NPD July 2007

[fearsomepirate]

Sorry, but Nintendo is not putting out AAA titles every few months, that's frankly ridiculous.

So is your definition of AAA "In the all-time top 10 list of critics' favorites?" In that case, no system can have more than 10 AAA games. I would put it this way: Nintendo consistently puts out titles of reasonably high quality, with but a handful of duds, and they put out a lot of them. The vast majority of their titles score better than 80%. Can any publisher who's nearly as prolific claim the same thing?

On the other hand the two user bases are about the same size... so it -could- be better. And anyway, shifty's point is that most of that 4 pieces of software per Wii are from Nintendo and not from third parties

Earlier in Wii's life, when there were significant exclusives such as Red Steel (1m), Rayman (1m), Elebits (250K IIRC), plus some major franchise titles that broke 250K (Madden, Tiger Woods, COD3), third party titles comprised two thirds of Wii's sales. In the last few months, that's dropped to half. Either way, you're still wrong. IMO, the quality of third party titles has actually gone downhill since launch, the only exceptions being a port of a game that was already in the PS2 bargain bin, Godfather, and Madden 08 (which has sold substantially worse than 07 did on Wii). I mean, for all its flaws and some bugs, Red Steel is still one of the most graphically competent 3rd party games on the system, and that's just sad. Either way, "half" is not "most," and "half" is better than the usual "one-third" that third parties usually get. Link:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=14645

 

[scooby_dooby]

So is your definition of AAA "In the all-time top 10 list of critics' favorites?" In that case, no system can have more than 10 AAA games. I would put it this way: Nintendo consistently puts out titles of reasonably high quality, with but a handful of duds, and they put out a lot of them. The vast majority of their titles score better than 80%. Can any publisher who's nearly as prolific claim the same thing?

Not at all. I think most people would agree that a AAA title should at least average 90% or higher.

The Top 15 for GC just happen to be almost all the games that got over 90%.

Earlier in Wii's life, when there were significant exclusives such as Red Steel (1m), Rayman (1m), Elebits (250K IIRC), plus some major franchise titles that broke 250K (Madden, Tiger Woods, COD3), third party titles comprised two thirds of Wii's sales. In the last few months, that's dropped to half. Either way, you're still wrong. IMO, the quality of third party titles has actually gone downhill since launch, the only exceptions being a port of a game that was already in the PS2 bargain bin, Godfather, and Madden 08 (which has sold substantially worse than 07 did on Wii). I mean, for all its flaws and some bugs, Red Steel is still one of the most graphically competent 3rd party games on the system, and that's just sad. Either way, "half" is not "most," and "half" is better than the usual "one-third" that third parties usually get.

This situation could easily be a result of the shift from hardcore to casual. Initially the Wii was bought up by hardcore gamers and nintendo fans, and over the last 8 months as word of mouth spread, the casuals have been jumping aboard in droves. As such we see increasingly dwindling sales of traditional games or ports (at least relative to install base).

Joshua Luna is bang on when he asks, why should we expect traditional buying patters from non-traditional gamers? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

The titles I mentioned all scored at least 80-85%. The ones I bolded scored between 70-80%. And all of those titles use Nintendo's AAA franchise characters and were heavily advertised, selling millions of copies.

They were system defining. Now you may not think Pokemon is a AAA game, but in sales and mindshare, it is certainly AAA. I'm not particularly a football fan, but Madden has long been a AAA game for any system its landed on.

Dude, AAA is usually defined by 90% or higher average. How much it sells is largely irrelevant, the 50 cent game sold 3 million copies, but got a score of 50% on average.

FYI, The average review score of all games reviewed on gamerankings is 75%, a game scoring in the 70-80% range, is a average game, its not even "good"

 

[Natoma]

Pfft. Metroid Prime 3 scored 85% at Gamespot. Would you not state that's a AAA game?

Hell, Zelda only got an 88% from them.

And what happens if Halo 3 scores "only" 80%? Not AAA then? heh.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Pfft. Metroid Prime 3 scored 85% at Gamespot. Would you not state that's a AAA game?

Hell, Zelda only got an 88% from them.

And what happens if Halo 3 scores "only" 80%? Not AAA then? heh.

That's why it's important to use an average, rather than any one signle score.

MP1 averaged 96.3 %. MP2 averaged 92.2%. Zelda averaged 94%.

If MP3 is as good as it seems it should obtain a 90%+ rating fairly easily.

Currently MP3 is averaging 92%

If Halo came out and average only 80%, that would essentially be a giant flop, you could still call it AAA, but who would you be kidding?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's a lot of arguing here around definitions that aren't agreed to or official anywhere. It might be best if we lay done some definitions so people can get their opinions across more clearly.

1. AAA is a best-of-the-best title. They rank 90% on mean average scores (MAS) across ranking sites, and invariably have excellent production values. That's a MAS score of 90
2. A good game in terms of being entertaining can rank 70% and upwards on mean average scores across ranking sites. That's a MAS of 70
3. The average game is actually a good game, scoring a 70% average. Not a must have, but a game some people are going to enjoy. 70MAS
4. A better than average game, or great game but not AAA, we can place at 80%+ in the mean average scores. 80MAS
5. Sales figures are irrelevant in these definitions. To categorize games by sales, just use sales figures. eg. Million plus sellers, multi-million sellers, big sellers (250k+)

If we go with these definitions, we can stop talking round in circles . Instead of using vague terms like good and great, we can use a reference point being Mean Average Score. 70MAS is 70% or more in a mean average ranking's site, and 90MAS is 90%. Natoma can now express his POV in terms of Nintendo's game output relative to other platforms and people can dispute them, using the same language, instead of one person's AAA being someone else's 'top ten only' or 'better than average' or 'sells a lot'.

So now, what is Natoma's point in terms of software regards sales and average scores? Are Nintendo producing more 80MAS games, or 90MAS games, or million sellers, or million sellers with a MAS over 85? This gives a metric for comparison without being subjective.

 

[Teasy]

Of the 15 highest rated Gamecube games, 11/15 are 3rd party:

1. Metroid Prime 96.3%
2. Resident Evil 4 95.8%
3. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker 94.7%
4. Soul Calibur II 92.5%
5. SSX 3 GC 92.2%
6. Metroid Prime 2: Echoes 92.2%
7. Viewtiful Joe 91.6%
8. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time 91.6%
9. Madden NFL 2004 91.5%
10. Super Mario Sunshine 91.5%
11. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003 91.1%
12. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 90.8%
13. Madden NFL 2003 90.7%
14. Resident Evil 90.3%
15. Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem 90.2%
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp


Sorry, but Nintendo is not putting out AAA titles every few months, that's frankly ridiculous.

The ratio of top-rated 1st party titles on Gamecube, was roughly the same as both PS2 and Xbox. They all have ~4 first party titles in the top 15.

You mean 10 out of the top 15 GC games were third party, Eternal Darkness wasn't third party..

 

[Cheezdoodles]

There's a lot of arguing here around definitions that aren't agreed to or official anywhere. It might be best if we lay done some definitions so people can get their opinions across more clearly.

1. A good game in terms of being entertaining can rank 70% and upwards on mean average scores across ranking sites. That's a MAS of 70
2. The average game is actually a good game, scoring a 70% average. Not a must have, but a game some people are going to enjoy. 70MAS

How can you say that the average game is actually a good game?

It doesn't make sense. If 75% is the average review score for any game on gamerankings, then 75% is a completely average game. Its not good, its average, if you go buy a game at random, chances are it will be just as good going by reviews. (actually chances are higher for it to be better, seing how 95% of the crap titles don't get any shelf space)

70% is below average.

The only reason people keep saying 70% is "good" is because reviewers call 70% good, but then again, this is because most of them are afraid to piss of publishers, not because the game is actually good.

 

[Teasy]

I think a lot of those same observations can be applied to Wii. It is difficult to get software out the door when access to the Wiimote and dev kits is limited and late

How is access limited or late?

and Nintendo has taken a completely different "next gen" path than the competition which pretty much nullifies years of current next gen investments.

The point this completely misses is that the route Nintendo has taken means that a developer can actually use cheaper last gen technology (last gen engine modified for Wii), saving millions in the process.. Even if a developer creates an engine from scratch for Wii its still going to be considerably cheaper then doing the same for PS3 or 360..

 

[dlm]

How can you say that the average game is actually a good game?

It doesn't make sense. If 75% is the average review score for any game on gamerankings, then 75% is a completely average game. Its not good, its average, if you go buy a game at random, chances are it will be just as good going by reviews. (actually chances are higher for it to be better, seing how 95% of the crap titles don't get any shelf space)

70% is below average.

The only reason people keep saying 70% is "good" is because reviewers call 70% good, but then again, this is because most of them are afraid to piss of publishers, not because the game is actually good.

I'd say the 70-80% range is typically almost indetermenant of the actual quality of the game. There are quite good games in that range, and there are completely mediocre games in that range. It's pretty much impossible to make a call, because so many reviewers use that part of the range inconsistently.

Ideally, truly mediocre games should be relegated to the 60s. But a <70 score is the kiss of death for most games, so reviewers rarely hand them out (unless the game is actually *bad*).

 

[fearsomepirate]

Not at all. I think most people would agree that a AAA title should at least average 90% or higher.

Since the term "AAA game" existed long before sites like gamerankings.com existed or perhaps were just not nearly as well-known, I still think "AAA game means games that have almost unlimited budgets and are media events." GTA: San Andreas is an AAA game, but Burnout Revenge is not. I think I like the MAS terminology better. Point is, Nintendo produces a lot of games with MAS > 80%. Compare that to EA or Ubisoft, their closest competitors.

This situation could easily be a result of the shift from hardcore to casual.

Or it could be explained by the initial wave of exclusive games and on-time cross-platform games being followed up by PSP ports and ports of games already in the bargain bin on other platforms.

Joshua Luna is bang on when he asks, why should we expect traditional buying patters from non-traditional gamers? It doesn't make sense.

Yeah, that's my question, too. The traditional Nintendo console owner is a "hardcore" gamer whose main focus are Nintendo franchises that have been around since the 80's, so he mainly buys 1st-party games. Why would we expect this traditional buying pattern from non-tradtional gamers who don't care so much about the big Nintendo franchises?

 

[dlm]

Yeah, that's my question, too. The traditional Nintendo console owner is a "hardcore" gamer whose main focus are Nintendo franchises that have been around since the 80's, so he mainly buys 1st-party games. Why would we expect this traditional buying pattern from non-tradtional gamers who don't care so much about the big Nintendo franchises?

The types of first party games that are staying on the charts are not the same types of games that were Nintendo's big cash cows in the GameCube ero though.

I think it's fair to say that the buying pattern we're seeing is *not* traditional in that Super Paper Mario and Twilight Princess have both been off the charts for quite awhile, yet Wii Play and Mario Party keep hanging around.

Out of curiousity, in the last few months, has there been a 3rd party offering of any quality along the ilk of those sorts of games?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Yeah, that's my question, too. The traditional Nintendo console owner is a "hardcore" gamer whose main focus are Nintendo franchises that have been around since the 80's, so he mainly buys 1st-party games. Why would we expect this traditional buying pattern from non-tradtional gamers who don't care so much about the big Nintendo franchises?

If you look at the sales of the Wii, compared to the Gamecube, it's pretty obvious that it's not the core Nintendo fans that are driving these sales.

It's outselling the Gamecube by what, 2:1? With only a handful of Nintendo franchises, and last generation graphics?

You're really gonna argue it's the core nintendo fanbase buying the console at this rate? Did they just triple in size during the last year?

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

If you look at the sales of the Wii, compared to the Gamecube, it's pretty obvious that it's not the core Nintendo fans that are driving these sales.

It's outselling the Gamecube by what, 2:1? With only a handful of Nintendo franchises, and last generation graphics?

You're really gonna argue it's the core nintendo fanbase buying the console at this rate? Did they just triple in size during the last year?

Yes. That's my theory exactly.

The only difference is rate of purchase.

When Wii sales become greater than GC sales by a significant margin then we will know for sure that a different demographic is purchasing the system.

For now, there's no evidence to support the belief that anybody but hardcore Nintendo fans are purchasing the console. The lack of availability of the console itself demonstrates that those buying the console are making an effort to do so.

The idea that grandma is walking into her local walmart and just happening to pickup a Wii because she saw a commercial and thought it would be cute is without foundation.

 

[dlm]

Yes. That's my theory exactly.

The only difference is rate of purchase.

When Wii sales become greater than GC sales by a significant margin then we will know for sure that a different demographic is purchasing the system.

For now, there's no evidence to support the belief that anybody but hardcore Nintendo fans are purchasing the console. The lack of availability of the console itself demonstrates that those buying the console are making an effort to do so.

The idea that grandma is walking into her local walmart and just happening to pickup a Wii because she saw a commercial and thought it would be cute is without foundation.

The idea that the vast majority of buyers are hardcore Nintendo fans is equally implausible. If that were the case, why aren't we seeing 100k sales of Zelda or Paper Mario per month? Wouldn't the hardcare fans be buying them?

 

[fearsomepirate]

If you look at the sales of the Wii, compared to the Gamecube, it's pretty obvious that it's not the core Nintendo fans that are driving these sales.

Thanks for confirming my point, which was that the Wii's userbase is not the traditional Nintendo userbase, so there's no logical reason for you to expect that they won't exhibit traditional Nintendo userbase behavior and stick mainly to 1st party games just because of the Nintendo franchise label.

You're really gonna argue it's the core nintendo fanbase buying the console at this rate? Did they just triple in size during the last year?

Can you read? That's the exact opposite of the point I was making, per this remark:

Why would we expect this traditional buying pattern from non-tradtional gamers who don't care so much about the big Nintendo franchises?

You'll have a better time of things if you read what I actually say instead of imagining something that you think is appropriately stupid for a non-hater and then proceeding as though I said that.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The types of first party games that are staying on the charts are not the same types of games that were Nintendo's big cash cows in the GameCube ero though.

Yes, that's my point, which would indicate that the reason people are buying them is not because of the Nintendo label and franchise characters, but for some other reason.

I think it's fair to say that the buying pattern we're seeing is *not* traditional in that Super Paper Mario and Twilight Princess have both been off the charts for quite awhile, yet Wii Play and Mario Party keep hanging around.

Zelda and Super Paper Mario both broke a million. However, the fact that alternative games are charting longer than traditional games (which are following the usual pattern of dropping off the charts after a few weeks) would indicate that Nintendo's franchises don't give them as severe an advantage as they had on Gamecube. Thus, third parties with the proper ingenuity and marketing should be able to take advantage of this new market.

Out of curiousity, in the last few months, has there been a 3rd party offering of any quality along the ilk of those sorts of games?

No.

 

[Cryect]

The idea that the vast majority of buyers are hardcore Nintendo fans is equally implausible. If that were the case, why aren't we seeing 100k sales of Zelda or Paper Mario per month? Wouldn't the hardcare fans be buying them?

On the Top 10 Wii games of July, Paper Mario is #6 and Zelda is #7 so they are still selling well (previous month it was #5 and #7 respectively).

 

[scooby_dooby]

Zelda and Super Paper Mario both broke a million. However, the fact that alternative games are charting longer than traditional games (which are following the usual pattern of dropping off the charts after a few weeks) would indicate that Nintendo's franchises don't give them as severe an advantage as they had on Gamecube. Thus, third parties with the proper ingenuity and marketing should be able to take advantage of this new market.

You're missing the big picture.

No software is selling that great on Wii. Of the software that is selling, Nintendo is still dominating.

It's not as if the mediocre sales from Nintendo's franchises are translating into strong 3rd party sales, they're just seeing weak sales overall.

 

[Cryect]

No software is selling that great on Wii. Of the software that is selling, Nintendo is still dominating.

5 out of the top 20 games sold in the US for July were sold on the Wii and for comparison the 360 had 4. I definitely agree with the dominated by Nintendo (4 out of 5 with the one not being Nintendo being Capcom with RE4). Why are we saying the Wii isn't selling software when its doing as well as the 360 in the Top 20 with the 360 having 2.3 million more consoles in the US (prolly should remove Wii Play so its 4 to 4 for games comparing the Wii to 360).

5 DS
5 Wii (4 if you don't want to count WiiPlay)
4 360
4 PS2
2 PS3

Edit: And besides RE4 is there a nonNintendo game that deserves to be selling well that I don't know of?