Certainly they seem to have a good relationship with Atlus, who I'd regard as the archetypal studio at that level. This also relates to their push for indies, although it does appear that Sony are doing better on that front, at least in terms of image.
-
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.
The Nintendo Third Party Dilemma: How we got here and why
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
Certainly they seem to have a good relationship with Atlus, who I'd regard as the archetypal studio at that level. This also relates to their push for indies, although it does appear that Sony are doing better on that front, at least in terms of image.
SolidSnakex
Member
Nintendo's software may sell the best on the 3DS, but the handheld still has fantastic third party support. Once the system really started moving you could buy it without really having to worry about running into any real droughts. And that's because there's a balance between first and third party software.
The Wii was an exception to that. Nintendo brought in a lot of new gamers and were able to sell new types of software. They didn't build the Wii on Mario and Zelda, they built it on Wii Sports, Wii Fit and Wii Play. That doesn't mean the traditional games weren't success as they obviously were, but those motion games were really what got that console moving. The Gamecube and N64 were the last times that Nintendo actually relied on their traditional first party titles to sell the console. And look how those turned out in comparison to the Wii.
How is it a waste of time? Maybe they were pre-planning for a new project before pitching it to a publisher. With the right input something like Mad Max may have ended up on the Wii U. But now that isn't happening and it's just another list and an ever growing list of third party titles that are on the PS3 and 360 but aren't on the Wii U.
We have to clarify what Nintendo market we're talking about.
Unfortunately for Nintendo its one that has been whittled down to the point that there's a lot of uncertainty about who even is in that market and how big it is.
There's a good argument to be made that the that casual gamers, moms and young children that made up a fair bit of the Wii market may well now be better served by iOS games. It's remarkable that the market has moved that fast.
Although I wrote earlier of game developers that make decisions based on their passions, this doesn't mean at all that every game developer is set on making AAA bro shooters just because they may be an old school hardcore gamer. In my experience there are plenty of guys that are Dads now and that love to make games that their kids can play and plenty of developers that can find the "cool factor" in developing any sort of game. I've had friends ditch AAA development to make games and books for toddlers on the iPad.
Probably the most successful 3rd party game that hits Nintendo's core market is Skylanders. I can imagine many people I know being satisfied to work on that sort of title. At this point my opinons differ depending on whether it's a company that is an independent developer or large publisher. For an independent 3rd party developer company I can imagine this sort of product not being pitched because the business case for other sorts of products is so much stronger. A publisher should, in my opinion, be taking the risk on this sort of IP.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
You're not completely alone bro. While I lean toward the colorful and Nintendo, I still play games like Shadow of the Colossus, the Metal Gears, the Uncharteds, Bioshock, etc. It all depends on my mood, but when I grind for hours at work and depressing myself that I will likely never move up because of work politics etc, I have something optimistic and joyful to look forward too at least in Nintendo's world.
I think I can make this one easy. Family friendly games that are colorful and with polished gameplay. It's really ironic that that new Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare isn't going to be on Wii U. I mean, it's got Nintendo audience spelled all over it.
Like what happened with the Wii, right?
Not initially, no. But I think there's a misconception in this thread about who MS and Sony target at the beginning of a gen. There's this idea that, because Nintendo found initial success with the casual market with the Wii but failed to do that with the Wii U, MS and Sony are going to attempt to follow that same strategy (and meet the same fate), but I find that unlikely based on what we know about each company's launch plans. Both MS and Sony seem to be following the strategy that worked for the PS2, and eventually proved successful for both the 360 and PS3: targeting gamers first, then gradually morphing the hardware into a casual-focused machine over the years as the price comes down and the library matures. I mean, just look at who both MS and Sony are marketing to these days (MS more so than Sony, of course). Who do you think are buying 360s and PS3s now? Casuals.
So no, I don't exactly think that MS and Sony will charge into this gen and capture the casual market, either. But really, I don't think that's even their goal. I think that when this upcoming gen is nearly finished, they'll each have a sizable chunk of the casual market AND their traditional hardcore market. There's historical evidence that demonstrates this to be a much more reliable strategy than what Nintendo tries.
Well, so far what we know is that pre-orders for both the PS4 and Xbox One are heads and tails above what pre-orders were for the PS3 and 360. Of course, this is also true of the Wii U, but the big difference here is that MS and Sony are undeniably more prepared than Nintendo was to follow up their launch periods with quality software. Simply put, there just won't be an 8 month drought on those platforms like what the Wii U is suffering through. Add to that the fact that both PS4 and Xbox One will have the technological "Wow!" factor that was missing from the Wii U, and I think it's safe to say that it's much more likely that PS4 and Xbox One will vastly out-perform the WIi U than not.
Yes, we're still in the process of climbing out of a recession, but software sales for must-have titles, not to mention the insane growth of other tech industries (smartphones, tablets, and DSLRs), demonstrate that people are still willing to support pricey new tech in droves if the value and support is adequately communicated.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
I think the better cases is that most of those non-gamer folks that picked one up for Wii Sports or Wii Fit just used it for a couple of months and then it gathered dust. Thus they'll never buy another game console.
I definitely know a handful of people who got Wii's for Wii fit, used them for a few months then got stuck in the closet with all the other fitness/weight loss fad stuff they stupidly buy (instead of just really changing their lifestyle and getting in shape....but I digress).
Empirical evidence simply does not support this. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable conjecture -- I'm just saying the software sold on the Wii is not compatible with the hypothesis. Through 2011 (when software support fell off the map for the Wii), the Wii actually had a higher attach rate than the PS3 did, and about 1.5 games lower than the Xbox 360.
In other words, it's one of those ideas that looks like it could be possible on paper, based on anecdotal evidence or personal experience, but when you look up the data it basically tells us that the hypothesis is false. Wii owners bought plenty of games up until about the point when absolutely nobody (including Nintendo) continued to support the system.
I'd argue that for an independent (but not indie[1]) 3rd party there's no real business case for developing for a Nintendo console.
Game companies are also tech companies and there's a huge amount of value in developing new technology. There's no guarantee that when a company is bought talent is retained, so it's more justifiable to buy a company for a technology. Of course when developing for Nintendo platforms you're building for last gen and so there's no opportunities to build new technology that would make your company an enticing purchase. For founders of an independent 3rd party company that is looking to the future, to a possible exit by purchase and how they will make a return on their investment, it makes sense to develop brand new technology.
If not technology than maybe a company could build value for an exit via their stable of IP? Certainly this is very enticing, but we know that with the current video game publishing business model it's almost impossible for an independent 3rd party to own their own IP and still publish their games on the console. For this reason we see so many exciting independent 3rd party developers creating games on the PC and iOS platforms. Perhaps here is an avenue for Nintendo to disrupt the market and encourage developers to rush to its platform. Partner with independent 3rd parties to publish their games as a boxed product, but let them keep their IP. Ignoring the boxed product, iterating on the eShop to the point where it's comparable to Steam is also obviously necessary to attract the independent sized company over smaller indies.
[1] Independent meaning small company that would release a boxed product, "indie" meaning 1-2 man group making self published, small games.
Game companies are also tech companies and there's a huge amount of value in developing new technology. There's no guarantee that when a company is bought talent is retained, so it's more justifiable to buy a company for a technology. Of course when developing for Nintendo platforms you're building for last gen and so there's no opportunities to build new technology that would make your company an enticing purchase. For founders of an independent 3rd party company that is looking to the future, to a possible exit by purchase and how they will make a return on their investment, it makes sense to develop brand new technology.
If not technology than maybe a company could build value for an exit via their stable of IP? Certainly this is very enticing, but we know that with the current video game publishing business model it's almost impossible for an independent 3rd party to own their own IP and still publish their games on the console. For this reason we see so many exciting independent 3rd party developers creating games on the PC and iOS platforms. Perhaps here is an avenue for Nintendo to disrupt the market and encourage developers to rush to its platform. Partner with independent 3rd parties to publish their games as a boxed product, but let them keep their IP. Ignoring the boxed product, iterating on the eShop to the point where it's comparable to Steam is also obviously necessary to attract the independent sized company over smaller indies.
[1] Independent meaning small company that would release a boxed product, "indie" meaning 1-2 man group making self published, small games.
To keep those theories out of the thread;
As of March 31, 2013
99.84 million Wii's sold and 869.06 units of software sold. It's as you say, people bought software on Wii. Plenty of it.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
For the last few years I have dealt with an interesting, recurring theme. Essentially I seem to have two groups of gaming acquaintances. One group knows almost who kept playing Wii games after a year or two and sold their Wii gear. Or put it in the closet. The other group knows plenty of people who still use their Wii today even, including some folks using Wii Fit.
While this is an anecdote, the main difference between the two groups: #1 tend to be young, single, playing mostly online games like shooters and sports. #2 tends to be slightly older, in relationships sometimes with kids.
Oddly enough both groups have a number of long-time Nintendo fans, so it's not like #1 is comprised of people who dislike Nintendo, full stop. My own observations have been that plenty of people were still playing and buying Wii software... but a certain gaming demographic does not appear to cross over with those people at all, and is largely unaware of their existence.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Right. Just Dance 4 sold millions on the Wii just recently as last year - something like 76% of all Just Dance sales. Just Dance 4 on the Wii U actually sold about as well as the game did on the Playstation 3 - and that's with a console base of 1 million.
The audience is definitely still there. But in order for Nintendo to again captivate that audience, the Wii U will need a price cut and more support from Nintendo. The GamePad is going to be a problem, certainly, but I rather like the first 15 seconds of its initial reveal. It demonstrated, to me, a very easy-to-understand utility of the GamePad (off-screen play while someone else is watching TV) and something I think families would very much like.
phosphor112
Banned
Finally took the time to read this all. Spot on. This has been said for a long time, but no one has put it out in words so plainly.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I have to question how these attach rates are figured out, because I just can't buy into the Wii's attach rate being so high.
My understanding is that it's just averaged out like a Metacritic score?
So I'm going to guess pack in games count the same as a single game sale even though they came bundled in whether the customer wanted it or not? If that's the case these attach rates aren't equal nor fair when you consider that for each Wii unit sold, a copy of Wii Sports is considered as a seperate sale and factored into the attach rate. Especially when the competition didn't include a bundled game for a long time.
I don't think there was ever a time during it's hey day that it didn't include a game. Wii Play was a throw away tech demo disc that "sold" like gangbusters because consumers wanted the extra Wiimote, but for an extra $10, why not? Not sure how Link's Crossbow Training did, but it would be the same deal.
No denying Wii moved a lot of games, but I don't see a comparison of attach rates versus 360 and PS3 being completely fair and accurate when the conditions were different.
And Wii was pirated as hell.
Rocket Punch
Member
Umm, you don't think all those 2 game bundles for 360 and PS3 are accounted for in the same way? You don't think they should count towards sony and microsoft attach rates? Because they have been pretty much on shelves for the good part of 3 -4 years.
Sorry but the Wii's attach Rate is indeed that high, there's no way you can spin or try to explain the numbers away.
Nightstick11
Banned
That's exactly my point with the bleak, defeatist attitude though. Why aren't there Pokemon clones? More Mario Party or Nintendogs or Mario Kart or Smash Bros or <fill in the blank.>
These are all massive hits. Why aren't there more teams trying to reverse-engineer and copy these hits? Why do publishers just respond to Nintendo mega-hits with "fuck, can't compete with that"?
I can count the number of MK clones on one hand, and that franchise launched 20 years ago. There are exactly TWO Smash clones; are Konamo and Sony the only ones who saw the potential? There is only ONE company that tried to copy Pokemon.. ONE! For the best-selling franchise of all time!
For whatever reason, the historical record shows that third-party publishers are terrified of joining the Nintendo-dominated genres. They are considered untouchable for some reason.
If you want to start special pleading, then the obvious trump card here is that the Wii received massively worse support from third parties than the PS3/360. Imagine how dominant the Wii would have been in software attach rate if it had received equal investment from EA/Take 2/Activision, for example.
I think a better approach, instead, would be to just say the Wii could clearly move games and leave it at that.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
I'm not sure it's logically sound to discard facts like that.
PS3 and X360 both ran plenty of bundles, so their attach rates would also include those.
Why does it matter how Wii Play was sold? The better question is, if it's such an effective method, why didn't we see Sony and Microsoft adopt similar strategies?
It is completely reasonable to explain how a platform's attach rate may not be comparable to another platform's attach rate. For example, the iOS attach rate (for all software, mind you, not just games) is in excess of 60 per owner. Does that seem like a fair comparison to you? I don't think it does, for a variety of reasons.
But I don't think the Wii fits the same mold as the iPhone. Most importantly, the Wii has lots of variables that worked against it and should have produced dramatically worse attach rates, ceteris paribus. A system which sells more tends to have lower attach rates, for example, as its hard to keep a high attach rate when so many new owners are entering the market. And again, probably most importantly, the major console publishers all had put their weight behind the PS3/360 before the Wii even launched in a very significant fashion. Yes, the fact that Wii Play existed helped the Wii's attach rate out; on the other hand, it's a miracle the Wii was able to keep up when the PS3/360 got basically all the major third party franchises and a hugely disproportionate share of the development revenue.
As an extreme example to explain what I mean, imagine if a new console launched and literally received 0 games from EA, Take 2, Ubisoft and Activision, and yet the system managed an attach rate comparable to the 360. That would be incredible -- it would suggest that this platform is actually a much better environment than the 360 is, because it can produce comparable levels of sales without huge investments from the biggest players to prop it up.
man this thread is an engaging read. Welp my mega post got deleted thanks to the storm knocking the power out, and for some reason Firefox didn't save it and I broke the cardinal rule of not saving it to notepad, so I'm just going to respond to RedSwirl now and be done with it lol
Sony could be said to be using the PS2 strategy, mostly because of the fact that they have gone back to look at what worked with the PS1 & PS2 after what happened with the PS3. However, Microsoft is bundling Kinect in their box, which means that Kinect is still a focus for them. That is a very key difference, since that Kinect ups the Xbox One's price by $100 for the gamer who is likely not going to use it.
You also ignore... well, the strategy of the PS1. The PS1 catered to a very different market than what came before... It's succeeded in gaining an adult market which ended up as the basis for the market for the PS3 and 360. It was very much a strategy similar to the NES and the Wii.
I'll give you four things:
The third-party situation for Nintendo systems is a catch-22. Third-parties aren't going to make exclusive games for a system that's not performing up to expectations and yet the system isn't realistically going to perform well without a good number of exclusives. And as always, it's up to Nintendo to build up the system itself with their own games before third-parties finally start seeing any viability in the system.
As a system, the N64 was the biggest and probably only real post-SNES blunder Nintendo's made, mostly due to the cartridges. Compared to the CDs of the PS1, they were expensive to produce and their space was very limited. Coupled with the draconian third-party relations of the Yamauchi era, the N64 was a very developer-unfriendly system especially next to the fresh, friendly face of PlayStation. This was ultimately what made many third-parties jump ship, most notably Squaresoft, who were very interested what the storage space of a CD could do for their storytelling and ultimately gave the PlayStation its killer app in FF7 - without which, the PlayStation might have actually seen an early grave despite its advantages. Sure, the N64 was more powerful, but that just made it more expensive for consumers on top of the increased game cost of cartridges. So yes, the PS1 was a better option.
The GameCube? There was nothing wrong with it and I'll stand by that no matter what you throw at me. Technologically, it exceeded the PS2 in power and was only a couple steps behind the Xbox. The 1.4GB mini-DVDs weren't nearly as much of a problem as people make them out to be, as most Gen6 games on any system didn't even exceed one gigabyte. GameCube's biggest obstacle was its image and I still submit that wasn't Nintendo's fault but rather that of a fickle industry. It had the cheapest price going for it, it had competitive technical power, it had the new executive team and much friendlier policies of Iwata's introduction as CEO, and it had Nintendo constantly pumping out games for it... and no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't make third-parties bite and ended up finishing behind even the Xbox, which still baffles me. The PS2 had one inherent advantage going for it over the GameCube: it was a cheap DVD player. That, coupled with everyone coming off the high of the PS1, meant that third-parties were lining up to throw exclusives at the console alongside players picking it up at alarming rates... pretty much by default, with barely a finger lifted by Sony to facilitate all this. People hail the PS2 as the greatest system of all time and I still submit that it was an inherently mediocre console - with exactly one gimmick in the form of the DVD player - that was pampered to victory from everyone still riding the PlayStation train off of Gen5. Sony had everyone else do the work for them in Gen6 and yet massive reforms and a brand new effort by Nintendo couldn't make anyone give a damn about the GameCube... and yet people to this day still say the Dreamcast of all things may have even outsold the GameCube had SEGA not been in such financial struggles, even though the 1.2GB GD-ROMs it used held even less than the GameCube's mini-DVDs. It must sound immature to say "No fair! You're playing favorites!" but... Gen6 was practically rigged against the GameCube; Nintendo did pretty much everything they could to try to win people back and still couldn't even beat the Xbox, while Sony packed in a DVD player and sat back the whole generation as everyone else made the PS2 a massive hit. How do you compete with that?
The Wii was Nintendo waking up to the answer: you don't. Let's face it: had we actually gotten the Revolution console we were all expecting - another PS3/360 clone with a standard controller and comparable power - instead of the Wii, it would have been crushed. I know this because those are the exact same circumstances as which the GameCube struggled for five years and Nintendo's situation wasn't set to improve, with many seeing them going the way of SEGA and any predictions of a bright future were done so in jest. Nintendo realized from the GameCube that any effort to win back the crowd Sony had on lockdown (in retrospect, the PS3 would end up alienating many gamers on its own due to essentially doing what the N64 did, but Nintendo didn't know that at the time) would be in vain, and so they didn't. They essentially pulled a Prego. They fulfilled a whole different need and went after an audience no one else was pursuing. The Wii was essentially a rescue effort. The Wiimote was unconventional and the system was vastly underpowered, and those facts made it difficult for third-parties to port down the games that they were making in an increasingly multiplat-focused industry. At the same time... it was pretty much a necessary evil, if you could even call it evil. Nintendo did what they needed to survive, and it worked: the low power made the system cheap to buy and the controls, while foreign to long-time gamers, were incredibly intuitive for the non-gaming crowd. The problem here is that third-parties didn't even try to take advantage of this, at least in not any serious effort. The Wii offered a new way to play and power that was still above anything Gen6 had to offer, and yet even with the PS1-like success... third-parties didn't take it seriously. Rather than jumping aboard like they did with the PS1 or at the very least making different games for this different type of system (news flash: the "pathetically weak" Wii was still stronger than your precious PS2, but third-parties had already completely migrated to HD development), most third-party efforts were little more than piles of quick cash-in shovelware that only served to hinder the reputation of the console, further scaring away any serious efforts (bearing in mind that every leading system gets tons of shovelware, but no one noticed until the Wii.) Nintendo showed that the Wii, with its lesser power and different controls, was still capable of some kick-ass games, but yet again third-party companies didn't even try. The sentiment was still more "Ugh, why didn't you just die last generation?!" rather than "Huh, maybe you guys are worth having around." Was the online architecture foolish? Yes, again: I'll give you that. The rest? No excuse. Even with a successful console, third-parties just don't want to touch Nintendo.
And now? Well, Wii U's relationship with the PS4 and Xbone is certainly closer to the GCN-PS2-Xbox paradigm than Wii-PS3-360. It's certainly got no 8GB GDDR5 or eight-core processor, but it's still a much beefier system than the 360 or PS3 were: when just looking at spec numbers on paper it doesn't seem too powerful, but it's a much more advanced chip in terms of architecture and those eDRAM modules have quite a bit of potential locked away in them. And yet despite the PS3 and 360 still getting plenty of multiplats... no one's considering the Wii U as a candidate for many of them. It's certainly much easier to port to power-wise than the Wii, and yet devs can't be bothered. So the "too weak" argument holds even less water than it did with the Wii since it's not even getting the third-party games still being made for even weaker consoles. But is it the weird eDRAM-focused architecture? Well, devs have clearly showed that different architectures aren't too much of a problem since the PS3 made a sizable comeback despite its arcane Cell chip, so that's not an excuse. And then we have the whole OrigiNN fiasco. No matter who was indeed in the right, EA still pulled nearly all support and ran off after promising the world at E3 2011, giving us things like a cut-down port of Mass Effect 3 with no context while the PS3 and 360 - systems that got the first two games - get a compilation re-release of the whole trilogy with all DLC included. We have Sony and Microsoft gamers clamoring for Wii U exclusives like Rayman Legends, and then after they get it asking why they should even get a Wii U when it has no exclusives or just "one or two," rather than letting the system have its exclusives instead of begging for them and let it actually build up a sizable exclusive library. Is it the online? Well, no. Nintendo Network is pretty much up to par with Live and PSN now except for universal accounts (and not bringing up your PS3/360 software to the PS4 or Xbone shows how useful those turned out to be) and many people are claiming that Miiverse is one of the truly next-gen things about the system, so it's not online that's the problem. Hell, the old Xbone online plan looked even worse and yet I didn't see any third-parties complaining. Is it developer relations? Nope. Nintendo's made it incredibly painless to develop for Wii U; many indies are singing praises of how easy the system is to develop for and how helpful Nintendo is during the process. Hell, they even give out free devkits. Then maybe they should've ditched the GamePad for a traditional controller and gone up to power with the PS4 and Xbone to get all those multiplats, instead of trying to recapture the lightning of the Wii. Yeah, sure, because that worked out so well for the GameCube. Granted, the Wii U did launch with multiple firmware issues and SKUs priced in such a way that one is bare-bones and not worth it while the other is only $50 less than the more powerful PS4. Indeed, there is a problem in that the Wii U launched prematurely. Nintendo should've given it another half-year at least, iron out all the bugs, make sure the third-party launch titles wouldn't just run off, and let the components decrease in price a little. So no, they're not entirely without fault here.
But once again, it falls on Nintendo to build up the Wii U's library and establish the install base before third-parties even consider it, and yet so much day-one support has already been announced for the PS4 and Xbone when devs haven't even completely moved up to the new power level, considering how many PS3 and 360 games are still getting released. And that is not Nintendo's fault. It would be insane to even think of it as their fault when they've made great strides to win back support from those who still continually spit in their faces. And I'm sure there will be some new excuse once enough people actually own a Wii U that the "small install base" excuse doesn't hold water anymore. It's always something, and it always falls to Nintendo to prove themselves even when Sony is completely forgiven only a few years after the PS3 launch trainwreck and even the Xbone of all things is getting so much launch support from third-parties. Third-parties just go with Sony and Microsoft on faith and yet Nintendo always has to earn their trust.
Let's face it, there will always be a stigma against Nintendo and no matter what they do to make amends, the third-party sentiment will always be that they should've died with the GameCube.
"Ugh, why not just let us play Galaxy 3 on the PS4?"
Yeah, as soon as I get to play Infamous on Wii U.
- Yamauchi's policies being unsustainable once the competition started offering friendlier support to devs
- The N64's cartridges being limiting and expensive next to the PS1's discs
- The Wii's incredibly poor online architecture
- The Wii U launching too early with too little support
The third-party situation for Nintendo systems is a catch-22. Third-parties aren't going to make exclusive games for a system that's not performing up to expectations and yet the system isn't realistically going to perform well without a good number of exclusives. And as always, it's up to Nintendo to build up the system itself with their own games before third-parties finally start seeing any viability in the system.
As a system, the N64 was the biggest and probably only real post-SNES blunder Nintendo's made, mostly due to the cartridges. Compared to the CDs of the PS1, they were expensive to produce and their space was very limited. Coupled with the draconian third-party relations of the Yamauchi era, the N64 was a very developer-unfriendly system especially next to the fresh, friendly face of PlayStation. This was ultimately what made many third-parties jump ship, most notably Squaresoft, who were very interested what the storage space of a CD could do for their storytelling and ultimately gave the PlayStation its killer app in FF7 - without which, the PlayStation might have actually seen an early grave despite its advantages. Sure, the N64 was more powerful, but that just made it more expensive for consumers on top of the increased game cost of cartridges. So yes, the PS1 was a better option.
The GameCube? There was nothing wrong with it and I'll stand by that no matter what you throw at me. Technologically, it exceeded the PS2 in power and was only a couple steps behind the Xbox. The 1.4GB mini-DVDs weren't nearly as much of a problem as people make them out to be, as most Gen6 games on any system didn't even exceed one gigabyte. GameCube's biggest obstacle was its image and I still submit that wasn't Nintendo's fault but rather that of a fickle industry. It had the cheapest price going for it, it had competitive technical power, it had the new executive team and much friendlier policies of Iwata's introduction as CEO, and it had Nintendo constantly pumping out games for it... and no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't make third-parties bite and ended up finishing behind even the Xbox, which still baffles me. The PS2 had one inherent advantage going for it over the GameCube: it was a cheap DVD player. That, coupled with everyone coming off the high of the PS1, meant that third-parties were lining up to throw exclusives at the console alongside players picking it up at alarming rates... pretty much by default, with barely a finger lifted by Sony to facilitate all this. People hail the PS2 as the greatest system of all time and I still submit that it was an inherently mediocre console - with exactly one gimmick in the form of the DVD player - that was pampered to victory from everyone still riding the PlayStation train off of Gen5. Sony had everyone else do the work for them in Gen6 and yet massive reforms and a brand new effort by Nintendo couldn't make anyone give a damn about the GameCube... and yet people to this day still say the Dreamcast of all things may have even outsold the GameCube had SEGA not been in such financial struggles, even though the 1.2GB GD-ROMs it used held even less than the GameCube's mini-DVDs. It must sound immature to say "No fair! You're playing favorites!" but... Gen6 was practically rigged against the GameCube; Nintendo did pretty much everything they could to try to win people back and still couldn't even beat the Xbox, while Sony packed in a DVD player and sat back the whole generation as everyone else made the PS2 a massive hit. How do you compete with that?
The Wii was Nintendo waking up to the answer: you don't. Let's face it: had we actually gotten the Revolution console we were all expecting - another PS3/360 clone with a standard controller and comparable power - instead of the Wii, it would have been crushed. I know this because those are the exact same circumstances as which the GameCube struggled for five years and Nintendo's situation wasn't set to improve, with many seeing them going the way of SEGA and any predictions of a bright future were done so in jest. Nintendo realized from the GameCube that any effort to win back the crowd Sony had on lockdown (in retrospect, the PS3 would end up alienating many gamers on its own due to essentially doing what the N64 did, but Nintendo didn't know that at the time) would be in vain, and so they didn't. They essentially pulled a Prego. They fulfilled a whole different need and went after an audience no one else was pursuing. The Wii was essentially a rescue effort. The Wiimote was unconventional and the system was vastly underpowered, and those facts made it difficult for third-parties to port down the games that they were making in an increasingly multiplat-focused industry. At the same time... it was pretty much a necessary evil, if you could even call it evil. Nintendo did what they needed to survive, and it worked: the low power made the system cheap to buy and the controls, while foreign to long-time gamers, were incredibly intuitive for the non-gaming crowd. The problem here is that third-parties didn't even try to take advantage of this, at least in not any serious effort. The Wii offered a new way to play and power that was still above anything Gen6 had to offer, and yet even with the PS1-like success... third-parties didn't take it seriously. Rather than jumping aboard like they did with the PS1 or at the very least making different games for this different type of system (news flash: the "pathetically weak" Wii was still stronger than your precious PS2, but third-parties had already completely migrated to HD development), most third-party efforts were little more than piles of quick cash-in shovelware that only served to hinder the reputation of the console, further scaring away any serious efforts (bearing in mind that every leading system gets tons of shovelware, but no one noticed until the Wii.) Nintendo showed that the Wii, with its lesser power and different controls, was still capable of some kick-ass games, but yet again third-party companies didn't even try. The sentiment was still more "Ugh, why didn't you just die last generation?!" rather than "Huh, maybe you guys are worth having around." Was the online architecture foolish? Yes, again: I'll give you that. The rest? No excuse. Even with a successful console, third-parties just don't want to touch Nintendo.
And now? Well, Wii U's relationship with the PS4 and Xbone is certainly closer to the GCN-PS2-Xbox paradigm than Wii-PS3-360. It's certainly got no 8GB GDDR5 or eight-core processor, but it's still a much beefier system than the 360 or PS3 were: when just looking at spec numbers on paper it doesn't seem too powerful, but it's a much more advanced chip in terms of architecture and those eDRAM modules have quite a bit of potential locked away in them. And yet despite the PS3 and 360 still getting plenty of multiplats... no one's considering the Wii U as a candidate for many of them. It's certainly much easier to port to power-wise than the Wii, and yet devs can't be bothered. So the "too weak" argument holds even less water than it did with the Wii since it's not even getting the third-party games still being made for even weaker consoles. But is it the weird eDRAM-focused architecture? Well, devs have clearly showed that different architectures aren't too much of a problem since the PS3 made a sizable comeback despite its arcane Cell chip, so that's not an excuse. And then we have the whole OrigiNN fiasco. No matter who was indeed in the right, EA still pulled nearly all support and ran off after promising the world at E3 2011, giving us things like a cut-down port of Mass Effect 3 with no context while the PS3 and 360 - systems that got the first two games - get a compilation re-release of the whole trilogy with all DLC included. We have Sony and Microsoft gamers clamoring for Wii U exclusives like Rayman Legends, and then after they get it asking why they should even get a Wii U when it has no exclusives or just "one or two," rather than letting the system have its exclusives instead of begging for them and let it actually build up a sizable exclusive library. Is it the online? Well, no. Nintendo Network is pretty much up to par with Live and PSN now except for universal accounts (and not bringing up your PS3/360 software to the PS4 or Xbone shows how useful those turned out to be) and many people are claiming that Miiverse is one of the truly next-gen things about the system, so it's not online that's the problem. Hell, the old Xbone online plan looked even worse and yet I didn't see any third-parties complaining. Is it developer relations? Nope. Nintendo's made it incredibly painless to develop for Wii U; many indies are singing praises of how easy the system is to develop for and how helpful Nintendo is during the process. Hell, they even give out free devkits. Then maybe they should've ditched the GamePad for a traditional controller and gone up to power with the PS4 and Xbone to get all those multiplats, instead of trying to recapture the lightning of the Wii. Yeah, sure, because that worked out so well for the GameCube. Granted, the Wii U did launch with multiple firmware issues and SKUs priced in such a way that one is bare-bones and not worth it while the other is only $50 less than the more powerful PS4. Indeed, there is a problem in that the Wii U launched prematurely. Nintendo should've given it another half-year at least, iron out all the bugs, make sure the third-party launch titles wouldn't just run off, and let the components decrease in price a little. So no, they're not entirely without fault here.
But once again, it falls on Nintendo to build up the Wii U's library and establish the install base before third-parties even consider it, and yet so much day-one support has already been announced for the PS4 and Xbone when devs haven't even completely moved up to the new power level, considering how many PS3 and 360 games are still getting released. And that is not Nintendo's fault. It would be insane to even think of it as their fault when they've made great strides to win back support from those who still continually spit in their faces. And I'm sure there will be some new excuse once enough people actually own a Wii U that the "small install base" excuse doesn't hold water anymore. It's always something, and it always falls to Nintendo to prove themselves even when Sony is completely forgiven only a few years after the PS3 launch trainwreck and even the Xbone of all things is getting so much launch support from third-parties. Third-parties just go with Sony and Microsoft on faith and yet Nintendo always has to earn their trust.
Let's face it, there will always be a stigma against Nintendo and no matter what they do to make amends, the third-party sentiment will always be that they should've died with the GameCube.
"Ugh, why not just let us play Galaxy 3 on the PS4?"
Yeah, as soon as I get to play Infamous on Wii U.
You seem pretty pissed off but let's go ahead and do this.
While I would technically agree that the Gamecube didn't really do much of anything wrong, I think the GCN is more of a matter of what Nintendo DIDN'T do.
Think about it: why would a developer make a game for Gamecube when they could make the same game for a system with a much larger install base (the PS2)? The western PC guard devs like Bethesda and BioWare were more familiar with the Xbox because of its similarity to PC, which is why games like Morrowind and KOTOR didn't even show up on the PS2.
Yes the GCN was more powerful than the PS2, but the gulf wasn't that big to be honest. The Xbox could do some impressive stuff when you really pushed it with an exclusive game, but all three were in the same ballpark.
The problem with the Gamecube was that it had no innate advantage over the other two unless you count Nintendo's games. From a marketing perspective was basically a PS2 with a smaller install base and the legacy of the N64 to rebuild from.
Some have argued Nintendo made the mistake of paring down its western dev houses after the N64. It's true that the N64 actually was a very good system for shooters and western console games period. When the original Xbox came on the scene with Halo, it actually took more of a bite out of Nintendo's market than Sony's -- a big chunk of original Xbox owners owned an N64 before an Xbox.
Perhaps if Nintendo had kept companies like Rare and went forward with games like Perfect Dark 2 they could've actually carved out a good shooter market on N64. The same goes for things like their exclusive Acclaim sports games. Rockstar was actually in really deep with Nintendo during the N64 years -- making Body Harves which was the direct predecessor to GTAIII. Imagine if Nintendo had kept up their relationship.
That however would've required some fucking clairvoyance on Nintendo's part. The console game industry at that time was still Japan-centric, and there's no way Nintendo could have predicted the industry's turn towards the west.
This is why I also think however that at this point it's useless for Nintendo to straight-up copy Sony and Microsoft, because that alone would still give them no advantage over the other two unless it somehow by a miracle launched with a killer app 16-35 male demo game.
You have to admit the Wii U is selling like shit man. And Ubisoft revealed that Rayman got delayed because of how ZombiU performed. I agree that third parties basically didn't even try during the Wii U launch though.
It's probably impossible to know however what would have happen had Nintendo pushed the Wii U launch back to say, right now, or this fall. With more games and its online infrastructure ready it might have done better.
Some say that if Nintendo had simply put out a Wii 2 or Super Wii with an upgraded Wii Remote and hardware closer to the Xbox One, it might have done really well. Simply souping up the Wii Remote probably wouldn't be as costly to either the manufacturing or store price of the console, possibly leaving room for more hardware power. Had Nintendo been able to launch such a console in 2012 it would have officially "launched" the next step up in hardware power which might have gotten third parties a lot more excited.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
This continues to be interesting to me today as I read more into MS's Q4 results that led to their ~11% stock price drop.
In a way, both Nintendo and Microsoft have been somewhat distracted away from what their gamers want, but where as Nintendo could be argued to be doing this for ideological reasons, I tend to subscribe to MS's original One decisions not being ideological but profit-based. MS, as more evident then eer after Friday's accounting results, is in dire need of profits. Office 360 is growing nicely and Live translation revenue is growing. But because of the Surface, even the EDD division still lost month again yet again in Q4 (continued Y/Y). So, Xbox can't even bolster its EDD division let alone the entire company, so it's no wonder in face of PC and Windows weakness, they'd try to force more people onto Live.
Live, alongside Office 360 representing their service revenue, is one of the saving graces of MS right now in terms of profit model -- but their sizes are still too small. So that's ultimately why MS wanted to every owner of a One online -- to grow its subscribers and those buying service contents or otherwise forms of DLC. Or, why they're catering to large publisher models and attached revenue/fee models for big publisher content/indies trying to get published.
So where as Nintendo has proven ideological and stubborn, Microsoft has proven concerned for shareholders but also at least flexible toward their consumers. Sony, in contrast, seems to be the most focused on developers and consumers, but I think while this is in part to good leadership is also in part to a position of power from their cash position, the equity rally on the back of Sony Picture rumors, and the overall macro Yen rally and Abenomics. Leadership was still important but I don't think they'd have had the same flexibility to do certain things (last minute E3 DRM/price point decisions) without the position of power that they garnered.
Which is why I tend to think Nintendo is stubborn because they've squandered Abenomics rally yet Sony has used it to attain flexibility against their competitors. EA, Activision, etc are all run by competent CEOs and they are very sensitive to the finance of all this. I think this has been an incredibly understated point but you can be sure that big western pubs were either betting on an Abe win or at least the possibility of it, and you can be sure as hell that they didnt want to suddenly be doing any big deals in Yen if they were forecasting for a possible 20% depreciation which has now occurred. You think EA wanted paying out fees at launch when they could just wait-and-see if the Wii U succeeded, and then get 25% more bang for their buck? And it was poor economics by their CEO again: any junior analyst could have predicted the Abe win and Iwata still chose to launch the Wii U when it did instead of waiting for the Yen weakness. Releasing the Wii U right before the Abenomics rally really puts a cherry on top of Iwata's incompetence of aervng his shareholders. Incompetent or stubborn.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
A little off topic, but your post made me think:
I think it's possible that PS4 stumbles as badly out the gate (maybe not likely, but possible) as Wii U (and I expect X1 to). Where would that leave the industry as a whole?
I think it's possible that PS4 stumbles as badly out the gate (maybe not likely, but possible) as Wii U (and I expect X1 to). Where would that leave the industry as a whole?
Well it hasn't shown anything first or third party that has made the WiiU a must buy. A lot of households can't see a reason to 'upgrade' because a lot of those households already have PS3s and 360s. Of the ones who want it for Nintendo games it hasn't shown much in the way of Nintendo IP that is a huge step up from the Wii.
Now imagine they targeted something close to XBox one. or within a stones throw of PS4.
There would be a whole year they would have had to themselves that showed they were clearly the best technology. They would have been the best choice for twelve months and then they would have a case for being called next-gen at least. The cost of downporting to WiiU would have been less costly for developers. It could have a longer shelf life too. It wouldn't be the disaster it will be when it will get blown out of the water by the new definition of HD gaming.
Ultimately they screwed up with weak and cheap technology. A costly and gimmicky add-on. Bad release scheduling. They've consigned themselves to niche status. But hey that's how you start a cult following...
freefornow
Gold Member
Uhhmmm, no!
VinLAURiA, a lot of that post is just you steadfastly refusing to acknowledge something is a fault. For example, you pretty sweepingly try to ignore the difficulties of a singled out architecture that can't competently receive ports - a foundation of publisher and developer business - and as it is now the biggest problem with both Wii and Wii U, and is pretty much directly related to how much support they're going to get invested in them (PS3+360+PC > Wii alone; I suspect PS4+Xbox One+PC >> x10ᵌ Wii U, since I can't imagine either XBO or PS4 selling as catastrophically bad as Wii U, considering it and Vita are basically setting precedents for major console release failures), who else is to blame for these decisions? They disrupted the industry, but the rest of the industry still wanted a business model where they could simply port games with ease across platforms.
You can say "well devs should adjust their porting business strategy", but again Nintendo gives them no such incentive to do so. More specifically on Wii, someone made a point earlier that I have made many times in the past. Developers DID follow Nintendo's example on Wii, at least a good many of them. Nintendo made a family friendly console that was unassuming and nonthreatening and filled with colorful properties and simplistic concepts that could take advantage of a still flawed and thus limited motion technology. Many devs followed this example - Carnival Games, Just Dance, Deca, Boom Blox - and had some success doing that. CONSIDERABLE success in some cases.
That was the message Nintendo set for their platform, and that was quite clearly what their audience gobbled up most of the time. Yes, there were exceptions - a brand like Resident Evil (or Call of Duty) is going to sell no matter the platform, including the Dreamcast - but they were merely what proved the rule. The environment was set for a different type of game, with the new audience Nintendo captivated. Developers that followed that example were generally greeted with moderately successful properties. So is it they didn't put in the effort, or is it that they didn't put in the effort to make the games you wanted?
But the rest of the shortfall of development is exclusively linked to Wii's horrendously underpowered platform, and the fact that on top of having to completely retool your engine - essentially making a brand new game just for one platform - but you would also have to consider putting in some wiimote gimmick just to satisfy that ADHD crowd who wouldn't be satisfied any other way. The result is another singled out platform where in order for devs to exist, they had to deal with any one of a hundred hurdles or had to simply make Wii specific games. Many devs decided making Wii specific games was not worth it when they had PS3+360+PC. The argument has been posed that many pubs/devs may have made the wrong decision given how many companies closed this past gen, but the argument is not whether that decision was right or not but whether the company BELIEVED it was motivated by the best interest of their financials. This is an important distinction.
How one can reject the importance of pubs/devs porting business model and refuse to acknowledge how difficult Wii U and Wii make their lives in regard to this (including their comparatively hideous online infrastructure... and no, Wii U is not up to par with even PS3. Miiverse is just a bunch of fanboys splooging over each other in the most embarrassingly cloying fashion; and for this we had to deal for months with one of the most pathetically slow OS ever conceived and no universal accounts. Again, you try to minimize this. This is practically the biggest aspect of any competent online infrastructure) will never make sense to me. If you think that constitutes "next-gen online infrastructure", I think you'll clearly see why PS4 and Xbox One are about to massacre Wii U in a few months.
The fact that you also seem wholesale deny the issues with the Gamecube because of some fondness for it shows the cracks in your case (as many know, GCN was one of my very favorite Nintendo consoles, before we go there). You can say "oh the size wasn't an issue", but it was. Developers went on the record several times over the course of that gen that it was, and when even PS2 was receiving a few multi-disc games, or when certain games with dual layer for up to around 8GB of space, the difference was clear. 8GB vs. 1.5GB; you decide on whether this is important.. You can say those devs are lying, but that would begin to start believing in conspiracies since you'd have to admit multiple developers were in on the conspiracy to lie about it being a limitation and because as always that's when it turns into a refusal to acknowledge Nintendo just fucked up.
You're right that they could have worked around the 1.5GB if they wanted to, if that's what you're implying. But my whole point is predicated on the fact that Nintendo continually makes environments where developers have to encounter some significant problems, and they would have to deal with those problems in the absence of the benefits the other systems were offering. So absent the install base - because Nintendo fucked up and released the GCN a year late, and it stalled very quickly - and absent a commensurate development environment which removed as many limitations as possible, and also bringing into account developers history with Nintendo up until that point, the combined case is that developers were right to avoid it. Nintendo did not incentivize their being there, and in the few cases we did get stuff like Tales of Symphonia or REmake/RE4, they did swell quite well. But Nintendo had to reach for those, to my knowledge.
No developer is going to gift games to an environment they believe is going to lead to low potential sales. Nintendo has to make it attractive, and has to breed an environment perfect for porting. GCN actually did get a lot of ports, by the way, a big improvement from the N64 precisely because of the improvements you alluded to, but the remaining problems - which indeed did include image issues - simply were too much to make it competitive.
The idea that the PS2 was an "inherently mediocre console" is ludicrous by any measure, unless you are just talking about difficulty in the development environment, in which case I don't know who would disagree. But you cannot try to minimize the massive importance of the DVD, of Sony's critical messaging over PS2's power which allowed it to dominate message even though Microsoft and GCN were overall more powerful in most ways. Sony read the market correctly, capitalized on it, and by the time Nintendo came to the market they were once again behind what consumers wanted. There's no one else to blame for that but Nintendo.
And that's the heart of all my arguments. Developers and Publishers are not charities. If your system is not selling (and, for the record, it is always Nintendo's responsibility that it do so to promote that healthy environment for devs), and you also have barriers to entry on said system developers are immediately going to be hesitant to start making games. Someone made a good point that I forgot to add to my post, that throughout SNES, N64 and Gamecube years, the prices that devs/pubs had to pay to Nintendo for making games was actually a much worse deal than Sony and Microsoft. They were still not totally there yet even with Gamecube. Again, if your system isn't selling (because your system is out of step with current market trends, like the DVD), if it costs more to print those games, if there is inherent limitations on the amount of content you have to make or you have to make strides in compression just to be feature complete on ports, developers are going to naturally shy away.
Why would you tell developers to make a system where literally every benefit would be worse than either Microsoft or Sony? Tell me, as a business, what would it do for you? Unless you work with Nintendo to make some exclusive property that would be heavily pushed by them or in some way subsidized by them to make up for what you'd lose in install base or royalties or whatever, it's not worth it.
Anyway, back to my RedSwirl response.
You can say "well devs should adjust their porting business strategy", but again Nintendo gives them no such incentive to do so. More specifically on Wii, someone made a point earlier that I have made many times in the past. Developers DID follow Nintendo's example on Wii, at least a good many of them. Nintendo made a family friendly console that was unassuming and nonthreatening and filled with colorful properties and simplistic concepts that could take advantage of a still flawed and thus limited motion technology. Many devs followed this example - Carnival Games, Just Dance, Deca, Boom Blox - and had some success doing that. CONSIDERABLE success in some cases.
That was the message Nintendo set for their platform, and that was quite clearly what their audience gobbled up most of the time. Yes, there were exceptions - a brand like Resident Evil (or Call of Duty) is going to sell no matter the platform, including the Dreamcast - but they were merely what proved the rule. The environment was set for a different type of game, with the new audience Nintendo captivated. Developers that followed that example were generally greeted with moderately successful properties. So is it they didn't put in the effort, or is it that they didn't put in the effort to make the games you wanted?
But the rest of the shortfall of development is exclusively linked to Wii's horrendously underpowered platform, and the fact that on top of having to completely retool your engine - essentially making a brand new game just for one platform - but you would also have to consider putting in some wiimote gimmick just to satisfy that ADHD crowd who wouldn't be satisfied any other way. The result is another singled out platform where in order for devs to exist, they had to deal with any one of a hundred hurdles or had to simply make Wii specific games. Many devs decided making Wii specific games was not worth it when they had PS3+360+PC. The argument has been posed that many pubs/devs may have made the wrong decision given how many companies closed this past gen, but the argument is not whether that decision was right or not but whether the company BELIEVED it was motivated by the best interest of their financials. This is an important distinction.
How one can reject the importance of pubs/devs porting business model and refuse to acknowledge how difficult Wii U and Wii make their lives in regard to this (including their comparatively hideous online infrastructure... and no, Wii U is not up to par with even PS3. Miiverse is just a bunch of fanboys splooging over each other in the most embarrassingly cloying fashion; and for this we had to deal for months with one of the most pathetically slow OS ever conceived and no universal accounts. Again, you try to minimize this. This is practically the biggest aspect of any competent online infrastructure) will never make sense to me. If you think that constitutes "next-gen online infrastructure", I think you'll clearly see why PS4 and Xbox One are about to massacre Wii U in a few months.
The fact that you also seem wholesale deny the issues with the Gamecube because of some fondness for it shows the cracks in your case (as many know, GCN was one of my very favorite Nintendo consoles, before we go there). You can say "oh the size wasn't an issue", but it was. Developers went on the record several times over the course of that gen that it was, and when even PS2 was receiving a few multi-disc games, or when certain games with dual layer for up to around 8GB of space, the difference was clear. 8GB vs. 1.5GB; you decide on whether this is important.. You can say those devs are lying, but that would begin to start believing in conspiracies since you'd have to admit multiple developers were in on the conspiracy to lie about it being a limitation and because as always that's when it turns into a refusal to acknowledge Nintendo just fucked up.
You're right that they could have worked around the 1.5GB if they wanted to, if that's what you're implying. But my whole point is predicated on the fact that Nintendo continually makes environments where developers have to encounter some significant problems, and they would have to deal with those problems in the absence of the benefits the other systems were offering. So absent the install base - because Nintendo fucked up and released the GCN a year late, and it stalled very quickly - and absent a commensurate development environment which removed as many limitations as possible, and also bringing into account developers history with Nintendo up until that point, the combined case is that developers were right to avoid it. Nintendo did not incentivize their being there, and in the few cases we did get stuff like Tales of Symphonia or REmake/RE4, they did swell quite well. But Nintendo had to reach for those, to my knowledge.
No developer is going to gift games to an environment they believe is going to lead to low potential sales. Nintendo has to make it attractive, and has to breed an environment perfect for porting. GCN actually did get a lot of ports, by the way, a big improvement from the N64 precisely because of the improvements you alluded to, but the remaining problems - which indeed did include image issues - simply were too much to make it competitive.
The idea that the PS2 was an "inherently mediocre console" is ludicrous by any measure, unless you are just talking about difficulty in the development environment, in which case I don't know who would disagree. But you cannot try to minimize the massive importance of the DVD, of Sony's critical messaging over PS2's power which allowed it to dominate message even though Microsoft and GCN were overall more powerful in most ways. Sony read the market correctly, capitalized on it, and by the time Nintendo came to the market they were once again behind what consumers wanted. There's no one else to blame for that but Nintendo.
And that's the heart of all my arguments. Developers and Publishers are not charities. If your system is not selling (and, for the record, it is always Nintendo's responsibility that it do so to promote that healthy environment for devs), and you also have barriers to entry on said system developers are immediately going to be hesitant to start making games. Someone made a good point that I forgot to add to my post, that throughout SNES, N64 and Gamecube years, the prices that devs/pubs had to pay to Nintendo for making games was actually a much worse deal than Sony and Microsoft. They were still not totally there yet even with Gamecube. Again, if your system isn't selling (because your system is out of step with current market trends, like the DVD), if it costs more to print those games, if there is inherent limitations on the amount of content you have to make or you have to make strides in compression just to be feature complete on ports, developers are going to naturally shy away.
Why would you tell developers to make a system where literally every benefit would be worse than either Microsoft or Sony? Tell me, as a business, what would it do for you? Unless you work with Nintendo to make some exclusive property that would be heavily pushed by them or in some way subsidized by them to make up for what you'd lose in install base or royalties or whatever, it's not worth it.
Anyway, back to my RedSwirl response.
On the other hand though, the Dreamcast had the same advantage for 12 months.
The problem with that console though was its predecessors -- Sega had already built up so much bad will with the Sega CD, 32X, and Saturn. Nintendo of course was in a much better position. Although, having to essentially skip a generation with the level of graphics they needed for their games would've undoubtedly been a challenge for Nintendo's internal teams.
boyshine
Member
I just hope Nintendo has the stock to cover demand in november/december. Those months are huge for Nintendo regardless, so if they fuck up supply for the holiday peak, that's what could hurt them the most this year. They simply cannot enter Q4 with a defensive attitude based on the sales performance up until now.
if they don't have the ability to keep enough accumulated stock for the Wii U this holiday given how atrociously it is selling worldwide, Nintendo needs to pack up and stop even bothering lol
I think they'll be fine with their stock levels. Even with their stable of games, Wii U is going to be simply drowned out by the attention PS4 and Xbox One will be getting. Two marketing campaigns of just remarkable size competing side by side, up against Nintendo and their same franchises and one of the worst selling major consoles of all time currently. Those franchises will sell, but I don't think Nintendo has to worry about Wii U stock. Not unless they drastically cut the price as a surprise.
Unfortunately, this post is pretty much correct.
Since the N64 at least Nintendo has pretty much been making their consoles specifically for their own games. This probably applies to the Wii and Wii U the most but includes the Gamecube. Nintendo can't really do that and expect third parties to show up, and that's the question I don't think Nintendo has ever answered: How do you incentivise your platform for third parties?
The Gamecube was probably the closest Nintendo ever came to making the console other developers wanted, and Miyamoto has been quoted as saying that those years weren't a happy time for Nintendo, that they didn't like just doing what everybody else did.
With the Wii, Nintendo clearly wanted developers to make totally new games for that system -- for publishers to follow their vision. The same is probably true of the Wii U.
It would be cool if Nitnendo, at the very least, went to third party developers or at least all the guys making middleware, and asked them what their bare minimum requirements were, and then compromised that with what their own internal teams wanted. Maybe Nintendo isn't in a financial position to do that. Maybe they believe there isn't enough room for three basically identical consoles.
Iwata presented the GamePad with its face buttons and two sticks as if it was a compromise for third parties, but that console is still clearly moving at Nintendo's own pace. With more and more multiplatform games coming next gen, the Wii U is gonna get left out of a shitload of those games as soon as they stop making current-gen versions.
At this point, Nintendo just needs to say "fuck it" with those publishers, go their own way, and hopefully find other devs who agree with them. I don't think you can blame Nintendo for wanting to be a trend-setter, they just have to actually succeed at it first.
I just wanted to say Red Swirl that you and others like Opiate and Anihawk and StevieP and... well just look at all these amazingly detailed posts... have made this topic simply a delight to read.
I hope when I finish my response to you we can have more of our engaging discussion
I hope when I finish my response to you we can have more of our engaging discussion
boyshine
Member
It's been difficult to get enough Premiums into stores since june, even Basics are selling out. So, if the prices stay as low as they are currently for my store/chain/country (norway), we're going to have huge supply issues I'm afraid once zelda, dk, sonic and mario start showing up.
How much is it selling in Norway?
By what metric? Have you seen sales? They're literally some of the worst any console has ever done in its first year month-to-month. Where is it selling out? Whatever country you are in is clearly the exception by any measure, since no system selling as poorly as Wii U is is selling out naturally. It would be a case of Nintendo artificially stopping the process of stuffing shelves because the system is not currently selling as is, so they're intentionally keeping stock low until they come up with a new strategy... that's all I could think of.
I've never once been to a store when I haven't seen a glut of units, if indeed the store even bothers to give it shelf space anymore.
boyshine
Member
There are no official numbers. None of the big chains are reporting. And if I share my own I'm fired, so I can't do that
Mithos
Member
Need to point out also (again)... Basic ~150-175 (299-349 on release), and Premium ~200-230 euro (349-399 on release).
This have not yet happened in US, from what I can tell.
There are no official numbers. None of the big chains are reporting. And if I share my own I'm fired, so I can't do that
Well, I meant the price, not sales figures. But noted.
Right, but the sales data we do get from Europe is not even remotely positive for Wii U either. It's just as catastrophic. I think one time the total software sales for a week for every single game in one particular market was like 10,000 units. I gotta find the thread where it was discussed to get the link, but Wii U is in the same exact predicament across the world. I haven't seen a report from any territory that has been largely positive. If we do get one, I'd love to see it. Genuinely. It'd be probably good news for NeoGAF, as it'd be a very curious case and a worldwide exception
I never considered the Atari Jaguar a major console release, as much as Atari desperately wanted it to be. But if we go down to the bottom, I'm sure Pippin sold worse than Wii U too
G...Good company that Jaguar and Pippin are
G...Good company that Jaguar and Pippin are
Mithos
Member
I'd guess that is the "UK numbers thread", and that's pretty much the only numbers there is from Europe now days when it comes to Nintendo.
In April 2013, Nintendo revealed they had shipped - not even sold through to customers - just 390,000 units worldwide in Q1 2013.
Since then, we have seen May, June and we're in July. In every territory we have sales for May and June, Wii U continues to perform at nearly unprecedented lows. Do you believe in these months something changed in any territory to suddenly make this different anywhere?
shakin_haitian
Banned
I think one of the biggest reasons why third parties sell like shit nowadays on Nintendo systems is because they created shit software for the Wii. I knew several people who never bought a console before who bought a Wii, bought and played some Nintendo games, then went out and got some Ubisoft, EA, or Activision games. Yeah, have you ever played any of those publishers' games on the Wii? They released some amazingly bad shit, and made new customers instantly associate them with low quality games. Very low quality games.
trickyhero
Member
Yup, I can confirm that if you want quality Wii games, and arn't looking up reviews and such, the only way to get a quality Wii game is to stick to Nintendo. I think that was the Wiis biggest problem.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll