Old Predictions

[Silent_Buddha]

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.

Yes, lets make a game that Wii players don't want to play versus a game that Wii players want to play. Time after time after time, shooters on rails do better than FPS/TPS on Wii. Some people I know still rate the HOTD shooter on rails as one of the best games available on Wii. None of the FPS/TPS games even enters those types of conversations.

Regards,
SB

 

[Rotmm]

Look, tell me where is the Wii equivalent of games like GTA, FF, RE, Halo, CoD, Uncharterd etc?

Now I'm really confused. It seems your original complaint is that 3rd parties don't put enough effort into the Wii, and then you list 2 first party titles (Halo and Uncharted) to back up your argument? And are you not aware that 3 Call of Duty games have been released so far on the Wii? That is exactly 1 (one) less than has been released for the PS3. The Wii also had what is probably the best Medal of Honor game (Heroes 2) released so far this gen.

Shame no one bought it.

No, the Wii hasn't had its own GTA game from Rockstar, but maybe that's because (a) the Wii couldn't do their vision justice and (b) their new take on GTA on other handheld software just didn't sell, despite critical acclaim. But there's No More Heroes, Scarface, etc and they are pretty hardcore.

Shame no one bought them.

I think it's time to stop blaming developers for no longer really focusing their efforts on more mature (as that's what you are actually complaining about.... it's nothing to do with the fabled AAA) Wii titles, as those are the very titles that the general Wii audience appear to have no interest in.


As for your comment on "best games this gen".... what rubbish. If you think people won't look back at this gen and not look at Guitar Hero 3 as genre-breaking, then you are sorely mistaken. Same goes for Rock Band. Look at lists of the top 20 Wii games, and I can pretty much guarantee that Tiger Woods will be on more than not.

If you want the Wii to be a Playstation, then but a Playstation. But if you think that Meteroid 3 isn't the Wii's Halo, then you really need to look at yourself.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Yes, lets make a game that Wii players don't want to play versus a game that Wii players want to play. Time after time after time, shooters on rails do better than FPS/TPS on Wii. Some people I know still rate the HOTD shooter on rails as one of the best games available on Wii. None of the FPS/TPS games even enters those types of conversations.

Regards,
SB

That is not because those onrail games are so good but because the normal shooters just suck so bad! But if you look at the exeptions where they did put some effort in the game like re4 (ok not really a fps), CoD WaW or Red steel1 (everybody says this game sucks but I liked it despite all its flaws) they all sold over a million. Dead space, hotd, all the RE games apart from UC all sold way less.

The point is, if you don't release quality you can't expect to sell millions but that is exactly what devs are doing. They make a bad fps game a than say look at how it doesn't sell! lets do onrails because atleast those sell a couple of 100k (and we can get that done on the cheap). The point is, if they would have made a such a game on ps360 it would also fail and nobody would be suprised. Its all finger pointing. If a dev/pub actually makes a high quality shooter with good marketing on wii and it still fails than they got a point.

Now I'm really confused. It seems your original complaint is that 3rd parties don't put enough effort into the Wii, and then you list 2 first party titles (Halo and Uncharted) to back up your argument?

Don't be so childish. You know very well what I mean. Big names, big budgets, high quality. That is what makes games sell and in some cases you can get away without the actual quality.

And are you not aware that 3 Call of Duty games have been released so far on the Wii? That is exactly 1 (one) less than has been released for the PS3.

Sure, and like 4 Resident evil games. But slapping a 60 euro price tag on a turd still doesn't give it a nice taste does it? Again, if you are going to cater to the ''core'' crowd you know you have to come up with something that hits atleast all the regulair checkboxes. But yes, CoD WoW apparantly is a pretty decent game. And guess what? It sold over a million. See what we got here? Good name? check. Some budget? Probably, some quality? check.

No, the Wii hasn't had its own GTA game from Rockstar, but maybe that's because (a) the Wii couldn't do their vision justice and (b) their new take on GTA on other handheld software just didn't sell, despite critical acclaim.

So basically now you are saying gta on ps2 sucks? and what has gta on handhelds got to do with it?

But there's No More Heroes, Scarface, etc and they are pretty hardcore.

Again, name, budget and quality. NMH is a nice game but it has no name and didn't got any marketing. Just for your info, the ps360 version of NMH only did 50k. Just to show that it's not a wii problem. Scarface might have a adult theme but the game isn't very good. Not very good doesn't usually sell.

I think it's time to stop blaming developers for no longer really focusing their efforts on more mature (as that's what you are actually complaining about.... it's nothing to do with the fabled AAA) Wii titles, as those are the very titles that the general Wii audience appear to have no interest in.

1. Devs/pubs NEVER put any real focus OR time and effort into creating those games to begin with. Mostly half assed attemps.
2. You are wrong because you just have to take a look at the sales of the core/mature games that do have some quality and did get some marketing to see that this is just not true. Those games can defenitly sell but not of you try to sell turds. Again, this exact same thing applies to ps360 but apparantly people can't get their mind around wii owners not wanting to buy shitty games.

I'm not even going to comment on the wii crowd thing because that (failed) argument is so old now that it's not even worth spending time on anymore.

If you want the Wii to be a Playstation, then but a Playstation. But if you think that Meteroid 3 isn't the Wii's Halo, then you really need to look at yourself.

It doesn't have to be a playstation but that doesn't mean it can't have plenty of core games to also appeal to the core crowd. Like you say, metroid prime 3 which is a good game. Note the part ''good game''. That is what people like and what people will buy.

 

[-tkf-]

Still suprised that Sony ended up "losing" this round, still surprised that they were able to battle their way back to second (almost). I hope they keep up their momentum...

I guess i like using the word momentum

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1204418&highlight=momentum#post1204418

 

[Rotmm]

etc... Like you say, metroid prime 3 which is a good game. Note the part ''good game''. That is what people like and what people will buy.

Except, to all intents and purpose, not many Wii owners did. Going by VGChartz numbers, which I understand isn't an exact science but is pretty decent for ballpark results, sold around 1.5m copies.

That is for a game that is highly recognised by the Nintendo crowd, that received a lot of press coverage pre-release, that had a significant press and TV marketing push and is the 10th highest rated Wii game on Metacritic. And yet the Wii owner-base rate is no higher than 38th in games they like to buy.

You mention World at War as being a good seller on the Wii at over a million. VGCharts again at 1.4m copies might look ok, except it's about a third of what the PS3 did and 1/4 of the 360 sales. Where, going forward, do you really think Activision are going to push their marketing dollars?

I've already mentioned a number of games that are of good quality on the Wii and have had significant marketing dollars behind them, only for them to do poorly next to Wii Party Game 3, yet you choose to dismiss them by saying they don't fit your imaginary, and oft-moving, quality barrier. The fact is.... Wii owners don't want those games enough for publishers to continue to concentrate on them.

The best selling "core" (according to your definition) 3rd party game is Resi 4 at 1.7m copies. That wouldn't get it into the top 20 best selling 3rd party titles on either the 360 or PS3, even though there are more Wii units out there than both combined.

You can complain as much as you like that Wii gamers would buy in droves some heavilly marketed, big budget Wii core titles. But they just don't and history has proved that. If Unisoft find that Red Steel 2, a key Nintendo title that they heavily invested in and promoted, and was also one of the first to make use of M+, sells less than 1/3 of Just Dance.... what do you think they are going to focus on in the future.

Developers aren't going to keep throwing good development money after bad. As I said before, the Wii userbase is responsible for the Wii gamebase.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

So what's wrong with 1+ million sales? I'm sure any game build on wii that sells over a million will be a commercial succes.

You just don't seem to want to understand what i'm saying. Yes maybe wii party 3 will sell more but at the same time the core games that got some effort put into them all sell in what is probably large enough numbers to earn money on. So just because some party game sells better (btw, just look at how many party games fail because really it is only a small selection of party games that gets those high sales) should they just stop making core games? That would be like saying lets all start only maken MMORPG's because WoW makes more money than most devs to combined.

The fact is that core games can, and do sell on the wii. But, suprise suprise just like on any other platform you need to make sure the quality and marketing is there.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The fact is that core games can, and do sell on the wii. But, suprise suprise just like on any other platform you need to make sure the quality and marketing is there.

1 million is probably profitable, and thus by that metric sells well. By another metric, 1 million is a pretty small percentage of the total market, and in terms of percentage market penetration, there aren't (as the argument goes, though I haven't looked at figures so I am not taking a personal position on this) many 3rd party successes on Wii. If you compare 3rd party sales on wii with sales on PS1 or 2 at the same size install base, there'd be a fair comparison for Wii's buyer habits and 3rd party offerings.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

That's what i've been saying the whole time. There is a big lack of quality core games on the wii. You can't buy what's not there.

 

[Rotmm]

So what's wrong with 1+ million sales?

Nothing at all. I'm sure 1 million in sales would pretty much cover the development costs of a big budget core title selling at $60. However, what about all those big budget titles in development that don't sell a million copies?

Not all big budget "core" titles are going to catch on as massively as a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare on the 360. But of course, that sold to about 1/4 of the 360 userbase as it stood then.

Call of Duty: World at War, the best selling Call of Duty game on the Wii, sold about 1.5m copies and is the 41st best selling game on that platform.

1.5m copies, for a game that was highly reviewed. 1.5m for a game that was heavily pushed and marketed. 1.5 for a game that has the brand recognition of possibly the top 2 or 3 names in the gaming industry today.

Did Activision break even with that game? Certainly. Did they make a profit? Very probably. Were they able to further extend the life of the game through compelling multiplayer and monetise it with extra content? Not really.

But if a top selling "core" AAA title with plenty of marketing push can only just manage 1.5m in sales, what about those other games that do only 1/2 as well, or only as 1/4 as well in sales?

Well, on the PS3 they still make money or break even. On the 360 they still make money or break even.

On the Wii, they lose money.

Would a core AAA title such as Bioshock done as well on the Wii as it did on the 360? Would a Ghost Recon? These are games which sold less than 1/4 as well as Modern Warfare 2, but they can still be considered a success.

If they had sold 1/4 as well as the top selling "core" "AAA" Wii title, they'd be looking at 400K in sales. Do you really expect publishers to invest $15-$30m in development and marketing for a title where there's a very good chance, given the reluctance of the Wii userbase to support your kind of game, you're looking at a return of around $10m for a game that sells comparitavely well?

Sorry, but the maths don't add up. You can't cherry-pick the top 4 or 5 selling "core" Wii games, state that they made enough to cover costs and then bemoan developers not taking a $20m risk against becoming one of the vast majority of core games that sold far, far less.

Yes, there's more scope for investment risk on the PS3 and 360, as those console owners are primarily core gamers. So a company like EA can invest heavily in a title like Army of Two, of course hoping that the game will be a 90+ metacritic and 10m selling game, but knowing that even if it isn't and doesn't, it'll still sell enough to cover the return on investment. So it's sold 1m on the PS3 and is the 60th best selling PS3 title. Mirrors Edge, another core game with AAA investment from EA did 1m on the 360, probably enough to cover costs, and is the 93rd best selling title on the 360.

Those games would have lost the developers and publishers huge amounts of money on the Wii, because only a very small percentage of the Wii userbase are actually interested in core games.

You talk about there being a lack of quality core games on the Wii. Well, not all games turn out to be 90+ games, no matter how much money is thrown behind them. That's just a fact of life. No developer goes into a project planning to only make an average game, but lots of games turn out that way. The trouble is that "average" and "good" core games fail hugely on the Wii, but there's a good chance that they will find enough of an audience on the "core" consoles to cover costs.

Surely, surely, surely you can see that?


All of the above is just another way of stating.... again..... the Wii userbase is responsible for the Wii gamebase.