Support NeoGAF

[poppabk]

Battlefield 1943 has done well in its first week, but it will never reach the sales of BF2: Modern Combat or Bad Company on 360, PS3, or PC, nor could it have expected to find an audience at all if it had released at retail for $60 as the newer games in the series had.

Just wanted to point out that Battlefield 1943 sold 600,000 copies between PS3 and 360, pretty much demonstrating that the biggest and best is only one factor in game purchases.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16794528&postcount=1

Its interesting that given all the focus on NPD's, the probable (1943 on 360 quite likely outsold prototype) top two titles for the month are not even counted.

 

[dammitmattt]

Just wanted to point out that Battlefield 1943 sold 600,000 copies between PS3 and 360, pretty much demonstrating that the biggest and best is only one factor in game purchases.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16794528&postcount=1

Its interesting that given all the focus on NPD's, the probable (1943 on 360 quite likely outsold prototype) top two titles for the month are not even counted.

I just want to point out that those sales aren't just for the US, so Prototype is safe.

 

[poppabk]

I just want to point out that those sales aren't just for the US, so Prototype is safe.

Good point, but still the top game of the month and a likely top ten game are absent from the list due to their platform or distribution method.

 

[JKBii]

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.

And one more thing, surely any gamer that doesn't like what the Wii can just buy a 360 or a PS3. As a gamer, why is it so important for Nintendo to secure games that are just going to end up on a system you already own anyway?

 

[gerg]

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.

I imagine that you mean that the DS has received strong support from Japanese developers, but afaic Nintendo's ability to profit from ensuring a similar environment in Japan was never in contention. What I'm denying is, essentially, the ability for Western third-party games to sell on the Wii.

 

[Oblivion]

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?

So what exactly did Nintendo do that caused third parties to develop for the DS en masse? Is it because Nintendo was more willing to moneyhat games on handhelds and everybody jumped on board hoping Nintendo would give them some as well?

 

[Version 3.0]

And one more thing, surely any gamer that doesn't like what the Wii can just buy a 360 or a PS3. As a gamer, why is it so important for Nintendo to secure games that are just going to end up on a system you already own anyway?

Wii controls, of course. I feel like I'm doomed to spend this gen wishing games were on a different console. I'd rather play RE5 on the Wii using RE4 Wii-type controls. I'd rather play any FPS or 3rd-person shooter on the Wii, actually. But exclusive Wii games that I enjoyed, like Deadly Creatures or Madworld, would've benefitted more from a graphical upgrade than their somewhat annoying motion controls.

Don't even get me started on portables. As far as I'm concerned, every single portable game should be playable on its console counterpart.

Oh, well. I'll get all the pointer/motion-controlled FPS action I want next-gen, I suppose.

 

[billy.sea]

In order for a mature 3rd party game to sell amazingly on the Wii, it needs to be a big name franchise.
The Wii is a family console, the people that buy games on it rarely look at game site or magazine, so they only rely on what they know already.
Don't ever expect a break-out hit of a new mature franchise on the Wii.

 

[Dalthien]

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?

Huh?

Since we are in an NPD thread, I'm assuming that you are not referring to only Japan with your comments.

The Wii absolutely crushes the PSP in 3rd-party sales in both America and worldwide. It's not even remotely debatable. But somehow the PSP is a pretty good choice for 3rd parties, and the Wii is a wasteland? Maybe you were just joking, and it went over my head?

And western 3rd-parties certainly haven't treated the DS as some sort of godsend. They throw a lot of stuff at it, but there have only been a few examples of western 3rd-parties actually putting forth a top-notch effort on the DS. But again, the DS absolutely crushes the PSP in 3rd-party sales in both America and worldwide.

 

[Vinci]

So what exactly did Nintendo do that caused third parties to develop for the DS en masse?

They controlled the handheld market for 15 years before it was ever introduced. Any doubts about how it would do versus Sony's attempt to take over the handheld space were silenced by its massive popularity.

Which is why I've said that the Wii would never have gotten a ton of 3rd party support.

CONSOLE
Leader (PS1) -> Leader (PS2) -> Leader (Wii)

HANDHELD
Leader (GB/GBC) -> Leader (GBA) -> Leader (DS)

Last generation is the reason this one is so fucked up. A sudden shift in power, particularly at a time when development costs are spiraling upwards, is naturally going to lead to a lot of confusion.

 

[Sadist]

I don't get the wii 3rd party argument anymore. It has far more 3rd party exclusives this year than the other systems.

But those exclusives aren't the kind of games GAF is asking for.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Just wanted to apologize for trolling earlier. I'll behave.

But those exclusives aren't the kind of games GAF is asking for.

No game is the kind of game GAF is asking for. Some won't be satisfied with any game announcement until a FFVII remake is announced.

 

[Mithos]

Some won't be satisfied with any game announcement until a FFVII remake is announced.

And when it comes, they will complain it's on the wrong platform. (It has to be on Wii ofc)

 

[Aaron Strife]

And when it comes, they will complain it's on the wrong platform. (It has to be on Wii ofc)

It would suck if it were on the Wii since that's a mass market product that most Square-Enix fans would probably (begrudgingly) buy if it happened.

It should be for the Gizmondo.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

It would suck if it were on the Wii since that's a mass market product that most Square-Enix fans would probably (begrudgingly) buy if it happened.

It should be for the Gizmondo.

I think that Square-Enix 'fans' are more console agnostic than you imply, and would be likely to buy whatever console they needed in order to play such a game. It is quite interesting to me that at this point, Squeenix's biggest home seems to be the DS with it's second biggest home being the 360, but it would probably make the most sense for a FFVII remake to be on the DS.

 

[shykyoichi]

So what exactly did Nintendo do that caused third parties to develop for the DS en masse? Is it because Nintendo was more willing to moneyhat games on handhelds and everybody jumped on board hoping Nintendo would give them some as well?

Nintendo always has total control of the handheld market.

 

[AniHawk]

Nintendo always has total control of the handheld market.

Not always. Early in the DS's life, it really looked like Sony was about to have a repeat success with the PSP (like they did PS2). Sony even had quite a lot of western and Japanese third party support early on, with new editions of big PS2 franchises. When the DS became the system of choice, western support dried up.

 

[Eteric Rice]

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/wii-market-not-worthwhile-for-epic-games/

Shots fired!

 

[ZAK]

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/wii-market-not-worthwhile-for-epic-games/

Shots fired!

Financial flops? Is that even possible?

 

[dolemite]

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/wii-market-not-worthwhile-for-epic-games/

Shots fired!

My hopes for a Gears of War Wii version are crushed .

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Just wanted to point out that Battlefield 1943 sold 600,000 copies between PS3 and 360, pretty much demonstrating that the biggest and best is only one factor in game purchases.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16794528&postcount=1

Its interesting that given all the focus on NPD's, the probable (1943 on 360 quite likely outsold prototype) top two titles for the month are not even counted.

I stand corrected on Battlefield's sales potential then. Still, not a full price game. Check my post history, I've often been a proponent of 2D and older games using the DD services to find an audience.

It's obviously a potent revenue stream (and clearly more potent than I thought), but I think the point stands that you can't sell old games at full price.

 

[rpmurphy]

My hopes for a Gears of War Wii version are crushed .

Was there ever really any hope?

Spoiler

Like hope for a new Jazz Jackrabbit or OMF?

 

[Grampa Simpson]

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/wii-market-not-worthwhile-for-epic-games/

Shots fired!

Straight at feet. Publicly badmouthing someone that you may want to do business with later is not often a good idea.

 

[JoJo13]

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/wii-market-not-worthwhile-for-epic-games/

Shots fired!

And he's 100% correct.

 

[yoopoo]

Straight at feet. Publicly badmouthing someone that you may want to do business with later is not often a good idea.

How is he bad mouthing it? he is saying that Wii is not in line of their business plans.

“But you know if Nintendo comes out with a Wii 2 or a Wii HD, and it's got a couple more processors and a little more memory and better graphics, then yes we'll be on it. I'm not saying there's no interest in being on as many platforms as possible, but it's just that you have to be on the ones you're good at. We're a very high-end engine, and we have the best tools and awesome visuals and great physics. It's more likely the platform will rise up to meet us than we'll go down [to customize our technology for it]. And eventually I think that'll be the case, and it'll be true of handhelds and even the iPhone.

 

[AniHawk]

That's pretty straightforward shit coming from Mark Rein. I'm surprised.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Straight at feet. Publicly badmouthing someone that you may want to do business with later is not often a good idea.

They're not badmouthing Nintendo, only the hardware. They're not saying they'll never work with Nintendo, only that they'll (probably) never work on the Wii. If you recall, Epic was going to release Unreal as an N64DD console exclusive before the hardware was scrapped for North America.

"But you know if Nintendo comes out with a Wii 2 or a Wii HD, and it's got a couple more processors and a little more memory and better graphics, then yes we'll be on it. I'm not saying there's no interest in being on as many platforms as possible, but it's just that you have to be on the ones you're good at. We're a very high-end engine, and we have the best tools and awesome visuals and great physics. It's more likely the platform will rise up to meet us than we'll go down [to customize our technology for it]. And eventually I think that'll be the case, and it'll be true of handhelds and even the iPhone.

“That's how we got to where we are now to be honest. We were a PC developer and we developed on the high-end and then Xbox and PlayStation kind of picked up on the low-end into our wheelhouse a little bit. So we did some games for those platforms, and then for PS3 and Xbox 360 were right around what we were designing for, so they're good fits. And you have to stick to what you do well.”

“We do the PC extremely well, and we do the 360 and PS3 extremely well, so to me there's still more gold to be mined on those platforms than starting a new mine [with Wii or other platforms]. Starting a new mine is ridiculously expensive... It takes a while to get on new platforms, get it right and get it moving. If you keep turning your focus to other things, it takes you a long time to get there. So we see the three platforms – 360, PS3, PC – as still the large opportunities. And the truth is, those platforms is where the business is; for third parties that's where the money is,” he remarked.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I think calling all of the Wii's more "mature" games major financial flops is a pretty bad statement.

. And the truth is, those platforms is where the business is; for third parties that's where the money is,” he remarked.

This isn't really true either. While Epic themselves are making a lot of money in the 360/PS3/PC market, quite a few companies aren't.

 

[CTLance]

And he's 100% correct.

If you stretch something too thin, it becomes very thin.

I... I have to concur. He tells the truth. Nothing but the truth. ( :lol )

Sorry. It's 5 in the morning here, it's probably not that funny. Still, that's a beautiful Bushism-like midsentence brain-to-mouth disconnect.

 

[Johann]

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.

We can look at Majesco as the formula for Wii support. Majesco tried to be like the big publishing companies with games such as Advent Rising and Psychonauts. As we all know, those games didn't sell very well. Majesco flirted with bankruptcy before deciding to go the low-budget/value route with the DS and Wii (they sold off their then big-budget game, The Darkness, to Take2 and they canceled Taxi Driver and Demonik). It speaks wonders that they are one of the few Western publishers that not only operating at a profit, but also growing and expanding its business. Majesco was forced to adapt to and understand the DS/Wii market in order to survive. They publish the 'Mama' series of game, which any other publisher would give an arm and leg to have its ROI. They also published Jillian Michaels Fitness Ultimatum, which succeeded where most other Western efforts on the Wii failed.

Publishers don't like the Wii because it's so alien to their company philosophy. If I'm publishing gory, misogynistic first-person shooters with cutting edge graphics and standard controls for years, then the Wii is the antithesis of my company philosophy. The marginal benefit for developing for the Wii has to be greater than the marginal cost for not developing for the Wii. For Majesco, that marginal benefit of developing 'value' games for the DS and Wii was better than bankruptcy.

EA appears to be following the same trend as Majesco. Their big-budget new in-house IPs were not as successful as they hoped. Old, dependable franchises, such as Need for Speed and the more recent EAP Rockband, were failing to live up to expectations. When EA revealed its losses earlier this year, we really didn't sit down and realize just how bad it was. They cut down operating expenses by half billion and laid off a tenth of the company. That's about the financial equivalent of nearly one-fourth of your household (and whoever or whatever was inside it) vanishing into thin air for the next year or so. EA was forced to support the Wii because this high-cost, high risk was a matter of money and manpower, which they were losing at an alarming rate. I imagine the Wii support (along with better release dates and more 'selective' publishing) was essentially a way for EA to convince its investors that they are conserving money and they are a 'safer' company to invest in (this was essentially the same posturing that Majesco did with their investors). As a consequence, they are forced to understand what Nintendo plans to do with the Wii and how they can get in on the success. With the recent success of EA Sports Active and Tiger Woods, they seem to becoming more adept in consistently replicating great sales on the Wii.

It remains to be seen if any more troubled publishers will make the difficult step of adapting to the Wii design philosophy.

 

[Htown]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a man who runs a company with a business plan based on selling the newest 3D engine technology to game developers is not interested in a platform where he can't push a new engine. Who woulda thunkit?

 

[Aaron Strife]

but it would probably make the most sense for a FFVII remake to be on the DS.

FFVII on DS would be more of a port than a remake.

Anyway, with FFVII on PS3/PSP (FINALLY) it doesn't seem like S-E is in any rush to remake it. When they can't milk it any dryer, they'll do it, I'm sure.

 

[Chiggs]

Straight at feet. Publicly badmouthing someone that you may want to do business with later is not often a good idea.

Pfft! That's Nintendo's loss. To lose out on whatever the geniuses behind the remarkable Gears of Wars of series are working on next should elicit cries of pain from Wii gamers worldwide.

Sincerity or sarcasm--your choice.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Pfft! That's Nintendo's loss. To lose out on whatever the geniuses behind the remarkable Gears of Wars of series are working on next should elicit cries of pain from Wii gamers worldwide.

Sincerity or sarcasm--your choice:

Hopefully sarcasm.

 

[Pureauthor]

FFVII on DS would be more of a port than a remake.

Not if they remake it in 2D!

Spoiler

Seeing post SNES FF games in 2D has always been an irrational dream of mine.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

FFVII on DS would be more of a port than a remake.

Depends on if they've managed to hold on to the code or not. I'm sure they could port the models any way around though.

 

[rodvik]

Sincerity or sarcasm--your choice.

Brilliant. A meme is born?

 

[charlequin]

So what exactly did Nintendo do that caused third parties to develop for the DS en masse? Is it because Nintendo was more willing to moneyhat games on handhelds and everybody jumped on board hoping Nintendo would give them some as well?

Much less that they were willing to "moneyhat" (which, again at risk of repeating myself, I've never advocated as anything other than one small part of a broad, dedicated third-party strategy) and more that they were willing to pursue active relationships with select third-party publishers that helped pay later dividends -- their close partnership with Square-Enix that was nurtured on the GBA and further developed through titles like Mario 3x3 being perhaps the most relevant example.

The Wii absolutely crushes the PSP in 3rd-party sales in both America and worldwide. It's not even remotely debatable. But somehow the PSP is a pretty good choice for 3rd parties, and the Wii is a wasteland?

At this point I'm talking purely in this vaguely-defined realm of games aimed at a dedicated hobbyist-gamer market. The overall Wii's worldwide third-party sales are certainly quite a bit higher (in no small part due to the Wii's unquestioned success in the realm of "core"/"casual" overlap titles of the Guitar Hero sort) than the PSP's, but its individual-title performance on games in the, say, B-through-AA range remains at best unproven and at worst actively poor.

Yet, at the same time, many Japanese third-parties have chosen to treat PSP as essentially a new console platform, continuing console franchises (even some, like Valkyria and Metal Gear, that had already appeared in HD) and developing the sort of "full-bodied" software that Wii fans have very specifically advocated for since the platform's launch (with some of these titles, like FF7:CC, putting up excellent sales performance both in the East and West as a result.)

It's true that a similar pattern hasn't played out as much with Western developers (who, overall, seem locked into PS360 development only to a frankly bizarre degree) but I think it's important to highlight that selling games in the West (the topic of NPD) doesn't necessarily require developing games in the West.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Yet, at the same time, many Japanese third-parties have chosen to treat PSP as essentially a new console platform, continuing console franchises (even some, like Valkyria and Metal Gear, that had already appeared in HD) and developing the sort of "full-bodied" software that Wii fans have very specifically advocated for since the platform's launch (with some of these titles, like FF7:CC, putting up excellent sales performance both in the East and West as a result.)

I'm still amazed that none of that software is on it's way to the Wii as well.

 

[Haunted]

Oh wow, if even someone like Mark Rein is saying that they will be developing for a Wii HD (meaning comparable power to this generation's HD consoles), then you know Nintendo's gotta get on that.


If they still want a major part of that red ocean, that is.

 

[donny2112]

That cant be true. PS2 owners actually embraced third party diversity.

You're confused into thinking average consumers give a crap about who the publisher is on the box.

third parties spent billions of dollars establishing their brands on the PS3/360, and it would be stupid to force their fanbase over to the Wii at this point.

Trying to move over the existing fanbase would be silly, yes, but what about reaching out to the Wii's fanbase that doesn't have a PS360? In some respects that's probably what Dead Space Extraction is: an attempt to reach out to the Wii's fanbase with a core franchise. If Nintendo/third-parties can get more of the entry-level Wii players to move up some, it could add a lot of potential customers for more traditional games.

I didn't mean to say that no third party games sell well on the Wii, just compared to the 360 really, and Sony in the past...But I thought that was implied.

360 can't hold a candle to PS2's third-party sales. No current system can.

it's a good reminder that the 360 fanbase is an aberration among all other consoles — it buys games voraciously

Notice how Microsoft hasn't claimed the highest attach rate at this point in its lifespan in a long time ...

Maybe, although Red Steel did manage to sell 1M+ on a much smaller user base,

That's a worldwide number. It sold less than half of that in the U.S.

 

[shykyoichi]

Not always. Early in the DS's life, it really looked like Sony was about to have a repeat success with the PSP (like they did PS2). Sony even had quite a lot of western and Japanese third party support early on, with new editions of big PS2 franchises. When the DS became the system of choice, western support dried up.

Didn't that last only a few months after the DS' release?

 

[Vinci]

*Majesco recovery post*

I agree that Majesco did something very smart and I'm thrilled it paid off for them, but I think that's indirectly related to my comment. When the Wii launched, it was a blank slate: Hell, it had a FPS, a Zelda, Wii Sports, etc. and so on. There was no one clear indication as to where it was heading. Some of these titles did very well, though obviously Wii Sports is what captured most people's imaginations. And that's all well and good. The fact that they took off did not necessitate the lack of support the system received after that, at all, or showcase that everyone should make some cheapy knock-off and try to cash in. I'm not saying they can't do that, but when it's largely the extent of what they offered it's a pretty stupid thing to do.

Meanwhile, Nintendo continued to release their games - franchises, Wii _____ stuff, et al. - and they didn't appear at all worried about throwing these into the wild. In fact, they've been stupidly successful on almost every metric. Why? Because they did what they've been doing, creating a userbase that is applicable to the sort of games they specialize in making. This isn't merely casual fare; it's everything.

What I'm saying about 3rd parties is this: They chose not to do the same thing. Rather than look at the Wii and say, "How does the low cost of development potentially benefit us and some of our smaller but still vital franchises?," they imagined that it was something completely different. And it is, but only superficially: There is nothing inherent to its design that makes it unfriendly to any and all core franchises. If Nintendo felt that were true, they wouldn't have released a relatively traditional Mario game for it, or a Zelda, or a Metroid. Why is Nippon-Ichi not on the Wii? What about Persona? What about all these franchises that are well-loved that really don't require HD or online to maintain or enhance their core appeal? I'm not suggesting that ALL games should've gone to the Wii in the first place, I'm simply saying that there are cases in which developing for it actually made a lot of sense financially. Particularly once you're confronted with the growing cost of HD development. Use it as a safety net, not a cash cow.

In essence, I'm saying they could have kept making what were essentially PS2 games for another few years while simultaneously exercising the 'blockbuster model' for the PS3 and 360.

But it's too late now: Its userbase is pretty fixed outside of some vast impact from MH3 that I don't foresee having any long-term effect. So yeah, the kinds of games they make aren't marketable on the system, so its HD or extinction for some franchises (whether they are worth the cost or not). Oh well.

When people talk about the 'missed opportunity' of the Wii, to me it's not simply about the controller being underutilized, it's because it actually had some chance of being turned into another PS2. Which, true, benefits Nintendo - but it benefits 3rd parties just as much and was in their best interests, IMO.

 

[gerg]

I realised I never really responded to this last post, so I guess I better should.

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?

It's to do with the demographics on the market, and the qualities that the demographics would look for in the games targeted towards them. You bring up the DS as a "third-party godsend", but outside of Japan I don't think the situation is so clear-cut. There's very little Western support, and as a result there aren't many action/adventure, racing or FPS (or third-person shooter) games for the console. And I think that this reservation from Western developers is pretty reasonable. Afaic, the demographic for these games exists on the PSP, and not on the DS. Why? Because (again, afaic) these gamers probably value graphics over controller input.* Why would they value especially controller input? They've been playing with a standard gamepad for years - they don't need the Wii Remote of the PSMote or what have you.

As a result, when I say that the Wii's ability to sell third-party games was limited, I very much mean it in the sense that it was limited by the existence of the 360/PS3. Here, you have two consoles that boast greatly the graphics that this demographic, by and in large, cares about. So unless Nintendo could actively prevent games coming out for that platform, convincing a substantial portion of this demographic to move to the Wii would always have been an uphill battle.

So why is the DS successful where the Wii isn't? Aside from saying that it actually isn't in the same areas, and that the comparison is apples-to-oranges, we could suggest that its success derives from its large RPG audience, as well as greater appeal within the expanded audience. I imagine the former factor is a combination of both consumer desires as well as developers influencing the market. In this manner, I imagine that the equivalent 18-35 demographic in Japan does not care so much about graphics (which would be unsurprising as RPGs often focus on factors other than graphics), and I also imagine that (as I believe you've stated in the past, although I may be wrong) RPGs as a genre have hit their cost ceiling, and benefit more from being on cheaper platforms. Bear in mind that I also believe that the Wii could have similar, if not equal, success in these same market in Japan and genres worldwide. However, as I've oft repeated, I don't think they've yet limited such success with their current action.

Ultimately, the difference between the DS in Japan and the Wii in the West is that in Japan you have a situation where not only does it suit developers to publish games for the DS, but consumers are actively willing to buy these games. As a result you create a positive cycle which spurs further development, and further purchasing of these developed games. In the West, however, there seems to be only half this equation. While developers could certainly appreciate lower development costs, I don't think the market they would target would equally appreciate the results of a move to alternative platforms (such as the Wii and the DS, and to a lesser extent the PSP). Because of this, the Wii's ability to sell such games would almost certainly be limited.

---

*Here, I would want to distinguish between valuing graphics in and of themselves against preferring them to some other feature. I imagine that a large proportion of 360/PS3 owners aren't exactly technophiles (in that they would buy these consoles if the number of games available for them was greatly reduced), but that if they were given the choice between two nearly identical games, one with motion controls and one with greater graphics, they would choose the latter over the former. Equally, if no high-end alternative existed, I doubt that these gamers would still spurn the Wii, but that's not the case here.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Didn't that last only a few months after the DS' release?

Depends where you mean. In Japan DS always had a pretty big lifetime lead, but there was a ~3 month period where PSP was selling more on a weekly basis in early 2005. In America DS's lead was even bigger since it had a bigger head start, but PSP was making up ground fast in mid 2005. Then from August-ish (Price drop, Nintendogs vs GTA PSP) DS and PSP started selling pretty evenly for most of the next year. It wasn't until NSMB/Lite in 2006 that DS really shot away from PSP in NA.

 

[shykyoichi]

Depends where you mean. In Japan DS always had a pretty big lifetime lead, but there was a ~3 month period where PSP was selling more on a weekly basis in early 2005. In America DS's lead was even bigger since it had a bigger head start, but PSP was making up ground fast in mid 2005. Then from August-ish (Price drop, Nintendogs vs GTA PSP) DS and PSP started selling pretty evenly for most of the next year. It wasn't until NSMB/Lite in 2006 that DS really shot away from PSP in NA.

So there wasn't any point in time that PSP LTD> DS LTD?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

So there wasn't any point in time that PSP LTD> DS LTD?

At least not if the old leaked numbers we used to see were accurate. Things were close enough from August 2005 - May 2006, though, that they might as well have been tied.

Of course, during much of that period they were both getting outsold by GBA anyway. :lol

 

[HK-47]

JJS, do you have a list of million sellers on DS and Wii confirmed by legit numbers?

WW btw.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I agree that Majesco did something very smart and I'm thrilled it paid off for them, but I think that's indirectly related to my comment. When the Wii launched, it was a blank slate: Hell, it had a FPS, a Zelda, Wii Sports, etc. and so on. There was no one clear indication as to where it was heading. Some of these titles did very well, though obviously Wii Sports is what captured most people's imaginations. And that's all well and good. The fact that they took off did not necessitate the lack of support the system received after that, at all, or showcase that everyone should make some cheapy knock-off and try to cash in. I'm not saying they can't do that, but when it's largely the extent of what they offered it's a pretty stupid thing to do.

Meanwhile, Nintendo continued to release their games - franchises, Wii _____ stuff, et al. - and they didn't appear at all worried about throwing these into the wild. In fact, they've been stupidly successful on almost every metric. Why? Because they did what they've been doing, creating a userbase that is applicable to the sort of games they specialize in making. This isn't merely casual fare; it's everything.

What I'm saying about 3rd parties is this: They chose not to do the same thing. Rather than look at the Wii and say, "How does the low cost of development potentially benefit us and some of our smaller but still vital franchises?," they imagined that it was something completely different. And it is, but only superficially: There is nothing inherent to its design that makes it unfriendly to any and all core franchises. If Nintendo felt that were true, they wouldn't have released a relatively traditional Mario game for it, or a Zelda, or a Metroid. Why is Nippon-Ichi not on the Wii? What about Persona? What about all these franchises that are well-loved that really don't require HD or online to maintain or enhance their core appeal? I'm not suggesting that ALL games should've gone to the Wii in the first place, I'm simply saying that there are cases in which developing for it actually made a lot of sense financially. Particularly once you're confronted with the growing cost of HD development. Use it as a safety net, not a cash cow.

In essence, I'm saying they could have kept making what were essentially PS2 games for another few years while simultaneously exercising the 'blockbuster model' for the PS3 and 360.

But it's too late now: Its userbase is pretty fixed outside of some vast impact from MH3 that I don't foresee having any long-term effect. So yeah, the kinds of games they make aren't marketable on the system, so its HD or extinction for some franchises (whether they are worth the cost or not). Oh well.

When people talk about the 'missed opportunity' of the Wii, to me it's not simply about the controller being underutilized, it's because it actually had some chance of being turned into another PS2. Which, true, benefits Nintendo - but it benefits 3rd parties just as much and was in their best interests, IMO.

Japan seems to be in some kind of mass confusion outside of Capcom and handheld developers. They really have no idea what they want to do.

Hopefully DQX can pull some of those RPG fans to it's console. Though by then XIII may have pulled that audience away from the Wii completely.

It's really hard to say. It's like there are two big magnets pulling both ways.

I imagine the Japanese public is pretty pissed off about devs not being able to make up their minds, though.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

In essence, I'm saying they could have kept making what were essentially PS2 games for another few years while simultaneously exercising the 'blockbuster model' for the PS3 and 360.

But it's too late now: Its userbase is pretty fixed outside of some vast impact from MH3 that I don't foresee having any long-term effect. So yeah, the kinds of games they make aren't marketable on the system, so its HD or extinction for some franchises (whether they are worth the cost or not). Oh well.

When people talk about the 'missed opportunity' of the Wii, to me it's not simply about the controller being underutilized, it's because it actually had some chance of being turned into another PS2. Which, true, benefits Nintendo - but it benefits 3rd parties just as much and was in their best interests, IMO.

What often occurs in the first year of a console is a large swath of last-gen port-ups and ports from existing "next-gen" consoles on the market, supplemented by a handful of exclusives that drive home the point of that platforms unique features. We saw it with the DC, PS2, the GCN, the Xbox, the 360, the PS3, and the Wii.

The DC got a lot of up-ported PS One games (Tony Hawk 2), the PS2 got a few DC ports (Code Veronica X), the GCN and Xbox got a few PS2/PC ports (Tony Hawk 3, Madden 02, Metal Gear Solid 2, Max Payne), the 360 got Xbox/PS2/PC ports (Call of Duty 2, Far Cry Instincts, Quake 4, Burnout Revenge, Modern Combat 2, Madden 06, PES, FIFA), the PS3 got tons of 360 ports (Oblivion, Splinter Cell DA, GRAW, Rainbow Six Vegas, Madden 07)... and then we have the Wii.

The Wii is the first "next-gen" console that made it entirely impossible (or impractical) to port from existing "next-gen" consoles on the market. So its first year 3rd party lineup was almost entirely from PS2/GCN/Xbox - Far Cry, Madden, FIFA, RE 4, Manhunt 2, Prince of Persia, Zelda Twilight Princess, Godfather, Scarface, Bully. On the surface, that looks pretty well-rounded. The problem is, aside from RE4, COD3, and Zelda, nearly all of these games were equal or worse graphics/performance-wise to last gen iterations of these games (which is not the case with any of the previous consoles on my list), and just about all of them failed spectacularly, for one reason or another, a pattern only repeated by the Gamecube.

This stands in contrast to Oblivion, Rainbow Six, and Madden, which all sold pretty well for PS3 in 2007 (in the face of anemic hardware sales, no less), and nearly everything for the 360 in its first year, which probably sold on the novelty of being the only game out that month.

So you had a situation where PS2 sales were drying up (by late 2007), HD iterations of PS2/Xbox franchises seemed to well-received (see: Madden, Fight Night, Ghost Recon, and Oblivion as the poster boys for Western Devs), and motion-controlled iterations of PS2/Xbox franchises were falling on their faces (outside of RE4, which was discounted at launch, and COD3, which was really only successful relative to the PS3 version when there were less than 1 million users in NA). Meanwhile, Nintendo franchises were trucking along as usual, just as they were on the GCN.

Then COD4 happened and pretty much set everything in stone.

Given this environment, is it really surprising that the Western development environment ended up the way it did? It would've taken a monumental re-thinking of the "launch window" strategy, which is overwhelmingly conservative and highly dependent on putting sparks on last-gen assets/ideas, in order to change the way things went down.

Japan seems to be in some kind of mass confusion outside of Capcom and handheld developers. They really have no idea what they want to do.

Hopefully DQX can pull some of those RPG fans to it's console. Though by then XIII may have pulled that audience away from the Wii completely.

It's really hard to say. It's like there are two big magnets pulling both ways.

I imagine the Japanese public is pretty pissed off about devs not being able to make up their minds, though.

Japanese console developers are going to be doomed to obscurity in one corner of the market or another unless they embrace multi-platform development. Whether it's Wii/PSP/PS2 or 360/PS3/Wii or DS/XBLA/PSN/WiiWare, something has to give.