Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

I don't think that this is bad because they don't care so much about marketshare.

You're overreaching with one of the lessons of Nintendo's success. The GameCube proved something about the market -- that you don't need X% marketshare to make a profit -- but it doesn't follow from there that marketshare isn't still relevant. Marketshare always leads to an increase in absolute software sales and, when one makes a profit on hardware, an increase of hardware profits. Nintendo always benefits in profit terms by selling more hardware. In other words -- Nintendo sees far less tradeoff between profit and marketshare than Sony and Microsoft, so the opportunity costs of not taking chances to increase absolute sales are much more painful.

I'm not saying that there is no benefit to having third-party support, but am questioning the benefit of paying for third-party support, especially when viewed through the perspective of "profit is best".

stump's post is very relevant here. "Paying" suggests a series of hemmhorage-esque huge cash outlays, but the actual process involves a consistent pattern of individually inexpensive but beneficial actions that combine holistically into a much greater level of effect.

It's also important to consider the inertia issue here. Most people seem to agree that third parties would have been better off (profit-wise) developing "real" software for Wii, but that a first-into-the-pool problem (no one wanted to risk their own capital to be a trial balloon for other thir parties) kept all of them from committing. A few paid or influenced exclusives could serve the purpose of demonstrating that Wii development (starting immediately with "huge" franchises) was profitable, leaving others to chase the now clearly-visible money without needing upfront cash to do so. (You can see evidence of this with MS, who have now been able to safely move away from paying for lots of exclusives since the benefits of developing for 360 are now so clear.)

 

[jvm]

Did we get platform Top 10s released this month? I haven't seen any.

They were not sent out, to my knowledge.

 

[Sadist]

Except that they can.

Nintendo has won tons of money with the Wii. And that industry is moved by the money. If they really wanted to move the hardcores to the Wii, they will do it.

Going to NIS and saying: "Ok, I want Disgaea 4 for Wii. Completly creative freedom. I know that It won't sell much, but I will support any loss if your game is over 80 in MetaCritics. Each point over that value will be 100k $"

Then, going to all the small japanese companies that made good enought Wii games, but that can't afford to translate and distribute their games to US, and saying: "Ok, I'll pay the translation and I'll distribute the game to US and probably Europe, keeping a low percentage of the benefits. Win-Win for that companies, 0 cost and the possibility of get fame out of Japan".

Then, going to all the indy scene and giving really good conditions for development in WiiWare. No more "I'll keep all the money of the first X sells", that discourage a lot of people, that fear that if the game don't sell much, they win 0$ for all the effort.

Taking risks as distributing or even producing M games, like Madworld. Getting small teams that works well with the Wii hardware but don't have enought game design experience, like the people of Conduit.

Talking with all the big third parties, like EA, Activision and Ubi, and saying: Ok, I'll discount the 75% of the royalties that you pay for develop for Wii (that is like the 20 or 30% of the final price of the game) if your game get's more than 80 in Metacritics. And if the first reviews are over 85, I'll promote your game with X$ in TV and magazine ads.

If Nintendo really wants to move the hardore to the Wii, they have enought money to do it, and even without sacrificing a great part of their benefits. It will be slow, but the hardcore will have to surrender to the evidence of the catalog.

I hope that Reggie is not reading this post, I'll hate if Sony and MS gets bankrupted by my fault.

Short answer: pipedream.

 

[VerTiGo]

charlequin

You can't brush off the difference in selling a 1st party game.

There is/was a pretty good reason MS paid $375,000,000 for Rare. GoldenEye on it's own grossed that much. God damn.

I still can't see how Microsoft's purchase of Rare was a smart move for them on any level.

 

[jvm]

I thought I saw donny2112 say he'd be busy at the beginning of this week. Is that why no hardware prediction results thread?

 

[DangerousDave]

Short answer: pipedream.

Maybe, but do you think that suddenly all the companies woke up one morning and decided in the same time that they will start making games for PSP, even when no one of these companies (except Capcom and maybe Square) had ever a single $ of benefit in their PSP games?

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Can anyone recap what numbers we have at this point? I just got back from a convention, and don't feel like paging through 26 pages of the same old arguments about why the hardcore will never come to Nintendo, and so on, and so forth.

 

[charlequin]

But at what point do you stop listening?

At the point of criticisms that contravert your good ideas, rather than simply affecting neutral areas, obviously. Clearly N shouldn't have redesigned the Wiimote, but a change to their storage strategy or approach to the Internet (neither of which is fundamental to their success in its current form) could have improved the console without great inherent cost.

You can't brush off the difference in selling a 1st party game.

Sure I can, because the idea that there's a tradeoff here is foolish. If every third-party game cost Nintendo a sale of their own software, they wouldn't allow third-parties to develop for their system at all. But they don't; ideally, they complement Nintendo's own software by covering other genres or skill levels, or otherwise capturing dollars that, if not spent on those games, might go to a competitor or a different medium altogether, rather than a Nintendo firs-party title.

Short answer: pipedream.

But nothing in that post is inherently unreasonable -- companies who aren't fundamentally profitable the way Nintendo are have been doing them for years. Given Nintendo's large cash reserves, the argument that they can't/shouldn't spend on these things is far less convincing given that it won't actually consume the funding needed for their current strategy.

 

[Oblivion]

It's also important to consider the inertia issue here. Most people seem to agree that third parties would have been better off (profit-wise) developing "real" software for Wii, but that a first-into-the-pool problem (no one wanted to risk their own capital to be a trial balloon for other thir parties) kept all of them from committing. A few paid or influenced exclusives could serve the purpose of demonstrating that Wii development (starting immediately with "huge" franchises) was profitable, leaving others to chase the now clearly-visible money without needing upfront cash to do so. (You can see evidence of this with MS, who have now been able to safely move away from paying for lots of exclusives since the benefits of developing for 360 are now so clear.)

In all honestly, even if Wii had a few more token examples of 'real' third party games succeeding, it would do little to help others come over, since there's a bigger inherent problem with the Wii. The fact that major third parties (and even many non-major) invested so much in next gen. hardware, and Wii being an overclocked gc had more to effect the current state of things than anything else.

And with the 360, other factors, such as MS launching first, and the PS3 faltering had more an effect on MS' lead than whatever exclusives they may have paid for.

 

[schuelma]

In all honestly, even if Wii had a few more token examples of 'real' third party games succeeding, it would do little to help others come over, since there's a bigger inherent problem with the Wii. The fact that major third parties (and even many non-major) invested so much in next gen. hardware, and Wii being an overclocked gc had more to effect the current state of things than anything else.

And with the 360, other factors, such as MS launching first, and the PS3 faltering had more an effect on MS' lead than whatever exclusives they may have paid for.

I don't know exactly what market he is speaking of, but I think in Japan this could have absolutely succeeded, given the lack of unease that Japanese developers seem to feel with developing for systems even less powerful than the Wii.

 

[Sadist]

Maybe, but do you think that suddenly all the companies woke up one morning and decided in the same time that they will start making games for PSP, even when no one of these companies (except Capcom and maybe Square) had ever a single $ of benefit in their PSP games?

The thing is, the PSP has a software problem. Sounds weird, because we're all talking about the Wii and that the console doesnt receive the love it actually deserves, but the PSP has a very heavy pirating problem which keeps PSP development down. Sony does something to counter it and third parties are willing to try. The Wii however... it sells software no matter what. Even if it's bad, it rakes in the dollars at some degree. Big difference between the two. Wii sells software, PSP doesn't.

But nothing in that post is inherently unreasonable -- companies who aren't fundamentally profitable the way Nintendo are have been doing them for years. Given Nintendo's large cash reserves, the argument that they can't/shouldn't spend on these things is far less convincing given that it won't actually consume the funding needed for their current strategy.

Where did I say it's unreasonable? But let's be honest, I know it's possible with all the cash they are raking in right now. But knowing Nintendo, how they work, is it probable? I'd say no. If I were Nintendo I'd start thinking about certain investments for the future (looking at the 3rd party situation) but I guess Nintendo doesn't feel that way. Not very strongly anyway. Sure, there is Monster Hunter, Dragon Quest and Tales... but in the west there is no real big thing.

 

[Xeke]

But nothing in that post is inherently unreasonable -- companies who aren't fundamentally profitable the way Nintendo are have been doing them for years. Given Nintendo's large cash reserves, the argument that they can't/shouldn't spend on these things is far less convincing given that it won't actually consume the funding needed for their current strategy.

I feel like using Metacritic to influence high spending is somewhat foolish...

 

[ViperVisor]

Sure I can, because the idea that there's a tradeoff here is foolish. If every third-party game cost Nintendo a sale of their own software, they wouldn't allow third-parties to develop for their system at all. But they don't; ideally, they complement Nintendo's own software by covering other genres or skill levels, or otherwise capturing dollars that, if not spent on those games, might go to a competitor or a different medium altogether, rather than a Nintendo firs-party title.

They aren't gonna go out of there way to hope that a Soufflé turns out well. They are fat and happy right now.

If they aren't looking at getting the next hardware iteration a leg up on the competition with investments then I'd have a problem. They can't add a lot the value to Wii that people already see in the HD twins so why try?
When they want more console sales they will cut the price. They are the ones most well positioned for that strategy

 

[legend166]

Eh, I don't think the whole 'Nintendo should throw money at 3rd parties' idea would work. Atleast, not now.

HD fans are more stubborn than you guys think.

 

[Pureauthor]

They aren't gonna go out of there way to hope that a Soufflé turns out well. They are fat and happy right now.

The whole issue here is that they aren't. Wii sales are stumbling in Japan. The X360 has outsold the Wii in the UK. And the Wii's sales are declining in the US.

 

[jrricky]

Demos. Not every publisher wants a demo for every game, but it's certain that some publishers want demos for some of their games. Nintendo has no capacity for demos.

Nintendo actually said that?

 

[Grampa Simpson]

I was just pointing out how miraculous it is that a sequel for Sin and Punishment is being developed.

If that doesn't mean Nintendo loves gamers me then I don't know what is.

That's kind of like Penn and Teller's theory for the non-existence of God.

 

[Sadist]

I feel like using Metacritic to influence high spending is somewhat foolish...

It's the all new fad with them young people these days! Publishers/developers shouldn't focus to hard on this metric. It could influence development in a bad way imo.

 

[DangerousDave]

The thing is, the PSP has a software problem. Sounds weird, because we're all talking about the Wii and that the console doesnt receive the love it actually deserves, but the PSP has a very heavy pirating problem which keeps PSP development down. Sony does something to counter it and third parties are willing to try. The Wii however... it sells software no matter what. Even if it's bad, it rakes in the dollars at some degree. Big difference between the two. Wii sells software, PSP doesn't.

I know the differences between the PSP and the Wii. But I'm explaining that a company can attract the third parties if they want. Sony has done it (for the PSP), one of the reasons of the PSP Go leaks was that dozens of companies, even small ones, had received PSP Go prototypes and all kind of support months before the E3 announcement. And there are more titles that are not yet announced (for example, Saint's Row was leaked due the declaration of a metal band that licensed some songs for the game, obviously there are many other projects kept in secret).

But let's be honest, I know it's possible with all the cash they are raking in right now. But knowing Nintendo, how they work, is it probable? I'd say no.

I agree completly with you. But EDarkness said that Nintendo can't force the third party to work on wii, so they don't have any responsability in this. But they can. Simply, they don't need it, because they are selling to the expanded market, so they won't do it.

 

[DangerousDave]

I feel like using Metacritic to influence high spending is somewhat foolish...

Well, If the producers share the bonus with the developers using Metacritics as a base instead of the units sold, maybe we would have a little less showelware.

sorry for the double post

 

[legend166]

Well, If the producers share the bonus with the developers using Metacritics as a base instead of the units sold, maybe we would have a little less showelware.

sorry for the double post

Metacritic is retarded. It's absolutely pointless. Designing a game just for high reviews is stupid.

 

[Fredescu]

I feel like using Metacritic to influence high spending is somewhat foolish...

The alternative seems to be not even bothering to send out review copies. I think there's a good side to reliance on Metacritic.

 

[DangerousDave]

Metacritic is retarded. It's absolutely pointless. Designing a game just for high reviews is stupid.

Well, it's quite difficult to find bad games with more than 85 in Metacritics. As difficult as find good games with less than 60. So I suppose that is not absolutely pointless.

And, please, GTA IV or God Hand arguments might be considered exceptions, but not a rule.

 

[charlequin]

I don't know exactly what market he is speaking of, but I think in Japan this could have absolutely succeeded, given the lack of unease that Japanese developers seem to feel with developing for systems even less powerful than the Wii.

It would work better in Japan and with large publisher-devs like Ubi and EA, where the decision-making is more removed from the developers themselves. And I think they probably could have guaranteed that there were no major Western PSP exclusives that didn't get a Wii port.

 

[ViperVisor]

The whole issue here is that they aren't. Wii sales are stumbling in Japan. The X360 has outsold the Wii in the UK. And the Wii's sales are declining in the US.

They are stumbling to the bank. Checking AMZ Wii is $20 more in UK and not with Wii Sports in JPN. US is only great sales now. Mario Kart sold 200K in its 14th month. What did GTA4 or MGS4 gross in June? It sure as shine isn't the $10,000,000 Mario Kart did staying at full price while they are half off.

 

[laserbeam]

It must suck to be Nintendo. I mean selling more even with declining sales than the record holding console.

 

[legend166]

Well, it's quite difficult to find bad games with more than 85 in Metacritics. As difficult as find good games with less than 60. So I suppose that is not absolutely pointless.

And, please, GTA IV or God Hand arguments might be considered exceptions, but not a rule.

I bet I could find a whole bunch of games I don't like above 85 on Metacritic.

 

[Psychotext]

I bet I could find a whole bunch of games I don't like above 85 on Metacritic.

I'm hoping you can tell the difference between bad games and games you don't like.

 

[DangerousDave]

I bet I could find a whole bunch of games I don't like above 85 on Metacritic.

But "i don't like" is not the same as "this game is bad".

If you are trying to convince all the people of this forum that the metacritic notes don't have any relationship with the quality of a game, that are not even "orientative", and that they're simply random numbers... well, good luck.

 

[Dalthien]

It's also important to consider the inertia issue here. Most people seem to agree that third parties would have been better off (profit-wise) developing "real" software for Wii, but that a first-into-the-pool problem (no one wanted to risk their own capital to be a trial balloon for other thir parties) kept all of them from committing. A few paid or influenced exclusives could serve the purpose of demonstrating that Wii development (starting immediately with "huge" franchises) was profitable, leaving others to chase the now clearly-visible money without needing upfront cash to do so. (You can see evidence of this with MS, who have now been able to safely move away from paying for lots of exclusives since the benefits of developing for 360 are now so clear.)

Honest question...

Do you really believe that Nintendo could have bought or influenced a few exclusive "huge" franchises at the start of this gen? Because I don't think that was ever a possibility - even if Nintendo had wanted to go that route.

To have a few "huge" franchises brought exclusively to the Wii for the purposes of establishing inertia early on, work would have had to have started on those games before the Wii even released. The Wii was the successor to the Gamecube. A system which 3rd-parties had completely abandoned some time before anyone even knew what the Wii was. The Wii was assumed by 3rd-parties to be a continuation of the Gamecube in terms of marketshare this gen. In my view, there was no amount of influence that Nintendo could have possibly exerted that would have convinced 3rd-parties to bring their top franchises and developers to work exclusively on the Wii. And buying the games outright would have been insanely expensive for Nintendo, because the 3rd-parties had absolutely no faith that the Wii would perform any better than the Gamecube. Even with outrageous moneyhats, I still suspect that 3rd-parties would have said thanks, but no thanks. We'd rather not bring our new Grand Theft Auto, or Resident Evil, or Elder Scrolls game as a Wii exclusive - but maybe we'll be willing to give you some new property like Red Steel.

Microsoft had several advantages with the 360 that Nintendo didn't have with the Wii. The XBox finished its life in a very strong position, proving itself to be a very viable system for FPS, sports, etc. 3rd-party software support was growing stronger and stronger as the 360 launch neared. Plus, the 360 was the only next-gen system on the market for a year - so 3rd-parties were willing to listen to Microsoft's influence, and were willing to accept reasonably priced moneyhats. Neither would have been the case with the Wii.

So that leaves the current market. Could Nintendo buy or influence a few "huge" exclusive Wii franchises now? In the west, I still don't think so. The 3rd-parties have now established their top franchises and developers on the HD systems. No amount of influence will get them to switch these "huge" franchises to a Wii-exclusive status at this point. And again, the moneyhats required to get 3rd-parties to even contemplate the idea would be absolutely insane.

In Japan, it is a different story. There is no viable HD alternative in Japan at this point, and because of that, Nintendo has had some success luring some "huge" franchises over to Wii exlusivity. Dragon Quest, Monster Hunter, Tales of, etc.

But in the west, the 3rd-parties have already established these "huge" franchises on the HD platform. Getting them to switch them mid-gen just isn't something that Nintendo has any control over. And getting them to bring these "huge" franchises to the Wii at the start of this gen just was never a possibility - no matter how much Nintendo may have wanted that to happen, or how much influence they were willing to exert.

I just think that you are discounting just how poorly the 3rd-parties thought of the Gamecube, and just how bad of a position Nintendo was in as the start of this gen approached. I really don't think Nintendo had nearly the number of effective options available to them as you suggest. The only real option that they had was to build such an immense userbase that the 3rd-parties couldn't help but take notice of the Wii. And they pulled that option off as successfully as anyone could have ever imagined.

As you pointed out with your "first-into-the-pool problem" comment - that immense userbase didn't work.

I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't numerous smaller things that Nintendo could have done differently or better with respect to 3rd-party relations - but I don't think any of it would have helped to lure "huge" franchise exclusives to the Wii. Third-parties just didn't want to have anything at all to do with the Wii early on. They believed it to be the Gamecube part 2, and they were going to stay away. Especially with their top developers and franchises.

 

[donny2112]

Actual

Year over Year

Estimated

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

I'm hoping you can tell the difference between bad games and games you don't like.

That implies that there's such a thing as an objectively bad game.

 

[AniHawk]

That implies that there's such a thing as an objectively bad game.

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GSBPB0KTL._SL500_AA280_.jpg[/img]

 

[GitarooMan]

That implies that there's such a thing as an objectively bad game.

There definitely is such a thing.

 

[manueldelalas]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GSBPB0KTL._SL500_AA280_.jpg[img][/QUOTE]
87 on metacritic, another exception =P.

 

[charlequin]

They are stumbling to the bank. Checking AMZ Wii is $20 more in UK and not with Wii Sports in JPN. US is only great sales now. Mario Kart sold 200K in its 14th month. What did GTA4 or MGS4 gross in June? It sure as shine isn't the $10,000,000 Mario Kart did staying at full price while they are half off.

"I am not actually interested in talking about this honestly and with regard to all the facts" would be a few lines shorter. :/

Honest question...

Do you really believe that Nintendo could have bought or influenced a few exclusive "huge" franchises at the start of this gen? Because I don't think that was ever a possibility - even if Nintendo had wanted to go that route.

Let me put it this way: I don't think most of the already-huge franchises were actually significantly in play* this generation, but I do think the option to create brand new AAA-budgeted franchises (or expand B-list franchises to the A-list) existed, and that franchises like this actually have as much influence on a generation as the big stuff from the time before. Or, in other words: I don't think Nintendo could ever have gotten GTA4 given their platform strategy, but I think the possibility of getting something like a (lesser) version of GTA3's impact last generation was there.

In the best case, I think Nintendo could've locked up some smaller genres even as sandbox and shooter games continued to flourish on PS360, and you'd see people picking a system more based on what kind of games they liked (more like the SNES/Genny days.)


*There are exceptions. I think Nintendo could've gotten Namco to skip 360 altogether for Tales, as a particularly big example off the top of my head.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Point and laugh at me people, just do it.

 

[ViperVisor]

"I am not actually interested in talking about this honestly and with regard to all the facts" would be a few lines shorter. :/

What do you think we are talking about here? You are complaining that Nintendo only did water into wine and not champagne.

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

There definitely is such a thing.

Fundamentally broken games, plagued by game-breaking bugs, crashes, etc., perhaps.

 

[Gaborn]

It's also important to consider the inertia issue here. Most people seem to agree that third parties would have been better off (profit-wise) developing "real" software for Wii, but that a first-into-the-pool problem (no one wanted to risk their own capital to be a trial balloon for other thir parties) kept all of them from committing. few paid or influenced exclusives could serve the purpose of demonstrating that Wii development (starting immediately with "huge" franchises) was profitable, leaving others to chase the now clearly-visible money without needing upfront cash to do so. (You can see evidence of this with MS, who have now been able to safely move away from paying for lots of exclusives since the benefits of developing for 360 are now so clear.)

Ok, but if we're buying this isn't the corollary, since so many developers (Factor 5 comes immediately to mind) have lost so much money on HD consoles (mostly the PS3) that they should be wary about further losses on more expensive consoles where it's harder to see a rate of return? Shouldn't we be seeing fewer big budget titles for those systems and more budget titles and "safe" cash cows?

 

[charlequin]

What do you think we are talking about here?

I think we are talking about how the weaknesses in Nintendo's strategy (which has been very strong overall, a fact I'd never debated and in fact have argued strongly in favor of many, many times) are now being reflected in their significant drop in hardware sales, flat YoY H1 software sales when both 360 and PS3 software is growing, etc. Yes, they had an amazing launch, have done incredible numbers, made tons of money -- that's last year's news, we're talking about what they can do for us (and their shareholders) now, in calendar oh-nine.

You seem more interested in running D for Nintendo with the "if they're making any profit at all they're clearly 100% perfect (even if their sales are declining)" angle than acknowledging and engaging with the problems many people have identified in Nintendo's current performance, so I'm not sure how much else there is to say here.

Ok, but if we're buying this isn't the corollary, since so many developers (Factor 5 comes immediately to mind) have lost so much money on HD consoles (mostly the PS3) that they should be wary about further losses on more expensive consoles where it's harder to see a rate of return? Shouldn't we be seeing fewer big budget titles for those systems and more budget titles and "safe" cash cows?

I think we are seeing this, just in a different form: we're seeing devs who bet the farm on HD with subpar titles (like GRiN and Factor 5) be "wary" of developing for them more in the sense that they've lost so much money that they are now going out of business, while we're seeing niche and unique-concept games get priced out of the market on HD consoles.

Even with huge HD budgets, a AAA game can still easily recoup its budget and then some with strong worldwide sales, but once potentially-profitable niche/smaller-market games are now innate money losers. The result we're seeing is that the smart (but evil) pubs like Activision are ditching their slate of money-losing niche (interesting, fun) titles in favor of low-cost annual sequel sweatshop titles (and seeing huge annual profits), while the companies more interested in developing new, potentially innovative IPs for the HD systems are losing money.

 

[jrricky]

Fundamentally broken games, plagued by game-breaking bugs, crashes, etc., perhaps.

This. Anything else and its all objective.

 

[Version 3.0]

Nintendo-developed games provide revenue to Nintendo to some degree -- let's call it N -- but have to account for development costs. Third-party games provide less revenue -- 1/2 N, maybe -- but cost Nintendo nothing.

No need to speculate. Nintendo makes a bit shy of ~20% of MSRP on a 3rd-party title. Say $8 or $9 is their cut of your basic $50 game. As you said, that costs them nothing.

Nintendo makes almost $40 off of your basic $50 Nintendo-published game. Now, you're thinking that much of this $40 is not profit because of development costs. But in the case of Nintendo's big games, they've recouped their development costs within weeks or even days of release, and that $40 actually is mostly profit.

I really think that Nintendo does, in fact, see 3rd-party game sales as infringing on their own titles' sales if they get too large in comparison, and I think they set that bar pretty low.

 

[zero_suit]

No need to speculate. Nintendo makes a bit shy of ~20% of MSRP on a 3rd-party title. Say $8 or $9 is their cut of your basic $50 game. As you said, that costs them nothing.

Nintendo makes almost $40 off of your basic $50 Nintendo-published game. Now, you're thinking that much of this $40 is not profit because of development costs. But in the case of Nintendo's big games, they've recouped their development costs within weeks or even days of release, and that $40 actually is mostly profit.

I really think that Nintendo does, in fact, see 3rd-party game sales as infringing on their own titles' sales if they get too large in comparison, and I think they set that bar pretty low.

If that $40 figure is true, then it's easy to understand why Nintendo doesn't aggressively court third-parties.

 

[Dalthien]

Let me put it this way: I don't think most of the already-huge franchises were actually significantly in play* this generation, but I do think the option to create brand new AAA-budgeted franchises (or expand B-list franchises to the A-list) existed, and that franchises like this actually have as much influence on a generation as the big stuff from the time before. Or, in other words: I don't think Nintendo could ever have gotten GTA4 given their platform strategy, but I think the possibility of getting something like a (lesser) version of GTA3's impact last generation was there.

Yeah - I can't really argue with much of this, except maybe the brand new AAA-budgeted franchise. If a publisher is going to sink that kind of top-dollar budget into a new franchise, then it will want to do so with a AAA-development studio. And I don't think Nintendo had any shot whatsoever of getting publishers to commit a few of their AAA-studios to exclusive Wii projects.

Trying to expand some B-list franchises into A-list properties would have been a more realistic approach. But again, they would have been doing this with B-level development studios, which makes it less likely that an AAA-level game would be the result of such an effort.

But yeah - I see what you are trying to get at.

In the best case, I think Nintendo could've locked up some smaller genres even as sandbox and shooter games continued to flourish on PS360, and you'd see people picking a system more based on what kind of games they liked (more like the SNES/Genny days.)

Somewhat surprisingly, Nintendo has established a number of genres on the Wii (which is somewhat surprising because they were coming off of the Gamecube which really only excelled in one thing - Nintendo games).

Without going into 'list warz' - the Wii is pretty firmly established in a number of genres. Platformers, light-gun games, mini-games, party games, kart racers, children's software, casual games, puzzle games, point 'n' click adventures, some sporting events such as golf, tennis, skiing, olympics-type stuff, dancing games, female-centric games, exercise games, etc.

And it is competitive in the console space in other areas such as music games, JRPGs, horror games, etc.

All-in-all, an absolutely giant step up from the Gamecube.

Could things have turned out better - yeah. But there were limits. As you said yourself, the Wii never had a chance at the FPS and sandbox genres. Also, the Wii never had a shot at many of the sporting genres (football, soccer, sim racing, etc.) based off of how strong they were on the XBox and PS2 last gen. WRPGs were going where stuff like Elder Scrolls, KOTOR, Fable, found success the previous gen.

Maybe Nintendo could have made some improvements in the JRPG genre as you said. Maybe they could have done better in the fighting genre. Undoubtedly a few others. Strategy games would seem like a good fit for the Wii, but that is still mostly a PC-centric genre.

Yeah - there are definitely areas where Nintendo could have handled 3rd-party efforts better. But coming off the abysmal failure that was the Gamecube, I don't think the potential upside would have been all that much higher without the 3rd-parties themselves taking an active role in making the Wii their platform of choice for some of their top franchises. And 3rd-parties have shown quite clearly that they had absolutely no interest in doing that.

Prime examples of this strategy:

Lost Planet
Dead Rising
Saints Row

Except that you posted this in response to charlequin's comment, where he stated that Nintendo didn't really have a chance at capturing the shooter or sandbox markets - and yet you list all shooter or sandbox titles for your examples?

Stuff like Red Steel, Carnival Games, Raving Rabbids all sold in the same ballpark (or even quite a bit higher in the latter two cases) as the examples you listed.

You kind of buttressed my point. Yeah, the 360 was able to get a number of quality new IPs in the shooter and sandbox genres. Coming off the Gamecube, Nintendo wasn't going to be able to compete in those areas.

 

[ViperVisor]

Got ya.

Nintendo did come through big in getting their products out and setting up a system with it's franchise games. Mario Galaxy 1 year after launch is a fair place to end using that term.
It was hard to know just how big Wii was when they didn't have enough to sell. Look, Jan 08 was nearly only 1/10th of what they did in Nov. You do see a huge increase YoY over what they did in March and April of the launch window. You could be fairly sure Wii was on its way to big sales. Some may be picky and wait another month, Wii delivered again.
This was a little over a year ago. The more aggressive would jump into Wii then. I don't know what Nintendo did or didn't do with 3rd parties at that strike while the iron is hot moment. I don't know if the 3rd parties invested elsewhere were relieved/happy when the sharp decline in Jun 08.

Even if that come to Jesus moment had happened how long does it take to greenlight a game and then you have to create it. Nintendo isn't a huge tech/entertainment company. They are a video game company whose meat and potatoes business starting with NES had been overshadowed by its GameBoy brand and saw it's console being equaled by a Microsoft box. Yet they are supposed to come out and pimp slap the disbelievers when they started this gen? I mean FUCK. People were doubting a Nintendo hand-held vs. the competition in late 2004 which was 6 months before MS kicked off this gen with the 360 reveal. Things were not peachy for Nintendo.

Unless you can see the future I don't see how you can blame people for not anticipating this wild and crazy generation.

 

[charlequin]

But in the case of Nintendo's big games

...is the only relevant part of this post. Yes, Nintendo's big games: Wii Fit. Wii Sports Resort. Mario Kart Wii.

...which one of these is being cannibalized by a story-rich jRPG or simulation racer or turn-based strategy-simulation title again?

For the record, my argument isn't that no one at Nintendo can possibly think that third-party games are a terrifying monster threat to their first-party sales (I can't read their mind nor account for their thought processes); it's that anyone at Nintendo who thinks that is a complete fucking dumbass.

(The fact that Nintendo continues to allow third-party development rather than jack up their licensing fees to $25 a pop or cut devs off altogether certainly suggests that the people actually making the call on this are smart enough to recognize that third-party development is a straight-up win for them, though, even if they don't consider actively chasing it to be worthwhile.)

Somewhat surprisingly, Nintendo has established a number of genres on the Wii (which is somewhat surprising because they were coming off of the Gamecube which really only excelled in one thing - Nintendo games).

I don't actually disagree with this at all. I think my only statement in response would be that the quantity of areas in which it could be competitive is larger than the ones that it actually is, and that its success in those limited areas points towards the potential larger success that could have been had with a real third-party strategy.

 

[ViperVisor]

a story-rich jRPG or simulation racer or turn-based strategy-simulation title again?

How do you get there? You can't just draw a line on a map.

2 of the ones you listed are sizable investments of time and money. 3rd is hard to sell to people over what is done on PC and if it is great how many more consoles are you going to sell?

 

[duk]

man, things are going to get sooo crazy when all 3 have more price drops

Wii at $150?
360 at $129
PS3 at $199