have to do is rethink what a game is.

It's that simple with the Wii. No one seems to get the fucking point. I have faith in SH it has a lot of potential. If they sell it right it could do real good.

Me speaky simple talk right now. Me tired.

 

[donny2112]

That's because Wii is not PS2.

And the lack of support is also not primarily due to the controller.

Also, wow at your Wii = victim comment. WOW

How dare I use a phrase that exactly fits the situation when that phrase is sometimes used in another context which isn't even the origin of the phrase.

 

[Rolf NB]

I see buttons.

Yeah, if you look really hard, you can find a few.

If the PS2 had launched with a Wiimote motion controller, third-parties still would've fallen over themselves to make games for the system. Maybe not as heavily as they did, but thousands of leagues better than they've been doing for the Wii.

Yeah, Japanese publishers prefer Sony platforms on principle, as evidenced by their massive support for the PS3 amirite.

There's a finite pool of people with the ability to make great games. It's not possible to produce high-quality games with money alone. "Skilled labour" etc.

Not all creative types are willing or able to change what they do to address a changed audience. Some of them have a firm vision of what they want to do, what kind of experience they want to make, or maybe they just want to stick to what they do best. All they look for is an environment that allows it.

It so happens that the Wii poses a certain few problems for many traditionally successful types of games. It's not called "disruption" because everything still works as it always did.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Yeah, Japanese publishers prefer Sony platforms on principle, as evidenced by their massive support for the PS3 amirite.

They prefer to go with what they assume to be the obvious successor. If Wii and PS3 had instead been released as Sony Wii and Nintendo GameCube 2, respectively, with the companies behind each platform doing nothing different than in this reality, the Sony Wii would surely have a lot of the games this reality's PS3 has ended up with. Sony Wii Fit and Low Poly Yakuza 3 would be some of the best selling games.

Unless they reeeeally saw the motion controls as an N64 cartridge level disaster to avoid.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Cuts both ways.

Third party's reluctance to support the Wii had little to nothing to do with the controller and damn near everything to do with the company making the console.

The reason this gen turned out the way it did was because damn near every third party in both hemispheres left Nintendo for dead.

 

[donny2112]

as evidenced by their massive support for the PS3 amirite.

Compared to the Wii? Massive would be a good term to use, yes.

It's not called "disruption" because everything still works as it always did.

Definitely, and I said that the support probably wouldn't have been as heavy as it was for the PS2. At the time, there were comments that developers would bend over backwards to get their games on the PS2, though, so I'm sure a whole lot more would've found a way to make it work than have even attempted for the Wii. My point is that you can't say the controller is the main reason for the lack of third-party support in Japan.

 

[damisa]

I think DS/PSP did more to kill wii japanese support than 360/PS3. Home consoles are dieing out in japan and being replaced by handhelds.

For example, a dragon quest 9 for wii instead of DS this summer would have been huge for the home console market.

 

[[Nintex]]

Third party's don't seem to let grudges go. But if reports from Factor 5 and other companies are to be believed Nintendo didn't settle on the Wii idea untill late 2004. By then everyone was picking sides and ramping up development, Nintendo shared their plans too late and they did it again with the Motion Plus.

I don't think third party's are to blame, just look at Nintendo around 2004, they dropped the GameCube like a rock and launched a handheld that looked like a brick to compete with the very succesfull Game Boy line. Third party's are just now jumping on the Wii bandwagon for about a year or so, perhaps two. We're finally getting some quality content from all kinds of developers. If I was a Japanese publisher, I would've backed the PS3, instead of the Wii up untill the second half of 2007.

Nintendo's succes was as much as a surprise for us and third party's as it was for Nintendo. In Europe they didn't even had the logistics in place to be 'market leader'. They even somewhat messed up the Galaxy launch and didn't sort shit out untill Q1 2008.

 

[Quixzlizx]

I'm sensing rage through the interwebs.

Wanna talk 'bout it?

This is a terrible post.

 

[birdchili]

nintendo suggesting that they believed third parties would pick up the slack on wii like they did on ds is a bit rich though... they've owned the handheld market forever, and the ds, while providing some new interface options, had a full complement of old-style buttons to work with.

wii not only drastically reduced the number of old-style controls available (fewer easily-accessible buttons, and no secondary (now standard) analog stick). it was also launching into a space that has historically been much more graphics-focused, as well as massively dominated by another company.

when sony launched the ps1, they had a system that was in many ways an evolution of the snes and company (notwithstanding load times). the wii was a radical rethink, without the same effort made to court conventional non-gamecube gamers (ie: the ps2 folk).

i'm not sure how much nintendo really cares, given how things are playing out in general... but i can't imagine they would have been too disappointed to have a >ps2-level success.

 

[cw_sasuke]

yep, nintendo was crazy to believe that 3rd partys will support the market leader with their best software offerings...stupid iwata

 

[Thunder Monkey]

This is a terrible post.

How so?

I was asking how you were feeling.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

So with the discussion about whether Wii is like PS1 or PS2 or what, I was wondering how the hardware was performing relative to PS1. We know it's a late bloomer that didn't really take off until its third year. Since weekly hardware sales aren't so easy to come by, shipment numbers it is.

Looks like they could go another half year-ish of lameness before falling behind.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I agree with you. But somehow, I know we are looking at this differently. Nintendo will have to destroy there own Wii eventually and form something completely new..

But why not keep riding on profits while being on top as they get there though? And it isn't like making something new is cheap, it's very expensive, far more expensive then securing relations with third parties.

As for the rest of your post, I agree, they have a huge opportunity. I'll be watching to see if they capitilize on it this year. Iwata is a smart man. I think Nintendo can pull the disruption off. Third parties will have no choice but to adapt. This will be a great industry to keep an eye on right now for those into business.

I see what you mean but this generation is already 3 years in. If the games now they won't see release for 2 and half to 3 years anyway. By then the next generation will either be one or two years away or possibly has already gotten started.

I'm not concerned about "next gen" right now. I think this Wii generation may prove longer than many expect.

I predict that too however I can see the otherwise happening. I think the Wii's power MAY catch up to it at least from a developer perspective. I'm not saying the system needs to be a beast but just strong enough to handle tons of enemies on screen, huge scaling enemies, and a tad bit more detailed environments and textures while running in HD and a steady frames per second (I'd imagine Taito Type X2 Hardware). And SONY and Microsoft really seem like they want to expand their userbase as well.

I can see why it won't happen as the current generation has much life in it and the current economy is anything but booming, but I can't deny the possibility. I just hope that Nintendo improves their output and relations with third parties as well as stitch up some other of their traditional marks by the time the next generation starts. If they can keep riding the wave until then I think they'll be fine unless they occasionally screw themselves like they did with the Nintendo 64 or SONY with the Playstation 3. Especially if what I predict comes true (standardization occurring after the next generation is complete).

Of course they should build relations with third parties. No one is saying otherwise. And in fact, I think it is a pretty safe bet that Nintendo does spend time building relationships with 3rd-parties.

But the attacks on the weak 3rd-party support at the beginning of this generation are kind of missing the forest for the trees. Nintendo had a plethora of big problems to overcome as they entered this generation if they wanted the Wii to be a far bigger success than the Gamecube.

Nintendo prioritized their focus in terms of what they needed to fix compared to last gen. 3rd-party relations were placed at a lower level of importance than other needs. And at least up to this point, that was the correct decision. Nintendo has achieved an absolutely phenomenal turnaround based on the strategy which they pursued. If they had placed less importance on some of their other needs, it is highly likely that the Wii would be in far worse shape right now than it currently is.

If they hadn't have gotten the price right, or if they didn't get the controls right, or if they didn't have the right software to launch with through the first year-and- a-half, or if they didn't have the right marketing, etc. If any of these other humungous issues were not dealt with properly, the Wii could be in a far different state right now. Let's say we replace the focus on the controller with a stronger focus on 3rd-parties. Yeah - probably not so good for the Wii. Repeat that process with a number of other areas of focus and you end up with the same result.

My point is that Nintendo created their strategy based on an overall plan wherein they focused heavily on what they could control to kick things off, and then count on the 3rd-parties to step in at a later point once the hard work of building the userbase was done. That part of the strategy didn't work out so well, but it was a part of the whole. (And as I mentioned in an earlier post, Nintendo never had any chance of getting any of the top-tier 3rd party titles at the start of this gen anyway). And the results of the whole strategy are pretty clear. The Wii has blown away every conceivable idea of what it could possibly accomplish.

To sit back and spend tons of time criticizing them at this point for the lack of 3rd-party relations is kind of like criticizing Wayne Gretzky in his prime for not spending more time in the juniors working on his physical game. If he had developed a better forecheck and a knack for hanging out in the crease, he could have scored even more goals and been an even greater help to his team. Kind of silly, isn't it? He spent his time developing the skills which carried him to his status as the best in the game. Likewise, Nintendo spent their time focused on the issues which they believed were the most important to making the Wii a bigger success than the Gamecube. And it worked. Now they can spend some more time working on 3rd-party relations, and I believe that they are doing just that. The 3rd-party relations is a valid critique, but it really misses the big picture.

I agree with what you say. And I understand that Nintendo really couldn't have predicted that the Wii would become as big of a success as of now. But why not build on third party relations AFTER their console became a stunning success. And pretending that E3 reveals a huge lineup of third party exclusives for the Wii, why now? Why not last E3 or two E3's ago? Why so late?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

nintendo suggesting that they believed third parties would pick up the slack on wii like they did on ds is a bit rich though... they've owned the handheld market forever, and the ds, while providing some new interface options, had a full complement of old-style buttons to work with.

wii not only drastically reduced the number of old-style controls available (fewer easily-accessible buttons, and no secondary (now standard) analog stick). it was also launching into a space that has historically been much more graphics-focused, as well as massively dominated by another company.

when sony launched the ps1, they had a system that was in many ways an evolution of the snes and company (notwithstanding load times). the wii was a radical rethink, without the same effort made to court conventional non-gamecube gamers (ie: the ps2 folk).

i'm not sure how much nintendo really cares, given how things are playing out in general... but i can't imagine they would have been too disappointed to have a >ps2-level success.

Sony had absolutely no inside track on Nintendo besides time and ended up crushing the N64 worldwide, in both sales and 3rd party support. Why would it be specious to assume the same would be possible with the Wii?

 

[Eteric Rice]

I'm still more or less surprised at Japan not jumping on the Wii. I think that's one of the big issues in Japan right now. One game is on this console, the other is on the other one, etc. Everything is fragmented as fuck right now and I don't think the general gamers who would enjoy these games feel like buying a bunch of consoles so they can play what they played last generation on one.

The other is handhelds of course, but I think it helped handhelds a lot that they're cheaper, and the series on each handheld don't flip flop around nearly as much.

 

[Jokeropia]

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

Wii has had some weeks in the high tens recently I suppose, but I don't see a significant difference between say ~17k and ~23k.

According to JJS's numbers Nintendo has released 35 Wii games to a little less than 22 million units of sales. Take way the top 5 and you're left with 30 games selling less than 9 million units between them. You may be able to argue that low third party sales are due to low quality games, but there are plenty of first rate titles in the leftover 30 titles listed above.

There are no first rate titles among them if we're talking selling potential and IP strength.

Wii Sports and Wii Fit were something new, and they did a good job of getting people to buy a video game system when they never bothered buying one previously. However some of those new people were only interested in Wii Sports or Wii Fit, and will never be interested in things like Mario Galaxy or Monster Hunter 3.

And yet Mario Galaxy has handily outsold every PS3 game and MH3 most likely will as well.

The Wii is the number one selling console for one and one reason only. Because its targeted to the previously "unseen" biggest consumer market. There really is no other market that isn't already targeted in the gaming market as of now, so the untapped market success can't happen again.?

Actually, the majority of the Wii's userbase is the same demographic as the majority of the PS2's userbase. Casual gamers.

 

[charlequin]

I'm sorry. Maybe I missed something, or maybe my memory is faulty, but I would appreciate it if you could remind me where I ever tried to argue that whatever the market leader does is good and whatever the second-place system does is bad. I don't recall ever making that argument.

It's the implicit backdrop to your argument below: "360 isn't winning, so it can't possibly be doing the best at thing X."

To somehow believe that the 360 can actually not be the leading 3rd-party software system of its own time, and can somehow still be the best 3rd-party strategy of all time is just silly. Sony came into the PS1 with absolutely no prior home console experience. They launched their first system ever, scooped up tons of 3rd-party support from the competition, destroyed the competition in marketshare for the generation, and actually made some nice profit to boot off the system.

Well, you didn't address my point about metrics. There are lots of ways that 360 can potentially be winning by metrics that a potential third-party developer would consider (average per-title sales, sales in relation to budget, projected sales boost from co-marketing, etc.) that wouldn't be reflected in total software sales numbers. It's possible to explain the 360's consistent lead in third-party development through stubbornness or irrationality, but it's also possible to assume that some of these factors are in play and greenlighting a 360 game is in some sense "better" than greenlighting a Wii game in a vacuum.

There's also a context issue in play. Sony's third-party strategy was almost unquestionably the most effective, because they brought it into play at the right moment: there was a huge well of discontent with Nintendo, and Sony had the technical tools (i.e. optical media) to cut devs a huge deal.

Microsoft's strategy is just a refinement of Sony's; they're using the same basic tools but they've done a slightly better job overall in identifying good pick-ups and building ongoing relationships, and they don't have quite as much cross-interference between different regional HQs. But Sony's PSX third-party strategy was paired with an excellently-priced system going up against anemic competition, whereas Microsoft paired its strategy to an overpriced system with terrible reliability that's up against the Wii juggernaut.

Or, in other words: imagine the Wii (already selling better than the PSX) with a comparable third-party strategy, and think of what that would do to its overall performance.

3rd-party relations were placed at a lower level of importance than other needs. And at least up to this point, that was the correct decision.

I think the real sticking point for me here is that I don't actually see any reason that effectively courting third parties would have had to detract from any of Nintendo's numerous positive steps with the Wii. Third party relations are generally dealt with by a separate division within a company compared to managing first-party development (and I think there's lots of wiggle room between where Wii's 3rd party support is now, and the point at which it starts to interfere with 1st party titles' success), and Nintendo is not operating in a cash-limited or deficit-spending situation in which they are unable to afford an increase in expenditure on worthwhile tasks.

Not all creative types are willing or able to change what they do to address a changed audience.

There's a little bit of accuracy to this "creative types" argument, but I think it's severely overplayed. The creative types have always been slaves to the bean-counters in this industry, and previous major shifts in the content of games (look at the death of 2d and the almost complete change in genre popularity that accompanied it) have not been met with anything like the same kind of resistance.

I think dislike of Nintendo as an organization and self-fulfilling "teh kiddie!" prophecy are far more accurate reads for the third-party resistance than the wiimote, like, totally harshing their vibes, man.

 

[gantz85]

dp

 

[gantz85]

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

Well, simple analysis:

(1) Third Party Software sales (Units): PS3 > Wii :: 7.07m > 5.56m
(1b) Third Party Avg. Software Sales (Units): PS3 > Wii :: 0.09m > 0.06m
(2) Hardware sales (units): Wii > PS3 :: 8.00m > 3.15m
(3) Third Party Attach rate: PS3 > Wii :: 2.35 > 0.69


In simple English:

(1) Third parties have sold more units on PS3 than Wii.
(1b) Third parties have sold more units on average per title on PS3 than Wii (90,000 to 60,000) *Note Wii has 25% more third party games than PS3 (92 vs 73)
(2) This is despite Wii having an installbase 2.54x larger than PS3.
(3) In fact, if you look at it, PS3 owners on average own 2.35 third party games in Japan. In contrast, Wii owners on average own 0.69 third party game(s) in Japan.



For every 4 PS3 owners, there are 10 third party games bought (Yakuza, MGS4 etc.)
For every 14 Wii owners, there are 10 third party games bought (MH, etc.)


So yes, the Wii has a great attach rate... for Nintendo.. :lol

 

[birdchili]

Sony had absolutely no inside track on Nintendo besides time and ended up crushing the N64 worldwide, in both sales and 3rd party support. Why would it be specious to assume the same would be possible with the Wii?

all i'm saying is that it's a bit naive to suggest that the ds situation is equivalent. the ds wasn't necessarily expected to outsell the psp by as much as it did, but it was a market that nintendo already dominated, and the system itself didn't require the same software paradigm shift that wii does. lots of the major console game trends of late (online multiplayer infrastructure, large worlds, "realism") are somewhat contrary to the wii design strengths.

jjs's ps1 vs wii graph is really interesting though, with ps1 sales overall lower at this point, but with definite momentum.

 

[-Kh-]

Please, this is China and India, not Peru and Bolivia. China at least is familiar with graphics as advanced as WoW, since that game basically owns the country right now. India, who knows, but they basically are the labor force behind high-tech stuff so they aren't getting fooled.

I can't believe you are being so... um.. racist.

Do people from Peru and Bolivia don't have access to high-end PC technology? Do people there have no access to 360, PS3, Wii, iPhone, etc? There's no HDTV or Bluray markets there? Is people still communicating with each other via smoke signals?

Dude, what the hell are you talking about. I'm not from either country, but I'm from South America, and your comment is extremely stupid. In SA we don't live in top of trees or inside caves you know?

 

[Spiegel]

And the lack of support is also not primarily due to the controller.



How dare I use a phrase that exactly fits the situation when that phrase is sometimes used in another context which isn't even the origin of the phrase.

The lack of support is primarily due to Nintendo doing nothing effective to promote 3rd party developments. And surely changing the controller didn't help.

But okay, we can say Wii is a victim. A victim of Nintendo's policies.
This is not a case of the poor little Nintendo being harassed by the bad bad third party publishers.

 

[gantz85]

Here are the top 20 for Wii and PS3 in Japan, taken directly from (http://www.japan-gamecharts.com/). Sorry for the blurry quality. Also I think the website has some outdated figures but it'll do for now! *I'm doing some manual calculations so forgive any miscalculations and please inform me ASAP!


http://www.japan-gamecharts.com/wii.php

Nintendo dominated, obviously. Including Pokemon, Nintendo occupy 16 out of the first 20 best sellers on Wii.


http://www.japan-gamecharts.com/ps3.php

Sony occupy 3 out of the first 20 best sellers on PS3.



A little bit more analysis:

(1) PS3's top-selling title is also a third party title - MGS4 at 700,000 units. This outsells the Wii's top-selling third party title which is Taiko no Tatsujin at 520,000 units by 35%.

----------

(2) If we look at the top 4 third-party titles on the Wii Top 20, they add up to roughly 1.5 million units in sales. The top 4 third-party titles on the PS3 Top 20 add up to roughly 2 million units. If you take out MGS4 and take the next top 4 third-party titles on the PS3, they add up to 1.65 million units in sales.

----------

(3) The Wii's top few games in its Top 20 farrrrrr outsell the PS3s. :lol

Top 5: Wii (13.46m) > PS3 (2.38m) [5.65x]
Top 10: Wii (18.06m) > PS3 (4.00m) [4.5x]

So Wii's Top 5 games have outsold PS3 Top 5 by more than 5 times, while its Top 10 has outsold PS3's Top 10 by 4.5 times.

----------

(3) How about taking into account data about Wii being top-heavy? Let's look at the top 11-20 for Wii vs PS3.

Top 11-20: Wii (3.73m) > PS3 (1.88m)

Wii's Top 11-20 outsells PS3 by 2 times! It's a shrinking lead. Let's investigate that further.


(4) Wii's no. 20 title is Link's Crossbow Training at 227,000 units.
PS3's no.20 title is Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire at 146,000 units.

Wii n20 outsells PS3 n20 by 55% or 0.55 times.

Wii's no.30 title is Family Trainer at 131,000 units.
PS3's no.30 title is Disgaea 3 at 93,000 units.

Wii n30 outsells PS3 n30 by 40% or 0.40 times.

...
...
...

Wii's no.80 title is Tatsunoko Vs. Capcom at 26,000 units.
PS3's no.80 title is Untold Legend at 12,000 units.

Wii n80 outsells PS3 n80 by 116% or 1.16 times.

----------

(5) So while Wii's ratio sales lead is diminishing throughout the Top 30~ ish, it actually rebounds towards the end! Wii's lower rung titles actually maintain to hold on to their sales power more than PS3's, which diminishes more quickly. However, Wii also has 25% more software titles so it's a slightly unfair situation for comparison.

But consider that Wii's hardware base is 2.5x larger than PS3's. All things considered you will expect 2.5x the software sales performance. In this aspect, Wii has outperformed itself in the Top 5 (5.5x) and Top 10 (4.5x) against the PS3. After that though, the Wii isn't performing as it should. Wii Top 11-20 outsold PS3's by only 2x, meaning it underperformed against the benchmark 2.5x. Outside of the Top 20 the Wii continued to underperform more and more.

So, Nintendo dominate the Wii Top 20. And Wii software sales falter against its hardware size advantage outside the Top 20. Coincidence? (Fuck not I'm just being smarmy). The Wii's success in Japan is completely propelled by Nintendo's software. In fact, the Wii Top 5 alone (13.46m) has outsold the entire PS3 lifetime software unit sales (9.2m).

There's so much more to talk about here but I don't have the time.. I think at the end of the day, it actually SEEMS like, there isn't much between Wii and PS3 to choose from for third-party developers in Japan. In fact the data tells us that top third-party developers can sell more on the PS3 than the Wii (higher max unit sales, top 5 PS3 third party > top 5 Wii third party [units sales]). Average unit sales for third-party developers is also higher on the PS3.

I think that Capcom choosing to put MH3 and SQEX choosing to put DQX on the Wii were misguided decisions if they were thinking that they would automatically get better software sales by virtue of a larger hardware base. If Nintendo went the route of moniehats then I would understand, and more power to them. My guess is that for MH3 and DQX to be bigggg successes they will actually need to tap into that Nintendo charm to casuals and "casualize" the games.

Also, if PS3 continues to sell at 9,000 units, the Wii must sell 23,000 units a week to maintain its hardware gap. Otherwise, its current sales performance at ~12,000 units will see the gap continue to grow -- but at a much slower pace.



Hope people learned a bit out of this.

 

[Johann]

The only thing I'm learning is that blockbuster PS3 games aren't selling all that well. All of these games cost exponentially more than the previous installments and take more time to develop than their predecessors but don't sell as well. Only DMC4 has sold more than its predecessor. These blockbusters are very reliant on the Western market and a 360 version for sales. These games have are mostly established IPs with very powerful brands. Just look at the numbers in the titles of these sequels.

Likewise, established franchises dominate the Wii's sales charts. It's no coincidence that Nintendo, the only company that is putting powerful brands with familiar gameplay, is dominating the sales charts. There isn't an equivalent third-party blockbuster to MGS4 or RE5 on the Wii. You just have these no-name IPs, untested new IPs, or B-team spinoffs of popular IPs. These games are haphazardly made by B-teams and the gameplay is very different from what fans are used to, such is the case with Soul Calibur Legends or Castlevania. The best you have is Dragon Quest Swords. Even years after its release, Monster Hunter Tri is going to be the closest thing to a third-party blockbuster.

It would be telling if Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Mario Kart Wii, or (hypothetically) a tailor-made MGS4 were to sell less than their predecessors on the Wii. However, Brawl and Mario Kart have experienced much stronger sales than their predecessors. All I'm seeing is that games from established brands tend to dominate the charts.

 

[BishopLamont]

After all this time Taiko is the only third party game to beat DQS - a near launch game. Bravo third parties, you're beating each other equally.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Actually, the majority of the Wii's userbase is the same demographic as the majority of the PS2's userbase. Casual gamers.

The PS2's "Casual gamers" and the Wii's "Casual gamers" are two completely different breeds.

 

[gantz85]

The only thing I'm learning is that blockbuster PS3 games aren't selling all that well. All of these games cost exponentially more than the previous installments and take more time to develop than their predecessors but don't sell as well. Only DMC4 has sold more than its predecessor. These blockbusters are very reliant on the Western market and a 360 version for sales. These games have are mostly established IPs with very powerful brands. Just look at the numbers in the titles of these sequels.

Likewise, established franchises dominate the Wii's sales charts. It's no coincidence that Nintendo, the only company that is putting powerful brands with familiar gameplay, is dominating the sales charts. There isn't an equivalent third-party blockbuster to MGS4 or RE5 on the Wii. You just have these no-name IPs, untested new IPs, or B-team spinoffs of popular IPs. These games are haphazardly made by B-teams and the gameplay is very different from what fans are used to, such is the case with Soul Calibur Legends or Castlevania. The best you have is Dragon Quest Swords. Even years after its release, Monster Hunter Tri is going to be the closest thing to a third-party blockbuster.

It would be telling if Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Mario Kart Wii, or (hypothetically) a tailor-made MGS4 were to sell less than their predecessors on the Wii. However, Brawl and Mario Kart have experienced much stronger sales than their predecessors. All I'm seeing is that games from established brands tend to dominate the charts.

I get your point, but you're doing a great spin on the situation plus you're drinking the fanboy cool-aid if you refuse to acknowledge that there are more factors at play than just the lack of "blockbuster third party titles" on the Wii.


How about Pro Evolution Soccer or Winning Eleven as an example? It's already gone on the Wii and it's a pretty big franchise in Japan.

2008 Edition : PS3 (316,000) Wii (104,000)

Granted the PS3 version was released 3 months early, but the Wii version didn't exactly set the halls on fire.


Also your arguments don't explain alot of points I've made.. but it's not like you really care :lol

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Numbers.

In this post gantz85 wonders why multimillion third party PS3 blockbusters are outselling B and C developed Wii titles.

How about Pro Evolution Soccer or Winning Eleven as an example? It's already gone on the Wii and it's a pretty big franchise in Japan.

2008 Edition : PS3 (316,000) Wii (104,000)

Granted the PS3 version was released 3 months early, but the Wii version didn't exactly set the halls on fire.


Also your arguments don't explain alot of points I've made.. but it's not like you really care :lol

you mean the Winning Eleven that didn't debut along with the PS2/3 version the first year, then completely missed the football season the following two years?

 

[BishopLamont]

The PS2's "Casual gamers" and the Wii's "Casual gamers" are two completely different breeds.

That somehow excuses third parties from trying to adapt to this new wave of "casual gamers"? Here I thought people were in the gaming industry to make money, not just to make great games.

I get your point, but you're doing a great spin on the situation plus you're drinking the fanboy cool-aid if you refuse to acknowledge that there are more factors at play than just the lack of "blockbuster third party titles" on the Wii.


How about Pro Evolution Soccer or Winning Eleven as an example? It's already gone on the Wii and it's a pretty big franchise in Japan.

2008 Edition : PS3 (316,000) Wii (104,000)

Granted the PS3 version was released 3 months early, but the Wii version didn't exactly set the halls on fire.


Also your arguments don't explain alot of points I've made.. but it's not like you really care :lol

Then Konami decides to release the next Wii version 6 months, and the sales are even worse. They had a good thing going and made it even worse. They're essentially telling Wii pro evo gamers to fuck off.

 

[Sage00]

The only thing I'm learning is that blockbuster PS3 games aren't selling all that well. All of these games cost exponentially more than the previous installments and take more time to develop than their predecessors but don't sell as well. Only DMC4 has sold more than its predecessor. These blockbusters are very reliant on the Western market and a 360 version for sales. These games have are mostly established IPs with very powerful brands. Just look at the numbers in the titles of these sequels.

I think you're overexaggerating the cost of development of those games. Every title on that list is no doubt very profitable just from Japan. The fact that Sega already has created 2 Yakuza games for PS3 that will not make their way out of Japan and has now announced a 3rd, a series which is so much more expensive than arguably anything else on that list (perhaps RE5 aside) due to large amounts of high quality star-studded voice casts, large advertising budgets, etc, is proof alone.

Then take into the account that the majority of the work is done. The engine is created, the characters and environments modelled. All of that can be reused.

 

[gantz85]

In this post gantz85 wonders why multimillion third party PS3 blockbusters are outselling B and C developed Wii titles.

Well, with B and C titles who wants to play them on the Wii?

= No one wants to buy them
= No one wants to make them
= No one wants to fund them (but there's MH3 and DQX)


Rather than say that FFXIII is PS3's great white hope, it's far more appropriate I think to say MH3 is the Wii's great white hope.. for third-parties.. :lol

you mean the Winning Eleven that didn't debut along with the PS2/3 version the first year, then completely missed the football season the following two years?

I guess when it bomba no one is want to turn up : (

 

[test_account]

All of these games cost exponentially more than the previous installments and take more time to develop than their predecessors but don't sell as well.

Do we have any info on this, especially about the costs? I dont think it is unrealistic that some of these games cost more to develope compare to earlier games in the same series, but do we have any solid info on this? I am just wondering

According to Wikipedia, both Devil May Cry and Resident Evil 5 uses "MT Framework" by the way. The version of the MT Framework that were used for Resident Evil 5 is probably been updated since Devil May Cry 4 though, but since both games uses the same base game engine, i wonder how much money this saves on the development costs.

Metal Gear Solid 4 probably cost quite some money to make.

But i dont know how these games' development costs compare to the development costs of previous installments in the same gaming series though. I wish we had some more info about the development costs

EDIT: And as Sage00 said, the Yakuza games for the PS3 might have used the same game engine as well, which might cut the development costs

 

[gantz85]

I've always known about the hardcore craziness of Nintendo fans and boy.. do I remember it now I'm still a big Nintendo fan though, ever since the NES, SNES days.

Well anyways, I guess it's fair of us to say that Monster Hunter 3 is the "acid test" for third parties on the Wii? The Ninties are saying that there's no established blockbuster third-party franchise on the Wii and they're going to get it with Monster Hunter 3 now. MH is a franchise as big as Final Fantasy and there's probably only DQ that ranks higher as a gaming franchise (outside of Nintendo's newly created Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii xxx franchise).

There's the argument that handheld success might not translate into console success, that's possibly true. Are there any historical precedents to this? AAA handheld games debuting on a console and a review of their sales performance? I'm sure console success translates to handheld success to some degree though, because established franchises do perform well in their portable iterations.

So I guess MH3 is going to be released on 1 Aug 2009... exciting exciting times ahead

 

[gantz85]

Do we have any info on this, especially about the costs? I dont think it is unrealistic that some of these games cost more to develope compare to earlier games in the same series, but do we have any solid info on this? I am just wondering

According to Wikipedia, both Devil May Cry and Resident Evil 5 uses "MT Framework" by the way. The version of the MT Framework that were used for Resident Evil 5 is probably been updated since Devil May Cry 4 though, but since both games uses the same base game engine, i wonder how much money this saves on the development costs.

EDIT: And as Sage00 said, the Yakuza games for the PS3 might have used the same game engine as well, which might cut the development costs

Another problem with the discussion about cost is that these blockbuster titles were developed for a global audience and Japan constitutes less than 15% of their lifetime sales performance. Ugh.. we're getting into alot of complications.. :lol Back to studying.

 

[BishopLamont]

I've always known about the hardcore craziness of Nintendo fans and boy.. do I remember it now I'm still a big Nintendo fan though, ever since the NES, SNES days.

Well anyways, I guess it's fair of us to say that Monster Hunter 3 is the "acid test" for third parties on the Wii? The Ninties are saying that there's no established blockbuster third-party franchise on the Wii and they're going to get it with Monster Hunter 3 now. MH is a franchise as big as Final Fantasy and there's probably only DQ that ranks higher as a gaming franchise (outside of Nintendo's newly created Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii xxx franchise).

There's the argument that handheld success might not translate into console success, that's possibly true. Are there any historical precedents to this? AAA handheld games debuting on a console and a review of their sales performance? I'm sure console success translates to handheld success to some degree though, because established franchises do perform well in their portable iterations.

So I guess MH3 is going to be released on 1 Aug 2009... exciting exciting times ahead

MH3 will probably do numbers similiar to AC Wii. Started on consoles, got huge on handheld yet still sold decently on consoles after the popularity boost.

 

[gantz85]

MH3 will probably do numbers similiar to AC Wii. Started on consoles, got huge on handheld yet still sold decently on consoles after the popularity boost.

Looked up the numbers.. seems like an apt title to compare to. AC Wii did about 1.2 million units, while AC DS has done almost 5 million : O I'm not sure how I feel or how third parties will feel about MH3 Wii doing 1.2 million units. Lemme think.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Well, with B and C titles who wants to play them on the Wii?

= No one wants to buy them
= No one wants to make them
= No one wants to fund them (but there's MH3 and DQX)


Rather than say that FFXIII is PS3's great white hope, it's far more appropriate I think to say MH3 is the Wii's great white hope.. for third-parties.. :lol

You're clearly not concerned with arguing objectively, so normally I wouldn't bother, but it's memorial day and all my US customers are saluting the flag right now so i'll answer this.

Of course Monster Hunter Wii is the Wii's great white hope as far as third party support is concerned. It's (so far) the only third party title made with the Wii in mind that was given a fair shake from the beginning. Capcom has even gone so far as to seed the Wii userbase With Monster Hunter G.

The difference here? Well, despite your lame attempts at painting the Wii as a failure, the Wii version of G, which is actually a port of a 3 year old PS2 game, is consistently outselling its PS2 counterpart. If G's success on Wii is any indication as to how 3 will perform, Capcom will be very happy, and arguably even moreso than they would have been with a PS3 version of the same title. (I also find it funny you scoff at 1.3 million units when the PS3s highest selling title hasn't even come close to breaking a million yet).

The reason the "Wii zealots" harp on about how the Wii is being treated by third parties is because that treatment is poor at BEST. However, because it's Nintendo, if the Wii doesn't turn shit to gold it's somehow Nintendo's fault that games don't sell on its system, even when third parties' best and brightest don't even sniff the console. All of your lists and comparisons have basically amounted to comparing Metal Gear Solid 4 and Devil May Cry 4 or FFXIII Demo to the likes of Dragon Quest Swords and Taiko Drum Master (a game that probably didn't even have one-fifth MGS' budget and still got within 150K units of the game.) Yes, perfect example of the Wiis inability to sell games.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

That somehow excuses third parties from trying to adapt to this new wave of "casual gamers"? Here I thought people were in the gaming industry to make money, not just to make great games.

Third parties haven't tried to reach out to these casual gamers on the Wii? (Looks at Carnival Games, Mario and Sonic, EA Active, Naskart, etc.) Or are we strictly talking Japan?

Or, in other words: imagine the Wii (already selling better than the PSX) with a comparable third-party strategy, and think of what that would do to its overall performance.

Exactly what I'm saying. The Wii could dominate as well as seriously hurt the PS3 and Xbox 360 and next generation Nintendo has potential to capture all the demographics and leave SONY and Microsoft fighting over scraps. I just think it will be foolish if they don't do so. And this is excluding what I've listed before.

 

[gantz85]

Of course Monster Hunter Wii is the Wii's great white hope as far as third party support is concerned. It's (so far) the only third party title made with the Wii in mind that was given a fair shake from the beginning. Capcom has even gone so far as to seed the Wii userbase With Monster Hunter G.

The difference here? Well, despite your lame attempts at painting the Wii as a failure, the Wii version of G, which is actually a port of a 3 year old PS2 game, is consistently outselling its PS2 counterpart. If G's success on Wii is any indication as to how 3 will perform, Capcom will be very happy, and arguably even moreso than they would have been with a PS3 version of the same title.

It's really hard to meet in a middle with a harsh-mouthed zealot like you but let me assure you -- although you probably won't be convinced -- none of my efforts were an attempt to paint the Wii as a failure. It was honestly my first time working through those numbers and I've tried to be as objective as possible. In fact I am convinced that you will find nothing remotely biased in my numbers analysis. Of course right from your very first reply you've reduced this dialogue to one of fanboy wars so I'm quite convinced you won't see things my way.

Where we differ is the point about AAA third-party titles on the Wii. I do agree with the point, as I expressed in a reply above, but I don't agree with that particular poster above trying to pin it down as the sole reason behind why third-party titles don't sell as well on the Wii. It is a reason; maybe even a big one, but I'm sure it's not all of it. My reasoning? Just different audiences on different systems. The hardcore composition on the PS3/360 are far higher than it is on the Wii.

The reason the "Wii zealots" harp on about how the Wii is being treated by third parties is because that treatment is poor at BEST. However, because it's Nintendo, if the Wii doesn't turn shit to gold it's somehow Nintendo's fault that games don't sell on its system, even when third parties' best and brightest don't even sniff the console. All of your lists and comparisons have basically amounted to comparing Metal Gear Solid 4 and Devil May Cry 4 or FFXIII Demo to the likes of Dragon Quest Swords and Taiko Drum Master (a game that probably didn't even have one-fifth MGS' budget and still got within 150K units of the game.) Yes, perfect example of the Wiis inability to sell games.

How much did Taiko Drum Master sell worldwide?
MGS4 did 4.5 million.


You need to undress your Wii-victim mentality, because I'm really not on a crusade against it.

 

[test_account]

Another problem with the discussion about cost is that these blockbuster titles were developed for a global audience and Japan constitutes less than 15% of their lifetime sales performance. Ugh.. we're getting into alot of complications.. :lol Back to studying.

Ye, that is true. Except for the 2 Yakuza games for the PS3 though, at least i dont think that there are any known plans to release those 2 games outside of Japan.

 

[BishopLamont]

Third parties haven't tried to reach out to these casual gamers on the Wii? (Looks at Carnival Games, Mario and Sonic, EA Active, Naskart, etc.) Or are we strictly talking Japan?

Well ofcourse we're talking about Japan, worldwide third parties aren't doing as bad as they are in Japan.

How much did Taiko Drum Master sell worldwide?
MGS4 did 4.5 million.

Taiko isn't released outside of Japan, and please don't bring worldwide into the discussion.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

How much did Taiko Drum Master sell worldwide?
MGS4 did 4.5 million.

I'm confused; the numbers you quoted up above were for Japan. Now you're talking worldwide sales? Which is it?

 

[gantz85]

Exactly what I'm saying. The Wii could dominate as well as seriously hurt the PS3 and Xbox 360 and next generation Nintendo has potential to capture all the demographics and leave SONY and Microsoft fighting over scraps. I just think it will be foolish if they don't do so. And this is excluding what I've listed before.

Actually, I'm interested in asking what exactly you guys are thinking about.

That Nintendo should engage in moniehatting or some kind of subsidy, incentive program to get AAA titles from third-party developers developed for the Wii? Exclusively for the Wii, or just tailor-made for the Wii? Because the former would presumably "hurt the PS360" while the latter doesn't.

If you're thinking about the former, then I don't think there's much of a chance of Nintendo getting big franchises sewn up exclusively for the Wii, even if only for Japan. Reason being, the big hitters have already been released worldwide and games like RE5, MGS4, DMC4, GTA4 have all done figures comparable or exceeding their prequel on previous generation console platforms. This means that these titles have a GUARANTEED userbase on the PS360.

For them to go exclusive on the Wii would require a lot on Nintendo's part.



Unless you guys are thinking about other strategies.

 

[gantz85]

I'm confused; the numbers you quoted up above where for Japan. Now you're talking worldwide sales? Which is it?

Because the development cost for Metal Gear Solid 4, which you claim is probably 5 times more than Taiko Wii, is spread globally? It doesn't make ANY SENSE at all to compare MGS4's global development cost to Taiko Wii's development cost unless MGS4 had been released only for Japan.

Do you get the logic in my paragraph? Because it's almost 4AM here and I'm getting groggy, but I'm certain the logic is sound.

If you want to play that way though, let's say MGS4's budget is 5x Taiko Wii. That is, Taiko Wii costs 20% of MGS4.

MGS4 - 4.5m WW
MGS4 JP - 0.7m JP

0.7/4.5 = 15.5%

MGS4 JP - 15.5%
Taiko Wii - 20%


If we look at it this way, dollar-for-dollar and JUST FOR JAPAN, MGS4 cost less and sold more units. If you don't get it let me find some time tomorrow, after I wake, to write stuff more clearly.

 

[test_account]

The difference here? Well, despite your lame attempts at painting the Wii as a failure, the Wii version of G, which is actually a port of a 3 year old PS2 game, is consistently outselling its PS2 counterpart.

It is true that MHG for the Wii is basicly an old PS2 port, but MHG for the Wii also have a Monster Hunter 3 demo, one version of MHG for the Wii comes (or came at least) with a "special" (or maybe it is more correct to say "Limited Edition"?) Wii Classic Controller, and since the PS2 version of MHG came out, the Monster Hunter franchise has grown much in popularity.

Maybe someone started with the PSP version(s) of Monster Hunter and now wants to try a console version of Monster Hunter as well. They could get the PS2 version of course, but i would guess that it easier to find the Wii version in the stores in general I also think that MHG for the Wii has some exclusive content compared to the PS2 version if i am not mistaken. I mean that i read this here on NeoGAF at least.

But that said, i am sure that Capcom are satisified with the sales of MHG for the Wii. Afterall, it is an about 3 year old port from a PS2 game as you say. I am not saying anything negative about the MHG for the Wii sales just to underline that. I just wanted to mention some of the reasons might be why MHG for the Wii sells more than the PS2 version (at least so far), even of MHG for the Wii is a 3 year old port of the PS2 version

EDIT: I added some text.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

yep, nintendo was crazy to believe that 3rd partys will support the market leader with their best software offerings...stupid iwata

Uhm...yeah, but actually, I would also add "stupid third party developers" as well.

 

[magash]

Actually, I'm interested in asking what exactly you guys are thinking about.

That Nintendo should engage in moniehatting or some kind of subsidy, incentive program to get AAA titles from third-party developers developed for the Wii? Exclusively for the Wii, or just tailor-made for the Wii? Because the former would presumably "hurt the PS360" while the latter doesn't.

If you're thinking about the former, then I don't think there's much of a chance of Nintendo getting big franchises sewn up exclusively for the Wii, even if only for Japan. Reason being, the big hitters have already been released worldwide and games like RE5, MGS4, DMC4, GTA4 have all done figures comparable or exceeding their prequel on previous generation console platforms. This means that these titles have a GUARANTEED userbase on the PS360.

For them to go exclusive on the Wii would require a lot on Nintendo's part.



Unless you guys are thinking about other strategies.

The whole idea of moneyhatting is the reason why sony is in trouble and ms will be in trouble in the future. Relying on 3rd party games is never a very good idea cuz anything can happen.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

If you're thinking about the former, then I don't think there's much of a chance of Nintendo getting big franchises sewn up exclusively for the Wii, even if only for Japan. Reason being, the big hitters have already been released worldwide and games like RE5, MGS4, DMC4, GTA4 have all done figures comparable or exceeding their prequel on previous generation console platforms. This means that these titles have a GUARANTEED userbase on the PS360.

Then do what Microsoft did. Contract them for new IP's instead (I.E. Lost Planet, Dead Rising, Infinite Undiscovery, Saints Row, etc.) If Nintendo states that they'll aid them if they create a AAA IP its a near win-win situation for a developer. They get a shot at expanding their brand as well as adding a killer IP to their existing list.

A few of these games (like 6 in total) would have really gotten things kicking and started this generation for Nintendo. Hopefully they wise up and do it next generation.

I mean if Nintendo offers gaming for the 15-35 tech savvy male demographic as well as games for everyone else they'd have everything on lock down and the PS3 and 360 would be mere niche consoles only for people who want high end tech that are too scared to venture in PC gaming (something that isn't a problem outside of North America and Japan). If you think the Wii is killing the PS3/360 NOW, imagine if Nintendo also grabbed SONY's and Microsoft's premiere userbase as well.

 

[gantz85]

The whole idea of moneyhatting is the reason why sony is in trouble and ms will be in trouble in the future. Relying on 3rd party games is never a very good idea cuz anything can happen.

Moneyhatting is a.. goddamn I'm losing my clarity of thought although I can still see my logic :lol

Put it this way.

If I moneyhat AAA games, I get more console sales. I get to cockblock the opponents and damage their hardware share in the market. Eventually I want to maneuver myself into a position where I am absolute king in hardware share and there is no longer any moneyhat needed -- in fact, the third parties cannot choose anything apart from release their games on my console because I own the market. Now as a monopoly or sorts of, I can dick around and manipulate the market.


No one is using moneyhat as a long-term strategy. They're maneuvering themselves into a more favorable leadership position on the market. There are still very legitimate reasons to employ the moneyhatting strategy.