Support NeoGAF

Opiate · Aug 30, 2008

TunaLover said:
That doesn't explain why botter with risky systems when you could make more profit on Wii, even with high budget games. I'm pretty much sure it has to do much more with the relationship that Sony and MS have made with third parties, Nintendo pretty much doesn't care, so 3rd parties goes to PS360 for financial, marketing support at some point. Just look at Sony-SE, and MS-Tecmo.

That's possible; it isn't a point I was trying to make. Again, I began with an assumption: if you want to suppor the PS3/360 at all, then this is what you should do.

The underlying question which you are addressing (should they support the PS3/360 at all?) was specifically eliminated from my post because it's a whole different can of worms.

Richelieu · Aug 30, 2008

One reason the Wii would naturally be "behind the curve" of the DS is that it most certainly takes more time to make an epic Wii game than an epic DS game.

Just a thought.

andthebeatgoeson · Aug 30, 2008

TunaLover said:
That doesn't explain why botter with risky systems when you could make more profit on Wii, even with high budget games. I'm pretty much sure it has to do much more with the relationship that Sony and MS have made with third parties, Nintendo pretty much doesn't care, so 3rd parties goes to PS360 for financial, marketing support at some point. Just look at Sony-SE, and MS-Tecmo.

Although his theory explains more than the typical arguments: nobody wants to work with last gen hardware. Maybe it is just a case of manpower. They all wanted to work on 360/PS3 in the beginning. Now, things have changed but you can still sell a blockbuster on 360. That won't go away. What is not present is middle range and low range software doing well enough at a rate to justify the budget. That is the assumption.

We see devs/pubs are pushing A, B and C level games but no AAA. Why? I like Opiate's theory. You have to give the 360/PS3 something but to reduce/limit the risk, make the AAA guys handle it. Even they are having difficulty with the hardware but if you'll ever recoup the money, you have to have a AAA team. It may take 2-3 years (Konami, Square). But they can't go back now. They will sell 2-3 million and maybe more.

Someone said it before: the Wii is late, in comparison to the DS but if devs/pubs ignore it after this year, they are criminally insane. It sounds like 'wait for..' but with the direction of sales for the Wii, I can't believe AAA games, both western and eastern, will not be hitting the Wii, primarily. I say that, fully believing, Gears of War, is not AAA.

GOW should not be celebrated. All those big guys and the best thing about the game, is being a pussy. Hiding. Pussies.

ComputerNerd · Aug 30, 2008

Opiate said:
I don't think you understood my point: again, it isn't that they can't be on Wii, it's that they must be on the PS3 and 360. If you want to work on the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 at all -- which most publishers do -- you have to minize risk as much as possible, much moreso than you do for the Wii, because of the expontential rise in cost.

In such a situation, the only games that are fiscally responsible are the "biggest, most storied, and least risky games."

Edit: Okay, I've come up with an example to clarify my point, Computer.

Imagine if Konami was planning three new titles: a game in the Metal Gear Solid franchise, and two new IPs. If you wanted to continue to support all systems (and again, most publishers do), which system would you put which game on? I would argue that in most cases, if the new IPs are even moderately risky, you cannot put those games on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. The stakes are too high and the bombs too painful. As such, the only game that one can put on the PS3/360 would be the Metal Gear game, because it is less risky and less prone to catastrophic failure. Thus, the two new IPs would be on the Wii or DS, and Metal Gear would remain on the PS3/360.

That is what I'm arguing.

Going by your example, why can't the expensive game (MGS4), also be on the Wii, to further reduce risk?

schuelma · Aug 30, 2008

Richelieu said:
One reason the Wii would naturally be "behind the curve" of the DS is that it most certainly takes more time to make an epic Wii game than an epic DS game.

Just a thought.

Very true. I've said for a while that late 2008/2009 is when we would see better 3rd party efforts. Looking at the early 09 lineup, I think we're seeing that.

ThatObviousUser · Aug 30, 2008

titiklabingapat said:
Hmmm, I think that FF's support in the early days were adequate, but not now. I would consider it pisspoor.

The last time something was announced was LR, and then 360 FFXIII. Nothing has been for the Wii at all except for that chocobo low budget one.

You're probably right.

But I

BELIEVE

Square will redeem themselves on Wii with Kingdom Hearts 3 and especially Crystal Bearers.

Osuwari · Aug 30, 2008

even systems like the N64 had incredible software sales and made massive profits for the people who made them. the fact that the highest selling game of the 32/64-bit gen is Mario 64 is even more surprising since the N64 had like less than 1/3 the PS1's userbase.
that's why some devs will never jump ship from PS360 to Wii.

aeolist · Aug 30, 2008

So at what point do the following things occur:

1. DS LTD passes PS2 LTD
2. Wii LTD passed PS3 and 360 LTD combined

C.T. · Aug 30, 2008

Osuwari said:
even systems like the N64 had incredible software sales and made massive profits for the people who made them. the fact that the highest selling game of the 32/64-bit gen is Mario 64 is even more surprising since the N64 had like less than 1/3 the PS1's userbase.
that's why some devs will never jump ship from PS360 to Wii.

lol. Third party games sell on wii, not just nintendo title. go home troll.

gtj1092 · Aug 30, 2008

Isn't the "3rd parties are going to flock to the Wii" just as bad as the "Wait for___game" crowd. The Wii is out selling the 360 and Ps3 but its market share is nowhere near the point of Ps2 last gen or DS in the handheld market. Until there is a dramatic difference in market share between PS360 and Wii developers wont be forced to make games for Wii.

Eteric Rice · Aug 30, 2008

gtj1092 said:
Isn't the "3rd parties are going to flock to the Wii" just as bad as the "Wait for___game" crowd. The Wii is out selling the 360 and Ps3 but its market share is nowhere near the point of Ps2 last gen or DS in the handheld market. Until there is a dramatic difference in market share between PS360 and Wii developers wont be forced to make games for Wii.

The Wii will have outsold both combined next year.

Going by EA's comments, the Wii's userbase as it is, is getting hard to resist.

gtj1092 · Aug 30, 2008

Eteric Rice said:
The Wii will have outsold both combined next year.

Going by EA's comments, the Wii's userbase as it is, is getting hard to resist.

But its market share will only be between 50 and 60 percent. Ps2 and DS had 70+ percent marketshares. The thing is third parties are supporting the Wii its had more releases in its first 18 months than Ps3 or 360 had in their first 18 months. Its just not the type of titles forum dwellers would like but the public seems to be loving it so why would third parties change their strategies.

Opiate · Aug 30, 2008

gtj1092 said:
Isn't the "3rd parties are going to flock to the Wii" just as bad as the "Wait for___game" crowd. The Wii is out selling the 360 and Ps3 but its market share is nowhere near the point of Ps2 last gen or DS in the handheld market. Until there is a dramatic difference in market share between PS360 and Wii developers wont be forced to make games for Wii.

I suppose these are the same in that they both represent wishes and hopes by the console-specific faithful, but otherwise I don't think there is a fair comparison.

Historically, winning systems have continued to be winning systems, and trailing systems have continued to trail.

Historically, third parties have increased their support for the most prolific console as it has grown stronger.

One of your statements is supported by historical evidence. The other is not. These are not the same.

andthebeatgoeson · Aug 30, 2008

gtj1092 said:
But its market share will only be between 50 and 60 percent. Ps2 and DS had 70+ percent marketshares. The thing is third parties are supporting the Wii its had more releases in its first 18 months than Ps3 or 360 had in their first 18 months. Its just not the type of titles forum dwellers would like but the public seems to be loving it so why would third parties change their strategies.

Well, I think you'll find your answer in your post. Market share is growing and release list is growing. Somehow, it already has the largest release library of all 3. I don't believe it but some PR said it recently, I think. When it hits 50 million then 80 million, they'll have no choice but put a AAA game on the Wii. Otherwise, it would be as dramatic as the shift to Wii.

milanbaros · Aug 30, 2008

What hasn't happened so far which I expected is that smaller publishers taking risks on the Wii would have breakout games and that the publishers ignoring the Wii would be hurt. I suppose I imagined a similar shift in the 3rd party sector as well as the manufacturing sector.

Axord · Aug 30, 2008

What defines an 'AAA' game, or as sphinx originally said "quality ... hardcore"?

And is that the real core of the perception gap, anyway?

Because it seems there's plenty of examples of games on the HD twins have had an enthusiastic cheerleader section, touting them as 'must have', only to have the actual quality of the games not exactly live up to the hype.

There seems to be no equivalent hype corps for Wii third party games. Is that mostly because the upcoming games are that dissimilar in theme, promotion efforts, length, difficulty, franchise relation, and features?

Or does it primarily come down to predicting quality by graphics? Are Bangai-O Spirits and Blastworks really substantially different from LittleBigPlanet by any other measure? How would RE4 and Okami be judged if they had not been ports? If Mushroom Men turns out to be outstandingly fun and satisfying, will anyone notice?

So to come back to the original bit about the definition of 'AAA'... if the primary method we use to hype a game is graphics, then many or most hardcore gamers may never see the Wii as having 'AAA' games, or even many desirable games.

Cosmonaut X · Aug 30, 2008

Axord said:
So to come back to the original bit about the definition of 'AAA'... if the primary method we use to hype a game is graphics, then many or most hardcore gamers may never see the Wii as having 'AAA' games, or even many desirable games.

I've said this before in other threads: For me at least, I would define something like SSBB, SMG or Metroid Prime 3 as a AAA game - relatively high-budget with talented dev teams, decent development cycles & a big push from the publisher. There aren't really any third-party games of that level on the system yet, with most of the third-party releases coming from smaller, second-tier devs, or being low-budget spin-offs or rushed to release.

AAA isn't about the graphics - it's about the time, talent, money and effort put into a title.

Haunted · Aug 30, 2008

Cosmonaut X said:
I've said this before in other threads: For me at least, I would define something like SSBB, SMG or Metroid Prime 3 as a AAA game - relatively high-budget with talented dev teams, decent development cycles & a big push from the publisher. There aren't really any third-party games of that level on the system yet, with most of the third-party releases coming from smaller, second-tier devs, or being low-budget spin-offs or rushed to release.

AAA isn't about the graphics - it's about the time, talent, money and effort put into a title.

Agreed, with the addition of quality to the equation, of course. (Big-budget bombs are not AAA games).

marc^o^ · Aug 30, 2008

Cosmonaut X said:
I've said this before in other threads: For me at least, I would define something like SSBB, SMG or Metroid Prime 3 as a AAA game - relatively high-budget with talented dev teams, decent development cycles & a big push from the publisher. There aren't really any third-party games of that level on the system yet, with most of the third-party releases coming from smaller, second-tier devs, or being low-budget spin-offs or rushed to release.

AAA isn't about the graphics - it's about the time, talent, money and effort put into a title.

So what about an arcade game like Samba de Amigo for instance? To me it's better than all the Assassin Creeds in the world. Can such a game be labeled "hardcore" by your definition? To me it's a reason enough to own a wii. Will next gen lovers even notice it? Recognize it as AAA material? I don't think so.

m3k · Aug 30, 2008

lol at talk of a share bubble... stealth needs improving

and talk of wii's 3rd party problems... i thought it was generally acknowledged around here that it wasnt great but at least it was getting better

TunaLover · Aug 30, 2008

Axord said:
What defines an 'AAA' game, or as sphinx originally said "quality ... hardcore"?

And is that the real core of the perception gap, anyway?

Because it seems there's plenty of examples of games on the HD twins have had an enthusiastic cheerleader section, touting them as 'must have', only to have the actual quality of the games not exactly live up to the hype.

There seems to be no equivalent hype corps for Wii third party games. Is that mostly because the upcoming games are that dissimilar in theme, promotion efforts, length, difficulty, franchise relation, and features?

Or does it primarily come down to predicting quality by graphics? Are Bangai-O Spirits and Blastworks really substantially different from LittleBigPlanet by any other measure? How would RE4 and Okami be judged if they had not been ports? If Mushroom Men turns out to be outstandingly fun and satisfying, will anyone notice?

So to come back to the original bit about the definition of 'AAA'... if the primary method we use to hype a game is graphics, then many or most hardcore gamers may never see the Wii as having 'AAA' games, or even many desirable games.

quality post, well done sir

Neomoto · Aug 30, 2008

gtj1092 said:
But its market share will only be between 50 and 60 percent. Ps2 and DS had 70+ percent marketshares.

First of all, what does that have to do with "Wii's userbase is getting hard to ignore"? And second: The PS2 didn't have a 70% marketshare in it's first 2 years on the market. Who knows where Wii's marketshare will be in another 2 years or so.

ThatObviousUser · Aug 30, 2008

aeolist said:
So at what point do the following things occur:

1. DS LTD passes PS2 LTD
2. Wii LTD passed PS3 and 360 LTD combined

2, definitely, because PS2 is still trucking, but 1 won't be far behind I imagine. Especially if Nintendo releases a new redesign.

Starchasing · Aug 30, 2008

Cosmonaut X said:
AAA isn't about the graphics - it's about the time, talent, money and effort put into a title.

I thought it was about the result...

i mean who gives a shit about everything you said if the game ends being a POS?

Axord · Aug 30, 2008

Cosmonaut X said:
AAA isn't about the graphics - it's about the time, talent, money and effort put into a title.

But what data does the majority of hardcore gamers use to judge those factors for upcoming games, do you think? I'm thinking, in descending order: franchise history, screenshots and video, developer. If we're lucky.

Of the people who were hyped for Lair, how many loved the Rogue Squadron series? Of the people who were hyped for Too Human, how many loved Eternal Darkness? Of the people who were hyped for Heavenly Sword how many loved Kung Fu Chaos? Killzone 2 and Killzone 1? Is it the trailers or the developer pedigree that is primarily fueling the hype for Mirror's Edge? Would Street Fighter 4 be getting even half the attention if it was still sprite-based?

It seems to me that many HD games really just need to show up and look pretty to gain an expectation of quality, an assumption of at least the possibility of reaching 'AAA' status. Meanwhile Kojima could spend three years crafting a Nintendo title and people would still say "yeah, it looks alright... for a Wii game."

Spiegel · Aug 30, 2008

Neomoto said:
The PS2 didn't have a 70% marketshare in it's first 2 years on the market. Who knows where Wii's marketshare will be in another 2 years or so.

Yes, PS2 had 70% marketshare in its first 2 years

E32002kazhiraisecondplace.jpg

PS2 = 30 mill
Gc = 4 mill
Xbox = 4 mill

Starchasing · Aug 30, 2008

Spiegel said:
Yes, PS2 had 70% marketshare in its first 2 years

E32002kazhiraisecondplace.jpg

PS2 = 30 mill
Gc = 4 mill
Xbox = 4 mill

shipped?

Shiggy · Aug 30, 2008

aeolist said:
2. Wii LTD passed PS3 and 360 LTD combined

Don't they ship almost twice as many Wii consoles this business year as PS3 consoles were shipped until now? I expect it to happen around Christmas. Around March 2009 Nintendo will have shipped more than 55 million units.

Do we have information about Xbox 360 shipments?

Spiegel · Aug 30, 2008

Starchasing said:
shipped?

Of course

Starchasing · Aug 30, 2008

Spiegel said:
Of course

then its not marketshare

Spiegel · Aug 30, 2008

Starchasing said:
then its not marketshare

It's impossible to know what the worldwide marketshare is when we only have data (sold to consumers) from USA and Japan.

That's why everyone uses shipped data.

Starchasing · Aug 30, 2008

Spiegel said:
It's impossible to know what the worldwide marketshare is when we only have data (sold to consumers) from USA and Japan.

That's why everyone uses shipped data.

Well Sony overships and Nintendo underships.... its not a valid comparasion

Spiegel · Aug 30, 2008

Starchasing said:
Well Sony overships and Nintendo underships.... its not a valid comparasion

USA/America is not the world. Wii isn't supply constrained in Europe or Japan

Starchasing · Aug 30, 2008

Spiegel said:
USA/America is not the world. Wii isn't supply constrained in Europe or Japan

Sorry undershipping isnt really a valid term... because demand cant be exactly known.

Overshipping on the other hand is a valid term, and it is what Sony does.

In any form or shape Wii is kicking PS2 butt all around, just deal with it.

JudgeN · Aug 30, 2008

Starchasing said:
Sorry undershipping isnt really a valid term... because demand cant be exactly known.

Overshipping on the other hand is a valid term, and it is what Sony does.

In any form or shape Wii is kicking PS2 butt all around, just deal with it.

That just bullshit, the PS2 has kicked the Wii butt in whats important GAMES. The Wii will never catch up to the PS2 library. Screw sales of a company that we don't work for its about games and the PS2 will always beat the Wii in that area.

Spiegel · Aug 30, 2008

Starchasing said:
In any form or shape Wii is kicking PS2 butt all around, just deal with it.

WTF are you talking about? :lol

I know that the Wii is selling better but thanks for the news.

The question was if the PS2 had 70% marketshare in 2002 and the answer is: Probably, or at least it was very close

Starchasing · Aug 30, 2008

JudgeN said:
That just bullshit, the PS2 has kicked the Wii butt in whats important GAMES. The Wii will never catch up to the PS2 library. Screw sales of a company that we don't work for its about games and the PS2 will always beat the Wii in that area.

Did Obama win?

The DS has already a better library than the PS2 and the Wii looks like its going to top that.

The question was if the PS2 had 70% marketshare in 2002 and the answer is: Probably, or at least it was very close

But as i pointed out your answer is based on your faith

Spiegel · Aug 30, 2008

Starchasing said:
But as i pointed out your answer is based on your faith

Yeah, whatever

P.D :lol

JudgeN · Aug 30, 2008

Starchasing said:
Did Obama win?

The DS has already a better library than the PS2 and the Wii looks like its going to top that.

Yea your batshit insane if you think the DS library of remakes is better then PS2 library. And the DS for the first 2 years didn't have shit while the PS2 was lighting up the charts. But shit somehow based on the evidence you pulled out of your ass you think the Wii is going to top the DS :lol

Eteric Rice · Aug 30, 2008

Aaaaand here come the fucking list wars.

Any minute now.

Starchasing · Aug 30, 2008

You all laugh today.... i will laugh back eventually...

The same stupid shit was said about the DS and crow has been served.... wait and bleed

FightyF · Aug 30, 2008

Flakster99 said:
Brilliant .gif, best system to own, home console or handheld, this generation by a COUNTRY FUCKING MILE.

I disagree.

And I'm a huge 2D gaming fan. And I flat out disagree.

Mama Robotnik said:

Nice.

The problem with Nintendo is that they are making all of this money, but they don't seem to be stepping up their investments. You would think that with said money, they can open more development houses across the World (why not a studio in the UK/Europe? why not some of their own American studios?) and simply release more games.

Considering the amount of money their making, their current output is pitiful. For the past 2 years of the Wii's life, the 360 has had the best software in 2007, and the PS3 in 2008. These years were accentuated by strong 1st party efforts from MS and Sony. Now we can't discount Galaxy, Prime 3, Twilight Princess, Smash Bros. but weren't two of those games GameCube ports? As far as original Wii titles are concerned, Nintendo should be pumping out the titles...new titles that aren't age old sequels.

Remember games like Goldeneye, Wayne Gretzky's Hockey, Blast Corps, and 1080 Snowboarding? These weren't Mario/Zelda sequels, they were new original titles that helped fill out the library with offerings we didn't see from 3rd parties.

Sure, releasing games such as these won't make as much money as Wii Cleaning, but with $6 billion in the bank, what's there to lose? If Nintendo spent $5 million (a lot for a Wii game) on a new snowboarding game, they're at least going to break even considering the large userbase.

Nintendo (corporate) fans might be excited at the news, but I don't see how Nintendo (game) fans are anything other than downright frustrated.

Laguna · Aug 30, 2008

JudgeN said:
Yea your batshit insane if you think the DS library of remakes is better then PS2 library. And the DS for the first 2 years didn't have shit while the PS2 was lighting up the charts. But shit somehow based on the evidence you pulled out of your ass you think the Wii is going to top the DS :lol

Why so defensive? It´s a very subjectiv topic. To say the least, I also was disappointed from last-gen especially from the PS2 after an incredible 32bit/64bit era. The only system that didn´t disappoint me since that time is NDS with its incredible diverse library of quality and quantity of software. So I understand and also support him saying that the NDS softwarelibrary is becoming one of the best ever with SNESs and PSone and also the N64 had some groundbreaking games but had an incredible lacke of quantity so it´s "excluded". The PS2 got also a lot of good software but the only games that I really loved were Metal Gear Solid 2 and Pro Evolution Soccer and this is something I tell you as a SquareEnix fan.

fresquito · Aug 30, 2008

Anybody saying third parties won't support the Wii is

A) Totally ignorant of the Wii library and Wii news and Wii in general
B) Delusional

For some good examples of the turnaround of happenings you just gotta look at the two major third parties in the world.

Tiger Woods 07 is one of the worst games I've played in years. Tiger Woods 09 is one of the finest golf games I've played in my life and I have yet to play some more to think it's the best. But one thing it's clear, it's the most inmersive golf game to ever grace a console, that's for sure.

Boom Blox.

Guitar Hero IV will have more features on the Wii than in any other version.

The next Bond game and the next Call of Duty are using the CoD4 engine on the Wii.

If you can't see the difference with the last two years, you're blind.

Then there's this very exciting list of incoming japanese games. Too bad most of them won't be marketed as the next big thing like almost every HD game is. Wii support i'ts been lacking, and it's lacking taking into acount the numbers the Wii is moving, but anyone thinking most third parties will say goodbye to the money are really stupid.

Edit:

FightyF said:
Considering the amount of money their making, their current output is pitiful. For the past 2 years of the Wii's life, the 360 has had the best software in 2007, and the PS3 in 2008. These years were accentuated by strong 1st party efforts from MS and Sony. Now we can't discount Galaxy, Prime 3, Twilight Princess, Smash Bros. but weren't two of those games GameCube ports? As far as original Wii titles are concerned, Nintendo should be pumping out the titles...new titles that aren't age old sequels.

Nintendo's offering this generation is the best from a first party by a country mile. And I mean, how can you say Nintend's output has been anything but stellar?

Smash Bros, Mario Kart (the best in the series), Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Prime 3, Fire Emblem, Super Paper Mario, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Strikers... all of those are great games. Only thing lacking are original hardcore IPs.

Shin Johnpv · Aug 30, 2008

JudgeN said:
And the DS for the first 2 years didn't have shit while the PS2 was lighting up the charts.

I'm not going to get into this whole war on which console has the better library, because its very subjective, but to say the PS2 during its first 2 years had amazing software is a bit of a stretch. The first 12 - 18 months or so of the PS2 royally sucked ass. Did people magically forget that it launched with the bouncer and fantavision.

JudgeN · Aug 30, 2008

Shin Johnpv said:
I'm not going to get into this whole war on which console has the better library, because its very subjective, but to say the PS2 during its first 2 years had amazing software is a bit of a stretch. The first 12 - 18 months or so of the PS2 royally sucked ass. Did people magically forget that it launched with the bouncer and fantavision.

You must have forgot what launched on the PS2 during its first 2 years, but we know MGS2, GTA3, and FFX were there. There were so many new IP's, to many to list.

Laguna said:
Why so defensive? It´s a very subjectiv topic. To say the least, I also was disappointed from last-gen especially from the PS2 after an incredible 32bit/64bit era. The only system that didn´t disappoint me since that time is NDS with its incredible diverse library of quality and quantity of software. So I understand and also support him saying that the NDS softwarelibrary is becoming one of the best ever with SNESs and PSone and also the N64 had some groundbreaking games but had an incredible lacke of quantity so it´s "excluded". The PS2 got also a lot of good software but the only games that I really loved were Metal Gear Solid 2 and Pro Evolution Soccer and this is something I tell you as a SquareEnix fan.

To me it just doesn't make any sense, most people will agree that the DS first 2 year were pretty bad. While The PS2 was hitting homeruns left and right. I just don't see how the DS could have recovered/surpassed the PS2 library in the same amount of time.

Laguna · Aug 30, 2008

Shin Johnpv said:
I'm not going to get into this whole war on which console has the better library, because its very subjective, but to say the PS2 during its first 2 years had amazing software is a bit of a stretch. The first 12 - 18 months or so of the PS2 royally sucked ass. Did people magically forget that it launched with the bouncer and fantavision.

I didn´t. The highlights were Ridge Racer, Tag Tournament and the Bouncer in its first 12-18 months... this says everything

Laguna · Aug 30, 2008

fresquito · Aug 30, 2008

JudgeN said:
You must have forgot what launched on the PS2 during its first 2 years, but we know MGS2, GTA3, and FFX were there. There were so many IP's, to many to list.

You must have forgotten that the first year and half was totally ass except for a few exceptions. It wasn't until GT3 hit that things started o look not as pale. Then onwards things streamrolled and PS2 became a monster. But out of the gates it was just a bunch MGS2 videos against the ill-fated DC.

Aaron Strife · Aug 30, 2008

JudgeN said:
That just bullshit, the PS2 has kicked the Wii butt in whats important GAMES. The Wii will never catch up to the PS2 library. Screw sales of a company that we don't work for its about games and the PS2 will always beat the Wii in that area.

that's funny this is a sales thread

While The PS2 was hitting homeruns left and right.

well sure after it got GTA3, FFX, MGS2, etc. Do you think it was a software goliath right out the gate? When the PS2 launched it was more expensive and had a less attractive library than its nearest competitor, the Dreamcast, but strong sales ushered in new games that everyone ate up.

You'll also note that these "home runs" were largely third-party products. The best games on Wii are Nintendo and Zack and Wiki.

Support NeoGAF

Nintendo Raises Forecasts on Wii, DS; Shares Surge

Member

Member

Junior Member

Banned

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.

á½ Î±á¼´ÏÏÎ¹ÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ±á¿Ï Îµá¼¶

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Junior Member

Member?

Member

Member

Member

Nintendo's Pro Bono PR Firm

Member

Member

Member

á½ Î±á¼´ÏÏÎ¹ÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ±á¿Ï Îµá¼¶

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Similar threads

á½ Î±á¼´ÏÏÎ¹ÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ±á¿Ï Îµá¼¶

á½ Î±á¼´ÏÏÎ¹ÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ±á¿Ï Îµá¼¶