Gameinformer developer survey
- Thread starter spdistro
- Start date
Powderkeg said:
You would do things like completely remove the fancy physics engine, and that field of 500 soldiers would get reduced to 40 with a different camera angle to hide the fact there aren't as many guys there.
Also, why do people seem to think that the Wii library is going to be nothing but ports? It's not like having lots of cross-platform games is the compelling reason to buy any console. In fact, Cubewas very easy to port to...and consequently got little except cross-platform titles, meaning the machine has this reputation of "not having any good games." You should all entertain the possibility that maybe, just maybe the console will be popular enough that developers will lay down some original code. You know, kind of like how they've done with pretty much every console in history except the Gamecube. If it's worth it financially, Wii will get games. If it's not, it won't. It has very little to do with whether or not games can be easily ported from a machine 10x as powerful. Nintendo knows this, which is why they're apparently removing as many unnecessary financial hurdles as possible to developers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't remind me! A friend refused to play anything but the GC version of Soul Calibur 2, saying he liked Link more than Heihachi, but in reality he was just teching up on that particular controller so he could actually beat me at the game! Bastard!hupfinsgack said:
scooby_dooby said:
erm.. yeah. just like eveybody else in this thread is speculating ..or maybe you think somebody here is telling historical facts about the wii?
and i see plenty of reasons. but i'm ok with this fact as it seems you and me we usually see different things in this industry.
they don't have to assume anything. they can put a small icont on the back of their game package saying 'original gc controller requred for full experience'. just like console titles have certain requirements about the free space available on the save card, so people can go to the nearest store and buy a card if they don't have one satisfying the title's requirement. or play without saving if they wish - kinda limited, though.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
scooby_dooby said:
Umm.. isn't that one of the fundamental problems with the wii?
Either you have haphazardly mapped controls to the wiimote controller, or you have to essentially purchase another 'more traditional' controller?
What of the 'standard' wii controller? Was that just bogus photoshop BS? I could have sworn I saw photos of the wii's "standard" controller that would be used for playing all the older titles (and potentially, some newer ones as well)?
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n10/e3_2006/wii/img_con/photo_classic.jpg
Found it. From nintendo's own website.
Scoob.. the problems you mention are all the same. Do developers make games assuming people have the standard controller? Do they give you options to use either controller? So you can either use the wiimote which doesn't work so well, or the standard controller?
Can you imagine little Johnny inviting little Billy over to play Madden 2007 and little Johnny raving about how much fun it is to use the wiimote and little Billy has to use the standard controller, and little Billy kicks little Johnny's ass? Because while it might not be as much fun as moving the wiimote all around, it's what he's used to and it's easier... and winning eventually makes it more fun anyway?
I see problems. And nothing but problems. But I'm very depressed at the moment, not enough refined sugar in my diet.
fearsomepirate said:
In otherwords, you would make a different game rather than porting the one you have, which means porting an existing game wouldn't be an easy job.
Games sell the system, not the other way around. For the Wii to do as well as everyone seems to want it's going to have to have a wide variety of games. Games from all genres and employing all kinds of different gameplay styles.
The problem is, because the Wii's differences making porting difficult that means there will be fewer games on the system. When games sell the system having fewer games is generally bad for your system.
darkblu said:
The problem with doing that is then the developer and publisher have to eat the cost of all of the copies that end up returned due to the fact that they don't work, which is not only the cost of the game itself, but the added cost of inventory adjustments, getting the copies back from the retailers (Who will certainly return the game if it's been opened and they don't sell used games) storage, redistribution (If you plan on repackaging and reselling it as new) or disposal.
Plus is just bad PR. Generally gamers don't like buying games that dont work. Especially console gamers.
Not to many developers would take that option.
One major question here is will devs make the most of the system? Will they be able to adapt, or will they just shoe-horn in games not suited for the system? One person with an opinion on this is Sega's VP of marketting (yeah, a marketting guy, most reliable source in the worldPowderkeg said:
)http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3481&Itemid=2
Shifty Geezer said:One major question here is will devs make the most of the system? Will they be able to adapt, or will they just shoe-horn in games not suited for the system? One person with an opinion on this is Sega's VP of marketting (yeah, a marketting guy, most reliable source in the world
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3481&Itemid=2
Agreed - best use of Wii will be games which fully utilize and take advantage of its interface. However - I disagree that AAA titles like MGS4 should not be ported to Wii. The game would take a hit in the visuals and perhaps certain events/levels restructured to fit the tech limits of Wii (as fearsome pointed out) but there will be desire for these titles from Wii users who do not have a 360 or ps3.
Shifty Geezer said:One major question here is will devs make the most of the system? Will they be able to adapt, or will they just shoe-horn in games not suited for the system? One person with an opinion on this is Sega's VP of marketting (yeah, a marketting guy, most reliable source in the world
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3481&Itemid=2
Not really much of a question.
Most developers have fairly strict budgets. Most want to maximize profits, so they will design around the system that will likely generate them the most sales, and port to others if possible.
So, while it ideal is to have every game custom written for the Wii, the hard cold reality is most developers really can't afford to do that. Most games will be ports, with little extra effort put into them.
Powderkeg said:
sorry, which fact? why would they not work? what stops the developer from popping a big flashing message onto the sceen at startup saying 'did you not read what we said on the back of the box?' and map a half-assed control scheme onto the wand? and why would people ignore what the game requirements say - when you buy a game that needs N blocks of free space on the mem card and you know (or subsequently discover that) your card does not have as much (i'm still to see somebody who deletes their old precious savegames, heh) you suck up with no saves for the rest of the day and on the next you go and buy a new mem card, you don't say 'screw that game, i though it was cool and really wanted to play it but now that i discovered it needs this extra mem i totally refuse to buy a memcard for it.' with controllers the decision is even simpler when you know you can use that same controller for many other games - both new and GC-legacy.
how about we wait and see? and what does it matter how many take that option? you need just a few good titles that do that successfully to tell that it worked.
Last edited by a moderator:
Powderkeg said:
Like Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam, Sonic Wildfire, Red Steel, and Excite Truck, right? Compared to X360's library which was...1st-party titles and ports of PS2 games. Nintendo is doomed. They should go software-only. Clearly, no one is supporting them next-gen, and all they're going to get is ports.
darkblu said:
The game REQUIRES a non-standard controller.
You do NOT have that non-standard controller.
What makes you think the game would work without the REQUIRED hardware?
Nothing is stopping them, but providing any controller scheme for the Wii controller does not fit the description of an alternate controller being REQUIRED.
Because I don't know ANYONE who reads the box of game consoles to look for required hardware which they might not have. It's sort of a crazy assumption console gamers make, but they tend to believe that the game will work with the console and controller that they already ahve.
You are talking about an analogy that does not even remotely compare.
Now, let's say you have a memory card, and it's blank. Nothing is saved on it. Would you still look on the box to see if an alternate memory card of a different type than the one you own is required?
Somehow I doubt you would.
These gamers will already own a controller. Why would they be looking for a requirement for a controller that they don't have?
What does it matter? It matters on how many games are made for the system and how many gamers are willing to buy the system. Your chances of success are directly related to the number of opportunities you have to succeed.
fearsomepirate said:
Wow, 3 whole 3rd party games? (Excite Truck is 1st party so it doesn't count)
Wow, that sold me! And according to your post I should assume that there will be no more than 3 ports on the Wii, since 4 would qualify as "most".
So is that what you are saying? That there will be no more than 3 ports on the Wii? I'm pretty sure EA has already announced more than that.
Excite Truck is being developed by Monster Games and published by Nintendo. That would make it "2nd party" and would make Monster Games among those who has decided it's worth the money to develop for Wii I could list more, and you know it. There's Elebits, Super Monkeyball, a Dragon Quest title, a Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles title, Trauma Center, Gundam G Breaker, and Harvest Moon, none of which look to be simply ports of any existing game. The fact is that there are more than two or three studios that see Wii as fit for more than straight ports.
Why don't you just admit that you think the Wii is lame, and the reason that you feel sure it will fail is that you personally would never develop for it? Because the facts simply don't fit your "no one will develop anything except what they can port from other systems" claim. Admit it's simply personal distaste for the machine and dislike of any game that doesn't feature HDR, and we'll talk about something more interesting.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: publishers will publish games for Wii if it's going to make them money. The launch line-up already looks strong, so if that motivates a lot of sales, developers aren't going to turn down money just because they can't use a 512x512 texture on a female fighter's codpiece.
Why don't you just admit that you think the Wii is lame, and the reason that you feel sure it will fail is that you personally would never develop for it? Because the facts simply don't fit your "no one will develop anything except what they can port from other systems" claim. Admit it's simply personal distaste for the machine and dislike of any game that doesn't feature HDR, and we'll talk about something more interesting.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: publishers will publish games for Wii if it's going to make them money. The launch line-up already looks strong, so if that motivates a lot of sales, developers aren't going to turn down money just because they can't use a 512x512 texture on a female fighter's codpiece.
Last edited by a moderator:
fearsomepirate said:
The only company in the world that uses the term "2nd party" is Nintendo.
It's a 1st party game to everyone else, just like PGR3 on the Xbox 360 is a 1st party game.
And I'm sure Nintendo paying them to make the game has something to do with that decision.
Are you trying to suggest that Nintendo is going to pay every developer to make every game on the Wii?
Do I really have to make up a list of every single game thats announced for the Wii so we can make a proper comparison here?
It's ridiculous to suggest that most games on any system will be custom tailored or exclusive to that system. The only console I know of that has followed that business model was the N64, which only had around 350 total games at the end of it's lifespan.
For the same reason you don't just admit that you're a raving Nintendo f@nboy, and don't care what anyone says, you think Nintendo is perfect.
The FACT is I never made such a claim.
Admit that if I was criticizing MS you wouldn't have a problem with it, and it's only because I said something about about your beloved Nintendo that you are arguing.
And currently there is ZERO proof that it will.
Developers will go where they will make the MOST money.
PS3 + 360, or a special Wii game.
Which do you think most 3rd party developers would make the MOST money on? (And do keep in mind that Nintendo ended in LAST place last gen, and Nintendo console owners typically don't buy many 3rd party games)
Last edited by a moderator:
Powderkeg said:
did you bother to read what i wrote? - 'required for full experience.' you can interpret that from 'strongly suggested' to 'extensively supported', but how did it occur to you as a no-go? actually devs may choose to not even bother to say that to the unaware customer and leave them clueless with the fallback (worse) control scheme. they usually do not do that, though - they tell the player in one way or another what is the optimal controller device for the game. get any self-respecting driving simulator and see in the manual what they say about steering wheels. that may totally change your perspective on the subject (yes, a standard controller is a largely inferior control scheme for a driving simulator).
poor GBC/GBA developers. imagine how many clueless and non-carying customers bought GBA cartidges for their GBCs and vise versa. all those returned games must have devastated both retailers and vendors. and all because people did not bother to read what's written on the box. what a shame.
*shrug* then you'd be surprised how much i look at the various information (incl. what's said on the back) about a game before i buy it.
because they'll check the requirements anyway to see how many players are supported? to check for progressive output support. to see mem card requirements? to read the ESRB? maybe even because it sits there in the middle of the front of the package?
nope. your chances for success are directly related to the cumulative probability of success. a single chance with probability 50% is way better than 10 opportunities of 2% probabiliy for success each.
Small flaw of logic there; we can't know that for sure, only that there would be fewer PORTS.Powderkeg said:
Well, that would assume that game availability actually is lower, which is not neccessarily going to be true, given the economics of this current console generation. You also forget/overlook that game availability is not the only factor that determine which console a person is going to buy.
We already know the wii will be cheaper to buy, develop on and buy games for, compared to 360 and PS3. So there might be fewer ports, and the hardware will be weaker, so what. To bring up an old comparison, DS vs PSP; who da man, keg?
Guden Oden said:
OK, there is a 99.999999999999999999% chance that if a system receives fewer ports it will have fewer total games.
Do you disagree, or can you name any console since the NES that has had more exclusives than it had ports? No? Then who is the one with the flawed logic?
Historical fact:
No console with the fewest games has been #1 in sales. EVER.
And I think I covered the likelyhood of the Wii having more games despite having fewer ports.
We already know the wii will be cheaper to buy, develop on and buy games for, compared to 360 and PS3. So there might be fewer ports, and the hardware will be weaker, so what. To bring up an old comparison, DS vs PSP; who da man, keg?
We already know that developers make games around the system(s) they are most likely to turn a profit in. And that is certainly a combination of PS3 and 360, with the Wii being the odd man out due to it's design.
And if you are going to try to counter that, try countering it with some historical evidence, and not some horribly flawed logic based on extrodinary speculation.
Similar threads
