Saint10118
Member
bloody pirate said:
Lurkers: "the bait has been laid on the strawman's trap will the voices of reason fall into its snare?! The drama continues!"
-
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.
SALES-AGE: Why the Wii will be getting Japanese exclusives, but not Western. Part II.
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
Lurkers: "the bait has been laid on the strawman's trap will the voices of reason fall into its snare?! The drama continues!"
I don't think anyone's really expecting those sorts of games. The biggest potential stuff is probably something like Rayman 4 or another SimSomething or original project or whatever. Honestly though, what was the last real big western 3rd party exclusive anyway? Almost everything's multi by default here, unlike Japan, which where developers seem to be shifting Wii-ward...bloody pirate said:
ShockingAlberto
Member
My problem with this line of thinking is "immediate" in 2006/2007 would have results at the end of this year. So doing this now, even if they feel it's finally the right time to start actively courting third parties, leaves a wide gap for games to be in development without releasing.charlequin said:
In the meantime, people are going to get tired of waiting for the next big game and either ignore the smaller titles (like everything Marvelous is commendably doing) or refuse to wait and trade in their Wii's for another system or something entirely unrelated to gaming. The time for them to start tossing that money around was a year ago and keep a steady stream of titles on the system. As of now, the only Wii games coming out this year, third party are not, are games that 90% of most "hardcore" gamers don't know about, much less the majority of the Wii audience.
Hero of Legend
Member
Speaking of big Japanese Wii exclusives, I can definitely see that Marvelous is smiling right now, since they were very confident in the Wii being the outstanding success in Japan that it is today, thus we have a lot of various kinds of RPGs from them, from the classic kind (Arc Rise Fantasia), to the more simulation kind (Rune Factory Frontier and Little King's Story).
Marvelous is pretty much the only big Japanese publisher that called the Wii it's home before it was clear it was going to be a huge success in Japan, I wonder how Namco Bandai, Konami, and Capcom to a lesser extent feel.
Capcom seems to be in the middle, with their PS360 game performing well enough, but they also gave the Wii MH3! So they are supporting all the consoles virtually equally, with the Wii getting one AAA game, but it's the one that Japan only cares about from Capcom anyway!
Marvelous is pretty much the only big Japanese publisher that called the Wii it's home before it was clear it was going to be a huge success in Japan, I wonder how Namco Bandai, Konami, and Capcom to a lesser extent feel.
Capcom seems to be in the middle, with their PS360 game performing well enough, but they also gave the Wii MH3! So they are supporting all the consoles virtually equally, with the Wii getting one AAA game, but it's the one that Japan only cares about from Capcom anyway!
I would like to argue the "Nintendo should moneyhat 3RD parties" claim.
#1) If Nintendo did this, then those games wouldn't have been earned. There were lot's of "exclussive" games on GCN that later got ported to other systems. 3RD parties would say: "oh it's 'cos it didn't sell well enough on GCN" then when an exclussive game/franchise does sell well they'd say: "we now want to expand it's sales potential" by porting once GCN exclussives to other systems (Sonic, RE, Bloody Roar, Super Monkey Ball, Godzilla, etc.). If those games come to Wii 'cos it has a higher userbase due to Nintendo's effort then those would be games Nintendo has earned. If they don't come, it's not 'cos Nintendo should "bought them off" it's more likely 'cos the developer/publisher doesn't want it on a Nintendo system...so screw them!
#2) If Nintendo did this, then current publishers of games (that *were* earned due to Wii's userbase) would feel salty that they brought their games to Wii for free while other publishers get bought off. This would cause strife and then Nintendo would have to start paying those publishers who were once willing to give support freely on earned efforts. Endless cycle.
#3) Eventually it'd end in a bitter bidding war between 1ST parties on getting exclussives...and Nintendo will *NOT* play that game as: A) they're stingy, B) they're bullheaded, C) it's "beneath" them & D) they'd lose in a bidding war with a company like Microsoft who's more willing to moneyhat.
Nintendo was once a company who did monopolistic practices and ended up paying for it once Sony came around and 3RD parties ran away leaving Nintendo humbled. They had to rebuild a lot of burnt bridges last generation and now (thanks to Wii's success) the support they're getting (though lacking in many ways) is support they've earned without having to play the moneyhat game.
#1) If Nintendo did this, then those games wouldn't have been earned. There were lot's of "exclussive" games on GCN that later got ported to other systems. 3RD parties would say: "oh it's 'cos it didn't sell well enough on GCN" then when an exclussive game/franchise does sell well they'd say: "we now want to expand it's sales potential" by porting once GCN exclussives to other systems (Sonic, RE, Bloody Roar, Super Monkey Ball, Godzilla, etc.). If those games come to Wii 'cos it has a higher userbase due to Nintendo's effort then those would be games Nintendo has earned. If they don't come, it's not 'cos Nintendo should "bought them off" it's more likely 'cos the developer/publisher doesn't want it on a Nintendo system...so screw them!
#2) If Nintendo did this, then current publishers of games (that *were* earned due to Wii's userbase) would feel salty that they brought their games to Wii for free while other publishers get bought off. This would cause strife and then Nintendo would have to start paying those publishers who were once willing to give support freely on earned efforts. Endless cycle.
#3) Eventually it'd end in a bitter bidding war between 1ST parties on getting exclussives...and Nintendo will *NOT* play that game as: A) they're stingy, B) they're bullheaded, C) it's "beneath" them & D) they'd lose in a bidding war with a company like Microsoft who's more willing to moneyhat.
Nintendo was once a company who did monopolistic practices and ended up paying for it once Sony came around and 3RD parties ran away leaving Nintendo humbled. They had to rebuild a lot of burnt bridges last generation and now (thanks to Wii's success) the support they're getting (though lacking in many ways) is support they've earned without having to play the moneyhat game.
Attack You
Member
ShockingAlberto said:
For Nintendo to bounce back like they have after two generations of debilitating software droughts, as well as the frightening contentment the market had with Wii Sports in the beginning, I don't think people get tired of waiting as easily as you suggest. Not enough people to make a difference, at least.
Understood, but that's still retarded.Case said:
Considering HD multiformat as a theoretical "development platform" versus ground up Wii R&D makes some sense from the developer's perspective but crossplatform is still crossplatform when it comes to the inner workings of development environment, marketing, retail, userbase, manufacturer relations, network infastructure, control interface, etc, etc. I can maybe see an argument for 360/Vista (more from the R&D side, they use basically identical tools), but even that's a stretch honestly.
Even now, Wii has more actual western exclusives in the pipe than either PS3 or 360. PS3 & 360 being so close to each other in capabililty and market is both a curse and a blessing... they're in constant heated competition, but without the other they might not prove an attractive enough prospect at all. This goes for the HD twins and PC as well.
360's doing amazing in the JRPG department, but that because MGS went out of their way (both with early technical and financial support) to secure them. Wii's coming up fairly quickly, with little to no concerted effort on Nintendo's part.
Even now, you're already seeing devs who banked on 360 early on (tri-Crescendo for example in the RPG arena) moving to Wii.
Even now, you're already seeing devs who banked on 360 early on (tri-Crescendo for example in the RPG arena) moving to Wii.
jarrod said:
So the developer of Baten Kaitos for Gamecube is making a small-profile rpg for the wii after making a small-profile rpg for the 360. Is that really supposed to be impressive? Last gen's console leader (PS2) had tons of rpgs announced by this point in its lifetime. I guess we'll see what gets announced at E3 and TGS, but this "the big wii games are coming anytime now" is starting to sound a lot like "wait until ___" for PS3. It's certainly a strange generation.
damisa said:
Still a fairly impressive turnaround given that the PS2 'had tons of rpgs announced by this point in its lifetime' because (a) it was the accepted market leader and had gobs of 3rd party resources and love being thrown at it and (b) games for HD systems (where the 3rd parties pretty much placed all their eggs before this gen fully got started) take longer to develop. So yeah, NO system is going to compete with the PS2's catalog in that genre; it's impossible, with the exception of (maybe) the DS by the end of its lifetime. Again though, games for it are far easier and quicker to produce.
I think E3 and TGS won't have much to impress people who aren't already sold on Nintendo's new direction, frankly. Nintendo's going to release information on a number of core games, but the HD fandom is so firm in its belief that Nintendo is the antithesis to their way of gaming to care. Even so, Nintendo needs those core games to make the Wii more appealing to PS2 gamers that haven't quite made the leap to the current generation. I'm not expecting anything of real note from 3rd parties. Maybe at TGS, but only coming from Japan.
Lonewolf_92
Member
damisa said:
Difference there is last gen's market leader came into that gen on a high note (being the market leader with the PS1) while Nintendo came from nowhere with the Wii. A better comparison would be between the Wii and the PS1, and if you compare those two you'll see much more similarities than differences. This isn't blind fanboy hope (as is the case with the "wait until ___" for PS3), this is a logical assumption caused by the ever expanding gulf in sales between the Wii and the HD consoles in the gaming market.
kame-sennin
Member
damisa said:
You know, as someone who once believed that development would shift towards Wii (in PS2 proportions), I have to say that your observation is pretty accurate. I think the truth is that some developers can't switch to Wii because it would destroy their business model (Epic, Ubi, perhaps EA). Nintendo isn't just disrupting Sony and Microsoft, they are disrupting any and every publisher who has focused on HD visuals and increasingly complex games, as those attributes are irrelevant in a Wii dominated market.
With that said, I think the western (and eastern) developers who don't make the switch will feel some sting as the market continues to shift in Nintendo's favor.
Edit: I should add that I do think there will be relevant western third party support. But, as has been the trend with this console, it will start from the bottom up. Indie developers like High Voltage and Renegade Kid are flexible enough to ride the wave that Wii is creating. It's these types of developers who have the best chance at surviving the Wii paradigm shift, and perhaps becoming larger players at the end of the day.
D.Lo
Member
Not really relevant, but that was so true. Sega in particular were so stupid. they put games on Xbox/Ps2, many flopped and some sold well - and they left them there. They put games on GCN (Sonic, Monkey Ball) and they sold amazingly, so they brought those franchises multi, without giving GCN any of their other franchises even when they would have filled huge holes in it's lineup (VF4, Panzer Dragoon for example). It's like Sega refused to believe that GCN owners actually liked their games the most and it just happenned that what they decided to release on it had universal appeal and would be hits on any platform.DrGAKMAN said:
...and now they're doing it again, who in their right mind would make a wacky tennis game these days without making the Wii the lead platform?
They earned the money for whatever financial incentives they want to give, which could even be as simple as a discount on licensing fees. There are various hurdles in developers bringing certain genres to the system, shooters in particular. Giving one a help along in the beginning to establish, in 3rd party publishers eyes at least, an audience for the genre on the system, would be a benefit to Nintendo in the long term.DrGAKMAN said:
The only reason they would do it is for an under-represented genre. They're not going to start moneyhatting minigames. Why not provide a little assistance to a publisher that might be hesitant to bring say a sim racer to the Wii.DrGAKMAN said:
Not likely if we're talking about shooters and racers. The HD systems have those like the Wii has minigames. They don't need them. The Wii arguably does.DrGAKMAN said:
Lonewolf_92
Member
kame-sennin said:
Funny thing is, of those three examples you've given, Ubi has given good support (mostly with a large collection of their crappy games) to the Wii, and didn't EA purchase at least one developer to focus on making Wii versions of their games last year? There are ways that such large companies can handle such a change in market, they're not so inflexible.
kame-sennin
Member
Lonewolf_92 said:
I was a little hesitant to put EA on my list, because I am unsure of their motivations and they could prove me wrong in the future. However, their actions to date, as well as the actions of Ubisoft represent a co-option of Nintendo's strategy rather than an acceptance of it. When companies disrupt industries, their competitors (Ubi, EA, Sony, and Microsoft) will often attempt to co-opt, or mimic the disruptive innovation that has brought the disruptor success. We see this with Sony and MS creating motion controllers and Ubi and EA releasing games that they refer to as "casual". However, co-option is a half-hearted attempt to cash in on a disruptor's success while keeping their primary business model (high end graphics, more complex sequels) in tact. There is also the hope that co-option may slow down the success of the disruptive company.
This is not support. EA creating a "Casual games division" that is separate from the main company is just their way of holding on to their place in the market and keeping Nintendo at bay. They are not changing their business model or attempting to adapt to the Wii. The same could be said of Ubisoft. Their low-end games are placed on the Wii to gain revenue, but their core business model and their core IPs are all focused on the HD systems. Both Ubisoft and EA are hoping that Nintendo's growth does not go beyond the low-end (so-called casual) market and begin eating into their core market.
Starchasing
Member
kame-sennin said:
good luck with that.... it will happen just like the ds... wii will slowly eat the core market
Lonewolf_92
Member
kame-sennin said:
After a quick pop over to Gamefaqs to take a look at EA upcoming games, I couldn't disagree with your view of their market strategy more. It seems to me (after that admittedly quick) reading, that HD-only focused games seem to be the exception rather than a rule when it comes to EA. Most of their note worthy core IP releases (the Maddens, the Tiger Woods) are across all platforms equally. While the Wii doesn't have many noteworthy exclusives from them, it does have a sizable portion of their upcoming releases. It looks less like a co-option and more like a slow shift of focus following the changes in the market.
Dalthien said:
You do know that EA are the biggest selling 3rd-party publisher for Wii in Europe (15% market share) and have 11% market share in NA? I do not believe the problems EA have are particularly related to lack of success on Wii.
Activision claim #1 in US market share in revenue on consoles only.
I just want to say that this was, is, and will continue to happen for a while.Vinci said:
Perceptions are very hard to change. This is why i have been disappointed with so called "core" gamers, they should know better. This is the kind of thing i expect from the mainstream gaming public.
Fredescu said:
Hey, Nintendo does need to help more in developing titles, advertising, courting 3RD parties, but moneyhatting is not their style nor the way.
You bring up a valid point in under-representation...why bring "game type A" to Wii when Nintendo themselves doesn't make "game type A" for example. This could be handled 2 ways: Nintendo backs a unique game that Wii is lacking in, either by doing advertising for the 3RD party or (in the possible case for High Voltage's "The Conduit") publish the thing themselves. GCN lacked support from game makers and players alike on sports games until "the kiddie" Wii Sports became a hit, now even serious sport sim games like Madden and Tiger Woods are doing well on Wii...follow the leader. The other way is to make a game themselves that tells the Wii audience and it's supporting publishers "Wii can do shooters too" by making a "Mario Paintball" or "Wii Paintball featuring Mii's". If they announced that, hyped that, advertised that and it sold a million+ (as you know it would) I garauntee you more publishers would take notice and follow Nintendo on that genre as they should since the Wiimote makes sense for that type of game. It's like the GCN situation where Nintendo didn't make online games for it and 3RD parties didn't either...but then when they made WFC titles on NDS & Wii, 3RD parties followed the leader and did the same. Same could be argued for the music genre...Nintendo got the Wii audience to buy into peripherals when, in the past, peripherals or specialty games would've bombed* even on traditionally successful consoles, but now Wii with a fledgeling new console is the ideal place to put games with peripherals even when they're late/gimped (GHIII & Rockband)...follow the leader.
*granted, the music peripheral genre started big on PS2, but it quickly and successfully transfered right over to Wii
Night_Trekker
Member
legend166 said:
Jokes incoming...
Threi said:
Well that's 'cos they are the mainstream. PS1 & PS2 were the top consoles of their day and the mainstream went with them 'cos of it (and vice versa). When Sony started to "take over" the industry from Nintendo, many Nintendo fans (like myself) considered ourselves the "core" with Sony bringing in a wider non-gamer, mainstream, hip, they buy it 'cos it's "cool" or even the dasterdly "casual" audience with their "Hollywoodization" or call it even "basterdization" of our hobby and we resented it and resisted it. Much like the "HD-era" is resisting the "waggle-era" of today.
It all comes down to fearing change.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
DrGAKMAN said:
I started an entire thread about how Nintendo needs to light the way.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277024
Great minds. ^^
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Hunahan said:
1. One of the major things in my argument is that I've acknowledged that many of the games in question were pre-determined to go to the PS3 before Wii's dominance was assured--although I would argue that Wii's dominance WAS assured, at least in Japan, way back when the words five ninety nine were uttered. The developers in question, specifically Square Enix, Namco, and Konami, didn't recognize what was right in front of everyone and decided to forge ahead with titles in production. The main thrust of my argument is that once those games are delivered, those publishers SHOULD be putting major exclusives on the Wii.
2. The question of "should" vs. "actually caring." The question I was answering was in relation to the 360/PS3 install base...in the US. The entire premise that you think is debunked by me saying, "they don't care," is in fact confirmed by that statement. Everything I've shown, said, and charts I've used points to that very fact: despite worldwide dominance, western devs focus on the hardcore audiences despite the eventual leadership of the Wii install base.
Moreover, the idea of "should" vs. "what will happen" is clearly speculative based on the idea investors like to maximize profits (money earned over money invested). I pretty clearly stated in the OP, both times, and specified, both times, that this entire premise is based on sound investment strategy--not on whether publishers will be forced to observe that.
A side note: I don't appreciate the insinuation that I somehow "wish" this to happen or that this argument is in any way motivated by anything other than a love of strategy, sales, charts, and the business of gaming. That argument is beneath both of us and you lower this into some imaginary fanboy war when you do so. If it does matter, and everybody spending time making valid arguments in this thread would say that it doesn't, I certainly do not want certain Japanese Big Name Games to be made for exclusive to the Wii platform for my very own unspoken fanboy reasons. I won't address this again.
3. It's not a theory. It's an argued position that I think smart investors would be wise to observe. I'm open to criticism, where valid. I'm definitely open to arguments, as I've shown both here and in numerous other threads. When I'm wrong, I stand down. But instead of arguing you're debating semantics, using strawmen arguments and suggesting things I've said mean another. If you'd like to debate relevant points, I'd love to, but you're not off to a great start.
Sure, make them or help others make them. Moneyhatting doesn't have to be the sledghammer that you (or Microsoft) make it out to be. It doesn't always have to be a 50 million dollar loan. I would buy a million copies of Mario Paintball myself, but when there are scores of dev teams with more shooter experience than Nintendo it could make good financial sense to provide assistance to a third party rather than having to learn it all themselves.DrGAKMAN said:
Golden Darkness
Member
kame-sennin said:
Indeed. These low end games are just signs of continued apathy towards making good quality games targeted to all audiences. Now that I think about it, in my opinion it isn't much about Nintendo as its about the demographics outside the "hardcore", no matter the system. It just intersects more often for the this generation, and probably past ones.
The gaming community seems to reinforce these ideals as well. I mean, look at the major game coverage in the gaming press. I bet while most of us had a subscription to a major gaming mag at elementary/middle school age, would you give a kid today a subscription those same mags now? I look at the games covered and I think, there's no way any parent would allow a subscription to this. The gaming community and culture had gotten exclusive to a specific "hardcore" demographic, and quite hostile against everyone outside it. (I mean seriously, you guys love to blame parents and store owner for allowing kids to great M-rated games, but if the community and culture doesn't provide and promote viable alternatives, so it's either play M-rated games or get no games at all) And it feeds back to the developers mentality to spend most of their resources on this demographic. For them these are definite potential "million sellers" that seems to mark whether a game is successful or not.
As long there is this "middle finger" towards non-"hardcore", queue the Imagine games, and by extension, queue them for the Wii.
bafflewaffle
Member
J-Devs will continue to extend their DS and Gamecube brands to the Wii and make a few small-to mid budget original games. Moving big, established series that previously appeared on the PS2 to the Wii rather than the HD consoles is still not as likely. Many of them still fear Kazuo's pimp hand.
I'm just curious, first, I know that we're very close to E3 at this point and we should hear a lot of new game announcements there (of course) but... when was the last time we heard of a "major" western Third Party franchise going to the "HD Platform"? I mean, seriously, it's been a while hasn't it? There are a lot of games that are STILL coming, but have there been a lot of brand new announcements, have there?
kame-sennin
Member
Golden Darkness said:
It's the comic book-ization of the gaming industry. As time goes on, the easiest path to take is to trend towards the most avid consumers because they spend the most money. In an industry like games, comics, or occasionally films, those consumers are young male geeks. The danger of following this path is that these avid consumers are and always will be a niche, despite their spending power, and it is difficult to strike a balance between their (ever increasing) demands and the demands of the mainstream audience.
And since you mentioned the gaming press, I'd add that their disdain for Nintendo isn't bias as much as it is financial logic. The paradigm shift that Nintendo is partly responsible for will effect everyone in the industry, not just Sony and Microsoft. Just look at the sales of Wii Sports and compare that to the reviews of Wii Sports. The Wii audience has already decided that the gaming press is irrelevant.
schuelma said:
That's certainly pretty big, but as much as FF? or GTA? or the other games Panther's talking about? It's more of a nostalgia title than anything.
edit: can anyone find the sales for the previous PoP games? from what i can tell (1 minute scan on wikipedia) the past few installments were pretty buggy and criticized.
Edit 2 Ok, well, Sands of Time was critically acclaimed, the sequel was ok but buggy and the third (of the most recent trilogy)... not so much.
bafflewaffle
Member
I dont think Nintendo will be moneyhatting any third parties. They tried that and got burned with stuff like the Capcom five last gen. Probably they dont think its worth the effort anymore.
Golden Darkness
Member
kame-sennin said:
Pretty much. Gaming does seems to be following the same path as comics. They all had a censorship code that was dropped, allowing for the writers and devs to expand themselves. A particular title gets acclaim by the fans, and all future titles use it as a benchmark. And incidentally said acclaimed title are Darker, Edgier, and plainly more "adult" than previous titles. Medium becomes more inaccessible to outsiders, and in gaming's case, more controversial. Nowadays, when people think comics, they think superhero comics. Much like games, its either Nintendo games or the newest "violent" game. Nothing else exists.
I guess to say to anyone, it isn't just the mindset of the developers that have to change with this reality, so must the "hardcore" community.
I don't disagree with your overall point, but I'm not sure how effective 'little funding nudges' would really be. To get the top development teams, top dollar budgets, top franchises, etc. from the big publishers, it would've cost Nintendo a pretty penny. At the start of this gen, the publishers were all convinced that the PS3/X360 would be the dominant systems, and they weren't about to put major commitments to the Wii without some very significant backing from Nintendo. And Nintendo had no interest in trying to buy the loyalties of other publishers. It would no doubt be somewhat less expensive for Nintendo to secure some of the top developers/budgets/franchises from other pubs at this point, but even so, any such commitments at this point still wouldn't show up with actual software for another couple years. And Nintendo really has no interest in committing significant resources to help other publishers. Their mindset is that their money and manpower is most effectively used in building and promoting their own 1st-party efforts.charlequin said:
That's not to say that they won't pursue strategic alliances with 3rd-parties. Of course they will. But it probably won't be at the levels that you seem to want.
Yes it does, but plenty of HD software also sells poorly. And the Wii is certainly no slouch in the software department. The Wii is outpacing the 360 in software sold quite handily (comparing similar timeframes), and will likely trounce it by the end of the generation. For companies like EA, their entire structure is built upon giving their broadest support to the mainstream systems. They got caught off-guard this generation, as they had written the Wii off as another 3rd-place system at the start of this gen. So they built their next-gen teams and research and programming efforts towards what they believed would be the market leaders this gen. They guessed wrong, and it has been having an effect on their bottom line. They have been the bellweather of the industry for years, the publisher that best represented the state of the industry, especially the mainstream industry. And yet they haven't participated at all in the explosive growth that the industry has seen this gen. And that really boils down to them missing the boat on the mainstream system.charlequin said:
Quite simply, the PS3/360 combo this gen won't be anywhere near the PS2/XBX combo from last gen. Anyway, I'm in agreement with you on the overall discussion, I'm just fleshing out the discussion on some of the outer edges of the topic. But I don't agree that western pubs are generally happy to focus on the HD systems and give the Wii the leftovers. They want to participate in the Wii market - they just don't really know how at this point. They guessed wrong at the start of the gen, and much of their resources has already been devoted to the HD systems. Their top franchises have already been present on the HD systems. It is very difficult (and often unwise) to start transferring franchises to new platforms midstream in a generation.
If things don't change much over the rest of the generation (meaning the Wii handily wins the hardware install base this gen), I think the Wii2 will be the big beneficiary. If 3rd-parties go into next gen expecting the Wii successor to be the odds-on favourite for next gen, then 3rd-parties will gear up at the start of the generation to make sure that they are on board from the start, and Sony and MS may be in the position of having to try to support their systems primarily with 1st-party offerings. That's all still several years away though, so much can change.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I think PL claimed so in that thread. If we're going by recent announcements from the past week or so we have so far: MM9, supposedly a new Adventure Island, that lolwat Castlevania fighter, Arc Rise Fantasia, and Fragile. Let's see what happens from now til end of E3.Hero said:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
legend166 said:
You made some silly statement about Nintnedo being in the best position to 'win' next generation, developers need to create more mindshare by making more exclusive Wii titles, and made some other comment about devs putting their eggs in the HD basket causing them to risk irrevelence. I saw what you said and disagree.
I think the Wii does nothing but show how well Nintendo titles sell on a Nintendo platform. Congrats to Nintendo. I still think that 3rd party developers are better served by spending time and resorces on platforms that don't see them as adversaries but as partners. Both Sony and MS would not be where they are if it wasn't for great 3rd party support. Nintendo has never really needed it. Their biggest games were always the ones they made internally. Do I think that if companies like EA and Ubi continue to support MS and Sony consoles, or as you so eloquently stated 'HD egg baskets', that their titles will somehow become irrevelent? HECK no. I think the market is perfect the way it is. There is a place for everones software and I wouldn't have it any other way.
On a final note about childish insults and name calling; it is quite interesting to see how people mouth off on a public anonymous forum. It takes a really big man to call someone 'dumb' when you can always hide in the Internet world. Keep hurling those insults and fighting the good fight.
I can appreciate what Nintendo has done but I do not think they should get more 3rd party support because of it. They don't need it and they don't make consoles with 3rd parties in mind. You seem to have issues with 3rd parties finding success on non-Nintendo platforms. I am sure your tantrums here will get all those companies to see the light. I look forward to the years ahead when EA, Ubi, and yes even Capcom, and Konami drop MS and Sony and fully embrace the 2nd fiddle on a Nintendo platform that caters to Nintendo's needs but not the 3rd parties. What a glorious day that will be.
The Dark One
DrGAKMAN said:
Don't those cost quite a bit of money? Value is exchanged in one way or another. MS released early dev kits for some 3rd parties. That time they had extra was well worth it I think. Probably worth a few million dollars. The engineers that Sony was shipping out to help and give conferences on PS3 development shortly after its release probably worth a pretty penny as well just from the knowledge gained.
I don't see a difference. $$$ is all I see here.
As for "big" games coming to the wii I'm not sure if anything will be bigger than a Fatal Frame or a Monster Hunter at the same time though those games do have their solid audiences and along with the new interface and consumers buying the Wii they might take the next step and give them a bump in the popularity contest.
norinrad21
Banned
damisa said:
Its going to be impressive because...uh you know, there's actually a group(make that over a million) of fans who will eat it in a heart beat knowing the RED LOGO will be shinning on it from the heavens. That little man is the difference between Nintendo and the other guys
kame-sennin said:
Oh come on. Are you honestly saying that reviews were ever that influential in game sales? If that were the case, EA would be done and dusted by now. They make some great games (drool burnout), but some of their highest sellers are nothing much more than graphical updates that do not review well.
edit: ah frack, double post. Apologies.
kame-sennin
Member
plufim said:
No. What I was saying was that the tastes of the video game review sites are out of sync with the majority of gamers. At the end of this generation, the majority of gamers will own a Wii, which we must assume will still come packaged with Wii Sports. To many of these gamers, Wii Sports is a 10/10 game - worthy of buying a console just to play it. When you contrast that with the opinions of the game reviewers (7/10, "tech demo", ect.) it is clear that their values are incompatible. Thus, game magazines become useless to Wii owners (who will be the majority of gamers), and that affects magazine sales and site hits. This isn't good news if you're IGN, GI, or 1up.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Poll