NPD February 2009

[Silent_Buddha]

The cross platform titles that did well usually have a good track record. Many Sony first party titles are new IPs. Look at MGS4, it's exclusive to PS3 but outperform most new IPs on PS3.

One thing that I find interesting is that this generation (at least so far) companies developing new IP on the X360 have been far more successful at "connecting" with the X360 userbase than PS3 devs have had in creating new IP that "connects" with the PS3 userbase.

Athough this viewpoint may be extremely skewed with regards to NA numbers versus worldwide numbers.

For example, Gears 1 and Left for Dead did astonishingly well for new IPs. On the other hand I'm having a tough time of thinking of any new IP on PS3 as being a "blockbuster" although many of them have been quite good games.

Regards,
SB

 

[Rangers]

Gears of War 1 was also around before Halo 3, CoD4, CoD WaW, L4D, etc.

At the time of it's release, KZ2 had a LOT of market share to compete with. You could even say that Halo Wars and Resident Evil 5 were competiting, even if they released after. Gamers don't buy *everything* that releases, mind you. Those playing CoD4, and more recently CoD WaW are playing because they can pick it up, play with people they know, and don't have to spend $60.

What exactly did Gears 1 have to content with on that front? Halo 2? Right. Apples to oranges.

Gears had the entire PS3 and Wii launches to contend with..do I really think it mattered? No. But you can always come up with some excuse.

 

[Rangers]

Within' five seconds of using the d-pad you realize how bad it sucks. Anyone who owns a 360 knows it. If you own it and you think the d-pad is complete shit, why would you buy SF4? I'm sure there are a lot of people that wouldn't buy it for that reason.

I owned one, I've been hardcore gamer for 20 years, and I didnt know it was broken till I read it on the internet. And please dont try to argue with me about that, because that would be ridiculous.

We have seen this trend with games before, didn't DMC sell relatively better on PS3? I think it's a few things..it seems certain franchises are more known on Playstation perhaps. And I think the 360 userbase is more shooter focused.

Also, I read an interesting reason why Feb hardware sales seem high that makes sense to me..tax returns. Something like a videogame console is definitely a typical buy with a tax return check.

 

[Rangers]

You're right that is crazy. You say that you think Wii is the loser for Febuary NPD but then go on to mention not one single negative. Probably because there isn't one, hence the craziness.

I'd say a negative is that 360 has 9 titles in the top 20 while Wii has 6, wouldn't you? Considering that Wii base=19 million 360=14.5m.

How bout this: PS360 install base =21.7m, Wii=19m, PS360=12 games in top 20, Wii=6.

Anyways, I shouldnt have worded it like that. It's just that I'm watching closely to see now that demand has finally equalized supply, if Wii starts to drop off. It hasnt yet, so it's all conjecture on my part. However, this is the first true "baseline" we've ever had for Wii. This is not a supply constrained Wii number for the first time ever. That's a big deal imo.

 

[patsu]

One thing that I find interesting is that this generation (at least so far) companies developing new IP on the X360 have been far more successful at "connecting" with the X360 userbase than PS3 devs have had in creating new IP that "connects" with the PS3 userbase.

Athough this viewpoint may be extremely skewed with regards to NA numbers versus worldwide numbers.

For example, Gears 1 and Left for Dead did astonishingly well for new IPs. On the other hand I'm having a tough time of thinking of any new IP on PS3 as being a "blockbuster" although many of them have been quite good games.

There are disappointments on 360 too. But if the titles match the user needs, they should sell well.

Some of the new PS3 IPs introduced new concepts (e.g., SIXAXIS usage, new gameplay mechanics with unusual theme) or focused on technical breakthroughs. The existing core gamers may not take well to them. It will take time to sink in the new ideas. For regular cross-platform games, PS3 sold proportionally well compared to 360. So I don't think it's a problem.

Meanwhile, the PSN games is a marvellous collection of cool and weird games. Since they are priced lower, the gamers may be more willing to experiment with them than $60 ones.

I'd say a negative is that 360 has 9 titles in the top 20 while Wii has 6, wouldn't you? Considering that Wii base=19 million 360=14.5m.

Anyways, I shouldnt have worded it like that. It's just that I'm watching closely to see now that demand has finally equalized supply, if Wii starts to drop off. It hasnt yet, so it's all conjecture on my part. However, this is the first true "baseline" we've ever had for Wii. This is not a supply constrained Wii number for the first time ever. That's a big deal imo.

The Wii idea is also very new. It will take time for developers to find the sweetspot. But once they do, the larger install base should weigh in.

 

[fearsomepirate]

No one's mentioned it, so I'll say it again...the "evergreen" titles on Wii and DS are really breaking the mold. Mario Kart, Wii Fit, and New SMB are all old titles. The last time I saw something like this was Halo 1 on the Xbox (it was in the top 20 for a long, long time). I think the reason that succeeded for so long is that for the longest time, there really weren't many if any games of comparable quality, and the game eventually took on a life of its own. That's what we have on Wii--hardly anything is of comparable quality to the 1st-party offerings.

That's why developers should not attempt to port their "difficult" games to Wii.

Wii vs HD isn't about "easy" vs "hard." Have you actually played any video games in the last ten years? "Difficult" is not exactly a defining characteristic.

HotD:Overkill was a high-quality game with a lot of advertising.

Quality is defined by customers, not by pundits. Sega put out HotD:Overkill because the HotD 2&3 compilation, RE:UC, and Ghost Squad all did pretty well, suggesting further exploration into rail shooters (which is why Capcom and EA have announced more entries into the genre). It was not because they "listened to fans"...what, do you think they care about those goofy Internet petitions or forums? If it failed, it's not because "Wii owners don't buy light gun games," because they've already bought a couple million. It might be because "Wii owners are tired of light gun games," or maybe, "Wii owners don't want constant f-bombs in their light gun games." Look at all the data, not just that which supports your biases.

Developers are only blaming Nintendo and the customers for their failures in 'core' games.

Is there any kind of game failure they blame on themselves? So far, the only company I see taking credit for any of its 'misses' on the Wii is EA. Everyone else is whining that customers are too stupid to realize how awesome their games are, or Nintendo's brand image makes it impossible for them to succeed. In any industry, companies that blame others for their failures are doomed. If your product doesn't sell, it is never the customer's fault. It is never your competitor's fault (outside of legal shenanigans, of course). It is your fault. Blaming other entities for your company's failing line of products is a recipe for continued failure.

I don't believe MadWorld will do much better.

I don't believe MadWorld will succeed because it appears to be a cynical, hardcore cliche. I see people online excited about MadWorld because they hope lots of other people will buy it, making it serve as a magical catalyst for a flood of violent games on Wii...not because anyone thinks it looks like something worth buying.

 

[Richard]

Wii vs HD isn't about "easy" vs "hard." Have you actually played any video games in the last ten years? "Difficult" is not exactly a defining characteristic.

That's probably why patsu put the word difficult in quotes. He was referring to the appearance of overall complexity to the end-users (which they would call "difficulty") rather than the hardcore definition of "game difficulty".

 

[obonicus]

No one's mentioned it, so I'll say it again...the "evergreen" titles on Wii and DS are really breaking the mold. Mario Kart, Wii Fit, and New SMB are all old titles. The last time I saw something like this was Halo 1 on the Xbox (it was in the top 20 for a long, long time). I think the reason that succeeded for so long is that for the longest time, there really weren't many if any games of comparable quality, and the game eventually took on a life of its own. That's what we have on Wii--hardly anything is of comparable quality to the 1st-party offerings.

Quality is defined by customers, not by pundits. Sega put out HotD:Overkill because the HotD 2&3 compilation, RE:UC, and Ghost Squad all did pretty well, suggesting further exploration into rail shooters (which is why Capcom and EA have announced more entries into the genre). It was not because they "listened to fans"...what, do you think they care about those goofy Internet petitions or forums? If it failed, it's not because "Wii owners don't buy light gun games," because they've already bought a couple million. It might be because "Wii owners are tired of light gun games," or maybe, "Wii owners don't want constant f-bombs in their light gun games." Look at all the data, not just that which supports your biases.

Have you seen the advertising campaign behind HotD:Overkill? Why is SEGA backing The Conduit? SEGA is the only publisher that actually believes there's a core audience on the Wii. Yeah, SEGA thought a light gun game would sell (as does EA, as their next big Wii release will be a Dead Space light gun game), but why didn't they go for a quick cash-in, more akin to Umbrella Chronicles? Yes, Overkill was a high-quality game, in that it had high-production values, especially for the Wii. Certainly more so than other SEGA games that sell far better.

Is there any kind of game failure they blame on themselves? So far, the only company I see taking credit for any of its 'misses' on the Wii is EA. Everyone else is whining that customers are too stupid to realize how awesome their games are, or Nintendo's brand image makes it impossible for them to succeed. In any industry, companies that blame others for their failures are doomed. If your product doesn't sell, it is never the customer's fault. It is never your competitor's fault (outside of legal shenanigans, of course). It is your fault. Blaming other entities for your company's failing line of products is a recipe for continued failure.

Activision has taken the same posture as EA, acting false contrite about their lackluster Wii support. And again, let's talk about SEGA. SEGA is probably the most successful third party on the Wii. They're also probably the leader in third-party support on Wii. And yes, it is Nintendo's fault. The other publishers fostered 3rd-party relations, something Nintendo never has. The other publishers have, in the past and present paid for games. Nintendo isn't interested in doing this, even though they certainly have the cash to do it.

They either had no interest in a core demographic or thought it'd form on its own, and either way it's probably too late now. Anything they do now will only show results in 2011. They need to stick their expanded audience -- it's a terribly risky thing to base your business on hitting homeruns (aka releasing Wii Fit after Wii Fit).

I don't believe MadWorld will succeed because it appears to be a cynical, hardcore cliche. I see people online excited about MadWorld because they hope lots of other people will buy it, making it serve as a magical catalyst for a flood of violent games on Wii...not because anyone thinks it looks like something worth buying.

That's also not true. It's a game by what's left of Capcom's auteur studio and it's, again, a game with high production values, remarkably-so for the Wii. It's going to fail because the audience simply doesn't want this kind of game. The 'core' Wii audience overestimates itself, they can't understand that for a core gamer there are systems that are far better choices.

 

[joker454]

That is a gross simplification, as the PS2 was last to $149 and still isn't $99. What really matters is what product the customers want the most. You need to stay ahead of your competitor's pricing in order to retain your lead, or you might be able to lag it (or even ignore it) because the customers value your product more highly.

Last gen is irrelevant, look at where we are today. At this stage of this generation it's very simple, it's over. The 360 is already "valued highly", our sales figures and attach rates make that abundantly clear, so that part is already taken care of. The 'value' of the 360 is simply no longer in dispute (well, except on forums). It is incredibly valuable to customers and studios alike. Being first to $149 and $99 is the icing on the cake that makes the 360 *the* most important product to support for the duration of this generation. That's why I say this gen is effectively over.

The Wii is the only machine still in flux as we try to figure out games that will sell on it. Most have failed because they were ports in one way or another, they didn't cater to the unique nature of the Wii audience. But figuring it out will take more development dollars than has been spent so far. Dev dollars are a fixed amount, so I'll leave it up to you to determine where they are being shifted from.

 

[aselto]

360 numbers are fantastic. Looking at Top 20, it seems a lot of people wanted to have a machine to play new (but traditional) games, but were held back by high price points. It'd be interesting to see if 360 is able to sustain PS2-level sales for the rest of the year or was it just a random fluctuation?

 

[obonicus]

Being first to $149 and $99 is the icing on the cake that makes the 360 *the* most important product to support for the duration of this generation. That's why I say this gen is effectively over.

The 360 will probably never be overcome by the PS3, but their lead isn't overwhelming. This isn't the PS2 days, where your focus on a single 'core' system would pay off: the PS3 has 21 million sold to the 360's 28 million. Take Japan out of the mix, since they're not buying western games anyway (though Capcom is one of the most prolific and high-quality pubs this-gen), and we still have 18 million to 27. Hell, this gen I'm hearing more and more about console games being released day and ate with the PC version. HD's a scattershot approach, you toss games wherever they might sell and hope they stick.

But I don't really understand about these arbitrary barriers. Are you saying that $199 is still too high a price? Again, comparisons with the PS2 don't really bear that out. Hell, the Wii's popularity speaks against that. It's already cheaper than the Wii and undersells it and has been cheaper than the PS3 for a long while.

The Wii is the only machine still in flux as we try to figure out games that will sell on it. Most have failed because they were ports in one way or another, they didn't cater to the unique nature of the Wii audience. But figuring it out will take more development dollars than has been spent so far. Dev dollars are a fixed amount, so I'll leave it up to you to determine where they are being shifted from.

There's only one answer here, if there is this shift: PCPS360. Like you said, Wii games can't be ports, they have to be developed for the system. This means that new titles have to be titles designed to the Wii's strengths. Again, Sega is the leader here. And Sega's got a lot more Wii efforts (and successes, really) than games for the HD consoles, and we probably won't see a slew of new HD titles announced by them, certainly not internally, and probably not from outside devs either (unless Platinum Games' 4th game is HD).

 

[vanquish]

Why is the Wii still selling so well? Even with the 360 being significantly cheaper.
Many analysts thought it was going to be a short-lived fad, it seems not, to the detriment of traditional gamers.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Why is the Wii still selling so well? Even with the 360 being significantly cheaper.
Many analysts thought it was going to be a short-lived fad, it seems not, to the detriment of traditional gamers.

How is it a detriment? There doesn't seem to be a shortage of high profile games for the 360 and PS3.

 

[BoardBonobo]

How is it a detriment? There doesn't seem to be a shortage of high profile games for the 360 and PS3.

I think he's just annoyed because it's selling\sold more than the 360. And that equates to a detriment, whereas in reality its very much a good thing for gamers to have the choice.

 

[fearsomepirate]

but why didn't they go for a quick cash-in, more akin to Umbrella Chronicles?

Have you played Umbrella Chronicles? It's no more or less of a quick cash-in than HotD: Overkill. The production values are top-notch, on par with Capcom's Gamecube efforts (although the game obviously is not as lengthy).

Activision has taken the same posture as EA, acting false contrite about their lackluster Wii support.

EA isn't doing "false contrite." They are actively and continually revising their strategy toward developing and publishing on Wii to try and figure out what works and what doesn't. The first title to show they were serious was Madden All-Play. It wasn't a sales success, but it marked a philosophical shift in how they were approaching Wii. The new fitness, tennis, and golf games coming out (the latter of which use M+) continue that. I don't see much like that out of Activision.

And again, let's talk about SEGA. SEGA is probably the most successful third party on the Wii.

Activision might be more successful.. I'm sure you've heard of Guitar Hero, Lego Star Wars/Indiana Jones, and Force Unleashed. Of course, they've had a number of bombs as well.

It's a game by what's left of Capcom's auteur studio and it's, again, a game with high production values, remarkably-so for the Wii.

And you think that stops it from being a cliche? Let me tell you about JRPGs some time... Seriously, MadWorld is a cliche because it's supposed to be "edgy" and "cool" because of its over-the-top violence. We're supposed to care about it because it has a "wicked artistic vision," and it's a truly significant title on Wii because of its "no-holds-barred production values." Every cliche about hardcore gaming comes out in force when it comes to MadWorld.

RE: UC sold over a million units, by the way. Violent games can indeed sell on Wii.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Why is the Wii still selling so well? Even with the 360 being significantly cheaper.
Many analysts thought it was going to be a short-lived fad, it seems not, to the detriment of traditional gamers.

I'm not sure how this is a detriment. After all the Wii caters (mostly) to a completely and totally different population demographic than PS3/X360.

Wii doesn't detract significantly from "traditional" (read: PS3/X360) game types as those type are what the general Wii audience is looking for or wants.

Now if all dev dollars suddenly shifted away from PS3/X360 to Wii development (once studios can figure out what the Wii audience actually wants) then that may be a problem. But all indications are that at least X360 budgets are going to be staying the same if not going up a bit.

Regards,
SB

 

[obonicus]

Have you played Umbrella Chronicles? It's no more or less of a quick cash-in than HotD: Overkill. The production values are top-notch, on par with Capcom's Gamecube efforts (although the game obviously is not as lengthy).

I assume you're excluding RE4 from 'Capcom's Gamecube efforts'. I'm not saying UC was a bad game, but I disagree that it had the same level of production values. There's this problem with Wii games in which people defending the Wii will do whatever they can to find flaws in games that fail, and elevate games that succeed, rather than admit that the expanded audience Nintendo sought just hasn't grown to 'upscale' games, or whatever the silly term is in the Blue Ocean theory.

EA isn't doing "false contrite." They are actively and continually revising their strategy toward developing and publishing on Wii to try and figure out what works and what doesn't. The first title to show they were serious was Madden All-Play. It wasn't a sales success, but it marked a philosophical shift in how they were approaching Wii. The new fitness, tennis, and golf games coming out (the latter of which use M+) continue that. I don't see much like that out of Activision.

Oh, no debate there. They are doing All-Play. What I mean, though is that we're not seeing the expected shift from HD titles to Wii titles you'd expect from that statement. HD development is still center-stage, and will probably continue to be. We still won't see EA actually testing new IPs against the Wii. The Wii could be the next PS2, I suppose, but it doesn't seem like anyone is actually interested in pushing for that. And that includes Nintendo.

Activision might be more successful.. I'm sure you've heard of Guitar Hero, Lego Star Wars/Indiana Jones, and Force Unleashed. Of course, they've had a number of bombs as well.

As far as I can tell, Activision has only published Lego Star Wars in Europe. There's another publisher called Lucasarts, though I understand that, given how bad their output has been lately, that you've forgotten about them. If you add any two publishers though, can I add Sega to 2K?

And you think that stops it from being a cliche? Let me tell you about JRPGs some time... Seriously, MadWorld is a cliche because it's supposed to be "edgy" and "cool" because of its over-the-top violence. We're supposed to care about it because it has a "wicked artistic vision," and it's a truly significant title on Wii because of its "no-holds-barred production values." Every cliche about hardcore gaming comes out in force when it comes to MadWorld.

That doesn't mean a cliche. That means you have some crazy problem with 'hardcore' games and you're transferring them to Madworld. Because that's all you're saying 'I don't like Madworld because it's too much like a hardcore game', rather than any problem with the game itself. It's exactly what Wii zealots have been crying for, and now that they have it, now that they realize that it'll fail based on the Wii's fairly limited 'core' userbase they'll make sure that it does.

RE: UC sold over a million units, by the way. Violent games can indeed sell on Wii.

So did RE4:Wii edition. So far, nothing has convinced me that the people buying these games aren't the same people who bought the Gamecube last-gen: aka the Nintendo die-hards. Nothing really suggests that the PS2 audience has moved to the Wii, other than sales numbers, and when we start to talk about those it soon becomes clear we don't know what we're saying.

 

[joker454]

But I don't really understand about these arbitrary barriers. Are you saying that $199 is still too high a price? Again, comparisons with the PS2 don't really bear that out. Hell, the Wii's popularity speaks against that. It's already cheaper than the Wii and undersells it and has been cheaper than the PS3 for a long while.

$199 is a good price and very strategic. But the current economic situation along with a longer than expected generation make the sub $199 price points very important. In the past a machine may have hit $129-$149 or so as it started it's downturn, but this gen they may hit that price and still be in their prime, so many sales are expected in the sub $199 price brackets.

 

[Fafalada]

In the past a machine may have hit $129-$149 or so as it started it's downturn, but this gen they may hit that price and still be in their prime, so many sales are expected in the sub $199 price brackets.

This is simply untrue - at least for previous two generations, sales were always higher at sub 199$.
PS1 and PS2 both made majority of their sales below 199$ (including posting their record years in that price range). PS1 actually sold 30Milion at 99$(or below), a price point that PS2 hasn't even hit yet(maybe it never will).
IIRC Xbox1 had its by far the best year in 2004, when it was long priced below 199$ as well.

Reality is that Wii has been breaking PS2 records at much higher price PS2 was when it posted them.

 

[vanquish]

I think he's just annoyed because it's selling\sold more than the 360. And that equates to a detriment, whereas in reality its very much a good thing for gamers to have the choice.

And the PS3 too. Which in itself shows you that the majority of console buyers are idiots and will pay more for outdated technology.

I'm not sure how this is a detriment. After all the Wii caters (mostly) to a completely and totally different population demographic than PS3/X360.

Wii doesn't detract significantly from "traditional" (read: PS3/X360) game types as those type are what the general Wii audience is looking for or wants.

Now if all dev dollars suddenly shifted away from PS3/X360 to Wii development (once studios can figure out what the Wii audience actually wants) then that may be a problem. But all indications are that at least X360 budgets are going to be staying the same if not going up a bit.

Regards,

SB

Maybe not now, but next gen, when MS and Sony will want a slice of the casual pie and devs are lured away from making traditional games.
You can see it happening in stuff like the NXE, 'no death' titles like Fable 2, POP etc.
I don't want my games dumbed down so the lowest common denominator can play them.

Wii is gaming's equivalent of reality TV.