Gameinformer developer survey

[Powderkeg]

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.

I will concede that point.

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).

You've got to buy the game and open it to read the manual, right?

I've got 3 boxes for console racers right beside me. NONE of them say one word about a wheel being the preferred controller on the box.

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.

Apples to oranges.

First you are trying to compare entirely different systems to 2 different hardware requirements on a single system. Not even close to comperable.

Second, you are saying that people can't see the big fat letters on the side of the box.

I doubt too many people can't tell the difference between those the moment they see them. And that's a far cry from one little tiny line of text on the BACK of the box telling them which controller to use.

*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.

What can I said. You're abnormal.

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?

Do you know ANY casual gamers? Go to a game store and watch the customers that come in for an hour or two. See how many of them actually read the back of the box, and how many of them simply turn it over for a brief second to look at the screenshots.

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.

The flaw with your logic is that every unreleased game has an equal chance of success. Thus, the cumulative probability will always favor the greater number of games.

 

[StefanS]

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.

I am sorry, but a definition doesn't lose its validity just because it's not to your liking. Granted its not relevant to the point you're trying to make, but still "2nd party" is a well recognized term, not only limited to Nintendo.

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.

You have to concede a point here: Developing costs for Wii are going to be lower for Wii. Reducing costs is also a part of enlarging proft. So far it's still unclear, if engines used on Wii are ported from the nextgen consoles and reduced or old gamecube engines that are beefed up a little. The second option could further decrease costs for established developers.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Regards instructing customers, you can't rely on them to read the box. Most will, but some won't. On my eShop where I sell graphics plugins, in 3 seperate locations, 2 of which the customer is compelled to view, I tell them to download and try the free trial first to check for compatibility. That way I thought to distribute the documentation only with the trial version, and keep the full products as very small downloads. Yet plenty of customers buy without trying the trials, and in the end I duplicate a load of data between trials and full versions because despite telling customers to use the trials first, plenty ignore the instructions.

That said, I think the little icons are pretty effective. For whatever reason, the internet isn't awash with angry customers saying how lying cheating Sony scum sold them a game and then demanded they bought an extra EyeToy peripheral.

I'd hazard a guess written instructions go overlooked, whereas snapshot icons can communicate requirements effectively. A game with a 'standard controller' icon should be recognised. It ought to work without though. Even those dance mat games work with a standard controller!

 

[fearsomepirate]

It's a 1st party game to everyone else, just like PGR3 on the Xbox 360 is a 1st party game.

And there are lots of geniuses out there who think Metal Gear Solid is a "Sony" game. The fact is that Monster Games is yet another studio who thinks that developing a game exclusively for Wii is not exactly a total waste of their sweet time. Nintendo is paying them just like any publisher would pay them with some extra for an exclusive. If Monster bought into your "Gamecube is gay and Wii can't do parallax mapping, therefore Wii games will only sell a fraction what any X360 or PS3 game will" mentality, Nintendo would have to be paying them enormously more than EA would pay them.

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?

No, because I've already disproven your "no 3rd-party games except for sloppy ports and a few bones" claim, and that's all that counts.

It's ridiculous to suggest that most games on any system will be custom tailored or exclusive to that system.

Playstation 2, Playstation, DS, Atari 2600, NES, and Game Boy would like to have a word with you.

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.

Nonsense. I criticize Nintendo when they do stupid things that aggravate me. I can make a list if you want. But I don't criticize them or anyone else without facts. I may think the Playstation 3 is a retarded heap of crap, but I don't run around saying no one will buy it because I personally think it's stupidly expensive,

Admit that if I was criticizing MS you wouldn't have a problem with it

I would if you were saying things that didn't fit reality, like "MS is doomed because no one wants to buy the X360," like some guy is blabbering about in another forum (BenQ, I think).

Developers will go where they will make the MOST money.
PS3 + 360, or a special Wii game.

Not exactly. It's which ever one has the best risk-reward factor. For example, suppose developing a game on PS3 means that if it's a hit, you make bank, but if it's a dud, you get taken to the cleaners. For a small studio that can only produce one PS3 game every 18 months or so, a dud may mean bankrupcy. If developing on Wii means a hit makes you decent cash, a miss doesn't bankrupt you, and you can make a game every 10 months, making Wii games may very well be the best option. It depends also on how easy it is to have a hit, and how smart your management is. Certain franchises did extremely well on Cube, yet certain companies preferred to lose money chasing the "80 million plus userbase" Pied Piper of the PS2 and getting drowned in its sea of AAA exclusives rather than going with surefire moneymakers on the Cube (thinking especially of Timesplitters and Viewtiful Joe).

Which do you think most 3rd party developers would make the MOST money on?

I honestly can't say. There are too many variables. The barrier to entry on X360 and PS3 are both much, much higher than on Wii, and PS3's success is no longer guaranteed. The prohibitive costs may just keep more than a few studios out.

(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)

That was true only of Gamecube. N64 didn't have that many 3rd party games to buy (most were garbage), but I recall Turok, Rayman 2, and the other good ones being popular. Does 2nd party count? Rare games sold a lot.

 

[darkblu]

You've got to buy the game and open it to read the manual, right?

I've got 3 boxes for console racers right beside me. NONE of them say one word about a wheel being the preferred controller on the box.

exactly how does it matter? i said in one way or another the player will be informed what the preferred/optimal controller is (and in our case a controller that is not expensive or hard to find either, and has numerous uses too). it may be with an icon on the box, it may be with a game message, it may be with a chapter in the manual - or any combination thereof. i also said there'd be naturally an inferior fallback control scheme so that gameplay is possible regardless. it all flew over your head, though. ..no, wait, you conceded! ..unless you have this funny idea of conceding where after that you carry on with your original rambling.

what's the point of this "discussion" again? waste of bandwidth and forum space?

ps:

The flaw with your logic is that every unreleased game has an equal chance of success. Thus, the cumulative probability will always favor the greater number of games.

i see. well, let me introduce you then to the wonderful world of game consoles and the concept of system sellers vs mediocrity & trash (i remember now you were exhibiting difficulties grasping that back in 'the role of halo for xbox' argument we were having not long ago). well, if you stay a while on these boards, observe and try to comprehend i'm sure it will become all clear to you in time.

over and out.

 

[Powderkeg]

exactly how does it matter?

It matters because if the customer finds out he doesn't have the "preferred" controller BEFORE buying the game then they are at least informed, and can make a decision on whether they want to purchase the game, purchase the controller, or buy something else.

If they don't find out until after they've bought the game then they will feel cheated, or ripped off.

i see. well, let me introduce you then to the wonderful world of game consoles and the concept of system sellers vs mediocrity & trash (i remember now you were exhibiting difficulties grasping that back in 'the role of halo for xbox' argument we were having not long ago). well, if you stay a while on these boards, observe and try to comprehend i'm sure it will become all clear to you in time.

over and out.

"System Seller" is what people call any hit game. Of course, no single game has ever been responsible for a consoles success, as even the most successful game has failed to be bought by more than 20% of the users of that console unless it was included with the system as part of a bundle.

The true "system sellers" are the hit games that convince other developers that they want to move their potential hit games to that system too. That increases the total number of high quality games on the system which is what REALLY sells a system to gamers, a large variety of great games.

I realize you never grasped this concept, which is why you still think 1 hit series from a 1st party developer led to success, rather than the success of 3rd party developers leading to a dramtic increase of the total game library, and thus, increasing the attractiveness of the system to all gamers, and not just fans of the one 1st party game.

 

[Powderkeg]

And there are lots of geniuses out there who think Metal Gear Solid is a "Sony" game. The fact is that Monster Games is yet another studio who thinks that developing a game exclusively for Wii is not exactly a total waste of their sweet time. Nintendo is paying them just like any publisher would pay them with some extra for an exclusive. If Monster bought into your "Gamecube is gay and Wii can't do parallax mapping, therefore Wii games will only sell a fraction what any X360 or PS3 game will" mentality, Nintendo would have to be paying them enormously more than EA would pay them.

What makes you think Nintendo isn't paying them a huge amount to make the game? In case you didn't know, the Excite Truck IP is owned by NINTENDO, not Monster. Nintendo farmed out the game to another developer, it's not Monster's game nor their idea, it's simply the game Nintendo hired them to make.

And I rather suspect that if any publisher went to Monster and said "Make this game for us, we'll pay for it's development" they would do it regardless of their personal feelings towards that system. It's guaranteed money with zero risk of loss.

No, because I've already disproven your "no 3rd-party games except for sloppy ports and a few bones" claim, and that's all that counts.

You've disproven nothing more than you can name 6 games for the Wii that appear to be exclusives. Of course you had to include 1st party games to get the list that high.

Playstation 2, Playstation, DS, Atari 2600, NES, and Game Boy would like to have a word with you.

I doubt it. The only systems that you list where most games were custom tailored to that system were handhelds, which aren't consoles and require that level of customization due to the fact that no other system is remotely close to the same hardware.

Most Atari 2600 games were arcade ports. Most Playstation and PS2 games were multiplatform, except in Japan.

Nonsense. I criticize Nintendo when they do stupid things that aggravate me. I can make a list if you want. But I don't criticize them or anyone else without facts. I may think the Playstation 3 is a retarded heap of crap, but I don't run around saying no one will buy it because I personally think it's stupidly expensive,

Well, that's the only difference between you and me. I criticize any company I feel is making a stupid decision, and I don't care which company that is. I don't feel bound by system loyalty, so I'm not afraid to make complaints about any company.

I'm also not afraid to speculate in a thread that is nothing but speculation. You said you don't make complaints without facts, but you do make defenses without facts. Your presence in this thread is proof enough of that. I am consistent with both complaints and support, you apparently have different standards for each.

I would if you were saying things that didn't fit reality, like "MS is doomed because no one wants to buy the X360," like some guy is blabbering about in another forum (BenQ, I think).

And what claims of mine do you have proof that don't fit? Or is this proof requirement of yours only necessary with systems, and not people?

Not exactly. It's which ever one has the best risk-reward factor. For example, suppose developing a game on PS3 means that if it's a hit, you make bank, but if it's a dud, you get taken to the cleaners. For a small studio that can only produce one PS3 game every 18 months or so, a dud may mean bankrupcy. If developing on Wii means a hit makes you decent cash, a miss doesn't bankrupt you, and you can make a game every 10 months, making Wii games may very well be the best option. It depends also on how easy it is to have a hit, and how smart your management is. Certain franchises did extremely well on Cube, yet certain companies preferred to lose money chasing the "80 million plus userbase" Pied Piper of the PS2 and getting drowned in its sea of AAA exclusives rather than going with surefire moneymakers on the Cube (thinking especially of Timesplitters and Viewtiful Joe).

I notice you completely left out the fact that I said PS3 PLUS Xbox 360. You turned it into a PS3 vs Wii only response.

That wouldn't have been your bias showing through would it? A response that completely ignores the statement you were responding to isn't exactly living up to these lofty claims of proof that you've been making, does it? I mean to me it sure looks like you've twisted my words and ignored a major party of my point in order to make a response that allows you to defend Nintendo.

I honestly can't say. There are too many variables. The barrier to entry on X360 and PS3 are both much, much higher than on Wii, and PS3's success is no longer guaranteed. The prohibitive costs may just keep more than a few studios out.

What does the PS3's success being no longer guaranteed have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the Wii will be more successful that the PS3 and Xbox 360 combined? I sure would like to see your proof of that claim.

See, more word twisting by you in order to defend Nintendo. Always easier when you conveniently leave out the Xbox 360 in your responses, isn't it?

That was true only of Gamecube. N64 didn't have that many 3rd party games to buy (most were garbage), but I recall Turok, Rayman 2, and the other good ones being popular. Does 2nd party count? Rare games sold a lot.

I recall the N64 being outsold by the Playstation by almost 3:1, and it was only the utter failure of Sega that kept Nintendo from being in last place that generation too, again with the fewest number of 3rd party games.

 

[Powderkeg]

I am sorry, but a definition doesn't lose its validity just because it's not to your liking. Granted its not relevant to the point you're trying to make, but still "2nd party" is a well recognized term, not only limited to Nintendo.

A definition doesn't gain validity just because it is to your liking.

Fact is, Nintendo is the ONLY one who uses that definition. It's Nintendo against the whole world, and you must forgive me if I side with the whole world.

And if you doubt that, find me another publisher that refers to 2nd party games.

You have to concede a point here: Developing costs for Wii are going to be lower for Wii. Reducing costs is also a part of enlarging proft. So far it's still unclear, if engines used on Wii are ported from the nextgen consoles and reduced or old gamecube engines that are beefed up a little. The second option could further decrease costs for established developers.

You have to concede a point here.

When a developer decides to make a game they have a target system, and expected cost of development, and expected number of sales to cover that cost.

Without some actual Wii sales data the only thing developers can rely on is Nintendo's past performance in regards to 3rd party game sales. And the developer will not only be looking at the total number of 3rd party games that sell, they will be looking at the average success of games that are similar to their own.

If a developer were to look at the 3rd party game sales of racing sims on the Gamecube what would they find? What about 1st person shooters? Stealth games? Sports games?

There are whole genres which failed miserably on the Gamecube. What incentive does a developer have to take the risk of putting a game from one of these failed genres on the Wii exclusively, and ignoring the PS3 and 360 where these genres all have HUGE hit games?


Yes, cost of production is a factor, but a much larger factor is expected success in sales. Even if development cost is significantly cheaper, why would a racing sim developer make a Wii game when no racing sim has ever been very successful on any Nintendo system, ever?

 

[fearsomepirate]

It's Nintendo against the whole world

As a games publisher, Nintendo puts out far more software than the only two other companies who would be in a place to even use the term, "2nd party." So if they say "2nd party," it's "2nd party." And the fact is, we all know what it means. Monster Games isn't owned by or in any way a subsidiary of Nintendo. They're making a game, and Nintendo is working closely with them and publishing it. Terms are defined by their use. If you want to call games like Eternal Darkness, Baten Kaitos II, Outrun II, Fable, and Final Fantasy XI to all be "1st-party games." We all know what "2nd-party" means. "I think the term is stupid because Nintendo is gay" and "This isn't a meaningful word in the gamer vocabulary" are not equivalent statements.

Without some actual Wii sales data the only thing developers can rely on is Nintendo's past performance in regards to 3rd party game sales.

Because everyone knows that advertisement, focus group testing, and changing market conditions are useless. I don't know why these idiot companies even hire analysts to try to figure out the future path of gaming when all they have to do is look at the last 2 years to predict the next 5. Seriously, you should call up some CEOs and let them know what a mistake they're making:

**brrrriiiiiinnngggg**
Michael Ancel: Hello? Theese eez le Ubisoft
Powderkeg: Hi, this is Powderkeg from the Beyond3D forum. I was just calling to let you know that focusing the next Rayman game on the Wii is a total mistake.
MA: But le Wii! Eet eez le future! Did you not see the E3 performahnce, le feelthy American? Magnefique! Wii est l'amor! I have no doubt le Rayman will sell like, how you Americans say, le hotcakes!
PK: No, see, Wii is GAY. I don't know if you noticed, but you need to be making the Xbox 360 the lead platform for Rayman. Because X360 is cool and has Live Arcade. And when you do, think you can port all those parallax mappifications over to the Wii? NO WAY. And then no one will want to buy it, because the X360 version has the high-dynamic normal fur shader postprocessing algorithms.
MA: But we are almost le finished! The game is magnefique, I told you! Feelthy American, why don't you leesten? This game is le anteecipated, and I believe many gamers are excited to play it on Wii. Oui?
PK: But no one buys games on the Gamecube. Didn't you see how poorly Killer7 and Spyhunter 2 did? You are doomed. There is NO good reason to focus on the Wii with any game. No one will buy it because the Xbox 360 is so KEWL!!
MA: Sacre bleu! When you put it that way...le horreur! We must cancel le Rayman for le Wii! Merci, steenking American!

I'm pretty sure that's how the call will go. You should seriously contact him right away before he bankrupts Ubisoft with his mad schemes.

If a developer were to look at the 3rd party game sales of racing sims on the Gamecube what would they find?

They'd find that, y'know, there weren't any. I mean, there literally weren't any racing sims. The closest we got was R: Racing Evolution, but given that the game was universally reviled across all platforms, it's not a very good data point. So yeah, the Gamecube versions of Enthusia and Apex sold pretty horribly. Like, zero copies. You know, since they didn't exist. I would have loved to have bought a racing sim for my Gamecube if someone had bothered to freaking publish one.

What about 1st person shooters?

The only thing close to an AAA FPS released on the Cube was Timesplitters 2, which also sold highest on the Nintendo platform, IIRC. What else was there? We had EA's Bond FPS's, Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Geist, and Red Faction II. I gues MoH and CoD do well enough to keep getting sequels. Geist and RF2 sucked, so who cares how they did? Apparently, the fact that Nightfire didn't go multiplatinum isn't stopping Ubisoft.

Stealth games?

Well enough that Splinter Cell 4 is headed to Gamecube. Who else is there? It's not like MGS is headed to Xbox any time soon.

Sports?

EA Sports did respectably well until after 2004.

There are whole genres which failed miserably on the Gamecube.

How many of them were given serious effort? Like when people are complaining about Resident Evil Zero failing to go septuple platinum, no one points out that the game was basically a snorefest with pretty graphics totally outshone by Silent Hill and Fatal Frame. Oh no, Rogue Ops tanked. Geeze, you mean to say that SRS wasn't a smash hit? It sure is weird that PN03 didn't go platinum. Can anyone tell me why Bloody Roar didn't tear up the sales charts? My opinion is that there were only a handful of games ever released on the Gamecube that failed and didn't deserve to fail (or didn't fail across all platforms). By 2004, seems like every serious gamer decided to supplement his Cube with a PS2 or Xbox, so that's why I pretty much ignore everything after that point.

What incentive does a developer have to take the risk of putting a game from one of these failed genres on the Wii exclusively, and ignoring the PS3 and 360 where these genres all have HUGE hit games?

Are you serious? I mean, in the course of this discussion, I've posted a ton of reasons. Do you actually want me to list them all again, or are you being sarcastic?

By the way, you're wrong about most PS2/PSx games being cross-platform in Japan. The PS1 library was more than twice as big as either the Saturn or N64 libraries. Same with the PS2 and the Gamecube. Possibly the Xbox, too. And you know what cross-platform meant for this generation? Tailored for the PS2.

 

[one]

Fearsome, that phone conversation made my day
Certainly French people seem to love Nintendo more than other Europeans do.

 

[Farid]

Fearsome, you need to take some French language courses, badly.

 

[ChryZ]

Footage of what happened after the phone call, R.I.P. Powderkeg

 

[Magnum PI]

Certainly French people seem to love Nintendo more than other Europeans do.

i guess a jerry lewis game on a nintendo console would sell like hotcakes.