Support NeoGAF

[gerg]

You're overreaching with one of the lessons of Nintendo's success. The GameCube proved something about the market -- that you don't need X% marketshare to make a profit -- but it doesn't follow from there that marketshare isn't still relevant. Marketshare always leads to an increase in absolute software sales and, when one makes a profit on hardware, an increase of hardware profits.

I'm not arguing that Nintendo shouldn't value both (I would argue that, inevitably, they do), but that to do so will require necessarily one to prioritise either profit or marketshare.

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

But I would argue that much of what Stump suggests wouldn't actually offer any real incentive for third-parties to willingly develop for the Wii. Granted, it might make the actual development process easier, but I don't believe that the type of changes listed would have actually attracted developers to the Wii who weren't attracted to it otherwise: this still would have had to "moneyhat", in whatever form it would have taken.

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

I just don't think it would have worked, especially in regards to the FPS market. It is clear that, while many new gamers do value motion controls, many don't. So short of bagging many exclusive titles in AAA franchises (say, multiple consecutive CoD games), Nintendo's action wouldn't have convinced legions of FPS fans to jump ship, especially if one believe that Microsoft's MMO-like online features are so enticing. I agree that moneyhats would have been more effective in genres which are currently underserved. For example, moneyhatting JRPGs would probably have been successful in convincing that audience to buy a Wii, and and may have given the Wii a boost in Japan. However, I don't see why, if it is so easy to buy over that audience now, it won't be equally easy (if not easier) to do so at the start of next generation.

Ultimately, I understand what you're saying: Nintendo's action has been wrong because its consequences are a disservice to Nintendo and Nintendo alone. However, for the life of me - honest-to-God - I just can't see what these disservices are. I'm not even arguing that Nintendo should never try to go after third-party developers, but simply that the Wii was not the console to do it for, and the past few years were not the time to do it. Rather, I think it was/is much more wise of Nintendo to target these developers at the start of next-generation, and I would be surprised if Nintendo did not make a concerted effort to do so then.

I think we are talking about how the weaknesses in Nintendo's strategy... are now being reflected in their significant drop in hardware sales,

I can't see this as representative of weak software support from external developers. If Nintendo's internal plans had gone as they had desired, Wii Sports Resort would have been released by Christmas, and the decline in Wii's sales would arguably never have happened.

Perhaps not lining anything up as a replacement for Wii Sports Resort was a mistake, but how was Nintendo to know that it would be delayed so severely? Mistakes happen.

flat YoY H1 software sales when both 360 and PS3 software is growing, etc.

The difference (wasn't the growth on the 360 and PS3 around three million units?) could easily have been overcome by an earlier launch of Wii Sports Resort. So again, this doesn't seem to have been affected by Nintendo's third-party strategy.

You bring upon SONY gimping the PS3 for another market and use than using the PS3 (the sacrifice SONY intentionally made) as using that as an example of an investment that wasn't worthwhile when in reality the investment they made was by adding the huge loss rate on the PS3's was for the home movie market (Blu-ray). That really doesn't correlate with the discussion.

It would be really helpful if you actually quoted what you are responding to. At the moment, all I can really say is that you don't seem to understand what I am saying.

If you were saying that SONY took a huge loss on the PS3 for Blu-ray and the format failed and you used Blu-ray for an example that would make sense, but as of now you are using the sacrifice they made to get that gain and only focusing on the sacrifice. It doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying that it was stupid for Sony to include Blu-Ray in the PS3 (or make any of the other major design-related decisions they made) because it lost them money. I'm saying that it was stupid because it lost them market share. This was stupid because the purpose of these decisions was to gain marketshare. If a decision designed to gain marketshare ends up losing you marketshare, I'd say it was a pretty stupid decision.

Look Nintendo is currently on top. Therefore it is FAR easier with convincing third parties to develop titles for your platform.

Why? This is not self-evident.

If they get third party publishers on board this will greatly secure their position at number 1.

Why? This is not self-evident.

Like every market (movies, books, music, etc.) the gamings market third party support starts with the more serious titles and than it works its way up.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

"What if Nintendo invests millions and billions into trying to convince publishers and they don't come?" simple they are idiots. If they are THAT bad and blind that they can't even so much as glance of what Microsoft and SONY have done earlier on their generations and copy them than just wow.

wat

Sony and Microsoft operate entirely on spending billions of dollars. I'm sure Nintendo knows exactly what they have done that has made them so successful.

And the question isn't even "What if Nintendo invests money trying to convince developers to make games for their system, and these developers don't listen?" It's "What if Nintendo invests money trying to convince developers to make games for their system, and the ensuing games don't aid Nintendo's sales?"

But you know what is even more risky than that? Not investing in building third party relations and have someone else take those third parties and eventually build on to what you done and offer MORE than what you have thus eventually surpassing you in market share.

This suggests that Nintendo does nothing else to try and stay ahead of the competition.

Which since this is a business world WILL happen and result in Nintendo losing potential billions upon billions of future profit.

Why? This is not self-evident.

I mean I could see if this argument was taking place if Nintendo was at second place or a not to far ahead first, but as of now they are dominating the gaming market. Don't you think it's silly that they shouldn't just take away some of their millions to secure their position just to save it and keep them highly vulnerable to competitors?

Not if their actions won't aid their success. Which is not clear.

 

[DangerousDave]

What do you mean by average, though?
The games that would sell on the 360/PS3 sell on the Wii, the ones that wouldn't don't.
Yes, the Conduit is an FPS, which is the hot thing this generation, but it was still a low budget game from a no one developer.
Even a game like Haze, which had a large budget and a huge advertising campaign flopped badly on the PS3.

Haze was below average And you can't compare the current wii US userbase with the PS3 US userbase of one year ago.

But we can compare, in any moment, the sales of the CoD 5 Wii with the HD ones, even if the Wii has the superior motion control version Or the sales of Tomb Raider. Or Ghostbusters. Madden in USA (1M 360 version, 400k PS2 version and 100k Wii version) or FIFA/PES in Europe.

I'm focusing in the multiplatform games because if I compare the units sold of No More Heroes with, i don't know, Too Human, you'll be able to argument that Too Human is way better than No More Heroes and that explain the difference in the sales.

 

[poppabk]

Haze was below average And you can't compare the current wii US userbase with the PS3 US userbase of one year ago.

But we can compare, in any moment, the sales of the CoD 5 Wii with the HD ones, even if the Wii has the superior motion control version Or the sales of Tomb Raider. Or Ghostbusters. Madden in USA (1M 360 version, 400k PS2 version and 100k Wii version) or FIFA/PES in Europe.

I'm focusing in the multiplatform games because if I compare the units sold of No More Heroes with, i don't know, Too Human, you'll be able to argument that Too Human is way better than No More Heroes and that explain the difference in the sales.

Or why bother going that far back, lets just look at Tiger Woods in this very NPD.

 

[DangerousDave]

Yeah, I wonder about why a golf game bundled with motion+ controller sold more in the Wii than in 360...

 

[jtb]

Yeah, I wonder about why a golf game bundled with motion+ controller sold more in the Wii than in 360...

Because it's a good game with a control scheme suited for the wii? What's your point, that games need to be good and suited for the wii to sell well?

 

[boiled goose]

Yeah, I wonder about why a golf game bundled with motion+ controller sold more in the Wii than in 360...

then look at guitar hero 3, guitar hero WT, lego star wars, the force unleashed, tiger woods 09!!! (no motion plus), shaun white, virtua tennis, sonic unleashed, quantom of solace P) etc.

all multiplatform games that sold better than HD counterparts

 

[magash]

then look at guitar hero, lego star wars, the force unleashed, tiger woods 09!!! (no motion plus), shaun white, etc.

they dont count...they are not as hardcore as shooter #1124483789598t3856

 

[Kilrogg]

Yeah, I wonder about why a golf game bundled with motion+ controller sold more in the Wii than in 360...

Hey, do you know what you're doing with this right here? You're implying that people buy the software for the hardware, when it's the other way around. Nobody would buy a game if the software implementation of the hardware (the peripheral) sucked. TW is a good game with good controls.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Yeah, I wonder about why a golf game bundled with motion+ controller sold more in the Wii than in 360...

I think the previous Tiger Woods games also sold more on the Wii as well.

Not 100% positive though.

 

[DangerousDave]

Because it's a good game with a control scheme suited for the wii? What's your point, that games need to be good and suited for the wii to sell well?

No, I mean that even in the best scenario (a good game, attractive for people of any ages, not only in the 15-25 demography, that offers a really different experience with the wiimote than with normal controller, that score a lot more in wii than in 360, and bundled with a new controller), Tiger Woods Wii has outsold the 360 version, but not with a great margin taking in consideration the userbase sizes.

It's the exception, due the differences in the versions, not the rule.

But well, I accept your point. Good third party traditional games salles as well in Wii than in 360. Then we have to suppose that all the third party that didn't sell well in Wii are crappy games?

 

[gerg]

No, I mean that even in the best scenario (a good game, attractive for people of any ages, not only in the 15-25 demography, that offers a really different experience with the wiimote than with normal controller, that score a lot more in wii than in 360, and bundled with a new controller), Tiger Woods Wii has outsold the 360 version, but not with a great margin taking in consideration the userbase sizes.

Except game sales do not scale with userbase scales.

But well, I accept your point. Good third party traditional games salles as well in Wii than in 360. Then we have to suppose that all the third party that didn't sell well in Wii are crappy games?

No. The market for that game may have been there, or they may not have advertised it enough. I'm sure that there are multiple factors that affect how a game sells, and we cannot reduce sales to a single variable.

 

[charlequin]

This is the wrong answer, and a very wrong one at that...The cheapest 360 sku is 50 dollars less than the Wii, yet it isn't selling anywhere near Wii numbers.

It's not a question of comparative price (the GameCube shows us that comparative price is entirely irrelevant), but rather of price in relation to library. The Wii is worth it to people because Wii Sports (Game of the Generation) is packed in; the 360 (which in practice the $290 average sale price tells us is mostly purchased in Pro form) still costs too much for a broader market to adopt it given how little software it has for them. The two things go hand in hand.

Ignoring the current pricing of the 360, the question still remains - why do they have no meaningful appeal to the legions of less dedicated gamers? The Wii has very few 3rd party successes that are exclusive, so it is unlikely to be the 3rd party software support. So it almost has to be the first party software.

Er... that's a nonsensical way of looking at it. Customers don't look at first-party software on one system and compare it to first-party software on another system; they just look at software. Nintendo does have Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc. while PS360 collectively have almost no child-oriented software, few casually-oriented sports-type games, not much in the way of weird puzzle and platform games, etc.

I'm not arguing that Nintendo shouldn't value both (I would argue that, inevitably, they do), but that to do so will require necessarily one to prioritise either profit or marketshare.

Because Nintendo doesn't have to pay money to consumers to get them to adopt their console, marketshare is a path to profitability for Nintendo. In fact, that's what's so clever about their strategy: they can afford to focus on growing marketshare because it doesn't cost them the same way it does their competitors.

But I would argue that much of what Stump suggests wouldn't actually offer any real incentive for third-parties to willingly develop for the Wii.

This argument basically takes as given that the Wii really is an inherently shitty product for third-parties -- that, basically, no one but Nintendo ever could have success on it, and so no incentives could really possibly convince anyone to give it a chance.

My position has always been that the Wii had great potential to be a strong platform for third-parties, but that a Prisoner's Dilemma-like set of payoffs led to a situation in which everyone was worse off than the best possible situation. If that's true, the amount of incentive needed to shift some development early on (before inertia and sunk costs set in) shouldn't actually have been too great.

I just don't think it would have worked, especially in regards to the FPS market.

As I've said a few times in this thread, FPSes were never "gettable" for Wii because of the way in which Halo was the specific trailblazer for this genre on consoles.

Ultimately, I understand what you're saying: Nintendo's action has been wrong because its consequences are a disservice to Nintendo and Nintendo alone. However, for the life of me - honest-to-God - I just can't see what these disservices are.

You don't think the drop in hardware sales that's now visible in both the US and Japan is partially attributable to what is generally perceived as a "drought" of new software for the Wii? You don't think that the presence of third-party developers releasing desirable software during the periods in which Nintendo has delivered no, or subpar, software could have helped to buoy the hardware's performance?

Rather, I think it was/is much more wise of Nintendo to target these developers at the start of next-generation, and I would be surprised if Nintendo did not make a concerted effort to do so then.

That leaves them playing catch-up, though. If third-parties make it through this gen alive skating by on HD development, what's the incentive to go over to Nintendo next time? And, for that matter, what's the incentive for people who are habitual hobby gamers to purchase the Wii's successor if they make it through this generation without ever seeing meaningful third-party support?

I can't see this as representative of weak software support from external developers. If Nintendo's internal plans had gone as they had desired, Wii Sports Resort would have been released by Christmas, and the decline in Wii's sales would arguably never have happened.

One of the benefits of external development is that it can buoy you against droughts in your own internal development. See the DS, where Nintendo has been able to look away and focus on the Wii, then come right back with strongly successful software like Rhythm Heaven way down the line.

Except game sales do not scale with userbase scales.

Game sales don't scale linearly with userbase size. They do broadly scale upwards at a rate that becomes slower as the userbase becomes larger.

 

[Kilrogg]

But well, I accept your point. Good third party traditional games salles as well in Wii than in 360. Then we have to suppose that all the third party that didn't sell well in Wii are crappy games?

There are tons of reasons why a game can sell poorly. Many third-party games on the Wii are not that appealing on their own, or clearly inferior versions of multiplatform games, or go barely unnoticed, or are just plain shovelware. Wii owners complain about this on a regular basis.

[EDIT] @Vinci: you and me, pal.

 

[Vinci]

I'd just like to say: gerg is my favorite of the new juniors. He's saving me a lot of time arguing some of the points being lobbied in here.

 

[Accident]

I think the previous Tiger Woods games also sold more on the Wii as well.

Not 100% positive though.

Tiger Woods 09 sold half a million on Wii by the time the 360 version was around 200k.

then look at guitar hero 3, guitar hero WT, lego star wars, the force unleashed, tiger woods 09!!! (no motion plus), shaun white, virtua tennis, sonic unleashed, quantom of solace P) etc.

The Force Unleashed sold more on 360 in its first month than what it sold on Wii on 2008.

 

[poppabk]

Er... that's a nonsensical way of looking at it. Customers don't look at first-party software on one system and compare it to first-party software on another system; they just look at software. Nintendo does have Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc. while PS360 collectively have almost no child-oriented software, few casually-oriented sports-type games, not much in the way of weird puzzle and platform games, etc.

Its not a nonsensical way of looking at it for Nintendo though - they are the first party. If 1st party games and not 3rd party have made the difference this generation in terms of selling hardware, why would Nintendo not increase funding to their first/second party titles (dev costs, marketing, new studios, more staff, more titles) rather than reaching out to third parties?
I mean the big reason not to just expand 1st party is that the 3rd parties mitigate some of the risk, but that seems like a bad reason for why we should want Nintendo to court 3rd parties.

 

[HiResDes]

It's not a question of comparative price (the GameCube shows us that comparative price is entirely irrelevant), but rather of price in relation to library. The Wii is worth it to people because Wii Sports (Game of the Generation) is packed in; the 360 (which in practice the $290 average sale price tells us is mostly purchased in Pro form) still costs too much for a broader market to adopt it given how little software it has for them. The two things go hand in hand.

Still even with all things considered the price of the pro isn't that much more expensive than the Wii...I just think the Wii appears to be cheaper because of the pack in (as you stated) and the fact that it isn't a HD console. A vast majority of people don't have a TV console and therefore when they go out to buy a console they figure why pay extra for something they don't need. But, the catch is that the price is only 40 dollars difference. It's really all about the how people perceive the Wii versus how they perceive the 360, a MS console.

 

[poppabk]

Tiger Woods 09 sold half a million on Wii by the time the 360 version was around 200k.





The Force Unleashed sold more on 360 in its first month than what it sold on Wii on 2008.

As of a leak in Jan 2009 the 360 version had apparently sold a 3rd more in the NPD. Sonic Unleashed had sold twice as much on Wii than it did on 360 according to the same leak.

 

[DangerousDave]

Well, maybe I'm wrong, I don't want to block the discussion with the same arguments.

Is that I found shocking sells of 33k, 72k or even less than 10k, when the only games that sells that quantity in 360 are really crappy games (or very specific niche games), so I think that there is something else.

 

[Kilrogg]

You don't think the drop in hardware sales that's now visible in both the US and Japan is partially attributable to what is generally perceived as a "drought" of new software for the Wii? You don't think that the presence of third-party developers releasing desirable software during the periods in which Nintendo has delivered no, or subpar, software could have helped to buoy the hardware's performance?

I'm slowly beginning to think that 3rd party support wouldn't have been that helpful, all in all. Helping developers, moneyhatting games and other such manœuvres would have attracted more developers, sure, but what if they didn't like to develop on the Wii? What if they really weren't able to make compelling software for this atypical piece of hardware with an atypical, albeit diverse userbase?

Don't misunderstand me: I know what you mean, and it's absolutely obvious that more third-party support would have helped, but I question the extent to which it would have helped. If I'm going by the current market situation, very very few developers outside of Nintendo's seem to get it when it comes to the Wii, and many don't want to get it. We've seen developers completely dropping the ball early on even though they were successful (see Ubisoft).

I don't think it's as easy as providing things like financial incentives. Somewhere down the road, you're going to go against a company like Microsoft who can easily outmuscle you. Money doesn't buy enthusiasm, nor does it foster business savviness.

 

[charlequin]

Its not a nonsensical way of looking at it for Nintendo though - they are the first party. If 1st party games and not 3rd party have made the difference this generation in terms of selling hardware, why would Nintendo not increase funding to their first/second party titles (dev costs, marketing, new studios, more staff, more titles) rather than reaching out to third parties?

Because there isn't a magical relationship between each dollar spent on first-party development and $X of profit; you need actual teams working on actual titles, and then to consider the status of the market on release.

Nintendo has a big internal development group and tons of cash; I'd like to think they're already developing every major first-party title they think they have both the right high-concept and the right personnel for.

This is kind of like the argument about why Nintendo should still develop some dedicated-gamer-oriented titles now that they have Brain Training and Wii Fit, actually. Yes, Wii Fit may be more efficiently profitable, but there isn't an infinite market for an unlimited number of such products, and putting all resources into developing them bears an all-eggs-in-one-basket risk. If you have lots of resources, better to diversify your output and tackle as many distinct approaches to success as you can reasonably hope to succeed in.

 

[gerg]

Because Nintendo doesn't have to pay money to consumers to get them to adopt their console, marketshare is a path to profitability for Nintendo. In fact, that's what's so clever about their strategy: they can afford to focus on growing marketshare because it doesn't cost them the same way it does their competitors.

I agree that the almost physical act of growing marketshare (ie. producing the consoles that they can sell at a profit) gains them money. I argue that it is the process of getting to this point - of generating the demand which they would then fulfill - which is costly.

This argument basically takes as given that the Wii really is an inherently shitty product for third-parties -- that, basically, no one but Nintendo ever could have success on it, and so no incentives could really possibly convince anyone to give it a chance.

Not really. It merely assumes that some people thought that - which turned out to be the truth.

My position has always been that the Wii had great potential to be a strong platform for third-parties, but that a Prisoner's Dilemma-like set of payoffs led to a situation in which everyone was worse off than the best possible situation. If that's true, the amount of incentive needed to shift some development early on (before inertia and sunk costs set in) shouldn't actually have been too great.

I think this underestimates the view of Nintendo that third-parties held at the time. I find it hard to believe that Nintendo didn't approach third-parties at all - they had clearly formed connections with Ubisoft and Sega prior to the Wii's launch, for example - so I don't believe that third-parties had no idea of what was coming. Rather, they thought that the Wii would fail, and that it represented limited opportunities for them. Do you really think that the opportunity of selling demos on a (supposedly failing) system would garner any more support for the Wii? I think that monetary incentives would definitely have been necessary.

As I've said a few times in this thread, FPSes were never "gettable" for Wii because of the way in which Halo was the specific trailblazer for this genre on consoles.

I didn't really mean to argue against this, but I guess I worded the dialectic poorly.

You don't think the drop in hardware sales that's now visible in both the US and Japan is partially attributable to what is generally perceived as a "drought" of new software for the Wii? You don't think that the presence of third-party developers releasing desirable software during the periods in which Nintendo has delivered no, or subpar, software could have helped to buoy the hardware's performance?

I certainly believe that the Wii's declining sales are the result of poor software support. However, I doubt that the software that third-parties would have been creating would have fulfilled the role that Wii Sports Resort is designed to fulfill. Moreover, I doubt that Wii Sports Resort's delay could have been effectively anticipated at all. If Wii's decline hardware sales are representative of any kind of mistake, it's of Nintendo's attributing too much importance to Wii Sports Resort within their internal strategy. Although this may only seem more and more reasonable depending on how well Wii Sports Resort eventually sells, and what it does for Wii sales.

That leaves them playing catch-up, though. If third-parties make it through this gen alive skating by on HD development, what's the incentive to go over to Nintendo next time?

There is none. Which is why Nintendo would need to moneyhat them.

But it's apparent that they thought that there were no incentives for them to move to Nintendo at the start of this generation, either. In this way, how has Nintendo's position worsened? In fact, surely it has become unarguably better? They have proved that they are a force to be reckoned with in the gaming industry, and that when they do something people should shut up and listen.

And, for that matter, what's the incentive for people who are habitual hobby gamers to purchase the Wii's successor if they make it through this generation without ever seeing meaningful third-party support?

I can't quite understand the question here, so could you rephrase it?

One of the benefits of external development is that it can buoy you against droughts in your own internal development. See the DS, where Nintendo has been able to look away and focus on the Wii, then come right back with strongly successful software like Rhythm Heaven way down the line.

I'm not denying this. I'm denying Nintendo's ability - or anyone's, for that matter - to anticipate a delay which most likely happened in the latter half of 2008. (I'll look through the Iwata Asks about Motion Plus to see if they mention when they made the choice to delay the title.)

Game sales don't scale linearly with userbase size. They do broadly scale upwards at a rate that becomes slower as the userbase becomes larger.

Fair enough. I'm just arguing against the implication that there is an infinite audience for Tiger Woods which Tiger Woods 10 doesn't satisfy.

I'd just like to say: gerg is my favorite of the new juniors. He's saving me a lot of time arguing some of the points being lobbied in here.

Thanks.

Although this probably means that I'm devoting too much time to the interwebs.

[EDIT] @Vinci: you and me, pal.

Thanks, too.

 

[charlequin]

Still even with all things considered the price of the pro isn't that much more expensive than the Wii...

I don't think I made my point clearly: it is totally irrelevant how expensive the 360 is compared to the Wii; it's only relevant how expensive it is compared to the software it has on offer. (And with the 360 specifically, I imagine the way the SKUs are split up is problematic -- the fact that most 360s sold are Pros suggests that the lack of an HD is more of a negative for the Arcade pack than one might expect.)

I'm slowly beginning to think that 3rd party support wouldn't have been that helpful, all in all. Helping developers, moneyhatting games and other such manœuvres would have attracted more developers, sure, but what if they didn't like to develop on the Wii?

This seems to represents something of a sea-change amongst supporters of the Wii. Early on, I remember quite a few arguments about why the Wii would prove to be an excellent platform for many third-part games built to utilize its unique strengths; that third-parties would discover eventually that economics dictated a need to support it; that it could represent a great melding of expanded markets with satisfied core gamers.

It's honestly hard for me to take this recent trend towards "well, third-party games could never have worked on this system anyway" as a serious conclusion rather than a sour-grapes situation. I never believed that "a lack of graphical fidelity" was on its own enough of a reason for the system to inherently be unworthy of development -- certainly that argument doesn't seem to really apply to the DS or PSP -- so I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that it was a foregone conclusion that Wii could never play host to desirable, polished titles that would appeal to existing gamers.

 

[AniHawk]

Itagaki, Kojima, Mikami, and Sakaguchi have all shown themselves to be huge system fanboys over the last 5 years, and several have made comments about rival hardware that would make Gabe Newell and Julian E from Factor 5 blush.

Well I don't think Itagaki's influence spread to the rest of Tecmo, Kojima's to the rest of Konami's, and so on and so forth, since we're really talking about companies as a whole.

I'm interested in knowing why Mikami despises Sony so much though.

 

[gerg]

This seems to represents something of a sea-change amongst supporters of the Wii. Early on, I remember quite a few arguments about why the Wii would prove to be an excellent platform for many third-part games built to utilize its unique strengths; that third-parties would discover eventually that economics dictated a need to support it; that it could represent a great melding of expanded markets with satisfied core gamers.

It's honestly hard for me to take this recent trend towards "well, third-party games could never have worked on this system anyway" as a serious conclusion rather than a sour-grapes situation. I never believed that "a lack of graphical fidelity" was on its own enough of a reason for the system to inherently be unworthy of development -- certainly that argument doesn't seem to really apply to the DS or PSP -- so I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that it was a foregone conclusion that Wii could never play host to desirable, polished titles that would appeal to existing gamers.

I, for one, (and it seems that Kilrogg shares this view as well) do believe that the Wii could have played host to a wonderful environment that could have rivalled that of the PS2 (outside, say, FPSs, which I don't believe were as prominent on the PS2 as they are on the 360). In a vacuum, certainly, the potential was always there.

However, I also believe that the process of creating such an environment wouldn't have been necessarily profitable for Nintendo as a company in and of itself. 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. Of course the Wii could have been a platform that was profitable for third-parties, but only, as I have said, when considering its sales potential in a vacuum. However, businesses don't operate in a vacuum, and so because of external factors (which may not have been readily apparent at the launch of the Wii) I believe that the process of creating this environment would not have been profitable for Nintendo. Heck, Microsoft has had great success with this strategy, and yet I don't believe we know if they've made money on all the games they moneyhated.

So I guess that when people ask "who's created the current situation regarding Wii third-party sales", in a matter-of-fact manner I cannot deny that it is both Nintendo's and third-parties' creation. However, if we then ask "who should we blame for it?", I find it difficult to put Nintendo's reasoning at fault. Yes, Nintendo has played some part in making third-parties' sales on the Wii shitty, but they were not wrong to do so - I'm not trying to absolve Nintendo of responsibility, but I don't think their actions were bad either. Similarly, I also find it hard to blame third-parties either, in that they're only responsible to themselves, and they were operating within their preconceived conceptions about what made sense. It simply turns out that these preconceived conceptions were wrong.

 

[ViperVisor]

How do I get where? The point is that no third party is going to be making software that targets exactly the same niche as Nintendo's first-party stuff well enough to actually beat it; most people will look to fill expanded market niches beyond what Nintendo's own first-party can provide, or to sell extra products to people who already bought the first-party games and want more. You can fill in survival-horror or lightgun or whatever you want in that post if my choice of genres offends you.

Yes. True. But when and how should Nintendo have helped make this so? Time and Money are resources you can plug in however you want but the people that can make great games are finite. And their true ability can't just be bought. They have to want to do the game. A fine technical watchmaker isn't enough. They need to make telling time fun.

 

[Vinci]

I, for one, (and it seems that Kilrogg shares this view as well) do believe that the Wii could have played host to a wonderful environment that could have rivalled that of the PS2 (outside, say, FPSs, which I don't believe were as prominent on the PS2 as they are on the 360). In a vacuum, certainly, the potential was always there.

Absolutely.

However, I also believe that the process of creating such an environment wouldn't have been necessarily profitable for Nintendo as a company in and of itself. 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. Of course the Wii could have been a platform that was profitable for third-parties, when considering its sales potential in a vacuum. I simply deny that the process of creating this environment - considering the attitudes of third-parties at the time of the Wii launch - would not have been profitable for Nintendo. Heck, Microsoft has had great success with this strategy, and yet I don't believe we know if they've made money on the games they moneyhated.

Also, it's difficult to say that Nintendo taking even a successful strategy from MS's playbook would have proven beneficial at all to the way in which Nintendo runs itself. They're completely different companies - what works in one does not necessarily work in the other.

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. And what's sad is, it didn't have to be that way. Nintendo did what it could to make it a destination friendly to the sort of products the company creates - and look what's happening. All it would have taken was some smart decision-making early on - determining where PS2 franchises belonged (HD or Wii) and creating reasonably flexible userbases on all three consoles.

What they've done makes no sense whatsoever for their own interests.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I don't even think Nintendo wants to battle MS in the money hatting arena. They can't really win against them in terms of throwing money at something.

That's likely one of the reasons Nintendo did what they did with the Wii. Create a market that didn't need to be money hatted to hell and back. Unfortunately, the side effect was to pretty much lose any possible support from normal game developers.

I also fear that this stigma will follow Nintendo into their next system. The core gamers were the ones who told their non-gaming friends about the Wii to attract them. What happens if the core are skeptical to Nintendo's next system, afraid to get burned again?

Same with third parties. Even with Nintendo giant userbase, do you think they'll be willing to look Nintendo's way next generation? I'm willing to bet they'll ignore the system again, even if it does have the standard features (reasonable power, good online system, etc) because of the "lol nongamers" stigma.

I'm REALLY curious to see what happens if MS becomes the market leader and stops money hatting (because they wouldn't need to anymore). What happens to a lot of the developers who were able to make those big huge blockbusters because of MS?

This generation is scary as shit for me, because of where it seems to be leading. I'd really, really hate to see gaming companies get eaten up to the point where there are only two mega corporations making games.

 

[HiResDes]

I don't even think Nintendo wants to battle MS in the money hatting arena. They can't really win against them in terms of throwing money at something.

That's likely one of the reasons Nintendo did what they did with the Wii. Create a market that didn't need to be money hatted to hell and back. Unfortunately, the side effect was to pretty much lose any possible support from normal game developers.

I also fear that this stigma will follow Nintendo into their next system. The core gamers were the ones who told their non-gaming friends about the Wii to attract them. What happens if the core are skeptical to Nintendo's next system, afraid to get burned again?

Same with third parties. Even with Nintendo giant userbase, do you think they'll be willing to look Nintendo's way next generation? I'm willing to bet they'll ignore the system again, even if it does have the standard features (reasonable power, good online system, etc) because of the "lol nongamers" stigma.

I'm REALLY curious to see what happens if MS becomes the market leader and stops money hatting (because they wouldn't need to anymore). What happens to a lot of the developers who followed that deal this generation?

as long as they are making money I don't think Iwata cares in the least whether or not the Wii remains the home for core gamers in the next generation because they occupy a small minority of the market.

 

[Eteric Rice]

as long as they are making money I don't think Iwata cares in the least whether or not the Wii remains the home for core gamers in the next generation because they occupy a small minority of the market.

A small minority that buys a LOT of games, not to mention word of mouth usually starts with them.

You'd have to be crazy to think that Nintendo doesn't want the core gamers on their system as well.

 

[markatisu]

A small minority that buys a LOT of games, not to mention word of mouth usually starts with them.

You'd have to be crazy to think that Nintendo doesn't want the core gamers on their system as well.

They might want them but they can easily survive without them, I think Iwata wants them to prove a point that Nintendo can get them. Their success as a company financially is not tied to them though.

In the end that is all that matters as more and more places close due to money problems

 

[Jewbacca]

IF IT AINT BROKE.
DONT FIX IT.

-Uncle Jim

 

[gerg]

A small minority that buys a LOT of games, not to mention word of mouth usually starts with them.

You'd have to be crazy to think that Nintendo doesn't want the core gamers on their system as well.

Disregarding my dislike of the use of the word "core gamer", I agree that Nintendo wants core gamers (and here I do mean the afaic erroneous use as a by-word for "18-35 males") on their system. However, it seems that it wants them on its own terms - it wants core gamers to buy Nintendo's consoles for the values Nintendo itself buys into, which would currently be "interaction between the console and the player", and "social interaction between multiple players".

 

[Grampa Simpson]

A small minority that buys a LOT of games, not to mention word of mouth usually starts with them.

You'd have to be crazy to think that Nintendo doesn't want the core gamers on their system as well.

You don't think that Nintendo's new market strategy isn't creating a new brand of core gamers that are just separate from the established core gamer community that heavily populates the XBox 360 and the PS3?

 

[HiResDes]

You don't think that Nintendo's new market strategy isn't creating a new brand of core gamers that are just separate from the established core gamer community that heavily populates the XBox 360 and the PS3?

I'm not sure I'm ready to brand them core gamers, not because of the types of games that they play, but rather because they don't seem to buy tons of games at a time the same way a 360 enthusiast might.

 

[laserbeam]

The Wii gamers dont buy games arguement is stale and 2006ish. Wii software sales are just as good or slightly better than 360 anymore.

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.

I will flat out say people who play FPS are not Core gamers and sure as fuck arent the normal gamer. Alot of money is simply thrown to make FPS the "cool" thing to play and I certainly play my share of FPS but FPS are as casual as casual can be these days

 

[HiResDes]

The Wii gamers dont buy games arguement is stale and 2006ish. Wii software sales are just as good or slightly better than 360 anymore.

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.

I will flat out say people who play FPS are not Core gamers and sure as fuck arent the normal gamer. Alot of money is simply thrown to make FPS the "cool" thing to play and I certainly play my share of FPS but FPS are as casual as casual can be these days

Core gamers are not determined by the types of games they play...But rather if they are in it for the long run

 

[gerg]

Core gamers are not determined by the types of games they play...But rather if they are in it for the long run

That's a rather... interesting definition. I prefer using "interest in gaming/the gaming industry" to measure "hardcoreness", with the hardcore being most interested, and casual being least interested.

 

[Kilrogg]

I had started a reply to your post, charlequin, but gerg jumped in and expressed my thoughts better than I could. I hope you don't mind that I won't give you my original reply. It's getting frustrating not being able to do it as well myself, trust me :lol.

 

[Jokeropia]

Accept their console is rapidly declining over the past few months.

Sales were completely flay from May to June so they're not declining anymore and staying on PS2 level.

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

They're still selling on PS2 level and roughly as much as 360 and PS3 combined worldwide.

And this in the midst of a global depression.

Well, maybe I'm wrong, I don't want to block the discussion with the same arguments.

Is that I found shocking sells of 33k, 72k or even less than 10k, when the only games that sells that quantity in 360 are really crappy games (or very specific niche games), so I think that there is something else.

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.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

I'm not sure I'm ready to brand them core gamers, not because of the types of games that they play, but rather because they don't seem to buy tons of games at a time the same way a 360 enthusiast might.

I think they're there. I think they're unique to Nintendo, but a much much smaller population than the ones that have been brewing for 20 years and find themselves now at home on the 360 and PS3. It's a new market, but its enthusiast population will continue to grow and their community will form, probably in places less hostile than here. I think that there's a true market shift happening, and it will leave a lot of the old guard enthusiasts (neogaf) behind.

EDIT: Gah. I need to scale my avatar. It looks fine in older versions of firefox, but the 3.5.1 I have on my netbook makes it look like crap.

 

[gerg]

I had started a reply to your post, charlequin, but gerg jumped in and expressed my thoughts better than I could. I hope you don't mind that I won't give you my original reply. It's getting frustrating not being able to do it as well myself, trust me :lol.

Well, if I'm getting in the way of posters wanting to post themselves, I guess I should take a break. I feel like I've been hogging the thread...

"Mummy, gerg stole my sales-age discussion!"

:lol

Spoiler

Not that I think that's what you're saying, btw.

 

[Kilrogg]

Well, if I'm getting in the way of posters wanting to post themselves, I guess I should take a break. I feel like I've been hogging the thread...

"Mummy, gerg stole my sales-age discussion!"

:lol

Spoiler

Not that I think that's what you're saying, btw.

Haha. It's just my inability to synthesize that's frustrating me.

 

[Lenardo]

That's a rather... interesting definition. I prefer using "interest in gaming/the gaming industry" to measure "hardcoreness", with the hardcore being most interested, and casual being least interested.

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.

for the record, i have 3 young kids, am married and have a wii only, the 360 and the ps3 do not have the majority of games that my kids like.

that said we have over 55 games for the wii- games for ME, for my Wife, For my Kids, everything from REALLY bad games- ninjabreadman (my 7yr old bought it) to The conduit, from hotd: overkill to disney princess adventures (my 4yr old daughter loves it)

a core gamer is my family. albeit we are in the family oriented dept, though we do have Every Major 3rd party "core" game that has released.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

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.

for the record, i have 3 young kids, am married and have a wii only, the 360 and the ps3 do not have the majority of games that my kids like.

that said we have over 55 games for the wii- games for ME, for my Wife, For my Kids, everything from REALLY bad games- ninjabreadman (my 7yr old bought it) to The conduit, from hotd: overkill to disney princess adventures (my 4yr old daughter loves it)

a core gamer is my family. albeit we are in the family oriented dept, though we do have Every Major 3rd party "core" game that has released.

!

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.

 

[pieyow]

Nobody except the deluded seriously expected Conduit to chart this month. And obviously third party games can do well on Wii. EA Sports Active and Tiger Woods 10 are the top selling games on the platform this month.

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.

 

[laserbeam]

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.

I enjoy the conduit for what it is but if they want to attract the 360/PS3 people who do own a Wii to buy the games they need to be exceptional and say yes you need to play this game not its another fps in a field of fps

 

[poppabk]

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.

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.

 

[ksamedi]

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.

 

[dammitmattt]

Awesome.

EDIT: You mean the genre as a whole and not just The Conduit?

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).