NPD July 2007

[Laa-Yosh]

Games on the Wii seem to live or die based on how well they're using the Wiimote and how innovative and accessible their gameplay is. If its fun, it'll draw in veteran gamers who might be bored with the complexity and difficulty of today's hardcore games; if it's fun and easy to learn, it'll reach new audiences as well.

Third party devs have to keep this in mind because as it seems, ports and PS2 conversions of the 'traditional' games are usually a disaster, as supported by sales data and as indicated in Gamasutra's analysis. It's just not enough to routinely make a cheap, previous-gen game like the ones we've seen on PS2 and Xbox - devs have to invest in real R&D for the Wiimote and for the gameplay.

The problem is that Nintendo is at least 2-3 years ahead of them. I wouldn't expect truly outstanding and successful third party games in large numbers for at least another year, maybe more. By that time Wii may lose its current momentum, the other platforms might catch up in numbers (they'll cut prices at least one time) and shifting resources to the platform may not generate enough revenue. The poor sales of current 3rd party titles may also discourage large studios.


And let's not forget, Nintendo is probably already perfectly happy with the way things are going - they're making a LOT of money and they'll have a large enough userbase to get pretty nice profits from every game they can release, especially if there's no real competition...

 

[dlm]

Much of the debate in this thread is predicated on the idea that quality sells games. I object to this rediculous notion.

If anything, looking at game sales for the last few years, I think it's safe to say that one thing that does NOT sell games is quality.

Look at the runaway success of utter garbage like 50 Cent: Bulletproof, or movie license games. These things sell hundreds of thousands of copies when you and I would consider them to be an insult to the human race.

Yet then you have games like Okami, Psychonauts, Panzer Dragoon Orta, or to a lesser extent Ninja Gaiden that are huge critical successes, and fail horribly at retail.

Advertising sells WAY more than quality ever will.



An ammendment to this that's a bit more on the current topic:

Going by what I said above, where the Wii is right now is almost obvious. They had a huge slick advertising campaign designed to pitch people into buying a Wii. 100% of mass-market advertising for Wii software is for first-party casual games (okay, 90%, the other 10% is for other assorted first-party titles).

Of course third party games are going to fail on the Wii. They have no support whatsoever from Nintendo because Nintendo couldn't care less if third party titles are an abject failure on the Wii. They already made money on the hardware, they don't need the licensing fees to rake in a goldmine.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

It's funny, I almost posted that Ubisoft article earlier as well.

I think it shows Ubisoft shares a similar mindet as I do.

They have the traditional/big budget titles which will exist on the PS3/360, and then they have the more casual games which will exist on the Wii and generate very nice ROI.

For example:


This is exactly what I'm saying will happen, and is what I'm referring to as a split market.

Well... I'm afraid that indeed will happen to some extend though I dont think the wii deserves it and I hope ubi gets it right back in the face. It fine they make this non game stuff, but atleast put some effort in it like nintendo does but ubi doesnt even do that. The quality of those games is so bad it makes me angry. I hope that ubi got away with it because the lack of titels on wii but I hope now the better games come out (and better non games?) they fail really bad. Though they probably wont even care as it doesnt cost them anything to make such a game.

I find it strange though that ubi doesnt make more real games for the Wii. They got the proof that such a game will sell fine on wii right under their nose with their not so great red steel.

Even if a hardcore wii game would only sell a million or so. Does that really matter? ubi themselves say it costs half to make a hardcore wii game than it would to do a ps3/x360 game and it wii game would also be faster to make meaning they get more time for other projects compared with doing a x360/ps3 game. Even with a million games sold they probably make some nice money on that.

Long story short: Hardcore games will sell (very?) well on Wii as long as its quality software.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Advertising sells WAY more than quality ever will.

It's not that simple. The 50 cent game sold on the already established image and success of that guy; Psychonauts and Okami failed in part because they weren't too accessible.

And there are examples for the exact opposite, games like GTA3, Halo, Gran Turismo or the original Doom have sold many copies at least in part because of their quality.

But you can also expect a licence like Star Wars or Madden to boost sales. Then there's shelf space, and even the cover art (!) can have a huge effect.

So it's a pretty tricky thing to point out what actually drives game sales, and obviously there's a lot of research going into this.

 

[ErnstH]

Thus, the Wii may very well become the platform leader in how willing publishers are to part with their money. I can easily see a potential future in which a developer pitching a concept for a high end title at cost X being told to come back with a design for a Wii game at 1/3X before there's any talk about funding their original proposal. Assuming the Wii becomes the dominant market leader as far as install base goes, it doesn't really matter if the attach rate isn't as good as for the 360. The lower development cost can (will) make the Wii a vey attractive proposition for those holding the cash, and this could impact funding for high budget titles on the other platforms (unless you're a 1st party, an established name, or building on a proven franchise).

I was wondering about this. I can see how publishers can "bully" lesser known development studios around, but how much leverage does a publisher have over a AAA-class developer? If you look at someone like Kojima, he simply says "I develop for PS3". I can imagine other studios having similar preferences on working on 360/PS3 instead of the Wii, as those platforms have a larger possibility of realizing their vision.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Much of the debate in this thread is predicated on the idea that quality sells games. I object to this rediculous notion.

Well, if you look at the list of the Top Selling games, 95% are high quality games.
http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console=PS2&publisher=&sort=Total

Of course there's alsways some exceptions, like Spiderman: The Movie, or LOTR: Two Towers, but in general the best sellers are quality titles.

That's not to say quality titles are always best sellers though.

I think it's fair to say that in most cases, in order to be a best-seller, the game generally needs to both be good, AND have excellent advertising. Once in a while a game will succeed with just one of the above, but not usually.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Much of the debate in this thread is predicated on the idea that quality sells games. I object to this rediculous notion.

If anything, looking at game sales for the last few years, I think it's safe to say that one thing that does NOT sell games is quality.

Look at the runaway success of utter garbage like 50 Cent: Bulletproof, or movie license games. These things sell hundreds of thousands of copies when you and I would consider them to be an insult to the human race.

Yet then you have games like Okami, Psychonauts, Panzer Dragoon Orta, or to a lesser extent Ninja Gaiden that are huge critical successes, and fail horribly at retail.

Advertising sells WAY more than quality ever will.

That true to some extend. But generally speaking building a quality game will mean you have a good shot at selling alot.

As far as movie/license games go, ofcourse they sell because of their name, but wouldnt these games be capable of selling even more if they were actually good games?

Of course third party games are going to fail on the Wii. They have no support whatsoever from Nintendo because Nintendo couldn't care less if third party titles are an abject failure on the Wii. They already made money on the hardware, they don't need the licensing fees to rake in a goldmine.

So far 3rd party failing on nintendo has nothing to do with nintendo but with devs themselves releasing games that just dont have any quality at all. It was the same with GC, devs complaining they couldnt compete with nintendo and if you took a look at the game they made it was some 4th string team with a bad ps2 port. Well duh, that wont be able to compete with nintendo's AAA games just as it wont be able to compete with any other AAA title released on whatever platform.

There seems to be this idea that 3rd party cant sell on nintendo, well that just isnt true but it is true if you only release low quality games but you cant blame people they dont spend 60 euro's on a bad game right?

 

[dlm]

That true to some extend. But generally speaking building a quality game will mean you have a good shot at selling alot.

As far as movie/license games go, ofcourse they sell because of their name, but wouldnt these games be capable of selling even more if they were actually good games?

I at least in part agree. I was mostly just aiming to stir the pot a bit with my first post and get some other perspectives in as to the reasons why plenty of perfectly good games have been utter failures. That is regardless of platform. I think it's reasonable to say that a lot goes into what makes a game a success or a failure, and advertising and quality are two of *many* factors.

The stirring seems to have worked

So far 3rd party failing on nintendo has nothing to do with nintendo but with devs themselves releasing games that just dont have any quality at all. It was the same with GC, devs complaining they couldnt compete with nintendo and if you took a look at the game they made it was some 4th string team with a bad ps2 port. Well duh, that wont be able to compete with nintendo's AAA games just as it wont be able to compete with any other AAA title released on whatever platform.

There seems to be this idea that 3rd party cant sell on nintendo, well that just isnt true but it is true if you only release low quality games but you cant blame people they dont spend 60 euro's on a bad game right?

I think it certainly has at least something to do with Nintendo. Let's look at ratings vs sales. The following are 3rd party titles in the top 20 at gamerankings:
RE4
Madden
Mercury Meltdown Revolution
Trauma Center
Godfather
Rayman Raving Rabbids
Marval: UA
SSX: Blur
Tiger Woods 07
Metal Slug Anthology
Super Swing Golf
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz
Mortal Kombat: Armageddon
Elebits

So, that's almost 3/4's of the top 20 rated Wii games made by third parties. Yet if you look at weekly sales, third parties are nowhere to be found.

So, how about those two Nintendo first party games in the top 10 of the NPD charts for the last several months straight?
- Wii Play - Nowhere in the top 30
- Mario Party 8 - Nowhere in the top 30


Sounds to me like there's more to this than a quality argument, wouldn't you?

In fact, I would say that Nintendo's advertising has tailored a very particular image of the console that will serve to actively drive away sales of "traditional" games. I would also be amazed if the attach rate for the Wii ends up higher than 4 or 5 games per console.

I have no numbers, but there is no shortage of anecdotal evidence of people who have never played anything but Wii Sports or Wii Play or their console, and have no intention of purchasing more games. As a third party, I would be terrified of that perception.

 

[Zaphod]

I have no numbers, but there is no shortage of anecdotal evidence of people who have never played anything but Wii Sports or Wii Play or their console, and have no intention of purchasing more games. As a third party, I would be terrified of that perception.

As were there plenty of anecdotal evidence that lots and lots of people were buying the PS2 only to play SingStar. People here (not you in particular) tend to argue as if there were 100 million 'hadcore gamer' PS2 owners out there, which is delusional. When/if the userbase grow large enough (some will argue that it already is) there will be plenty of incentives for publishers to cater to both groups of consumers. The Wii just went at it from the opposite direction than the PS2, that's all, bringing the casuals on board early.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The Wii just went at it from the opposite direction than the PS2, that's all, bringing the casuals on board early.

Which as can be seen by the proliferation of these threads/arguments or 'attacks on the wii' if you prefer has had the effect of scaring hardcore gamers, which in turn might be scaring developers.

 

[Zaphod]

Which as can be seen by the proliferation of these threads/arguments or 'attacks on the wii' if you prefer has had the effect of scaring hardcore gamers, which in turn might be scaring developers.

Possibly.

Although, as some have pointed out: RE4 sales is an indication that the more conventional gamer subgroup among Wii owners is still large enough to be worth catering to. MP3 will give another indication. These gamers also crave quality and won't submit to the lowest common waggle stick denominator. Thus far there haven't been much.

 

[Natoma]

- Wii Play - Nowhere in the top 30
- Mario Party 8 - Nowhere in the top 30

To be fair, the biggest reason Wii Play has sold is because it comes with an extra Wii-mote.

And Mario Party 8 has had a ridiculous amount of advertising. Looking at most reviews, people have said that Mario Party 8 is a good game if you've never played Mario Party. But if you've played the prior games, you're going to be bored to tears because they didn't do anything new except pretty the graphics and add waggle. To prior Mario Party players, it's *snore*.

How many of the current Wii buyers played previous mario party titles?

And lastly, other than one (and i mean literally, just one), Harry Potter Wii commercial where the Wii-mote was used as a wand and actually looked fun to boot, I haven't seen a single Wii commercial, other than Nintendo's commercials.

Though I see tons of 3rd party advertising for 360 and even PS3 titles. Well, if people don't know your games exist on the Wii, will they buy them?

 

[AlphaWolf]

Though I see tons of 3rd party advertising for 360 and even PS3 titles. Well, if people don't know your games exist on the Wii, will they buy them?

Perhaps the developers have a formula by which they scale advertising costs with the cost of development. I know I've seen very few wii ads in comparison to the number of ps3 and 360 spots.

 

[dlm]

And lastly, other than one (and i mean literally, just one), Harry Potter Wii commercial where the Wii-mote was used as a wand and actually looked fun to boot, I haven't seen a single Wii commercial, other than Nintendo's commercials.

Though I see tons of 3rd party advertising for 360 and even PS3 titles. Well, if people don't know your games exist on the Wii, will they buy them?

I find it hard to believe that advertising is solely to blame. Neither Dead Rising nor Lost Planet were well-advertised games in the mass media, but both were million sellers on 360. Of course, it's almost unfair to compare the 360 with the Wii on that front given the rediculously high attach rate for the 360.

Does anyone actually know what the attach rate on Wii is? If it is overall pretty low, it would make a lot of sense that the most-advertised games are the most-purchased. Particularly given the target demographic.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Lost Planet got some ads running on Times Square in NY. It had a rumored marketing budget close to 20 million...

http://kotaku.com/gaming/lost-planet/lost-planet-in-times-square-218720.php

 

[AlphaWolf]

Does anyone actually know what the attach rate on Wii is? If it is overall pretty low, it would make a lot of sense that the most-advertised games are the most-purchased. Particularly given the target demographic.

I believe its currently around 4, which isn't bad for this point in the consoles life, I believe its only slightly behind where the 360 was at that point.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

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

 

[Natoma]

I find it hard to believe that advertising is solely to blame. Neither Dead Rising nor Lost Planet were well-advertised games in the mass media, but both were million sellers on 360. Of course, it's almost unfair to compare the 360 with the Wii on that front given the rediculously high attach rate for the 360.

Does anyone actually know what the attach rate on Wii is? If it is overall pretty low, it would make a lot of sense that the most-advertised games are the most-purchased. Particularly given the target demographic.

I've seen at least 5 Dead Rising commercials on MTV and VH1, and 2-3 commercials on those same channels, over the past few months.

As for Wii's attach rate, it's about 4 or so at this point in time and the 360's attach rate is about 6. I believe PS3 is around 2-3.

 

[dlm]

I must not watch enough tv Either that or they just don't show those ads on Discovery and Food Network

 

[Natoma]

I must not watch enough tv Either that or they just don't show those ads on Discovery and Food Network

My husband makes me watch VH1 and MTV. Damn him and his "I Love New York", "Real World", "Celebrity Fit Club", and all the other crap-a-licious reality tv shows. That's usually where I see the deluge of 360 and PS3 ads.

Personally, I prefer History Channel, Discovery Channel, Science Channel, ESPN Classic, National Geographic, MSNBC, CNN from time to time, CNBC, and the Sci-Fi Channel (Stargate Atlantis only now, ever since they canceled SG-1. ).

I stopped watching Food Network religiously ever since they stopped airing Iron Chef. The japanese version, not that Iron Chef America abomination. Though I do admit that Paula Dean is nice.