Support NeoGAF

[Road]

Do we have Media Create LTD for the Dreamcast?

I just realized that the DS has outsold the PS2, GameCube and Xbox combined, and seems to have done it a long time ago.

After another year or so, I think we can say that the Wii + PS3 + 360 will have outsold the GBA. :lol

Has it outsold the combined PS1, N64 and Saturn yet?

I was doing something of sorts in my head the other day, except I was separating the DS versions and ranking them, such that the DS is an entire home console generation on its own:

DSL - 17.7 million (on par with 1st place systems such as PS and SFC).
DS - 6.5 million (more than any 2nd place yet).
DSi - 3.4 million and counting (god knows where this one will end, but it could easily be better than N64, the best 3rd place yet).

Amusing.

 

[onipex]

So Nintendo is this mythical untouchable beast that is so much better than every other software company that they are too scared to compete? I'm not buying that.

Look at Donnys' figures there. I don't think anyone can argue that Nintendo hasn't provided an adequate user base so we can discount that. It also seems that Nintendo is moving absolute bucketloads of software on their own systems so it's not like the right software doesn't sell either.

I see this talk every week on here that Nintendo is to blame for the software that could have been on their system. Somehow in fantasy land it's mostly Nintendos' fault for not doing more. It takes two to tango after all right? Looks to me like Nintendo is dancing on its own. They're not perfect by any stretch but their far from the being the culprit here.

It's not rocket science. You look at what is selling and you put your best teams onto replicating that success for your own company. Companies like Capcom and Konami can't compete? 3rd parties can compete with Nintendo but not with their B and C teams. Last gen we had million sellers from third parties because the best teams were on the systems with the highest userbase. You reap what you sow and what you see right now is the result. They have dropped the ball and dropped it hard.

This cannot be said enough. If the console with the largest user base by a mile has to put out money hats to get quality 3rd party support than there is something very wrong with the game industry.

 

[cw_sasuke]

This cannot be said enough. If the console with the largest user base by a mile has to put out money hats to get quality 3rd party support than there is something very wrong with the game industry.

Amen.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

PS2 vs. Wii (2 yrs, 9 mos from launch):

Total SW:
PS2 - 44.7m
WII - 32.0m

Total 3rd-party SW:
PS2 - 38.9m
WII - 8.1m

Total 1st-party SW:
PS2 - 5.8m
WII - 23.9m

Similarly, GCN vs PS3 (148 weeks) using my version of the numbers--which as always are never a perfect match for others'.

Total SW:
GCN - 15.1m
PS3 - 10.7m

Total 3rd-party SW:
GCN - 4.5m
PS3 - 8.3m

Total 1st-party SW:
GCN - 10.7m
PS3 - 2.4m

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Based on the latest Famitsu hardware numbers...
PSP comparisons: After 248 weeks, PSP is where PS2 was at 196.6 weeks (December 4, 2003), where DS was at 104.4 weeks (November 29, 2006), and where GBA was at 168.1 weeks (June 7, 2004).

X360 comparisons: After 196 weeks, X360 is where GCN was at 19.0 weeks (January 20, 2002), where PS3 was at 40.8 weeks (August 16, 2007), and where Wii was at 5.9 weeks (January 6, 2007).

PS3 comparisons: After 148 weeks, PS3 is where PS2 was at 51.4 weeks (February 21, 2001), where PSP was at 75.8 weeks (May 19, 2006), where GCN was at 159.0 weeks (September 26, 2004), and where Wii was at 39.5 weeks (August 30, 2007).

So PS3's big week gained it nearly 24 "GCN weeks". It's now shot ahead, and since GameCube is prety pathetic from this point forward, PS3 should finally be in the lead for good.

Wii comparisons: After 145 weeks, Wii is where GBA was at 102.5 weeks (March 5, 2003), where DS was at 78.8 weeks (June 3, 2006), where PS2 was at 123.4 weeks (July 10, 2002), and where PSP was at 172.5 weeks (March 26, 2008).

DSi comparisons: After 45 weeks, DSi is where GBASP was at 62.3 weeks (April 20, 2004) and where DSL was at 21.9 weeks (July 29, 2006).

Based on last week's Media Create hardware numbers...
DS vs PSP: Weekly shares of 75.6 / 19.1 bring total shares to 68.4 / 31.6. If DS stopped selling and PSP continued at this week's rate, it would catch up in 812.3 weeks (April 9, 2025).

X360 vs PS3: Weekly shares of 12.0 / 88.0 bring total shares to 24.4 / 75.6. If PS3 stopped selling and X360 continued at this week's rate, it would catch up in 311.7 weeks (September 4, 2015).

PS3 vs Wii: Weekly shares of 75.9 / 24.1 bring total shares to 29.1 / 70.9. At this week's rates, PS3 would catch up to Wii in 132.2 weeks (March 27, 2012). If Wii stopped selling and PS3 continued at this week's rate, it would catch up in 90.2 weeks (June 7, 2011).

Week over week, PS3 heads downward after its peak, DS raises a bit, and everything else's changes look miniscule in comparison.

Through the first thirty-seven weeks of the year, overall sales are down. However, the systems can be split into camps of 3 up and 3 down. Here's how the year-to-date year-over-year percents stand as of now.

Wii: -53.4%
DSL+DSi: +14.8%
PS2: -53.0%
PS3: +29.1%
PSP: -45.9%
X360: +79.3%

Home hardware: -30.3%
Portable hardware: -18.5%
Sum of all hardware: -23.2%

Last year:

This year:

It's interesting to see that PS3 shot up just as it was about to become its worst-performing year, though of course the recent weeks were extra low due to price drop/slim anticipation.

 

[Acosta]

This cannot be said enough. If the console with the largest user base by a mile has to put out money hats to get quality 3rd party support than there is something very wrong with the game industry.

Let me offer another perspective:

"This cannot be said enough. If the console with the largest user base by a mile has to put out money hats to get quality 3rd party support than there is something very wrong with that company."

Consider this. Userbase is not everything, and Nintendo has not always been the best partner for third companies, there is a well documented history of this. Perhaps, and only perhaps, there are good reasons that explain why companies don't want to pull their eggs in Nintendo basket.

Or maybe they are all stupid and you know better.

 

[freddy]

Userbase is not everything, and Nintendo has not always been the best partner for third companies, there is a well documented history of this. Perhaps, and only perhaps, there are good reasons that explain why companies don't want to pull their eggs in Nintendo basket.

Or maybe they are all stupid and you know better.

Yea, I really think that the companies are better off producing games for the 360 because they have the best developer relations and everyone is smiling.

 

[TunaLover]

Thanks for the graphs Joshua
Interesting enough, Wii and PS3 could get similar numbers for the end of this year, PS3 price drop included, and even Wii has a 130k(ish) advantage to date. The race could get even ferocious with a Wii price drop in Japan =P

 

[DNF]

Let me offer another perspective:

"This cannot be said enough. If the console with the largest user base by a mile has to put out money hats to get quality 3rd party support than there is something very wrong with that company."

Consider this. Userbase is not everything, and Nintendo has not always been the best partner for third companies, there is a well documented history of this. Perhaps, and only perhaps, there are good reasons that explain why companies don't want to pull their eggs in Nintendo basket.

Or maybe they are all stupid and you know better.

at least compared to those companies which went bankrupt, he knows better.

most of them didn't put most of their resources to the two leading platforms, did they ?

 

[charlequin]

1-1.5m for FFXIII? Really? I would expect at least 2 million.

Just over 2 million is what FF was doing LTD on the PS2; it's been a franchise on a steady decline since the PS2 and it's on a less popular and successful system now.

It's certainly not impossible that it'll do over 2 million, but factors are certainly arrayed against it. (Though I agree that 1-1.5 million is significantly too low. I'd estimate in the 1.5-2 range.)

These are the type of games I believe can help consoles in Japan rise out of the doldrums, not just throwing more traditional software in the mix.

I think you're mixing levels here. Both Japan and the US have seen a hugely significant increase in interest in multi-participant gaming over the last 7 years or so, though in Japan it's split between in-person wifi and in-person console gaming while in the US it's split between in-person console gaming and online gaming. But that doesn't actually map directly to the split between traditional gaming and new, expanded-market titles: even as the expanded-market push has been wildly successful with titles like Wii Sports and Raving Rabbids, we've also seen online co-op become a major feature in console shooters or seen unambiguously traditional games like Monster Hunter take off as a result of local co-op in Japan. (Plus there are hybrid games like Guitar Hero that appeal to both trad and expanded-market interests and have a heavy multi component.)

IMO, this trend is one that cuts across gaming in general, and IMO one of the biggest potential growth areas in Wii software is upmarket moves into this space specifically: i.e. titles that have both "casual" and "core" appeal, with a significant multiplayer component. (Or, in other words, the market that thus far only GH has really tapped to its fullest potential.)

I mean, isn't the bet about whether the first-day sales of a year-late port of a main tales game will outsell the first-day sales of a new main tales game on a console with over twice the install-base? The very fact that this is an actual question suggests something that to me seems obvious, but is almost taboo in these threads: that the demographics of the Wii userbase is significantly different from the demographics of the PS3.

The way you put it makes it sound like you're accusing the thread of a conspiracy to artificially inflate the Wii's perceived quality and value as a software-selling machine, but I think I, myself, can clearly avoid that particular charge. :lol

I think it's essentially foolish to make a comparison between Vesperia's and Graces' opening sales and read primarily into those figures an indictment or salvation of the Wii's software selling power or the related statement that they have a demographic somehow "unsuited" to RPGs in general or Tales titles in specific. There are a great deal of significant factors in play -- developers' specific (and frankly bizarre) unwillingness to date to place RPGs on the Wii, the overall decline of interest in the Tales series, the differences in perception between the Destiny and Symphonia teams and between an already-known (to be good) game and a new unknown one, the proximity to a very successful hardware relaunch, etc.

All lower 3rd party sales this generation on the market leader tells us is that 3rd parties are dropping the ball and doing something wrong.

I like to share the blame around for this to some degree. Third parties have done a bad job largely due to extreme platform confusion (five to choose from and very poor choices in general about which ones to focus on with which types of games) but I think the hardware manufacturers created this situation either through rampant incompetence (see: PS3 and 360) or through insufficient outreach efforts (see: PSP and Wii). I think top thing you can lay 100% at (some) third parties' feet is that anyone who didn't move a good chunk of money into significant, high-quality DS development by 2006 was basically an idiot.

What are we all trying to achieve in asking for 3rd party sales only? Genuinely interested in an answer here.

Well, in spwolf's case, he's trying to make a "point" about how WII SUX OMG.

I think there's a lot of value in distinguishing between third-party and first-party sales in specific limited domains, but this kind of blanket stack-of-numbers comparison is not one of them.

I just realized that the DS has outsold the PS2, GameCube and Xbox combined, and seems to have done it a long time ago.

After another year or so, I think we can say that the Wii + PS3 + 360 will have outsold the GBA. :lol

:lol

I see this talk every week on here that Nintendo is to blame for the software that could have been on their system.

When I say this, it is always intended to fall in a very specific context:

• The Wii is, even at very worst, the third-place system out of five and should be able to produce strong software sales, given well-chosen titles with solid budgets and decent marketing that are targeted effectively and made with significant "effort."
• Third-party publishers, as a group, have failed to provide these software efforts (though MH3 already released and ToG and DQX upcoming do qualify) out of a combination of factors (dislike of changing business models, investment-in-the-wrong-horse, stubbornness, etc.) that are understandable but ultimately illogical.
• Though the people who are hurt the worst by this group of illogical decisions are the third-parties who miss out on Wii's potential software sales, in combination they also hurt Nintendo, reducing the Wii's hardware sales and their level of software licensing fees.
• Therefore, if Nintendo is acting in their own best interest, they should be acting strongly to manipulate and cajole these third parties into acting in their own best interest, since the resulting situation is better for both Nintendo and the third parties (and really only bad for Sony and Microsoft).
• (I then editorialize that stubbornness and potentially illogical decision-making are at play at Nintendo too, and as a result even though both sides would benefit from a world in which third-parties develop for Wii, neither will be the first mover to make it happen.)

This cannot be said enough. If the console with the largest user base by a mile has to put out money hats to get quality 3rd party support than there is something very wrong with the game industry.

I think it's deeply mistaken to assume that this is an orderly and entirely logical industry, or that userbase translates to software success so clearly that obviously no one should ever develop for anything but the market leader, or that individual publishing strategies involving also-ran systems are not legitimate.

Historically, companies have always been interested in developing for the successor of the previous market-leader system, and a new market-leader has always had to exert a huge amount of force to win those developers to their own side. The PS1 offered completely unprecedented levels of developer-friendly incentives (up to and including cash payouts) in order to win the legions of SNES and Genesis developers to their upstart system, so I don't see how the argument that Nintendo should accomplish the same feat without trying is particularly sensible.

 

[gkryhewy]

Consider this. Userbase is not everything, and Nintendo has not always been the best partner for third companies, there is a well documented history of this. Perhaps, and only perhaps, there are good reasons that explain why companies don't want to pull their eggs in Nintendo basket.

Or maybe they are all stupid and you know better.

Serious question: Aside from Nintendo, is there a single other company in the industry (software or hardware) that is currently turning a profit?

 

[gerg]

• The Wii is, even at very worst, the third-place system out of five and should be able to produce strong software sales, given well-chosen titles with solid budgets and decent marketing that are targeted effectively and made with significant "effort."
• Third-party publishers, as a group, have failed to provide these software efforts (though MH3 already released and ToG and DQX upcoming do qualify) out of a combination of factors (dislike of changing business models, investment-in-the-wrong-horse, stubbornness, etc.) that are understandable but ultimately illogical.
• Though the people who are hurt the worst by this group of illogical decisions are the third-parties who miss out on Wii's potential software sales, in combination they also hurt Nintendo, reducing the Wii's hardware sales and their level of software licensing fees.
• Therefore, if Nintendo is acting in their own best interest, they should be acting strongly to manipulate and cajole these third parties into acting in their own best interest, since the resulting situation is better for both Nintendo and the third parties (and really only bad for Sony and Microsoft).
• (I then editorialize that stubbornness and potentially illogical decision-making are at play at Nintendo too, and as a result even though both sides would benefit from a world in which third-parties develop for Wii, neither will be the first mover to make it happen.)
• (gerg then states that Nintendo need not have been acting outside their own interest if they did not seek this third-party support, dependent upon their success without it.)

I'm sorry, I had to.

Let me offer another perspective:

"This cannot be said enough. If the console with the largest user base by a mile has to put out money hats to get quality 3rd party support than there is something very wrong with that company."

Consider this. Userbase is not everything, and Nintendo has not always been the best partner for third companies, there is a well documented history of this. Perhaps, and only perhaps, there are good reasons that explain why companies don't want to pull their eggs in Nintendo basket.

Or maybe they are all stupid and you know better.

We need not create a dichotomy between "Nintendo are stupid and third parties are amazing" and "Nintendo are amazing and third parties are stupid". There may have been genuine concerns both within Nintendo regarding attracting third parties to the Wii, and within third parties regarding the profitability for developing certain games on the Wii.

Mind, you seem to be suggesting this, but then you also seem to be providing Nintendo's presence in itself as something that would have turned third-party development efforts away (perhaps, by way of competition), an illogical reason as any as highlighted previously in this thread.

Serious question: Aside from Nintendo, is there a single other company in the industry (software or hardware) that is currently turning a profit?

IIRC, Activision Blizzard and some of the Japanese-based companies, which have generally shied away from development for the PS3 and 360.

 

[obonicus]

The way you put it makes it sound like you're accusing the thread of a conspiracy to artificially inflate the Wii's perceived quality and value as a software-selling machine, but I think I, myself, can clearly avoid that particular charge. :lol

Not really a conspiracy at all, but rather that certain arguments get kneejerk reactions from people emotionally invested in their consoles. Fans know that Nintendo managed to expand its audience with the Wii and also believe firmly that PS2 owners moved to the Wii. Since believing that the Wii's audience's makeup is significantly different would essentially be conceding defeat (at least when it comes to arguments about Nintendo having to work with 3rd parties to build an audience on their console), the only way to avoid cognitive dissonance is to assume that the expanded audience is a minority compared to 'migrated' PS2 owners. I personally think it's the opposite. There's no evidence to establish the truth either way other than interpreting sales numbers, and that's hardly an exact science.

To be perfectly clear, I don't think you're one of those people. In fact, quite the opposite. And these remarks are in part because of all the times I've seen your arguments about Nintendo and 3rd parties refuted with the almost-nonsense 'Nintendo has plenty of money, they don't need nothing' arguments.

I think it's essentially foolish to make a comparison between Vesperia's and Graces' opening sales and read primarily into those figures an indictment or salvation of the Wii's software selling power or the related statement that they have a demographic somehow "unsuited" to RPGs in general or Tales titles in specific. There are a great deal of significant factors in play -- developers' specific (and frankly bizarre) unwillingness to date to place RPGs on the Wii, the overall decline of interest in the Tales series, the differences in perception between the Destiny and Symphonia teams and between an already-known (to be good) game and a new unknown one, the proximity to a very successful hardware relaunch, etc.

Which is why I didn't want to argue the causes for the Wii's demographic makeup. In part, because we end up with a chicken or egg scenario. Do 3rd parties not put games on the Wii because there's not as much of an audience or is there not much of an audience because 3rd parties don't put games on the system? And that's not even discussing 'blame'.

My general point was: it's known that attach-rate decreases as the install-base increases. But I don't think that'd account for this postulation that one mainline game (even excluding the fact that it's a port) on a smaller userbase would outsell a mainline game on the larger userbase. I also don't buy into Dalthien's theory that Tales games all sell the same, no matter where they are, since the numbers don't say that at all. As for a userbase being 'unsuited' to RPGs, I don't think that either -- but rather that there was very little effort to try and either 'upsell' the expanded audience or to appeal to traditional gamers. When you go for an 'expanded audience', you end up with an expanded audience.

 

[HK-47]

IIRC, Activision Blizzard and some of the Japanese-based companies, which have generally shied away from development for the PS3 and 360.

Capcom has done just fine, with relatively mediocre handheld support (outside the sudden popularity of MH) and hand me down Wii support.

 

[gerg]

Capcom has done just fine, with relatively mediocre handheld support (outside the sudden popularity of MH) and hand me down Wii support.

There will always be some companies that are making money. The problem is when the majority aren't.

 

[markatisu]

Capcom has done just fine, with relatively mediocre handheld support (outside the sudden popularity of MH) and hand me down Wii support.

Yup Monster Hunter 3 was a real hand me down

Capcom also understands multiplatform well, they did not tie RE5 or SFIV to only the PS3 for example. And they have been able to whore out RE4 so many times successfully its ridiculous.

But in the case of JP companies, isn't one of the only reasons Marvelous still exists because of Wii and DS development? I know they were on the verge of closing if they had to depend on HD games

 

[Road]

IIRC, Activision Blizzard and some of the Japanese-based companies, which have generally shied away from development for the PS3 and 360.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=370257

In the side making money, only Hudson and Takara Tomy have avoided PS360. On the other hand, we have companies like Marvelous, which has also avoided PS360, losing money.

 

[gerg]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=370257

In the side making money, only Hudson and Takara Tomy have avoided PS360. On the other hand, we have companies like Marvelous, which has also avoided PS360, losing money.

Did I say that there all the companies that had avoided HD development were making money?

I guess I phrased my response badly. Another sales-ager will have to back me up on this, but I stand by the statement that the majority of Japanese companies making money are not doing so by developing HD games.

 

[Acosta]

We need not create a dichotomy between "Nintendo are stupid and third parties are amazing" and "Nintendo are amazing and third parties are stupid". There may have been genuine concerns both within Nintendo regarding attracting third parties to the Wii, and within third parties regarding the profitability for developing certain games on the Wii.

Mind, you seem to be suggesting this, but then you also seem to be providing Nintendo's presence in itself as something that would have turned third-party development efforts away (perhaps, by way of competition), an illogical reason as any as highlighted previously in this thread.

I just offered it as an alternative thinking to the idea that publishers are stupid for not betting on the winning horse. I don't know, and can't know what's the real real (it could be a combination of different elements, and they could be different for each company dealing with Nintendo).

I definitely don't buy that Nintendo is a victim of the "stupidity" of the industry.

 

[freddy]

I just offered it as an alternative thinking to the idea that publishers are stupid for not betting on the winning horse. I don't know, and can't know what's the real real (it could be a combination of different elements, and they could be different for each company dealing with Nintendo).

I definitely don't buy that Nintendo is a victim of the "stupidity" of the industry.

I might have missed this but aren't you the one who mentioned stupidity? You bought up the stupid angle and are reinforcing it in this post as something you're arguing against. If I missed someone you're quoting that called third parties and the industry stupid then I apologise.

Dropping the ball or betting on the wrong horses doesn't mean your stupid. It means you dropped the ball and bet on the wrong horses.

Oh and Charlequin, I agree with your expansion of the type of games needed to reinvigorate consoles. I'm not a fast typist and I can't spend more than 5 or 10 minutes on a post so I don't embellish much. You explained it much better than I could've anyway.

 

[Acosta]

I might have missed this but aren't you the one who mentioned stupidity? You bought up the stupid angle and are reinforcing it in this post as something you're arguing against. If I missed someone you're quoting that called third parties and the industry stupid then I apologise.

Dropping the ball or betting on the wrong horses doesn't mean your stupid. It means you dropped the ball and bet on the wrong horses.

Not quoting anyone, it´s just as I see the point I was answering: if companies are refusing to have sustainable business with good margins, when is so clear they just need to put their prime efforts on Wii to do it. Yes, it would be pretty stupid not to do it.

And about your second point. Betting on wrong horses once is normal, insisting on it when you know who is the one who is going to win would be stupid, but companies are still betting on the other horses. Why?

 

[charlequin]

also believe firmly that PS2 owners moved to the Wii.

People believe this because the evidence we do have, including the surveys taken to date on console ownership trends, all point to it being broadly true. I'm sure that some people become invested in this idea out of console loyalty, but sometimes people will draw a correct conclusion for an inaccurate reason.

I'm certain that there's a difference, just like the SNES audience wasn't "the same" as the PS1 audience, but I think to suggest that it is significantly different (rather than being an audience composed of basically the whole GCN audience, plus a pretty significant portion of the PS2 audience, and then topped off with some new expanded-market people) is to take things too far in the other direction.

Capcom has done just fine, with relatively mediocre handheld support (outside the sudden popularity of MH) and hand me down Wii support.

This is illustrative of my point about supporting the market leader, actually. There's nothing inherently wrong about targeting platforms that aren't the highest marketshare systems; there are a variety of strategies that can take advantage of these systems' unique qualities and produce success out of it. Capcom's cross-platform, HD-centric action gaming strategy has broadly paid off, especially with their success in the West, and by limiting their handheld franchises they've also kept their handheld output almost exclusively to huge hits. That's great for them and I can't point at their strategy and say, "man, they should really give the DS and Wii more love."

The problem is that Capcom is literally the only Japanese publisher who has done well with such a strategy, which makes sense when you think about it -- targeting loser systems simply isn't as safe or reliable as targeting winners.

I just offered it as an alternative thinking to the idea that publishers are stupid for not betting on the winning horse.

Publishers, as a group, are unquestionably stupid for not betting more heavily on the winning horses (DS, in the pole position, and then PSP and/or Wii depending on how you look at things.) Within this broad category, one can have individual companies betting on other platforms for well-constructed reasons and doing so with workable strategies (I would argue Capcom falls into this category) even while the broad mass of companies are making superficially similar decisions for foolish reasons (and seeing poor profitability as a result.)

In the side making money, only Hudson and Takara Tomy have avoided PS360. On the other hand, we have companies like Marvelous, which has also avoided PS360, losing money.

This is an extremely bizarre way to look at the situation. What we see in the thread you've linked is that Nintendo is nearly twice as profitable as all the other profitable publishers put together, and almost ten times as profitable as all other profitable publishers combined once one excludes the singular game World of Warcraft.

Looking at the poor profitability of the overall industry today in combination with sales trends, knowledge of the cost increases associated with HD development, and a variety of other factors is much more useful in developing a holistic view of the industry's current state than going down a list of year-end profits and doing a list of "developed for PS360 or Wii, check."

 

[test_account]

i remember there was a price cut in that period, but i'm not sure it was before or after tov launched.

Ah ok. I checked Garaph.info now and i see that there was a Xbox 360 hardware bump about 4-5 weeks after Tales of Vesperia was released. Maybe this is when there was a Xbox 360 pricedrop? Or was there some big titled Xbox 360 game released about 4-5 weeks after Tales of Vesperia?

http://garaph.info/linecompare.php//sum/0/html/2/sys-0/X360/date-0/2008-01-01/tra-0/fam/

EDIT: I just checked garaph.info's Xbox 360 games list and i see that Infinite Undiscovery was released in the same week as the Xbox 360 hardware bump, so i guess that Infinite Undiscovery is one of the reason for the Xbox 360 hardware bump But maybe there was a pricedrop in this period as well as you mentioned

PS3 vs Wii: Weekly shares of 75.9 / 24.1 bring total shares to 29.1 / 70.9. At this week's rates, PS3 would catch up to Wii in 132.2 weeks (March 27, 2012). If Wii stopped selling and PS3 continued at this week's rate, it would catch up in 90.2 weeks (June 7, 2011).

I actually found this a bit interesting. Even at this very high PS3 sales rate (about 150k a week), it is pretty much impossible for the PS3 to outsell the Wii in this console generation in Japan (and maybe worldwide as well). I guess that is old news that the PS3 wont have a chance to outsell the Wii in this generation though, but i still found it interesting to see it like this

I also found it cool/funny to see the year 2105 (or something like that) in the previous week's PS3 VS Wii catch up comment hehe I am a bit late with saying this though, but i just wanted to say it now when i talked about this week's PS3 VS Wii catch up comment

 

[charlequin]

companies are still betting on the other horses. Why?

In part because switching horses is a large one-time cost in many ways (and may be structurally difficult given the corporate cultures involved), in part because the Wii's potential has largely (pre-MH3) continued to not be visibly realized, in part because companies are weighing the status quo overly heavily and potential riches from new moves overly lightly (as corporations almost always do absent specific factors in their executive culture), in part because the first-mover risk is fairly high in this situation and no one wants to be the company that made "that AAA Wii game that sank like a rock."

Picking a development platform is a numerically complex game theory problem. With Wii development, it's closely resembled the Prisoner's Dilemma -- everyone would benefit if they cooperated (all moved a large number of significant, AAA projects to the Wii) but the risks of being the only company to do so are so great that everyone is waiting for someone else to be the first one in the pool. It's not proof that development for the Wii is "actually" a bad idea that these companies have all smartly identified, only that there's a problem of suboptimal incentives in play and no one with the power to do so has found a way to straighten it out.

 

[Road]

Did I say that there all the companies that had avoided HD development were making money?

I guess I phrased my response badly. Another sales-ager will have to back me up on this, but I stand by the statement that the majority of Japanese companies making money are not doing so by developing HD games.

This is an extremely bizarre way to look at the situation. What we see in the thread you've linked is that Nintendo is nearly twice as profitable as all the other profitable publishers put together, and almost ten times as profitable as all other profitable publishers combined once one excludes the singular game World of Warcraft.

Looking at the poor profitability of the overall industry today in combination with sales trends, knowledge of the cost increases associated with HD development, and a variety of other factors is much more useful in developing a holistic view of the industry's current state than going down a list of year-end profits and doing a list of "developed for PS360 or Wii, check."

Someone asked for company results and gerg singled out companies that have had little or no HD development. Apart from the Marvelous comment, I just named names.

I'm not trying to dispute the fact that developing HD games is a money sink, especially when companies say that everyday. In fact, if you look at that list, only 2 (29%) Japanese companies made money and 5 (71%) lost. It speaks for itself.

Sony and Nintendo and Microsoft were excluded from the math for obvious reasons. First, they don't have the choice "PS360 or WiiDS"; and, second, their results don't come solely from developing games.

 

[Acosta]

Publishers, as a group, are unquestionably stupid for not betting more heavily on the winning horses (DS, in the pole position, and then PSP and/or Wii depending on how you look at things.) Within this broad category, one can have individual companies betting on other platforms for well-constructed reasons and doing so with workable strategies (I would argue Capcom falls into this category) even while the broad mass of companies are making superficially similar decisions for foolish reasons (and seeing poor profitability as a result.)

And I dispute that based on pure logic, but I'm not going to keep discussing because it always end in a cyclic discussion. As a matter of fact, we don't have the whole picture of the situation, and we just can believe on our guts. I respect yours, but I can't agree.

This is an extremely bizarre way to look at the situation. What we see in the thread you've linked is that Nintendo is nearly twice as profitable as all the other profitable publishers put together, and almost ten times as profitable as all other profitable publishers combined once one excludes the singular game World of Warcraft.

I must remind that Nintendo produces hardware, which means earning much more revenue than your normal third party if business goes well (hardware margin and royalties). I don't think is fair or useful to compare Nintendo with any third party.

 

[RyuKanSan]

In part because switching horses is a large one-time cost in many ways (and may be structurally difficult given the corporate cultures involved), in part because the Wii's potential has largely (pre-MH3) continued to not be visibly realized, in part because companies are weighing the status quo overly heavily and potential riches from new moves overly lightly (as corporations almost always do absent specific factors in their executive culture), in part because the first-mover risk is fairly high in this situation and no one wants to be the company that made "that AAA Wii game that sank like a rock."

Picking a development platform is a numerically complex game theory problem. With Wii development, it's closely resembled the Prisoner's Dilemma -- everyone would benefit if they cooperated (all moved a large number of significant, AAA projects to the Wii) but the risks of being the only company to do so are so great that everyone is waiting for someone else to be the first one in the pool. It's not proof that development for the Wii is "actually" a bad idea that these companies have all smartly identified, only that there's a problem of suboptimal incentives in play and no one with the power to do so has found a way to straighten it out.

Yeah but didn't Capcom prove that you could put a AAA title on the Wii and it sells big. I mean MHTri is almost at a million units. What more proof could you ask for that AAA 3rd-party titles will sale? Is the fact that MH was already a tremendously popular franchise?

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Yeah but didn't Capcom prove that you could put a AAA title on the Wii and it sells big. I mean MHTri is almost at a million units. What more proof could you ask for that AAA 3rd-party titles will sale? Is the fact that MH was already a tremendously popular franchise?

I wouldn't be surprised to see the success of MH Tri swing a few more large projects in the direction of the system, but I also wonder whether we are now past the point where a big third-party success like that can really do much to change the landscape (DS = king of everything, PSP/Wii picking up smaller titles and the occasional big titles, PS3/360 getting the big "blockbuster" efforts and next-to-no smaller titles).

I'm going to be watching TGS and the (likely) Nintendo Fall conference for more announcements, but I'm not too hopeful of any significant support materialising outside of further Nintendo x Third Party collaborations and maybe one or two mega-announcements (MH3, DQX, SW3 etc.).

 

[Road]

Ah ok. I checked Garaph.info now and i see that there was a Xbox 360 hardware bump about 4-5 weeks after Tales of Vesperia was released. Maybe this is when there was a Xbox 360 pricedrop? Or was there some big titled Xbox 360 game released about 4-5 weeks after Tales of Vesperia?

http://garaph.info/linecompare.php//sum/0/html/2/sys-0/X360/date-0/2008-01-01/tra-0/fam/

EDIT: I just checked garaph.info's Xbox 360 games list and i see that Infinite Undiscovery was released in the same week as the Xbox 360 hardware bump, so i guess that Infinite Undiscovery is one of the reason for the Xbox 360 hardware bump But maybe there was a pricedrop in this period as well as you mentioned

The week of ToV release on the 360 was in the middle of Obon last year, which means Famitsu numbers were for two weeks. What Joshua did, I assume, was divide the total by 2, giving us 15k in each week. (I don't know how he does to split the software sales.)

Going by MC numbers, you can see the ToV bump more clearly:

-1:  5,359
 0: 24,962 (release week)
 1:  7,358

 

[Kilrogg]

Yeah but didn't Capcom prove that you could put a AAA title on the Wii and it sells big. I mean MHTri is almost at a million units. What more proof could you ask for that AAA 3rd-party titles will sale? Is the fact that MH was already a tremendously popular franchise?

I think that the game would have to be a new IP (rather than an established, successful IP) or be orders of magnitude more successful sales-wise than the previous iterations in order to convince most developers to develop games on the platform. MH3 would have to sell roughly as much as the best-selling game in the franchise, if not more. When I say "new IP", I obviously don't mean something like Wii Fit or even Wii Sports, but something that would stick to the traditional market's definition/expectations for a game. Which poses 2 problems (aside from all the problems already listed by charlequin): 1) this means that the game would require a significant budget, making it all the more risky, 2) the traditional model of making games already seems on the decline. Whether the decline is one of financial feasability, of popularity or a little bit of both, there is a decline.

 

[charlequin]

And I dispute that based on pure logic

I do not see the logic here. You're merely asserting this. Why?

MH3's debut makes clear that any position based around the conception that third-party software cannot sell and cannot be profitable on the Wii is fundamentally mistaken. It also makes stunningly clear that the ceiling on title sales for the Wii is quite high. And the benefits to Wii development in terms of lower budgetary cost are well-established.

If this opportunity exists now, it certainly existed in equal or even greater form in 2007-2008 -- i.e. a period in which the vast majority of publishers struggled, huge quantities of PS3 and 360 titles performed far below comparable titles on the PS2, and the visible demand for Wii software went almost completely unmet. By what strange twist of logic are you reading this as anything other than a broad failure to tap a valuable resource by the third-party publishers in question?

I must remind that Nintendo produces hardware

You are taking an extremely silly position here. Both other hardware manufacturers have been losing money both on their individual systems and on their overall gaming businesses.

Yeah but didn't Capcom prove that you could put a AAA title on the Wii and it sells big.

Yes, see the rest of this post. MH3 is actually almost exactly what I've said Nintendo should have done in 2006 -- i.e. use some manner of secretive incentives to draw a major title to the system and then let it sell gangbusters, hopefully pushing other companies to attempt to mirror its success. I think its impact will exist, but be much less than a similar hit would have had in 2007.

the traditional model of making games already seems on the decline.

I want to pick on this. The "traditional model of making games" is quite alive and well, IMO -- I'd argue that 99% of DS software, large-investment "casual" games like PopCap, game development studios like Valve and Blizzard etc., and even Nintendo's own teams are all practicing "the traditional model of making games."

Rather, I think that the iterative process that has moved top-end game-making step by step from the mid-sized teams of the past into a new type of manpower-intensive, semi-distributed, and extremely costly large-team development has hit a cost-related breaking point and has begun to flounder.

 

[Kilrogg]

I want to pick on this. The "traditional model of making games" is quite alive and well, IMO -- I'd argue that 99% of DS software, large-investment "casual" games like PopCap, game development studios like Valve and Blizzard etc., and even Nintendo's own teams are all practicing "the traditional model of making games."

Rather, I think that the iterative process that has moved top-end game-making step by step from the mid-sized teams of the past into a new type of manpower-intensive, semi-distributed, and extremely costly large-team development has hit a cost-related breaking point and has begun to flounder.

You're right. I took a shortcut, to be honest, but I really meant something along the lines of what you've just said. I'm not nearly as good at phrasing my arguments though, never mind the fact that English is not my mother tongue. I was just being lazy here though.

[EDIT] With that said, I'm not sure Valve, Blizzard and Nintendo should be used consistantly when making that argument. They're ultra-successful, that's for sure, but they're also the only companies having that kind of success, and they've all got really unique aspects to their corporate culture (Blizzard taking as much time as it needs to make a game, for instance). As for PopCap, I'm sure they invest a lot of time and money in their games, but how do they compare to big budget AAA-games on consoles? Honest question, I really don't know.

 

[Acosta]

I do not see the logic here. You're merely asserting this. Why?

MH3's debut makes clear that any position based around the conception that third-party software cannot sell and cannot be profitable on the Wii is fundamentally mistaken. It also makes stunningly clear that the ceiling on title sales for the Wii is quite high. And the benefits to Wii development in terms of lower budgetary cost are well-established.

If this opportunity exists now, it certainly existed in equal or even greater form in 2007-2008 -- i.e. a period in which the vast majority of publishers struggled, huge quantities of PS3 and 360 titles performed far below comparable titles on the PS2, and the visible demand for Wii software went almost completely unmet. By what strange twist of logic are you reading this as anything other than a broad failure to tap a valuable resource by the third-party publishers in question?

You are the one being assertive. I'm just trying to open an alternative to the scenario of them "being stupid". You are the one refusing any chance of that being possible, and I am telling you that I don't see that as the only possible scenario.

And, as you say, they didn't tap before, they are not tapping it now and checking the next projects from Konami, Capcom, Sega, Square Enix and so... I don't see them crazy to put their main resources on Wii in the next future (at this moment). This TGS will hace more 360 games than Wii ones, and each week I see Famitsu news with games for DS, PSP and PS3, with minimal presence of Wii software. This must have a reason.

You are taking an extremely silly position here. Both other hardware manufacturers have been losing money both on their individual systems and on their overall gaming businesses.

mmm? I said third parties and it was the point we were talking about, I said nothing about other hardware manufactures. I am not interested in that discussion at all, just talking about Nintendo and their relationship with third parties.

 

[gerg]

And, as you say, they didn't tap before, they are not tapping it now and checking the next projects from Konami, Capcom, Sega, Square Enix and so... I don't see them crazy to put their main resources on Wii in the next future (at this moment). This TGS will hace more 360 games than Wii ones, and each week I see Famitsu news with games for DS, PSP and PS3, with minimal presence of Wii software. This must have a reason.

This is a very transparent appeal to authority, and is the same logic people use when they justify some of Nintendo's more obtuse (and sometimes incorrect) decisions.

 

[Acosta]

This is a very transparent appeal to authority, and is the same logic people use when they justify some of Nintendo's more obtuse (and sometimes incorrect) decisions.

I don't want to justify anything, it´s not my responsibility. To make my point clear: I just believe that there are problems we are not aware that could make this situation more clear and could explain a bit better certain decisions.

Because if logic worked, Wii would be the main target for companies, or it would have been after being obvious where the market was moving. And I don't see that happening at this moment. It may change, but if it doesn't change and I will keep thinking there are circumstances we don't see.

 

[Parl]

I don't want to justify anything, it´s not my responsibility. To make my point clear: I just believe that there are problems we are not aware that could make this situation more clear and could explain a bit better certain decisions.

Because if logic worked, Wii would be the main target for companies, or it would have been after being obvious where the market was moving. And I don't see that happening at this moment. It may change, but if it doesn't change and I will keep thinking there are circumstances we don't see.

I think it's called "missing the boat". Big games with big names, different enough to what Nintendo were already doing, would have been very beneficial for Nintendo to have had at launch and throughout 2007. The audience for such titles is much smaller now than it very likely would have been had the Wii had several large third party games appealing to different segments of the wider console market, in 2007. The earlier the better.

Currently, it's a catch 22 situation. In general, many third parties don't put their best resources on Wii because of the perceived lack of audience for the intended target market, and Wii appears to have a less than brilliant audience for such titles because the said third parties don't and didn't put their best resources on Wii.

 

[donny2112]

Third-parties were stupid for not putting their best effort for games on the console with the runaway biggest audience.

Nintendo was stupid for not stepping in with more reasons than a big userbase to try to head off the third-parties' stupid decision.

Edit:

can we then compare first 2 years of Wii vs NDS, 1st party and 3rd party software?

NDS 1st-party sales through 2 yrs, 9 mos - 49.1m

I think the rest of the data you were looking for has already been posted.

 

[Dalthien]

Let me offer another perspective:

"This cannot be said enough. If the console with the largest user base by a mile has to put out money hats to get quality 3rd party support than there is something very wrong with that company."

Consider this. Userbase is not everything, and Nintendo has not always been the best partner for third companies, there is a well documented history of this. Perhaps, and only perhaps, there are good reasons that explain why companies don't want to pull their eggs in Nintendo basket.

Or maybe they are all stupid and you know better.

Let's get away from speculating about the reasons for a moment, and just look at the results. (I'm using Captain Smoker's famitsu charts through Aug 9/09, which are a very thorough set of data. (Thanks Smoker!))

Last Gen: (PS2, GC, XBX, DC, GBA)

46.1M units - Nintendo published software
221.7M units - Everyone else

Nintendo's 1st party software was about 17% of the entire market.
3rd-parties (plus Sony & MS) made up about 83% of the market.

This Gen: (Wii, PS3, 360, DS, PSP) (thru Aug 9/09)

95.0M units - Nintendo published software
110.4M units - Everyone else

Nintendo's 1st party software is currently about 46% of the entire market.
3rd-parties (plus Sony & MS) make up about 54% of the market.



So 3rd-parties have basically gone from a combined 83% of the Japanese market, all the way down to 54% of the market this generation.

That is an absolutely massive and stunning drop. And Nintendo all by itself is responsible for nearly half of the entire Japanese market, even though they don't even publish games on three of the five current systems.


Why do you think 3rd-parties collectively have seen such an extreme plunge? Because they've refused to support the market-leading systems. (And yes, the Wii is the clear #2 software platform in Japan - it has sold more total software than the PSP even though it only has 2/3 the userbase of the PSP and even though it has been on the market two years less than the PSP).

Even the almighty DS has seen rather lackluster support from many 3rd-parties. Konami hasn't exactly treated the DS the same way they did the PS2. Capcom has given better support to multiple systems than they have the DS, Namco certainly hasn't put their top efforts towards the DS, likewise for Koei, etc. And then there are some others that have treated the DS very well, such as Square Enix, Level 5. etc.

But on the whole, the DS certainly hasn't received anywhere near the level of top-tier AAA 3rd-party support that the PS2 received, and the Wii has been crapped on by just about the entire collection of 3rd-parties.

3rd-parties have effectively allowed Nintendo uncontested access to tens of millions of Wii and DS customers. Nintendo is one of the only companies regularly putting their top development studios and brands on these systems, and they have taken enormous advantage of the lack of competition from other Japanese publishers.


Has Nintendo been hurt by this disinterest from 3rd-parties? Yeah, but not nearly as much as some people think. (Wii hardware is definitely down because of this, but at the same time, a strong effort from 3rd-parties would likely reduce Nintendo's own 1st-party piece of the pie. But the combination of money lost due to the lower hardware sales, and the lost licensing revenues from 3rd-party software would probably outweigh the money lost due to lower 1st-party software sales. So in the end, I agree with charlequin that Nintendo would be better off overall with a stronger 3rd-party presence. I just don't think they've taken nearly as big of a hit from this as some others believe).

Have 3rd-parties been hurt by their disinterest in Nintendo platforms? Well, just look at their marketshare falling from 83% to 54% in the space of one generation. They've been absolutely ravaged.

This is illustrative of my point about supporting the market leader, actually. There's nothing inherently wrong about targeting platforms that aren't the highest marketshare systems; there are a variety of strategies that can take advantage of these systems' unique qualities and produce success out of it. Capcom's cross-platform, HD-centric action gaming strategy has broadly paid off, especially with their success in the West, and by limiting their handheld franchises they've also kept their handheld output almost exclusively to huge hits. That's great for them and I can't point at their strategy and say, "man, they should really give the DS and Wii more love."

The problem is that Capcom is literally the only Japanese publisher who has done well with such a strategy, which makes sense when you think about it -- targeting loser systems simply isn't as safe or reliable as targeting winners.

Publishers, as a group, are unquestionably stupid for not betting more heavily on the winning horses (DS, in the pole position, and then PSP and/or Wii depending on how you look at things.) Within this broad category, one can have individual companies betting on other platforms for well-constructed reasons and doing so with workable strategies (I would argue Capcom falls into this category) even while the broad mass of companies are making superficially similar decisions for foolish reasons (and seeing poor profitability as a result.)

This is an excellent summary of the situation. Valid and sensible reasons can be made for any particular game to not go to the DS or Wii. And many publishers operate on a very immediate, short-term vision. So they can justify bringing any particular game to a non-Nintendo system, and the decision makes perfect short-term sense.

But the damage in the long-term has been brutal for the 3rd-parties as an aggregate group. By collectively shunning the Wii (and even the DS to an extent), they have drastically minimized their relevance in the Japanese gaming market - and have slashed their revenues to a brutal degree.

Anyway, charlequin phrased it much better than I could - so I wanted to highlight his thoughts on this matter.

 

[Acosta]

In my opinion, more than "being hurt" I think that Nintendo is losing a very good opportunity. Sony had no problems to attract major support in Playstation days, but someway Nintendo can't do it now being in a excellent position. Even Microsoft has established a stronger relationship with Japanese companies.

Maybe both sides are being stupid like donny says, I don't discard that scenario.

 

[donny2112]

Media Create sales data from YSO.

From some brief browsing, it seems like Media Create used to overtrack a lot. Bloody Roar 3's first week is about equal to the sum of Famitsu and Dengeki's first week for the title. Kirby 64 was ~90K higher first week than Famitsu. And we have the always fun "Media Create shows more GCNs sold in Japan than Nintendo shipped" thing that's been discussed before.

Thanks for researching all of this info, bttb!

*cue schuelma*

 

[Kenka]

It looks like Nintendo is ok with letting third-parties die in Japan, just as they would enjoy this. But why would third-parties rather die than accept Nintendo's conditions about developing on their plateforms ?

This is beyond me, has this anything to do with the corporate culture in Japan ?

 

[Sadist]

It looks like Nintendo is ok with letting third-parties die in Japan, just as they would enjoy this. But why would third-parties rather die than accept Nintendo's conditions about developing on their plateforms ?

This is beyond me, has this anything to do with the corporate culture in Japan ?

Well if your statement would be true, that could be the reason of why third parties don't want to co-operate with Nintendo, because... they would rather let them rott than help them.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Third-parties were stupid for not putting their best effort for games on the console with the runaway biggest audience.

Nintendo was stupid for not stepping in with more reasons than a big userbase to try to head off the third-parties' stupid decision.

Nintendo was stupid for not anticipating the stupidity of others?

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[TunaLover]

So the Wii is done with big 3rd support in Japan? It's too late in the Wii's life?, even if 3rd choose backpedal, I wonder that efforts only could see the light in 2-3 years from now...?

And yeah, Famitsu recent announcements didn't look rosy for Nintendo, the TGS is even worst...

 

[jay]

Last Gen: (PS2, GC, XBX, DC, GBA)

46.1M units - Nintendo published software
221.7M units - Everyone else

Nintendo's 1st party software was about 17% of the entire market.
3rd-parties (plus Sony & MS) made up about 83% of the market.

This Gen: (Wii, PS3, 360, DS, PSP) (thru Aug 9/09)

95.0M units - Nintendo published software
110.4M units - Everyone else

Nintendo's 1st party software is currently about 46% of the entire market.
3rd-parties (plus Sony & MS) make up about 54% of the market.

Holy crap, that is devastating.

Well if your statement would be true, that could be the reason of why third parties don't want to co-operate with Nintendo, because... they would rather let them rott than help them.

I didn't think business's were supposed to be as emotionally invested as forum goers.

 

[vodka-bull]

Yay Soul Silver is beating Heart Gold and yay 50k PS3.

From 150k down to 50k in one week is a yay?

 

[LiquidMetal14]

From 150k down to 50k in one week is a yay?

Got a problem? It's doing better than the sub 10k it was pulling quite consistently.

 

[Fredescu]

Nintendo was stupid for not anticipating the stupidity of others?

Perhaps "stupid" isn't the most precise word for it, but it's affecting their bottom line at the moment, so yes.

 

[charlequin]

With that said, I'm not sure Valve, Blizzard and Nintendo should be used consistantly when making that argument. They're ultra-successful, that's for sure, but they're also the only companies having that kind of success, and they've all got really unique aspects to their corporate culture

Sure, I don't disagree. I could probably narrow my definition further. My point is really just that if one looks at what "game development" was understood to be ten or fifteen years ago, those methods and forms of development are still gloriously alive today -- just not in the production of high-budget AAA PS360 games.

You are the one being assertive. I'm just trying to open an alternative to the scenario of them "being stupid".

I'm just calling a spade a spade. We can change the word, if you want, to "illogical" or "irrational" or "unreasonable." The point is that developing for a market leader has always, throughout gaming's history, been a very good position to be in, and that quite a

I don't see them crazy to put their main resources on Wii in the next future (at this moment).

Sega's given quite a bit of support to the Wii and actually just vocally announced their intent to do more like two weeks ago. Out of the remaining three companies, only Capcom has adopted a development strategy under which I think there is anything remotely resembling a clear reason not to devote resources to more Wii projects.

Dalthien addresses this very effectively above. There is a major loss third-parties as a category have experienced in Japan's marketplace this generation that is directly attributable to their unwillingness to support the market leader. (Where I differ with many people is that I also assign blame to Nintendo for not responding by making such support more attractive, but the base description of third-party choices as mistaken remains accurate.)

This must have a reason.

I might suggest that if you actually thoroughly read my posts in this thread and thought through the prisoner's dilemma situation I describe you might notice that there is, in fact, an explanation, just not one that has any remotely factual connection to the idea that the Wii is an inherently unsuitable software platform.

Third-parties were stupid for not putting their best effort for games on the console with the runaway biggest audience.

Nintendo was stupid for not stepping in with more reasons than a big userbase to try to head off the third-parties' stupid decision.

Next time I get into either side of this argument I should just quote this post instead. :lol

Nintendo was stupid for not anticipating the stupidity of others?

I would pretty consistently argue across a broad range of fields of study that failing to anticipate and react effectively to the stupidity of others is indeed, in itself, a form of stupidity.

(In this particular case, I'm more likely to ascribe both parties' actions to stubbornness rather than stupidity per se, although I think the broad equation remains basically the same.)

 

[P90]

Isn't DQ X and SH:Shattered Memories coming out on Wii? Didn't Muramasa just come out? These games are third party games or am I missing something?