• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Pachter: Multiplayer Causing Retail Sales Decline, Wii/DS Software Decline Remarkable

Lyude77 said:
Not when it's an expansion pack type game. I know you're thinking of Modern Warfare 2 and all of that, but look at Mega Man. Each of the games that came out was essentially the same, and they (eventually) were seeing decline, so they had to make a new series (and do the same thing). Look at Dynasty Warriors, etc. Those games have the same problem. Guitar Hero. Even Tales games loosely have this problem.

There's a level of similarity that's accepted, but after a certain point, people stop buying. SMG2 may not be at that point, but those games were what came to my head when I wrote that statement down. :lol

I suppose Vinci is right, though, in that it varies, so you can edit that part out and my point remains about the same.


I thought Vice City, Gears 2, God of War 2, Resident Evil 2, and many others outsold their predecessor. Maybe it's just when a new franchise is started that the sequel outsells the original.



Vinci said:
Pay-to-play, in and of itself, isn't stupid enough to cause COD to collapse.


I disagree. I think MW2 (despite it's few HUGE flaws) is the best online shooter ever. But it hasn't separated itself so much from the competition that Activision can get that cocky. Their model is easily copied. It's the perks and killstreaks more than anything that have made MW2 so addictive, and any other shooter could copy those. It's not as if this is WoW where no one can touch Blizzard if they try to copy the model.
 

1-D_FTW

Member
Vinci said:
If people were keeping track of the PC market, Live would never have been as successful as it is. So no, alternatives aren't going to crush COD Online dreams - unless Activision just screws the pooch horribly with it. It's the genre king, which isn't massively different than a console incumbent: They will only go down if they do something really, really stupid. Pay-to-play, in and of itself, isn't stupid enough to cause COD to collapse.

That's not what I'm saying. And do I think market leaders like CoD can get away with it? I'm sure they can. They've got sheep for an audience. But if all multi-player games suddenly become pay to play on console, you better believe the PC scene is going to get a massive shot in the arm.
 

Evlar

Banned
DS is obviously in its twilight. It's a managed decline, though, with 3DS prepared to assume the throne with impeccable timing.

Wii, on the other hand... I won't say the software side is in freefall. It is clearly unhealthy, though, and no successor is in sight. If this continues, next year Nintendo will be poised to confront a strange decision: whether to kill off the #1 console and leap into the next generation first or to keep riding the unresponsive Wii market.
 

Faxanadu

Member
Tutomos said:
People have certain visions they want to meet in their games. Gabe Newell flat out said PS2 is too weak for us to develop Half-Life 2 on it, PS2 couldn't meet their standards.

3DS got a lot of developers excited because it's a powerful machine, it allows them to have more creative and technical freedom. People who work in the industry aren't fanboys, they just don't share the same visions as Nintendo.

Yeah but it's not like Wii is a SNES released in an PS2 era with regards to power/performance. That's the other part of the problem. They're limiting their creativity to the "power" of the system. It's like once they have the HD twins to play with, the Wii was too "limiting" all of a sudden even though they just made "epic" games on PS2/XBOX a few years back.

Hell, I don't expect developers to have the same vision as Nintendo - they just need to stop trying to make Nintendo fail. It won't happen. I understand the lack of support in the GCN era. That system did not sell well. When companies ignore market leaders they are missing the point. Maybe the 'Nintendo' vision is the direction to go towards for now so that you (insert game company here) still exist 5 years from now to work on your (the companies) other vision.

I dunno? Just talking and listenin'.
 

Vinci

Danish
1-D_FTW said:
That's not what I'm saying. And do I think market leaders like CoD can get away with it? I'm sure they can. They've got sheep for an audience. But if all multi-player games suddenly become pay to play on console, you better believe the PC scene is going to get a massive shot in the arm.

That's the thing. All of them won't because they can't sustain it. COD Online is in a very good position to set up a subscription model for itself, but if other FPS titles attempt to do the same simultaneously, people will make a choice between one or the other. And COD will win. It's too big of a franchise right now.

What I'm saying, basically, is that we'll see far fewer FPS titles released following COD Online due to the innate difficulty in competing with it over an expanded period of time. And those that are released will be more distinctive in order to lure an audience to them, but they won't feature a pay-to-play system as it would deter from their potential sales.
 

1-D_FTW

Member
Vinci said:
That's the thing. All of them won't because they can't sustain it. COD Online is in a very good position to set up a subscription model for itself, but if other FPS titles attempt to do the same simultaneously, people will make a choice between one or the other. And COD will win. It's too big of a franchise right now.

What I'm saying, basically, is that we'll see far fewer FPS titles released following COD Online due to the innate difficulty in competing with it over an expanded period of time. And those that are released will be more distinctive in order to lure an audience to them, but they won't feature a pay-to-play system as it would deter from their potential sales.

Gotcha. Makes sense.
 
Opiate said:
I'm surprised how little discussion there is of the Wii/DS in this thread: the Wii and DS are the obvious offenders here, with (what appears to be) persistent and rather rapid downward trends in software.
I agree that's something that would be worth a deeper look--but we don't really have the means. Pachter mentions a year-over-year drop for May, but we don't have tons of available information for May 2009 or May 2010. Or know how much the May->May change he talks about is the norm for other months. I mean, wasn't Wii's December something like the biggest software month any console had ever seen? Clearly things aren't always down.
 

Owzers

Member
cnizzle06 said:
I don't care what anyone says, games need to become cheaper. 60 dollar and up price points are just insane and really limit my amount of purchases.

At $60 i buy the best of the best ( usually with some discount incentive from Toys R Us, Gamestop, or Amazon) and the rest can die for all i care, i'll pick them up used or after several price drops for $15-30.
 
Pachter said:
“Wii software sales were down 29 per cent year-over-year and DS software sales were down 13 per cent, while PS3 software sales were up 58 per cent and Xbox 360 software sales were up 29 per cent,” he added.

“We think this is remarkable, given growth in the Wii hardware installed base of 44 per cent and growth in the DS installed base of 33 per cent over the last 12 months.
He told software movement for all and hardware change for DS and Wii, but to provide the numbers he left out: since May 2009 the X360 userbase grew 32% and PS3 grew 60%.

Putting these together, we can come up with a rough idea of this: If the average console owner was buying X games in May 2009, how many did the average console owner in May 2010?


Wii: 0.71X / 1.44 = 0.49X
DS: 0.87X / 1.33 = 0.65X
X360: 1.29X / 1.32 = 0.97X
PS3: 1.58X / 1.60 = 0.99X

X360 and PS3 are definitely flat, DS and Wii are definitely down.
 

Eteric Rice

Member
I think part of the problem is the general quality of a lot of third party casual games. Most of them are bad, and I'd not be surprised if a lot of people got burned and stopped buying the games.
 
Vinci said:
That's the thing. All of them won't because they can't sustain it. COD Online is in a very good position to set up a subscription model for itself, but if other FPS titles attempt to do the same simultaneously, people will make a choice between one or the other. And COD will win. It's too big of a franchise right now.

What I'm saying, basically, is that we'll see far fewer FPS titles released following COD Online due to the innate difficulty in competing with it over an expanded period of time. And those that are released will be more distinctive in order to lure an audience to them, but they won't feature a pay-to-play system as it would deter from their potential sales.

Anecdotally, MW2 is the first 'Call of Duty' game that I did not buy any maps for and most of my friends have shied away from buying these overpriced maps at all. For perspective I have a couple of hundred hours in the multiplayer.

Likewise myself and most of my friends are not interested in paying any kind of subscription service fee to play a shooter franchise.

Whether we are typical, however, I do not know.

CoD/MW going to a subscription service is only going to push me to other shooters. That said, the decimation of Inifity Ward is already starting to push me.
 

Deku

Banned
Word of caution. I don't agree with Michael's final analysis about DD replacing hard goods.

I think, the latent growth of the PS3 (due to high initial pricing and pent up demand) and the symbiotic relationship of the HD tiwns software library is hiding usual generational declines at the end of a five year console cycle.

If your frame of mind is 10 years, then it's doom and gloom. If what you're looking at is as a maturing console market, then it's perfectly reasonable to see this trend.

This console generation is unsual, but not for the virtues of Sony's 10 year plan. It's just that everything were far more expensive than they should be at the start of the generation and a good chunk of consumers simply waited to purchase or went with the Wii. In that sense, traditional models of growth, maturity and decline doesn't quite apply. For example, I wouldn't rule out another monster 4th quarter for Wii, just because of the demographics of that platform.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
cnizzle06 said:
I don't care what anyone says, games need to become cheaper. 60 dollar and up price points are just insane and really limit my amount of purchases.
Carts were $70+ in the SNES/N64 era. Prices have actually gone down since then, even without accounting for inflation.
 

Deku

Banned
SapientWolf said:
Carts were $70+ in the SNES/N64 era. Prices have actually gone down since then, even without accounting for inflation.

They went down significally with the PSX era CD games, but they're up substantially from there this generation.

I don't understand how people seemingly skip over the PSX pricing scheme in favour of going back nearly 20 years to the bad old days of cartridges, when the industry was far smaller, less mature (no not in the gritty sense), with fewer competitors and returns were obviously higher.
 

Zen

Banned
Nirolak said:
It seems that Michael Pachter has weighed in with some theories on the recent decline in retail videogame sales.


Source: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/39854/Pachter-Industry-in-permanent-decline

I was curious what people thought of his multiplayer harming retail sales theory in particular. It does sound surprisingly reasonable to me.

Patcher is on the ball, although it's a bit unfair to cast dark clouds over the entire industry when the primary reason that the numbers are down are because of the Wii/DS. Two of the most successful systems ever, that came off amazingly high sales in the prior years. Sure they're both down, but they're still selling a ton. The Wii was an anomaly within the industry and continues to be.

The real issue aren't Wii users becoming increasingly choosy, or the DS market having a saturation of product; entirely normal for a hand held in this stage of its life, it's the struggling retail sales for titles that aren't the cream of the crop.

1) The industry has over extended itself in generating product.
2) Games are more and more being feature packed. This along with DLC, multiplayer, etc lower the incentive for gamers to buy new products.
3) Games that aren't cream of the crop are too expensive to justify at 59.99

Rew said:
Monetizing online play will yes, be another stream of revenue, but it will not stop the decline, but in fact it will just further compound the problem this industry is facing in the long run.

Agreed. It will hasten the transformation of consoles into a PC gaming like landscape, dominated by the few that can effectively leverage monetizing playtime past the initial purchase. That will just keep pushing away everyone else that can't because gamers will be in more and more of a 'WoW' situation with their money going more and more to select few.

This industry needs a fundamental attitude change that starts treating the consumer with some respect or it will continue to decline. Want to see an increase in sales, start pricing games appropriately.

I agree with you that pricing needs to be looked at. I am far more frugal with my gaming money than I use to be, mainly because of the high price. I only buy the better games out there because it's expensive to be a gamer, and I end up getting my money worth. Secondly games are just so much more content rich these days that I can spend a long time playing them, and going back to them, that the need for a new game doesn't happen as frequently as it did in my youth.

Though I'd disagree about consumers not getting respect, the fact that we've had a second hand games market forever along with the industry attempting to create cheap gaming experiences on digital platforms... to me gamers have a decent amount of respect within the industry. It's the no compromises high price of console retail software that's an issue and I think there's room for some flexibility there.

[quoteCreate smaller games with smaller budgets, and price them accordingly.[/quote]

This is already happening but I think you mean something more in between the micro games we get now, and a full retail product.

Stop all the microtransaction bullshit. Create DLC that enhances a game and makes the user want to hold onto your product.

This is never going to happen and is a dead end. It's a lofty goal, but the consumer decides for themselves what value is worth paying for, you sould be mad at the consumer for being willing to eat up DLC that you don't think is worth it.

DLC/Microtransactions aren't a magic bullet for all developers, unless you're the top of the line.

Add value, don't go for a quick cash grab.

This is an offshoot of the 'just make better games' argument that we saw with the PC market and have seen before in the console market. It's bunk, and does nothing to address the increasingly selective habits of consumers. If we're talking about moving away from initial high priced software, in tandem with stopping microtranasactions, than it would only hasten the introduction of something akin to monthly subscription fees and the very things you're also rallying against.
 

Chojin

Member
I really don't understand this decline for Nintendo people are spouting. Is it really from an investor's viewpoint? Cause isn't 300k for both wii and ds still doing well considering its almost selling 2:1 to their respective competitors? Hell DS not withstanding thats what 6:1 vs the PSP?

Did Nintendo hit this huge peak then slightly tilted downward plateau or am I not understanding sales in general? What was the PS2 at year 4 selling at? Possibly much higher, but I really don't get the criticism Nintendo is getting.
 

Owzers

Member
Zen said:
This is an offshoot of the 'just make better games' argument that we saw with the PC market and have seen before in the console market. It's bunk, and does nothing to address the increasingly selective habits of consumers. If we're talking about moving away from initial high priced software, in tandem with stopping microtranasactions, than it would only hasten the introduction of something akin to monthly subscription fees and the very things you're also rallying against.


I stand by the thinking that games should be:

Better,cheaper, shorter, and have more dlc/expansions


Better: everyone likes good games

Cheaper: people can afford to buy a lot of games

Shorter and more DLC/expansions: To make the game cheaper, cut some of the fat and dev time. Leave the story with somewhere to go for dlc. With a lot of games these days, people don't even finish them so of course they don't want more dlc.
 
This guy seems like such an idiot. Why is it that every report he does just smashes nintendo. Although I think the wii will be dishing out a new console soon
 

Atreides

Member
Adding the sales lost by secon hand games, pirated games, rented games, recession, multiplayer games, lending games to friends, winning games at raffles, etc. I think the industry is actually selling a negative number of games.
 
FoxMcCloudDS said:
This guy seems like such an idiot. Why is it that every report he does just smashes nintendo. Although I think the wii will be dishing out a new console soon

lol? Smashing nintendo? lol, the Wii sales are down more than 20% year over year, the number speaks for itself. Nintendo has an issue on their hand with software sales that needs to be examined (well if they care about making as much money in the past as they have on software), then again its not like they are. Though, I wonder wont software still be down in the coming months since this time last year, Wii Sports Resort and Motion Plus came out, lol?
 
Chojin said:
I really don't understand this decline for Nintendo people are spouting. Is it really from an investor's viewpoint? Cause isn't 300k for both wii and ds still doing well considering its almost selling 2:1 to their respective competitors? Hell DS not withstanding thats what 6:1 vs the PSP?

Did Nintendo hit this huge peak then slightly tilted downward plateau or am I not understanding sales in general? What was the PS2 at year 4 selling at? Possibly much higher, but I really don't get the criticism Nintendo is getting.
Hardware is still pretty great. The big thing is Pachter is pointing out that even with hardware still doing decently and (obviously) a bigger userbase being there, software sales are down. It's not the case across all machines, so something is different.
 

donny2112

Member
1) Pachter usually refers to revenue.
2) The higher-priced SKU for Wii Fit sold less than half what it did in May 2009. (decline of 200K = $18m or ~$9m if those unit sales were replaced 1:1 with a full (normal) priced game)

=> Unit decline is probably significantly less than the percentage he gave.

How much of the revenue decline is purely from not having the high-priced Wii Fit SKU sell as much this year?
 

Chris1964

Sales-Age Genius
donny2112 said:
1) Pachter usually refers to revenue.
2) The higher-priced SKU for Wii Fit sold less than half what it did in May 2009. (decline of 200K = $18m or ~$9m if those unit sales were replaced 1:1 with a full (normal) priced game)

=> Unit decline is probably significantly less than the percentage he gave.

How much of the revenue decline is purely from not having the high-priced Wii Fit SKU sell as much this year?
+ Wii Sports Resort bundle
 
Interesting, I am pretty much done with the single player in Uncharted 2 right now but I haven't bought a new game because well, I can keep on going with the multi...
 

vocab

Member
Once this generation of console MMO's actually come out, the console industry is fucked for quite some time.
 

Vinci

Danish
Dedication Through Light said:
lol? Smashing nintendo? lol, the Wii sales are down more than 20% year over year, the number speaks for itself. Nintendo has an issue on their hand with software sales that needs to be examined (well if they care about making as much money in the past as they have on software), then again its not like they are. Though, I wonder wont software still be down in the coming months since this time last year, Wii Sports Resort and Motion Plus came out, lol?

No, he's been doing this pretty much from the word 'go.' Even back when Wii was outselling every other system combined on a monthly basis. Personally, I think he's still bitter that Nintendo never brought out a Wii HD.
 

stuminus3

Member
The reason for Nintendo's decline is really, really obvious.

I mean, the likes of Wii Fit sold what, 22 million copies? That's a much higher priced SKU than a normal game, too.

How often does that happen?

The only game released on the Wii this year that's even close to selling crazy numbers is Mario Galaxy 2, and it's not even close to Nintendo's biggest hitter. That's not to say the Wii hasn't had a fantastic year for software so far, but let's face it, Endless Ocean 2, Sin & Punishment, No More Heroes 2, Trauma Team... even the likes of Monster Hunter and Red Steel 2, those games are not big hitters to the mainsteam, and some of them are downright niche at best, add that to the fact that many Wii owners wouldn't know a good game if it hit them in the face (protip: not us).

All that's happening is Nintendo are failing to hit the completely unreasonable bar they set for themselves. Looks bad on paper, but the reality isn't quite so black and white. What Pachter is describing is investor thinking, which doesn't really mean a whole lot to us in the long run.
 

freddy

Banned
I think at this point it's safe to sat Pachter has lost any ability he might have had to look at the numbers objectively and form an unbiased opinion. He's no longer an observer from the outside with no stake in the outcome. He makes public predictions and has let it be known which way he thinks the industry needs to go. As a sideshow and minor celebrity in the gaming industry, sure he does ok, but as an analyst, well I think those times have left us behind. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. First Brazil, Now Pachter :(
 
Tutomos said:
People have certain visions they want to meet in their games. Gabe Newell flat out said PS2 is too weak for us to develop Half-Life 2 on it, PS2 couldn't meet their standards.

3DS got a lot of developers excited because it's a powerful machine, it allows them to have more creative and technical freedom. People who work in the industry aren't fanboys, they just don't share the same visions as Nintendo.

dont make me laugh

limits stimulate creativity not the other way around... anyone involved arts know this
 

loosus

Banned
I think part of the problem with Wii and DS is that Nintendo essentially catered to the extreme casual user for far too long. You can say that games like Galaxy were available, but really...if Wii Sports is Casual Extreme, then Galaxy is Casual Lite. The markets are not hugely different and hugely overlap. If you cater almost exclusively to a market for too long, then everybody else -- you know, the people who buy more than one game every four months -- will go elsewhere.

It also probably doesn't help that some of Nintendo's lesser casual games like Galaxy and Twilight Princess probably have not left a good taste in those consumers' mouths. The way Nintendo has designed these games, they are not as pick-up-and-play friendly as one would hope.
 
Game Publishers: Let's put in great multi-player aspects so that we don't need to compete with our own used games.

Then game sales drop because people keep playing the great multi-player instead of buying new games.

1fu1zp.jpg
 

Gahiggidy

My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
Patcher said:
...

In particular, Pachter singled out Nintendo for the fact that software sales continue to dwindle despite its growing install base.

“Wii software sales were down 29 per cent year-over-year and DS software sales were down 13 per cent, while PS3 software sales were up 58 per cent and Xbox 360 software sales were up 29 per cent,” he added.

...
What if this is just statistical noise?
 

Vinci

Danish
loosus said:
I think part of the problem with Wii and DS is that Nintendo essentially catered to the extreme casual user for far too long. You can say that games like Galaxy were available, but really...if Wii Sports is Casual Extreme, then Galaxy is Casual Lite. The markets are not hugely different and hugely overlap. If you cater almost exclusively to a market for too long, then everybody else -- you know, the people who buy more than one game every four months -- will go elsewhere.

It also probably doesn't help that some of Nintendo's lesser casual games like Galaxy and Twilight Princess probably have not left a good taste in those consumers' mouths. The way Nintendo has designed these games, they are not as pick-up-and-play friendly as one would hope.

...

Kidding. To. You've. Me. Got. Be.
 

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
Zen said:
Agreed. It will hasten the transformation of consoles into a PC gaming like landscape, dominated by the few that can effectively leverage monetizing playtime past the initial purchase. That will just keep pushing away everyone else that can't because gamers will be in more and more of a 'WoW' situation with their money going more and more to select few.

Then it isnt a PC gaming like landscape. Maybe its an MMO like situation, but not really since there are plenty of successful MMOs out there and MMOs arent like other games.
 

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
loosus said:
I think part of the problem with Wii and DS is that Nintendo essentially catered to the extreme casual user for far too long. You can say that games like Galaxy were available, but really...if Wii Sports is Casual Extreme, then Galaxy is Casual Lite. The markets are not hugely different and hugely overlap. If you cater almost exclusively to a market for too long, then everybody else -- you know, the people who buy more than one game every four months -- will go elsewhere.

It also probably doesn't help that some of Nintendo's lesser casual games like Galaxy and Twilight Princess probably have not left a good taste in those consumers' mouths. The way Nintendo has designed these games, they are not as pick-up-and-play friendly as one would hope.

Maybe you could say that about the Wii, maybe. But not the DS. At all. Sit in the corner.

This is assuming that the casual approach was at all the problem and not a lack of compelling software or poor localization records or droughts or third parties missing the boat or just a generational drop off. And I believe the whole myth that Wii users only get a few Wii _ titles and MKWii is false, but I dont have the attach rates or anything.
 

Jokeropia

Member
loosus said:
I think part of the problem with Wii and DS is that Nintendo essentially catered to the extreme casual user for far too long. You can say that games like Galaxy were available, but really...if Wii Sports is Casual Extreme, then Galaxy is Casual Lite. The markets are not hugely different and hugely overlap. If you cater almost exclusively to a market for too long, then everybody else -- you know, the people who buy more than one game every four months -- will go elsewhere.
I'm not sure what you're saying, but from the looks of it neither are you.

1.) Galaxy is absolutely a "gamer's game" and it's performing in line with it's predecessor. (Both sold +500k first week, though the sequel did it in May as opposed to November.)

2.) The decrease in software sales can from what it seems like be attributed mostly to a decrease of casual games like Wii Fit and EA Sports Active.

3.) Last time we got total software data (October 09) it showed that the average Wii, 360 and PS3 owners all buy games at the same rate.
loosus said:
It also probably doesn't help that some of Nintendo's lesser casual games like Galaxy and Twilight Princess probably have not left a good taste in those consumers' mouths. The way Nintendo has designed these games, they are not as pick-up-and-play friendly as one would hope.
Which consumers are you referring to here? From the context of the statement (coming off the one I quoted above) it looks like it's the "people who buy more than one game every four months" aka "core gamers" in which case it makes absolutely no sense at all. If you're referring to casual gamers you don't have much ground to stand on either as there's no data whatsoever supporting your theory. Galaxy and Zelda aren't as pick-up-and-play friendly as Mario Kart and NSMB, they're not supposed to be and that's why they cap at ~10 million instead of 20+. There's nothing that suggests this huge pick-up-and-play-friendly-craving market bought these games and got turned off, they simply never bought them in the first place.
 

RurouniZel

Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
My personal theory on why this is happening, the real problem behind the software decline on Wii is that 3rd parties refuse to put their best stuff on the system, and the real reason 3rd parties hate the Wii and every last ounce of it's success (thus not putting their best stuff on the machine), can be boiled down to a very simple concept.

A power struggle.

In the 8 and 16 bit days, while there was a definite 3rd party influence to some extent, systems were largely built on the success of 1st party efforts. Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Castlevania and others surely helped make no mistake, but Nintendo's fortunes in the market share were due to Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, Donkey Kong etc. In the same way, Sega's fortunes in catching up to Nintendo in the US were largely defined by Sonic, Phantasy Star, Ecco the Dolphin etc. Even if fanboys remember the 3rd party efforts more than the 1st, it was the 1st party efforts that gave direction to the industry.

Then, in the PlayStation era, a paradigm shift happened. Sony's success was largely defined by the efforts of 3rd parties like Square, Capcom, Konami etc., creating a culture whereby in the PlayStation 2 era, 3rd parties got used to the idea of hardware manufacturers catering everything to them. Metaphorically bowing and scraping at their feet (read: moneyhatting) for them to pick their platform for their all-important franchises.

Betting on the success of the HD twins, the unimaginable (in their eyes) happened; Nintendo regained the lead with the Wii, grossly outperforming the 360 and PS3. Passing it off as a fad, they kept working in HD, but when it came to pass that the Wii was not a fad, many 3rd parties went to Nintendo expecting them to money-hat to get their efforts on the Wii, just as Microsoft and Sony did. But Nintendo didn't see the need to do so. In Nintendo's eyes, they should have put their stuff on the Wii because it was the leading platform, not on the promise of mounds of money.

Miffed, 3rd parties did everything they could to destroy the Wii by continuing to put their worst teams on the system while heavily promoting the greatness of the HD twins with all of their biggest franchises. Yet despite their efforts, Nintendo continued to succeed.

And THAT'S why they're so disgusted with the machine. It's not the tech or the motion controller (though they are factors); it's the fact that Nintendo has taken their power to direct the industry away from them by succeeding in becoming the industry leader again with next-to-no help from the 3rd parties. With no moneyhats, with no bowing and scraping, Nintendo has continued to dominate while 3rd parties continue to try and hurt it by not putting their best efforts on the system, flooding the Wii's market with shovelware after shovelware. 3rd parties efforts on the Wii can sell, especially in Japan (see Monster Hunter 3) when they DO put their best foot forward on the machine, but they don't WANT that to be the case. They continue to hope for the day the Wii falls, so that they can reclaim their places as the industry directors, those who decide what does and doesn't succeed in the industry. They had the power to propel the PlayStation past all of the competition for 2 whole generations, and now their efforts can't do a thing to propel either HD system ahead of the Wii.

They hate the Wii because it succeeded almost solely on Nintendo's efforts, not theirs.

EDIT: I forgot to clarify why this is such a huge dilemma for 3rd parties. The thing is, most 3rd party developers are staffed by people who grew up loving videogames, and are every bit as much fanboys/girls as GAFers. They want to make their ultimate games, despite the budget. They've been able to do this because, in a culture where they hold the power, they can practically force hardware makers to give them money to make their games, thus lowering their risk. This generation, they've been able to convince their publishers/shareholders that it's too late to put their stuff on the Wii, because they've already destroyed that market, and thus HAVE to keep pushing their budgets for the HD twins.

However, I can almost guarantee you that when Nintendo unveils their next home console, that excuse won't work anymore. Shareholders will insist that they put their best efforts on Nintendo's platform out the gate, as they won't be made fools of two generations in a row. But Nintendo isn't going to help them fund their projects either, so now they actually have to be mindful of their budgets, something this generation has clearly proved they're not accustomed to. Meaning they're not in a position of power where they can demand the funds they want to make their dream game, now they actually have to deal with making a great game on the budget they're given, and they don't want that.
 
Vinci said:
No, he's been doing this pretty much from the word 'go.' Even back when Wii was outselling every other system combined on a monthly basis. Personally, I think he's still bitter that Nintendo never brought out a Wii HD.

lol, the way he is in Bonus Round makes me think he would love Nintendo, especially after his glowing E3 impressions, lol

lol, though maybe he is right, a Wii HD would perhaps help enliven the system and software sales, HD focused gamers, would flock to it again, lol.
 

Pinzer

Unconfirmed Member
Dedication Through Light said:
lol, the way he is in Bonus Round makes me think he would love Nintendo, especially after his glowing E3 impressions, lol

lol, though maybe he is right, a Wii HD would perhaps help enliven the system and software sales, HD focused gamers, would flock to it again, lol.

Ok, now you're doing it on purpose.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Gahiggidy said:
What if this is just statistical noise?

I was wondering that too - or more specifically, these results were delayed some weeks because of NPD doing something different with their figures and that delay must have had some effect on the figures or why would they do it?

So - until we know more about what they did - it is not particularly useful doing comparisons with them.
 

Jeels

Member
I will say this, this generation compared to others, its becoming harder and harder to find satisfying both length and playability wise, single player games, because just about every major release is shifting its focus towards multiplayer.
 

MadOdorMachine

No additional functions
RurouniZel said:
My personal theory on why this is happening, the real problem behind the software decline on Wii is that 3rd parties refuse to put their best stuff on the system, and the real reason 3rd parties hate the Wii and every last ounce of it's success (thus not putting their best stuff on the machine), can be boiled down to a very simple concept.

A power struggle.

In the 8 and 16 bit days, while there was a definite 3rd party influence to some extent, systems were largely built on the success of 1st party efforts. Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Castlevania and others surely helped make no mistake, but Nintendo's fortunes in the market share were due to Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, Donkey Kong etc. In the same way, Sega's fortunes in catching up to Nintendo in the US were largely defined by Sonic, Phantasy Star, Ecco the Dolphin etc. Even if fanboys remember the 3rd party efforts more than the 1st, it was the 1st party efforts that gave direction to the industry.

Then, in the PlayStation era, a paradigm shift happened. Sony's success was largely defined by the efforts of 3rd parties like Square, Capcom, Konami etc., creating a culture whereby in the PlayStation 2 era, 3rd parties got used to the idea of hardware manufacturers catering everything to them. Metaphorically bowing and scraping at their feet (read: moneyhatting) for them to pick their platform for their all-important franchises.

Betting on the success of the HD twins, the unimaginable (in their eyes) happened; Nintendo regained the lead with the Wii, grossly outperforming the 360 and PS3. Passing it off as a fad, they kept working in HD, but when it came to pass that the Wii was not a fad, many 3rd parties went to Nintendo expecting them to money-hat to get their efforts on the Wii, just as Microsoft and Sony did. But Nintendo didn't see the need to do so. In Nintendo's eyes, they should have put their stuff on the Wii because it was the leading platform, not on the promise of mounds of money.

Miffed, 3rd parties did everything they could to destroy the Wii by continuing to put their worst teams on the system while heavily promoting the greatness of the HD twins with all of their biggest franchises. Yet despite their efforts, Nintendo continued to succeed.

And THAT'S why they're so disgusted with the machine. It's not the tech or the motion controller (though they are factors); it's the fact that Nintendo has taken their power to direct the industry away from them by succeeding in becoming the industry leader again with next-to-no help from the 3rd parties. With no moneyhats, with no bowing and scraping, Nintendo has continued to dominate while 3rd parties continue to try and hurt it by not putting their best efforts on the system, flooding the Wii's market with shovelware after shovelware. 3rd parties efforts on the Wii can sell, especially in Japan (see Monster Hunter 3) when they DO put their best foot forward on the machine, but they don't WANT that to be the case. They continue to hope for the day the Wii falls, so that they can reclaim their places as the industry directors, those who decide what does and doesn't succeed in the industry. They had the power to propel the PlayStation past all of the competition for 2 whole generations, and now their efforts can't do a thing to propel either HD system ahead of the Wii.

They hate the Wii because it succeeded almost solely on Nintendo's efforts, not theirs.

I agree with what you said about third parties omitting their best stuff from Wii, but I think you're wrong about their current dilemma with the Wii. I don't think they have it out for Wii and I do think they've been trying, but they're definitely holding back. I expect things to be a lot different with Nintendo's next console though.
 

RurouniZel

Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
MadOdorMachine said:
I agree with what you said about third parties omitting their best stuff from Wii, but I think you're wrong about their current dilemma with the Wii. I don't think they have it out for Wii and I do think they've been trying, but they're definitely holding back. I expect things to be a lot different with Nintendo's next console though.

True. I made an edit addressing that, and why they might not like that though based on the Wii's success and Nintendo's current no moneyhatting ways.
 

MadOdorMachine

No additional functions
RurouniZel said:
However, I can almost guarantee you that when Nintendo unveils their next home console, that excuse won't work anymore. Shareholders will insist that they put their best efforts on Nintendo's platform out the gate, as they won't be made fools of two generations in a row. But Nintendo isn't going to help them fund their projects either, so now they actually have to be mindful of their budgets, something this generation has clearly proved they're not accustomed to. Meaning they're not in a position of power where they can demand the funds they want to make their dream game, now they actually have to deal with making a great game on the budget they're given, and they don't want that.
I'm not sure how much money or what kind of deals Microsoft and Sony offer, but I'm curious if there's a much weight to the whole "moneyhat" idea as people give it credit for. I do think Nintendo still has a lot to do and learn with regard to third parties, but I think they're trying. I think they realize how important that support is and their next system might just see the most support a Nintendo system has seen in a very long time. I think it could be at SNES or NES levels of support again where almost every game that's released comes out on it.
 

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
speculawyer said:
Game Publishers: Let's put in great multi-player aspects so that we don't need to compete with our own used games.

Then game sales drop because people keep playing the great multi-player instead of buying new games.

1fu1zp.jpg
I would say it is more of a catch 22.

Gamers want more value for their dollar. Titles get lashed for not having MP and being "Short". While the titles that do it successful turn out to be a massive fucking void. They sell a lot of copies, but also kill off a lot of the other titles that don't match it's content value.

I think the only real way to solve this is going back to more PC roots. Consoles just can't support the higher prices and full expectations on developers to provide the content. They need a better fluctuating price scheme, and to slowly become more open to user content. I really see no reason why they should either, it basically promotes your game for free.

About the declining sales, A large part of Wii's success as always been centered around a few select titles. It never really had the same steady stream the HD twins had or DS.
 

RurouniZel

Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
MadOdorMachine said:
I'm not sure how much money or what kind of deals Microsoft and Sony offer, but I'm curious if there's a much weight to the whole "moneyhat" idea as people give it credit for. I do think Nintendo still has a lot to do and learn with regard to third parties, but I think they're trying. I think they realize how important that support is and their next system might just see the most support a Nintendo system has seen in a very long time. I think it could be at SNES or NES levels of support again where almost every game that's released comes out on it.

This is very true. I do hope Nintendo and 3rd parties can come to an understanding, this generation has been quite embarrassing in that regard.
 

Faxanadu

Member
RurouniZel said:
My personal theory on why this is happening, the real problem behind the software decline on Wii is that 3rd parties refuse to put their best stuff on the system, and the real reason 3rd parties hate the Wii and every last ounce of it's success (thus not putting their best stuff on the machine), can be boiled down to a very simple concept.

A power struggle.

In the 8 and 16 bit days, while there was a definite 3rd party influence to some extent, systems were largely built on the success of 1st party efforts. Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Castlevania and others surely helped make no mistake, but Nintendo's fortunes in the market share were due to Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, Donkey Kong etc. In the same way, Sega's fortunes in catching up to Nintendo in the US were largely defined by Sonic, Phantasy Star, Ecco the Dolphin etc. Even if fanboys remember the 3rd party efforts more than the 1st, it was the 1st party efforts that gave direction to the industry.

Then, in the PlayStation era, a paradigm shift happened. Sony's success was largely defined by the efforts of 3rd parties like Square, Capcom, Konami etc., creating a culture whereby in the PlayStation 2 era, 3rd parties got used to the idea of hardware manufacturers catering everything to them. Metaphorically bowing and scraping at their feet (read: moneyhatting) for them to pick their platform for their all-important franchises.

Betting on the success of the HD twins, the unimaginable (in their eyes) happened; Nintendo regained the lead with the Wii, grossly outperforming the 360 and PS3. Passing it off as a fad, they kept working in HD, but when it came to pass that the Wii was not a fad, many 3rd parties went to Nintendo expecting them to money-hat to get their efforts on the Wii, just as Microsoft and Sony did. But Nintendo didn't see the need to do so. In Nintendo's eyes, they should have put their stuff on the Wii because it was the leading platform, not on the promise of mounds of money.

Miffed, 3rd parties did everything they could to destroy the Wii by continuing to put their worst teams on the system while heavily promoting the greatness of the HD twins with all of their biggest franchises. Yet despite their efforts, Nintendo continued to succeed.

And THAT'S why they're so disgusted with the machine. It's not the tech or the motion controller (though they are factors); it's the fact that Nintendo has taken their power to direct the industry away from them by succeeding in becoming the industry leader again with next-to-no help from the 3rd parties. With no moneyhats, with no bowing and scraping, Nintendo has continued to dominate while 3rd parties continue to try and hurt it by not putting their best efforts on the system, flooding the Wii's market with shovelware after shovelware. 3rd parties efforts on the Wii can sell, especially in Japan (see Monster Hunter 3) when they DO put their best foot forward on the machine, but they don't WANT that to be the case. They continue to hope for the day the Wii falls, so that they can reclaim their places as the industry directors, those who decide what does and doesn't succeed in the industry. They had the power to propel the PlayStation past all of the competition for 2 whole generations, and now their efforts can't do a thing to propel either HD system ahead of the Wii.

They hate the Wii because it succeeded almost solely on Nintendo's efforts, not theirs.

EDIT: I forgot to clarify why this is such a huge dilemma for 3rd parties. The thing is, most 3rd party developers are staffed by people who grew up loving videogames, and are every bit as much fanboys/girls as GAFers. They want to make their ultimate games, despite the budget. They've been able to do this because, in a culture where they hold the power, they can practically force hardware makers to give them money to make their games, thus lowering their risk. This generation, they've been able to convince their publishers/shareholders that it's too late to put their stuff on the Wii, because they've already destroyed that market, and thus HAVE to keep pushing their budgets for the HD twins.

However, I can almost guarantee you that when Nintendo unveils their next home console, that excuse won't work anymore. Shareholders will insist that they put their best efforts on Nintendo's platform out the gate, as they won't be made fools of two generations in a row. But Nintendo isn't going to help them fund their projects either, so now they actually have to be mindful of their budgets, something this generation has clearly proved they're not accustomed to. Meaning they're not in a position of power where they can demand the funds they want to make their dream game, now they actually have to deal with making a great game on the budget they're given, and they don't want that.

You've just said what I've been trying to say clearly on here for a while now. Thanks!
 

Trurl

Banned
It makes sense that 3rd parties will do more to support Nintendo's next console, but it's hard for me to imagine. It's been nearly 15 years since Nintendo had a console with strong 3rd party support, it just seems like a fact of life at this point.
 

legend166

Member
Opiate said:
I'm surprised how little discussion there is of the Wii/DS in this thread: the Wii and DS are the obvious offenders here, with (what appears to be) persistent and rather rapid downward trends in software.

I've yet to see any real evidence that the PS3/360 are seeing software declines. I'm not saying that such evidence doesn't exist, mind you: I'm suggesting that it isn't apparent. What is apparent, however, is that the Wii is seeing a very rapid decline, particularly for a leading console.

I think we're reaching a point where the notion of the PS3 and 360 significantly outlasting the Wii -- despite their relative lack of success -- may be likely. Either 1) The Wii is a normal console experiencing a traditional 5 year console lifespan, which means the PS3/360 are freak systems that continue to sell strongly well past the 5 year barrier, or 2) The PS3/360 are normal systems, and the Wii is a short lived system that dies off rapidly.

I don't really care which way you put it, but the evidence that we're seeing one of those two situations is mounting.

Wii has in my mind, finally reached that point where it's buckling under the pressure of having only really one publisher giving it legitimate support (Nintendo). It could only survive for so long until consumers just decided to stop buying 3rd party games altogether after being burnt so many times.

That's why we'll get Wii 2 in 2011.

Just as an example - why didn't Blur come out on the Wii? I only just found this out today, because I assumed it would have come out on the Wii, in some form. It makes no sense.
 
speculawyer said:
Game Publishers: Let's put in great multi-player aspects so that we don't need to compete with our own used games.

Then game sales drop because people keep playing the great multi-player instead of buying new games.

[IG]http://i46.tinypic.com/1fu1zp.jpg[/IMG]

I can't help but feel like this is why Nintendo's online infrastructure is lagging so far behind its competitors. SSBB's online mode was a joke.
 
Top Bottom