-
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.
December 2008 NPD Article (Gamasutra)
- Thread starter jvm
- Start date
OldJadedGamer
Banned
John Dunbar said:
The COD4 map pack was downloaded 1 million times in it's first 9 days at $10 bucks each.
affableamerican
Member
Sure, I'm artificially splitting all games into "AAA" or "Budget" which is always going to be arguable; just trying to simplify the discussion. I guess I'd lump in your "AA" titles with my "AAA" titles, as I'm thinking of "Budget" titles as the large number of shovelware and rushed established IP games on Wii. Those games are finding an audience, and however small the individual audiences are, when added up, it becomes a huge revenue stream. But I just don't think that AA/AAA publishers care about these kind of 3rd party sales.Gaborn said:
On another level, my question is unanswerable -- major publishers don't put their games on Wii for three possible reasons:
1) Perceived (correctly or not) difference in audience for Wii vs. PS3/360. Would Boom Blox have sold as well on 360? Would L4D have sold as well on Wii?
2) HD v. non-HD. The cost of porting to Wii is presumably more than the cost of porting to the other HD platform.
3) Major publishers don't believe their 3rd party game will turn a profit on Wii (my suggested reason).
But we can't know if #3 is accurate, given the confounding effects of #1 and #2.
OK, but just to throw out an example -- COD:WaW. That was #19 in December for Wii. I don't know how much numerically it was below 360/PS3 SKU, but I wonder if it was worth it for Activision, given the huge marketing push for the Wii SKU. Frankly, COD:WaW, given the strength of the IP, is one of a small handful of big budget titles that absolutely should sell high on Wii, but it wasn't close to the PS3/360 versions. (Again, it all depends on how much Activision spent on the Wii port, marketing included, which is an unknown.)donny2112 said:Which is why they should be on PS360 and Wii.
professor_t said:
__________________
You know, the Resident Evils, the Final Fantasies, the GTAs, the MGSs, the Call of Duties. Basically, every third party franchise the PS1 and PS2 got because of their market leader status. Also, all major FPS franchises, like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, should be put on the Wii as lead SKU first and foremost. The Wiimote makes playing with a mouse or Dual-Analog retarded and outdated by comparison.
The majority of the market, as evidenced by the Wii and DS, could give 2 ***** about Hard Drives, High Definition or whatnot.
The Wii is market leader by a long shot and therefore it should get the games that every market leader has gotten since the NES.
There's no split markets or demographics or whatnot. Put the best version of Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto, Metal Gear and Call of Duty on the Wii and all those PS3/360/PC owning fanboys will pick up the Wii just to play them. On the other hand, the Wii-only crowd will not pick up a PC/PS3/360 just to play those games.
The PS3/360/PC market is unsustainable besides a few top publishers - EA/Ubisoft/Activision - and is not a good strategy for long-term growth.
The Wii/DS is the only answer if the industry intends to survive.
_leech_ said:
Thisx1000. It really annoys me, too, cause we could have had the perfect storm of console awesomeness here. If third parties had really gotten behind the Wii (and who knows, maybe it'll still happen), you could have had basically the next PS2, but with the backing of Nintendo's first party lineup (which was pretty much the only thing the PS2 didn't have). As the SNES proved, Nintendo and full 3rd party support make for a great console.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
lubczyk said:
I've owned every system that has ever come out, I even had a Wii at launch but sold it because I never played it and it was worth a grip at the time... but I can honestly say that if this happened, I would simply stop playing console games and would sit this gen out.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
Nintendo could catch up technologically, but the question is do they desire to? The cost of them designing a PS4/720 level console when that generation comes around will be of similar cost to them as developing a Wii+ with 128 megs of ram and at double the clock speed with a new GPU. It's a matter of designating a target, picking out the licenses that are necessary for the design, paying for the custom work, and going from there. Unless they go for the Sony model which involves trying to invent a new type of CPU, the costs should be equivalent._leech_ said:
The profit for them is the wholesale price minus the cost of manufacture multiplied by the number of systems they sell, and I believe that Nintendo's next system will be something that they can wholesale for $225 or less and still make a profit. This is not the model Sony put forth where the cost of manufacture is higher than the wholesale price.
Of course, in 2014 when the next generation begins, that should be significantly faster than the 360 or the PS3, and with any luck we'll see some publishers re-release the best of the PS3 and 360 for the Wii2.
@ OldJadedGamer:
Yeah, I have no problem with the lead SKUs, particularly when it comes to graphics, being the PS360. Last-generation, I wish the lead SKU had been Xbox/GameCube for graphics compared to the often PS2 up-ports. There just needs to be a Wii version of those big multi-platform third-party games. Whether that's a secondary team within the same company or a contracted developer doesn't make much difference to me. They just have to be good with the Wii hardware for graphics and competent on making the game work with Wii controls.
Yeah, I have no problem with the lead SKUs, particularly when it comes to graphics, being the PS360. Last-generation, I wish the lead SKU had been Xbox/GameCube for graphics compared to the often PS2 up-ports. There just needs to be a Wii version of those big multi-platform third-party games. Whether that's a secondary team within the same company or a contracted developer doesn't make much difference to me. They just have to be good with the Wii hardware for graphics and competent on making the game work with Wii controls.
affableamerican said:
Yeah! We get to use CoD:WaW as a poster child again! Let's review.
* CoD3 came out on both Wii and PS3, and they were either equal in sales or the Wii version was slightly ahead.
* CoD4 came out, sold millions of copies in the U.S., thus giving the base to the userbase, and there was no Wii version.
* CoD5 came out, sold similarly on the already established userbases of the PS3/360 in November, while the Wii version apparently wasn't even advertised.
* CoD5 Wii is advertised in December, and it sells #19 for the month and probably > 250K.
What can we conclude from this?
1) There should've been a CoD4 Wii version.
2) There should've been advertising for the Wii version of CoD5 at launch.
You wonder whether it was worth it for Activision? They sent a gimped port of one of their two big holiday titles to the system with the biggest userbase in the U.S. after snubbing the system last year, delayed advertising for weeks, and still came out at #19 in December. If they're not smiling, something is very wrong. :lol
lubczyk said:
It's not that simple. Many Western developers simply do not have the philosophy to succeed in that environment. With the Wii and DS, the best selling happen to be those that concentrate on user-interface and social gaming rather than the typical blockbuster game (which has an emphasis on graphical fidelity and cinematic gameplay). In general, we are seeing consumers adopt those values with the Wii and games such as Wii Play and Guitar Hero continuing to top charts.
Recently, we saw Bioware's first DS game (and a very genuine attempt at a DS game by a Western developer) fall well short of the developer's previous titles. It's possible that the game was the result of the B-team and the Sonic curse but it's also possible that Bioware's strengths and development philosophy (story-telling and cinematic gameplay) were of little use when developing for the DS. On the other side of the spectrum, we have a commercial smash hit like Drawn to Life that places an emphasis on user-interface and creativity.
It's quite possible that we might see a shift back to Japanese developers (who have experience in this environment thanks to the DS) as the pioneers of gaming if Western developers aren't able to adjust to the Wii's values.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
They've gone back and forth a bit. We don't get decent tie ratio numbers frequently, but I try to make note of them when we do. After November 2007 it was 4.01 PS3, 3.86 Wii. However, December was good for Wii software and short on Wii hardware, so after the next month it was 4.26 PS3, 4.64 Wii.Gaborn said:
lubczyk said:
The Wii and DS are unfortunately not immune to the same issues faced at retail by the other platforms.
I would argue that while these 2 platforms do indeed provide interesting opportunities, alternate business models, content models, and delivery channels also offer some solutions to industry hardships. Revamping platform, business and content strategies in unison will be required to both survive and thrive in the future.
donny2112 said:
This is really interesting. I was always under the assumption that the Wii version tanked.
But yeah, COD4 not coming out on the Wii really hurt the series fanbase on the Wii. I wonder if CoD6 is going to get a Wii version and if they will advertise it on the same level.
NPD top 5 as they clarify it;
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/01/20/the-real-top-5-selling-games-of-2008/
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/01/20/the-real-top-5-selling-games-of-2008/
Eteric Rice
Member
I wonder what will happen to western developers in the future? We've already established that these rising budgets aren't sustainable unless you're in one of the mega companies like EA or Ubisoft, so what happens to the western developers when they can't afford to chase technology anymore?
titiklabingapat
Member
Get bought by EA and Ubisoft.Eteric Rice said:
Eteric Rice
Member
titiklabingapat said:
That's not good. That could potentially lead to a crash here in the west.
Certainly not, but the developers and publishers who seem to have focused on delivering quality content on these platforms seem to be thriving.Mario said:
Take Hudson as a prime example... they basically started this gen as a niche JP legacy firm (just a breath away from retired and near retired greats like Sunsoft, Data East, Jaleco, Taito, Natsume, Maysaya, Telenet, etc) and now they're fast becoming a leading JP publisher, making cash hand over fist, reviving tons of classic IPs, expanding fast and racking up (for the first time in decades) million seller games. Now, Hudson's turnaround is more dramatic than most, but other companies who focused on Nintendo early (mostly Japanese at that) seem to be all the better for it today.
It's not sustainable for EA either. They've been making huge losses. This business model of simultaneously opting for platforms with vastly higher costs, whilst giving token investments to the market leading platform isn't sustainable unless they systematically make successful games - harder for the bigger than the small, it seems. But at least they have the resources to survive longer if they do fail.Eteric Rice said:
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Damn, if it wasn't for Nintendo I don't even want to imagine the situation that the industry would be in.
Mario said:
Things like used game sales, short shelf life, and a crowded market are nothing new at all. The main problem now is that these games cost so much to make that the ability to pull in a profit for these budgets is unrealistic.
Eteric Rice
Member
So if this isn't sustainable, and they're losing money, why do they continue? Why don't they slowly change course?
Eteric Rice said:
Like most things it wasn't clear the practices weren't financially sustainable until the bubble burst in the general economy caused a domino effect both on consumer spending, but most importantly the availability of financing as well as growth expectations .
There was for a while this expectation that things will work out eventually and publishers didn't want to miss the boat, and for most of 2006 and 2007 it seemed so obvious that it would work out that way. That mentality was best exemplified by the PS3 10 year plan.
Flying_Phoenix said:
No, but they are bigger problems than ever before. Used game sales are rising as a proportion of overall sales. Effective shelf space and shelf life is more limited because of more platforms being supported and more content is being produced than ever before. The crowded market is now crowded with great titles.
As the ability for the industry to produce quality content in volume has matured, the traditional model has become increasingly stressed and outdated.
Large budgets don't help, but the main problem is the traditional retail model is dying fast. There are plenty of low cost games that are losing money too.
titiklabingapat
Member
It requires a company wide change.Eteric Rice said:
Basically, they need to change business models. The economy is not helping since they are now all in save my ass mode and any amount of risks and unknowns are too much.
legend166 said:
There's a growing Hispanic population in the U.S., particularly in Southern states like Texas where football is king. It makes sense to try to cater to that audience and see if they can pull in a few more sales. It'd be like doing a French edition of NHL 09 (is there already one?) to cater to more potential Canadian/Quebec buyers.
jvm,
Did that update to your article go up, yet?
Mario said:
How do we measure if there are too many low cost games losing money? There always have been games that lose money in all generations. We certainly know that high budget games often earn less profit or even loss money, compared to previous generations. We can easily know that because there are few high budget games, and often we are relatively good informed about their sales. There are a lot more low cost games than high cost, and we usually aren't informed about their sales. You can alway find lots of examples of low cost games losing money, even in last generation. So we would need a comparison about the proportion of low cost games that lost money this generation compared to last generation, and that information isn't easy to get at all.
I think it's too hasty to say that the traditional retail model is dying. Retail stores aren't selling less games than before.
Atreides said:
I have a full NPD subscription. But not the time to pursue that research.
My point is, problems are being experienced by games at all ends of the budget spectrum and on all platforms. Some are suggesting that moving to Wii is the silver bullet solution, but I disagree in that I think more change than a simple platform shift is required.
Okay, I should clarify. Games retail is booming for games retailers, and the traditional model is working out great for them.
The traditional retail model for publishers and developers is unsustainable for those reasons mentioned and more.
Survival and prosperity for more than just a handful of publishers and developers will rely on finding a new model which is likely going to involve new delivery, charging, content, and development paradigms.
Could have been someone else, I'm just working from the summary (and tend to assume Matt says everything that isn't specified). It was an answer to one of the reader questions.donny2112 said:I think that's just lubczyk. Most here don't agree with that idea,, though.
Matt said it? Dang, that's bad.
Mario said:
Daemon-IGN: The World Ends With You sold 250K! (He got the number from VGC.)
Square-Enix: We shipped less than 200K to North America.
It's a catch-22. If we still got full public leaks, everyone would know how "off" his number are, but then he'd just use the NPD numbers to "fix" his numbers. Without the full public leaks, some people fall into the trap of thinking his numbers are "good enough."
OK.Mario said:
Sorry, but that... doesn't make much sense. The money the consumers spend in videogames is basically split between all the groups that work to put that game in the store: developer, publisher, distributor, store. If the stores are blooming but the others are having a hard time, the problem is not the retail model, the problem is how the money is split between these groups.