titiklabingapat
Member
FWIW, it will get a "mainline" Tales game.
But then again, it's NB.
But then again, it's NB.
-
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.
Nintendo Raises Forecasts on Wii, DS; Shares Surge
- Thread starter marc^o^
- Start date
25 million and 28 million respectively. So increased 1.5 million for Wii and 2.5 million for DS.JoshuaJSlone said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a13C0ZF4VlLM&refer=asia
Buggy Loop
Member
sphinx said:
:lol
I heard all that shit for DS years ago too, PSP was gonna get all the hardcore games while DS would only get touch gimmicks.
You work in the industry? Who are you to claim western devs hate it or that japanese devs dont trust it?
Buggy Loop said:
this is getting creepy. All this past months, we have had countless " Wii and 3rd parties " threads. At one point, people started complaining in the threads that there were too many about the same issue.
In said threads we had the chance to read the insights and opinions of people that are in the industry, mostly american devs. ALL of them either were open admitting they hate the wii or that they don't think anything besides carnival games and similar sell there. All agreed that hardcore games support being switched from PS360 to Wii will NOT HAPPEN not now, not after 23568723682746 billions fo wii solds in Earth, Mars and Venus.
Japanese devs simply don't care about home consoles, they are content to support the handhelds. Game announcements and sales clearly show this. konami gives you the kiddie stuff, Square gives you the mid-budget spinnoff, capcom gives you the zack and wiki.
TunaLover said:
yeah, won by moneyhat by nintendo.
sphinx said:
All of them? Really?
You don't think there are legions of developers who loved Mario Galaxy, Metroid, Zelda, Boom Blox, NMH, Dr. Mario, Lost Winds, Toki Tori, and thought 'I wish I worked on that'?
You don't think that perhaps loads of developers would *love* to be working on Wii, but the publishing structure and the vocal engine programmers are slightly skewing the situation?
Believe it or not, lots of game developers love Tetris more than Mass Effect.
The Mark Reins of The World are not representative of the majority of developers. As with internet forums, the most vocal complainants are often the minority. The ones who feel threatened and on the ropes and have to put out the soundbites to make themselves feel better.
For every programmer or artist who only wants to work with Shader 3.0, SPUs, and multi-core processors, there's another (currently frustrated) one who wants to squeeze the most of whatever hardware they can get, in pursuit of a fun game.
Some, though obviously not all, of those frustrated wannabe Wii developers will get their chance.
It's been getting consistently better all year, I hate list wars but:sphinx said:
I don't know what people like you expect, Nintendo's coming off the GC, the Gamecube, give this list to a circa '06 Nintendo fan and they'd wet themselves, everyone else would of called you crazy. And it's only gonna get better.
Flakster99
Member
sphinx said:
We have a sales archive, use it and brush up on the DS and it's initial years on the market (US, JPN) 1st party and 3rd party wise.
About the Wii and it's "serious support" outlook, I think it's time you get with the times:
- High Voltage Software have 3 WiiWare titles, 2 of which have yet to be released but look very promising in Gyrostarr and Animales de la Muerte.
They also have 3 Wii titles in development, with The Conduit being the first.
- EA (I do not have the link handy) have recently announced 40 titles are in development for the Wii/DS - have also praised and came to terms with the Wii and it's software pushing capabilities, it's massive, growing user-base, were also disappointed in their own failures to capture/foresee the success of the Wii. Time will tell, but the ball is in EA's court.
- Sega have picked up Madworld, a new exclusive House of the Dead is in the works, an exclusive Wii Sonic title, Samba di Amigo, on top of successes such as M & S Olympics.
-WindYoshi-
Banned
sphinx said:
Ridiculous. Nothing is proven until time has passed.
Do not play your opinion as fact.
The huge increase in Japanese games announcements on Wii disproves this theory anyway: it's exponential, and the rate of games announced on Wii will only increase.
weisheit said:
Exactly.
CreatureX3
Member
Nintendo haters do not comprehend truths and facts.Flakster99 said:
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Here's one of my less-often-pointed-to comparison things. Through 52 weeks of each, Wii third party software stood up well to DS. However, DS got quite ahead in the ensuing holiday seasons, while none of the third party Wii releases did much. Through week 70 DS has a pretty clear lead, and through week 90, the present for Wii, DS is even more ahead.Flakster99 said:
titiklabingapat
Member
He has one thing right though, there is sort of a pervasive, industry wide phenomenon that seems to dislike the Wii and all it represents. There is also a constat snicker whenever the Wii is mentioned in many "hardcore" developers' interviews.
You can read it between the lines just by looking at all the announcements. Don't get me wrong though, I think the Wii is getting better support now, and it can only go up from here.
You can read it between the lines just by looking at all the announcements. Don't get me wrong though, I think the Wii is getting better support now, and it can only go up from here.
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
Flakster99 said:
Hopefully Sega's strong support means more sales.
ComputerNerd
Banned
bdouble said:
Middleby makes forecasts like this.
They make cooking machines for restaurants. They're currently in Microsoft mode. Huge profits, and expansion internally and also by buying out other complimentary companies (They seem to buy a new company every quarter, the most recent being Turbochef).
But enough of me pimping a stock I own...
ComputerNerd
Banned
Linkup said:
If you owned stock, then you'd get some. Dividends, my friend. An investor's best friend.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
sphinx said:
Monster Hunter 3? The next Tales? Arc Rise Fantasia? Just like Panther said, the Japanese are already waking up to it.
You're the one in for a rude awakening, methinks.
And with Renegade Kid and High Voltage throwing their support behind it, its Western support is clearly on an upswing as well.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Thing about the Wii is that if you're looking for major third party support like Square-Enix or Take-Two, you're probably not going to get it, at least in the near future.Andrex said:
However, smaller third parties are more willing to give the system a chance. For one thing, since companies like S-E/T2 aren't supporting it, they won't feel so overwhelmed in the face of a new Final Fantasy. Would Conduit have received as much attention were it developed for any other platform? Probably not. Developers like Renegade Kid and High Voltage are allowed to shine on a system where there's little competition.
That's not to say that the more major publishers are ignoring the console. Sega, Activision, and now EA are putting their best foot forward in supporting it. I'd say Capcom as well but I don't think we've passed enough tests yet, though Dead Rising and Monster Hunter 3 are pretty big steps.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
Aaron Strife said:
I think SE has done a fair amount of Wii support so far. It's gotten a Dragon Quest game, an FFCC WiiWare launch game, and an FF Fables game. Not as much as 360 has gotten, but more than the PS3. Sure, they're not multi-million dollar projects like a mainline FF game, but those such titles were in production before the Wii launched.
I think for the rest of this generation, most new Square projects are gonna be Wii-oriented, and for the big-budgets I'm talking about Kingdom Hearts 3 and FFCC: The Crystal Bearers.
But I agree on the rest of your points.
GAF likes to let one or two games dictate their perception of a companies support. Some how! Some how, people still question Capcom support of the Wii despite their hottest (and 2nd biggest ever) franchise in Japan coming exclusive to the system. We're looking at just RE5, so all those other games don't count... They're just ports...Aaron Strife said:
even though RE5 looks too much like a port too
We're running out games from the pre-launch era of this generation. Final Fantasy XIII and Resident Evil 5 are the last of the hyped up, pre-gen announcements yet to be release. (Evidently people still question SquareEnix's support too). From here on out, its going to be hard for people to deny the growing support for the Wii, because there won't be that one game that they can latch on to.
Every major publisher is giving the Wii at least "good" support, expect 3:
Ubisoft, whom we openly mock.
Take-Two, who has actually treated the system well, other than GTA.
Konami, who has also treated the system well, minus MGS.
With Take-Two and Konami, they've both just released their biggest games of the generation, both having been announce before the start of the generation. With those games out of the way, the direction for each company at the moment is indeterminable. Take-Two next big game looks to be a DS title. Konami has...?
As for the Conduit, there are games on every system that receive undue hype. You can not pin it on a lack of competition. The Conduit is no different than Mirror's Edge and Dead Space.
you people come and tell me about good 3rd party support when we get an exclusive game of hardcore orientation with high production values that gets praised by critics, reviewers and traditional gamers alike.
ever since the my first post I stated:
anyone claiming with me that the Wii is "slowly but steadily" getting the "hardcore, epic" games is delusional and just wrong.
I am talking about the KIND of support here not about the ammount of it.
ever since the my first post I stated:
anyone claiming with me that the Wii is "slowly but steadily" getting the "hardcore, epic" games is delusional and just wrong.
I am talking about the KIND of support here not about the ammount of it.
sphinx said:
No, so far there haven't been any "epic", high profile 3rd party games announced sans Monster Hunter 3. However, we have seen numerous mid-tier hardcore Japanese titles announced recently, and those big epic games take a lot of time to get going. I'm not saying its a lock, but I think its a pretty logical conclusion that the bigger games are going to follow.
szaromir said:
Well, I don't think the Wii can outsell both the PS3 and 360 by March because they can't sell them fast enough (supply issues...), but it's a given that the Wii will eventually outsell them combined, maybe by the end of 2009 or early 2010. Hell, it's very much guaranteed to sell at least 50% than the PS360 by the end of the generation, if not 100% or more.
titiklabingapat
Member
Hmmm, I think that FF's support in the early days were adequate, but not now. I would consider it pisspoor.Andrex said:
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.
The newest Tenchu game is Wii exclusive, Mad World looks amazing, a new House of the Dead exclusive for Wii. Not to mention that Namco has their Ace Combat team working on a Wii game. Multiplatform games to be released this year like Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed look alot better compared to the multiplatform releases of last year. Wii is also seeing franchises like Dead Rising(although it looks a bit rough), Overlord and Skate which debuted on the HD systems.sphinx said:
I'm not saying that Square-Enix will put Final Fantasy XIV on there and that Gears 3 will be Wii exclusive, but the quality of most of the third party Wii games is improving.
I'm going to try and reign Sphinx's point in, because it's so vaguely expressed and so poorly supported that even though I think there is a kernel of truth to it, no one can take it seriously.
I think Sphinx has retroactively tried to focus this conversation exclusively on mega-budget, "epic" games like major franchises such as Final Fantasy, Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto, and Halo, and even on new "epic" games like Heavenly Sword. I think this is a valid point, for multiple reasons:
1) While most of the populace has embraced the Wii, clearly some portions of it have chosen the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. One of key demographics that PS3/360 dominate are people who care a great deal about graphics; "epic" games tend to focus heavily on graphics.
2) Another issue is simply the risk factor making Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 games. Because of the extreme cost of producing a 360/PS3 game, publishers are forced to play it safe and produce games that are very, very likely to do well. This means games in well known franchises or in high density genres such as FPS. Unless a publisher wants to abandon the 360 and PS3 entirely -- which most do not want to do -- the only games that are fiscally responsible when dealing with that much money are the games with a storied legacy, a big budget, and a well known development team, because all risks have to be minimized as much as absolutely possible.
3) For many franchises, it's too late to go back. For example, Final Fantasy: even after FF XIII launches, there is (I believe) a near 0% chance that the next one will be on Wii. If it had moved from PS2 to Wii, it may have been fine. But a game of that nature (and I do think it's different than Dragon Quest, which has no Western following) cannot take a dramatic step backwards graphically. Once an "epic," big budget affair step up to that graphical level, you're stuck with it, whether you would like to go backwards or not. Fans of these well known and long followed franchises expect every game to be bigger, better, more amazing than the last, and a significant part of that is the graphics.
I know the second reason in particular may seem like cheating: what one might reasonably view as a flaw -- that PS3/360 games are expensive to develop -- is also the reason I believe that developers are and must continue to put only the biggest, most storied, and least risky games on those platforms. It may seem unfair, but fairness isn't part of business.
I think Sphinx has retroactively tried to focus this conversation exclusively on mega-budget, "epic" games like major franchises such as Final Fantasy, Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto, and Halo, and even on new "epic" games like Heavenly Sword. I think this is a valid point, for multiple reasons:
1) While most of the populace has embraced the Wii, clearly some portions of it have chosen the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. One of key demographics that PS3/360 dominate are people who care a great deal about graphics; "epic" games tend to focus heavily on graphics.
2) Another issue is simply the risk factor making Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 games. Because of the extreme cost of producing a 360/PS3 game, publishers are forced to play it safe and produce games that are very, very likely to do well. This means games in well known franchises or in high density genres such as FPS. Unless a publisher wants to abandon the 360 and PS3 entirely -- which most do not want to do -- the only games that are fiscally responsible when dealing with that much money are the games with a storied legacy, a big budget, and a well known development team, because all risks have to be minimized as much as absolutely possible.
3) For many franchises, it's too late to go back. For example, Final Fantasy: even after FF XIII launches, there is (I believe) a near 0% chance that the next one will be on Wii. If it had moved from PS2 to Wii, it may have been fine. But a game of that nature (and I do think it's different than Dragon Quest, which has no Western following) cannot take a dramatic step backwards graphically. Once an "epic," big budget affair step up to that graphical level, you're stuck with it, whether you would like to go backwards or not. Fans of these well known and long followed franchises expect every game to be bigger, better, more amazing than the last, and a significant part of that is the graphics.
I know the second reason in particular may seem like cheating: what one might reasonably view as a flaw -- that PS3/360 games are expensive to develop -- is also the reason I believe that developers are and must continue to put only the biggest, most storied, and least risky games on those platforms. It may seem unfair, but fairness isn't part of business.
Eteric Rice
Member
Kilrogg said:
I think it was sarcasm.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Oh definitely. I don't believe that Square-Enix is going to put on the "We're above the Wii" act that other third parties have devoted themselves to, especially with their success on the DS. I'm merely saying that - for the time being - their support isn't going to go towards Wii, as Final Fantasy XIII being the mammoth of a project that it is probably won't see release until next year at best. That and the state of Crystal Bearers doesn't look to be a positive one, I have high hopes for the game however.Andrex said:
They're better than other third parties, I'll give them that. However their "major" releases have basically been like:JJConrad said:
"We'll release Resident Evil 4 on the Wii and see how it sells before deciding what our future projects will be."
"Resident Evil 4 was successful, but we want to make sure it wasn't a fluke. We'll release Umbrella Chronicles on Wii and see how it sells before deciding on our future projects."
"Well Umbrella Chronicles succeeded, but we want to see how much mileage we can get out of Okami before doing anything big."
"Okami sold on par with its PS2 version. Thank you for your patience. Here's a watered down port of Dead Rising."
I mean I appreciate their efforts, but they're basically treating the Wii as a second GameCube. If the Resident Evil 2 port is a reality, then that's cool and all, but it only enforces my argument.
ComputerNerd
Banned
Opiate said:
I have yet to year a good argument of why "biggest, most storied, and least risky games" can't be on the Wii. When developers try, traditional games sell great on the Wii. Many games can be ported down, if it gets to that point.
ComputerNerd 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.
Opiate said:
See, people? This is why Opiate is one of my favourite posters: always tactful and level-headed. Most of the time, I agree with him and/or he raises questions that I hadn't considered, but even when I don't, it's always a pleasure to read his inputs.
If you ask me, we can't get many of the usual "epic" (hate that word, but you get the point) grand-scale games on the Wii in the sense that the Wii games will often be new franchises/spin-offs (not established franchises like FF), or the developers' vision for this type of games and the Wii's hardware don't fit. I, for one, don't mind, because I've grown completely tired of those games, but that's another point.
What I think though is that the Wii will eventually get the most diverse lineup, with most of the new genres and IPs. You could even argue that, relative to the number of average-to-good games on the system, it's already ahead of the competition in terms of exclusive, genre-defining games without its sounding like a completely out-of-this-world claim. At least, it's on the right track.
Opiate said:
So the same "biggest, most storied, and least risky games." should be even less risky on Wii due low development cost, but developers choose burn more money on PS360? Yay let's make profit!!!
Wait you forgot the moneyhats that both companies give to make a "X" tittle less risky.
I think that's Nintendo biggest "problem" they don't persue third parties titles so much as Sony and MS.
titiklabingapat
Member
The usual Wii=nongamerz and HD=hardcores that still pervades the whole industry(no matter how incorrect it might be) except for a select few, can easily explain that.TunaLover said:
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Flakster99 said:
The little system that could.
Jesus christ, buy some braces and teeth whitener. It looks like a bunch of yellow pikmin dying in water in his mouth. Jesus Myamoto.
Am i dO itz rite?
TunaLover said:
Right, one could argue that abandoning the PS3/360 entirely is reasonable. What I'm arguing is that if companies do not want to abandon those systems (and most do not seem to want to, whether you believe they should or not), then the very first games they should put on them are their big budget blockbusters. I'm going to repost my edited in example from above, because I think it distills my point better.
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.
Golden Darkness
Member
TunaLover said:
Um, that's not what's being said.
The developers didn't go "Choose a game to develop and then pick out a platform that it can be on." They went the opposite: "Choose a platform to be the primary focus and figure out what which games can be developed on it with minimal risk."
These developers chose the to work XBox360/PS3 first, because they want to work with the hardware, and then figured out what kind of titles to go with it.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Dude, I know I like to hate on Wii 3rd parties but those 'facts' haven't been proved at all. They still have an argument that Wii doesn't exceed PS3+360. I guess we'll just wait till next year. What really sucks is that no smaller 3rd party dev has jumped at the opportunity. No 'AAA' game from a small dev that will sell 10 million from out of the blue. Where is the rockstar of this generation? They should be on Wii. A dev with some experience and some success waiting to make the jump. All of the hits, we saw coming this generation. What's up with that? This generation blows.sphinx said:
Agreed.Deku said:
Opiate 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.