-
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.
Third Party Wii Games
- Thread starter michaelpachter
- Start date
Cosmo Clock 21
Banned
Nope. Now it's just an Official Nintendo Seal.OMG Aero said:
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Celine said:
ehh, i think we're bright enough to be able to separate the commercial merits of a product from the enduring, historical, intellectual merits of a product; hence why herman's hermits are in a graveyard of history
Sipowicz said:
dead space extraction has been out a couple months more, but i'll bet cash that their npd lifetime sales are within 10k of each other
EmCeeGramr
Member
the publishers should plot together to buy nintendo
then they would have all the money
it is The Perfect Plan
then they would have all the money
it is The Perfect Plan
I don't think it's as simple as "make good games," though.
I think Michael is right that branding matters. I've put it a different way in the past: I've labelled them Umbrella Games. This refers to the biggest games available, which give shade to the smaller, less well known efforts to grow and prosper. I believe virtually all hardware is moved on the backs of the top 10% of games. The big hits are what motivate people to pay attention to or purchase a specific system, and then they stay for the mid range fare. A great example of this in the past is GTAIII. I think that moved enormous amounts of hardware. FFXIII just produced what was by far the biggest hardware week in the PS3's history in Japan. The announcement of DQIX for the DS produced an explosion of succesful JRPGs for the system in Japan. There are many examples of this. These major, well known games attract users who go on to buy less well known games in the same genre.
In some cases, those smaller games are very good (Infamous seems to be well liked, as a Sandbox game, and Tales of Vesperia got similar reviews to FFXIII), but I believe these games would absolutely flounder without the big games to establish the base there.
Well, the big games in the casual arena are indeed on the Wii. Those games are made by Nintendo themselves: Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Brain Age, and so forth. And so casual fare has done fairly well on their systems -- certainly much better than they've done on the PS3 or 360. But the hardcore umbrella games are almost all made by third parties, and almost all of them were made for the PS3/360. In fact, most were already headed to the PS3/360 before this generation even began (GTAIV, Assassin's Creed, Final Fantasy XIII, Metal Gear Solid 4, etc. etc.)
So the "Umbrellas," or Brands, as Mr. Pachter calls them, are all established on the PS3/360 now, in regards to the hardcore. I don't think it would be as simple as making good games now: you'd have to make huge, gigantic games for the Wii, to try establish the base there. If that were to happen, then smaller but still very good games can start doing well.
But I don't see much incentive to do that. You'd not only have to convince these purchasers to buy a Wii, you'd have to convince them to buy a Wii instead of a PS3/360, which is where third parties have largely been directing consumers since the generation began. That's a tall order, and would likely be prohibitively expensive. It's not worth trying, in other words.
I think Michael is right that branding matters. I've put it a different way in the past: I've labelled them Umbrella Games. This refers to the biggest games available, which give shade to the smaller, less well known efforts to grow and prosper. I believe virtually all hardware is moved on the backs of the top 10% of games. The big hits are what motivate people to pay attention to or purchase a specific system, and then they stay for the mid range fare. A great example of this in the past is GTAIII. I think that moved enormous amounts of hardware. FFXIII just produced what was by far the biggest hardware week in the PS3's history in Japan. The announcement of DQIX for the DS produced an explosion of succesful JRPGs for the system in Japan. There are many examples of this. These major, well known games attract users who go on to buy less well known games in the same genre.
In some cases, those smaller games are very good (Infamous seems to be well liked, as a Sandbox game, and Tales of Vesperia got similar reviews to FFXIII), but I believe these games would absolutely flounder without the big games to establish the base there.
Well, the big games in the casual arena are indeed on the Wii. Those games are made by Nintendo themselves: Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Brain Age, and so forth. And so casual fare has done fairly well on their systems -- certainly much better than they've done on the PS3 or 360. But the hardcore umbrella games are almost all made by third parties, and almost all of them were made for the PS3/360. In fact, most were already headed to the PS3/360 before this generation even began (GTAIV, Assassin's Creed, Final Fantasy XIII, Metal Gear Solid 4, etc. etc.)
So the "Umbrellas," or Brands, as Mr. Pachter calls them, are all established on the PS3/360 now, in regards to the hardcore. I don't think it would be as simple as making good games now: you'd have to make huge, gigantic games for the Wii, to try establish the base there. If that were to happen, then smaller but still very good games can start doing well.
But I don't see much incentive to do that. You'd not only have to convince these purchasers to buy a Wii, you'd have to convince them to buy a Wii instead of a PS3/360, which is where third parties have largely been directing consumers since the generation began. That's a tall order, and would likely be prohibitively expensive. It's not worth trying, in other words.
The big mistake everyone is making is assuming that the core Wii audience is entirely separate than the PS3/360 audience.
Lots of people own both, and I suspect there's a lot more overlap than last gen. There's easily millions in that group.
A Wii owner who also owns a 360 probably isn't going to be interested in core-focused titles of middling quality. They may be interested in a AAA Wii title.
That's the missing piece of the explanation.
Lots of people own both, and I suspect there's a lot more overlap than last gen. There's easily millions in that group.
A Wii owner who also owns a 360 probably isn't going to be interested in core-focused titles of middling quality. They may be interested in a AAA Wii title.
That's the missing piece of the explanation.
What the fucking hell did I just read (the bolded part)?dolemite said:
How much support did Haze's creators get? How about Lair's creators? They sure could use it even today. Oh wait, I don't think they need it anymore...
P.s Now that you asked, looking by metacritic's: http://www.metacritic.com/games/wii/scores/
I'd say 90+ rated 3rd party games have done very well on Wii.
SecretBonusPoint
Banned
Monster Hunter 3 western release is going to be my personal barometer for "these people just dont want hardcore games".
- Free online
- Peripheral bundle
- Nintendo advertising
- Mainline system exclusive.
Literally nothing else Capcom could bring to the table with it.
- Free online
- Peripheral bundle
- Nintendo advertising
- Mainline system exclusive.
Literally nothing else Capcom could bring to the table with it.
JohnnyPanda
Neo Member
Taurus said:
I can't answer the sales thing, but I just wanted to point out that Time Crisis has always been and always will be a lightgun game so it's fair to say that its fans know what they're getting into when they buy the next one.
Resident Evil tried the rail shooter thing on PS2 and nobody cared. As someone mentioned earlier, Dead Space Wii hype was pretty big when we all thought it would be a RE4-type game. The reveal kinda deflated that hype.
Not counting mascot games, how many series' managed to not only successfully transplant their audience to another console while simultaneously changing the genre into something unrecognizable from what they liked in the first place?
But nope. It's the Wii audience that gets the blame instead of short-sighted companies.
Eh MadWorld was a niche game. It probably would've bombed on the HD twins as well. The Conduit was a substandard FPS. Also publishers need to build hype among the gaming community. If you can get Geoff Keighly to twitter about your new Wii game or make the cover of Game informer you're on the right track.dolemite said:
I have had arguments about this very topic in all the places that I frequent, and I am getting tired about it.
Whilst there can be no doubt that there is a high percentage of "casuals" that buy the system and enjoy it, the term has been adapted to mean something that it has not in the past. Like one poster said above me, it is funny how games such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto are now "hardcore" when they were traditionally seen as, well, not.
Now, if third parties want to court the same kind of audience as seen on the HD Twins, then they need to start making blockbuster AAA quality games. There are lots of key demographics that exist within an audience, and blanket terms like hardcore and casual do not help. Publishers need to forget about that, and instead really think about who their project is aimed at.
More than anything else, that is what Nintendo do, and it certainly works for them. They go all out advertising their games at the right sources, and the right amount.
Also, third parties are not relying on the brands that help them to be strong on the other systems. Resident Evil rails spinoffs, tonnes of new IPs in risky, nonrelevant genres appeal to a niche minority. They are certainly not going to get sales with those games, and they should not really expect to.
Ultimately, it is their own fault. Games such as Resident Evil 4 and even Red Steel really proved that there was an audience waiting for "hardcore" content, the kind that most developers could easily deliver. The fact that audience has seemed to disappear is only because they have been starved for so long, and the fact that Nintendo software sells so much is because it is pretty much always guaranteed to be quality.
When developers generate faith in their products, they will be more successful. The only game on the horizon I see that can reach these numbers, or at least good numbers, is Epic Mickey.
Whilst there can be no doubt that there is a high percentage of "casuals" that buy the system and enjoy it, the term has been adapted to mean something that it has not in the past. Like one poster said above me, it is funny how games such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto are now "hardcore" when they were traditionally seen as, well, not.
Now, if third parties want to court the same kind of audience as seen on the HD Twins, then they need to start making blockbuster AAA quality games. There are lots of key demographics that exist within an audience, and blanket terms like hardcore and casual do not help. Publishers need to forget about that, and instead really think about who their project is aimed at.
More than anything else, that is what Nintendo do, and it certainly works for them. They go all out advertising their games at the right sources, and the right amount.
Also, third parties are not relying on the brands that help them to be strong on the other systems. Resident Evil rails spinoffs, tonnes of new IPs in risky, nonrelevant genres appeal to a niche minority. They are certainly not going to get sales with those games, and they should not really expect to.
Ultimately, it is their own fault. Games such as Resident Evil 4 and even Red Steel really proved that there was an audience waiting for "hardcore" content, the kind that most developers could easily deliver. The fact that audience has seemed to disappear is only because they have been starved for so long, and the fact that Nintendo software sells so much is because it is pretty much always guaranteed to be quality.
When developers generate faith in their products, they will be more successful. The only game on the horizon I see that can reach these numbers, or at least good numbers, is Epic Mickey.
Stumpokapow said:
Because finding different definitions might help facilitate discussion?
In any case, by Pachter's own figures suggest that 45 million third-party games were sold in 2009. How does this compare to the PS3 and the 360, or are we going to be talking about a smaller percentage of a bigger pie again?
dolemite said:
Why should they support average games when there are high quality games? I don't have an unlimited budget. When having to decide about what to buy, I choose the games which appear to be best. At least on Wii this is mostly the case with Nintendo games.
Of course, there are great 3rd party titles. Those which are advertised or well known (Resident Evil 4 for example) sell quite well. Those which are great but don't get any advertising (Broken Sword, Little King's Story) disappear quickly, sadly.
Rush2thestart
Member
I think many people are putting too much blame on the userbase, rather than the games themselves. First let's take a look at the Wii 3rd party games that failed to live up to sales expectations 
lol ).
Madworld- Black and White 7 hour beat-em up. I think the artstyle really put off people from purchasing the game. Madworld might have sold more on the 360 because of the novely of the chainsaw and gore, but I don't think it would've been a big enough difference to jump to a conclusion like "hardcore games on Wii don't sell!" Also to note, Madworld came out 2 days before Resident Evil 5. Which game do you think a hardcore gamer is going to spend their money on? An established brand or an unproven IP?
HOTD: Overkill/Resident Evil: DSC/ Dead Space: E - All railshooters. It's a niche genre There's too many of them on the platform, and the genre hasnt been popular for a long time. I don't see why anyone expected them to sell... maybe because of Umbrella Chronicles? Umbrella Chronicles sold based on brand name and on the success of Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition. I believe Darkside Chronicles failed to sell despite its brand because people were put off by Umbrella.
The Conduit - This game has the biggest chance of success, but reviews werent so good. The hardcore audience pays attention to reviews. If the game got 90's, I'm sure it would've done better than it did.
In all honesty, I think the game performed as they should have. Every Wii game that has been expected to sell by publishers has had a big negative working against its sales. It's either that the game was niche, had no advertising, or just flat-out sucked. I think the Wii is just like any other console, but 3rd parties have tried so hard to force an image upon it that many hardcore Wii owners have been put off by 3rd party games altogether. So when a non-niche fantastic game with tons of advertising comes out, I don't think it would sell as well as it would've before 3rd parties started pumping out so many cheap casual cash-ins.
Of course, a game like that hasn't come yet.
Closest thing I can think of is World at War for Wii, which sold signifcantly less than the HD versions. I think that can be explained by the fact that the COD series didn't become huge until Modern Warfare, which skipped the Wii. This was a huge oversight, in my opinion. While World at War sold well at around 1.5 million copies, it could've sold so much more if Modern Warfare Reflex was there with the HD versions Day 1.
Speaking of Modern Warfare Reflex, I believe that sold 500k in 2 months, despite having no advertising and releasing alongside the SEQUEL on the HD platforms. Pretty damn good for a hardcore game on Wii.:lol
lol ).Madworld- Black and White 7 hour beat-em up. I think the artstyle really put off people from purchasing the game. Madworld might have sold more on the 360 because of the novely of the chainsaw and gore, but I don't think it would've been a big enough difference to jump to a conclusion like "hardcore games on Wii don't sell!" Also to note, Madworld came out 2 days before Resident Evil 5. Which game do you think a hardcore gamer is going to spend their money on? An established brand or an unproven IP?
HOTD: Overkill/Resident Evil: DSC/ Dead Space: E - All railshooters. It's a niche genre There's too many of them on the platform, and the genre hasnt been popular for a long time. I don't see why anyone expected them to sell... maybe because of Umbrella Chronicles? Umbrella Chronicles sold based on brand name and on the success of Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition. I believe Darkside Chronicles failed to sell despite its brand because people were put off by Umbrella.
The Conduit - This game has the biggest chance of success, but reviews werent so good. The hardcore audience pays attention to reviews. If the game got 90's, I'm sure it would've done better than it did.
In all honesty, I think the game performed as they should have. Every Wii game that has been expected to sell by publishers has had a big negative working against its sales. It's either that the game was niche, had no advertising, or just flat-out sucked. I think the Wii is just like any other console, but 3rd parties have tried so hard to force an image upon it that many hardcore Wii owners have been put off by 3rd party games altogether. So when a non-niche fantastic game with tons of advertising comes out, I don't think it would sell as well as it would've before 3rd parties started pumping out so many cheap casual cash-ins.
Of course, a game like that hasn't come yet.
Closest thing I can think of is World at War for Wii, which sold signifcantly less than the HD versions. I think that can be explained by the fact that the COD series didn't become huge until Modern Warfare, which skipped the Wii. This was a huge oversight, in my opinion. While World at War sold well at around 1.5 million copies, it could've sold so much more if Modern Warfare Reflex was there with the HD versions Day 1.
Speaking of Modern Warfare Reflex, I believe that sold 500k in 2 months, despite having no advertising and releasing alongside the SEQUEL on the HD platforms. Pretty damn good for a hardcore game on Wii.:lol
There nothing publishers can do to make hardcore titles sell other than using established big brand name with huge marketing.
Also Nintendo audience are not as "kiddy" as people labeled them to be. They are more like in the teen category. Don't blindly feed them with Petz or Partyz, or go totally opposite route with MadWorld. Try to find something in-between. I think Monster Hunter and Red Steel are good examples: Teen rated titles with GOOD marketing that doesn't go to the extreme of too kid or too adult.
And again, mass marketing is important. The audience on the Wii are like the same casual audience go out to movies once a month. When they only do it once a month, they will only pick the biggest noise movies (not necessarily big budget) like Avatar (big budget) or Zombieland/District 9 (low budget). This is different than the hardcores on the 360/PS3 where they would play all range of games out there. The Wii audience will only purchase the "first skin" of titles at the top - anything below it will die, as they only buy one game in a long time.
Also Nintendo audience are not as "kiddy" as people labeled them to be. They are more like in the teen category. Don't blindly feed them with Petz or Partyz, or go totally opposite route with MadWorld. Try to find something in-between. I think Monster Hunter and Red Steel are good examples: Teen rated titles with GOOD marketing that doesn't go to the extreme of too kid or too adult.
And again, mass marketing is important. The audience on the Wii are like the same casual audience go out to movies once a month. When they only do it once a month, they will only pick the biggest noise movies (not necessarily big budget) like Avatar (big budget) or Zombieland/District 9 (low budget). This is different than the hardcores on the 360/PS3 where they would play all range of games out there. The Wii audience will only purchase the "first skin" of titles at the top - anything below it will die, as they only buy one game in a long time.
ScrabbleDude
Member
I think 3rd parties need to make actual fun games that aren't dumbed down for what they think the Wii audience is. And then they need to create marketing that will appeal to casual players. The hardcore audience already knows what games are coming out and what games it wants, if you were to market specifically to the casual players you might end up with more sales.
Mad World and The Conduit are not good examples. I didn't see any real advertising for either of these, compared to the advertising I see for Nintendo's games. Mad World's art style does not appeal to everyone and I've heard the game simply isn't that great. The Conduit is something I've heard is mediocre. I also can't see TvC being fantastically successful -- aren't 2D fighters pretty much a nice genre now? Darkside Chronicles and Dead Space probably would have seen more sales if they had been fully fledged titles instead of light gun games.
Mad World and The Conduit are not good examples. I didn't see any real advertising for either of these, compared to the advertising I see for Nintendo's games. Mad World's art style does not appeal to everyone and I've heard the game simply isn't that great. The Conduit is something I've heard is mediocre. I also can't see TvC being fantastically successful -- aren't 2D fighters pretty much a nice genre now? Darkside Chronicles and Dead Space probably would have seen more sales if they had been fully fledged titles instead of light gun games.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
What I don't get is why PSP games aren't getting Wii ports of some sort. It would seem to me like every title that's been developed for the PSP - like Assassin's Creed - should be getting a port to the Wii to be released day and date with the other versions. It would be enough to at least see what in the 'core' pantheon of games might stick.
The other thing that's driven me nuts is Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. I really want to pick it up. It's a $50 game that seems like it's worth $50. So I go to Amazon, and they have 3 versions of the game, theoretically the same, and two versions are $30 and one is $50. The one I want is $50, but it's like they've already devalued that version by saying that it's $20 premium to have the same game with the same asset set but on the Wii.
The other thing that's driven me nuts is Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. I really want to pick it up. It's a $50 game that seems like it's worth $50. So I go to Amazon, and they have 3 versions of the game, theoretically the same, and two versions are $30 and one is $50. The one I want is $50, but it's like they've already devalued that version by saying that it's $20 premium to have the same game with the same asset set but on the Wii.
LSauchelli
Member
Well, Konami could have given Silent Hill: Shattered Memories more support, for starters. That game could have sold much more if more people knew it exists.
From Capcom, I think they may be doing the right move with TvC, I hope that the effort gets results.
EA is pretty much doing a good job, other than Extraction. Tiger Woods 10 and Grand Slam Tennis are still two of the games I play the most with Wii. They probably could port a Sims game (and no, MySims doesn't relaly count), it really seems the kind of game that 'casuals' would buy for their Wii.
Sega is doing a pretty good job, overall. Is Sonic 4 coming for the Wii or do we not know this yet?
Rockstar should just port GTA:San Andreas, put in a few extras and see how it goes with Wii, I think it would sell better than GTAIV did.
Activision should start publishing Call of Duty games on the Wii at the same time as other systems. Seriously, having to wait to years for Modern Warfare shouldn't have happened.
From Capcom, I think they may be doing the right move with TvC, I hope that the effort gets results.
EA is pretty much doing a good job, other than Extraction. Tiger Woods 10 and Grand Slam Tennis are still two of the games I play the most with Wii. They probably could port a Sims game (and no, MySims doesn't relaly count), it really seems the kind of game that 'casuals' would buy for their Wii.
Sega is doing a pretty good job, overall. Is Sonic 4 coming for the Wii or do we not know this yet?
Rockstar should just port GTA:San Andreas, put in a few extras and see how it goes with Wii, I think it would sell better than GTAIV did.
Activision should start publishing Call of Duty games on the Wii at the same time as other systems. Seriously, having to wait to years for Modern Warfare shouldn't have happened.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Chris1964 said:
that's sort of a silly way to look at it.
the problem isn't with B-tier titles getting B-tier sales, it's with B-tier titles getting D-tier sales. people spend too much time blaming Wii developers and publishers for not making AAA games and not enough time looking at the fact that the vast majority of games on any system aren't AAA; B-tier games apparently did just fine on PS2 and apparently do just fine on PS3/360, so what's different about the Wii?
I think generally there is truth to the idea that the Wii audience is very concerned with branding and games with recognizable names and licenses do well. Hence CoD doing pretty well on Wii even with a lot of strikes against it, Resident Evil doing well, and 3rd party crap with licenses doing well (Monoploy, Nerf, Hasbro, etc/).
I also think that this doesn't have to be a huge negative to 3rd parties if they treated the platform seriously. Though you wouldn't know it by looking at its first month, Madden 2010 has actually done pretty decent, and of course Tiger Woods did extremely well. I don't see any reason that the really big mainstream IP's wouldn't do solid numbers on the Wii, but most 3rd parties have decided against this route because their "tests", which haven't involved these properties have mostly failed.
I also think that this doesn't have to be a huge negative to 3rd parties if they treated the platform seriously. Though you wouldn't know it by looking at its first month, Madden 2010 has actually done pretty decent, and of course Tiger Woods did extremely well. I don't see any reason that the really big mainstream IP's wouldn't do solid numbers on the Wii, but most 3rd parties have decided against this route because their "tests", which haven't involved these properties have mostly failed.
SecretBonusPoint
Banned
Vgamer said:
The "who the fuck is half of the entire games character roster?" effect may be a little too hard to climb. Game would have done much better if they'd just stripped it down to Capcom vs Capcom: You Won't Care Anyway!
The ship has already sailed. There is virtually nothing, outside of games like TvC, A Boy..., LKS, etc. that 3rd publishers can do to make me interested in their so-called "projects". I am sick and tired of being treated like a 3rd class gaming citizen with "tests" and "carrot-and-stick" comments being thrown around.
They have made their bed and seems prepared to sleep in it. I have also made my decision to not take most of their "efforts" seriously. Everyone's happy.
Well, on this I agree with Jesse Divnich of EEDAR when he says :michaelpachter said:
You can read the whole article, very well written :
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/01/npd-analysis-how-to-sell-a-wii-game/#more-20105
Hmmm, that depend if you rank first party titles like mario kart or NSMBW as "casual", it seems a little excessive to me...michaelpachter said:
Well publishers should start to make great wii games, we can all agree with that. But on the other end, I think that the shops (walmart, gamestop etc..) have a responsability too. They have to be careful about what they sell, because the market is on the verge of being saturate by the tons of "casual" (more like shitty) games they are putting on the shelves...michaelpachter said:
Stumpokapow said:
Isn't that obvious? B tier titles sell because A tier titles build the audiences. A lot of these B tier Wii titles fall into the type of game that people prefer to play on PS3/360 aka traditional experiences. These are best played on HD consoles because these consoles are designed specifically for them.
Do average titles even sell average? And how does the "spend more" theory reconcile withChris1964 said:
Granted, Nintendo is distorting the landscape by not dropping prices, having a very popular $70 product, and not having older, discounted titles on shelves at all, but a 3rd party being told "you can't sell your product for over $40" is not going to be encouraging.
The huge majority of Nintendo's growth and success this generation has come from the expanded audience and new gamers. It should be no surprise that the best selling 3rd party games aren't traditional, but are rather ones that follow Nintendo's lead and appeal to everyone.
The 3rd parties' main problem is that they walked into this generation with essentially no franchises that appealed to everyone. Nintendo's franchises on the other hand largely did appeal to everyone. Unfortunately I think the 3rd parties blew their chance at the beginning of this generation to create good, solid expanded audience franchises, instead misunderstanding the market and creating low quality Wii Sports spinoffs.
The expanded audience is new to gaming and doesn't have any history with the known brands. As a result they've been going with Nintendo and other things they know, such as games based off common TV shows. The 3rd parties had an opportunity at the beginning of the gen to create a name for themselves with the expanded audience but they messed up.
The 3rd parties need new expanded audience friendly franchises that appeal to everyone and have a broad range. I somewhat feel that the best time to create a new IP is at the beginning of the generation so I'm not sure what to do.
One thing that the 3rd parties should definitely do is work harder on their distribution and how they brand their company. I feel this is more important on the Wii than on the HD systems. I think simply producing Deca Sports and putting it on the shelf among all the other similar looking Wii games will not be successful. I think EA in particular, with its sports titles (eg the upcoming NBA Jam), has a strong potential for branding itself as a major Wii game maker. Their presence in expanded audience friendly stores such as Target and Best Buy should be as a little EA store or EA kiosk, highlighting all their games for all scales of the video game audience.
The 3rd parties' main problem is that they walked into this generation with essentially no franchises that appealed to everyone. Nintendo's franchises on the other hand largely did appeal to everyone. Unfortunately I think the 3rd parties blew their chance at the beginning of this generation to create good, solid expanded audience franchises, instead misunderstanding the market and creating low quality Wii Sports spinoffs.
The expanded audience is new to gaming and doesn't have any history with the known brands. As a result they've been going with Nintendo and other things they know, such as games based off common TV shows. The 3rd parties had an opportunity at the beginning of the gen to create a name for themselves with the expanded audience but they messed up.
The 3rd parties need new expanded audience friendly franchises that appeal to everyone and have a broad range. I somewhat feel that the best time to create a new IP is at the beginning of the generation so I'm not sure what to do.
One thing that the 3rd parties should definitely do is work harder on their distribution and how they brand their company. I feel this is more important on the Wii than on the HD systems. I think simply producing Deca Sports and putting it on the shelf among all the other similar looking Wii games will not be successful. I think EA in particular, with its sports titles (eg the upcoming NBA Jam), has a strong potential for branding itself as a major Wii game maker. Their presence in expanded audience friendly stores such as Target and Best Buy should be as a little EA store or EA kiosk, highlighting all their games for all scales of the video game audience.
Let me break my post down in to something clearer and simpler.
I believe that the top 5-10% of games push almost all of the hardware, and that lesser titles are effectively along for the ride. In addition to the appeal to common sense, I gave empirical evidence to support this in my previous post.
If we can agree that this is correct (and perhaps we can't), then it follows that the average games can't sell particularly well until the really big ones establish a base for them. Once the Final Fantasy audience has been attracted to the PS3, as an example, then FF-like games such as Tales of Verpersia will do disproportionately well on that platform, which is exactly what we've seen.
And with that in mind, virtually all of the "hardcore" games that are in the top 5-10% of games are on the PS3 and 360. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, GTA, Modern Warfare, Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, and many more -- these games have ensured that most people who want these types of games are on the PS3 and 360.
The consequence of these choices is that the A or AA games are going to do better on the PS3/360 as well, because the audience has already bought in to the system and is paying attention to it. Dead Space Extraction may be a good game, but nobody is going to buy a Wii to play it.
I believe that the top 5-10% of games push almost all of the hardware, and that lesser titles are effectively along for the ride. In addition to the appeal to common sense, I gave empirical evidence to support this in my previous post.
If we can agree that this is correct (and perhaps we can't), then it follows that the average games can't sell particularly well until the really big ones establish a base for them. Once the Final Fantasy audience has been attracted to the PS3, as an example, then FF-like games such as Tales of Verpersia will do disproportionately well on that platform, which is exactly what we've seen.
And with that in mind, virtually all of the "hardcore" games that are in the top 5-10% of games are on the PS3 and 360. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, GTA, Modern Warfare, Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, and many more -- these games have ensured that most people who want these types of games are on the PS3 and 360.
The consequence of these choices is that the A or AA games are going to do better on the PS3/360 as well, because the audience has already bought in to the system and is paying attention to it. Dead Space Extraction may be a good game, but nobody is going to buy a Wii to play it.
You have to put Mario and/or Link in every Wii exclusives if you want good sales imo.
Make a VS. Capcom game called "Nintendo VS. Capcom" with Nintendo characters of course, and the sales will be 1000x higher than Tatsunoko VS Capcom.
More seriously, the Wii needs more epic games with good marketing.
Where are the Mass Effect Wii, the Assassin Creed Wii, the Lost Planet Wii, the Metal Gear Wii, the Fallout Wii, and all that stuff? Not onrail crap like they did with Resident Evil & Dead Space.
Monster Hunter Tri is something like that. I really hope the sales for this game will be great, just to show that GOOD epic games can sell on the console. The game only need good advertising on TV & internet.
Make a VS. Capcom game called "Nintendo VS. Capcom" with Nintendo characters of course, and the sales will be 1000x higher than Tatsunoko VS Capcom.
More seriously, the Wii needs more epic games with good marketing.
Where are the Mass Effect Wii, the Assassin Creed Wii, the Lost Planet Wii, the Metal Gear Wii, the Fallout Wii, and all that stuff? Not onrail crap like they did with Resident Evil & Dead Space.
Monster Hunter Tri is something like that. I really hope the sales for this game will be great, just to show that GOOD epic games can sell on the console. The game only need good advertising on TV & internet.
To seriously answer the question, I think the only somewhat feasible strategy for 3rd parties oddly enough is to put its biggest IP's on the Wii and treat those games as equal to its HD counterparts as possible.
By and large the best selling 3rd party games are from recognized brands. Activision should have CoD Wii same day with PS360 every single year. Capcom should have RE6 Wii at the same time as PS360. EA should treat Madden Wii more how it treats Tiger instead of changing the formula every single year. SEGA will be committing gaming malpractice if Project Needlemouse isn't on the Wii. And so on.
As for original IP's and spinoffs..don't even bother- that's a graveyard.
By and large the best selling 3rd party games are from recognized brands. Activision should have CoD Wii same day with PS360 every single year. Capcom should have RE6 Wii at the same time as PS360. EA should treat Madden Wii more how it treats Tiger instead of changing the formula every single year. SEGA will be committing gaming malpractice if Project Needlemouse isn't on the Wii. And so on.
As for original IP's and spinoffs..don't even bother- that's a graveyard.
Opiate said:
I agree with most of what you posted, but I wonder if, on the spectrum of a games "-tier"ness (that is, whether a game is A-tier, B-tier, and so on), the lower down the spectrum you go the smaller the influence of "umbrella games" is on a game's sales. It wouldn't surprise me if the sales of truly niche franchises operate very much independently of their much more popular and mainstream siblings.
schuelma said:
Really?
I think there's some worth trying to promote a new IP - Boom Blox did pretty well for itself - but I agree that it's a very risky proposition. The problem is that many of the pre-existing IPs that third parties own would sell poorly on the Wii when compared to on the 360 or the PS3, so in that sense I think that marketing a new IP is a must.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I was going to write something, but Opiate covered my thoughts well enough.
captmcblack
Member
You need to make good games that can fit cleanly into the types of genres that are/have historically been popular in the US/the world. Platformers, FPSes, fighting games, racing games, action/adventure games...things like that.
Rail-shooters, point-and-click adventure games, shoot-em-ups, quirky Japanese games, puzzle games, et al...while those can be (and have been) very good games, those aren't going to be the games that set the US marketplace on fire, and they never will.
You need to design them with real effort. Maybe you don't have to code to the metal anymore, but the game should be able to look and sound better than PS2 games. There is no excuse for games to look like games from 2001 in 2010.
You need to put your better teams behind those games. Why can't EA's top teams make games like their HD counterparts on the Wii? Why couldn't Ubi's? Why can't Activision's?
You need to show real faith in them, and provide legit advertising/marketing support. They put real muscle behind advertising even unknown things like Borderlands and Darksiders, and those were untested new IPs. When something like Red Steel 2 or No More Heroes 2 comes out, are they going to blanket the airwaves and magazines/stores with ads for them?
You need to avoid making "test games" or late ports of things. No, you are not going to sell boatloads of Call of Duty: MW1 Reflex on Wii when it is a port of a 3-year old game that isn't even being advertised. No one cares anymore. No, you aren't going to sell boatloads of Dead Space: Extraction when it is a late spinoff railshooter version of a not-so-popular, relatively new/unknown game franchise that didn't even do good numbers when it was a new game on HD consoles. It will especially not do well when it isn't advertised either.
Third parties want to sell Crystal Chronicles on Wii, and both the casuals and hardcore only really care about real Final Fantasy. I bet you if Versus XIII came out on Wii, it'd sell a fuckload. In fact, I bet you if even FF XII International was ported to Wii, it'd sell better than Crystal Chronicles. Just show some effort and goodwill towards the Wii consumer base, and it will probably respond.
Rail-shooters, point-and-click adventure games, shoot-em-ups, quirky Japanese games, puzzle games, et al...while those can be (and have been) very good games, those aren't going to be the games that set the US marketplace on fire, and they never will.
You need to design them with real effort. Maybe you don't have to code to the metal anymore, but the game should be able to look and sound better than PS2 games. There is no excuse for games to look like games from 2001 in 2010.
You need to put your better teams behind those games. Why can't EA's top teams make games like their HD counterparts on the Wii? Why couldn't Ubi's? Why can't Activision's?
You need to show real faith in them, and provide legit advertising/marketing support. They put real muscle behind advertising even unknown things like Borderlands and Darksiders, and those were untested new IPs. When something like Red Steel 2 or No More Heroes 2 comes out, are they going to blanket the airwaves and magazines/stores with ads for them?
You need to avoid making "test games" or late ports of things. No, you are not going to sell boatloads of Call of Duty: MW1 Reflex on Wii when it is a port of a 3-year old game that isn't even being advertised. No one cares anymore. No, you aren't going to sell boatloads of Dead Space: Extraction when it is a late spinoff railshooter version of a not-so-popular, relatively new/unknown game franchise that didn't even do good numbers when it was a new game on HD consoles. It will especially not do well when it isn't advertised either.
Third parties want to sell Crystal Chronicles on Wii, and both the casuals and hardcore only really care about real Final Fantasy. I bet you if Versus XIII came out on Wii, it'd sell a fuckload. In fact, I bet you if even FF XII International was ported to Wii, it'd sell better than Crystal Chronicles. Just show some effort and goodwill towards the Wii consumer base, and it will probably respond.
I find it really odd that Konami's Rocket Knight Adventures reboot is headed to the XBLA/PSN instead of the Wii. I realize that NSMB Wii has been successful because it's Mario and it has all of Nintendo's muscle behind it, but on the other hand Rocket Knight is really the sort of game that appeals to everyone. This could certainly exist as a boxed product on the shelf for the Wii geared toward a younger audience. This is the sort of game that 3rd parties should be considering. I think the title will not achieve greatness as a downloadable title for the HD systems.
- Create a new genre of hardcore game
- A mix of hardcore and 1:1 motion controls.
- Put some effort on the damn thing.
- Make it a bridge between hardcore and casuals
- Advertise. Marketing. Get your product out in the street
- Sell it like "you´re inside the game!!". A mix of interactive movie thrills + exergaming
- Sell 5 million copies
- A mix of hardcore and 1:1 motion controls.
- Put some effort on the damn thing.
- Make it a bridge between hardcore and casuals
- Advertise. Marketing. Get your product out in the street
- Sell it like "you´re inside the game!!". A mix of interactive movie thrills + exergaming
- Sell 5 million copies
Bisnic said:
Clearly, thats just a case of branding. Of course it will sell better - the audience is familiar with the rest of the cast! With Tatsunoko, not so much.
The game would also sell nuts if it was Disney Vs, Marvel Vs, DC Vs, yada yada yada. Having half of the cast unrecognisable to most people is going to be a detriment to sales.