Support NeoGAF

[Penguin]

I never said that Wii games don't sell. Just that it is playing by a different ruleset than the typical console. The biggest 3rd party hits are not on the Wii. The games with the most hype and press are not on the Wii. 3rd parties complain about the Wii, and Nintendo itself isn't even providing huge games regularly that everyone is talking about. In the past this would be indicators of a failed console. Now, it's what is defining the Wiis success.

Because Nintendo made it not about all that shit. They made it about a fun affordable console that can be pulled out occasionally for family and friends. Games still sell, but you don't see brand new wii games topping the charts every month because that's not what people ate buying the wii for. Now you will see some wii games topping these lists, but they will usually be the same wii games you always see. And they will be on that list for months

As said, it's not a dis to the system at all. Hardcore gamers can still buy the latest and greatest and there are some good games to play. But they aren't what driving the majority of sales. And this is why 3rd parties can't catch a break: they can't create games that will have immediate appeal to the largest part of the wii base. And for the hardcore.....why would I buy something like deadspace or call of duty on the wii. I have a damn 360 and PS3, of course I'm gonna get those versions. 3rd parties need to focus on embracing the uniqueness of the wii, instead of producing the same old shit and complaining when sales dont reach expectations

Well to your first point, that really isn't Nintendo's fault. I mean gaming media talks about what they think their fans are interested in hearing about, which is why you can have podcasts that dedicate like 2 months of content to MW 2 and most other games go under the radar. Its the same deal with coverage.

As for not selling on hyped games, I mean you can say they are Nintendo sure-fires, but Smash Bros and Kart Wii did impressive first month numbers.

Galaxy and NSMBW did well. Wii Fit and Wii Sports Resorts also charted high.

And all of those games had decent coverage. Now some games get more coverage than others like Madworld and The Conduit, but usually not in the same light especially in regards to the Conduit, but that ended up selling I think at least.. somewhat decent.

 

[Kilrogg]

Just wanted to thank Opiate, kame-sennin and timetokill (others did a good job too, but you three deserve a mention more than anyone else) for this great discussion. I've wanted a good business discussion between those posters for a good while. Glad to see my wish finally come true. I'll save your conversation and re-read it when I'm more in the mood for it. Funny to see Opiate intellectually worked up too . It also shows that my analytical understanding of disruption is lacking, haha.

Again, great discussion. Thank you.

 

[ReyBrujo]

There's a NBA JAM for Wii? I missed the thread and the lolz. Can anyone give me the link?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=383972

 

[Yamauchi]

The Wii simply represents Nintendo's strategy to what it saw as a financially unviable trend: better graphics, more realistic gameplay, and exponentially bigger budgets--and trying to accomplish this in a gaming market that wasn't seeing significant growth generation-over-generation. Nintendo evolved, and now they're reaping the rewards.

 

[Aaron Strife]

And all of those games had decent coverage. Now some games get more coverage than others like Madworld and The Conduit, but usually not in the same light especially in regards to the Conduit, but that ended up selling I think at least.. somewhat decent.

I think for a third party wii game to get decent media coverage its title would need to have a number at the end of it.

 

[Effect]

The Wii simply represents Nintendo's strategy to what it saw as a financially unviable trend: better graphics, more realistic gameplay, and exponentially bigger budgets--and trying to accomplish this in a gaming market that wasn't seeing significant growth generation-over-generation. Nintendo evolved, and now they're reaping the rewards.

Makes one wonder why didn't the others see this problem. If they did why did none of them do anything about if only to save themselves as companies. Self-preservation. No one at all said they had to double or triple their own budgets from last generation just because Sony and Microsoft game out with more powerful technology. I always felt that was a weird bit of group think. They could have slowly increased things as it became more affordable to do so over time. The games would have still looked great and better then the last generation or on par. Instead they just jumped right in the deep end of the pool. Now the number of companies have lessen and that will continue to. The "me too" aspect of the industry is somewhat scary and sad. Many simply played follow the leader and didn't decide to think for themselves when they weren't in a position to do so. Trying to keep up and match those with seemingly limitless resources while you can clearly see and feel the bottom of your pockets.

 

[jrricky]

So what you are saying is that all a publisher has to do is create a big budget, AAA exclusive (it would have to be, or it would get ripped on for being a lazy port, am I right?) and launch it with a massive ad campaign, and thus the market is transformed and the path has been lit?

I sort of wish that the people lamenting the current situation and claiming to know the secret to success would start pooling their own money together and actually fund one of these ventures.

Umm, why can't it be a solid port (no exclusions)? Or better yet built to take advantage of the platform and market it as part of the 2 others instead of these 2 superior ones and throw the Wii version to the side.

Anyways, come back to me when this strategy fails...but we are too late in the gen to ever see much of this happen. Monster Hunter proves this already too but lets exclude that one.

You know what, if Epic Mickey fails (unless it gets severely stepped on in reviews), then there will be no other reasons to argue about this.

I dont even know what you are talking about at the end of your statement but its sarcasm so it doesnt matter...

 

[Version 3.0]

The Wii isn't like the PS2, SNES, etc. They were market leaders because they also had the most support, a one stop shop for every major release. If you were interested in gaming, you needed these systems to get the games.

There's a huge hole in this theory, and that's the simple fact that for it to be true, millions of gamers need to have given up gaming altogether. If the Wii "doesn't count" as a real console, then the market has contracted ridiculously, instead of continuing the expansion it's enjoyed for the last two decades.

In a nutshell: the Wii is more similar than dissimilar to the PS2, at least for the majority of owners. Last gen, people who wanted some games to play bought a PS2, simply because that was the thing to get. This gen, people who want some games to play buy a Wii, simply because it's the thing to get. It really is as simple as that. How each became the hot console may differ, but you can't just dismiss the Wii, no matter how hard you or the entire game industry may like to.

 

[CrisKre]

The problem with this discussion is that people are missing to take into account the concept of missed opportunity here. Monster Hunter tri, Epic Mickey, Red steel 2 and the rest of the games with thought put into them are not coming out on 2007 or 2008 all over again

You have the most successful home console ever with close to no real full support for years after release. In the mind of consumers Nintendo has established itself as close the the sole supporter for the system. Now third party publishers want consumers to take their efforts seriously? It aint gonna happen on a grand scale. No way. People know what they want and what to expect of the wii given what has been offered to the in the last few years. Had support been somewhat consistent, the story would surely be different. But things need to be analyzed within their context, and even though its painful to see, I dont think any third party game will create a great impact on wii, due to these companies incompetence and lack of long term planning.

 

[BowieZ]

In the mind of consumers Nintendo has established itself as close the the sole supporter for the system.

Is that true?

 

[CrisKre]

When it comes to big blockbuster type titles absolutely. What other company are you thinking of?

 

[BowieZ]

When it comes to big blockbuster type titles absolutely. What other company are you thinking of?

I was referring to the "in the minds of consumers part". This was being discussed on a previous page. Aren't most of the big blockbuster titles either Mario, or have "Wii _____" as their name, and/or are advertised to the hilt?

Don't forget that twice as much third-party software is sold for the Wii than first-party (or whatever the details were in that chart posted a few pages back).

Besides Mario being an icon, I'm just trying to establish why it is that people supposedly buy so much first-party Nintendo and supposedly buy so much shovelware, yet utterly stay away from other titles.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

Innovator's Dilemma is frequently mentioned in these forums, but I'm not sure how many people truly understand it. I say this, simply because so few people have pointed out the glaring distinctions between Christensen's prototypical "disruption" and the actual one we're seeing in the games industry.

One of the primary reasons why disruption occurs, according to Christensen, is that companies are constantly chasing the enthusiastic, highly devoted consumer. In most industries, this absolutely makes sense, because in most cases, highly devoted consumers provide larger profit margins. Not only is that empirically true, but it simply makes sense: of course it's possible to profit more on incredibly enthusiastic customers. People who don't care very much are going to be very picky about price, while people who care a great deal can be exploited for more cash than might seem otherwise necessary.

The problem is, this isn't how the gaming industry works, and it's part of the reason the game industry's disruption has been so dramatic and controversial. It is the new markets that provide higher margins, while the established markets are providing either no profits at all or losses. On a per capita basis, Sony and Microsoft should be capable of reaping more profits out of us (i.e. the "hardcore" gamers) than Nintendo is out of these new -- and presumably less dedicated -- consumers. Sony and Microsoft have failed so spectacularly at this that they are clearly banking very hard on this "convergence device" future.

I bring all this up for a reason: many have pointed out in the past that according to The Innovator's Dilemma, the disruptive company will eventually begin to move upmarket and invade established segments. However, the whole reason disruptive companies do this is because the higher end markets typically provide higher gross margins. Therefore, the theoretical impetus for Nintendo driving upmarket is essentially nonexistant.

All of this could have been explained very simply, with one rhetorical question: why would Nintendo spend the money and resources driving upmarket when that upmarket isn't profitable? (Of course, the answer is that they would not). I just felt it was odd that no one have ever pointed this out, because the standard "disruption" model has some pretty significant distinctions from what we're seeing in the games industry, yet no one ever points these out.

That's interesting to know. Quoted because it's one of the rare posts pointing out this. Nintendo is just smart. That's all.

 

[Black-Wind]

I was referring to the "in the minds of consumers part". This was being discussed on a previous page. Aren't most of the big blockbuster titles either Mario, or have "Wii _____" as their name, and/or are advertised to the hilt?

Don't forget that twice as much third-party software is sold for the Wii than first-party (or whatever the details were in that chart posted a few pages back).

Besides Mario being an icon, I'm just trying to establish why it is that people supposedly buy so much first-party Nintendo and supposedly buy so much shovelware, yet utterly stay away from other titles.

Im pretty sure that by "blockbuster" he meant high production "gamer games" but I could be wrong so I will let him explain it.

And no, most arnt simply "Mario or Wii ___".
MK/ NSMBW/ Wii Fit-Fit Plus-Play-Sports Resort are all massively successful evergreen titles but that doesn't mean that a "BlockBuster" for the Wii has to sell 20mill just because they have/ are likely going to.

BlockBuster to ME just means massively successful title that sells in the mills. Be it SSBB (which I don't remember getting a Wii Fit marketing blitz) which sold 9-10mill or the games that sell 3-1mill or w/e.

For your last part.
1. Nintendo fans buy Nintendo games and Nintendo knows how to make + market their titles to the new people.
2. Shovelware doesn't so much as "sell well" as much as it just "floods the market with pocket change cost". PS2 was the same and so is DS.
3. 3rd Party pubs/ devs have shown that they would gladly not give 2 fucks when it comes to letting people know about their game with TV ads or anything ( some seem to complain about being asked to do this which odd seeing how much I remember seeing TV ads for games before this gen). Add to that that they don't seem to understand the Wii's market.

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

Awesome battle royale of intelligence the last few pages. Nicely done!

 

[legend166]

I never said that Wii games don't sell. Just that it is playing by a different ruleset than the typical console. The biggest 3rd party hits are not on the Wii. The games with the most hype and press are not on the Wii. 3rd parties complain about the Wii, and Nintendo itself isn't even providing huge games regularly that everyone is talking about. In the past this would be indicators of a failed console. Now, it's what is defining the Wiis success.

Because Nintendo made it not about all that shit. They made it about a fun affordable console that can be pulled out occasionally for family and friends. Games still sell, but you don't see brand new wii games topping the charts every month because that's not what people ate buying the wii for. Now you will see some wii games topping these lists, but they will usually be the same wii games you always see. And they will be on that list for months

As said, it's not a dis to the system at all. Hardcore gamers can still buy the latest and greatest and there are some good games to play. But they aren't what driving the majority of sales. And this is why 3rd parties can't catch a break: they can't create games that will have immediate appeal to the largest part of the wii base. And for the hardcore.....why would I buy something like deadspace or call of duty on the wii. I have a damn 360 and PS3, of course I'm gonna get those versions. 3rd parties need to focus on embracing the uniqueness of the wii, instead of producing the same old shit and complaining when sales dont reach expectations

Your original argument was that the Wii is just the new board game where people have to have one, but they're fine only owning a couple of games and playing it a couple of times a year.

The problem is that averaged out over the long term, the game buying habits of Wii owners is creepily similar as the PS3 and 360, completely defeating your argument.

I mean, you can change it around and say that Wii owners buy different types of games (which is what you seem to be doing), but your original argument is false.

 

[Riou]

Considering that the downmarket is more profitable than the HD upmarket why is it that major 3rd party publishers are not more motivated to co-opt Nintendo? I thought the reason why incumbents tend to retreat upmarket is to pursue higher profit margins. Theoretically, the major 3rd party publishers should be very motivated to have at a slice of Nintendo's high profit margin expanded market pie. Why is that outside a few titles such as EA sports active they are not motivated at all to co-opt Nintendo?

 

[jamesinclair]

Sony sold 1.7 million units in north america

 

[Count Dookkake]

Sony sold 1.7 million units in north america

Oh, so the gap is even bigger now?

 

[scitek]

Good for Sony. Wonder what MS did.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Sony sold 1.7 million units in north america

In the "five weeks since November". Predictions ought to be spot on this month! It's almost cheating now!

 

[d[-_-]b]

Sony sold 1.7 million units in north america

Tvs?

 

[Kilrogg]

Considering that the downstream market is more profitable than the upstream HD market why is it that major 3rd party publishers are not more motivated to co-opt Nintendo? I thought the reason why incumbents tend to retreat upstream is to pursue higher profit margins. Theoretically, the major 3rd party publishers should be very motivated to have at a slice of Nintendo's high profit margin expanded market pie. Why is that outside a few titles such as EA sports active they are not motivated at all to co-opt Nintendo?

Just a bit of nitpicking, but we've all got to use the words the same way if we want intelligent discussions to go on. You should replace downstream with downmarket, and upstream with upmarket. Downstream and upstream refer to the actual progression of the company's product through the tiers of the market (through successive refinements to your product, or successive iterations that are better than the one that came before). Downmarket and upmarket refer to the parts of the market (duh), downmarket being the least demanding customers (which often are the least interested customers beforehand), and upmarket being the most demanding. Besides, downstream movements are hardly talked about, if at all, in disruption theory. I know it gets pretty confusing .

 

[farnham]

Sony sold 1.7 million units in north america

what PS3s only or PS2, 3 and PSP combined..?

 

[Deku]

Sony sold 1.7 million units in north america

if Canada is 10% of that, Sony sold ~1.53 million in the US NPD tracking territory.

Put another way, Nintendo could have sold 3.3 million Wii in December, but Canada's usually been a pretty strong territory for them so the Canadian share of North American totals tend to be up closer to 15%

 

[P90]

You have the most successful home console ever with close to no real full support for years after release. In the mind of consumers Nintendo has established itself as close the the sole supporter for the system.

Please define "real" support. For me, it is JRPGs and niche Japanophile games, though I play mostly handhelds. DQ X? Wii. Persona 5? TBD. If it isn't Wii, it will determine what HD console I purchase. Ever since FF X, I have lost interest in the standard line FFs. So, FF has no bearing for me. Muramasa. Okami.

The minds of consumers=casuals. Casuals determine the marketshare winner. Always have. Always will. I doubt the average "consumer" even knows about game developers other than probably Nintendo and Sega.

 

[Hero of Legend]

if Canada is 10% of that, Sony sold ~1.53 million in the US NPD tracking territory.

Put another way, Nintendo could have sold 3.3 million Wii in December, but Canada's usually been a pretty strong territory for them so the Canadian share of North American totals tend to be up closer to 15%

No surprise, considering that most Shopper's Drug Marts actually have gaming sections that contain 95-99% Nintendo stuff and 1-5% is, well, the other stuff.

 

[test_account]

Amazing Wii and DS sales indeed! Congratulations to Nintendo for this big success!

 

[Nightstick11]

It is really not Nintendo's fault that third-party developers (mostly the Western ones) are being idiots. If you want better sales, you put your heavy-hitters on the system with the largest installed base. Simple. Capcom should have put RE5 on the Wii, not the 360+PS3.

Take a game like DQIX for example. Square releases it on the DS, and it sells 4+ million units in like a day. There are murmurings that DQX is going on the Wii, which is the natural console for it to go to (behind the DS.) If Square had half a brain, they would have put FF13 on the Wii. That is the biggest market for FF13 (again, after the DS).

Until that happens, though, third-party developers won't have a chance in hell of tapping into the vast Wii market.

 

[Eteric Rice]

It is really not Nintendo's fault that third-party developers (mostly the Western ones) are being idiots. If you want better sales, you put your heavy-hitters on the system with the largest installed base. Simple. Capcom should have put RE5 on the Wii, not the 360+PS3.

Take a game like DQIX for example. Square releases it on the DS, and it sells 4+ million units in like a day. There are murmurings that DQX is going on the Wii, which is the natural console for it to go to (behind the DS.) If Square had half a brain, they would have put FF13 on the Wii. That is the biggest market for FF13 (again, after the DS).

Until that happens, though, third-party developers won't have a chance in hell of tapping into the vast Wii market.

One word for you.

Duck.

 

[AlternativeUlster]

Better than LBP. Just sayin'.

:lol

 

[Cruzader]

Oh, so the gap is even bigger now?

No puns today?

 

[P90]

It is really not Nintendo's fault that third-party developers (mostly the Western ones) are being idiots. If you want better sales, you put your heavy-hitters on the system with the largest installed base. Simple. Capcom should have put RE5 on the Wii, not the 360+PS3.

Take a game like DQIX for example. Square releases it on the DS, and it sells 4+ million units in like a day. There are murmurings that DQX is going on the Wii, which is the natural console for it to go to (behind the DS.) If Square had half a brain, they would have put FF13 on the Wii. That is the biggest market for FF13 (again, after the DS).

Until that happens, though, third-party developers won't have a chance in hell of tapping into the vast Wii market.

But the main reason for recent console mainline FFs is graphical fireworks. The main reason for DQ is gameplay. Different purposes.

 

[thestopsign]

Sony used a sort of slimy marketing trick with their numbers. They included Thanksgiving week in their numbers, so you can subtract ~400k from that number, along with whatever sold in Canada.

 

[Riou]

Just a bit of nitpicking, but we've all got to use the words the same way if we want intelligent discussions to go on. You should replace downstream with downmarket, and upstream with upmarket. Downstream and upstream refer to the actual progression of the company's product through the tiers of the market (through successive refinements to your product, or successive iterations that are better than the one that came before). Downmarket and upmarket refer to the parts of the market (duh), downmarket being the least demanding customers (which often are the least interested customers beforehand), and upmarket being the most demanding. Besides, downstream movements are hardly talked about, if at all, in disruption theory. I know it gets pretty confusing .

Thanks for the correction.

I thought co-option is discussed in a very in depth manner in the innovator's battle plan article kame-sennin posted earlier.

Think about the battle between AT&T and MCI. MCI grew without real interference from AT&T for a few years. But AT&T eventually had to respond to MCI. AT&T's business model depended on amortizing large fixed costs over a wide number of users. Flight to the high end—which typically entails focusing on smaller numbers of customers who are willing to pay high prices for the most advanced products and services—really wasn't a competitive option. Because AT&T cared about the customers MCI took from it, it ultimately decided to fight back. The resulting "long-distance wars" of the 1980s and 1990s cost both companies millions in advertising, with the "winner" capturing a bigger slice of an increasingly less lucrative market.

Similar to the AT&T vs MCI example the large install base of the PS2 benefited major 3rd party publishers greatly. The business model for major 3rd party publishers depended on amortizing large fixed costs associated with game development over a large number of potential customers. When Nintendo took large segments of the downmarket PS2 users with the Wii it resulted in a much smaller pool of potential customers. Flight to the high end would meant much lower profit margins.

Based on this logic Nintendo should have had very little asymmetrical motivation over the major 3rd party publishers. But it simply didn't happen that way

 

[kame-sennin]

Considering that the downmarket is more profitable than the HD upmarket why is it that major 3rd party publishers are not more motivated to co-opt Nintendo? I thought the reason why incumbents tend to retreat upmarket is to pursue higher profit margins. Theoretically, the major 3rd party publishers should be very motivated to have at a slice of Nintendo's high profit margin expanded market pie. Why is that outside a few titles such as EA sports active they are not motivated at all to co-opt Nintendo?

Remember, incumbents focus on delivering up-market sustaining innovations that allow them to earn premium prices by reaching undershot customers. They view flight as a positive development. When there are large groups of undershot customers in the higher tiers of a market, incumbents can beat a long and profitable up-market retreat. The customers incumbents leave behind tend to be the least attractive. Sales can go up (high price points replace low price points). Margins typically go way up. The incumbent stops worrying about disloyal, dissatisfied, low-paying (overshot) customers whom outsiders may term "distractions" and instead focuses on very loyal, highly satisfied, high-paying customers. In essence, incumbents can disassociate themselves from a business in exchange for a better one.

The bolded above can refer to $60 games and DLC, with the last line clearly referring to "casuals". The above paragraph explains the choice manufacturers and publishers made going into this generation. The below explains their conundrum today:

What starts small gets big—too big for an incumbent to ignore. The number of undershot customers dwindles. But when incumbents become cornered, they face two problems. First, asymmetric motivation still stymies effective response. Even though the new opportunity may appear big, it typically requires a different business model. Even worse, incumbents are now at the mercy of asymmetric skills. Remember, disruptive innovations typically introduce new benefits to a market, usually centered on convenience, simplicity, customization, or affordability. As the entrant steadily solves unique problems, it builds the ability to do whatever is required to succeed in its context. When the incumbent has retreated into the highest tiers of its market and has to fight because there is no room for further retreat, it is at a competitive disadvantage. As the game changes to the one the disruptor plays best, it is very hard for the incumbents to develop new skills quickly....

In disruptive circumstances, entrants win because they arc—often unknowingly—taking advantage of the asymmetries on their side. An incumbent's strengths are its weaknesses. Its values, which make sure it delivers excellent products to demanding customers, stop it from going after markets where ultimately its strongest competitors will forge their processes and values. The incumbent's processes, those that allow it to serve its customers well, are weaknesses when the game changes and new capabilities are necessary. Fleeing from the disruptive attacker feels good in the short term but further deprives the incumbent of the necessary skills to compete. The end can come swiftly and can appear stunning to the untrained eye. Typically, the best an incumbent can do is to belatedly acquire the winning firm and stave off ultimate destruction.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4353.html

EDIT:

Similar to the AT&T vs MCI example the large install base of the PS2 benefited major 3rd party publishers greatly. The business model for major 3rd party publishers depended on amortizing large fixed costs associated with game development over a large number of potential customers. When Nintendo took large segments of the downmarket PS2 users with the Wii it resulted in a much smaller pool of potential customers. Flight to the high end would meant much lower profit margins.

Based on this logic Nintendo should have had very little asymmetrical motivation over the major 3rd party publishers. But it simply didn't happen that way

Going into this gen, the plan by the big publishers (Ubi, Activision, EA, Capcom, Square) was to convince gamers to buy games because they were bigger and shinier, which is a pretty straightforward task. In doing so, the higher cost of development would squeeze out smaller competitors, creating a blockbuster business model where Halo, Gears, GTA, and Madden could be relied on to bring in huge numbers. HD would be used to justify higher game prices and core gamers would dependably by these games along with special box sets and DLC. The idea going in could be summed up as; make it for more, sell it for more.

The Wii takes this entire gameplan off the table, which is where the asymmetries come in. Nintendo is making money by selling a generally cheaper product to a larger group of people - the exact opposite of the incumbent strategy. The reason the incumbents can't just switch over now that they know which strategy works best is because they simply don't know how, as explained above.

 

[Riou]

Going into this gen, the plan by the big publishers (Ubi, Activision, EA, Capcom, Square) was to convince gamers to buy games because they were bigger and shinier, which is a pretty straightforward task. In doing so, the higher cost of development would squeeze out smaller competitors, creating a blockbuster business model where Halo, Gears, GTA, and Madden could be relied on to bring in huge numbers. HD would be used to justify higher game prices and core gamers would dependably by these games along with special box sets and DLC. The idea going in could be summed up as; make it for more, sell it for more.

The Wii takes this entire gameplan off the table, which is where the asymmetries come in. Nintendo is making money by selling a generally cheaper product to a larger group of people - the exact opposite of the incumbent strategy. The reason the incumbents can't just switch over now that they know which strategy works best is because they simply don't know how, as explained above.

Would it be accurate to say that Nintendo is protected from co-option by its asymmetric skills? (No one else has figured out how to make games like wii sports and mario kart wii?)

 

[kame-sennin]

Would it be accurate to say that Nintendo is protected from co-option by its asymmetric skills? (No one else has figured out how to make games like wii sports and mario kart wii?)

Basically.

 

[justchris]

I reduced your quotation down to this, because in here is the key.

Disruptive innovations don't become good enough on their own. It requires investment -- significant investment -- to push technology and advance it at a rapid pace.

And this was my whole point in the first place. The motivation for disruptors to push the technology to make it "good enough for old customers," using your words, is that those "old customers" are very profitable, in theory. Except in the case of gaming, they aren't profitable. So why push technology that hard? Why not go at a much more leisurely pace, simply keeping up with your new customers?

I think the problem here is two fold. The first is how you are viewing profit. In absolute profit, you may be right, but the upmarket consumer is more profitable per person. The downmarket is more profitable because it is many times larger than the upmarket. The incentive to move upmarket then is to make more profit per consumer. By taking a downmarket consumer and 'upstreaming' them, they increase their profit from that consumer, because an upstreamed consumer doesn't stop liking the games they like, they only increase the number and types of games they like.

The second issue is that in every other field you've discussed, there is a level playing field or a singular product. Unfortunately, the gaming industry does not have this. The upmarket producers are highly competitive in a very small market, meaning they are spending large sums for large revenues, making their profits smaller. But let us posit a situation in which there is only a single console, equally serving the upmarket and downmarket consumer.

While it is very true that 'Software sells Hardware', it is also true that 'Hardware sells Software'. A person who owns Console A has a chance of buying Game A. A person who owns Console A is less likely to purchase Console B just to play Game B. If there is only one console at option, there is a greater chance of a consumer purchasing a game that is not a priority. Imagine if Modern Warfare 2 instead of having 11 million potential consumers had 20 million potential consumers? Even if those other 9 million consumers are not its primary market, there is still going go be some spillover, leading to greater revenues for the same investment.

So the reason for Nintendo to move upstream is threefold. They increase the size of their market (adding upmarket consumers to their existing downmarket consumers). They increase their profit per consumer (upmarket consumers purchase more games). They keep pace with their downmarket consumers as they move upmarket (this is a natural progress, some portion of their blue ocean audience will graduate whether they push them to it or not).

I argue that it is not necessary for them to make this upmarket move rapidly. Rather, their pace is dictated by the market. They can't move upmarket during the current generation, assuming the upmarket trajectory is toward better graphics/sound/processing power, however they can in the next cycle. Assuming that one sees those features in the PS3/360 to be 'good enough' for the upmarket consumer, Nintendo can match those, while maintaining their downmarket values of control and immersion, without spending a great deal, because those technologies will have decreased in price by the time they move into the upmarket. Once their technology is conceivably good enough for the upmarket, they will have accomplished the three things mentioned in the prior paragraph. I don't think Nintendo has to rush into anything, they don't have to beat or exceed Microsoft and Sony, they just have to match them without losing their downmarket consumer in the process. And refusing to move upmarket does not automatically guarantee that they hold on to their downmarket consumer, either way. That will require sustaining innovations, which in this case are so far removed from the 'traditional' upstream path that they don't actively affect it in any way.

...well, I think your question boils down to, "Why should Nintendo push tech when it will cost them so much money." And my answer boils down to, "It's going to cost them money either way, and I don't think it will actually cost them more than they stand to make."

 

[Aaron Strife]

Expecting Nintendo to move upstream is certainly reasonable.

Galaxy 2 and Other-M are not the type of games that will sell hardware. I say this because gamers who want to play Mario and Metroid would have already bought a Wii when Galaxy and Corruption were released two years ago. This doesn't apply as much to Zelda Wii, as I'm sure there was a decent chunk of gamers who were satisfied with the Gamecube version of Twilight Princess, so that has a bit more potential.

You must also consider that Wii Sports Resort and Wii Fit Plus also represent a move upstream, as while these are still their most accessible products, for the same reason as Mario/Metroid they don't have much power as system sellers - those interested would have already purchased a Wii (for Wii Sports) and Wii Fit.

That isn't to say that these games can't meet the same success as their predecessors if you're just looking at the numbers, but that their ability to draw in new customers is more limited. Zelda Wii could very well be the last push for the console, sales-wise (In Japan I suspect this will be Dragon Quest X instead).

Yet, Nintendo could easily just coast another year or so riding off of Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Wii Sports and Wii Fit, which seems to have been their strategy all along anyway.

 

[faceless007]

In the mind of consumers Nintendo has established itself as close the the sole supporter for the system. Now third party publishers want consumers to take their efforts seriously? It aint gonna happen on a grand scale. No way. People know what they want and what to expect of the wii given what has been offered to the in the last few years. Had support been somewhat consistent, the story would surely be different. But things need to be analyzed within their context, and even though its painful to see, I dont think any third party game will create a great impact on wii, due to these companies incompetence and lack of long term planning.

I kind of wonder about this argument. Do the kinds of consumers making up most of the Wii market really think in terms like this--think abstractly about whether or not developers are willing/able to make games they want in the long term and how they should react? We're Internet geeks, and this is GAF which makes us much more cognizant of concepts like "developers" "AAA" "first-party/third-party" and "big-budget effort" than most people. I can't really see most Wii owners thinking thoughts like "Third-parties haven't put any effort into their Wii games so I shouldn't expect any good ones in the future. Guess I won't be buying any third-party games from now on." I'm not sure anyone other than those who closely follow industry news thinks in those terms.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Umm, why can't it be a solid port (no exclusions)? Or better yet built to take advantage of the platform and market it as part of the 2 others instead of these 2 superior ones and throw the Wii version to the side.

And how do you suppose they do the former, given the massive differences in capabilities between the Wii and the other two? The only realistic result would be a pure downgrade and blatant compromise, which would be seen as such by the public, and as a lazy effort destined for failure by Wii fans.

No, it would have to be the second, which would then essentially be an exclusive. It would have to be marketed hard, have a strong appeal and be well designed, and all based on a hunch that it will pay off greatly, enough so to justify the resources put into the product. Of course, it could be that the market just plain doesn't desire to have these types of games on Wii, and would rather go for the HD solutions in the case that they do want these types of games in the first place.

Besides, wasn't Dead Space Wii built to take advantage of the platform? It's a rail shooter of sorts, but I hear it was quite good at what it did, and it was an original, well marketed product for the Wii. See, it wouldn't matter what they do, it would never be good enough. Developers and publishers would be lashed heavily by internet critics, who never once think to perhaps redirect some of the "blame" towards the platform designer who decided to force a unique and incompatible solution into the traditional mix. Not everyone wants to be shaken up, least of all members of an already shaky industry.

And no, what I wrote wasn't really sarcasm. Since some people, such as yourself, are so confident in this magical solution, I suggest that you pool your money together and help fund a project of the sort. Perhaps this level of confidence would rub off on the publishers, eh?

 

[devilhawk]

I was referring to the "in the minds of consumers part". This was being discussed on a previous page. Aren't most of the big blockbuster titles either Mario, or have "Wii _____" as their name, and/or are advertised to the hilt?

Don't forget that twice as much third-party software is sold for the Wii than first-party (or whatever the details were in that chart posted a few pages back).

Besides Mario being an icon, I'm just trying to establish why it is that people supposedly buy so much first-party Nintendo and supposedly buy so much shovelware, yet utterly stay away from other titles.

You must remember the typical consumer. The typical consumer does not visit GAF. Even on PS3 or 360, I doubt the average consumer reads more coverage on games than a typical IGN.com type site. That may even be pushing it. This is why advertising is such a huge deal.

Having said that, a lot of consumers who bought various third party games on Wii in the past may feel like they have been burnt. Even though a company may put out a better product later, the average consumer may not feel confident in purchasing from them again.

This is exemplified by ACII. Bad taste is hard to overcome for the average consumer.

 

[PataHikari]

\ the success of NSMB:Wii is unlikely to signal a rush of 2D platformers.

This makes me a sad panda.

 

[Penguin]

Probably not the place to ask this, but not worth starting a new thread either, but where the hell is Mario Party in all of this?

I hated the yearly sequels, but this is going on the 4th year, we haven't had one... I think, and I kind of miss it.

And think would be an excellent game to get people to connect their Wii online since it would work with a minimial of lag.

 

[devilhawk]

In a recent MC thread I brought up Mario Party. It is the longest break between two Mario Party games in the series' history. MP will appear when Nintendo feels a need to fill a gap. We likely won't hear about it more than 3-6 months ahead of release either.

 

[pakkit]

People like Mario Party games?

 

[timetokill]

People like Mario Party games?

A lot of people do. There's a reason they've made 8+ of them.

I'd have to imagine you've never played it with a group of friends in a social environment before, though.

 

[Penguin]

People like Mario Party games?

People love Mario Party games, they are really high quality, it was always the volume that bothered me, I never got the need for a yearly sequel.

And I mean throw in some booze, and it is one hell of a night.

 

[JJConrad]

I would like someone to define what they mean by these downmarket and upmarket groups are relative to the video game industry.