Support NeoGAF

[GeneralManager]

It's because of the expectations people had of Sony from the PS2, and the particularly bad first few years of the PS3. So it has that unfair reputation.

Also Sony in general is doing terribly and the PS3 gets lumped in with that whole story.

Its not an unfair reputaition at all. Its business. Nobody internally at Sony would dispute it. A huge market share decline, and millions in losses is not considered a success because of how great Uncharted 2 was. Microsoft on the other hand gained a huge chunk of market share and profit this generation. Nintendo dominated this generation after people were questioning their ability to continue releasing consoles after the GCN. Nobody at Sony considered the transition from PS2 to PS3 a success.

 

[GeneralManager]

Yes. Limiting one's potential audience by neglecting a portable platform [as in one you can port games to] makes worlds of sense, especially in light of how the current generation shaped up. Short of the 360 selling games like crazy, the PS3 would have lost support. Period. In the end, supporting both benefited publishers. Failing to support a portable platform because of the likely reason that it has a touchscreen in the center of it is beyond moronic.

Seriously, man, I tend to agree with you - but are you honestly suggesting that 3rd parties have a good record when it comes to making viable business decisions? Really?

Why does you assume the difficult derives from the touchscreen rather than the lack portability between it and the other platforms?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Nintendo Wii - 8.5 games per system (818.46 milion games divided by 95.85 million systems sold)

X360 - Revealed tie ratio to be 8.9 in US, which is the strongest market no numbers for the rest of the world which suggest the tie ratio would drop, unknown for how much though.

PS3 - Last oficial data is from may 2011 from what I gather, sits at 8.5 per system.



They're all in line (despite Wii being dead in the water now), the whole "Wii doesn't sell software it's aimed at casuals and they only play Wii Sports" was really overblown. Problem was crap third party titles and no marketing budget for them, there are no miracles, and yet throughout the platform life they sold more than they should have, clearly.

What type of titles of those 8.5 were the majority. I'd bet they were dance dance, wii sports resort, will play, mario kart, NSMB, Galaxy, Zelda, etc. meaning not non casual third party software.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

[...]
Seriously, man, I tend to agree with you - but are you honestly suggesting that 3rd parties have a good record when it comes to making viable business decisions? Really?

Have you seen the number of sales of AAA games which were ported from PS3/Xbox 360 to Wii? Afair they were not really good, despite the big Wii user base. Because they were inferior compared to the other versions. So why should the devs care to port their games to the Wii U? The only option that makes sense from a business perspective would be to port games to Wii (U), which are not graphical demanding. The other variant would be an exclusive game for Wii (U) - that way people don't think this is just an inferior version of a Xbox/PS game. But will this game reach enough sales on a single platform to make profit? It would have to sell a lot to make this happen. This is risky. Nintendo has the choice, and it seems like they are going for first party games and ports of current gen games, and maybe a few next gen games.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Why does you assume the difficult derives from the touchscreen rather than the lack portability between it and the other platforms?

Because devs that we know are making titles say porting is very easy. It might require some tuning because of very basic differences in their CPU's, but the system itself runs PS3/360 games easily.

This is why a good deal of posters are looking at this as more of a controller thing, and those of us looking at it like that are thinking "Why?" Just make your game and add some superfluous touchscreen gimmick. Even if it's just "HUD on DRC screen." that's still better than nothing.

I think the ship sailed with the Wii in me expecting developers to really try with new control schemes. The market isn't built like that anymore. At best Nintendo should mandate the ability to play the games on the controller. Devs shouldn't be expected to do more than that, because otherwise the games will probably never be considered for the platform.

What type of titles of those 8.5 were the majority. I'd bet they were dance dance, wii sports resort, will play, mario kart, NSMB, Galaxy, Zelda, etc. meaning not non casual third party software.

I wouldn't argue like that man. The Wii has a fairly diverse selection of games... granted most were shitty shovelware, but that point still stands. If you tried to dissect those 9 360 titles I bet you'd find less diversity than you do in the Wii's 8.5 games per system. More 3rd party titles, but in a much more limited assortment of genres.

 

[bomma_man]

What type of titles of those 8.5 were the majority. I'd bet they were dance dance, wii sports resort, will play, mario kart, NSMB, Galaxy, Zelda, etc. meaning not non casual third party software.

Can you tell me one A-team, non-spinoff 3rd party game on Wii?

I can think of Red Steel (sold well), Red Steel 2 (sold shit), Madworld (middling, but wouldn't have done well anywhere).

 

[Vinci]

God no.

Just that they've done risk assessment on titles still in dev. And other manufacturers were more than willing to drop a licencing fee, or subsidize costs making that platforms release a lighter load.

I think a lot of companies do view Nintendo as more of a competitor on their platforms than they actually are, but I don't think there's an industry wide agenda against Nintendo. Lack of willingness on both sides to take chances with one another? Definitely.

It's idiotic when the majority of these devs are off making 'mature' games - yes, that word is in quotes - to state that Nintendo is a significant competitor when Nintendo doesn't make games like those at all. With the exception of Metroid, they don't have a single first-person capable franchise; their games are generally colorful and filled with cartoony characters running through lush fields with hardly a gun in sight. They don't even make a car simulation or a sports game that isn't just goofy fun.

Risk assessment? You think they did risk assessment? These guys often show a wanton lack of basic economic understanding, and you're talking about risk assessment?

These companies are stupid. Beyond stupid. They were spoiled rotten throughout the PlayStation era because costs were relatively low and there was a huge, buying audience on a single targetable platform. The moment they actually have to make choices, good and economical choices, they screw it royally time and again.

And meanwhile we're hearing things from podcasts - true, not the best of sources but as good as we've gotten thus far - saying that Nintendo is basically giving 3rd parties whatever they ask for to get the games on the system. So yeah, I hate the paranoid shtick of claiming devs have it in for the company, but at some point things are going to reach parity - and it's going to be interesting to see how things shake up then.

MS and Sony are not going to be able to overwhelm Nintendo on the 3rd party side, at least from an incentives standpoint, forever.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Have you seen the number of sales of AAA games which were ported from PS3/Xbox 360 to Wii? Afair they were not really good, despite the big Wii user base. So why should the devs care to port their games to the Wii U? The only option that makes sense from a business perspective would be to port games to Wii (U), which are not graphical demanding. The other variant would be an exclusive game for Wii (U) - that way people don't think this is just an inferior version of a Xbox/PS game. But will this game reach enough sales on a single platform to make profit? It would have to sell a lot to make this happen. This is risky. Nintendo has the choice, and it seems like they are going for first party games and ports of current gen games, and maybe a few next gen games.

Exactly. I am not going to blame devs for not using their budget to port/ make exclusives for a Nintendo console which the last three generations hasnt given them much success. Why would they? Use their money and release games on the PS4/nextBox.

 

[Saint Gregory]

God no.

Just that they've done risk assessment on titles still in dev. And other manufacturers were more than willing to drop a licencing fee, or subsidize costs making that platforms release a lighter load.

I think a lot of companies do view Nintendo as more of a competitor on their platforms than they actually are, but I don't think there's an industry wide agenda against Nintendo. Lack of willingness on both sides to take chances with one another? Definitely.

I'd have to go back through my post history to count how many times I've said this but I know that it's getting up there:

3rd parties will never have the same relationship with Nintendo that they have/will have with other hardware manufacturers. The reason for that is really simple, Nintendo is a publisher first and foremost. Regardless of how nice Nintendo is to 3rd parties they will always be looked upon as competition.

Like you say, it's not a conspiracy but just pure business. Why go out of your way to help Nintendo succeed when a weakened Nintendo is in your best interest?

 

[Bisnic]

Can you tell me one A-team, non-spinoff 3rd party game on Wii?

I can think of Red Steel (sold well), Red Steel 2 (sold shit), Madworld (middling, but wouldn't have done well anywhere).

Monster Hunter Tri?

 

[MercuryLS]

Ok, since my thread was closed. How do the next gen platforms stack up to each other based on rumors? What is the proposed CPU/GPU/Ram for them?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I wouldn't argue like that man. The Wii has a fairly diverse selection of games... granted most were shitty shovelware, but that point still stands. If you tried to dissect those 9 360 titles I bet you'd find less diversity than you do in the Wii's 8.5 games per system. More 3rd party titles, but in a much more limited assortment of genres.

Its not about diversity, its about wii owners buying the games that devs make. If PS/Xbox owners are more interested in these types of games than why develop for the Wii?

 

[lostinblue]

What type of titles of those 8.5 were the majority. I'd bet they were dance dance, wii sports resort, will play, mario kart, NSMB, Galaxy, Zelda, etc. meaning not non casual third party software.

US Only numbers from 2011:

Wii Play 13.04
Mario Kart Wii 10.64
Super Mario Bros. Wii 8.36
Wii Fit w/ Balance Board 8.15
Wii Sports Resort 6.05
Wii Fit Plus w/ Balance Board 5.35
Super Smash Bros.: Brawl 5.28
Just Dance 2 5.09
Super Mario Galaxy 4.38
Link's Crossbow Training 3.47
Mario Party 8 3.47
Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 2.82
Guitar Hero III 2.76
Just Dance 2.71
LEGO Star Wars: Complete Saga 2.48
Super Mario Galaxy 2 2.4
Donkey Kong Country Returns 2.35
Mario & Sonic at Olympic Games 2.12
Carnival Games 1.88
Michael Jackson: Experience 1.88
Game Party 1.78
Wii Fit Plus (Standalone) 1.71
EA Sports Active 1.56
Disney Epic Mickey 1.52
Zumba Fitness: Join the Party 1.42
Deca Sports 1.35
Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games 1.34
Rayman Raving Rabbids 1.28
Super Paper Mario 1.27
LEGO Batman 1.17
Wii Music 1.16
Mario Super Sluggers 1.13
Cooking Mama: Cook Off 1.08
LEGO Indiana Jones: Original Adventures 1.08
Animal Crossing: City Folk 1.06
Wipeout: The Game 1.06
Star Wars: Force Unleashed 1.06
Resident Evil 4 1.05
Guitar Hero World Tour 1.02
uDraw 1.02
Rock Band Special Edition 1.01
Call of Duty: World at War 1.01

Source: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=446880

Of course, best selling titles can only include what was released for it. From the 3rd party standpoint we're talking mostly about casual titles. My point isn't that the third party catalog isn't casual, but that with the right marketing they could have sold good games (that they didn't bother to develop) to this userbase and perhaps secure a few.

More recent data regarding that:

according to the NPD Group, which tracks video game sales in the United States. The Wii system, which crossed 39 million units sold in February, now has nearly twice as many 5-million sellers as competing current-generation consoles combined.

Source: http://mynintendonews.com/2012/03/0...ompeting-consoles-combined-npd-sales-figures/

 

[Thunder Monkey]

It's idiotic when the majority of these devs are off making 'mature' games - yes, that word is in quotes - to state that Nintendo is a significant competitor when Nintendo doesn't make games like those at all. With the exception of Metroid, they don't have a single first-person capable franchise; their games are generally colorful and filled with cartoony characters running through lush fields with hardly a gun in sight. They don't even make a car simulation or a sports game that isn't just goofy fun.

Risk assessment? You think they did risk assessment? These guys often show a wanton lack of basic economic understanding, and you're talking about risk assessment?

These companies are stupid. Beyond stupid. They were spoiled rotten throughout the PlayStation era because costs were relatively low and there was a huge, buying audience on a single targetable platform. The moment they actually have to make choices, good and economical choices, they screw it royally time and again.

And meanwhile we're hearing things from podcasts - true, not the best of sources but as good as we've gotten thus far - saying that Nintendo is basically giving 3rd parties whatever they ask for to get the games on the system. So yeah, I hate the paranoid shtick of claiming devs have it in for the company, but at some point things are going to reach parity - and it's going to be interesting to see how things shake up then.

MS and Sony are not going to be able to overwhelm Nintendo on the 3rd party side, at least from an incentives standpoint, forever.

I think this past gen they bet on the wrong set of horses and are now living with that. The course was set and Nintendo is 60 miles off the plotted course.

They'd invested millions if not much more than that thinking the market wanted the exact same change again. For the most part the market didn't. Sure there's a sizable chunk of the market that followed right along, but it grew at far too slow a pace to keep up with the increasing costs of development.

It didn't help that the market Nintendo created with the Wii didn't have much focus. Part of the time fixed on the "casual" game buyers, others on traditional gamers. This lack of a pure focus left an industry of "followers" uncertain of what they were following.

The Wii looking back was like a magic clusterfuck. Infinitely profitable for a singular entity, but scatterbrained enough that the industry both couldn't and wouldn't grasp.

That market just wanted games. I still don't see 3rd parties didn't port some of their last gen hits to the system. To gauge interest. KotOR would have been a beauty to play on the Wii.

Anyway... I don't exactly hold the industries hesitancy of the Wii against them. It was literally hit or miss on what that market wanted.

Its not about diversity, its about wii owners buying the games that devs make. If PS/Xbox owners are more interested in these types of games than why develop for the Wii?

To see if there was a market there?

Can't know unless you try.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Ok, since my thread was closed. How do the next gen platforms stack up to each other based on rumors? What is the proposed CPU/GPU/Ram for them?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=38335947&postcount=1933

Latest rumors afaik. But it is not clear if the extra RAM of the Xbox will be that important. After all, it is only DDR3 RAM (which is slow), and devs have to consider PS4 specs. And PS4 seems to have a better GPU. My guess is, that multi platform titles will look almost the same, and exclusives will be better (on both platforms lol). If this would be the case, and the PS4 will be cheaper (also a rumor), I am not so sure how the Xbox 3 will be the best selling console for the next years. And I doubt the devs in this questionnaire did consider things like price, release date etc., which are quite important for the success of a product.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

US Only numbers from 2011:

Source: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=446880

Of course, best selling titles can only include what was released for it. From the 3rd party standpoint we're talking mostly about casual titles. My point isn't that the third party catalog isn't casual, but that with the right marketing they could have sold good games (that they didn't bother to develop) to this userbase and perhaps fidelize a few.

More recent data regarding that:

Source: http://mynintendonews.com/2012/03/0...ompeting-consoles-combined-npd-sales-figures/

But at its heart the Wii aas a social console meant to be enjoyed with others. Thats how it was marketed. Naturally those are the games it would receive as well.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

Its not about diversity, its about wii owners buying the games that devs make. If PS/Xbox owners are more interested in these types of games than why develop for the Wii?

You are getting into a chicken/egg things here. The games the top tier devs make, werent available on the wii to buy. It wasnt a Gamecube situation where the ports just didnt sell. They didnt exist unless they were exclusive, even then not by many. But there are still a ton of great games for the system, just without the brand/studio strength behind them.

While devlopers are a big part of it, publisher share most of the blame. There are reports of plenty of games pitched to pubs that they simply rejected because it was for Wii. They didnt fund the games that would have created a healthier ecosystem for their own future games.

I doubt any of them will make that same mistake again for the Wii U, unless they project such slim margins for the game already that they cant spend the money to produce another version of a 2012 fall/winter game.

 

[Effect]

Monster Hunter Tri?

Any success Tri had outside of the US you can thank Nintendo for since they handled the advertising I believe. So I wouldn't put that it the 3rd party column. Same for Dragon Quest IX on the DS. 3rd parties as a whole were more then happy to put out their games with no advertising. Or if they did it was really stupid advertising that told you nothing about the game and were placed at midnight or later. Which I assume was because those time slots were dirt cheap and all the money had to go to saturating prime time for their HD games.

 

[Vinci]

Its not about diversity, its about wii owners buying the games that devs make. If PS/Xbox owners are more interested in these types of games than why develop for the Wii?

The Wii was one thing, the Wii U is another. There were numerous and valid reasons for avoiding the Wii. I think they could have better handled this generation and remained more profitable on the whole if they'd found a way to include it intelligently into their portfolios, but that ship has sailed. Ignoring the Wii U over its controller? Seriously, there better be something else, some other reason. 'Cause if that's it, they're brainless.

@ Thunder Monkey: As you can see from my comments to ClovingSteam, I'm not talking about the Wii. They could have dealt with it better than they did - that goes without saying - but I understand why they went where they did.

 

[bomma_man]

Monster Hunter Tri?

...and that also sold pretty well for a console entry.

 

[lostinblue]

Its not about diversity, its about wii owners buying the games that devs make. If PS/Xbox owners are more interested in these types of games than why develop for the Wii?

That's a really narrow way of looking at it.

I'll just leave this here:

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
― Henry Ford


You never know until you try, trying to compete with nintendo making a platformer to compete with super mario isn't something I'd call clever; respectively Resident Evil games on Nintendo platforms seem to do just fine. If you're a third party developer, just do your own thing anywhere; and please don't try to mimic something you don't understand or respect (ie: casual games). Nintendo didn't put Tokyo EAD or Zelda Team doing casual games, nor Monolith or Retro Studios, they instead created some teams focused on casual gaming, with people that actually wanted to do them.

From the moment there's an userbase, there's a market you can captivate; it's a lapalice truth like saying the iPad has a market to be exploited, except it wasn't.

 

[clashfan]

What exactly are these "complexities" they are talking about?

 

[MercuryLS]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=38335947&postcount=1933

Latest rumors afaik. But it is not clear if the extra RAM of the Xbox will be that important. After all, it is only DDR3 RAM (which is slow), and devs have to consider PS4 specs. And PS4 seems to have a better GPU. My guess is, that multi platform titles will look almost the same, and exclusives will be better. If this would be the case, and the PS4 will be cheaper (also a rumor), I am not so sure how the Xbox 3 will be the best selling console for the next years. And I doubt the devs in this questionnaire did consider things like price, release date etc., which are quite important for the success of a product.

I'm surprised MS is going all out with ram.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

I'm surprised MS is going all out with ram.

I would imagine it has a lot to do with Windows 8 integration and the living room media hub conquest microsoft is building even now on the xbox, rather than just developer dreams. I also bet it will multitask like a motherfucker.

 

[IsntChrisL]

You'd think developers would jump at the chance to add another console to port their games over these days. You can't think of shit to do with the screen? Then don't do anything you black hole of creativity. Put a static image on there.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

That's a really narrow way of looking at it.

I'll just leave this here:

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
― Henry Ford


You never know until you try, trying to compete with nintendo making a platformer to compete with super mario isn't something I'd call clever; respectively Resident Evil games on Nintendo platforms seem to do just fine.

From the moment there's an userbase, there's a market you can captivate; it's a lapalice truth like saying the iPad has a market to be exploited, except it wasn't.

Oh, I agree with you there but the onus is on gamers as much as devs. Gamers want the big budget beautiful immersive worlds while they also want the amazing indi games too. Imo both of these were impossible on te Wii. The Wii U is in a better situation but again it will be competing against the PS4/nextbox in 6-12 months after release. Devs/pubs are already having to plan their budgets for 2013-14.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

[...]Ignoring the Wii U over its controller? Seriously, there better be something else, some other reason. 'Cause if that's it, they're brainless.[...]

Of course there is another reason. Wii U is less powerful than PS4 and Xbox 3. A port of a PS4 and Xbox 3 game will look bad on Wii U and will cost a lot (because they have to optimize a lot and re-do stuff to make it work), that means less sales, less sales and high development costs results in less profit. An exlusive game for Wii U will be risky, because it is only available on one platform and Nintendo makes very strong first party titles. So why take the risk if you can make games for PS4/Xbox 3? But I already said that.

 

[Pachterballs]

wiiU can't do UE4 and is too complex. I'm guessing its going to be a platform for nintendo games like all the others.

As for X3_PS4, I'll be there day 1.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

The Wii was one thing, the Wii U is another. There were numerous and valid reasons for avoiding the Wii. I think they could have better handled this generation and remained more profitable on the whole if they'd found a way to include it intelligently into their portfolios, but that ship has sailed. Ignoring the Wii U over its controller? Seriously, there better be something else, some other reason. 'Cause if that's it, they're brainless.

@ Thunder Monkey: As you can see from my comments to ClovingSteam, I'm not talking about the Wii. They could have dealt with it better than they did - that goes without saying - but I understand why they went where they did.

If it's any consolation I expect the vast majority of 3rd party 2013 releases to have WiiU ports.

They would have been within the grace period for SDK's to make a WiiU release viable without certain monetary incentives.

 

[Vinci]

Of course there is another reason. Wii U is less powerful than PS4 and Xbox 3. A port of a PS4 and Xbox 3 game will look bad on Wii U and will cost a lot, that means less sales, less sales with high development costs results in less profit. An exlusive game for Wii U will be risky, because it is only available on one platform and Nintendo makes very strong first party titles. But I already said that.

So you're saying that the PS4 and 720 are remarkably similar across the board? That porting between the two is going to be easy and inexpensive? 'Cause otherwise, they should just put their games on MS's system and call it a day. Either that, or they should aim a bit lower than the highest tier possible with every damn game and port things up rather than down. That would perhaps keep costs down.

And since when were 3rd parties concerned about dev costs? These are the same people who want to get rid of used games because they're cutting into their profits, the same people who can sell 2 to 3 million copies of a game and send the developers of that game packing the next day.

If it's any consolation I expect the vast majority of 3rd party 2013 releases to have WiiU ports.

They would have been within the grace period for SDK's to make a WiiU release viable without certain monetary incentives.

I'm less annoyed by the notion that the Wii U might not get games than I am with the utter stupidity showcased by companies in this industry. The sheer gall they show sometimes, often commenting that we - their consumers - are the problem and committing themselves to endless anti-consumer antics to snatch what they want when they haven't earned it. It's infuriating to witness companies acting this spoiled.

 

[lostinblue]

But at its heart the Wii aas a social console meant to be enjoyed with others. Thats how it was marketed. Naturally those are the games it would receive as well.

The concept was clever if you think about it, not at all wrong; statistic dictated that it was more likely for a wii to be in a living place than X360/PS3.

Because you play them like you played your previous console's, your room makes more sense most of the time; wii? mine was in the living room. It's not so much that I played party games on it; but it simply made more sense because for once I wasn't the only family member using it. That was a strength right there, chances are if you're a gamer you probably have a wii at home, even if it's not your primary platform (or even if you don't use it at all), having access to a platform is important providing a publisher wants to sell you a certain kind of software, it's the first step. Of course multiplatform wii games in that scenario were doomed, but how about some good games made from the ground?

Those customers weren't properly catered to by other than Nintendo, of course there aren't miracles.

Oh, I agree with you there but the onus is on gamers as much as devs. Gamers want the big budget beautiful immersive worlds while they also want the amazing indi games too. Imo both of these were impossible on te Wii. The Wii is in a better situation but again it will be competing against the PS4/nextbox in 6-12 months after release. Devs/pubs are already having to plan their budgets for 2013-14.

For sure. I get why the big budget canons were moved elsewhere; it's like seeing how the GBA never got titles as epic as the SNES did (unless they were ports) a lot of it had to do with the fact they were already maxed what they could do there in the AAA sense and moved elsewhere; so of course the wii wouldn't get a... say, Shadow of the Colossus, it was too late for that kind of thing to make sense for it (although I like to see system pushers anywhere). But I think the whole exodus was a bit too much, it shouldn't have been so much as forcing a HD game or a HD game mentality into it, but trying to find the right titles for each platform.

Most games that didn't manage to break even on the HD's and weren't AAA flops probably deserved to be on a lower spec'ed, cheaper to develop for console for instance. Kinda how Valyria Chronicles moved to the PSP after the first one flopped on PS3, and yet it made perfect sense.

 

[Vinci]

I get why the big budget canons were moved elsewhere, but I think the whole exodus was a bit too much, it shouldn't have been so much as forcing a HD game or a HD game mentality into it, but trying to find the right titles for each platform.

Bingo. Right here. THIS IS THE POINT. Every game of every franchise doesn't need to be a damn showcase. The important thing is understanding what makes your product successful and capturing that on the platform that best allows you to. If part of that game's appeal was its stellar graphics, HD the bitch; otherwise, use some common sense and keep it more manageable from a cost perspective.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Seriously, man, I tend to agree with you - but are you honestly suggesting that 3rd parties have a good record when it comes to making viable business decisions? Really?

Their games sell like shit on the Wii so they stopped support.

Sounds like a good business move to me.

 

[tofudrift1986]

This isn't particularly true. It's less about install base at this point and more about sales potential across the platforms. 360 sees a lot of love because the sales potential is much higher.

That is completely dependent on the genre more so than anything. If its a shooter, 360. Sports title is dependent on the franchise. Rpgs & Jrpg, not their demographic. Fighting games, not their demographic. etc.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Their games sell like shit on the Wii so they stopped support.

Sounds like a good business move to me.

That's... far from true. They'd have to have released games for them to not sell well.

 

[nincompoop]

That market just wanted games. I still don't see 3rd parties didn't port some of their last gen hits to the system. To gauge interest. KotOR would have been a beauty to play on the Wii.

Speaking of which, did anybody realize that the Wii version of the old PC/Xbox game Enclave finally came out in Europe? To put it lightly, the result was a game that looked like complete shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPKl-VlZ8Co

Now obviously the Wii can do much better, but I'd expect that most Xbox ports would have turned out similarly, mainly due to the fact that the developers of those games clearly weren't interested in learning how to take advantage of the Wii's hardware.

 

[lostinblue]

That's... far from true. They'd have to have released games for them to not sell well.

And releasing this doesn't count as making an effort:

Nor does sending titles to die (low budget and no advertisement to support launch unlike every other of their projects)

 

[Vinci]

Their games sell like shit on the Wii so they stopped support.

Sounds like a good business move to me.

Shall we go into the number of 3rd parties games that sold on the Wii? I'm sure I can find a handful of folks who can tell you. I know it's a lot. Like, competitive with the 360 and all that.

Which, honestly, surprises the hell out of me given the quality level they often delivered on the system.

 

[gconsole]

Why it's excuse for saying Wii U is complex? And Isn't MS well know for their developer friendly development kit?

I'm not the developer myself. But imagine a lot of API require to work with Wii U with their unique system. I can see why most the dev don't hesitate to work on the thing. This is purely from development point of view. Why would you want to work with more complex and less familiar system? And the decision not to put the game on Wii U is not from them. I don't see any problem besides fanboy who try to blame people for not putting their game on Wii U.

 

[Vinci]

Why it's excuse for saying Wii U is complex? And Isn't MS well know for their developer friendly development kit?

I'm not the developer myself. But imagine a lot of API require to work with Wii U with their unique system. I can see why most the dev don't hesitate to work on the thing. This is purely from development point of view. Why would you want to work with more complex and less familiar system? And the decision not to put the game on Wii U is not from them. I don't see any problem besides fanboy who try to blame people for not putting their game on Wii U.

PS3 earlier this generation says hello.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Speaking of which, did anybody realize that the Wii version of the old PC/Xbox game Enclave finally came out in Europe? To put it lightly, the result was a game that looked like complete shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPKl-VlZ8Co

Now obviously the Wii can do much better, but I'd expect that most Xbox ports would have turned out similarly, mainly due to the fact that the developers of those games clearly weren't interested in learning how to take advantage of the Wii's hardware.

Fixed-function shaders, the necessity of a T&L chip. Limited documentation.

Give devs a Wii, a team of 4 people, no budget, and that is about the best you can hope for.

 

[BobLoblaw]

wiiU can't do UE4 and is too complex. I'm guessing its going to be a platform for nintendo games like all the others.

This is what I assumed was going to happen. I think ultimately, the Wii was fool's gold for Nintendo. Yes, it sold like gangbusters for the first few years, but the vast majority of the software sold on the system was by Nintendo.

Third party titles (as a whole) just couldn't match up sales-wise. Now, a lot of those third party developers won't be able to easily port from the Xbox 3/PS4, so it'll require them to spend extra time/resources on a console specific port (which many of them aren't so willing to do this time).

I'm sure Nintendo will be fine long-term, but if that dev statement is true, then a complex system is just one more potential issue that Nintendo has that they really can't afford.

 

[Vinci]

Third party titles (as a whole) just couldn't match up sales-wise.

3rd party titles have never matched up sales-wise. On any platform. Ever. And if that bothers them, they are even more ridiculously inept at business than I already thought.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

That's... far from true. They'd have to have released games for them to not sell well.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/06/01/karaoke-joysound-finds-its-way-to-north-american-wiis-this-fall/


There you go.

 

[NBtoaster]

PS3 earlier this generation says hello.

What about it? It was hard to develop for. The tools and documentation were bad. The OS ate 1/5 of the RAM. PSN was a mess, and it had weak sales. Developers were right to scoff at it until Sony's support and sales increased.

 

[Lonely1]

3rd party titles have never matched up sales-wise. On any platform. Ever. And if that bothers them, they are even more ridiculously inept at business than I already thought.

Well, CoD can match up, which ironically had a SKU for almost every title available for the Wii.

What about it? It was hard to develop for. The tools and documentation were bad. The OS ate 1/5 of the RAM. PSN was a mess, and it had weak sales. Developers were right to scoff at it until Sony's support and sales increased.

What's your point? The Ps3 always had decent third party support.

 

[Vinci]

What about it? It was hard to develop for. The tools and documentation were bad. The OS ate 1/5 of the RAM. PSN was a mess, and it had weak sales. Developers were right to scoff at it until Sony's support and sales increased.

Um... they didn't scoff at it. They ported games to it. A lot. Perhaps inadequately on occasion, but it still shared the vast majority of 3rd party titles with the 360 even though the 360 versions beat the hell out of it sales-wise for a very long time.

So pulling this excuse out now? Sort of strange.

Well, CoD can match up, which ironically had a SKU for almost every title available for the Wii.

Yes. But CoD is pretty remarkable from a 3rd party perspective. Also, it's on every platform ever basically. Kind of helps. Imagine how many copies Mario titles would sell if it were on everything.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/06/01/karaoke-joysound-finds-its-way-to-north-american-wiis-this-fall/


There you go.

I think I like you.

 

[NBtoaster]

What's your point? The Ps3 always had decent third party support.

Third party support was very mediocre in the early years.

Um... they didn't scoff at it. They ported games to it. A lot. Perhaps inadequately on occasion, but it still shared the vast majority of 3rd party titles with the 360 even though the 360 versions beat the hell out of it sales-wise for a very long time.

So pulling this excuse out now? Sort of strange.

2006-2008 had a lot of rough, dirty ports, many by outsourced teams because of the difficulty of doing a simultaneous version. And some games only arrived a year later like Bioshock.

It was only when sales increased, and Sony's support improved that it became the norm to expect games released simultaneously, roughly equal to the 360 version, and developed by the same team.

 

[Erethian]

Of course there is another reason. Wii U is less powerful than PS4 and Xbox 3. A port of a PS4 and Xbox 3 game will look bad on Wii U and will cost a lot (because they have to optimize a lot and re-do stuff to make it work), that means less sales, less sales and high development costs results in less profit. An exlusive game for Wii U will be risky, because it is only available on one platform and Nintendo makes very strong first party titles. So why take the risk if you can make games for PS4/Xbox 3? But I already said that.

The problem with this is that I seriously doubt that the userbase of the PS4/720 is going to be enough to sustain the sort of development budgets we'll be looking at next generation. PS3 benefited from this this generation, in that publishers couldn't afford not to make ports for the system despite all its technical problems.

Of course the other option is that they continue to ignore the Wii U (which seems unlikely, at least for the next few years) and continue to squeeze more money out of a console space that is showing increasingly stagnant userbase growth.