Support NeoGAF

[Acosta]

That's highly arguable. Their business model allows for low cost development. As a result third parties trying to catch up and fill their catalogs with Wii software in time for the annual shareholders meeting are having to put a lot of half assed efforts out. It's not Nintendo's problem.


They took the risk, and are being rewarded for it. Wii could have bombed as badly as the Dreamcast. In fact, it shares a lot in common with the Dreamcast.

Dreamcast was the most advanced console when launched, Wii is not. What is the reasoning behind that?

Launching a new system is risky for everyone, even for the former market leader is having a lot of problem to sell its new system. However, as a consumer I have my preferences and I prefer to see 400$ systems at launch than 250$ ones if that implies an evident cut on technical potential.

 

[Zer0]

C'mon people talking about "3 plataform = less risk"?

Soon Wii userbase will be bigger than 2 of those 3 plataform together (the other being PC don't really help), and it will be a hell a lot cheaper to develop.. How can it be riskier?

your avatar its the proof

 

[Gahiggidy]

i think the difference BETWEEN the ps3/360 vs the wii is much bigger than ps2/xbox

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Deku]

Dreamcast was the most advanced console when launched, Wii is not. What is the reasoning behind that?

Launching a new system is risky for everyone, even for the former market leader is having a lot of problem to sell its new system. However, as a consumer I have my preferences and I prefer to see 400$ systems at launch than 250$ ones if that implies an evident cut on technical potential.

If you can't see beyond graphics chips and the amount of RAM then you don't deserve to have an opinion/

In terms of philosophy both were very similar. In terms of the evangelical core of fans having absolutely no impact on the eventual outcome, they are also similar.

The most striking thing is that both represent down and out players trying to make a play for the top spot. There's a burst of intense creative action, calls of 'innovative design' and revolution. The Dreamcast didn't get there, the Wii did. The parallels weren't lost to many armchair commentators here, which explains why so many were so sure Wii would fail. They've seen it before.

Of course, there are notable differences. Whereas the Dreamcast followed the disastrous alienation Sega caused with the Saturn, the GameCube, equally disastrous as product had a relatively soft landing and the DS managed to set the scene for the Wii in a way Sega wouldn't have been able to.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

your avatar its the proof

The existence of games that do poorly on the Wii isn't proof that it would've made been more successful as a higher-cost X360/PS3/PC game.

 

[Zer0]

Welll, you're entitled to your opinion.

so the xbox/ps2 technical difference its the same with 360/wii..right?

 

[Zer0]

The existence of games that do poorly on the Wii isn't proof that it would've made been more successful as a higher-cost X360/PS3/PC game.

but "every game will sell millions of wii" argument was risible,there is risk making wii games,the same risk with 360,fuck even 360 owners buy more games per basis than the other two consoles,at least the third party ones

 

[Gahiggidy]

so the xbox/ps2 technical difference its the same with 360/wii..right?

I dunno... but I'd like to see developer's at least try to get 360/ps3 games ported to Wii. And the publishers need to force thier top-tier talent onto the platform as well.

 

[Neo C.]

With more ambitious Wii-projects coming, the average production cost of Wii game (including marketing) will past the 5 to 10 million $ easily.

 

[Zer0]

I dunno... but I'd like to see developer's at least try to get 360/ps3 games ported to Wii. And the publishers need to force thier top-tier talent onto the platform as well.

why a inferior version? making exclusive games for the wii (in my opinion) will be a better deal

i dont see the reason to make 360 ports on the wii

 

[Redd]

why a inferior version? making exclusive games for the wii (in my opinion) will be a better deal

i dont see the reason to make 360 ports on the wii

Yes yes I agree no more ports even if they're from ps3/360. Put some real effort and money on some exclusive games for Wii. Mario Galaxy spoiled me so there's no more excuses for third parties.

 

[felipeko]

your avatar its the proof

Oh, c'mon, i can pick a multiplataform bomba if you want to.. Stranglehold maybe?

but "every game will sell millions of wii" argument was risible,there is risk making wii games,the same risk with 360,fuck even 360 owners buy more games per basis than the other two consoles,at least the third party ones

I never mean that.. I said the low development cost on the Wii is enough to guarantee that a game is less riskier than put it on 3, expensive to develop for, platafroms.

You can make like 2 games on the Wii for the price of one PS3/X360/PC, if one bombs and other is a sucess you would be happy.
But if your only game bombs...

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Extra time and resources it takes to come up with a totally different game than the other 3 platforms. Everything from the graphics to the way the game plays because of the controller has to be built ground up for the Wii, and they've got no way to spread the risk around because the Wii is such a unique platform.

The bigs like EA and Activision do it by porting over PS2 versions - see Tiger Woods. They don't have to budget anything for graphics, and they can spend a little money working on a control scheme.

Economically speaking, it's far less risky to develop for one platform with lower development costs than it is to gamble a huge success across two consoles equally. Especially when one of those two consoles is getting smashed in sales.

Ps2 and Wii is a special case because the games were largely PS2 assets ported up to Wii, so most of the cost is amortized from the PS2 (also meaning that the Wii doesn't have to sell as much for break even). People were whining and complaining about last-gen graphics and port ups, but these titles are a huge money saver for the developer.

360 and PS3 titles are very different. With the money spent to make a title up to snuff graphically alone costs tons of man hours in artistry and programming, not to mention having your devs become familiar with the hardware. Quick PS3 ports of 360 games already developed were a good way to amortize, but you'll see a sharp decrease in this as the PS3 isn't selling software at anywhere near the rate, making it not worth the time to port over. Any ports that do go over will be largely unoptimized, which will hurt the PS3 even more (just as it did the Cube last gen; no point in optimizing code if the title is going to flop anyway, leading people to buy the superior version. We're already seeing this).

 

[Monk]

I just want to say that he has taken extreme cases for both kinds of platforms. Tht 5-10 million, i bet doesnt include RPG's, and that 20-50 million sure as hell does. And when he argues that a game may need to sell 1.3 -1.5 million i wonder if he includes the revenue from the extra cost of games today.

 

[Gahiggidy]

why a inferior version? making exclusive games for the wii (in my opinion) will be a better deal

i dont see the reason to make 360 ports on the wii

Getting as many of the same games on 360 helps take away the advantage that console has.

 

[papelnabangka]

why a inferior version? making exclusive games for the wii (in my opinion) will be a better deal

i dont see the reason to make 360 ports on the wii

People who only have Wiis don't care if it's the "inferior" version. Using an analogy in the PS3/Blu ray thing, some people won't necessarily think that Blu ray is that big of a deal but if and when they have the itch to try HD media, chances are good they'll buy the Blu ray version because they already have the player.

If anything, porting a game to the Wii is just for the sake of having the game on the Wii and neutralizing the 360(or PS3+360) exclusivity. Padding the number basically and giving people, the general masses, less reason to own other consoles other than the Wii, regardless of quality.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I just want to say that he has taken extreme cases for both kinds of platforms. Tht 5-10 million, i bet doesnt include RPG's, and that 20-50 million sure as hell does. And when he argues that a game may need to sell 1.3 -1.5 million i wonder if he includes the revenue from the extra cost of games today.

The only RPG's that cost anywhere near that much are the Squeenix RPGs, and those cost a fortune even back in the PS1 days.

I'm sure Reggie was talking about Averages. PSN titles probably cost in the 10's of thousands or even less to make. Should he count those in his estimation too?

 

[Acosta]

If you can't see beyond graphics chips and the amount of RAM then you don't deserve to have an opinion/

In terms of philisophy both were very similar. In terms of the evangelical core of fans having absolutely no impact on the eventual outcome, they are also similar.

The most striking thing is that both represent down and out players trying to make a play for the top spot. There's a burst of intense creative action, calls of 'innovative design' and revolution. The Dreamcast didn't get there, the Wii did. The parallels weren't lost to many armchair commentators here, which explains why so many were so sure Wii would fail. They've seen it before.

Of course, there are notable differences. Whereas the Dreamcast followed the disastrous alienation Sega caused with the Saturn, the GameCube, equally disastrous as product had a relatively soft landing and the DS managed to set the scene for the Wii in a way Sega wouldn't have been able to.

Opinions are not deserved.

A console it´s a machine, an idea, an architecture and pieces of hardware to make that idea a reality. Dreamcast was born as the most advanced system on its time, there was technical ambition and a desire to compete with the future PS2. Wii has not technical ambition, only a creative one. For me, creativity must be sustained with technology.

Wii completely ignores their competitors and ignores the advancements produced on the programming and technical field. While companies were spending millions on R&D and working hard on the engines and techniques that would allow the studios to fulfill their next gen ambitions, Nintendo decided all that was worthless and went with a cheaper system with a new focus on control.

Take the animation from Assasin´s Creed or Uncharted , for me that is absolutely beautiful and make the investment on the console worth, it give me a new feeling about the game and the character I´m playing. Developers will never be able to use that animation technique on Wii in all its extension.

Nintendo strategy has no praise from me because I have other ideas about the industry. It´s just a personal statement that is not related with the excellent quality and production values of Nintendo titles, so there is no need to attack me or my ideas.

 

[Deku]

The only RPG's that cost anywhere near that much are the Squeenix RPGs, and those cost a fortune even back in the PS1 days.

I'm sure Reggie was talking about Averages. PSN titles probably cost in the 10's of thousands or even less to make. Should he count those in his estimation too?

It's an interesting question. Most people are treating PSN, XBL Arcade and WiiWare titles as additional sources of revenues and not a different product line or even the core product line. None of the consoles have their business model built entirely on Downloaded software, so I think it's fair to say the reference was to on physical games.

 

[PkunkFury]

I just want to say that he has taken extreme cases for both kinds of platforms. Tht 5-10 million, i bet doesnt include RPG's, and that 20-50 million sure as hell does. And when he argues that a game may need to sell 1.3 -1.5 million i wonder if he includes the revenue from the extra cost of games today.

why are RPGs a special case?? Unless you're talking SE CG fests, a simple RPG is probably one of the cheapest games to make.

 

[No6]

I never mean that.. I said the low development cost on the Wii is enough to guarantee that a game is less riskier than put it on 3, expensive to develop for, platafroms.

You can make like 2 games on the Wii for the price of one PS3/X360/PC, if one bombs and other is a sucess you would be happy.
But if your only game bombs...

The problem is that you're comparing low-budget Wii titles to high-budget ps3/360 titles. We don't actually know the full range of costs on any machine because that data isn't usually released. For all we know Konami took a major bath on Dewy bombing, while making a ton on the marginally upgraded Winning 11 games (or PES, whichever).

There's also the issue of startup costs. God of War cost, iirc, something like 30M to develop. Obviously the game didn't make that much back, but the 30M was also part of building an entire studio and cranking out the assests; GoW2 presumably cost much, much less. The 360/PS3 (and sorta PC) are starting to come out of the initial "engine/team" building phase, so costs should start coming down, much like costs of PS2 games started coming way, way down over time (and seem to be the source of the majority of Wii software).

 

[papelnabangka]

Opinions are not deserved.

A console it´s a machine, an idea, an architecture and pieces of hardware to make that idea a reality. Dreamcast was born as the most advanced system on its time, there was technical ambition and a desire to compete with the future PS2. Wii has not technical ambition, only a creative one. For me, creativity must be sustained with technology to be meaningful for me.

Wii completely ignores their competitors and ignores the advancements produced on the programming and technical field. While companies were spending millions on R&D and working hard on the engines and techniques that would allow the studios to fulfill their next gen ambitions, Nintendo decided all that was worthless and went with a cheaper system with a new focus on control.

Well, that politic has no praise from me because I have other ideas about the industry. It´s just a personal statement that is not related with the excellent quality and production values of Nintendo titles, so there is no need to attack me or my ideas.

So just because we have high def printers, super computer that can render Beowulf now, you suddenly think that classical works of art are somehow "lesser" because of thier technical limitations?

 

[Monk]

The only RPG's that cost anywhere near that much are the Squeenix RPGs, and those cost a fortune even back in the PS1 days.

I'm sure Reggie was talking about Averages. PSN titles probably cost in the 10's of thousands or even less to make. Should he count those in his estimation too?

But namco said their games on the ps3 need to sell 500k to make a profit, working backwards from what i know of ps2 titles, they get $20(thats what ps2 titles get) and a bonus $10(360 and ps3 titles cost $10 more). So at the very most they would be getting $30 for each game they sold. 30 x 500 is 15 million at most to make namco's titles such as RR7. And RPG's just plain cost more to make regardless of system. A pc style rpg costs even more. Hence why you see devs cut corners on rpgs and have a lack enemy variety these days.

 

[Luckyman]

Yep thats alot of money to swallow. Factor 5 Estimated it would cost 50 million to get the game made and put onto shelves. So if thats the case Sony probably has a very bad view of Factor 5 atm.

It was $50M total for multiple projects. I´m not sure there will be anymore though. :lol

https://www.cmpevents.com/sessions/GD/S1609i1.ppt

 

[Culex]

It's going to be a 2 million sold event for November + December for the Wii.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Yeah its a very vague statement but pretty much every scenario possible is just amazing. Hardware wise for DS and Wii it could be 300,000+ in a week

It's got to be Wii and DS. It's too vague.

 

[Monk]

why are RPGs a special case?? Unless you're talking SE CG fests, a simple RPG is probably one of the cheapest games to make.

RPG's are simply bigger in terms of maps. Hence they cost more.

 

[Acosta]

So just because we have high def printers, super computer that can render Beowulf now, you suddenly think that classical works of art are somehow "lesser" because of thier technical limitations?

Do you really think it´s the same?

Technology limits what can be done in a videogame. Classical works of art are clearly not influenced by that factor.

 

[Jokeropia]

its most likely below that cause this is a PR war and they wouldn't have missed a chance to 1up Sony if they were able to

300% increase for PS3 is not enough to reach normal Wii level sales, so it's definitely not enough to match record Wii level sales.

 

[Zer0]

Oh, c'mon, i can pick a multiplataform bomba if you want to.. Stranglehold maybe?

but wii its the "will sell millions"console,zack its the proof that wii owners can ignore excelent and exclusive games too

 

[Touchdown]

All of this is meaningless without another Animal Crossing! Or a Wii Nintendogs! Don't they understand what my fiance wants to play!?

LOL My mom would be so embarrased if I ever told anybody she knew/worked with, how many hours she put into her town on gamecube.

 

[felipeko]

The problem is that you're comparing low-budget Wii titles to high-budget ps3/360 titles. We don't actually know the full range of costs on any machine because that data isn't usually released. For all we know Konami took a major bath on Dewy bombing, while making a ton on the marginally upgraded Winning 11 games (or PES, whichever).

There's also the issue of startup costs. God of War cost, iirc, something like 30M to develop. Obviously the game didn't make that much back, but the 30M was also part of building an entire studio and cranking out the assests; GoW2 presumably cost much, much less. The 360/PS3 (and sorta PC) are starting to come out of the initial "engine/team" building phase, so costs should start coming down, much like costs of PS2 games started coming way, way down over time (and seem to be the source of the majority of Wii software).

I'm taking Reggie's numbers into account.. But they're are similar with a lot of what 3rd parties are saying.. So AFAIK, Wii is less riskier than multiplataform PS3/X360/PC.

I didn't think Konami took a major bath on Dewy bombing.. I've heard that Dewy's team was a small one, and they developed it along with Elebits...

but wii its the "will sell millions"console,zack its the proof that wii owners can ignore excelent and exclusive games too

What do you think it cost less: Zack and Wiki or Stranglehold?! (Oh, yeah, we know how much Stranglehold did cost, don't we?)

 

[Zer0]

Getting as many of the same games on 360 helps take away the advantage that console has.

even if they are shitty versions? i dont give a shit about advantage,nintendo or ms doesn't pay me i only want the best version of a product and if getting advantage on other systems with a shitty ports or inferior versions its a good thing,that is sad very very sad

 

[PkunkFury]

RPG's are simply bigger in terms of maps. Hence they cost more.

map size isn't the only cost that goes into making games... Obviously with any genre, the bigger you want to make the game, the more it's going to cost. And I guess the tendancies to make RPGs huge might drive the cost up as you suggest.

The thing is, with RPG's programming is very easy/cheap and good programmers/engineers tend to command higher salaries than other members of game companies. There's a reason tile based RPGs or isometric dungeon crawlers are so common as undergrad projects. It's very easy to hammer out an engine that takes care of all you need in the game. No need to worry about camera. Collisions are very simple. Not much physics or AI to speak of. If the game is turn based, things get even easier. Debugging becomes very simple too. You could easily hire a couple of CS students fresh out of college and get a decent product.

Of course I'm referring to JRPGs, isometric dungeon crawlers and the like. Something like Oblivion, other Western RPGs, or an adventure game like Zelda would indeed drive costs way up. But there's a reason so many RPGs and strategy games end up on handhelds or get produced by small japanese teams. Most of the cost is in the art, and all games could benefit by more artists, so this really isn't RPG specific. If a standard RPG is cutting corners, it was probably low budget, poorly managed, or didn't have a very efficient art team

 

[laserbeam]

even if they are shitty versions? i dont give a shit about advantage,nintendo or ms doesn't pay me i only want the best version of a product and if getting advantage on other systems with a shitty ports or inferior versions its a good thing,that is sad very very sad

So cause it would be on the Wii automatically means it would be the shittier version? It may not have Plastic Bald Space marine shine but there is nothing that says a wii version has to be shitty

 

[Monk]

Of course I'm referring to JRPGs, isometric dungeon crawlers and the like. Something like Oblivion, other Western RPGs, or an adventure game like Zelda would indeed drive costs way up. But there's a reason so many RPGs and strategy games end up on handhelds or get produced by small japanese teams. Most of the cost is in the art, and all games could benefit by more artists, so this really isn't RPG specific. If an RPG is cutting corners, it was probably low budget, poorly managed, or didn't have a very efficient art team

I was talking about the large world rpgs. The bigger the world siz, the more variety is needed in enemies? Or do you disagree?

 

[Zer0]

but there is nothing that says a wii version has to be shitty

no.just 80 per cent all the 360 to wii ports until this day..and not all of the 360/ps3 games are "bald space marines" that joke is getting old

 

[PkunkFury]

I was talking about the large world rpgs. The bigger the world siz, the more variety is needed in enemies? Or do you disagree?

like I say, with any genre, the larger you want to make the game, the higher the cost will be. If I want to make a "large world" fps I wall also want a variety of enemies. RPGs can cost as much as a producer wants to put into them (see SE's big budget games). But the ground floor for a simple RPG is very cheap.

You can't really generalize cost of a game based on genre alone. The scope of the project is more important. If you don't have to deal with physics, AI, netcode, multiplayer issues, camera, 3-dimensional collisions, etc. the game becomes easier for everyone to make, including the artists. These are all things that are necessary in some genres, but can be cut completely from certain types of RPGs

 

[Link316]

What do you think it cost less: Zack and Wiki or Stranglehold?! (Oh, yeah, we know how much Stranglehold did cost, don't we?)

a penny stock also costs less than a blue chip stock, point is lower costs means nothing if you can't get a return on your investment, Midway will probably get some back for Stranglehold, will Capcom get any for Z&W? that I'm not so sure

 

[papelnabangka]

even if they are shitty versions? i dont give a shit about advantage,nintendo or ms doesn't pay me i only want the best version of a product and if getting advantage on other systems with a shitty ports or inferior versions its a good thing,that is sad very very sad

It's not like you're not getting the "superior" version.

 

[Father_Brain]

a penny stock also costs less than a blue chip stock, point is lower costs means nothing if you can't get a return on your investment, Midway will probably get some back for Stranglehold, will Capcom get any for Z&W? that I'm not so sure

Stranglehold sold only a bit over 100K in its first month on 360. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem too likely that it'll turn a profit.

 

[papelnabangka]

a penny stock also costs less than a blue chip stock, point is lower costs means nothing if you can't get a return on your investment, Midway will probably get some back for Stranglehold, will Capcom get any for Z&W? that I'm not so sure

I think Capcom will get money alot more easily from Z&W than Midway from Stranglehold.

Z&W wasn't an expansive game. It was great but you spend most of your time just figuring out puzzles in a small area. It was a great game, don't get me wrong but it probably didn't cost very much, not even $3M, I would say.

Stranglehold was $40M.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

a penny stock also costs less than a blue chip stock, point is lower costs means nothing if you can't get a return on your investment, Midway will probably get some back for Stranglehold, will Capcom get any for Z&W? that I'm not so sure

A high budget bomb doing better than a low budget bomb? Brilliant!

 

[Taurus]

It's going to be a 2 million sold event for November + December for the Wii.

Only 2 millions?

 

[ksamedi]

a penny stock also costs less than a blue chip stock, point is lower costs means nothing if you can't get a return on your investment, Midway will probably get some back for Stranglehold, will Capcom get any for Z&W? that I'm not so sure

I highly doubt Midway will make a profit on Stranglehold, even if they do, it will be a waste of development resources for the return they get for it.

 

[Leon S. Kennedy]

How many copies would Too Human have to sell to recoup its supposed $100 million (according to wikipedia) budget and 8 years of development and lawsuits? It doesn't get any riskier that that. They probably yearn for the good old days with Nintendo.

 

[Arde5643]

a penny stock also costs less than a blue chip stock, point is lower costs means nothing if you can't get a return on your investment, Midway will probably get some back for Stranglehold, will Capcom get any for Z&W? that I'm not so sure

Brilliant!!

cue brilliant_Guiness_bros_pics.img


:lol

 

[CitizenCope]

November US NPD Wii data = 1M+

I can almost feel it.

PS3 forums says no. They are sitting on shelves.:lol

 

[[Nintex]]

How many copies would Too Human have to sell to recoup its supposed $100 million (according to wikipedia) budget and 8 years of development and lawsuits? It doesn't get any riskier that that. They probably yearn for the good old days with Nintendo.

They don't, the game has been moneyhatted by Sony, Nintendo and now MS. Although there was a rumor going that MS finally cancelled the game, Dyack hasn't posted here for a while so I'm wondering if its true or not.

They do need to sell the game to every life-form in the Galaxy to turn a profit though.

 

[Xeke]

Do you really think it´s the same?

Technology limits what can be done in a videogame. Classical works of art are clearly not influenced by that factor.

Sure they are. Classical artists did not have the availability of the color pallet that artists today have. There was a time in the middle ages before perspective was perfected by the likes of Leonardo. But despite all of that they created some beautiful art. It is lacking many of the technological improvements that we have today but it remains just as beautiful.