Support NeoGAF

[Zachack]

The fact that Nintendo can sell the same software total or mores with 60 titles instead of 6 just means more games are being enjoyed instead of the same worn out genre.

Just like the iTunes app store!

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I think more the problem is that there is an assumption that Wii only owners who are interested in these "hardcore" genres are starved for games and will therefore rush out and buy whatever game gets released.

Nintendo gamers are a bit of bitches from what I can tell.

They want the big studios big games, and nothing else. If you can't give them the big then they won't buy it... you know like every other market leading console. It's not like the Wii is selling any more shit to the masses then the Ps2 before it. It's just they don't have the AAA dev stuff to offset the crap.

 

[DangerousDave]

Bionic Commando says hi. Capcom expected 1.5 million worldwide (more than any of the Wii games you're thinking of) and it sold 27K combined on 360 and PS3 in it's first NPD month.

Might just be the biggest bomb of the generation.

Yeah, I completly forgot about that game. Even if it's a regular game, the multiplayer demo killed it. Probably they fired all the devs except the marketing guy who decided to post the multiplayer demo instead of a single player one.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yep 3rd party has done fine on the Wii. People are just expecting more "hardcore" games genres to do well on the Wii and that's not who's the main audience is. That's what the 360 and PS3 core audience is.

Not necessarily true. thats dependant on how you define "hardcore" I think one of the reasons why "hardcore" games haven't been doing so well is because this generation, the "hardcore" genre is FPS, and in an FPS, graphics do matter. I mean, no one likes to call themselves a graphics whore, but in a game where you see from a first person perspective, immersion is vital. In something like Mario Galaxy or Zack and Wiki the gameplay isn't dependent on feeling like you are there. In something like Bioshock or CoD on the other hand, the higher graphics afforded a greater sense of immersion.
Now, I personally, would call Zack and Wiki pretty hardcore. That is one of the most difficult, brain-bending games I've played in years. But it is not what this generation calls "hardcore".
And so it doesn't get the "hardcore" sales. And the games that are "hardcore", the ones that require a high immersion factor, well, the Wii just doesn't have the horsepower. Just about the only game that is on par with something like Bioshock is Metroid Prime 3, which is, surprise surprise, a first party title.

 

[gerg]

the core gamer is a person -in my opinion- who likes to play games, be they console, pc, handheld, board, etc, graphics be damned, gameplay is where it is at.

So... everyone who plays game is a core gamer?

I worry that if you make the definition too broad, it loses value. The purpose of descriptors is to differentiate between distinct groups of people, so it seems dysfunctional to be able to place everyone in your immediate family under the same banner.

Not necessarily true. thats dependant on how you define "hardcore" I think one of the reasons why "hardcore" games haven't been doing so well is because this generation, the "hardcore" genre is FPS, and in an FPS, graphics do matter.

How can a genre be hardcore? I ask sincerely, and not to pick a bone specifically with you.

I mean, no one likes to call themselves a graphics whore, but in a game where you see from a first person perspective, immersion is vital.

Debatable. (Ask Opiate)

In something like Mario Galaxy or Zack and Wiki the gameplay isn't dependent on feeling like you are there.

And how is the gamplay - ie. the game's mechanics and rules as verbs and rewards - dependent on immersion in a game like CoD or Halo?

Now, I personally, would call Zack and Wiki pretty hardcore. That is one of the most difficult, brain-bending games I've played in years. But it is not what this generation calls "hardcore".

I don't understand how a label can function as an objective descriptor if it freely changes from year to year. We label things to differentiate between multiple objects - surely this label loses all value if it no longer acts clearly in this manner?

 

[Xavien]

So... everyone who plays game is a core gamer?

I worry that if you make the definition too broad, it loses value. The purpose of descriptors is to differentiate between distinct groups of people, so it seems dysfunctional to be able to place everyone in your immediate family under the same banner.

Perhaps the "Core" definition doesn't have much value in the first place, hmm?

 

[gerg]

Perhaps the "Core" definition doesn't have much value in the first place, hmm?

I'd say it has some value, but it is certainly a much more vague term than, say, either "hardcore" or "casual". Moreover, whatever value exists within the term is only assured if we use interest in gaming (along with demographic) as the defining feature of a gamer.

 

[AniHawk]

I was just referring to The Conduit, but I guess it could apply to the genre as a whole on the Wii (minus Metroid Prime 3, which doesn't really fall into the genre anyway).

Aww, I thought you meant the genre as a whole. Outside of Valve, there's not much worth playing.

 

[The Technomancer]

How can a genre be hardcore? I ask sincerely, and not to pick a bone specifically with you.

I don't understand how a label can function as an objective descriptor if it freely changes from year to year. We label things to differentiate between multiple objects - surely this label loses all value if it no longer acts clearly in this manner?

Hardcore is a label, and as such, is what people say it is. General opinion places games like CoD or inFamous (random examples) in the "hardcore" realm, while calling something like Wii Play hardcore would earn you derision from most gamers. It's all relative though. Again with Zack and Wiki, if you handed some random gamer Z&W in one hand, and inFamous in the other, and asked them to tell you which they considered hardcore, and which they considered casual, they'd likely call inFamous the hardcore game. The "mature levels of violence and adult themes" hardcore has floundered on Wii, to be sure. Other forms, maybe not so much.

I guess my point is that everyone has their own personal definition of hardcore, but if you tally up those opinions, you can arrive at something of a consensus (or at least a majority) by which to define it. Just only until the population changes its mind.
My original point being, there are quite a few third party titles that I personally consider "hardcore' that have done between good and great on Wii, but that might not fit other peoples definitions. Maybe at some point the winds will shift, and my standards will be what games are judged by for a while, until public opinion moves on yet again...*shrug*

And how is the gamplay - ie. the game's mechanics and rules as verbs and rewards - dependent on immersion in a game like CoD or Halo?

Its not, but in a game where you're supposed to be seeing through the eyes of your protagonist, it's more important to the atmosphere if the environment around you is more realistic. A first person platformer or a first person adventure would be similar; I just pick FPS because its so common. In CoD, the level of graphical fidelity really helps push the illusion that you're actually there. In Galaxy, feeling like you're there isn't really a concern.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Hardcore is a label, and as such, is what people say it is. General opinion places games like CoD or inFamous (random examples) in the "hardcore" realm, while calling something like Wii Play hardcore would earn you derision from most gamers.


Its not, but in a game where you're supposed to be seeing through the eyes of your protagonist, it's more important to the atmosphere if the environment around you is more realistic. A first person platformer or a first person adventure would be similar; i just pick FPS because its so common.

My definition of hardcore and casual is based on sales. If it sells well it's a casual title, if it bombs it's a hardcore title.

 

[donny2112]

Half-way through the thread.

RED FACTION:GUERRILLA (360) 199.4K

IGN has a combined platform top 10 list:
8.Red Faction: Guerrilla - 266,866

Boy, it's a good thing that THQ axed jobs and poured additional millions into this game. I'm sure the people picking up unemployment checks are thrilled with the results of THQ's keen eye for fiscal responsibility.

Of course, a big boost is likely next month with Sports Resort being released.

Why? It might help sustain/increase interest in the console along with all the other games on the system, but I don't see it causing a significant bump the first month.

1st post for me

nice sales for TW10, love that game.


own the conduit, played the conduit, its a good game, Multiplayer is fun. hope it does well overall.

you're off to a good start. =)

I was thinking the same thing.

I no rite?

It's like the Wii is a plane and the HD twins are the twin tow--

Spoiler

too soon?

I don't know. Is it 2051, yet?

 

[Zachack]

Boy, it's a good thing that THQ axed jobs and poured additional millions into this game. I'm sure the people picking up unemployment checks are thrilled with the results of THQ's keen eye for fiscal responsibility.

Considering your predictive abilities regarding The Conduit I would think you'd refrain from fanboy trolling until at least after RFG comes out on the PC and you (somehow) obtain the sales data for that platform.

 

[gerg]

Hardcore is a label, and as such, is what people say it is.

It's just that's like saying that "a chair is a chair except when it's not a chair". The statement, whilst not exactly meaningless, is empty. It tells us nothing.

I guess my point is that everyone has their own personal definition of hardcore, but if you tally up those opinions, you can arrive at something of a consensus (or at least a majority) by which to define it.

But that definition can still be wrong. If you tallied up all the opinions of the American deep south in the 1950s (my geography is awful, so I apologise if this is wrong), you'd arrive at the consensus opinion that black people were inferior to white people. Does this make it right? The only way you can say "no" is if you agree to an external, objective standard against which you can evaluate the definition. We refer to an objective, universal system of "rights" when we say that, definitively, black people are not inferior to white people. Equally, to say that a game is "hardcore" or not presupposes the existence of objective "hardcoreness", so a relativist viewpoint seems self-contradictory. Point being: you can't say that anyone's definition is wrong.

My original point being, there are quite a few third party titles that I personally consider "hardcore' that have done between good and great on Wii, but that might not fit other peoples definitions.

Solution: find a definition that can fit all games.

Its not, but in a game where you're supposed to be seeing through the eyes of your protagonist, it's more important to the atmosphere if the environment around you is more realistic. A first person platformer or a first person adventure would be similar; I just pick FPS because its so common. In CoD, the level of graphical fidelity really helps push the illusion that you're actually there. In Galaxy, feeling like you're there isn't really a concern.

Fair enough. Just want to point out that for some people, the visual fidelity of a game - in whatever genre - doesn't directly enhance their enjoyment of it. Sorry. This isn't really related to what you posted, so to bring this up was a mistake on my part.

 

[donny2112]

Considering your predictive abilities regarding The Conduit

:lol

I stand behind my prediction. I've stood behind the same prediction for several months now. Given the choice of 1) lowering the prediction based on new data with the possibility of it doing well and feeling like crap for not believing in it or 2) keeping my prediction and just being plainly wrong but having stuck to my guns, I'll choose (2).

Spoiler

I usually don't do that great in the software predictions, anyways.

I would think you'd refrain from fanboy trolling

No fanboy and/or trolling involved. Just pointing out clear fiscal irresponsibility. THQ were idiots. The sales for Red Faction prove that out. They threw a significant number of eggs in one basket based on a series that last started off < 75K on the PS2. From that perspective, 267K is great. From the perspective of cutting people's jobs and spending additional millions on the game, 267K is pretty darn bad. I realize a lot of people like the game, and that's great. However from a numbers standpoint, I think it was a bad move on THQ's part to throw that much more money at this game.

until at least after RFG comes out on the PC and you (somehow) obtain the sales data for that platform.

The PC sales will save it? Really? :lol GTAIV sold 40K in December 2008 (its launch month). You think Red Faction: Guerrilla PC has a good chance of redeeming the sales from this month?

:lol

 

[The Technomancer]

It's just that's like saying that "a chair is a chair except when it's not a chair". The statement, whilst not exactly meaningless, is empty. It tells us nothing.



But that definition can still be wrong. If you tallied up all the opinions of the American deep south in the 1950s (my geography is awful, so I apologise if this is wrong), you'd arrive at the consensus opinion that black people were inferior to white people. Does this make it right? The only way you can say "no" is if you agree to an external, objective standard against which you can evaluate the definition. We refer to an objective, universal system of "rights" when we say that, definitively, black people are not inferior to white people. Equally, to say that a game is "hardcore" or not presupposes the existence of objective "hardcoreness", so a relativist viewpoint seems self-contradictory. Point being: you can't say that anyone's definition is wrong.



Solution: find a definition that can fit all games.



Fair enough. Just want to point out that for some people, the visual fidelity of a game - in whatever genre - doesn't directly enhance their enjoyment of it. Sorry. This isn't really related to what you posted, so to bring this up was a mistake on my part.

Sorry, wasn't quite clear there, and I apologize. There are subjective and objective labels. Saying something is blue is an objective label: it reflects certain wavelengths of light.
Saying something is "good" is a very very subjective label. One person may consider a certain movie very good, while another thinks its absolute crap.
Because there currently are no standards for what hardcore actually means, it is a subjective label. Ask people why they consider something hardcore, and they will give you every reason imaginable, from "good gameplay" to "difficult" to "good graphics".
Looking back at what you said, actually, I think we agree, but we're talking at cross purposes.

We refer to an objective, universal system of "rights" when we say that, definitively, black people are not inferior to white people. Equally, to say that a game is "hardcore" or not presupposes the existence of objective "hardcoreness", so a relativist viewpoint seems self-contradictory. Point being: you can't say that anyone's definition is wrong.

This is exactly my point. There is no concrete definition of hardcoreness. Look back at my original post; I wasn't saying he was wrong. I was saying that his statement was subjective, and so therefore not "right".
Put another way, no-ones definition can be wrong, because everyone has different opinions. But no-ones definition can be right either, because in the absence of an objective standard, nothing is universally true, just true to different people.

 

[AstroLad]

It's pretty easy to me: Just count up how many systems someone owns (including a gaming PC, and even portables (not iphone though)) and you'll get a very good general sense of how hardcore a gamer someone is.

Now the most common rebuttal to that is for someone to say something like "I only own a Wii, but I play Mario Kart 80 hours a week, making more hardcore than everyone on GAF." To which I say, no, that's not "hardcore" as it is understood. That's simple obsessiveness. If you fetishize a single game or franchise, that's great, but that's not hardcore by any stretch.

 

[Zachack]

The PC sales will save it? Really? :lol GTAIV sold 40K in December 2008 (its launch month). You think Red Faction: Guerrilla PC has a good chance of redeeming the sales from this month?

:lol

Since you have GTA4 PC sales data (including Steam) perhaps you could share the PC sales data for RF1 and RF2. Although the series has never really been a core PC franchise, it also never really was a core PS2 franchise, so I'm not really sure of the franchise interest on the PC, other than I'm willing to bet the RF franchise is less "console-branded" than GTA is.

 

[EDarkness]

If you assume that all development companies have invested sole decision-making power in insane, frothing fanboys who would rather be caught dead than writing code for a Nintendo system and would therefore engage in drastically unprofessional behavior in order to "stick it" to Nintendo for daring to extend a hand of potential partnership then yes, it would not be a very effective strategy for Nintendo.

It's not like that at all. I believe the Wii's biggest problem to lie with how powerful it is. Nintendo had an interesting philosophy but I think given a choice developers would rather work on stronger hardware. That's how it's been and that's how they want to keep it. This creates this "hate" against the Wii since it's not all that powerful compared to it's competitors. Sure they're all about the money, I think it's pretty clear that devs would much rather work on something else than the Wii.

It's not that they hate Nintendo, but just don't want to work on the Wii specifically. I think that if the Wii was much more powerful, then we'd be having a different discussion. I highly doubt companies would be fighting against the new Nintendo Overlords in that scenario.

 

[donny2112]

(including Steam)

Yeah! You pulled the unknown-sales-of-Steam card! So, do you think GTAIV sold 2 or 80 million on Steam? What's that? No one but Valve has Steam numbers and it's useless to form an argument on them? Well, I agree.

other than I'm willing to bet the RF franchise is less "console-branded" than GTA is.

So you're saying that GTA's massive blockbuster selling power wouldn't overcome that "less "console-branded"" advantage of Red Faction. I seriously doubt it, but it's a black hole of information either way. *shrugs*

 

[AniHawk]

donny, you're yelling again donny.

 

[Archie]

It's pretty easy to me: Just count up how many systems someone owns (including a gaming PC, and even portables (not iphone though)) and you'll get a very good general sense of how hardcore a gamer someone is.

Now the most common rebuttal to that is for someone to say something like "I only own a Wii, but I play Mario Kart 80 hours a week, making more hardcore than everyone on GAF." To which I say, no, that's not "hardcore" as it is understood. That's simple obsessiveness. If you fetishize a single game or franchise, that's great, but that's not hardcore by any stretch.

Would you consider someone who wins EVO or who can FC Hammer Smashed Face on drums hardcore?

 

[laserbeam]

donny, you're yelling again donny.

:lol :lol

 

[RyuKanSan]

I think Nintendo should start to have WiiWare developers like 2D Boys and the people who made Lost Winds, help fund them and give them some retail power.

Another point is I think Nintendo is going to talk to 3rd parties. I think this new collab between Nintendo and Team Ninja on Metroid Other M says as much...but could just be a fluke or something.

 

[xs_mini_neo]

It's not like that at all. I believe the Wii's biggest problem to lie with how powerful it is. Nintendo had an interesting philosophy but I think given a choice developers would rather work on stronger hardware. That's how it's been and that's how they want to keep it. This creates this "hate" against the Wii since it's not all that powerful compared to it's competitors. Sure they're all about the money, I think it's pretty clear that devs would much rather work on something else than the Wii.

It's not that they hate Nintendo, but just don't want to work on the Wii specifically. I think that if the Wii was much more powerful, then we'd be having a different discussion. I highly doubt companies would be fighting against the new Nintendo Overlords in that scenario.

They didn't mind fighting against the GC. And the PS2 was weaker than the Xbox and GC.

I don't know. Is it 2051, yet?

Yes....and we are still on the Wii/PS3/360. A 360 console developed its own consciousness, but the RRoD murdered it. The Wii replaced husbands. The PS3 reigns supreme. We know have Sonytologists.

 

[DangerousDave]

But that definition can still be wrong. If you tallied up all the opinions of the American deep south in the 1950s (my geography is awful, so I apologise if this is wrong), you'd arrive at the consensus opinion that black people were inferior to white people. Does this make it right? The only way you can say "no" is if you agree to an external, objective standard against which you can evaluate the definition. We refer to an objective, universal system of "rights" when we say that, definitively, black people are not inferior to white people. Equally, to say that a game is "hardcore" or not presupposes the existence of objective "hardcoreness", so a relativist viewpoint seems self-contradictory. Point being: you can't say that anyone's definition is wrong.

Well, the definitions are not wrong by themselves, you're mixing definitions and opinions and facts. "Black people is inferior" is not a definition, is a opinion (a racist one, btw). But maybe two persons have different definitions of what's a black person.

In the same way, a common concense of what is a hardcore gamer should be welcome. If not, is very difficult to discuss about this, because is very easy to misunderstand the other arguments, if the people that are talking uses "hardcore gamer" for different things.

The term "hardcore" or "casual", are also, relative to the rest of users. 8 years ago, the term "casual gamer" was more used (at least, where i live) to define people that only plays the latest football-soccer-basketball-etc gamr, or the latest racing game, or gta, without any interest in playing strategy games, or rpg, or action games, and didn't care at all about the next games, didn't read game magazines, etc... now, "casual" is considered something very different, because now the gamer demography is different.

 

[charlequin]

My argument is that to create the type of environment that we're talking about - a seemingly best-of-all-scenarios case - would have required great sums of money on a large scale to engage in a risk that may not have even worked.

In truth, the biggest losers this generation are the 3rd parties and the reason is that they burned every bridge they could with the Wii till they finally turned it into a very inhospitable, alien, and risky place to go with their products.

But these two lines of reasoning are contradictory. If Wii was by nature a positive tabula rasa for third parties when it was first made available as a development platform, with the possibility of good publishing strategies making it into a third-party cash cow, then it wouldn't have cost Nintendo "great sums of money on a large scale" to bring this environment about -- only enough to produce some early successes that demonstrated that potential, after which publishers would follow the money. If the idea is, in fact, that it was in third parties' best interests to develop for Wii, it can't actually have been that difficult to prove that.

To resolve this contradiction, one has to assume a level of virulent hatred on the part of these third-party publishers that defies all reason -- to believe that this fault actually lies in the pocket of evil executives, hoist by the petard of their own illogical Nintendo hatred. There are people who have expressed, more or less, this particular semi-deranged position in the past, but I don't think either of you do so.

But that leaves me with the question: how else do you explain this contradiction? If Wii was a potential strong third-party platform, and the first-in-the-pool problem is what kept developers away, why wouldn't paying a few people to dive in -- then letting everyone else follow of their own accord when they see the water is pleasant and refreshing -- have worked?

Perhaps the "Core" definition doesn't have much value in the first place, hmm?

The distinction I have always raised is between hobbyist gamers -- people who talk about games, think about games, and otherwise live a game-oriented lifestyle even when they're not playing them -- and "people who play games," who might own a PS2 or Xbox, might play GTA or Madden or Halo, but do so only as a way to kill time or have fun and don't really care about gaming when the system isn't on.

Basically all wildly successful games (your Halos and FFs, GTAs and Maddens, Guitar Heroes and Marios) become so because a significant group of the latter purchase them.

I think given a choice developers would rather work on stronger hardware.

Which is why DS and PSP are the #1 and #2 third-party development platforms in Japan, Rockstar chose to make Chinatown Wars for the DS, companies like Atlus have lingered on PS2 rather than jump into HD development right away, etc., yes?

 

[Fredescu]

No fanboy and/or trolling involved. Just pointing out clear fiscal irresponsibility. THQ were idiots. The sales for Red Faction prove that out.

So what should they have done? Release RF: G in a buggy unpolished and unfinished state with little marketing? How many copies do you think they need to sell to break even anyway? I wouldn't be suprised if it ended up at 600-700k worldwide.

 

[ViperVisor]

Lets get out of the weeds.

I asked before. When and how should Nintendo of gotten some games secured for Wii?

As they were behind the scenes finalizing what to do after GC they were at a lower point than they had been at in 2 decades.
Like I said they now had the best competitor ever in the hand-held area. You just referenced how successful PSP has been.
360 was starting this gen post haste by doing the same thing as before but super charged. Sony would be doing the same with PS3. Companies had to put investment into making these new games and it had to be a lot to make sure you hit the finish line for the 360 launch. I don't know if people on the inside believed PS3 would hit its original release but that was right around the corner in 2006.

 

[donny2112]

So what should they have done?

Had extremely better processes in place so they could finish the game with the original budget instead of having to sacrifice other development teams/budgets to put out a game that likely wasn't going to be a blockbuster success. i.e. Be fiscally responsible. The thread I linked to had the THQ guy basically saying, "Look how good we did to slap on millions of additional development dollars as a band-aid for our mishandling of budgets in the first place."

Release RF: G in a buggy unpolished and unfinished state with little marketing?

Do what they can to quickly finish up the game with the budget they had and maybe sacrifice some of the presentation (i.e. the moneysink of this generation) in the process. Marketing has to be done. You can't just not market after spending that kind of money on the development of a game.

How many copies do you think they need to sell to break even anyway?

How many additional copies over what would've been sold before the jobs were axed would need to be sold to make the additional millions and lack of other projects to provide revenue worth it? Just a gut-estimate, I'd imagine the extra sales would need to be as much or more than all the copies they sold this month for it to be "worth it," and I seriously doubt the chances of that happening. If they poured additional millions into the game just to give it a chance to break even, THQ should just sell themselves to a smarter company, right now. That or completely rework how they plan, budget, and develop games.

 

[onipex]

But these two lines of reasoning are contradictory. If Wii was by nature a positive tabula rasa for third parties when it was first made available as a development platform, with the possibility of good publishing strategies making it into a third-party cash cow, then it wouldn't have cost Nintendo "great sums of money on a large scale" to bring this environment about -- only enough to produce some early successes that demonstrated that potential, after which publishers would follow the money. If the idea is, in fact, that it was in third parties' best interests to develop for Wii, it can't actually have been that difficult to prove that.

To resolve this contradiction, one has to assume a level of virulent hatred on the part of these third-party publishers that defies all reason -- to believe that this fault actually lies in the pocket of evil executives, hoist by the petard of their own illogical Nintendo hatred. There are people who have expressed, more or less, this particular semi-deranged position in the past, but I don't think either of you do so.

But that leaves me with the question: how else do you explain this contradiction? If Wii was a potential strong third-party platform, and the first-in-the-pool problem is what kept developers away, why wouldn't paying a few people to dive in -- then letting everyone else follow of their own accord when they see the water is pleasant and refreshing -- have worked?

Nintendo went to Ubisoft to make Red Steel and it sold well. If Nintendo paid Ubisoft in anyway to make Red Steel to show that people would buy FPS on the Wii then they wasted their money.

Ubisoft didn't even follow up on Red Steel until this year and they knew the waters were warm. I think that it is possible that money could have increased the quality of third party output, but I think that crap software would return after Nintendo stopped paying.

 

[Pureauthor]

Nintendo went to Ubisoft to make Red Steel and it sold well. If Nintendo paid Ubisoft in anyway to make Red Steel to show that people would buy FPS on the Wii then they wasted their money.

Ubisoft didn't even follow up on Red Steel until this year and they knew the waters were warm. I think that it is possible that money could have increased the quality of third party output, but I think that crap software would return after Nintendo stopped paying.

charlequin has already specifically stated that the FPS genre was one genre he believed could never have taken off on Wii regardless because Halo had already established the X360 as the console for FPS before the generation ever got started, and in fact before the X360 was ever announced.

If Nintendo truly did believe they could lure in the FPS crowd with Red Steel, then they were, to use a phrase from this thread, 'complete fucking dumbasses'.

 

[Fredescu]

Had extremely better processes in place so they could finish the game with the original budget instead of having to sacrifice other development teams/budgets to put out a game that likely wasn't going to be a blockbuster success. i.e. Be fiscally responsible. The thread I linked to had the THQ guy basically saying, "Look how good we did to slap on millions of additional development dollars as a band-aid for our mishandling of budgets in the first place."

Do what they can to quickly finish up the game with the budget they had and maybe sacrifice some of the presentation (i.e. the moneysink of this generation) in the process. Marketing has to be done. You can't just not market after spending that kind of money on the development of a game.

How many additional copies over what would've been sold before the jobs were axed would need to be sold to make the additional millions and lack of other projects to provide revenue worth it? Just a gut-estimate, I'd imagine the extra sales would need to be as much or more than all the copies they sold this month for it to be "worth it," and I seriously doubt the chances of that happening. If they poured additional millions into the game just to give it a chance to break even, THQ should just sell themselves to a smarter company, right now. That or completely rework how they plan, budget, and develop games.

Could THQ have made better decisions so they didn't have to axe employees and cancel projects in the first place? Yeah, probably. Once they'd got to that point though, I don't think saving Red Faction Guerilla was an "irresponsible" move given that the game is actually out, it reviewed quite well, and didn't flop.

I'm sure the real world is a lot more complex than you're trying to make out. Many dev interviews over the years have said how many more projects get cancelled than see the light of day. I doubt it was ever a choice between releasing or spending then releasing. It was more likely cancel or spend and release. They chose the latter. Was that fiscally irresponsible? I doubt it, but we simply don't have the internal knowledge required to know how much was already spent, how far along they were, how far along other axed projects were, which teams had the more viable future projects. There are just so many assumptions you have to make to arrive at your conclusion that I think it's just about worthless.

 

[dammitmattt]

Boy, it's a good thing that THQ axed jobs and poured additional millions into this game. I'm sure the people picking up unemployment checks are thrilled with the results of THQ's keen eye for fiscal responsibility.

You are WAY off base on this one for a variety of reasons:

1. Volition is a successful studio with established, successful brands and a very good track record - it makes sense to make cuts elsewhere with their less successful studios

2. Pouring money into RFG might not completely pay off on day one, but it did contribute to the creation of an absolutely great game that many people are already calling the game of the year (myself included), and that extra care and detail is leading to great word-of-mouth that will ensure that it will have better legs than most similar titles

3. Because of #2, Volition will make much more on their planned DLC than otherwise, which will help pay for the additional development investment

4. You are not in a position to speak intelligently about how much THQ invested into RFG and how much they have to sell to break even - even the most conservative estimates would put them at 500k worldwide at this specific point (including July sales), and it will likely top out in the 750k-1250k range depending on how strong the actual word of mouth is and how aggressively they market it at lower price points - this combined with the DLC PLUS the investment that they won't have to do for the sequel could make this an overall successful endeavor for both THQ and Volition

Had extremely better processes in place so they could finish the game with the original budget instead of having to sacrifice other development teams/budgets to put out a game that likely wasn't going to be a blockbuster success. i.e. Be fiscally responsible. The thread I linked to had the THQ guy basically saying, "Look how good we did to slap on millions of additional development dollars as a band-aid for our mishandling of budgets in the first place."

You are way off again in your understanding of the situation. They got rid of shitty studios that needed to go and invested in their best studio(s). That is what all companies should be doing, particularly in this environment. You're making the false assumption that they sacrificed something IN ORDER to invest more into something else. The two actions are unrelated.

Do what they can to quickly finish up the game with the budget they had and maybe sacrifice some of the presentation (i.e. the moneysink of this generation) in the process. Marketing has to be done. You can't just not market after spending that kind of money on the development of a game.

No, they realized late in development that they had a B+ game and they could make into an A+ game with additional work. Again, that's the way it should be. Didn't Miyamoto have a quote along the lines of "you only have one chance to release a game, so you might as well do it right, even if you have to suffer through delays"??? Nintendo is as bad as anyone at running over time and budget with their games. I don't see you being critical of them for not having "better processes in place."

And you REALLY should at least read up on games before you start making assumptions like they put this money into the "presentation," or whatever you mean by that. RFG is already VERY light on story and other superfluous elements. It's almost ALL content, and what an embarrassing wealth of single- and multiplayer content it is. Are you saying they should have skimped on the content? That would have been a GREAT way to build a community and build loyalty for the sequel. You should be making the decisions for THQ!

How many additional copies over what would've been sold before the jobs were axed would need to be sold to make the additional millions and lack of other projects to provide revenue worth it? Just a gut-estimate, I'd imagine the extra sales would need to be as much or more than all the copies they sold this month for it to be "worth it," and I seriously doubt the chances of that happening. If they poured additional millions into the game just to give it a chance to break even, THQ should just sell themselves to a smarter company, right now. That or completely rework how they plan, budget, and develop games.

They're looking pretty fucking smart with a massive hit right now (UFC) and a sleeper hit. They're also smart for cutting a lot of fat and becoming a more streamlined operation. THEY ARE reworking how they plan, budget, and develop games. That's why they made the changes they made. It boggles my mind that you can't see this.

EDIT: Sorry if I sounded like more of a dick than usual, but you picked the wrong target.

 

[Fredescu]

No, they realized late in development that they had a B+ game and they could make into an A+ game with additional work.

Do you have a cite for this?

 

[dammitmattt]

Do you have a cite for this?

From the original article that donny's link cited (by the way, donny, the original interview makes many of your points invalid):

Q: You've delayed titles too, holding back games for a couple of months for that extra polish or adding more solid elements?
Danny Bilson: This is the hard one, not shipping a game until it's ready. That's the mystery of the industry. A couple of companies can do that at the highest, most successful end of the spectrum. I would propose that if you're rebuilding from the bottom we can do some radical stuff, and that's what we're doing. Red Faction: Guerilla one of those, we pushed it four months to get it to quality and it's worth every penny. It's done by an excellent team that's able in four months to change the game.

Of course he didn't say EXACTLY what I said, but you get the idea.

 

[JGS]

!

The question that GAF needs the answer to, and is also one that you can't answer is - are there many of you, or just few, and are your number growing, and will they continue to to grow?

Are you an exception, or part of a growing multitude that hasn't formed a community that GAF knows? I'd personally bet on the latter.

Wii owners are not an exception. They're not the rule either since so many genres pass them by. I've seen many of these threads and although there are always blockbusters on the other sytems, there is no denying that Wii is beyond the fad faze and there are plenty of people that buy & play it without it ever collecting dust (unless the room is dusty).

I own a Wii & 360, but guess which one gets more playtime. Wii.

There are a number of decent games on the system unless you play games constantly; something my 40+ hr job, 2 kids, & EA Active wife prevent me from doing :lol.

Gaming isn't their end all, be all anyway. They are simply placing it amongst all of their other entertainment options- not just the electronic ones. That's why there will never be a community of Wii owners, just like there's not really a community of i-pod users. That's also why 3rd parties, who are most certainly making money off of Wii, will never invest big bucks in the thing. There's no real way to track the demographics on it. IMO, Nintendo is going after a particular slice of that demographic.

 

[Fredescu]

From the original article that donny's link cited (by the way, donny, the original interview makes many of your points invalid):

Thanks, there's some good stuff in there. It sounds like they want to head in the right direction, at least as far as creating quality games because it's quality that sells.

 

[gerg]

But these two lines of reasoning are contradictory. If Wii was by nature a positive tabula rasa for third parties when it was first made available as a development platform, with the possibility of good publishing strategies making it into a third-party cash cow, then it wouldn't have cost Nintendo "great sums of money on a large scale" to bring this environment about -- only enough to produce some early successes that demonstrated that potential, after which publishers would follow the money. If the idea is, in fact, that it was in third parties' best interests to develop for Wii, it can't actually have been that difficult to prove that.

To resolve this contradiction, one has to assume a level of virulent hatred on the part of these third-party publishers that defies all reason -- to believe that this fault actually lies in the pocket of evil executives, hoist by the petard of their own illogical Nintendo hatred. There are people who have expressed, more or less, this particular semi-deranged position in the past, but I don't think either of you do so.

But that leaves me with the question: how else do you explain this contradiction? If Wii was a potential strong third-party platform, and the first-in-the-pool problem is what kept developers away, why wouldn't paying a few people to dive in -- then letting everyone else follow of their own accord when they see the water is pleasant and refreshing -- have worked?

Because the Wii was a potential strong third-party platform in theory. If we consider only "internal" factors - the design of the Wii and Wii Remote, Wii Sports, motion controls, etc. - then the Wii was (and still remains) a great platform for third-parties to develop for. But to do so, and to ignore "external" factors, is to consider the Wii in a vacuum. And it is clear that when we expand our horizons there were a lot of doubts, for right or for wrong, about the viability of the Wii. Furthermore, considering the nature of the Xbox 360 and the manner in which developers had started developing for that console, there were probably limitations on how far the Wii's success could go. I don't think you need to rely on some sort of "hatred" for the Wii to consider this position, but merely an understandable skepticism about its profitability by companies that dislike taking risks.

I guess my point is that this strategy wouldn't have worked in the one area that mattered: the Western market. Yes, Nintendo may have convinced three million 18-35 males to jump ship (as opposed to the one or so million that inhabit the Wii now), but even if they had received the multiplatform games people feel they should, these gamers would still choose the graphical-superior versions. I think it's clear that the 360/PS3 market, at the moment, doesn't care about motion controls. As a result, it would have required moneyhatting several, large, third-party exclusives to cause any fundamental shift in how these gamers viewed the Wii. And even then, it may not have worked.

I'm not denying that Nintendo could have had some success with your plan of action in genres which are currently under-served, like the JRPG market now. However, I don't think that competing companies (like Microsoft and Sony) are targeting this market all that much either, and so I don't think Nintendo is in the position of losing it completely this generation, such that it is insurmountably difficult to regain it next generation.

Btw, I'll respond to other posters when I get back from my art course later today.

 

[freddy]

Just something for you guys to think about. You all talk of money-hatting games and/or giving incentives for developers to work on your system. What about the reverse?

Microsoft for instance is well known for their ruthless and predatory business tactics outside of the gaming world.

Now it's been mentioned that Microsoft and Sony have this core market. In fact, it could be said its all they have and are fighting over it. It would be disastrous if Nintendo started to eat into that customer base as well. I would do anything I could to stop that happening if I were MS or Sony.

So what do you think? Are MS and Sony actively dissuading/money-hatting developers or publishers from producing decent(or any at all) traditional/core Wii games?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Just something for you guys to think about. You all talk of money-hatting games and/or giving incentives for developers to work on your system. What about the reverse?

Microsoft for instance is well known for their ruthless and predatory business tactics outside of the gaming world.

Now it's been mentioned that Microsoft and Sony have this core market. In fact, it could be said its all they have and are fighting over it. It would be disastrous if Nintendo started to eat into that customer base as well. I would do anything I could to stop that happening if I were MS or Sony.

So what do you think? Are MS and Sony actively dissuading/money-hatting developers or publishers from producing decent(or any at all) traditional/core Wii games?

No.

At least, not in any way you're describing.

Let's put it this way. Microsoft says to Namco, hey Namco, here's some money for Tales of Vesperia. Now Namco is making ToV, which they can port after the exclusivity window is up to the PS3. They can't port it to the Wii, and every month that they're working on the 360 version is a month not spent with Team Symphonia making a Wii game.

 

[dammitmattt]

Just something for you guys to think about. You all talk of money-hatting games and/or giving incentives for developers to work on your system. What about the reverse?

Microsoft for instance is well known for their ruthless and predatory business tactics outside of the gaming world.

Now it's been mentioned that Microsoft and Sony have this core market. In fact, it could be said its all they have and are fighting over it. It would be disastrous if Nintendo started to eat into that customer base as well. I would do anything I could to stop that happening if I were MS or Sony.

So what do you think? Are MS and Sony actively dissuading/money-hatting developers or publishers from producing decent(or any at all) traditional/core Wii games?

The core market is all they have? You really think the core market is 25+ million plus users? You really think the core market is bigger than the entire Wii userbase?

And to answer your question, no. There is no evidence of this and there is also no evidence that Microsoft and Sony are worried about any "core" games on the Wii in the US (this is an NPD thread, not a Media Create thread, so games like DQ10 and Monster Hunter aren't relevant). They seem to be perfectly content having the superior version (99% of the time) of any multiplatform "core" games.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

Lets get out of the weeds.

I asked before. When and how should Nintendo of gotten some games secured for Wii?

As they were behind the scenes finalizing what to do after GC they were at a lower point than they had been at in 2 decades.
Like I said they now had the best competitor ever in the hand-held area. You just referenced how successful PSP has been.
360 was starting this gen post haste by doing the same thing as before but super charged. Sony would be doing the same with PS3. Companies had to put investment into making these new games and it had to be a lot to make sure you hit the finish line for the 360 launch. I don't know if people on the inside believed PS3 would hit its original release but that was right around the corner in 2006.

I'm asking this too. What could Nintendo have done??? They have a built-in perception with the industry and the consumer, built-in limitations within the system and they are not the type to buy exclussives. And the main "suggestions" we still keep hearing is "they should 'secure' "core" exclussives" or some BS like that! We all know that's not the way they do things no matter how much you want them to.

WTF could they have done...some of you guys are making it out to be that they could've done more ignoring the FACT that Wii has already done better than any console released before it, let alone better than their competition this generation. And how did they do better, it wasn't by listing to or going after us "core" gamers, that's for damn sure. A few months in a slow economy, with no major releases, with no supply constraints hype and they're only selling as well as the leading platform last generation...OMG...it's over for Nintendo, they F'd up, they shoulda did this, this and this instead, stupid Nintendo with their billions in profits, expanding the market, having the best selling console of all time...they're royally screwed now.

Did you guys really expect every month to be like last years gigantic growth? Things have slowed, especially due to the above factors yet they're STILL selling better than the competition, so how is the end so near? It's not, calm down wussies. Yeah Nintendo coulda done some stuff better, so could Sony or MS or the 3RD parties, but it's too late to change certain things now so why piss'n'moan? Do you honestly think with a non-supply constrained holiday season coming up with bigger games that the Wii is going to trend downward forever?

 

[donny2112]

It was more likely cancel or spend and release. They chose the latter.

If those were the options, sure. Better to do an incremental increase and get something back than simply lose all the sunk costs. Millions more seems more than an incremental increase to me, though.

we simply don't have the internal knowledge required to know how much was already spent, how far along they were, how far along other axed projects were, which teams had the more viable future projects.

From the full interview dammitmattt posted, they were apparently 4.5 years into development and had to push millions more into the team and delay the game another four months to get it to an acceptable release quality. Granted from the interview, THQ's standards for "acceptable" seem to be higher than they were in the past, though.

2. Pouring money into RFG might not completely pay off on day one, but it did contribute to the creation of an absolutely great game that many people are already calling the game of the year (myself included), and that extra care and detail is leading to great word-of-mouth that will ensure that it will have better legs than most similar titles

:lol

Legs? Do you even realize that the game has already been available for 33 days in June's NPD release period? This is not a one week total and "we'll see how it does next month." This game is either going to take a Wii Fit approach and go up from its first month ( :lol ), or it'll continue its probable slide to very low totals. I think expecting 100K for the PS3+360 version in July is stretching it.

Possible Example:
Week 1 - 100K (360) + 30K (PS3)
Week 2 -5 - 137K (average ~35K per week)

But core games don't stay at their second week level, so we can reasonably assume with those first week guesses that it was higher than 35K on the second week and lower on the fifth. 100K in July combined would require averaging 25K per week combined, which is a level it was probably close to for the end of June. It probably would've gone down from there, though.

I seriously doubt any legs, and "gamer cred" isn't going to help THQ's bottom line.

3. Because of #2, Volition will make much more on their planned DLC than otherwise, which will help pay for the additional development investment

Yeah! More black holes of information! Did you know that the entire industry was saved by DLC this generation (or not)? It's been the biggest idea for extra revenue ever (or not). Every project can be saved with the right DLC (or not). GTAIV's DLC was so successful that they even decided to release it on disk this Fall.

4. You are not in a position to speak intelligently about how much THQ invested into RFG

I am in a position to read the interview you posted. 4.5 years in development before a final six months (four from a delay) push with extra millions to get it to "the level of quality for release." They had to raise its quality level after 4.5 years of development to get it ready for release. THQ didn't invest a pittance, that's for sure.

That is what all companies should be doing, particularly in this environment.

Definitely.

You're making the false assumption that they sacrificed something IN ORDER to invest more into something else.

You're making the assumption that they got rid of 550 crappy people IN ORDER to invest in their better studios. I find it hard to believe that THQ was continuing to employ that many crappy people before the economic downturn, but maybe you're right and they were just that stupid.

No, they realized late in development that they had a B+ game and they could make into an A+ game with additional work.

Way overstating the case here. They realized that the game was not up to an acceptable quality level of release and funneled millions more to it to get it up to that level. If it was a B+ game before the millions, yes, I think they were financially shortsighted to push additional millions to the game to get it up to its current level. Even an "A+" quality level of a game isn't going to outsell the B+ quality level by enough to warrant additional millions, in my opinion. Difference in review scores above a certain point (e.g. 8.5 to 9.5) are just not going to make that big of a difference in sales, in my opinion.

Didn't Miyamoto have a quote along the lines of "you only have one chance to release a game, so you might as well do it right, even if you have to suffer through delays"???

The wording was different, but I think that's the gist.

Nintendo is as bad as anyone at running over time and budget with their games.

Budget? Really? I don't even know if they assign budgets to games like a normal publisher does. I always got the feeling that they employed people and asked them to do whatever they can to help all the projects that they're asked to help on. In that case distinct budgets per game does not really make sense.

Time, yes. Nintendo is notorious for delaying games probably for the reason that you specified. However if this were just a delay to give Red Faction extra polish, I doubt it would've taken additional millions.

I don't see you being critical of them for not having "better processes in place."

I must've missed the report of them cutting people's jobs to funnel millions more to a game just to get it up to a release level in quality. Please point me to the link for that massive news story.

And you REALLY should at least read up on games before you start making assumptions like they put this money into the "presentation," or whatever you mean by that. RFG is already VERY light on story and other superfluous elements. It's almost ALL content, and what an embarrassing wealth of single- and multiplayer content it is.

Then why did it take five years to finish? "Content" can often be a quick add (e.g. reuse a single-player level for multi, modify the same base level and reuse it somewhere else).

Are you saying they should have skimped on the content?

What content was added in that last six months of additional millions and cutting other studios that wasn't added in the first 4.5 years that was worth the incremental change in sales due to adding that content? If it saved jobs and brought in additional streams of revenue for the company, there could be a case made to skimp on that last six months of content, yes.

That would have been a GREAT way to build a community and build loyalty for the sequel.

A B+ game with slightly less content released six months prior probably would've been good enough to build a community and loyalty for a sequel, too. Of course, I doubt it was a B+ game six months ago from the interview, but I'm just addressing your point.

To go to Nintendo for an example, they released Wind Waker without two of its dungeons. I don't think that sales would've increased enough with those extra two dungeons to make it worth delaying the game for months from a financial standpoint. From a player's standpoint, though, I think most would've liked to have those two dungeons in the game. However, Nintendo decided to release Wind Waker without those two dungeons, since Miyamoto had promised Wind Waker in Japan before the end of 2002. I think the fanbase was still there (in the U.S.) for Twilight Princess.

They're looking pretty ... smart with a massive hit right now (UFC)

And I was totally talking about their externally licensed IP that they won't get as much per game from and that we don't have a handy interview available to discuss any possible development issues from.

and a sleeper hit.

i.e. Not a hit.

They're also smart for cutting a lot of fat and becoming a more streamlined operation.

If that's what they did, great. I agree. I have a hard time thinking that all 550 employees they cut were just extra "fat," though.

THEY ARE reworking how they plan, budget, and develop games. That's why they made the changes they made. It boggles my mind that you can't see this.

Thanks for pointing out the full interview. It's good to see that they are making those changes, so hopefully a situation like Red Faction (drawn out development, additional millions worth of extra work at end to get it to release quality) won't happen again.

you picked the wrong target.

I'm not trying to diss the game's current quality. I just seriously question it's development history and value of the cuts THQ made to help this game out at the end.

It sounds like they want to head in the right direction, at least as far as creating quality games because it's quality that sells.

Yes, that is good to hear.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

The way I see it is that the reason a lot of 360 software sells so well is because they all are huge big budget games somehow. Developers cant develop cheap niche games for the platform so they either go all out and sell a lot of copies to make a healthy profit or they don't develop for the system at all. Its much too risky to develop for the HD platforms for Niche developers. Thats why all the middle to low budget games end up on the Wii and they all try to sell on a certain idea or gimmick. Some succeed, some don't. I really still believe the Wii has a good potential to sell a lot of big budget software but developers don't give it a chance.

XBLA is always there. It's a shame that DD is a nearly non-existent market in Japan though.

 

[crazy monkey]

I thought I knew about video games but you guys are way way more knowledgeable about it.

 

[damisa]

I'm going to suggest a new theory for 3rd parties not putting high budget titles on wii:
it's not cost effective and is too risky

"But it's cheaper to develop for?"
This is true, but it's not the only costs associated with a game.

A big budget wii game might cost 10 million
A big budget PS360 game might cost 30 million
So you might think the HD game might need to sell 3x more, this is false.

Advertising is expensive. Lost planet cost $20 million to develop and $20 million to advertise http://members.forbes.com/global/2007/0212/022.html?partner=yahoomag. Wii games aren't any cheaper to advertise, if anything they are more expensive to advertise (no xbox live friends list type of advertising).

So now the real costs become something like:
wii: 30 million
ps360: 50 million

It's a lot closer now. Then you consider the fact that PS360 games sell for $60 instead of $50. Let's say retailers and Sony/MS/Nintendo get a $15 cut. Now you need to sell:

30million/35 = ~857K
50million/45= ~1111K

Not that different. I didn't even factor in the fact that PS360 consumers are more "hardcore" in the sense that they tend to buy the games earlier when they are still full price. I didn't factor in DLC profits either.

 

[DangerousDave]

Advertising is expensive. Lost planet cost $20 million to develop and $20 million to advertise http://members.forbes.com/global/200...rtner=yahoomag. Wii games aren't any cheaper to advertise, if anything they are more expensive to advertise (no xbox live friends list type of advertising).

True.

Ubisoft already told that the cost of the wii game development was not so inferior to the HD ones due the advertising.

Also, TV ads are more necessary in order to sell wii games, due the target (a lot of wii users don't use the web or read game magazines), and TV ads is the most expensive kind of ad.

 

[poppabk]

I'm going to suggest a new theory for 3rd parties not putting high budget titles on wii:
it's not cost effective and is too risky

But that wouldn't explain the lack of Wii versions of games like MW2, Prototype, Assassins Creed, UFC, Fight Night, RE5, Dead space, Mirrors Edge, or late ports like Rock Band. Advertising costs for 3 consoles instead of 2 not going to be significantly different, if done at the same time.

 

[DangerousDave]

But that wouldn't explain the lack of Wii versions of games like MW2, Prototype, Assassins Creed, UFC, Fight Night, RE5, Dead space, Mirrors Edge, or late ports like Rock Band. Advertising costs for 3 consoles instead of 2 not going to be significantly different, if done at the same time.

Probably because you need to make a version from scratch, without being able to share any code or even resources with the HD versions, so it's nearly make the game from scratch.

Except if there is a PSP or PS2 version.

 

[poppabk]

Probably because you need to make a version from scratch, without being able to share any code or even resources with the HD versions, so it's nearly make the game from scratch.

Except if there is a PSP or PS2 version.

But making the game from scratch would still be cheap relative to the original HD version. I'm saying including advertising doesn't work when you have the potential for rolling the game out to a third platform. Plus a Wii version can still share assets directly (sound/music and voice work) or scaled down in the case of textures and models.