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.
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*
Look, it's obvious that you've suffered a serious emotional setback in your daily life due to the poor sales of The Conduit. However, saying "GTA4 only sold 40k on PC" as a counter-argument to the idea that PC sales can't save/help/bolster/whatever RFG is ridiculous if you don't have a major data point that, last I checked, isn't accounted for (unlike the classic Ninfan "Walmart" excuse) and does appear to be fairly successful.
I know that the PC is your enemy: it has to be since the back and forth of games from the PC to Wii is basically nil, and thus you feel compelled raise your sword, declare "I HAVE THE POWER", and jump on your magic sabretooth cat to defend Castle Greyskull and Emperess-sama from Skeletor. But at this point I'm half-expecting you to make fun of Sega and THQ for their mega-bombs (according to NPD) of Dawn of War 2 and Empire: Total War. Or Valve in general.
None of this means that RFG is successful, btw. It does, however, mean that your creepy, exuberant enjoyment of THQ suffering due to your perceived poor sales of an excellent "HD" game is both premature and sad.
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.
You hang very tightly onto very loose strands. You don't know the full context of the development cycle so you can't speak intelligently as to how big the team was during the development cycle. There's a Eurogamer review out there with the team that implies that they had a very small core team working on the tech for years before full production ramped up. This is not uncommon at all in the industry. During those 4.5 years, they shipped both Saints Row and Saints Row 2, so it's not out of line to assume that those two titles got the lion's share of Volition's budget and manpower for most of RFG's development cycle.
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.
It's all relative. Most games don't need Wii Fit-type legs to be successful and to make that comparison is absurd. If they sell 25k-50k/month for the next few months in the US alone, they'll easily top 1 million worldwide. Neither one of us has enough information to determine if that would be enough sales to be considered a success, but you definitely don't have enough information to assume that it's a failure.
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.
It contributes to the bottom line and it's sold at a MUCH higher profit margin, but I never said it was more than just an additional source of revenue. The fact that more and more companies are putting more and more effort into DLC shows how successful it can be.
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.
The last 5% of polish can be the difference between a C and an A. And did you ever stop to think that the majority of those extra millions that you keep citing is used to continue paying salaries? Any delay will result in extra costs.
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.
It was a bit of hyperbole, so maybe it's more honest to say that they got rid of 550 people doing mediocre and/or unsuccessful work. Again, the two actions aren't as intertwined as you seem to think. They would've trimmed the workforce whether they made the call to invest more into RFG or not because they are shifting their focus towards fewer, higher-quality games. What's your problem with this strategy again?
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.
We will never know whether the development was worth it or not, but I tend to fall on the side of "you have one chance to release, so make sure you release a polished product." For all we know, there might have been game-breaking bugs that made the game unplayable. How many copies do you think they would've sold in that case?
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.
ALL projects have budgets, no matter how big or small.
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.
So it's okay for Nintendo to delay their games and go over budget, but not anyone else? This happens to EVERYONE in this business.
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.
Again, the two are not related in this way. The shift in philosophy has nothing to do with one specific game.
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).
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.
RFG doesn't have "levels" so all of the multiplayer content has to be created from scratch. Oh, and they added an awesome local multiplayer mode called Wrecking Crew during the delay.
The aim isn't to "save" jobs. The aim is to invest in the people who you believe will bring in revenue on a consistent basis going forward. Obviously, these other studios didn't fit the bill and didn't fit in with the new philosophy. For the 800th time, it has nothing to do with this specific game.
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.
THQ is in the midst of an impressive turnaround in both sales and quality. They are doing things the right way and yet you are giving them a lot of shit for it.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe, but they made their work and their viability reports, so I'm sure that they considered that they'll get more profit, for example, with a Resident Evil Dark Chronicles than porting down Resident Evil 5.
Take in care that the target of that kind of game (Assassin's Creed, Prototype, etc) even if it has a wii, probably has also a 360 or ps3. So that kind of game will be chosen in the HD console for all those players (and even if they bought the Wii version instead of the HD one, you are changing a unit sold by another, so there is no profit). But, making a different game, like Dead Space Extraction, may be sold for someone that bought Dead Space.
But this is ultimately a rhetorical dodge. I want to break this down into more than two specific, distinct situations in the hopes that it'll make my point here clearer.
Reality: Nintendo didn't make much/any effort to win over 3PPs; 3PPs didn't make any effort themselves to tap the system; mostly everyone agrees that the Wii does not have significant 3P support.
Best Case: Nintendo makes relatively inexpensive overtures to 3PPs, gets a few early hit exclusives, and the monetary success of these convinces other 3PPs to get in on the action and release their own Wii titles.
Failure case #1: Nintendo exert influence to win some exclusives upfront, which are wildly successful, but 3PPs irrationally refuse to move over anyway.
Failure case #2: Nintendo exert influence to win some exclusives upfront, which don't do all that amazing because the Wii is fundamentally unsuited in some way to 3P games, and no one follows due to reasonable skepticism.
You are, essentially, claiming the lattermost of these is the most accurate picture of what a more aggressive attempt to court third-party support by Nintendo would have resulted in, but then say that the Wii could have been a good platform for 3PPs "in theory." Well -- in what theory? If the only "theory" in play here is that platforms with big install bases are traditionally good for 3PPs, it's not really relevant. The counterfactual is whether the Wii hardware (in the form that actually exists), released into the market that it actually released into (360 a year old and with a deathgrip on shooter games, overpriced PS3 coming out at the same time) could have been a strong platform for 3PPs given a different strategy by Nintendo.
If the answer is yes, I think it's self-evident that the Wii then did, in fact, have the potential to be a strong platform for 3PPsand Nintendo could have chosen to nurture it into one, but chose not to. If the answer is "no," I think one is stuck explaining how an active, intensive effort by the platform-holder could fail to make a platform hospitable to 3PPs but there is some other process by which it still could have become one. I don't think that assertion really makes sense and I haven't yet seen anyone attempt to address it -- your argument, for example, was that 3PPs might still stay away due to risk aversion, but that wouldn't apply in the situation in which those early acquired exclusives became huge hits.
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.
True...and PSP & PS2 benifit from that, while Wii get's poorer lower asset ports. Publishers love the idea of multiplatforming though, and they do it in the form of X360/PS3/PC and Wii/PSP/PS2 releases.
Looking to the future, some have speculated on if Nintendo should just make a WiiHD that allows easy ports from PS360, ignoring that Nintendo's phiosophy behind Wii seems to be the opposite of wanting (shoddy, at that) ports by seemingly deliberatly making Wii limited in power/visuals. I don't think Nintendo wants ports, they want Wii-specific titles. I've speculated that their next portable would be GCN/Wii-level thus making a Wii-console/portable multiplatform strategy possible. I think publishers would appreciate a platform that could reach both markets with one game, just as they like the ease of X360/PS3/PC or Wii/PSP/PS2 multiplatforming.
The question is, how could Nintendo introduce this next-gen portable in a strategy that benifit's it and the Wii? Would Wii still be viable by then? Well, IMO, a next-gen Nintendo portable is coming first, before any sort of WiiHD would. So how though? I'm still brainstorming that, but I think it's doable with:
-fully customizable controls to allow certain games to work both at home and on the go
-better/more DD with the portable having access to a WiiShop-like interface
-certain games could be released on both the portable format and on Wii disc's
-games/chapters/quests could be downloaded from the Wii disc to the portable via WiFi or an SD card
-a future universal format that plays in both the portable and (more likely, future) home console could be made
-the portable could be hooked up to your TV to play games that way
Granted, this idea wouldn't work for every game, but imagine being able to play WiiWare, DSiWare, VC & VH games either at home or on the go...anytime, anywhere. This portable could be introduced as it's own thing (3RD Pillar) without cannibalizing the DSi or Wii right away, while improving upon both...it could even possibly be a psuedo "WiiHD" when hooked up to your TV. I dunno, just brainstorming here. I still don't know if Nintendo would ever allow you to transfer/play the same (DD) games across different systems even.
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.
Yea, I can pull numbers out of my butt too. The only real valid number you've used is the retail price - everything else is an assumption.
The fact of the matter is that we don't know the average cost to develop and publish a 'high budget' Wii title. And we don't know the exact profit they can reap for such a venture.
What we do know is that in the face of all this criticism, we have third party devs that are still developing mature, 'hardcore' type games for Wii. Whether or not GAF wants to acknowledge the existence of such games or that these games are good or bad is another argument entirely.
There is no reason why profitability for these companies should be coming into question though. They must be profitting or at least willing to consistently take on risks considering a lot of third party devs are putting out all sorts of hardcore games encompassing a variety of genres on Wii.
Really, I agree with one poster some pages back. The focus isn't on Wii anymore. There really isn't much to complain about with the software library or their business model anymore. We're splitting hairs here when there are much more dire needs to discuss on the other two sides of this spectrum.
I know gerg has already responded to this, but I thought I might as well also so...
charlequin said:
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.
The problem is last generation and its impact on this one. Everyone went deep into HD development the moment they knew MS and Sony were going that direction. Nintendo is weakening, selling fewer systems every subsequent generation - and here they are touting some bizarre control interface with hardware not much more powerful than the PS2. They're talking 'lapsed gamers' and 'disruption' and 'blue ocean,' meanwhile the other two (the dominant two) are going bigger and badder. Which is typical of a generational shift. Besides, Sony is going HD: Why in hell would you ignore the successor to the best-selling video game system of all time?
So you're investing gobs of money into HD. Game budgets are going up. Way up. Are you seriously not going to be a little concerned? Just a smidge? You might think, "Oh well, MS will pick up the bill for a bit. They're good about that." And maybe they do, maybe they don't - but your direction is already pretty much set, and even if the 360 doesn't break you even you'll still have the PS2's successor to save you. At least that's what it appears many publishers did this gen.
What would've been wise, IMO? Look at your franchises. How much they sell, what is appealing about them. Do they benefit from HD? Or robust online options? How expensive would it be to release a HD / online version? Is it worth that?
If not, go ahead and make the next game in the franchise for the PS2 - and then port it to Nintendo's new machine. It won't cost much to do; besides, any extra sales might help make up the massive deficit from the HD development of your big franchises. Even if the Wii version doesn't sell brilliantly, that's okay. You've watched how this industry works, how every little bit helps build up a userbase, gives you flexibility in the future. If any of your guys come up with an interesting Wii game, go ahead and fund it. But don't make shit for the system, don't mock it. E3 lines were huge for the thing, maybe it might sell okay. Don't burn bridges; keep your options open. It's worth spending a little to give your company room to maneuver in case anything goes wrong.
I've never understood this idea of sticking virtually everything you have into one basket. It doesn't make sense to me. But then I don't get why Western 3rd parties largely ignore the damn DS, so perhaps there's something I'm missing here.
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.
God no. The issue isn't that publishers hate Nintendo; it's that they came into this generation with particular expectations based on how the last worked out. Nintendo was hardly a factor in their assessment of how they should proceed, IMO; they were looking at Sony and listening to MS. MS had the pockets, Sony had the crown.
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 Nintendo (a) likely wasn't sure the Wii would take off the way it did, so any excess funding for 3rd party games was a waste of investment (particularly after how it had done little for them last gen); (b) that 3rd parties would look at the cost difference in developing for the HD systems compared to the Wii and determine that not all of their titles should go to them as that would be prohibitively expensive; (c) that they wouldn't easily wrestle genre kings away from MS or Sony due to either legacy (ie. appearing on a Sony or MS platform last gen) or because MS and Sony would be willing to bid more to keep them.
Well -- in what theory? If the only "theory" in play here is that platforms with big install bases are traditionally good for 3PPs, it's not really relevant. The counterfactual is whether the Wii hardware (in the form that actually exists), released into the market that it actually released into (360 a year old and with a deathgrip on shooter games, overpriced PS3 coming out at the same time) could have been a strong platform for 3PPs given a different strategy by Nintendo.
Sorry. I thought what I wrote would cause confusion (but I ran out of time to revise it).
What I mean by "in theory" is when considering the Wii as a platform in a vacuum. In this manner, the Wii was a good platform for third-party games, "in theory", because it was cheap to develop for and appealed to a large audience. However, I agree that this viewpoint is inadequate - we cannot consider a console outside the time frame and conditions in which it was released, so to say that the Wii was a good platform for third-parties "in theory" is a rather empty statement. And yet, I also want to highlight that the Wii's design was not a contributing factor into why I believe Nintendo could not make money encouraging third-parties to develop for the platform. We cannot consider the Wii outside of the external factors surrounding its launch, but I think that it is because of these factors alone that ultimately, pursuing third-parties would not have made profit for Nintendo.
I imagine that there has been such a shift in opinion (from "the Wii is great for third-parties" to "Nintendo could not have made money pursuing third-parties") because prior to the Wii's launch, and immediately after it, we weren't aware of these external factors. As a result, all we had to go on was the Wii's design, and clearly it only gave us an incomplete and inadequate understanding in situation.
If the answer is "no," I think one is stuck explaining how an active, intensive effort by the platform-holder could fail to make a platform hospitable to 3PPs but there is some other process by which it still could have become one. I don't think that assertion really makes sense and I haven't yet seen anyone attempt to address it -- your argument, for example, was that 3PPs might still stay away due to risk aversion, but that wouldn't apply in the situation in which those early acquired exclusives became huge hits.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, so could you pose your question again? I wrote the following, but am not sure it's actually entirely relevant to what you were asking.
In regards to the best-of-all-cases scenario, I think that even in the case where Nintendo moneyhats huge exclusives (perhaps an exclusive CoD at Christmas for two years), Nintendo would have had to prevent other major games being released for competing consoles at the same time. I think that the basic problem here is that the 18-35 male demographic is undeniably overserved - there are simply too many games, all of which appeal to the same people at the same time. As a result, I don't think that these exclusives would have convinced the gamers they would target to choose a Wii over a 360. Why? Because they care about graphics and don't seem to care for controls. Even in a situation where Nintendo completely overhauls its online system to appease third-parties, I think that gamers would still have chosen a graphically superior version to one that excels in motion controls. Furthermore, it wouldn't be the case that they wouldn't be missing out on similar experiences on competing consoles. Nintendo may have convinced an extra odd hardcore gamer to pick up their system as a secondary console, but if the more casual consumer is already satisfied on one system, why would they want to pick up another? I simply think that because of these reasons, Nintendo would have had to take an extraordinarily large amount of action which I don't think would have proved profitable for them, even if some of these games were successful.
I agree that Nintendo may have had success with other markets (namely, the JRPG market). But I don't see why, in regards to these markets, Nintendo is in a considerably worse position now.
DangerousDave said:
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.
One is a rewording of the other. The statement "my opinion is that black people are inferior to white people" can be reworded as "my opinion is that the definition of a black person includes the concept of being inferior to a white person". A definition describes what (you think) something is. An opinion can describe what you think something is. This is not to say that all opinions are definitions, but that all definitions can be reworded as opinions.
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.
Instead of trying to resolve the situation (of differing subjective opinions on "hardcoreness"), why not try to dissolve it, and use objective measures of "hardcoreness"? Why battle with a problem when the problem doesn't exist?
The term "hardcore" or "casual", are also, relative to the rest of users.
Why? Why aren't they objective?
Why bother using redundant, ineffective terms when it gives us nothing?
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.
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.
Why? Saying something is blue reflects how you perceive it. The label "blue" simply reflects one's subjective experience. So, clearly, what you say is "blue" is actually "green" to me.
Playing devil's advocate here, btw.
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.
This collapses in on itself. What you are saying is that the label "good" means "I found this X good", which doesn't tell us what "good" means.
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".
And why is this? To me, "hardcore" refers to one's level of interest in games and/or the gaming industry. This is an objective definition that requires no subjective opinion.
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.
The logical conclusion of this thinking is that there are no definitions - in that there are no words which describe objects - and we cannot discuss them.
For example, you said that "good" means "I think that X is good". However, this is a circular statement that only references itself. If you were to ask what "good" meant, you'd get the answer that "Y thinks that X is good". If you were to ask what "Y thinks that X is good" means, the answer would be...? As a result, if definitions are subjective, they don't tell us anything, at all.
The only way we can have definitions is if we believe that they don't just represent our opinions about objects, but if they are objective statements about objects that can be either right or wrong.
Loose strands is often all we ever get. Just saying.
dammitmattt said:
During those 4.5 years, they shipped both Saints Row and Saints Row 2, so it's not out of line to assume that those two titles got the lion's share of Volition's budget and manpower for most of RFG's development cycle.
Do you mean per week? Per month, that's about what I'm expecting for the next few months, and I don't really consider that good. The high end per week would indicate it selling almost as well in subsequent months as the launch month, so I really don't think most of that range is a reasonable prediction for future months, if you meant per week.
dammitmattt said:
but you definitely don't have enough information to assume that it's a failure.
To be clear, I don't consider Red Faction to have done bad on its own terms. It's the apparent sacrifices that THQ made to get Red Faction and other projects (that aren't mentioned in the interview, but probably exist) to release that I feel could very well be not worth it. Your point is that they aren't related, and you're correct in that those other studios might've been closed even if Red Faction had a highly efficient development and wouldn't have needed those extra millions to get to release at an acceptable quality. However, it did need those extra millions, so I feel there is some basis to say that Red Faction's development could've added to the need to close the other studios.
dammitmattt said:
It contributes to the bottom line and it's sold at a MUCH higher profit margin, but I never said it was more than just an additional source of revenue. The fact that more and more companies are putting more and more effort into DLC shows how successful it can be.
My only point there is to say that I'd consider it highly suspect to think that DLC can take a poorly performing project and turn it around to be successful. Yes, DLC is an added revenue stream with much higher % shares for the publisher, but I don't think it's a good idea to rely on that revenue stream to make the project a success.
dammitmattt said:
And did you ever stop to think that the majority of those extra millions that you keep citing is used to continue paying salaries?
As a normal expense for continued operations? Not in the slightest. If they need additional millions that they wouldn't have needed otherwise to pay people their salaries for six months, they're either bringing in tons of extra people (e.g. to make up for shortfalls in developments previously) or paying people exorbitant amounts.
dammitmattt said:
It was a bit of hyperbole, so maybe it's more honest to say that they got rid of 550 people doing mediocre and/or unsuccessful work.
They may not be. At the least, I definitely don't think all 550 jobs that were cut were done to let Red Faction live. THQ hasn't been doing well for a while. As pointed out in the interview, they were in a "failure state."
I'm saying that I've not heard of a project internal to Nintendo with a defined budget like that. It could be that Nintendo has much higher overhead costs than typical companies (i.e. just to pay people salaries and keep the development facilities running for whichever game may be needing to use them), because they don't allocate budgets the way other publishers do. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.
dammitmattt said:
So it's okay for Nintendo to delay their games and go over budget, but not anyone else? This happens to EVERYONE in this business.
Needing to cut that many jobs because of poor financial management, including the management of game budgets, does not happen to everyone in this business. As a consumer, I prefer to get a better game in the end. When (apparent) poor financial management leads to the possibility of no more or drastically fewer games, that's not good, though.
dammitmattt said:
Again, the two are not related in this way. The shift in philosophy has nothing to do with one specific game.
It could be that that one specific game was just another example of their previous bad philosophy, though. However, I am glad that it looks like they recognize some of that and have taken steps to change.
dammitmattt said:
Obviously, these other studios didn't fit the bill and didn't fit in with the new philosophy.
I wouldn't say it's that obvious, but the possibility of that being the case is certainly there.
dammitmattt said:
THQ is in the midst of an impressive turnaround in both sales and quality. They are doing things the right way and yet you are giving them a lot of crap for it.
They are doing things in a way that makes you happy. "Right" is another concept that may or may not apply depending on what your definition of "the right way" is. I think a better way is to spread out the development over more games, so you're not dependent on individual games being a big hit to keep the company going, for example.
That may be, but it'd be dumb to not recognize what led you into that situation in the first place and take steps to avoid it happening again, if possible.
dammitmattt said:
You really don't get it. For the 801st time, the two are not related.
For the however manyeth time, they have to be related in some regard, since it's the same company, but, no, I do not think 550 jobs were axed to let Red Faction alone finish development.
We cannot consider the Wii outside of the external factors surrounding its launch, but I think that it is because of these factors alone that ultimately, pursuing third-parties would not have made profit for Nintendo.
So basically (to be flippant here), Wii was doomed for third-party software because Microsoft was too good at the same thing?
I imagine that there has been such a shift in opinion (from "the Wii is great for third-parties" to "Nintendo could not have made money pursuing third-parties") because prior to the Wii's launch, and immediately after it, we weren't aware of these external factors.
I'm much less generous here; I think there's been a shift here because many people are more interested in a position that continues to paint Nintendo in a positive light than in one that is more accurate but may suggest a failing on their part. This pattern is frequently on display with excessively zealous advocates of all platforms (for a parallel example, see the sea change from "motion control is ruinous and gimmicky" to "motion control is the future" amongst some prominent gaffers which accompanied Sony and Microsoft's entry into the field.)
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, so could you pose your question again?
So, okay. First let's hypothetically say that it would have been easy to succeed on H1 2007-era Wii (as it existed in reality) as a third-party game -- there are people looking to buy new and interesting stuff, all you need to do is get your game out there and it'll get scooped right up, but in reality no one did that so we never saw it happen. If this were true, and Nintendo had encouraged a set of ~3-4 unique exclusives for this period (imagine something like, say, RE4-2, alternate-universe Tales of Vesperia, some sandbox-esque free-roaming action-adventure game, and a sci-fi RPG with space-combat elements when I say this.) Then imagine that 2-3 of these games are big hits -- huge sellers when they come out, lots of praise from the enthusiast press, etc. If this situation obtained, wouldn't you agree that worry about "risk" from 3PPs would be fundametally irrational and that whoever else got into the pool first would probably make a killing off of the same buyers who made those paid-for/massaged exclusives a hit?
Now take a different hypothetical: that the Wii userbase in H1 2007 was already basically disinterested in games outside of the expanded-market and party-game genres, and so any such massaged exclusives would still underperform and sink off of the rader. In this circumstance, would you agree that there was no other agent who possibly could have improved this situation, since clearly even Nintendo using every tool at their disposal to win exclusives couldn't make those exclusives actually succeed in the marketplace?
In a more-or-less, round-about manner... yes? Of course, it's more complicated than that.
Essentially, the Wii was the "right" product at the wrong time. (Yes, being the "right" product does mean being the right product at the right time, but you get the point.)
I'm much less generous here; I think there's been a shift here because many people are more interested in a position that continues to paint Nintendo in a positive light than in one that is more accurate but may suggest a failing on their part. This pattern is frequently on display with excessively zealous advocates of all platforms (for a parallel example, see the sea change from "motion control is ruinous and gimmicky" to "motion control is the future" amongst some prominent gaffers which accompanied Sony and Microsoft's entry into the field.)
So because some Gaffers are unreasonable, any similar change of opinion is unreasonable? I understand that some people may be zealously following a belief in Nintendo, but don't try to rubbish an analysis because of it.
I know that, at one point, I believed that the Wii would become a melting point of great third-party and first-party games. I will gladly admit that this view was wrong. However, I don't think that I should have been inclined to believe anything different considering the limited information we had at the time.
Hmm.
So, okay. First let's hypothetically say that it would have been easy to succeed on H1 2007-era Wii (as it existed in reality) as a third-party game -- there are people looking to buy new and interesting stuff, all you need to do is get your game out there and it'll get scooped right up, but in reality no one did that so we never saw it happen. If this were true, and Nintendo had encouraged a set of ~3-4 unique exclusives for this period (imagine something like, say, RE4-2, alternate-universe Tales of Vesperia, some sandbox-esque free-roaming action-adventure game, and a sci-fi RPG with space-combat elements when I say this.) Then imagine that 2-3 of these games are big hits -- huge sellers when they come out, lots of praise from the enthusiast press, etc. If this situation obtained, wouldn't you agree that worry about "risk" from 3PPs would be fundametally irrational and that whoever else got into the pool first would probably make a killing off of the same buyers who made those paid-for/massaged exclusives a hit?
Yes. But this concern of "risk" has always been mistaken, whatever situation obtained.
Now take a different hypothetical: that the Wii userbase in H1 2007 was already basically disinterested in games outside of the expanded-market and party-game genres, and so any such massaged exclusives would still underperform and sink off of the rader. In this circumstance, would you agree that there was no other agent who possibly could have improved this situation, since clearly even Nintendo using every tool at their disposal to win exclusives couldn't make those exclusives actually succeed in the marketplace?
... yes? Although what's important here isn't the Wii's audience, but the gamers who would potentially join it.
The thing is, I don't see these two hypotheticals as controversial (so I'm still not sure I've understood your point).
To make my position clear - not that this may be necessary - I am stating that in any situation, the potential ability for third-parties to profit on the Wii has remained constant. That is, no matter how badly anyone screwed it up, there was always this sales potential, and that all that has changed is third-parties' fulfillment of it. In accordance with this, what also changes in different situations is Nintendo's ability to profit from instrumenting any action, namely that of convincing third-parties to develop for the Wii.
Do you mean per week? Per month, that's about what I'm expecting for the next few months, and I don't really consider that good. The high end per week would indicate it selling almost as well in subsequent months as the launch month, so I really don't think most of that range is a reasonable prediction for future months, if you meant per week.
I meant per month. It will definitely be higher in July and will probably be lower in subsequent months, so it's a rough average.
To be clear, I don't consider Red Faction to have done bad on its own terms. It's the apparent sacrifices that THQ made to get Red Faction and other projects (that aren't mentioned in the interview, but probably exist) to release that I feel could very well be not worth it. Your point is that they aren't related, and you're correct in that those other studios might've been closed even if Red Faction had a highly efficient development and wouldn't have needed those extra millions to get to release at an acceptable quality. However, it did need those extra millions, so I feel there is some basis to say that Red Faction's development could've added to the need to close the other studios.
The extra money added to RFG's development is peanuts compared to the cost to employ 550 people and the overhead necessary to run numerous studios. I feel completely safe in saying that RFG's development had absolutely nothing to do with the closures/firings. I also feel completely safe in saying that the closures/firings were entirely the result of a change in strategy. Why do I feel comfortable saying that? Because the guy leading this turnaround said it!
As a normal expense for continued operations? Not in the slightest. If they need additional millions that they wouldn't have needed otherwise to pay people their salaries for six months, they're either bringing in tons of extra people (e.g. to make up for shortfalls in developments previously) or paying people exorbitant amounts.
Those salaries (which are essentially doubled when you factor in benefits) would've rolled over to another project with its own budget. A team of 50+ running at peak capacity with additional contractors on board can easily burn through a few million in four months. EASILY.
They may not be. At the least, I definitely don't think all 550 jobs that were cut were done to let Red Faction live. THQ hasn't been doing well for a while. As pointed out in the interview, they were in a "failure state."
Because they were heavily reliant on licensed games and were spreading themselves too thin across too many mediocre projects. By the way, you seem to be advocating that they return to that strategy (more mediocre eggs, not the licensing part). Why?
I'm saying that I've not heard of a project internal to Nintendo with a defined budget like that. It could be that Nintendo has much higher overhead costs than typical companies (i.e. just to pay people salaries and keep the development facilities running for whichever game may be needing to use them), because they don't allocate budgets the way other publishers do. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.
I think you are wrong. I've never heard of a company that operates that way. Do you have any proof at all to back this up?
Needing to cut that many jobs because of poor financial management, including the management of game budgets, does not happen to everyone in this business. As a consumer, I prefer to get a better game in the end. When (apparent) poor financial management leads to the possibility of no more or drastically fewer games, that's not good, though.
Delays happen to everyone. That was the point. None of us have enough time to play everything good anyway, so why would you rather have a larger number of mediocre games than a smaller number of good games, whether you are a consumer, an analyst, or a shareholder? It just doesn't make any sense.
They are doing things in a way that makes you happy. "Right" is another concept that may or may not apply depending on what your definition of "the right way" is. I think a better way is to spread out the development over more games, so you're not dependent on individual games being a big hit to keep the company going, for example.
RFG makes me happy, but I don't care at all about UFC or the game. But I can say without reservation that securing that license was a fantastic move.
And they're still spreading out development over multiple games. The quantity just went down.
That may be, but it'd be dumb to not recognize what led you into that situation in the first place and take steps to avoid it happening again, if possible.
so we're still arguing that nintendo could have easily turned around the third party situation around if only they invited the CEOs to their christmas parties more often?
I feel completely safe in saying that RFG's development had absolutely nothing to do with the closures/firings. I also feel completely safe in saying that the closures/firings were entirely the result of a change in strategy.
Then we'll have to disagree here, because I think that a development going on for five years with additional millions being needed for quality purposes over the last six months can definitely impact the overall company's bottom line.
dammitmattt said:
Why do I feel comfortable saying that? Because the guy leading this turnaround said it!
Please point out this new information, because it's definitely not in the interview we're discussing.
"We shut down a lot of studios and laid off a lot of people 550 in product development so that others might live."
Yep. Sounds like it was all due to change in philosophy and not due to the financial state of the company to me.
dammitmattt said:
Those salaries (which are essentially doubled when you factor in benefits) would've rolled over to another project with its own budget. A team of 50+ running at peak capacity with additional contractors on board can easily burn through a few million in four months. EASILY.
Because it's risky to bet your company on the success of a handful of projects. It's better to supplement those big projects with smaller projects, so if one or two of your big games tank, they don't necessarily take your company with it. It's the same mindset why you don't put all your retirement into the stock of a single company/handful of companies.
Just absence of Nintendo talking about budgets like most of the rest of the industry does. Nintendo definitely has a culture of always working on something and helping out in other areas as needed, though. Normal publishers seem to be much more compartmentalized.
dammitmattt said:
why would you rather have a larger number of mediocre games than a smaller number of good games, whether you are a consumer, an analyst, or a shareholder?
Great big games scattered with good mid-tier games. If the company goes under, it doesn't matter if they went out with five straight GOTY releases that cost the company more money than they were worth. The industry is littered with "great" games that didn't sell.
dammitmattt said:
And they're still spreading out development over multiple games. The quantity just went down.
I'll readily admit that more isn't necessarily better. I got the impression from the interview that they were way scaling back the number of releases, though. The guy even made the statement "I'll ship three shooters in a year if they're going to be 90-rated and awesome." If they don't sell, you just shot your company in the foot.
dammitmattt said:
Which is exactly what they are doing, which makes your line of reasoning throughout this discussion all the more bizarre.
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.
If in two years, they've avoided the apparent missteps that led to the need to cut these jobs and funnel money to other projects to get them up to quality for release in the first place, then we can pat them on the back.
On a semi-unrelated side note, I kind of like these long point-by-point posts.
Since there's a lot of discussion about THQ, I'll throw my two cents as well.
1)THQ stated that 600-800k copies sold isn't a break-even point anymore. Which makes me worried that RFG will have a hard time becoming profitable. But who knows, maybe it will be.
2)I like their new strategy of focusing on fewer games (luckily they managed to sell BigHuge Games and not to close them down). I wonder about DarkSiders though - it seems such an interesting game to me, but there's little hype going for it - seeing that it's been in develoipment for ages, I wonder if the project has any chance for commercial success (I;m somewhat positive it'll be a great game).
And announce Homeworld 3, please! That's why THQ reacquired the IP from Sierra, right?
I didn't say they needed tons of extra people. I said the "millions" were likely to be mostly consumed by having the core team continue work for an additional four months. The rest goes to contractors.
Because it's risky to bet your company on the success of a handful of projects. It's better to supplement those big projects with smaller projects, so if one or two of your big games tank, they don't necessarily take your company with it. It's the same mindset why you don't put all your retirement into the stock of a single company/handful of companies.
Have you looked at THQ's upcoming lineup? They do have a mix of original content, licensed content, big games, and small games. They are just reducing the overall number and focusing on quality. That's a good strategy. What you don't seem to realize is that they are already doing what you are advocating that they should do!
Just absence of Nintendo talking about budgets like most of the rest of the industry does. Nintendo definitely has a culture of always working on something and helping out in other areas as needed, though. Normal publishers seem to be much more compartmentalized.
Nintendo doesn't talk about ANYTHING. No need to make assumptions based off that.
Great big games scattered with good mid-tier games. If the company goes under, it doesn't matter if they went out with five straight GOTY releases that cost the company more money than they were worth. The industry is littered with "great" games that didn't sell.
See above. This IS their strategy + licensed stuff.
I'll readily admit that more isn't necessarily better. I got the impression from the interview that they were way scaling back the number of releases, though. The guy even made the statement "I'll ship three shooters in a year if they're going to be 90-rated and awesome." If they don't sell, you just shot your company in the foot.
Almost all companies in this industry run this risk, which is why you have to do a consistent job of building your brands and executing on the product. Which is why I think it was such a good idea to delay and polish RFG. If they release a stinker that has no chance of selling or finding an audience, then they've not only thrown away the initial investment of the first game, they've also thrown away the investment in the entire brand that will hopefully help sell itself in future games.
Theory of Wii success for others before the gates opened was it was different and if you didn't do well with the status quo the playing field was level for you on Wii. Basic large install base equals sales came later.
And in 2005 getting even a sequel for a game that will 2 years later come out on a radically different from the others console where you can't port to the other systems like you could before is not exactly enticing to people.
No; that's just my objection to the idea that the "general" opinion you see in a large, collectively stupid pool like GAF is shifting due to facts. I think the idea that motion control was a good thing for the industry was true when Nintendo debuted it and is still true now, but I don't think greater acceptance of it is, broadly speaking, the result of people being honestly convinced.
The broader point here is that every reasonable position is going to be held by zealous fanboys sometimes, which doesn't disqualify it but does suggest that it's unwise to use broad acceptance of such an idea as a barometer for its accuracy.
However, I don't think that I should have been inclined to believe anything different considering the limited information we had at the time.
My point is that if a self-sustaining, profitable third-party market could have existed on Wii, a brief period of action by Nintendo should have been able to reveal and kickstart that market. If the ground was fertile, once Nintendo paid for a few farmers to work it, everyone else would flock to farm the same land without having to be paid, because the benefit would have become self-evident.
Therefore, the tradeoff for Nintendo would be either "put money towards 3-4 exclusives upfront, reveal the excellent market, stop funding exclusives as people flock to the platform of their own accord and continue to have third-party hits for the rest of the whole generation" or "put money towards 3-4 exclusives upfront, prove that the market doesn't exist, and save ourselves having to ever try again." Both are limited, upfront expenditures with no meaningful chance to spiral out of control.
Therefore therefore, I am claiming that if a self-sustaining market of good-selling third party titles is beneficial to Nintendo from a profitability standpoint (and I don't see why it wouldn't be, given that each sale is a "free" $8 in the bank for big N), it's hard for me to see almost any calculation in which such a market could exist, but an upfront expenditure is not a worthwhile investment from Nintendo from a P/L standpoint.
Oblivion said:
so we're still arguing that nintendo could have easily turned around the third party situation around if only they invited the CEOs to their christmas parties more often?
No, we're suggesting that Nintendo could have turned the situation around by using this crazy thing called "hard work and effort." I know that doesn't sit well with the idea that Nintendo shits out magic in the morning before breakfast and spends the evening knocking back maitais, but it's generally how things get done.
They do have a mix of original content, licensed content, big games, and small games. They are just reducing the overall number and focusing on quality. That's a good strategy. What you don't seem to realize is that they are already doing what you are advocating that they should do!
If that's the case, then I didn't realize it; you're right. From the interview, it seemed like they were heavily cutting down the quantity of releases, but if they're just going from "way too many" to "more manageable but still spread out" that's good.
dammitmattt said:
If they release a stinker that has no chance of selling or finding an audience, then they've not only thrown away the initial investment of the first game, they've also thrown away the investment in the entire brand that will hopefully help sell itself in future games.
Agreed. From the interview, it seems that more than simply polish was put into Red Faction over the last six months before release. For the hypothetical situation above where you mentioned delaying a B+ game to make it an A+ game, I think there can be some financial efficiency in just polishing the B+ game a little instead of doing the extra work to make it into an A+ game. If it's a C or lower, though, it's probably better to put in the extra work to make it better, yes.
No, we're suggesting that Nintendo could have turned the situation around by using this crazy thing called "hard work and effort." I know that doesn't sit well with the idea that Nintendo shits out magic in the morning before breakfast and spends the evening knocking back maitais, but it's generally how things get done.
You keep going on and on about how Nintendo shoulda/woulda/coulda, but not only didn't they, they wouldn't have anyways...that's just not the way they do things, I thought we all knew this by now. Why argue what didn't happen and what basically couldn't (as a matter of Nintendo's way of doing business) happen and instead argue the present reality and possible future.
I love to speculate...BUT...usually it's more productive to do so in regards to now and future as oppossed to what has already happened and can't be changed.
People call me long-winded, but I think you twerps are tiring yourselves out...for nothing.
The broader point here is that every reasonable position is going to be held by zealous fanboys sometimes, which doesn't disqualify it but does suggest that it's unwise to use broad acceptance of such an idea as a barometer for its accuracy.
General hindsight. I'm not denying that my previous view was, perhaps, quite a naive one, especially since I did not browse GAF as much when I originally formed it.
My point is that if a self-sustaining, profitable third-party market could have existed on Wii, a brief period of action by Nintendo should have been able to reveal and kickstart that market. If the ground was fertile, once Nintendo paid for a few farmers to work it, everyone else would flock to farm the same land without having to be paid, because the benefit would have become self-evident.
The problem with hypotheticals is that they rely on an "if" to function - if X then Y. Well I deny that X. I deny that - specifically relating to the 18-35 male demographic - the ground was fertile.
Therefore, the tradeoff for Nintendo would be either "put money towards 3-4 exclusives upfront, reveal the excellent market, stop funding exclusives as people flock to the platform of their own accord and continue to have third-party hits for the rest of the whole generation" or "put money towards 3-4 exclusives upfront, prove that the market doesn't exist, and save ourselves having to ever try again." Both are limited, upfront expenditures with no meaningful chance to spiral out of control.
I don't understand the second hypothetical. Why is it that because it was inopportune to target a demographic this generation, it will also be inopportune next generation? Why waste money failing to achieve something this generation when it would be wiser to do so next generation?
This market - again referring to 18-35 males, specifically in the West - could not exist on the Wii "just because". I doubt there's some kind of anti-Nintendo bias that runs inexplicably within this segment of the market. Rather, I think the reason why they wouldn't want Nintendo's moneyhatted exclusives is because they would value graphics over motion controls, and because they would have been satisfied, regardless of exclusives, with competing consoles. I think that they might be easier to attract next generation because Nintendo might release a console graphically equal, or superior, to Microsoft's and Sony's next-gen offerings, and because Microsoft and Sony may very well switch graphical development to development of controller input (producing very little in the way of graphical development between the 360/PS3 and 720/PS4). As a result, this market will be forced, in some sense of the word, to value motion controls, a situation which has not occurred this generation.
If the two presuppositions I have outlined do not obtain, then I am wrong and my hypothetical conclusion - "it would be easier next generation" - would be wrong.
Therefore therefore, I am claiming that if a self-sustaining market of good-selling third party titles is beneficial to Nintendo from a profitability standpoint (and I don't see why it wouldn't be, given that each sale is a "free" $8 in the bank for big N), it's hard for me to see almost any calculation in which such a market could exist, but an upfront expenditure is not a worthwhile investment from Nintendo from a P/L standpoint.
Because everythingcould exist. In a hypothetical situation, Nintendo could have won every major demographic. But in this hypothetical situation, several matters would have had to have obtained which did not in the current, real-word situation. Similarly, when I say that "Nintendo could have made profit securing third-party titles", I mean that "if several factors obtained, many of which are different to what has occurred in the real world, Nintendo could have made profit securing third-party titles". And I agree that, in general, this line of thinking is almost entirely useless because anything is possible once enough changes have been made to the present situation. The reason why I do bring this up is because the design of the Wii - its nature as a console in and of itself - would not have to be one of those changes. This is what I mean when I say that the Wii "could have been X" or "had the potential for Y" - out of all the possibilities, however remote or unlikely they would have been, the Wii is the one constant throughout them all.
In essence, my short answer is this: it would not have been possible to make money creating certain software markets on the Wii considering external factors surrounding its launch. The Western 18-35 male demographic would never have existed in significant numbers on the Wii.
The point is that there's really only two possibilities: the Wii was inherently inhospitable to 3PPs, or it wasn't. Each of these possibilities suggests a specific set of conclusions.
If it was hospitable, Nintendo almost certainly made a mistake by passing up the opportunity to develop it, as having done so would have represented a finite upfront cost that would have paid for itself repeatedly through ongoing superior support throughout the remainder of the generation.
If it wasn't hospitable, one instead must ask what factors caused this situation to obtain, and in whose control said factors were.
Console observations:
1. PS3 is down YoY, Wii is down YoY even more, X360 is up YoY
2. Pattern seems consistent over last 3 months
3. Industry overall is down YoY
Hypotheses (alternatives):
1. Wii is fading because of flawed 3rd party strategy not sustaining sales (ref last 55 pages of arguments)
2. Wii is down YoY because it is no longer supply constrained, and current sales are a more accurate reflection of "post-launch" demand
3. Wii is down more compared to other consoles because it appeals to consumers whose spending is more sensitive to economic conditions (my alternative definition of "core v casual")
4. X360 is up YoY because of price cut (GAF conventional wisdom)
5. X360 is growing because of successful 3rd party strategy (inverse of last 55 pages)
6. X360 is growing because of innovations in the "home entertainment" aspects of its system (ie Netflix streaming, menu system changes, Facebook support, Natal buzz)
7. PS3 is down YoY because of market saturation at current price
8. PS3 is down YoY because PS3 adoption is linked to HD / BR adoption, which is in decline because of economy
9. PS3 is fading because it is dying as a platform
My take:
3, 4, and 8
As for moving "up-market", to me that means getting consumers to spend more of their dollars on the Wii platform with less elasticity of demand - more brand loyalty, so to speak. In that sense, strong support of 3rd parties may be somewhat at cross-purposes with building loyalty to the Nintendo brand, both in terms of hardware and software. I might compare it to the lack of support for 3rd party mp3 players by iTunes.
As for Conduit, I know I can only offer my anecdotal experiences, but since it sounds like I'm atypical of GAF, here it is: I'm a "casual" Wii gamer (never owned any console before, unless you count a used Atari 2600 from a garage sale that didn't work right) who enjoys FPS on PC. I'm not looking for FPS or even FPA on Wii - I like the "expanded audience" games. I also consider things like Everybody Votes and the Weather Channel as "games". I'm looking for new entertainment experiences, and I've spent about $1000 over the last 2 years on the Wii platform looking for those experiences. Not sure Conduit is what I'm looking for, or my brother's family, or my in-laws, or my boss' secretary, or even my friend who owned an Xbox last gen and just bought his first current gen console last month - a Wii.
finite upfront cost that would have paid for itself repeatedly
People can't see the future.
The benefit estimate that anyone made when looking at making a Wii game will vary as things develop. I am fairly sure that at the start 3PPs didn't see the +s and wanted to see more $ from Nintendo. Nintendo didn't see the +s being worth the $s it would cost.
Factors don't seem to be the main reason for the lacking. Wii being what it is caused the problem. People say disruption but that doesn't describe just how different reality has been from what they thought was going to happen. When this was solidified the reasons things didn't change were practical as well as bullshit.
And it is not like the Wii is floundering without games like N64. The Wii owners don't buy games nonsense has been disproved. Yes, it would be better for Nintendo if they had more quality games and sold those games which would more likely to be $50 games vs. the shit clogging up the racks.
They should of been working hard since 2008 to get games on Wii so they can get some of that cash you get being King of the Hill and having games to sell late in the consoles life frees Nintendo up to make the games needed to launch Wii+.
That's not the point. Nobody here negates the evidence that Nintendo is doing a lot of money with the wii.
But the fact that the average wii hardcore game get's less than 100k in wii should be a worrying fact for anyone in this forum without Nintendo shares.
Sorry to be late on this post but wanted to again point out my predictions...
Personally I just think it means your "hardcore" gamers are getting their fix on the PS3/360 or DS and that's where investments should be made for those types of games.
I mean look at the sales at the "casual" or "non-games" they do as much if not more then the best selling hardcore titles. WiiPlay, WiiFit, EA Sports Active, Carnival Games, etc...That just proves who majority of the Wii owners are. I mean I'm not discounting the sales of Super Mario, SSBB, Zelda, and MarioKart, but again those have done similar numbers on previous systems so it's no surprise. Look at their previous versions.
And maybe I'll be proven wrong with some new game but I think that would only prove that tastes of the majority of Wii owners have changed/evolved. Current trends like the sales of No More Heroes, The Conduit, MadWorld, etc.. still say hardcore games are lost on majority of Wii owners.
Sorry to be late on this post but wanted to again point out my predictions...
Personally I just think it means your "hardcore" gamers are getting their fix on the PS3/360 or DS and that's where investments should be made for those types of games.
I mean look at the sales at the "casual" or "non-games" they do as much if not more then the best selling hardcore titles. WiiPlay, WiiFit, EA Sports Active, Carnival Games, etc...That just proves who majority of the Wii owners are. I mean I'm not discounting the sales of Super Mario, SSBB, Zelda, and MarioKart, but again those have done similar numbers on previous systems so it's no surprise. Look at their previous versions.
And maybe I'll be proven wrong with some new game but I think that would only prove that tastes of the majority of Wii owners have changed/evolved. Current trends like the sales of No More Heroes, The Conduit, MadWorld, etc.. still say hardcore games are lost on majority of Wii owners.
It's not the majority that's relevant, it's whether there's a significant audience. What's the PS2's LTD? Do you think all those people are "hardcore gamers," or even a majority of them? Imagine some tie ratios for some hardcore PS2 games.
Not that I'm necessarily saying there is a significant audience, just that your reasoning is flawed.
Just out of curiousity, how would you separate this demographic?
Pretty clearly you don't, no.
The point is that there's really only two possibilities: the Wii was inherently inhospitable to 3PPs, or it wasn't. Each of these possibilities suggests a specific set of conclusions.
If it was hospitable, Nintendo almost certainly made a mistake by passing up the opportunity to develop it, as having done so would have represented a finite upfront cost that would have paid for itself repeatedly through ongoing superior support throughout the remainder of the generation.
If it wasn't hospitable, one instead must ask what factors caused this situation to obtain, and in whose control said factors were.
Well, as I have said many times, my basic answer is that the Wii wasn't hospitable for the games we're talking about. The factors that caused this environment were external factors. Edit: Considering some of these external factors (namely, the priorities of the demographic we're talking about), the Wii was inherently inhospitable for third-parties.
3rd parties and the wii... they are not "leaving money on the table"
( ej, no wii modern warfare, no wii re5, no wii gta, etc, etc)
it goes like this:
Microsoft @ Sony suit > hey acti, rockstar, capcom etc how much money do you think your troubled wii vrs is going to make? - insert x inflated number- Ok enough of this wii nonsense, im giving you twice that amount right now- -CLOSED FIST- JUST SCRAP THAT WII PROJECT, RIGTH NOW! MKAY? BTW if somebody ask, lets call it exclusive dlc deal. JA- JA- JA - LAUGHTER-
Well, splitting, say, 18-22 from 23-35 wouldn't be a terrible start; college-aged gamers are going to have different purchasing habits from people who earn their own money.
I don't have a long answer right off the top of my head here (maybe I'll flesh this out later), but the way I'd look into it is to examine the hit software of, say, the last seven years, and look at what's succeeded. Because all games sell far less than the install base, the appeal of any title is likely to be more spread out in comparison to sufficiently distinct titles on the same system.
But yes, in your terms, the Wii was "inherently" inhospitable for third-parties.
So, again: why? What makes the DS a third-party godsend, the PSP a third-party pretty-good-choice-when-you-crunch-all-the-numbers-even-though-it's-still-kind-of-sucking-in-America, but Wii a wasteland? It can't be graphics, it's not the pure fact of being a Nintendo platform, I'm quite confident it's not the mere presence of motion controls, so... what?
If either Sony or Microsoft is paying one red cent to publishers to not make games for Wii, they're even more goddamn stupid than I accused Nintendo of being upthread.
Well, splitting, say, 18-22 from 23-35 wouldn't be a terrible start; college-aged gamers are going to have different purchasing habits from people who earn their own money.
I don't have a long answer right off the top of my head here (maybe I'll flesh this out later), but the way I'd look into it is to examine the hit software of, say, the last seven years, and look at what's succeeded. Because all games sell far less than the install base, the appeal of any title is likely to be more spread out in comparison to sufficiently distinct titles on the same system.
So, again: why? What makes the DS a third-party godsend, the PSP a third-party pretty-good-choice-when-you-crunch-all-the-numbers-even-though-it's-still-kind-of-sucking-in-America, but Wii a wasteland? It can't be graphics, it's not the pure fact of being a Nintendo platform, I'm quite confident it's not the mere presence of motion controls, so... what?
I changed my answer, so your response may no longer be relevant. Although, as I have argued before, I'd say that the DS is inhospitable for the types of games that would appeal to the majority of casual 18-22 or 23-35 males.
I changed my answer, so your response may no longer be relevant. Although, as I have argued before, I'd say that the DS is inhospitable for the types of games that would appeal to the majority of casual 18-22 or 23-35 males.
But that doesn't change the fact that it has received strong third party support and has been able to sustain sales even when Nintendo diverted the majority of their efforts away from it. That's more important than winning a particular demographic.
Well, splitting, say, 18-22 from 23-35 wouldn't be a terrible start; college-aged gamers are going to have different purchasing habits from people who earn their own money.
I think everyone is using these demographic groups and "core v. casual" definitions as a proxy for what these companies REALLY care about - how people spend money. If a "casual mommy gamer" develops platform loyalty and spends money with relative inelastic sensitivity to price (or other economic conditions or other entertainment options), isn't that a way to "move upmarket"? It's more important to change how people spend money rather than change what kinds of games they play.
People seem to forget this. It doesn't matter what the consumer's think or what the third parties didn't catch. At the end of it it is Nintendo's platform thus it is their job to get games and consumer demographics to their platform.
Or they can just not care. The idea that Nintendo is truly targeting casual gamers as their main consumer is not being taken seriously enough. Every dollar you spend on one demographic is one dollar you can't spend on another demographic and Nintendo made the conscious decision to go after the people they thought would make them the most profit.
Of course they could have also thrown lots of money into a powerful console and third party exclusives and the best case scenario is they'd end up in the position Microsoft is in now, obviously not something they envy. Obviously now Nintendo is looking at the hardcore and trying to grab them as a secondary audience but it doesn't make sense for them to abandon their current strategy and make hardcore gamers their number one priority.
If your argument is that Nintendo is supposed to satisfy everyone then you're saying every console holder has failed but Nintendo is failing the least. If the Wii's sales mean Nintendo needs to change strategies then Sony and Microsoft's sales suggest they should drop out of the industry.
So, again: why? What makes the DS a third-party godsend, the PSP a third-party pretty-good-choice-when-you-crunch-all-the-numbers-even-though-it's-still-kind-of-sucking-in-America, but Wii a wasteland? It can't be graphics, it's not the pure fact of being a Nintendo platform, I'm quite confident it's not the mere presence of motion controls, so... what?
I think the DS is a bit more complicated than that. Sure, in Japan 3rd party support is incredible, but if you start including the Western developers I think it is woefully under supported in comparison to its hardware sales and just in my opinion worse than Wii.
I think the DS is a bit more complicated than that. Sure, in Japan 3rd party support is incredible, but if you start including the Western developers I think it is woefully under supported in comparison to its hardware sales and just in my opinion worse than Wii.
Why do people always assume that 'It is entirely possible for the Wii to have garnered serious third party support' is the same as 'it is entirely possible for the Wii to have garnered serious third party support from every third party publisher'?
I think the DS is a bit more complicated than that. Sure, in Japan 3rd party support is incredible, but if you start including the Western developers I think it is woefully under supported in comparison to its hardware sales and just in my opinion worse than Wii.
It is. The West generally doesn't give a shit about the DS, at least not on the development end. Yeah, we have 5th Cell and... ? Who else that matters? The vast majority of the DS's support comes from Japan; in fact, it's one of the most overwhelmingly lopsided gaming environments I've ever seen.
Simply put, the West defaults to MS and Sony; the East kind of scatters its wares around, though it's more than willing to be moneyhatted.
Pureauthor said:
Why do people always assume that 'It is entirely possible for the Wii to have garnered serious third party support' is the same as 'it is entirely possible for the Wii to have garnered serious third party support from every third party publisher'?
That's the thing: I don't think the Wii was ever going to get any serious 3rd party Western support. Everything leading into this generation was set against that happening; even its tremendous success wasn't enough to counteract all the factors leading into this generation and those that followed its start.
"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).
