Well at the moment it's absymal hardware/software sales driving them away.
-
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.
Iwata on third parties, hundreds of inquiries since GDC about Nintendo Web Framework
- Thread starter Hobby
- Start date
Well at the moment it's absymal hardware/software sales driving them away.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Nintendo isn't giving third parties what they want so third parties don't put their games on the system. Just as it has to make financial sense for Nintendo to release a new piece of hardware, it has to make financial sense for third parties to release their games on Nintendo hardware.
Nintendo fans are wanting third parties to look the other way while not asking Nintendo to go out of it's way. Third parties have Microsoft and Sony plus the PC to make money off of. Nintendo on the otherhand has an indie scene and it's own IPs. At the end of the day when Nintendo built the Wii U it decided that idies and it's own IPs were more important and valuable than catering to third parties. Unfortunately just like with the last few years of the Wii, that decision is proving to be dangerous and atm, wrong.
ProfessorMoran
Member
But then the GC was not an underpowered console like the WiiU or the Wii, the WiiU situation is more similar to it's immediate predecessor the Wii, where you see few UE3 games on it because the hardware was essentially cheap and underpowered, making multiplatform ports more difficult, and basically far more scarce. If making UE4 work on the WiiU would be easy, Epic would have done it and offer support for it, the whole point of using UE4 is such that you would enjoy Epic support, not having to make things work yourself on an underpowered console. Right now the WiiU is not selling well, the software is not there, Nintendo needs to make things easier for third-party publishers to put games on the WiiU, not harder.
phosphor112
Banned
Okay, I can agree with that. But then you have the Wii, who has been a surprise success and for a couple of years out-selling the HD twins only to end up with meager 3rd party support ranging from sloppily made ports to kiddy waggle fodder. No new, noteworthy I.P.'s or anything worth while from any big companies outside of maybe Sega. I mean sure, the hardware was a generation behind, but it deserved something more besides silly Nickelodeon games and Wii sport ripoffs. The support wasn't there when the numbers were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC9vOrhEu-Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I have no favorites... I saw the Wii & DS get bashed and blow up in sales months later.
I have no favorites... I saw the Wii & DS get bashed and blow up in sales months later.
EatinOlives
Member
The numbers weren't really there, though. Time and time again there were legitimate efforts from 3rd parties with games like MadWorld and RedSteel 2 that ended up having pretty shitty sales.
The install base was huge, but the vast majority of it came from soccer moms and grandmas who only ever used it for a couple of months playing WiiSports and it spent the rest of the generation tucked away in the closet. In reality, the market of Wii consumers who were willing to buy 3rd party exclusives was pretty small.
That doesn't really make sense. Studios can still choose to make low-budget titles on the PS4 and NextBox. Nobody's forcing them to use 100% of the power the consoles provide.
No, the Wii got gangbusters of 3rd party support...in the form of cheap tie-in casual games and exercise companions.
But then again, is it surprising? That's the exact audience Nintendo proved existed on the Wii.
And this is where Nintendo should take a page out of Sega's book. The one thing Sega seemed to intrinsically understand when they were in the hardware business (the ONLY thing, really). Sega understood perfectly that if you wanted 3rd parties to support your hardware with certain types of games, you had to prove that audience existed on your hardware with your own games.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Because software support. Because ease of portability.
It was actually 5 minutes long, but it was a waste of time nonetheless.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
It was more than 5. They had that demo remember.
Hahaha did I just see mad world and red steel being brought up as AAA efforts from third parties? This thread is bonkers. There were no noteworthy significant efforts from a scope, budgetary, or advertising perspective on the Wii, a 100 million selling console with an 8.7 attach rate. Said attach rate throws out the generation-long notion that it was a wii sports box that spent most of the generation tucked away in a closet, unless thats what happened to the ps3 as well. Not to say there weren't plenty of b and c team gems, but c'mon folks. Get real here. The Wii u has no significant issues receiving most ps360 software, and it isn't coming. That's all you need to know. This isn't a conspiracy, this is simple economics - or perceived economics in the demographic sense in many cases.
I admitted that. What I was saying is why couldn't those games have had better quality. There were a market for decent games to be made on the Wii but the system was used for cheap cash-ins instead.
Nintendo become more & more comical by the day. What did they really expect? It's like they are intent in driving a Geo Metro against the Ferrari & Lamborghini's of this world.
Then they seem shocked at the results of the race.
I am convinced Nintendo are run by a squadron of schmucks. They made their bed, I hope they enjoy sleeping in the wet spot....
Then they seem shocked at the results of the race.
I am convinced Nintendo are run by a squadron of schmucks. They made their bed, I hope they enjoy sleeping in the wet spot....
Quinton McLeod
Banned
1) Meanwhile, horror games on the Wii sold like hotcakes.
2) This isn't true. The market was very large, but if you throw enough crap at a system, you can't suddenly expect returns on said crap.
3) It does make sense. Studios can choose to make low-budget titles on the PS4, or even on the PS3, but they did not. They chose to sell interactive HD movies.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
lol @ interactive HD movies. Let me guess. You're one of those folks who thinks fun games can only be found on Nintendo hardware.
The demo explanation + the game's announcement only lasted 5 minutes. Check out the E3 conference video.
While there were undoubtedly titles which should have sold better on the Wii than they did, the likes of MadWorld, Red Steel 2, Dead Space Extraction and many other 'test the water' titles were never likely to sell in the millions expected because they were either very niche (MadWorld) or evidently compromised in comparison to alternatives on the HD twins (Dead Space being on-rails). As for Red Steel, that brand was poison from the day Wii launched and was arguably responsible for gamers turning against the console so quickly and voraciously. While the 'gamer' audience on Wii was undeniably a lot smaller than on the HD consoles, to say it wasn't there is ridiculous. No More Heroes hit 500k, a pretty stunning number considering what a cult figure Suda was back then and still is today, albeit less so. MadWorld's sales were comparable to Bayonetta's on a per-console basis, and SEGA made money on it. GoldenEye 007 was a clear hit for Activision, despite being released within a week of a new COD. Resident Evil and Call Of Duty games reliably sold 1m+ apiece, despite the former being a spin-off (Darkside Chronicles' comparative drop in sales in generally considered down to players realising Capcom were never going to bring a proper Resi to the console no matter how well RE4 and Umbrella Chronicles sold) and the latter a series of downports. MW3 was, I think, the only COD not to hit the million, but was released when the Wii was effectively dead in the water.
Sure, some games failed for no discernable reason - NMH2 was better reviewed and its predecessor generally loved, yet supposedly only scraped to about half the sales - but that can happen on any console. When developers showed the Wii fanbase some respect, they were generally rewarded. Hell, even the first Conduit did pretty well, but like Red Steel and RS2, the sequel's abysmal numbers can clearly be put down to a collapse in customer confidence. For a certain type of mid-budget game, the Wii was a very viable platform, and the fact various 'up-ports' from the system to the HD consoles either failed to replicate the original's sales (GoldenEye Reloaded) or were dumped as downloadable extras for main games (Dead Space Extraction) shows how overly simplistic it is to claim there wasn't an audience for traditional games on the Wii, or that developers gave it a fair shot in mining that audience. Let's also not forget that while many extremely good third party games appeared around the halfway point of the console's lifecycle, the early days (aka immediately following the console taking off) saw it host some shockingly bad cash-in ports from the likes of EA, Ubisoft and various others, a trend which somewhat abated but never actually stopped (remember Dead Rising: Chop Til You Drop?) even as it was clear most 'hardcore' Wii gamers weren't going to fool for such transparently cynical strategies. None of this says anything about the Wii U, which has its own unique set of problems (sadly more self-inflicted than its predecessor), but for all the criticism the Wii received from third parties, a good number of them had already dug their own graves on the console.
Quinton McLeod
Banned
Incorrect.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Name me 5 non Wii/DS games you enjoyed last gen.
If you count WiiSports, Wii Fit and Wii Music as horror games this statement is very true.
Haha, what.
Question.
If Nintendo had released a equivilant machine to the HD twins last gen, would they have got more, or less sales than they did with the Wii?
Would they have got more, or less support from developers?
Same goes with this gen.
If they had announced a machine that's at least on par with the PS4/Xbox.....
What do people think would happen?
If Nintendo had released a equivilant machine to the HD twins last gen, would they have got more, or less sales than they did with the Wii?
Would they have got more, or less support from developers?
Same goes with this gen.
If they had announced a machine that's at least on par with the PS4/Xbox.....
What do people think would happen?
The wording is more than poor but he has a point. Beyond indie games for some reason game budgets on HD twins got rather steep. There's not much room in the middle anymore.
Quinton McLeod
Banned
You're asking me a very silly question. These are games I own.
Bayonetta
Assassin's Creed Series (count this as one game please)
Super Street Fighter IV (I bought all of them since Vanilla)
StarCraft II (and the expansion)
Skyrim (with the expansion)
Need For Speed Shift
Mortal Kombat
Marvel vs Capcom 3
Metal Gear Rising (Also include The HD Metal Gear Solid collection & Metal Gear Solid 4)
Infamous
Sonic Generations
Grand Theft Auto IV
God of War III
Bioshock Series
Dragon Age Series
BulletStorm
Dirt 3
Mass Effect Series
Portal 2
LA Noire
Borderlands 2
Darksiders Series
Saints Row Series
I've got a ton more, but I think this is enough to make the point.
Done trolling now?
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
And would you label those games as HD interactive movies?
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
`
Wii was a cheap system with instant appeal to non-gamers. It did something unprecedented. For 250, the majority of the customers got the machine and exactly the game they wanted. WiiU is more expensive, has little mainstream appeal, no software to convince the Oprah-viewer and is piggybacking the tablet hype.
Technical capability has nothing to do with it.
Quinton McLeod
Banned
Majority of them, Yes; especially GTAIV.
Most of the games I listed are very high budgeted games designed to play me through a story that very much operates like a movie.
I don't get that same feeling with games like Xenoblade Chronicles, Pandora's Tower (I hated The Last Story, but it certainly wasn't a high budgeted movie by any stretch!) - all of which are RPGs whose main premise revolves around the story. or even some of Nintendo's more mature titles like Metroid Prime or Sin and Punishment where the gameplay is the focal point.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
So just because a game is HD and have cinematic moments makes it like a movie? A movie you watch. GTA IV, Skyrim, AC, amd more had cinematic moments but quite a low amount of QTE's. if you said Heavy Rain I'd agree. The games you listed weren't Heavy Rainesque.
Quinton McLeod
Banned
False.
No one said Skyrim. Skyrim lets you do whatever the hell you want to do.
You're having a hard time comprehending what I mean. Let me break it down for you.
When I say a high budget HD movie. I'm talking about a game that features everything that makes it high budget.
1) Voice acting
2) Musical score
3) Engrossing story (sometimes using high paid writers!)
4) $100 million dollar budgets
5) 1000+ person development team.
6) Motion capturing
7) etc.
These games are meant to play like interactive movies. Think of Uncharted. It's like an Indiana Jones movie!
Now, compare that list to any Mario, Zelda or Metroid game. None of those games feature all of what was listed above. The only game I know that would cost Nintendo the most to make is Zelda. However, not a single Zelda game features full speech voice acting. The only Zelda game to feature a fully orchestrated musical score sound track was Skyward Sword.
I'm not saying high budget games are bad. I'm saying 3rd parties wanted to make these high budgeted Uncharteds, Assassin Creeds and Grand Theft Autos only to make a highly expensive crappy game and go belly up instead of making a simple game that's just fun to play and inexpensive to make.
Nintendo showed with their own games that people would buy platformers (2d and 3d), adventure games, rts, tbs, rpg, town sim,action games, mini games, party games, fighting , fpa/fpa ( not sure what people call prime these days), and racing. Most third party developer/ publishers ignored everything but the mini games and party games. They even ignored the sales of other third party games like RE4.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Are they not bad or are they bad?
Quinton McLeod
Banned
You're missing the point.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
You said the games arent bad but then call them crappy. Help me understand.
Quinton McLeod
Banned
You are still missing the point.
WrenchNinja
Member
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Yes. I dont understand how a game can be crappy and not bad at the same time. You're still not explaining.
No, he doesn't.
Quinton McLeod
Banned
Lets dissect my paragraph so you understand, ok?
Alright. First point right here: I'm not saying high budget games are bad.
Ok. So, I've established that my _point_ isn't that high budget games are good or bad. I'm insinuating that I have no problem with high budget games. Makes sense?
Ok, Lets condense the second sentence to something simple: 3rd parties mimic, bring out a bad product, go bankrupt. It isn't only that the game is high budgeted, but also that the game either doesn't sell or that the game is just plain awful.
So, lets compare, hmm?
"I'm not saying high budget games are bad" vs. "3rd parties mimic, bring out a bad product, go bankrupt."
Notice how the points I make are not the same. They are different! Instead of contrasting the points, try ADDING the points together.
*GASP*
Now you realize I just made multiple points that all tie in together! The first point does an excellent job of setting the stage. I am clearly showing that I believe high budget games are NO PROBLEM to me as a consumer. Easy! I don't hate them. In the other point, I display how high budget games bleed companies dry and eventually kill them!
Now, if you had read the thread, you'd know that I was talking about 3rd parties who went belly up. Not the ones who are still around. I'll even go out on a limb and say not all high budget games in which 3rd parties went belly up are bad! LA Noire is a perfect example! That was a really good game, but it flopped in sales. So, the development team was fired.
You're having a hard time comprehending what I mean. Let me break it down for you.
When I say a high budget HD movie. I'm talking about a game that features everything that makes it high budget.
1) Voice acting
2) Musical score
3) Engrossing story (sometimes using high paid writers!)
4) $100 million dollar budgets
5) 1000+ person development team.
6) Motion capturing
7) etc.
These games are meant to play like interactive movies. Think of Uncharted. It's like an Indiana Jones movie!
Now, compare that list to any Mario, Zelda or Metroid game. None of those games feature all of what was listed above. The only game I know that would cost Nintendo the most to make is Zelda. However, not a single Zelda game features full speech voice acting. The only Zelda game to feature a fully orchestrated musical score sound track was Skyward Sword.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Is it possible for you to not act in such a condescending douchebaggery manner?
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm at a loss as to why people are talking about the Wii at all.
Publishers will freely admit to missing that boat. They didn't expect the novelty of motion control to take off like it did, and I doubt really even Nintendo expected such uptake. EA surely laments that they didn't think of things like Just Dance.
But, say it with me: The Wii U is not the Wii.
The Wii U doesn't offer "novelty" in the way that the Wii-mote did. Regardless of how innovative and revolutionary and #gamechanging Nintendo's faithful fanbase think the controller is, the rest of the world that hasn't been living under a rock doesn't find the idea of a touchscreen on a console particularly groundbreaking. To the casual observer, pun not intended, it looks like a "me too" product against the growth markets of iOS and Android gaming.
Publishers aren't avoiding this boat because they're being overly cautious about a novelty, they're avoiding it because they don't see a compelling USP against other devices. If they ask themselves questions like:
In absence of the "hook" driving adoption, you're left with a system of comparable performance to systems already on the market at a lower price, with large established audiences and vast libraries of games to create value proposition. Even further to that, they have a vendor lock-in effect with regard to PSN and XBL accounts and friend lists and brand association with major third party franchises.
In absence of the "hook" you're left with a product that doesn't compare favorably to what's already on the market. I doubt any publishers are particularly regretful right now if they concluded as such and decided against green-lighting Wii U SKUs.
Publishers will freely admit to missing that boat. They didn't expect the novelty of motion control to take off like it did, and I doubt really even Nintendo expected such uptake. EA surely laments that they didn't think of things like Just Dance.
But, say it with me: The Wii U is not the Wii.
The Wii U doesn't offer "novelty" in the way that the Wii-mote did. Regardless of how innovative and revolutionary and #gamechanging Nintendo's faithful fanbase think the controller is, the rest of the world that hasn't been living under a rock doesn't find the idea of a touchscreen on a console particularly groundbreaking. To the casual observer, pun not intended, it looks like a "me too" product against the growth markets of iOS and Android gaming.
Publishers aren't avoiding this boat because they're being overly cautious about a novelty, they're avoiding it because they don't see a compelling USP against other devices. If they ask themselves questions like:
- Who is the target market for the Wii U?
- Will they buy it and why will they buy it?
- Will it, consequently, expand the potential audience for a title sufficiently to justify the investment and opportunity cost?
In absence of the "hook" driving adoption, you're left with a system of comparable performance to systems already on the market at a lower price, with large established audiences and vast libraries of games to create value proposition. Even further to that, they have a vendor lock-in effect with regard to PSN and XBL accounts and friend lists and brand association with major third party franchises.
In absence of the "hook" you're left with a product that doesn't compare favorably to what's already on the market. I doubt any publishers are particularly regretful right now if they concluded as such and decided against green-lighting Wii U SKUs.
True, but how many of those games made use of Nintendo's legacy IPs?
It gets to a point where it seems like even Nintendo believes that their audience will only buy games if it features their legacy brands (they hardly ever greenlight any AAA games that don't make use of them), which feeds into the 3rd party belief that gamers on Nintendo hardware only want Nintendo games.
Contrast this with Sega who, in addition to their huge mascots like Sonic, were not afraid to birth completely new franchises to fill in for a genre.
Nintendo needs to prove that people don't just buy Nintendo hardware for Nintendo's classic franchises. Strangely enough, they know this. They did this with the Wii____titles. Created a brand new IP to prove the existence of the casual audience, and 3rd parties followed suit.
slowclap.gif
WrenchNinja
Member
You say this while listing games that dont fit all of those criteria and then mention the rainfall games in the same post as if they arent trying their hardest to be an "interactive movie" or whatever inane terminology you want to make up.
You then proceed to list games that dont fit the criteria again as if a point has been made.
So launch Wii U titles look as good if not better than end-gen 360/Ps3 titles after developers have sucked every ounce of power out?
Its as if people don't realize the only logical way to compare graphics is via launch titles. Batman on Wii U looks significantly better than anything from the 360/Ps3 launch, COD:MW3 looks much better than Perfect Dark Zero. Heck just compare the graphics on specific consoles. Compare Oblivion to Skyrim, both on 360. Thats the sort of significant graphical leap you see from launch to late in the console life cycle. So if the Wii U is already running maxed-out Ps3/360 games, at launch, doesn't it make sense that the Wii U has to be more powerful? Is logic really so far out of reach of fanboys and trolls? Never underestimate how much further hardware can be pushed in a console, and definitely don't underestimate how highly clocked the Wii U CPU is for a short-instruction-set CPU.
Quinton McLeod
Banned
Except I said:
1) Not all of the games have what I listed in those categories, but the majority of them did.
2) If you _still_ don't know what I mean when I say interactive HD movie, then you simply aren't concentrating hard enough on what I'm telling you. It's quite simple to understand the concept.
Because you don't understand, I'll repeat:
When I say a high budget HD movie. I'm talking about a game that features everything that makes it high budget.
WrenchNinja
Member
Majority, huh. All right, bold them then since youre so clearly certain about the ones that fit your criteria. I am super surprised that the majority of these titles had 100 million dollar marketing budgets and 1000+ man teams, focus on writing and motion capture. Very interesting.
Quinton McLeod
Banned
Now you're just being cynical.