Support NeoGAF

[Sadist]

Well, I wish I had your certitudes. How can you be so sure? After all, Wii's casual games sell more and are much less expensive to develop. And I have the feeling that the hardcore base who bought the system in the early days started to vanish after Galaxy and Smash. Why should this fanbase return only for Zelda?

Not to speak for Anihawk, but he does mention games in the plural form. If there are games to be played by the "hardcore" they will return just because they will hate it if they miss those games. Thats it. Plus, Zelda won't be the only title to return to. The coming months Nintendo will release ExciteBots and Punch-Out!! which are titles you can get excited about. Something tells me more games will appear at the end of 2009. Nintendo won't be developing only Zelda and casual titles for the rest of their excistence.

 

[AniHawk]

Well, I wish I had your certitudes. How can you be so sure? After all, Wii's casual games sell more and are much less expensive to develop. And I have the feeling that the hardcore base who bought the system in the early days started to vanish after Galaxy and Smash. Why should this fanbase return only for Zelda?

Are you talking about sales or Nintendo making games for their longtime fanbase? I was talking about the latter.

 

[BishopLamont]

Well, I wish I had your certitudes. How can you be so sure? After all, Wii's casual games sell more and are much less expensive to develop. And I have the feeling that the hardcore base who bought the system in the early days started to vanish after Galaxy and Smash. Why should this fanbase return only for Zelda?

Serious question here, are you really that stupid?

 

[grandjedi6]

Naah, AI is program code. And good AI is pretty hard to make. It takes expensive developers to program good AI. It wasn't needed for this gameat all.

So you think NMH had "more expensive developers" than Madworld? Just because you think Madworld's AI is weak?

Same goes with graphics, the shorter the amount of time spent on the graphics, the smaller the budget. Well, Madworld certainly didn't have a lot of people working on the graohics engine.

So then why do you think NMH had a higher budget than Madworld?

Game length is important as well, as long as you introduce new stuff evertime the player progresses further into the game. Madworld sort of did that but it reused assets as well. Even then it was 5 hours max.

As I said, game length does not correlate directly with game budget. Just because a game is 60 hours long doesn't mean it cost more to make than a 10 hour game.

I actually never mentioned the marketing budget. I have no idea which game had a bigger marketing push.

Its obviously Madworld

 

[bycha]

People who think that Killzone 2 is a disaster in sales don't understand that game had no chance of selling much better.

It could have done 800K in 5 weeks, but 1000K would be almost impossible. 620K is on a short side -- but just a bit.


I would compare it to Gears of War and Call of Duty 5.

- new ip

Killzone 2 and Gears of War had no brand recognition when they came out. Most of the people who played killzone 1 didn't like it -- so that only lowered the hype. Call of duty on the other side has absolute brand recognition -- the game would sell better even it would have been much worse game

- it's really dark game, Killzone 2 is way more dark for it's own good, there s one glimpse of sun in whole game -- military Helgast race is ugly as it's planet, Gears of War on the contrary had "Destroyed Beauty" -- beautiful architecture in half destroyed cities, Call of Duty 5 has ordinary WW2 setting

-- no co-op
no co-op hurts sales of every game, for people who don't play competitive it means that game has much less value and game time hours, Gears of War had perfect co-op, Call of duty had decent co-op too.

-- it came out in february, hardware sales are not huge to help sales of new software, people generally buy less games, Gears and Cod came out in november

+ best graphics in videogames at the time of release -- Gears of War had that too
+ great game -- Gears of War had that too
+ great multiplayer -- Gears of War had that too


It's doesn't matter how much you market your game -- if the games doesn't have certain qualities it will never explode in sales.

Microsoft marketed the hell out of Gears of War too -- it performed better because it clearly was better game to market. Call of duty 5 is a sequel to 12M+ game -- great sales are obvious.

Now, Sony is stronger in Europe than in US, so Killzone 2 must have performed at least on par with US which means at least 1.2-1.3M WW in 5 weeks. Sony 1st party games always have legs so this game can push 5M LTD.

It's OKAY for this kind of game -- even with this kinda marketing.

To sell 10M Sony needs Gran Turismo 5 or God of War III or Killzone 3.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

Are you talking about sales or Nintendo making games for their longtime fanbase? I was talking about the latter.

They're linked, actually. The problem is that if games like Wii Fit or Wii Sports sell more then games like Galaxy or Zelda, I think that Nintendo will be less and less interested in develop the latter category of games. You know, Galaxy, Smash and Zelda sold really well, but they cost shitloads of money, whereas Wii Play costs so much less. The bottom line if this logic is true and if Nintendo cares more about money then the fanbase (of course, but sometimes this has to be reminded), is that in the long term, we will see less and less AAA games.

I mean, this sort of statements are so old and facts say somehow that this is the trend. Why should we expect a "return of the big hardcore games" in the future? And keep in mind that I don't mean a return only with a boyart and a title of a franchise (what Spirits of Tracks looks like, for istance), but a true AAA title.

Serious question here, are you really that stupid?

I'm just observing facts and try to deduce something about. Feel free to explain me why a Zelda, who took 2-3 years to develop and sells like less then Wii Sports, should be developed if the latter costs 2-3 times less. If this has a so obvious answer, please tell me.

 

[ksamedi]

I've been getting that a lot recently! People must have a higher opinion of me than I would have thought. :lol

The reason I cite your previous statements here is that what you are engaged in is spinning MadWorld's lousy sales as good based on its presumed low budget -- but you can't really claim that the game sold badly becaus it looks low-budget (since, clearly, you thought it looked like a top-3-of-the-year exclusive just a few months ago) -- absolutely nobody was

Which leaves the lesser "well, it underperformed but it's okay because they can't have spent much on it" defense, which also doesn't stand to scrutiny: the game features fairly elaborate and detailed art assets with a reasonable amount of variety, large amounts of voice acting from the higher end of the voice acting talent pool (John DiMaggio is, I'm guessing, too expensive for most of the B-list JRPGs to hire him), and what I understand was a non-zero marketing push. Just being short doesn't prove that the game was cheap to make, any more than all of the 6-hour-campaign shooters on 360 were.

(Haven't gotten to play the game yet myself, although I did watch probably about an hour of total videos -- which means I've seen 1/5 the game lololololol)

The games I can compare Madworld too are No More Heroes and God Hand. One is practically by the same developer and the other is a small budget game who is seen as a succes for Suda and co. I came to that conclusion after playing the game. That is why I compare the sales of this title to those games.'

Most people at GAF are pretty hardcore gamers who appreciate such games and art styles but the average gamer sees it differently. In our perception these kind of games should do better while in reality not many appreciate them. In the end we can have false expectations for the sales of such games. I had false expectations about Madworld yes nut compared to No More Heroes and Godhand it did ok.

I also believe this game will have legs like many other titles on the Wii. The initial art style maybe off putting for some but the game is pretty fun and I believe it can sell by word of mouth.

 

[BishopLamont]

Wait for....KZ3!

 

[OldJadedGamer]

-- it came out in february, hardware sales are not huge to help sales of new software, people generally buy less games, Gears and Cod came out in november

Army of Two came out in February 2008 and sold around the same amount as Killzone2 on 360 alone. Also, in that same month last year Rainbow Six Vegas 2 sold 750k and that isn't counting the PS3 sku. Don't blame the time of year.

How many times are we going to see people calling Killzone2 a new IP? It's an oxymoron.

 

[suffah]

People who think that Killzone 2 is a disaster in sales don't understand that game had no chance of selling much better.

It could have done 800K in 5 weeks, but 1000K would be almost impossible. 620K is on a short side -- but just a bit.

This was supposed to be a slam dunk for Sony, not on the "short side".

To sell 10M Sony needs Gran Turismo 5 or God of War III or Killzone 3.

Not sure how you come to this conclusion. Sorry, but lack of coop isn't as big as you think. Otherwise coop games like Army of Two would have sold many, many millions.

 

[BishopLamont]

They're linked, actually. The problem is that if games like Wii Fit or Wii Sports sell more then games like Galaxy or Zelda, I think that Nintendo will be less and less interested in develop the latter category of games. You know, Galaxy, Smash and Zelda sold really well, but they cost shitloads of money, whereas Wii Play costs so much less. The bottom line if this logic is true and if Nintendo cares more about money then the fanbase (of course, but sometimes this has to be reminded), is that in the long term, we will see less and less AAA games.

I mean, this sort of statements are so old and facts say somehow that this is the trend. Why should we expect a "return of the big hardcore games" in the future? And keep in mind that I don't mean a return only with a boyart and a title of a franchise (what Spirits of Tracks looks like, for istance), but a true AAA title.

How do you think Nintendo and practically every single developer been surviving through all these generations? AAA games are tried and true, they're not going to abandon it, to think otherwise is insane. It's not easy to pump out Wii Fits and Wii Sports type of games as you may think.

I'm just observing facts and try to deduce something about. Feel free to explain me why a Zelda, who took 2-3 years to develop and sells like less then Wii Sports, should be developed if the latter costs 2-3 times less. If this has a so obvious answer, please tell me.

I'm talking about the part where you think the gamers who bought a Wii for Zelda and SMG and then abandoned it and questioned whether they'll return for the new Zelda or not. Come on, why the hell would they abandon the Wii, when they bought the console specifically for Nintendo's games? You make it out like Zelda and SMG are the only games Nintendo has released.

 

[AniHawk]

They're linked, actually. The problem is that if games like Wii Fit or Wii Sports sell more then games like Galaxy or Zelda, I think that Nintendo will be less and less interested in develop the latter category of games. You know, Galaxy, Smash and Zelda sold really well, but they cost shitloads of money, whereas Wii Play costs so much less. The bottom line if this logic is true and if Nintendo cares more about money then the fanbase (of course, but sometimes this has to be reminded), is that in the long term, we will see less and less AAA games.

I mean, this sort of statements are so old and facts say somehow that this is the trend. Why should we expect a "return of the big hardcore games" in the future? And keep in mind that I don't mean a return only with a boyart and a title of a franchise (what Spirits of Tracks looks like, for istance), but a true AAA title.

Well I have to say, I don't think your fears are well-founded. For one, I think it's a lot easier to create a sequel to a major franchise like Mario Galaxy or Zelda than Wii Fit or Wii Play, because eventually you're just reusing the same minigames and such. Each game manages to sell on its own because of one gimmick or another. The Wii ______ games have to all be original ideas or else they won't sell (they won't be different enough). I kinda doubt Wii Fit Plus's selling power in this respect.

Also, they have been spending money on way more obscure stuff than Zelda, like Fatal Frame IV, Disaster, and Sin & Punishment 2. I don't know how they'd make those games, but neglect their fanbase the next big Mario and Zelda games.

 

[charlequin]

People who think that Killzone 2 is a disaster in sales don't understand that game had no chance of selling much better.

As is often the case, it's a matter of perspective.

From the perspective of January 2009, what would a reasonable estimate for 2-month sales of KZ2 be? 600k is probably right in the correct neighborhood.

From the perspective of 2005, when the game was approved and they started spending money on it? 600k is probably not the return-on-investment Sony was hoping for.

The games I can compare Madworld too are No More Heroes and God Hand. One is practically by the same developer and the other is a small budget game who is seen as a succes for Suda and co.

God Hand is a much better point of comparison than NMH. The latter is from a developer who consistently skated by on as minimal dev costs as possible in order to allow for crazy avant garde design; the former is by the same team as Madworld, who are known to have produced at least moderately expensive games (Okami's 500k or whatever worldwide was apparently a terrible performance given its budget), and which was a huge monetary failure for Capcom which helped lead to Clover's exile.

I also believe this game will have legs like many other titles on the Wii.

Sure, that's possible.

 

[DNF]

They're linked, actually. The problem is that if games like Wii Fit or Wii Sports sell more then games like Galaxy or Zelda, I think that Nintendo will be less and less interested in develop the latter category of games. You know, Galaxy, Smash and Zelda sold really well, but they cost shitloads of money, whereas Wii Play costs so much less. The bottom line if this logic is true and if Nintendo cares more about money then the fanbase (of course, but sometimes this has to be reminded), is that in the long term, we will see less and less AAA games.

I mean, this sort of statements are so old and facts say somehow that this is the trend. Why should we expect a "return of the big hardcore games" in the future? And keep in mind that I don't mean a return only with a boyart and a title of a franchise (what Spirits of Tracks looks like, for istance), but a true AAA title.

I don't think this could happen. As long as they put as much effort as they did the last 25 years in games like mario, zelda, mario kart ... they are likely to being million-sellers the next-generation, and the generation after that and so on.
Even if games like Wii Play or Wii Fit are costing not as much as a new zelda, how many clones of wii play could (would ?) nintendo make and sell the same amount ? how many different genres would nintendo try besides fitness, cooking, brain training, gardening, ... and could be sure to have the same impact, saleswise ? it's not like the can magically create new genres as they want and are likely to have the same succes. Nintendo knows this and they wouldn't dare to stop making "core/fanbase" games.

 

[markatisu]

The Wii ______ games have to all be original ideas or else they won't sell (they won't be different enough). I kinda doubt Wii Fit Plus's selling power in this respect.

We do not know much about Wii Fit + , it could merely be a repacked Wii Fit but with the ability to create a program and some additional side games (something EA Active, Jillian Fitness, Golds Gym and My Fitness Coach have done since Wii Fit was released), almost replacing Wii Fit as a SKU instead of in addition to Wii Fit.

 

[charlequin]

I kinda doubt Wii Fit Plus's selling power in this respect.

If Wii Fit + has the ability to create a pre-coded exercise program that runs automatically (or, even better, one that runs automatically and then gives you comparative stats for how you did on it each time) every Wii Fit user I know will buy this in a heartbeat.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

They're linked, actually. The problem is that if games like Wii Fit or Wii Sports sell more then games like Galaxy or Zelda, I think that Nintendo will be less and less interested in develop the latter category of games. You know, Galaxy, Smash and Zelda sold really well, but they cost shitloads of money, whereas Wii Play costs so much less. The bottom line if this logic is true and if Nintendo cares more about money then the fanbase (of course, but sometimes this has to be reminded), is that in the long term, we will see less and less AAA games.

That just doesn't work out in the real world. Not every person who would've bought a Super Mario City would instead pay for Wii Dance. They're better off having games for both types of consumer--and the type who will buy both.

I'm just observing facts and try to deduce something about. Feel free to explain me why a Zelda, who took 2-3 years to develop and sells like less then Wii Sports, should be developed if the latter costs 2-3 times less. If this has a so obvious answer, please tell me.

Wii Sports and Wii Fit are popular, but if instead of ever making Zelda again you triple the number of Wii __ titles, they each stop becoming multi-dozen-million sellers because they're overcrowding one market segment.

 

[bycha]

Army of Two came out in February 2008 and sold around the same amount as Killzone2 on 360 alone. Also, in that same month last year Rainbow Six Vegas 2 sold 750k and that isn't counting the PS3 sku. Don't blame the time of year.

How many times are we going to see people calling Killzone2 a new IP? It's an oxymoron.

Vegas 2 is a direct SEQUEL to successful single-player, CO-OP and competitive game.

Direct sequels to good games sell much better than original games.

Any huge IP is easily pushing 1M or close to that in it's 1st month.

Army of Two -- has co-op. We live in a time when best game to sell is a shooter with co-op -- Gears, Army of Two, Vegas, Halo, Left 4 Dead etc. All hugely successful

This was supposed to be a slam dunk for Sony, not on the "short side".

That's what I'm talking about -- it is not supposed to. It not a direct sequel, it's not holidays, no co-op.

Otherwise coop games like Army of Two would have sold many, many millions.

Only thing that stopped Army of Two is that it's not that good game actually, nor it's graphics shine.

See Left 4 Dead for sales of co-op shooter.

From the perspective of 2005, when the game was approved and they started spending money on it? 600k is probably not the return-on-investment Sony was hoping for.

Killzone 2 would probably land in 5M territory and that is close to Gears of War numbers -- considered to be a success.

 

[gofreak]

To sell 10M Sony needs Gran Turismo 5 or God of War III or Killzone 3.

They need a pricecut. And..'buzz'. The former can happen, the latter might be trickier.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Vegas 2 is a direct SEQUEL to successful single-player, CO-OP and competitive game.

Direct sequels to good games sell much better than original games.

Any huge IP is easily pushing 1M or close to that in it's 1st month.

Army of Two -- has co-op. We live in a time when best game to sell is a shooter with co-op -- Gears, Army of Two, Vegas, Halo, Left 4 Dead etc. All hugely successful

Jesus... so now if a game doesn't have co-op it's instant bomba? Seriously? Killzone is a sequel. A SEQUEL. That's why it has a 2 in it's name. The Killzone thread guys were calling the first a huge success. GAF was reminded hundreds of times over how the first one sold over a million copies and also how great the PSP was so Killzone had great brand recognition. No matter how hard you close your eyes and wish that Killzone 2 is a new IP... it is not.

Please drop the if it "doesn't have co-op it won't sell" flag.

 

[Halvie]

See Left 4 Dead for sales of co-op shooter.

What did L4D end up selling? Over a mill I take it?

 

[Cipherr]

I'm just observing facts and try to deduce something about. Feel free to explain me why a Zelda, who took 2-3 years to develop and sells like less then Wii Sports, should be developed if the latter costs 2-3 times less. If this has a so obvious answer, please tell me.

I would imagine its the same reason every third party in the industry hasn't dropped expensive projects and started all making mini game fests simultaneously just because of the popularity of Wiifit and WiiSports.

It doesn't work that way in reality. You can just say "Look at the ROI on these cheap games! YAY makes no sense to make anything else!!!!" Thats an extremely stupid way of looking at the industry. And these companies that have been around 20+ years know that.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm just observing facts and try to deduce something about. Feel free to explain me why a Zelda, who took 2-3 years to develop and sells like less then Wii Sports, should be developed if the latter costs 2-3 times less. If this has a so obvious answer, please tell me.

over saturation of mediocre products kills gaming

see: Atari 2600 with shitty licensed properties (E.T.), ports (Pac-Man), and hundreds of unlicensed games

That isn't to say that Wii Sports is a mediocre product (it isn't), but the knock-offs most certainly are, and for Nintendo to simply make a bunch of Wii ___ games would oversaturate the market.

 

[DogWelder]

What did L4D end up selling? Over a mill I take it?

Over 2.5 million at retail alone.

 

[fernoca]

I'm just observing facts and try to deduce something about. Feel free to explain me why a Zelda, who took 2-3 years to develop and sells like less then Wii Sports, should be developed if the latter costs 2-3 times less. If this has a so obvious answer, please tell me.

Just because a game "looks" like it costed less, doesn't mean it actually costed less to be made. For a time, Pikmin was one of the highest-budget Nintendo games. They've also said multiple times that games like Wii Sports and Wii Fit actually had high budgets, because they need to spend time fine tuning some aspects that in other games like Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess don't need to.

Speaking about Zelda, Twilight Princess outsold Wind Waker in less time..which says a lot considering that one was released years into the console's lifespan, while the other was a launch title released to less people and released during a time of console shortages.

 

[donny2112]

If Wii Fit + has the ability to create a pre-coded exercise program that runs automatically (or, even better, one that runs automatically and then gives you comparative stats for how you did on it each time) every Wii Fit user I know will buy this in a heartbeat.

*raises hand*

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

The problem isn't limited to developers, but publishers as well. I can't find the interview, but when High Voltage were shopping for a publisher for The Conduit, many of the publishers wouldn't even consider supporting it unless it was what GAF qualifies as "shovelware", and actually some of them suggested a budget price "ship-it-as-it-is" scenario (this was sometime last year). I would usually rather have Nintendo not have any deep involvement with 3rd parties (no moneyhats or special deals), but considering the circumstances I think that Nintendo should offer to publish more traditional 3rd party games just to support their platform at this point.

A recent interview states that they had plenty of offers, just not too many that would give them time to polish the game.

The problem with the N64 Dream Team isn't with the broad concept itself, it's with the execution. The cartridge format (between its drastically higher costs and its itty-bitty storage space) was basically so terrible that no one wanted to dev for the system; the "Dream Team" itself was underwhelming (even from the perspective of 1996, did a team consisting of LucasArts, Midway, Acclaim, Virgin, Angel Studios, and Sierra really strike anyone as fitting the moniker?) -- and it focused on bringing in developers rather than games.

Taking the same strategy with the actual top-shelf developers (start with Square-Enix and Capcom in the East, and probably an EA subsidiary in the West, then don't bring in anyone else who can't at least meaningfully threaten to compete on the same level) putting the focus on individual titles that Nintendo would promote as major exclusives for the system at exactly the same level that they promote their own first-party titles, and then offering sweetheart (but not full-funding) deals either to the same developers when they want to come back to the well, or to devs who've converted over to the Wii line of thinking after seeing the previous games do well, that's a lot less like the N64 Dream Team in execution and more -- wait, I just described the Xbox 360 third-party strategy.

Thank you! Finally someone else understands!

 

[GarthVaderUK]

What did L4D end up selling? Over a mill I take it?

The 360 version was in the top 10 for 3 months:
410K in November
629K in December
243K in January

It has now sold over 2.5 million on 360+PC at retail worldwide (doesn't include downloads).

 

[vanguardian1]

Thank you! Finally someone else understands!

What about the fact that Microsoft has gone the opposite of Sony and Nintendo and almost completely abandoned first party game development?

 

[gkryhewy]

To sell 10M Sony needs Gran Turismo 5 or God of War III or Killzone 3 multiplatform

10 million WW? fixed.

 

[u_neek]

Does anybody have or know of a site with a list of current-gen NA million sellers? I'm just wondering as Wii and 360 must have quite a few by now.

 

[fernoca]

What about the fact that Microsoft has gone the opposite of Sony and Nintendo and almost completely abandoned first party game development?

Fable II and Halo Wars sold quite well...Viva Piñata, Banjo-Kazooie were mostly ignored...(though pretty awesome games)

In fact it seems to be the opposite, but sales-wise..
While you have here people arguing about Wii users buying first party games and mostly ignoring third-party ones (with the exception of the occasional Lego, Guitar Hero, Rock Band), on the Xbox 360 in most cases it seems as it it's users receive with open hands third party releases (Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil, Call of Duty), but ignores first party offerings (Banjo, Viva Piñata, Lips, Project Gotham, Forza) most of the time (excluding the occasional Halo, Fable games).

 

[speculawyer]

I'd bet money the Wii version would have sold better if it had some good local multiplayer modes. It's ironic that the Wii is considered the king of local multiplayer games, and developers just ignore that so often with traditional games. :/ I think it's as bad as if the 360 version didn't have online multiplayer. Anyone can do local multiplayer, not everyone can do online gaming.

I bet the Wii version would sell better if it was in high-definition and the Wii was supported by a great online service with voice chat.

Oh wait . . . that's called the xbox 360 and PS3 versions.


Local multiplayer for the Wii? :lol Let's take the weak spot of the Wii version (low resolution) and make it four times worse with 4 player splitscreen.

Let it go . . . we've had 2+ years of sales results and the market has spoken. Violent hardcore games are never going to be as successful on the Wii and thus the development money is going to go to the HD consoles for those types of games because that is where they sell big numbers. If you want to continue living in denial, be my guest.

 

[charlequin]

What about the fact that Microsoft has gone the opposite of Sony and Nintendo and almost completely abandoned first party game development?

32,768 different Halo games say different. :lol

Regardless, to a degree first and third-party strategies are distinct -- a company's top-level strategy needs to wed them together, but there's no reason that a strong third-party relations strategy like MS' can't be joined with a well-planned first-party strategy like Nintendo pretty unambiguously has. (Look at the SNES for probably the ideal balance of the two, and on a Nintendo system to boot.)

 

[speculawyer]

Bully bombed on the 360 too, and Godfather was an up-port launch cash in that happened to have great control. Call of Duty 3 outsold the PS3 version, and CoD:WaW is doing very well (when Activision started paying attention to it, anyway)

This is a pretty flimsy argument.

Bully on the 360 had lower rating,s long load times, sound synchronization issues, and some crashing bugs at release . . . and it STILL managed to sell twice as many copies on the 360! :lol

I acknowledged that CoD:WaW has had good numbers on the Wii . . . but the point gets destroyed when you realize it sold 3X as many copies on the PS3 and 5X as many copies on the xbox 360. Imagine that you are not a fanboy but that instead you were a publisher and you looked that numbers . . . what would you do? (Never mind, I really don't think you can look at it objectively.)

 

[speculawyer]

What about the fact that Microsoft has gone the opposite of Sony and Nintendo and almost completely abandoned first party game development?

By '1st party game development' I assume you are ignoring outsourced productions like Gears of War N, Alan Wake, and other Microsoft funded games. That is a useless distinction . . . any game totally funded by MS for development is essentially a 1st party game whether the developer is owned by MS or not.

 

[fernoca]

Bully on the 360 had lower rating,s long load times, sound synchronization issues, and some crashing bugs at release . . . and it STILL managed to sell twice as many copies on the 360! :lol

I acknowledged that CoD:WaW has had good numbers on the Wii . . . but the point gets destroyed when you realize it sold 3X as many copies on the PS3 and 5X as many copies on the xbox 360. Imagine that you are not a fanboy but that instead you were a publisher and you looked that numbers . . . what would you do? (Never mind, I really don't think you can look at it objectively.)

Then you have Guitar Hero World Tour, Rock Band (1) and even Lego Star Wars/Indiana Jones/Batman doing the same on the Wii..

Does that mean that developers should just stop making those games for the Xbox 360/PS3?

 

[BLaZiN PRopHeT]

Fable II and Halo Wars sold quite well...Viva Piñata, Banjo-Kazooie were mostly ignored...(though pretty awesome games)

In fact it seems to be the opposite, but sales-wise..
While you have here people arguing about Wii users buying first party games and mostly ignoring third-party ones (with the exception of the occasional Lego, Guitar Hero, Rock Band), on the Xbox 360 in most cases it seems as it it's users receive with open hands third party releases (Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil, Call of Duty), but ignores first party offerings (Banjo, Viva Piñata, Lips, Project Gotham, Forza) most of the time (excluding the occasional Halo, Fable games).

How was forza ignored? and didnt all except for the last PGR game sell well?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Let it go . . . we've had 2+ years of sales results and the market has spoken. Violent hardcore games are never going to be as successful on the Wii and thus the development money is going to go to the HD consoles for those types of games because that is where they sell big numbers. If you want to continue living in denial, be my guest.

The problem is that there is no precedent for "hardcore" games (read: mainstream frat party games) failing on Wii outside of niche shit like No More Heroes and MadWorld which still amass decent sales.

Gimped ports like Force Unleashed and World at War have sold. Ports of years-old games like Resident Evil 4 and House of the Dead have sold. Meh side stories like Umbrella Chronicles have sold. New IPs like Red Steel and Boom Blox have sold. And the accessibly-core games with high brand recognition and actual effort like Sonic and the Secret Rings and the Guitar Hero games have sold even more than all of those that I just mentioned.

You can't use games with underwhelming sales like Zack & Wiki to gauge how the Wii user base would react to say, an exclusive GTA or RE because there is little to no overlap in the audiences that those games cater to. It's stupid.

I acknowledged that CoD:WaW has had good numbers on the Wii . . . but the point gets destroyed when you realize it sold 3X as many copies on the PS3 and 5X as many copies on the xbox 360. Imagine that you are not a fanboy but that instead you were a publisher and you looked that numbers . . . what would you do? (Never mind, I really don't think you can look at it objectively.)

WaW has lower sales because unlike on the 360/PS3 it couldn't ride on the coattails of CoD4, and it still sold in spite of itself.

Even then it was a cheap port so there's no reason why Modern Warfare 2 couldn't get a Wii port.

 

[ViperVisor]

speculawyer

You are part right but simplifying things to the point of near trolling.

The PS3 360 game type market thoughts of mine was made before
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=15510479#post15510479

 

[frankie_baby]

Bully on the 360 had lower rating,s long load times, sound synchronization issues, and some crashing bugs at release . . . and it STILL managed to sell twice as many copies on the 360! :lol

are you in possesion of up to date figures for both versions?

 

[Chumly]

I love it when people actually think that Niche games sell a shit ton on the 360/PS3 when they actually sell like ass.

 

[fernoca]

How was forza ignored? and didnt all except for the last PGR game sell well?

I was basing it on the general opinion...

While you have here people arguing about...

Piñata, Banjo,....didn't made Gears 2, Halo..numbers. Even when those games costed $20 less and were released during less saturated seasons. Yet, many say the games were ignored mostly because the 'Xbox 360 audience doesn't like "that kind" of game, more suited to the Wii audience'.

I mean, people want the Wii audience to "evolve" and accept "hardcore games", when it seems that other consoles audiences need to do it too, and be open at more/different/varied games.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I love it when people actually think that Niche games sell a shit ton on the 360/PS3 when they actually sell like ass.

They've deluded themselves into thinking that games like CoD and GTA are niche hardcore games when in reality they're very mainstream and sell heavily on the backs of casual gamers.

 

[fernoca]

Exactly..
What difference does it make..let's say 4 million people buying Call of Duty Xbox 360 games, every year only and nothing else......to 4 million people buying Wii (insert Play of Fit here) games, every year only..and nothing else?

 

[poppabk]

I'm just observing facts and try to deduce something about. Feel free to explain me why a Zelda, who took 2-3 years to develop and sells like less then Wii Sports, should be developed if the latter costs 2-3 times less. If this has a so obvious answer, please tell me.

Seriously?
1) There is a limited market to sell to, you start to see diminishing returns as the market becomes crowded.
2) Wii Sports probably cost more to make than Zelda, although its budget was probably tied to the development of the wiimote. I am sure lots of R&D went into making the controls just right. Hence why 3rd parties have struggled to match it, and probably why Wii Sports Resort, announced and playable at E3 last year, is still unreleased.
3) Brand recognition. Nintendo has built a pretty solid image with the buying public (hence the whole argument that 1st party dominates 3rd parties). Even if Zelda by itself was a money loser - it would still be worth making as it is one of the "prestige" games for Nintendo.
4) IP. Nintendo has multiple very strong IP's in the video game business, but they need strong titles to maintain their significance.
5) Different developers have different strengths, you can't necessarily have one developer switch from years of making Zelda games and have them knock out Wii Sports 2.
6) It sells to a different market segment, thus increasing console sales.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

They're linked, actually. The problem is that if games like Wii Fit or Wii Sports sell more then games like Galaxy or Zelda, I think that Nintendo will be less and less interested in develop the latter category of games. You know, Galaxy, Smash and Zelda sold really well, but they cost shitloads of money, whereas Wii Play costs so much less. The bottom line if this logic is true and if Nintendo cares more about money then the fanbase (of course, but sometimes this has to be reminded), is that in the long term, we will see less and less AAA games.

I mean, this sort of statements are so old and facts say somehow that this is the trend. Why should we expect a "return of the big hardcore games" in the future? And keep in mind that I don't mean a return only with a boyart and a title of a franchise (what Spirits of Tracks looks like, for istance), but a true AAA title.

Because when pie is your best selling menu item, you don't scrap everything else and just sell pie. Especially when the cafe down the street still sells pie and more. That's stupid business at its core.

Every month we get the same bullshit argument. Last month it was Zachack. I wonder who it'll be next month?

 

[poppabk]

By '1st party game development' I assume you are ignoring outsourced productions like Gears of War N, Alan Wake, and other Microsoft funded games. That is a useless distinction . . . any game totally funded by MS for development is essentially a 1st party game whether the developer is owned by MS or not.

This is only true in good times. As Sony have found, it only takes one failure for you to lose your once loyal partners.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

By '1st party game development' I assume you are ignoring outsourced productions like Gears of War N, Alan Wake, and other Microsoft funded games. That is a useless distinction . . . any game totally funded by MS for development is essentially a 1st party game whether the developer is owned by MS or not.

According to GAF, any third party developer that Sony contracts is a first party. Any third party developer that Microsoft contracts is a third party.

People skew the definition of "first party" to their favor when it fits their argument but unless the console maker owns the developer... it is *not* first party.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Bully on the 360 had lower rating,s long load times, sound synchronization issues, and some crashing bugs at release . . . and it STILL managed to sell twice as many copies on the 360! :lol

I acknowledged that CoD:WaW has had good numbers on the Wii . . . but the point gets destroyed when you realize it sold 3X as many copies on the PS3 and 5X as many copies on the xbox 360. Imagine that you are not a fanboy but that instead you were a publisher and you looked that numbers . . . what would you do? (Never mind, I really don't think you can look at it objectively.)

This is what I don't understand about your argument.

On one hand, you handwave the 360 version, saying that it had bugs and sound issues. Erm, may I point your attention to # 10 on this months NPD, which is an absolute buggy mess of a baseball game that doesn't recognize when you've hit the ball when the bat contacts it directly, and still managed to get into the top 10?

Second, how does the "developers shouldn't bother with Wii" point get destroyed when you admitted the sales are better than you thought (read: paid any attention to). This argument gets bandied about all the time and it doesn't make sense. Publishers don't look at games and say "this game DID WELL but wasn't as successful as it was on the HD consoles, axe it". If I were a publisher, as you so deftly asked, I would say "hey, why aren't we juicing these Wii customers for all they're worth? They bought a game that we downported, undershipped and didn't even bother advertising until its second month!" This is all without mentioning that the insanely popular prequel to the game, which aided in installing the popularity on the HD consoles, didn't even get a Wii version. If pubs acted by your logic, COD4 would have never seen a PS3 release, as the Wii version of three outsold it.