NPD April 2008 (Post #16)

[assen]

If established third parties can port old games for the Wii controller and make decent money, they won't create a new hardcore game to make less money at higher risk.

It's not "for the Wii controller" anymore. The controller was the initial hook, and what got casuals interested in the platform. Now it's "make games for the dominant platform".

And they *are* making games, more than last year: GH4, Rock Band, heck, even Call of Duty 5 will be on the Wii.

 

[Nesh]

Another way to look at it is despite not getting some of the multi-console best sellers like COD4, Assassins Creed, or GTA4, the Wii still manage to sell more software than the other two. Who's fault is it that the best selling Wii games are first party Nintendo?

I see some parallel of the Wii selling more software and the PS3 selling bluray. The Wii will simply overwhelm the other guys with a large growing install base. Even if that install base buy less software per unit, the size will more than make up for it.

So are third parties leaving money on the table? RE4 on the Wii, the 3rd or 4th release of this few-year-old game, selling over a million copies showed that there is a market for good hardcore games. Yet third parties continue to neglect it.

If they start making some of the high profile games that are now targeted on the PS3 or 360 on the Wii, I will be forced to buy a Wii for sure.

Notice the word forced in bold. It is something that atleast me and some others (unknown quantity although I suspect they are many), wouldnt want to see happen because I want the next MGS, FF, ZOE, Resident Evil, DMC etc to take advantage of the visual and technological opportunities offered by the next generation of consoles. Not the same games, hindered by the hardware limitations of the previous gen with just the control scheme replaced as the biggest difference.

I am sure that this is something that developers are also taking into consideration and thats why they are still preferring to make them on another platform. Even on the PS3 which is a "pain in the ass".

Wii has been the platform of spin offs and remakes mostly

Also many of the successful high profile games are more matured themed. COD4? Bioshock? Final Fantasy? Metal Gear? Gears of War? Devil May Cry?

The best selling games on the Wii seem to be more appealing to younger ages or to everyone which says something about the target market, and thus the type of games that the developers are willing to create on it.

Resident Evil 4 is probably an exception for various reasons. Many people who bought it, owned it previously on the GC or PS2 or were the old Nintendo fans. I dont know how many these are, but I suspect there are quite a large number since most people I ve talked to who own it for Wii owned it already or were Nintendo hardcores

 

[one]

It's not "for the Wii controller" anymore. The controller was the initial hook, and what got casuals interested in the platform. Now it's "make games for the dominant platform".

And they *are* making games, more than last year: GH4, Rock Band, heck, even Call of Duty 5 will be on the Wii.

How do you know they are not ports from PS2 + Wii remote support?

 

[assen]

How do you know they are not ports from PS2 + Wii remote support?

Are the PS3 versions of these games "ports from the Xbox 360 with sixaxis support"? Are all of them "ports from the PC build of the engine with controller support"?

 

[acaeus]

If they start making some of the high profile games that are now targeted on the PS3 or 360 on the Wii, I will be forced to buy a Wii for sure.

Notice the word forced in bold. It is something that atleast me and some others (unknown quantity although I suspect they are many), wouldnt want to see happen because I want the next MGS, FF, ZOE, Resident Evil, DMC etc to take advantage of the visual and technological opportunities offered by the next generation of consoles. Not the same games, hindered by the hardware limitations of the previous gen with just the control scheme replaced as the biggest difference.

I am sure that this is something that developers are also taking into consideration and thats why they are still preferring to make them on another platform. Even on the PS3 which is a "pain in the ass".

Wii has been the platform of spin offs and remakes mostly

Also many of the successful high profile games are more matured themed. COD4? Bioshock? Final Fantasy? Metal Gear? Gears of War? Devil May Cry?

The best selling games on the Wii seem to be more appealing to younger ages or to everyone which says something about the target market, and thus the type of games that the developers are willing to create on it.

Resident Evil 4 is probably an exception for various reasons. Many people who bought it, owned it previously on the GC or PS2 or were the old Nintendo fans. I dont know how many these are, but I suspect there are quite a large number since most people I ve talked to who own it for Wii owned it already or were Nintendo hardcores

Most games are spin offs and remakes, it applies to all platforms. It's just the nature of the beast as being truly innovative is too risky when the costs are so high. The same applies to Hollywood and movies, romantic commedies anyone?

I'd even daresay that Wii games are in general more innovative than most PS3X360 games. There is nothing on the HD platforms remotely similar to Wii play for example (like it or not). If the HD console games produce nice visuals (I certainly enjoy playing my PS3 btw), I have an entirely different experience playing the Wii. That to me indicates a revolution, rather than an evolution.

If I had to pick one, it'd be the PS3, but I certainly like and fully enjoy what the Wii has to offer. That's what a hardcore gamer like myself does, he doesn't have prejudice with this or that console or company, he just enjoys gaming. I just don't own a 360 because the hardware, IMHO, is crap. Besides, the PC covers some of the 360 library (e.g. bioshock).

 

[Nesh]

Most games are spin offs and remakes, it applies to all platforms. It's just the nature of the beast as being truly innovative is too risky when the costs are so high. The same applies to Hollywood and movies, romantic commedies anyone?

I'd even daresay that Wii games are in general more innovative than most PS3X360 games. There is nothing on the HD platforms remotely similar to Wii play for example (like it or not). If the HD console games produce nice visuals (I certainly enjoy playing my PS3 btw), I have an entirely different experience playing the Wii. That to me indicates a revolution, rather than an evolution.

If I had to pick one, it'd be the PS3, but I certainly like and fully enjoy what the Wii has to offer. That's what a hardcore gamer like myself does, he doesn't have prejudice with this or that console or company, he just enjoys gaming. I just don't own a 360 because the hardware, IMHO, is crap. Besides, the PC covers some of the 360 library (e.g. bioshock).

You may be trying to put sequels in the same basket as remakes and spin offs but no matter how you put it Resident Evil 4 for Wii, or Okami, or FF Crystal Cronicles are not in the same league as the new Resident Evil 5, FF13 or a new IP project on a next gen hardware. They arent that innovative either.


I see nothing revolutionary for example in Wii when the same game mechanics can be implemented in most games with a standard controller. Okami for example was innovative on the PS2. It is no longer innovative on the Wii. It does the exact same thing, the exact same concept, the exact same results. It is not a genuinely new experience or idea that can not be implemented without the Wii controller. The same counts for just about any game released on the Wii.

I wouldnt be surprised if MGS4 has much more innovation with a standard controller than anything the Wii has offered.

Even if I take the example of Wii Play, I can not see anything remarkable on it. Many of these games are almost identical to the countless of games played over the internet in an almost identical way with a.....MOUSE. Others are no different than what it was experienced with a light gun. It is a fun collection of games which are appropriate with a wii controller. For what it is, it does a great job. But how much innovative it is? I see games that existed before and the same exact concepts. There is no new idea involved, thus no risk of trying something new. A hardcore gamer may find it appealing for a "change" but it is not sustainable.

Even if we I do consider Wii Play as an "innovative" example of the Wii mote use, it can not apply as successfully and innovatively for any type of game and genre in every situation.

Many of the high profile games do not need that so called "innovative" controls. The emphasis is not needed on a new control scheme. It is not that, that makes the next sequel or idea more immersing in many of these games. The FF series for example relies a lot on plot development, design, art and expression. Wii can not develop on these in the manner PS3 does with FF13, but it can change the controlling method. Which may not necessarily make the experience better or innovative. Not because the developer doesnt want to deal with risk of innovation, but simply because it is either dysfunctional, or it can not create any new concept that can bring that mind blowing difference in the overall experience. For example Resi 4's use of Wii mote probably the best implementation there is for that type of game, and even as such it doesnt necessarily make it better than Resi5 in terms of overall experience. Or a Resi 5 on Wii cant necessarily offer what people are seeking from the next Resi game.

Do not take Wii mote's "innovation" as a given. It can not always bring innovation. It is not just a decision. The potential are rarely there. It introduces the same ideas replaced with motion sensing. The risk brought with it is not just an implementation of an innovative idea that may not be marketable, its simply a tried idea that is dysfunctional with a Wii controller, or at the best case scenario is just as good as the standard controller while sacrificing all the potential brought by more powerful hardware. This is in many cases the risk developers see INCLUDING the market or the experience that consumers seek on it. These give reasons not to develop on Wii but rather go the spin off or remake route in order not to sacrifice their high profile games.

 

[Mintmaster]

A BluRay less DVD based PS3 definitely would have been more competitive against both the Wii and 360 in terms of price. But the lack of PS3 software can't be blamed on BluRay as that has to do more devs getting their head wrapped around the Cell and RSX.

If Sony planned for a late 2005 or early 2006 launch from the beginning, devs would have had much more time with much better tools. I don't buy any BS about delays with the PS3, especially when you look at the launch supply. Regardless of what they say, it was planned for late 2006 from software to hardware.

Whenever someone makes a suggestion about a BR-less PS3, it's the whole strategy built around such a notion, not a last minute change.

But a runaway success of any of three console would have come at the expense of one or both of the other two. I doubt the US market has room for two consoles selling 700K a month.

True, but Zassk isn't suggesting Wii would sell 700K/mo with PS3 launching a year earlier at a much lower price. Regardless of how much of a homerun the Wii is, going up against an already established PS3 which costs only $50 more would be a far more daunting task.

 

[Teasy]

Wii Play, SMG, Mario Party 8, SSBB, Zelda

Those 5 titles easily account for over 1/3rd of that 50 million number, maybe as much as half.

They don't account for anywhere near half, about 1/3 was a good guestimate. Every Nintendo published game on Wii comes to about 25 million, leaving the other half for third parties.. Still far more then PS3, and even 360 if you remove MS published games.

Heh. 1st party Nintendo titles as suspected.

It was obvious that the best selling games on Wii would be from Nintendo. They have the reputation for quality and in fact have a signficant proportion of the best games on the system.. That doesn't change the fact that far more games were sold on Wii in its first 18 months then any other console. Which sort of makes a mockery of this opinion that Wii is a console primarily for non gamers..

Also doesn't change the fact that more third party games were sold on Wii in its first 18 months then on either PS3 or 360!

 

[acaeus]

You may be trying to put sequels in the same basket as remakes and spin offs but no matter how you put it Resident Evil 4 for Wii, or Okami, or FF Crystal Cronicles are not in the same league as the new Resident Evil 5, FF13 or a new IP project on a next gen hardware. They arent that innovative either.

Remakes may or may no be innovative, depending whether I have already played them or not. Seriously though, very little is truly innovative, as it is much easier and safer to just copy what just works.

I see nothing revolutionary for example in Wii when the same game mechanics can be implemented in most games with a standard controller. Okami for example was innovative on the PS2. It is no longer innovative on the Wii. It does the exact same thing, the exact same concept, the exact same results. It is not a genuinely new experience or idea that can not be implemented without the Wii controller. The same counts for just about any game released on the Wii.

Well, agree to disagree. I do see a revolutionary concept with the wii mote and whether devs use it properly, that's devs problem. I game since 1980s and have never played anything remotely similar to Wii sports (yes as simple as it may be).

I wouldnt be surprised if MGS4 has much more innovation with a standard controller than anything the Wii has offered.

We disagree again, as much as MSG4 evolved from MSG3, it's going to be a mere evolution. In fact, animations will be as crappy as before (from the videos I've seen).

Aside from Eye Toy, the only truly innovative game I played on the PS3 was Motorstorm. It is also the first game about racing I ever bought in my life. And a lot of it was because of sixaxis use.

Even if I take the example of Wii Play, I can not see anything remarkable on it. Many of these games are almost identical to the countless of games played over the internet in an almost identical way with a.....MOUSE. Others are no different than what it was experienced with a light gun. It is a fun collection of games which are appropriate with a wii controller. For what it is, it does a great job. But how much innovative it is? I see games that existed before and the same exact concepts. There is no new idea involved, thus no risk of trying something new. A hardcore gamer may find it appealing for a "change" but it is not sustainable.

I like PC gaming better than Console gaming (by far). I like RPGs and RTS which are best on the PC. However, since I spend most of my time seating in front of an LCD screen at work, writing software, I try to avoid the *mouse* at all costs. So the next best thing is the Wii mode.

Sustainability will come (or not) from the developers. But again, I never played anything like Wii sport before. As simplistic as the game may be, it is different that everything else, thus innovative.

Even if we I do consider Wii Play as an "innovative" example of the Wii mote use, it can not apply as successfully and innovatively for any type of game and genre in every situation.

Many of the high profile games do not need that so called "innovative" controls. The emphasis is not needed on a new control scheme. It is not that, that makes the next sequel or idea more immersing in many of these games. The FF series for example relies a lot on plot development, design, art and expression. Wii can not develop on these in the manner PS3 does with FF13, but it can change the controlling method. Which may not necessarily make the experience better or innovative. Not because the developer doesnt want to deal with risk of innovation, but simply because it is either dysfunctional, or it can not create any new concept that can bring that mind blowing difference in the overall experience. For example Resi 4's use of Wii mote probably the best implementation there is for that type of game, and even as such it doesnt necessarily make it better than Resi5 in terms of overall experience. Or a Resi 5 on Wii cant necessarily offer what people are seeking from the next Resi game.

Do not take Wii mote's "innovation" as a given. It can not always bring innovation. It is not just a decision. The potential are rarely there. It introduces the same ideas replaced with motion sensing. The risk brought with it is not just an implementation of an innovative idea that may not be marketable, its simply a tried idea that is dysfunctional with a Wii controller, or at the best case scenario is just as good as the standard controller while sacrificing all the potential brought by more powerful hardware. This is in many cases the risk developers see INCLUDING the market or the experience that consumers seek on it. These give reasons not to develop on Wii but rather go the spin off or remake route in order not to sacrifice their high profile games.

I don't take it as a given, I take it as a tool that is unnavailable on the other consoles. I agree that many games on the Wii would play just as well on the other HD consoles (such as SMG). However, SMG is not hindered by the Wii mote in any way.

There is always risk in innovation. They did innovate, and whether Devs fully utilize Wii mote capability is probably something out of nintendo's control. Personally, my feeling from talking to people is that the Wii mote is MUCH more important to Wii's success than people here on these forums would have you believe.

 

[one]

Are the PS3 versions of these games "ports from the Xbox 360 with sixaxis support"? Are all of them "ports from the PC build of the engine with controller support"?

I don't see your point of bringing 360/PS3/PC here. Apparently thatdude90210 thinks third parties are leaving money on the table in the current situation, so he's not satisfied with what are currently available and wants hardcore games (see, GH4 and Rock Band are not hardcore) better than the RE4 port created for Wii as the new dominant platform (something like Red Steel?). My comment is about why large third-parties are not very interested in doing something beyond nominal hardcore games that are ports with Wii-remote support.

BTW it's interesting that porting is mutually beneficial to PS2 too, Wii is extending the life of PS2 now.

 

[thatdude90210]

Personally, my feeling from talking to people is that the Wii mote is MUCH more important to Wii's success than people here on these forums would have you believe.

Yep. How many more >700k to 188k beatings will the PS360 have to take before the "Wii is a fad and/or novelty" label wears away. What's worst about that beating was that it was administered during the launch of perhaps the biggest game this generation the PS360 will see.

I will go as far as to predict that when the PS360 find themselves priced to the "casual" price point in the future, they may find that the landscape had shifted. Those casual gamers will finally be able to afford them, but will not buy them in the numbers like they did when the PS2 became affordable. They will see the PS360 controllers and playing method as old fashion... even outdated. Last one with a Wiimote-like controller will be the loser.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I don't think that there's any room for debate on wether the Wii is innovative, as it certainly is. There hasn't been anything like the Wiimote before and it has changed gaming for ever; we're probably going to see similar controllers on Microsoft's and Sony's next console too, and noone can take this away from Nintendo.


But it should be just as obvious that the innovation also ends with the wiimote, with the way the player can interact with the game. It makes it easier to get into the games then a traditional controller, and it may make certain kinds of games more fun, just as the transition from keyboard to mouse has launched the FPS wave.

Creating innovative gameplay on the Wii isn't any easier then on the PS3 or the X360, far from it - it's actually more difficult due to the restrictions on CPU power and memory. I've yet to see anything radically different on this console. The games library's difference from the HD platforms is easily explained - it cannot compete in their popular genres like FPS, sandbox games, racing games and such, so it has to differentiate itself. Whatever the Wii can do that's not the Wiimote, the other two consoles can always do better. So it plays on its strengths: new ways to play old games, or games that wouldn't be as exciting with a mouse, keyboard or analog stick controllers.

This is why we haven't seen too many outstanding games on the Wii, and even these few ones like Mario Galaxy aren't really tied to the new controller either, so they would be possible on the other platforms as well. On the other hand I can't see how GTA4, Bioshock, or the builtin editor of Little Big Planet would be possible on the Wii.

Gameplay innovations require a lot of time and research first, and of course the will to take risks. There's nothing special about the Wii in this regard, with enough of these one could break new ground on any console; but the more powerful ones allow more to be done. Yet this is also their weakness at the moment, as the HD resolution graphics are resource hungry and in most cases they take the CPU away from the game code. But there are exepctions and more will come.


Nintendo took a lot of risk with the new controller, and pulled back on every other front so that they would survive a failure. Their idea worked, but they won't sell a Wii 2 in the same numbers, it won't be enough. Fortunately they now have the financial resources to build a strong enough machine and truly innovate on gameplay as well.

 

[Nesh]

edit: ah it seems that Laa-Yosh covered my views better

Remakes may or may no be innovative, depending whether I have already played them or not. Seriously though, very little is truly innovative, as it is much easier and safer to just copy what just works.


Well, agree to disagree. I do see a revolutionary concept with the wii mote and whether devs use it properly, that's devs problem. I game since 1980s and have never played anything remotely similar to Wii sports (yes as simple as it may be).


We disagree again, as much as MSG4 evolved from MSG3, it's going to be a mere evolution. In fact, animations will be as crappy as before (from the videos I've seen).

Aside from Eye Toy, the only truly innovative game I played on the PS3 was Motorstorm. It is also the first game about racing I ever bought in my life. And a lot of it was because of sixaxis use.


I like PC gaming better than Console gaming (by far). I like RPGs and RTS which are best on the PC. However, since I spend most of my time seating in front of an LCD screen at work, writing software, I try to avoid the *mouse* at all costs. So the next best thing is the Wii mode.

Sustainability will come (or not) from the developers. But again, I never played anything like Wii sport before. As simplistic as the game may be, it is different that everything else, thus innovative.



I don't take it as a given, I take it as a tool that is unnavailable on the other consoles. I agree that many games on the Wii would play just as well on the other HD consoles (such as SMG). However, SMG is not hindered by the Wii mote in any way.

There is always risk in innovation. They did innovate, and whether Devs fully utilize Wii mote capability is probably something out of nintendo's control. Personally, my feeling from talking to people is that the Wii mote is MUCH more important to Wii's success than people here on these forums would have you believe.

Let me rephrase my post in simple words because it seems I probably confused you: The Wii Mote is not the ultimate tool that suddenly opens the opportunity to innovate in every game possible. It is impossible and utopian.

Things are just copied often because this is as far that they can go in order to remain playable.

I am not saying MGS4 will be an innovative game. But beware in the interpretation. "I wouldnt be surprised if MGS4 is more innovative with a standard controller than anything Wii has offered" 1) does not mean MGS4 is an innovative game 2) I am talking about the possibility not a fact and 3) animation can be irrelevant to innovation in the case of MGS4 and i have not idea how can you come up with such an irrelevant argument since none of us have played it to see whether there is some innovation and if yes where.

The next part about what you prefer (avoid a mouse) is an individual and personal preference of yours not related to innovation or the point I was trying to make.

The last part is again answered by my first point and I did not say that Wii can not be functional with existing games. It just doesnt necessarily bring anything new, or can work with every game. It just replaces controls with the possibility that some games will not work well with it. The developer simply can not see this as a motive to make their big projects on Wii. The only risk they are taking in most cases is the possibility of not making the game work properly with the controller while sacrificing with 100% certainty everything better technology offers on the other platforms. It is not always innovation the risk they are taking. It is implementation of their ideas because they are forced with no other choice on Wii.

 

[oli2]

I've yet to see anything radically different on this console.

IMO, Wii sports & Wii Fit are radically different.

Would you mind explaining me why you think those 2 (as examples) are not "radically different" ?

(as counter examples, they would discard your point).

Have you played RE4 Wii ? As a big fan of the GC / PS2 versions, IMO (again), on Wii, the experience is radically different (for the better).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

IMO, Wii sports & Wii Fit are radically different.

1) Laa-Yosh said "But it should be just as obvious that the innovation also ends with the wiimote, with the way the player can interact with the game." Wii Sports is different, but there's not much innovation beyond that.

2) Wii-Fit is a peripheral, and damned expensive one at £120! Gameplay wise I'd say this doesn't count, because it isn't a game. It's a muscle training exercise. Putting it another way, Wii Fit doesn't change the way you play shooters, racers, platformers, RPGs, simulations, or puzzle games. It would at best change the input from pressing a button to exerting a pressure, but even if you count those as innovations, does the world care? Kinda like surfboard or golf-controllers, that are innovative, but hardly matter in the grand scheme of things.

Would you mind explaining me why you think those 2 (as examples) are not "radically different" ?

His point was that outside of a few examples, what is radically different in Wii's gameplay? You have the waggle party games which, once you've got one, they're all much of a kin; you have shooters which are an improvement when you can point to aim, but gameplay wise the same run.shoot.cover mechanic of every other shooter; you have a couple of point+click games in Elebits and Boom Blox that wouldn't map onto a conventional controller; and the rest is traditional gameplay tagged onto a different controller. How is the gameplay in Mario Galaxies or Mario Kart different from what was being attained on the other controllers?

Wiimote is more about accessibility and tactile involvement than changing gameplay. The games themselves, the way characters are moved to attain objects, is fairly normal at this point in time. Which, as Laa-Yosh pointed out, is a matter of developers and not hardware. Some are doing new things, but most aren't. Which is no different to developers not doing new and exciting things with sixaxis, or the PS360's camera peripherals. Lots of potential for innovation, but with no-one pursuing it. None of these platforms are limited by hardware into regurgitating the same games over and over, especially if you're willing to add optional peripherals into the mix.

 

[SPM]

Yep. How many more >700k to 188k beatings will the PS360 have to take before the "Wii is a fad and/or novelty" label wears away. What's worst about that beating was that it was administered during the launch of perhaps the biggest game this generation the PS360 will see.

Is Wii a fad, or does it just have wider appeal beyond hardcore gamers? I would say the latter. Look at the DS vs PSP. Is the DS a fad? If so, it is a damn long running fad.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Shifty seems to be capable of reading my mind... gotta watch what I'm thinking about from now on...

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I don't think that Wii has signalled the death of the traditional console controller by any stretch of the imagination. I'd still guess that PS4 and the NextBox will come with standard controllers. They might also come with Wiimote-style controllers to get some of that market as well, but the traditional controller is here to stay IMO.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

The dilemma here is that if the wiimote-style controller is a separately available addon, then developers can't rely on its presence when they design a game and have to make it work without one.
But if you abandon the traditional "two analog sticks" stuff then you risk alienating the hardcore gamers...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The Wii itself hadn't really abandoned the conventional controls. There are plenty of games that don't use pointer/waggle for control. Various split designs would work giving the best of both worlds.