Gamedaily: 3rd Party Sales Numbers*

[patsu]

The "growth" of the "casual" market has more to do with people affixing the term "casual" to a growing list of hardware and software that has existed for decades without being classified under that misnomer.

The success of the Wii in and of itself is no proof of the growth of the casual market, no more than the lackluster sales of the GC or N64 are proof of the casual market in decline. Look at the top 10-15 selling games on the Wii and its not that different the top 10-15 list of any Nintendo consoles. There is going to be a Mario game, a kart game, a Legend of Zelda and the only thing missing from the Wii list is a Pokemon game.

The success of Wii has everything to do with non-gamers buying a gaming system. Why does a Mario game only has to be played only by core gamers ? The Wii controller is supposed to be less "scary" to use than standard controller. Casual Wii titles are closer to their lifestyle than some fantasy land adventures too.

Even Wii Sports and Wii Play don't stand as excellent evidence that the casual market is growing at a faster rate than the core market since they bundled to hardware. Using that same logic, one can surmise in 1980s that Duck Hunt with its ~23 million in sales made light gun shooting one of the fastest growing genre of NES generation. Even Nintendo brags that the average Wii gamer is a core gamer not a casual gamer.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/140575/average_wii_player_is_age_29_nintendo_says.html

Sure, but the Wii user base also include a large number of casual gamers. They can now be tapped via the Wii platform... as opposed to one-off titles.

The 360 is considered a core gamer machine but it sells more games through its Live service than game software sold through the iphone. I highly doubt that Live sales are being perpetuated by a bunch of casual gamers. To me, DLC games are spearheading a revival movement and simply reintroducing classic and newer games to gamers, which are attracted to the titles due to nostalgia and not simplicity.

You already said 360 users are core gamers, why would they suddenly become casual gamers ? You can't use 1 month of iPhone sales to argue that Live users are now casual gamers overnight. This is Wii's second year. We know there are casual Wii gamers out there. 360's DLC games are just different channel to the same people. It does not define a new market. At least not yet.

While the Wii's success is bound to attract developers, the weight of that attraction is also determine by success and if traditional third party titles still maintain the level of success of a GTA4, COD4, MGS4, AC and ~30+ platinum sellers than the Wii's attraction will be counterbalance by the PS360 market which is still bigger in terms of console numbers and much bigger in terms of software sales. Most of the top 20 list of the PS360 is populated by third party titles, this not true for Nintendo. Whats the highest selling third party game for the Wii? GH with about ~2 million in sales? How many third party titles from the 360 and PS3 top that number? Most third party devs will continue to target the PS360 with its resource abundant project because the PS360 represent a market they have dealt with for years. Most will throw resource limited project at the Wii and hope some sort of quirky feature piques the interest of the Wii faithful.

There are 2 different markets. One is growing very fast and largely untapped. It's up to the devs what they want to do. They sell similar number of units this year.

I not simplifying his statement. His statement was made to indicate that EA's current predicament was due to misjudging the market and not focusing on the Wii. I highly doubt that focus would have alleviated the problems EA is facing now. If EA is having trouble transitioning to the PS360 whos enviroment is not that different from the market EA has traditionaly targeted for years, how would focusing on the Wii been better which present a different market where traditional titles aren't having the easiest time of finding success outside of GH and a few other titles.

It would have allowed them to reach a different audience. EA has many separate units. I don't think you can put the same label on all their studios. They do mobile phone games too right ?

No, but how many third party pubs can pump out quality titles like Nintendo can? Most pub that rival Nintendo in size and # of titles produced depend highly on a few key IPs with a mountain of cheap titles with a portion driven by movie IPs. How many IPs or titles from Nintendo are be looked at as cheap garbage? A far smaller percentage than most other typical devs. Nintendo's mentality has been driven by need to almost exclusively support Nintendo consoles on its lonesome. You're not going to suddenly operate as insanely efficient as Nintendo just because you see the Wii as a hit. Nintendo software has been developed with the mindset to sell a console as well as itself. Most third party software isn't developed with such intention and won't be.

Sadly, this is the part where developers fill in (Are you one) ?
I'll leave it as that. As I mentioned, where there are money on the table, traditionally someone will move to take it. You probably have seen some attempts already. I expect to see more in the coming months -- specially if that base continues to swell.

 

[upnorthsox]

To me, DLC games are spearheading a revival movement and simply reintroducing classic and newer games to gamers, which are attracted to the titles due to nostalgia and not simplicity.

Couldn't that sentence read:

To me, Wii games are spearheading a revival movement and simply reintroducing classic and newer games to gamers, which are attracted to the titles due to nostalgia and not simplicity.

No, but how many third party pubs can pump out quality titles like Nintendo can?

Generous or matter of opinion? Not sure, maybe both.

Most pub that rival Nintendo in size and # of titles produced depend highly on a few key IPs with a mountain of cheap titles with a portion driven by movie IPs.

It could also be said that Nintendo depends highly on a few key IPs with a mountain of cheap titles with a portion driven by IP characters.

Nintendo software has been developed with the mindset to sell a console as well as itself. Most third party software isn't developed with such intention and won't be.

Couldn't this be the real issue though? If you are never part of anything then what do you end up being.

You make good points but I think you give Nintendo more credit for a situation they fell into more than created.

 

[dobwal]

Certainly, I'm not saying that the Wii is becoming primary platform (nor am I pulling a GAFish 'the Wii is the only future DOOOOOM'), but rather that the Wii is no longer an afterthought, the platform that gets the PS2 ports with waggle. That's a pretty drastic change in publisher strategies, at least for the top two. They wouldn't do this if they didn't think they could make money off the platform.

I agree, but "PS2 ports with waggle" is how, I fear, most third party dev are initially thinking about the Wii. And I think its the wrong mindset. The Wii is the GC with a waggle, 4X the sales potential and an 800 pound gorilla known as first party Nintendo within its midst.

 

[dobwal]

The success of Wii has everything to do with non-gamers buying a gaming system. Why does a Mario game only has to be played only by core gamers ? The Wii controller is supposed to be less "scary" to use than standard controller. Casual Wii titles are closer to their lifestyle than some fantasy land adventures too.

The success of the Wii can be contributed to bring in non gamers, but non gamers aren't the only source and probably aren't the largest factor. Mario can be played by casual just like GTA4 can. However, Mario has probably one of the largest fanbases of any franchise and its highly doubtful that the majority of people who bought the titles are just experiencing the franchise for the first time or for a long time. Most of Wii hits are traditional Nintendo titles which means the Wii's userbase is probably made up of people who aren't new to gaming.

You already said 360 users are core gamers, why would they suddenly become casual gamers ? You can't use 1 month of iPhone sales to argue that Live users are now casual gamers overnight. This is Wii's second year. We know there are casual Wii gamers out there. 360's DLC games are just different channel to the same people. It does not define a new market. At least not yet.

Im not arguing that the 360 users are casual gamers but that the DLC found on the 360 are driven by core gamers and these 360 titles who when the same game mechanics and graphics are found on the Wii are labelled "casual".

It would have allowed them to reach a different audience. EA has many separate units. I don't think you can put the same label on all their studios. They do mobile phone games too right?

Most of them are involved with dealing with traditional third party market. You honestly think that a mobile phone game dev is perfect for producing smash Wii hits on a reliable basis for EA

Sadly, this is the part where developers fill in (Are you one)? I'll leave it as that. As I mentioned, where there are money on the table, traditionally someone will move to take it. You probably have seen some attempts already. I expect to see more in the coming months -- specially if that base continues to swell.

Nope. When there is money on the table, traditionally someone will always try to move in and take it. The problem lies is that you have a super efficient first party publisher that can pump out 50-60 quality titles over a five year period as your main competitor and is going to get the bulk of the marketing dollars coming out of Nintendo. You think Nintendo who had to rely on itself during the lean years is going to give any marketing help to third party titles now when it has the titles and runaway console success. Given Nintendo's historical relationship with third party pubs and devs, how do you honestly think Nintendo going to behave now. You think Nintendo going to reserve as much time at its E3 conference for third party titles as MS and Sony does now. Knowing Nintendo's history they are going to trying to satiate its userbase's demand for games as much as possible with its own titles and leave anything left over for third party. For all intent and purpose, the Wii market is hostile ground compared to the 360 and PS3.

 

[eastmen]

Couldn't that sentence read:

To me, Wii games are spearheading a revival movement and simply reintroducing classic and newer games to gamers, which are attracted to the titles due to nostalgia and not simplicity.

Which wii games cause to me most of the stuff released on disc are either last gen ports , half hearted releases or mini games. None of these apply to his post from what I can tell. The only thing is virtual console but that doesn't have anything to do with the wii on its own as both psn and xbox live have their old verisons of that.

Originally Posted by patsu
The success of Wii has everything to do with non-gamers buying a gaming system. Why does a Mario game only has to be played only by core gamers ? The Wii controller is supposed to be less "scary" to use than standard controller. Casual Wii titles are closer to their lifestyle than some fantasy land adventures too.

Mario sunshine 6.38m Gamecube

Mario 64 11.89m

Mario galaxy 6.78m

or Zelda

Zelda OOT 7.6m

Zelda MM 3.3m

Zelda WW 4.55m

Zelda TWP 4.7m

To me it doesn't seem like the first party titles are selling more than they were in previous generations. So really are nintendo tapping the casual market and getting them to buy the software or are they still falling back on their core that has been there from before the n64.

 

[dobwal]

Couldn't that sentence read:

To me, Wii games are spearheading a revival movement and simply reintroducing classic and newer games to gamers, which are attracted to the titles due to nostalgia and not simplicity.

Yep, I only use the 360's DLC because no one labels the 360's userbase as mostly consisting of casuals.

Generous or matter of opinion? Not sure, maybe both.

Expound. Please. I missed your point.

It could also be said that Nintendo depends highly on a few key IPs with a mountain of cheap titles with a portion driven by IP characters.

True but the difference is most find these games engaging and fun and its the reason that most of titles that borrow IP characters have a lot of 4s, 5s, 6s and 7s at the end of the titles.

Couldn't this be the real issue though? If you are never part of anything then what do you end up being.

You make good points but I think you give Nintendo more credit for a situation they fell into more than created.

Yep, they fell into it, but the atmosphere of third party development on the Wii is being created and perpetuated by Nintendo.

 

[Mintmaster]

The "first 20 months" sort of graph isn't irrelevant, either. It shows trends and helps you make decisions for the future.

That's nonsense. You don't make a game today and sell it to last year's 360 userbase. If you want a trend then look at the last few months, last year, or, as MS showed, the last 20 months.

Hypothetically speaking, if 360 came out in 2004 but had the same numbers today due to a dismal first year and thus floundered in this useless "first 20 months" metric, who cares? That has no relevance on future trends for the Wii.

The 360 is still king of 3rd party profitability, but you could make a case that Wii is catching up to PS3. Not that it matters, though, because decision making would generally look at 360/PS3 sales combined.

 

[patsu]

The success of the Wii can be contributed to bring in non gamers, but non gamers aren't the only source and probably aren't the largest factor. Mario can be played by casual just like GTA4 can. However, Mario has probably one of the largest fanbases of any franchise and its highly doubtful that the majority of people who bought the titles are just experiencing the franchise for the first time or for a long time. Most of Wii hits are traditional Nintendo titles which means the Wii's userbase is probably made up of people who aren't new to gaming.

Sure but the premise still stand. Wii is more effective at drawing non-gamers and casual gamers into the industry. The controller is designed for them (while core gamers scorned at it). The sheer growth rate hinted at it (while many core gamers complained about lack of GPU power and HD). Looking at my friends who own Wii, it aligns with the general belief that Wii has attracted the attention of casual gamers. The market researchers also largely acknowledged that Wii is a hit amongst casual gamers. The flagship titles WiiPlay is also a casual game. I don't think you can deny the significant presence of casual gamers in the Wii user base.

Im not arguing that the 360 users are casual gamers but that the DLC found on the 360 are driven by core gamers and these 360 titles who when the same game mechanics and graphics are found on the Wii are labelled "casual".

I am afraid the act of putting in casual games on 360's marketplace does not automagically turn the platform into a casual gamer haven. The entire marketing, product development, pricing, game selection, image, etc. must be done "right". Then you have to inspire/excite the casual observers and see whether they bite. Wii has done the full cycle for 2 years with great success. Some core gamers were alienated in the process.

360 follows a totally different route. Its outcome will be different.

Most of them are involved with dealing with traditional third party market. You honestly think that a mobile phone game dev is perfect for producing smash Wii hits on a reliable basis for EA

No. I was commenting that your interpretation of EA CEO's statement may be oversimplifying. There are a lot of units in EA. They would be in a good position to take advantage of this sort of venture. The cellphone group deals with cellphone exclusive games. EA can certainly start a dedicated Wii group for similar purpose. But this is off topic anyway. Have no interest to defend an exec.

Nope. When there is money on the table, traditionally someone will always try to move in and take it. The problem lies is that you have a super efficient first party publisher that can pump out 50-60 quality titles over a five year period as your main competitor and is going to get the bulk of the marketing dollars coming out of Nintendo. You think Nintendo who had to rely on itself during the lean years is going to give any marketing help to third party titles now when it has the titles and runaway console success. Given Nintendo's historical relationship with third party pubs and devs, how do you honestly think Nintendo going to behave now. You think Nintendo going to reserve as much time at its E3 conference for third party titles as MS and Sony does now. Knowing Nintendo's history they are going to trying to satiate its userbase's demand for games as much as possible with its own titles and leave anything left over for third party. For all intent and purpose, the Wii market is hostile ground compared to the 360 and PS3.

Are you saying no one should develop for Microsoft because Microsoft Office sells well ?

Judging from prior statements from Nintendo, I don't think they prefer one way or another. They simply acted their best and the result shows. Shigeru has highlighted that 3rd party developers do not send their best team to work on Wii. And you want to win against Nintendo ?

Given the huge growth, a comparatively smaller share is still a big number. Without going into specific titles, we know that there are third party million sellers on Nintendo Wii, plus the overall 3rd party unit sales is comparable to 360. This is a good start.

EDIT:

To me it doesn't seem like the first party titles are selling more than they were in previous generations. So really are nintendo tapping the casual market and getting them to buy the software or are they still falling back on their core that has been there from before the n64.

The problem lies with your examples. You can't use a complex game like Zelda to look for casual gamers.

 

[dobwal]

Sure but the premise still stand. Wii is more effective at drawing non-gamers and casual gamers into the industry. The controller is designed for them (while core gamers scorned at it). The sheer growth rate hinted at it (while many core gamers complained about lack of GPU power and HD). Looking at my friends who own Wii, it aligns with the general belief that Wii has attracted the attention of casual gamers. The market researchers also largely acknowledged that Wii is a hit amongst casual gamers. The flagship titles WiiPlay is also a casual game. I don't think you can deny the significant presence of casual gamers in the Wii user base.

I agree the Wii has more significant casual userbase, but I also think that there is too much significance placed on Wii's success due to the casual market. If you removed the casual gamers, you would remove a portion of gamers from all three userbases and even though the Wii would be most effected it still would have an overall lead over the other two consoles.

I am afraid the act of putting in casual games on 360's marketplace does not automagically turn the platform into a casual gamer haven. The entire marketing, product development, pricing, game selection, image, etc. must be done "right". Then you have to inspire/excite the casual observers and see whether they bite. Wii has done the full cycle for 2 years with great success. Some core gamers were alienated in the process.

You're not getting my point, which is that core gamers are driving part of the market thats being construed today as "casual". Simple game mechanics and graphics aren't totally casual driven and Live is proof of that belief.

No. I was commenting that your interpretation of EA CEO's statement may be oversimplifying. There are a lot of units in EA. They would be in a good position to take advantage of this sort of venture. The cellphone group deals with cellphone exclusive games. EA can certainly start a dedicated Wii group for similar purpose. But this is off topic anyway. Have no interest to defend an exec.

It may seems oversimplying but he made very basic statements that requires little interpretation. There maybe a lot of units in EA but those units haven't perform as needed given their multiplatform strategy, where focus is center toward a market thats third party friendly. How well can you expect then to perform in a market that pretty hostile to third party titles in general?

Are you saying no one should develop for Microsoft because Microsoft Office sells well ?

Judging from prior statements from Nintendo, I don't think they prefer one way or another. They simply acted their best and the result shows. Shigeru has highlighted that 3rd party developers do not send their best team to work on Wii. And you want to win against Nintendo ?

Without going into specific titles, we know that there are third party million sellers on Nintendo Wii, plus the overall unit sales is not comparable to 360. It is a good start.

How many PC compatible office software suites do know that comes anywhere near MS office sales that isn't free? You know MS office being a MS product has alot to do with that and the fact the MS has been pushing the product for years. Add those two factors together and the chance that an "pay to play" alternative can viabily challenge MS office is remotely small.

Any third party game faces similar obstacles and while not as near as impossible as competing against MS Office, a third party game faces challenges that aren't typical for a PS360 enviroment which is more hospitable then the Wii market.

My point is that the first dev that looks as the Wii market as a complicated venture, who while development may be cheaper, success will be harder will be alot closer to putting viable third party products on a consistent basis in the Wii market. The Wii market will require more marketing dollars than usual and Nintendo will be less of resource for pushing your software than MS or Sony. You be regularly competing against first party Wii software which will pour out Nintendo at a much faster pace than you been exposed to on the 360 and PS3 platform.

 

[patsu]

I agree the Wii has more significant casual userbase, but I also think that there is too much significance placed on Wii's success due to the casual market. If you removed the casual gamers, you would remove a portion of gamers from all three userbases and even though the Wii would be most effected it still would have an overall lead over the other two consoles.

Perhaps, but it is the huge casual-gamer base that has made Wii into what it is today. it will continue to weight in as long as Nintendo is diligent in keeping them.

You're not getting my point, which is that core gamers are driving part of the market thats being construed today as "casual". Simple game mechanics and graphics aren't totally casual driven and Live is proof of that belief.

My fault. But my point still stands. With the right casual game formula, you can hit Wii, 360 and PS3 user base altogether and tap better on Wii's casual base; especially if the company invest time and resources to make itself known to Wii owners. Based on the sales figure the analyst provided, the Wii 3rd party unit sales can be huge too and is growing faster because the entire base is swelling right now. To turn the situation around, why can't you develop for the Wii casual audience, and then sell it to PS3 and 360 ?

It may seems oversimplying but he made very basic statements that requires little interpretation. There maybe a lot of units in EA but those units haven't perform as needed given their multiplatform strategy, where focus is center toward a market thats third party friendly. How well can you expect then to perform in a market that pretty hostile to third party titles in general?

That's why I don't like generalization. We know cross platform development this gen is harder than expected. Tapping on Wii is a more a business, marketing and product definition challenges. The technical difficulties are lesser in comparison. I do not know the undercurrent beneath EA. I am not qualified to discuss how they should proceed. So I'd rest my case here.

I brought up EA to indicate that they are keen on Wii development. They may be able to turn around quicker with Wii titles; but by no means will it make all their problems go away. PS3 and 360 development are still a reality.

How many PC compatible office software suites do know that comes anywhere near MS office sales that isn't free? You know MS office being a MS product has alot to do with that and the fact the MS has been pushing the product for years. Add those two factors together and the chance that an "pay to play" alternative can viabily challenge MS office is remotely small.

Any third party game faces similar obstacles and while not as near as impossible as competing against MS Office, a third party game faces challenges that aren't typical for a PS360 enviroment which is more hospitable then the Wii market.

But there are thousands of software that thrived on Windows. Each digging into their niche. Some are even licensed by MS itself. What are the specific challenges for Wii development since Nintendo obviously wants some (Otherwise, they would not publish the data).

You can't blame Nintendo for being too strong. The developers can only blame themselves or the circumstances for being weak. A strong partner is a usually better than a weak one.