Old Predictions

[djskribbles]

I guess the ones really losing out are developers. So many put all their eggs in the HD basket and lots of them went bust because of it. Instead of spending 10m on creating at best mediocore HD games they should have made AAA wii games for the same budget and actually earn a buck.

In most cases, good games sell. If the game is good and there's decent-good marketing for it, it will sell. Also, certain genres sell better on the HD consoles and vice versa on the Wii. For example, the CoD games and Madden sold much better on the HD consoles and I'm guessing games like GTA, RDR and Fall Out would've sold relatively poor on the Wii. Just because you make a game for the Wii doesn't automatically make it a multi-million seller. If you look at the top 20 wii software sales, most of them are first-party Nintendo games.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Those are the exact same arguments we've been hearing for years and they are all wrong.

1. Yes good games will generally sell with marketing etc. But this all costs a lot of money which given how much devs are in trouble or went bust is a big problem on the HD consoles.
2. Ofcourse games like CoD sell better on HD consoles. But the Wii version didn't sell bad. I believe it sold 1 million or something and that is a lot of you consider it didn't had a very big budget and almost no marketing.
3. Yes the best selling games on the wii are from Nintendo. Mostly because nobody botherd building a high budget game with high marketing budget. The only one would be MH3 and that sold 1m in Japan alone. So if you put the money and effort in you can defenitly sell core games on the wii. Yes a GTA or Fallout might do better on a HD console but the costs would also be far higher so you'd need to sell a lot more.

The wii never got serious attention. Than we got devs like EA coming up with a onrail Dead Space and almost no marketing and than they are suprised it fails. The funny thing is that they apperantly all expect B quality ripoff games to sell on wii but nobody would expect a B quality game to sell well on a HD console.

 

[djskribbles]

It all depends on what kind of games the developers want to make. I would think that making a game for the HD consoles (and PC as well) would be just as appealing as making a game for the Wii, because the PS3/360/PC install base is actually bigger than the Wii's. Plus, IMO, HD console owners are more predictable in terms of what kind of games they like. I think it would be more difficult to think of a game for the Wii that will sell well and that doesn't have Mario in it.

 

[NavNucST3]

It all depends on what kind of games the developers want to make. I would think that making a game for the HD consoles (and PC as well) would be just as appealing as making a game for the Wii, because the PS3/360/PC install base is actually bigger than the Wii's. Plus, IMO, HD console owners are more predictable in terms of what kind of games they like. I think it would be more difficult to think of a game for the Wii that will sell well and that doesn't have Mario in it.

There are more than a handful of "predictable" games made just for the PS3/360/PC that have failed. I'm certain I know of one of them...

 

[djskribbles]

Of course there are... there are so many third-party hardcore titles released, some of them are bound to fail, especially if there's not a decent marketing budget. All I'm saying is it's a lot easier to think of a game that might sell well on the HD consoles (IMHO). Why else does the Wii not get as much third-party support? Wouldn't you think that it would've got more support from third-party developers by now, considering it's success?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The Wii does get a lot of third party support. Those individual titles just generally don't sell in high enough numbers to crack the NPD top 20. Which in terms of forums makes them virtually invisible.

Considering how much software is moved on Wii, it's more a case of a LOT of third party titles that have average or low sell through versus fewer third party titles which sell in large numbers (HD consoles). Even though attach rate for Wii is lower than PS3 and thus X360, it moves more software in total.

Likewise, each of the top publishers have spent plenty of developement dollars trying to crack the Wii market. Everything from hardcore, to casual, to sports, to fitness, to whatever...

Regards,
SB

 

[Squilliam]

Considering how much software is moved on Wii, it's more a case of a LOT of third party titles that have average or low sell through versus fewer third party titles which sell in large numbers (HD consoles). Even though attach rate for Wii is lower than PS3 and thus X360, it moves more software in total.

Regards,
SB

The issue with the Wii is that the 3rd party software which sells, sells at a low average sale price and when it sells it takes a long time to sell through stock. This means that the retailer/production/shipping/Nintendo royalty costs make up a significantly higher proportion of the sale price. If you take your average $30 title and take $6 out for Nintendo, $6 for the retailer, $4 for shipping and production, you only get $14 for the publisher. Whereas in contrast, an HD game might sell most of the units at $60 which would yield twice the return per unit sold to the publisher as compared to the WIi game.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Yes but than you are forgetting 2 things. A game that releases for 30 euro's isnt a game that costs a lot to make and making a HD game that would actually sell at 60 euro's would likely cost much more than 2x as much as the wii game so even if you earn twice as much you don't make a larger profit.

The Wii does get a lot of third party support. Those individual titles just generally don't sell in high enough numbers to crack the NPD top 20. Which in terms of forums makes them virtually invisible.

Considering how much software is moved on Wii, it's more a case of a LOT of third party titles that have average or low sell through versus fewer third party titles which sell in large numbers (HD consoles). Even though attach rate for Wii is lower than PS3 and thus X360, it moves more software in total.

Likewise, each of the top publishers have spent plenty of developement dollars trying to crack the Wii market. Everything from hardcore, to casual, to sports, to fitness, to whatever...

Regards,
SB

They did? which 3rd party games got a AAA budget, a AAA team on a AAA franchise with a AAA marketing budget like all the big HD games get? Only monster hunter 3 comes to my mind. Instead what devs did is create cheap ripoffs of their existing franchise. For example capcom did only onrail RE games while RE4 wii sold over a million! Nobody cares about onrail shooters, you wouldn't think of selling that on a HD console but they thought they could on Wii but if failed (gee, didn't see that coming...) and than they started crying. That is what pretty much all devs did. They made sub par games and didn't use big profile IP and little to marketing and than all were suprised when their games didn't sell.

Tell me, if you'd make some average fps game on x360 with no marketing would you be suprised if it flops? No. But apperantly some geniouses had the idea that on Wii they could sell millions with shitty games.

There are actually a large amount of 3rd party games that sold over a million and most of those games arnt even good. That just shows how much money they could have made if had taken the wii serious.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You won't know a franchise is a AAA franchise until it takes off and becomes a AAA franchise. You don't know about them because none of them have been able to make it, other than Nintendo's games. Although I'd say EA's fitness game might actually be up there now. Oh wait, it's not a hardcore game, so it probably doesn't count.

As well various games have received AAA marketing. Madworld had an extensive TV, Print, and Internet marketing push that was greater than what other more successful games have had.

AAA budgets are hard to know, but there must be some as Wii is receiving developement funding by some of the publishers in line with X360 and PS3. They obviously aren't just throwing it onto a bonfire somewhere. There's a few games that you can probably guess at receiving AAA funding. There was a much hyped, much advertised, and much anticipated FPS on Wii that had a rather lengthy developement process a few months back. I don't remember the name of it but remember the adverts for it all over the 'net. As well as people saying it's control scheme was quite good at launch. But it flopped.

The biggest problem is that people in forums keep calling certain games ripoffs, when it's better stated that those games are catering to the rather diverse demographic that owns Wii. A demographic that has shown, with consumer dollars, that it prefers a shooter on rails to a FPS. That has shown, again with consumer dollars, that it prefers cart racers to serious racers. Etc...

A publisher that doesn't listen to the consumer and make the games they want, shooters on rails for example, is a very stupid publisher just asking to lose money.

By now, publishers are most likely leery at the idea of putting all their eggs into one basket (one BIG AAA title) because it's far far more likely for it to fail on Wii than to succeed since they still haven't gotten how to make a game that is universally attractive to casuals. Well, other than fitness, dancing, kart, etc... It's far smarter to fund multiple lower budget titles to see if one has the gameplay or whatever that catches the fancy of Wii owners. At that point turn it into a franchise and pour in the developement dollars.

Regards,
SB

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

There are plenty of establish AAA franchise that do not need to make a name for themselves. A main CoD, RE, FF, GTA or whatever game basically garuantees a large budget is available.

Madworld got enough media attention but this is a 3 hour black and white game which is rather boring to play. Besides marketing some quality is also a requirement if you want to sell a game like madworld. Also I think like a lot of ''core'' games on the wii this is something that wouldn't have sold well no matter what the platform. Its too niche. Some for games like No more heroes. Actually NMH1 also got released on ps360 and didn't do more than 50k.

and much anticipated FPS on Wii that had a rather lengthy developement process a few months back. I don't remember the name of it but remember the adverts for it all over the 'net. As well as people saying it's control scheme was quite good at launch. But it flopped.

You mean the conduit I think? Actually that game isn't good. The developer hyped it but it doesnt look all that good, the gameplay and design is extremely boring and I didn't like the controlls much either.

The biggest problem is that people in forums keep calling certain games ripoffs, when it's better stated that those games are catering to the rather diverse demographic that owns Wii. A demographic that has shown, with consumer dollars, that it prefers a shooter on rails to a FPS.

Which just isn't true because apart from one RE game all those onrail shooters didn't sell. By comparison RE4 wii, the 4th time this game got released (gc, ps2, pc) sold a million. That pretty much shows people are not interrested in onrail shooters. And this makes complete sense. Sure the Wii has a broad demographic but the non gamers don't care about shooters and casuals don't care about on rail shooters because they like games like halo and CoD and ''core'' gamers don't care either. This is the easy argument for devs not spending money and resources on creating a good game. Just take a look at the sales of wii games. All those ''core'' games that got mutulated to try and appeal to a broader audience fail because nobody likes them. Not interresting enough for the wii fit crowd and not interresting enough for anybody who plays games once in a while.

A publisher that doesn't listen to the consumer and make the games they want, shooters on rails for example, is a very stupid publisher just asking to lose money.

Well that would be every publisher out there.

By now, publishers are most likely leery at the idea of putting all their eggs into one basket (one BIG AAA title) because it's far far more likely for it to fail on Wii than to succeed since they still haven't gotten how to make a game that is universally attractive to casuals.

Maybe because trying to make your game universally attractive is what makes it fail in the first place! Casuals are the same crowd that buys halo and cod, they don't want some ''fit for all'' game. Either you make a normal game or a ''non game'' like wii fit. Trying to do something in the middle doesn't work.

Just look at the nintendo games. They are doing exactly that. They got stuff like wii fit that isnt like a normal game at all and games like Mario bros, mario galaxy, mariokart etc. All of those games are very much core games. But they are very well balanced so that also less exerpienced gamers can have fun with them (though that goes for all modern games I think, CoD isnt hardcore at all either. Out of HP? just cover for a moment...) but they are still very much core games and not thumbed down. Actually I Mario galaxy 2 gave me a much bigger challenge than any other game I recently played. That includes games that are considerd hardcore like fallout and CoD.

 

[Bohdy]

I thought both the Wii and DS were completely doomed lol.

That's because we were all looking at it as hardcore gamers.

Hey speak for yourself buddy

I had an idea that Nintendo's gamble would pay off bigtime while all the VG pundits were still scoffing as hard as they could.

 

[fearsomepirate]

There was a much hyped, much advertised, and much anticipated FPS on Wii that had a rather lengthy developement process a few months back. I don't remember the name of it but remember the adverts for it all over the 'net. As well as people saying it's control scheme was quite good at launch. But it flopped.

It sold enough to get a sequel (~300K units, IIRC). "Flopped" is all relative to expectations and budgets. You can say it flopped from the perspective of Internet forum dwellers, but apparently, Sega was happy with its performance. But it's also not that good of a game. Ultimately, you have to measure a game's quality by how well customers actually like it. A marketing blitz or a fancy graphics engine aren't a guarantee that anyone will actually like it at the end of the day.

By now, publishers are most likely leery at the idea of putting all their eggs into one basket (one BIG AAA title) because it's far far more likely for it to fail on Wii than to succeed since they still haven't gotten how to make a game that is universally attractive to casuals.

Sheesh, do we still have to deal with this "hardcore vs casual" nonsense? That's so 2007. The best way to describe the Wii audience IMO is "diverse." It's not a big, amorphous blob of casuals that are all dying to play the latest low-quality 3rd-party ripoff of a successful Nintendo game (that didn't work in the 80s or 90s either, btw). But it's also not a large mass of young males, either. Judging by the list of Wii million sellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games), virtually any kind of game can be successful on the Wii. But on the other hand, it appears that the audience's tastes are disparate enough that it's very difficult for a game to hit that 5+ million blockbuster status, and to do so, it needs to have the kind of universal, "everyone from eight year old girls to college sophomores" appeal that games like Super Mario Bros and Mario Kart do. There just aren't enough young men playing the system (at least not exclusively) for a game designed to appeal exclusively to them to sell 5 million units.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It sold enough to get a sequel (~300K units, IIRC). "Flopped" is all relative to expectations and budgets. You can say it flopped from the perspective of Internet forum dwellers, but apparently, Sega was happy with its performance. But it's also not that good of a game. Ultimately, you have to measure a game's quality by how well customers actually like it. A marketing blitz or a fancy graphics engine aren't a guarantee that anyone will actually like it at the end of the day.

Yes but what I was replying to was a post claiming that games on Wii from third partys don't receive AAA funding, developement, marketing, quality, etc...

I'm more than happy to say Sega was happy with the results, but that's not the point of the post. The point was that there are games from third parties that do have some combination of AAA funding, development, marketing, quality, whatever...

As well that it wasn't historically ONLY for shooters on rails, or karts, or "ripoff" games... But also included what internet forum dwellers call "hardcore" games.

Regards,
SB

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

The point was that there are games from third parties that do have some combination of AAA funding, development, marketing, quality, whatever...

Apart from MH3 which game got anything AAA? I got my wii at launch day and the only games that got anything AAA on it are those from Nintendo. It is safe to claim there is no 3rd party that put real effort in creating a top notch Wii game with big budgets and top tier teams on it.

 

[Rotmm]

Apart from MH3.....?

Tiger Woods games, Pro Evo games, Red Steel 2, Guitar Hero games, Rock Band games, Tatsunoko Vs. Capcom, No More Heroes 2, etc

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

And where are the AAA parts of those games? Don't get me wrong, I though NMH2 was great but it's not AAA quality nor did it had a AAA budget or AAA marketing. Same goes for those other games.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

While Dead Space Extraction is an on rails type of game, pretty much everyone who has played it has said that it's really good. I think EA put solid effort there, eventhough it differs from the other versions.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

If they put solid effort into it they would have made a 3rd person game and not a onrail shooter. I finshed the game and indeed its a good game if you compare it to other onrail shooters but if you ask somebody if they want to spend their 50 euro's on the dead space wii or on dead space for the pc that is a easy choice because dead space is a far more interresting game.

 

[Rotmm]

And where are the AAA parts of those games? Don't get me wrong, I though NMH2 was great but it's not AAA quality nor did it had a AAA budget or AAA marketing. Same goes for those other games.

It seems that you are arbitarily deciding how to define AAA almost on a case by case basis, in order to support your unsupportable argument.

Putting aside the argument about quality (as quality is ultimately defined by reviewers and gamers), it seems you define AAA by budget (development) and budget (advertising).

Unfortunately, none of us know the budgets for these games. But if we were to take Tiger Woods as an example, this is a key title for EA Sports where they invest a lot of money into various licences, have huge teams developing the yearly releases and have an expectation of pretty decent sales numbers.

Of course, many development tools and assets are pooled for the various releases, but if we take the 3 main consoles then you have 2 (360 and PS3) that are basically the same, using the same assets and same control system and therefore the same core development team, and then you have 1 (the Wii) that needs different assets and has a different control system, necessitating its own core development team.

So suffice to say, the Wii version would cost more to develop than either the PS3 or 360 versions. And this is a game that, I guarantee you, EA Sports consider to be an AAA title.

And then advertising the game. The Wii version in 2008 and 2009 received far more TV advertising than the PS360 version, so we can assume that the marketing budget was higher for the Wii Tiger than either the PS3 or 360 Tigers.

You can say the same for the PES games, where Konami have basically developed a completely seperate game for the Wii than anything they had previously done, which of course equals more cost. And it was also heavily advertised on TV.

Red Steel 2 not AAA, not having an AAA budget and not having AAA marketing. Firstly, the game was very well reviewed and received by gamers, which surely means AAA to them? You have no idea about the budget, but it was clearly in development for a decent amount of time and is more than an incremental update of the original.... Ubisoft put a lot of stock in the game from an early point. AAA? Oh, and there was a huge TV advertising campaign for the game. AAA.

And would you say Rock Band Beatles, or Guitar Hero 5 were not AAA games?

It seems to me you have no argument at all.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Look, tell me where is the Wii equivalent of games like GTA, FF, RE, Halo, CoD, Uncharterd etc? argue what you want be these are the type of games that are seen as being AAA and also get plenty of budget, marketing etc. Games like tiger woods, Pro evo or a yearly game like guitar hero won't be on the ''best games of this generation'' listst. That doesn't mean that games like that don't have any time/money/effort behind them but not on the same level as the games I mentioned.

The wii does not have games like that. Instead what devs/pubs did is come up with cheap to make ripoffs of their main IP.

Also, how would a wii game be more expensive than a ps360 game? Even if we don't know the exact costs we do know HD development is multiple times more expensive than for the SD consoles. Userbase isn't a argument either as the wii userbase is about the same as that of the ps360 combined and potential for sales isn't a argument either if you look at wii software sales.