• 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.

Let's talk intelligently: Is the Wii done as far as third parties go?

wazoo

Member
Jun 10, 2004
5,579
0
0
BMF said:
I think you may be misunderstanding some things about how improvements in computing capability happen and how Moore's Law works.
Moore Law is an interesting thing that people only looks on one side. In terms of chips, it is a self fulfilling prediction (nothing scientific, just an observation) that power in computer increase twice every 18-24 months. It is a bit unknown how parallel chips fit inside this, but as for now it has been proved to be correct.

The other flip of the coin is that manufacturing costs for achieving this goal is also increasing over time at the same speed (which is exponential). We also talk about the increase in game production, which affects the publishers, but the increase in hardware production and plant building which affects the manufacturer is also here.

If it costs 1B$ to do build something one year, it will costs 2B$ to build something twice as powerful 2 years later, or you have to wait longer to get this speed increase for the same 1B$ price.

That is why the race for power is not sustainable in this industry where the revenue from consumers is more or less fixed and will not increase. To achieve the goal of being more and more powerful, it costs more and more each generation or you have to wait more to get this increase of power for a comparable amount of manufacturer money.

I do not think what I said is opposed to that law. in 2001, it was very much possible to get the same amount of power in the GC as for the ps2 after 18 months for a lower investment. in 2005, considering what MS invested, what Nintendo invested in manufacturing in 2006, one year later, AND - that was the part I missed in my previous post - THE INCREASING COST OF MANUFACTURING, being on par was not possible.
 
Jun 11, 2006
9,239
0
0
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11833

Maybe we're not at the right starting point here. Every indication was that the 360 was getting close to breaking even in late 2006. Beyond all the thermal design problems that the 360 had, it was built on a fairly solid foundation. Let's say that Nintendo bought fairly similar designs from IBM and ATI. I think they could have come at least close to those thin margins I was talking about, even if it was a minor per console loss at $300 a unit.
 

ElFly

Member
Sep 3, 2006
16,567
0
0
But Nintendo explicitly wanted to keep the console underpowered, to avoid rising development costs. This is something they've been talking for years; I remember Yamauchi talking about it around the N64 launch.

I think a better question is what would have happened if they had released the Wii a year earlier, along with the 360. Obviously, they weren't ready to do that software wise, but seeing how early they had abandoned the gamecube, I think it's not so off the question.
 

wazoo

Member
Jun 10, 2004
5,579
0
0
BMF said:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11833

Maybe we're not at the right starting point here. Every indication was that the 360 was getting close to breaking even in late 2006. Beyond all the thermal design problems that the 360 had, it was built on a fairly solid foundation. Let's say that Nintendo bought fairly similar designs from IBM and ATI. I think they could have come at least close to those thin margins I was talking about, even if it was a minor per console loss at $300 a unit.
MS lose billions with the X360. How do you see these loss coming from if they were close to be even in 2006 not even talking about the 1B$ provision due to heat problems (I am not saying they are not profitable now).

Notice that in the same article you pointed out, MS own voice was only hoping to be cost neutral over the life of the X360 (no loss on average over the whole lifespan of the X360). This is not very compatible with almost breaking even in 2006 4 years ago.
 

wazoo

Member
Jun 10, 2004
5,579
0
0
ElFly said:
I think a better question is what would have happened if they had released the Wii a year earlier, along with the 360. Obviously, they weren't ready to do that software wise, but seeing how early they had abandoned the gamecube, I think it's not so off the question.
At first, the Wiimote was a Gamecube add on, then the GC tanked, and the Wii went into the field. From Miyamoto, the delay was important to deal with the wiimote problems (like environmental interferences) and of course they were not ready software wise and Nintendo is driven by software releases, like they delayed the N64 for Mario.

As for the hardware, not the wiimote itself, it could have been the same with less margin or higher price or no special things like wifi or flash, who knows ? At TGS 2005, if I remember well, the Wii was already at show behind stages with demo like Metroid Prime. So, maybe the hardware was finished or it was only beta SDK ?
 

ITA84

Member
Feb 10, 2007
684
0
0
www.youtube.com
Even if it were possible for Nintendo to make competitive hardware spec-wise, I think they wouldn't have made it anyway because of software. Third party invested in the other two consoles early on, and that's something Nintendo couldn't have changed (except by buying exclusives; they'd have needed a lot of money for that, given their situation back then).

Assuming the Wii+ could have met with as much success as the Wii did (very unlikely, since the Wii was supply constained already and a more powerful console would have hurt even more), third party developers would have had another incentive to port their games to it; Epic might even have had UE3 ported to it. But even then, the Wii+ would still have the same difficulties as the PS3 in terms of ease of programming (most western-developed games are developed for the X360 and then ported over); dev kits probably wouldn't have been as cheap either. Third parties would have had to invest more and still need some time to get up to speed, and all of this for what? More sales overall?

This leads me to the very last point: a lot of people seem to believe that the Wii could have sold more third party software to the expanded audience, which is a pretty big assumption, if not a right out impossibility. Think about it... The Wii could have gathered more support only by 'stealing' sales from the other consoles, because we all know "casual gamers only play Wii Sports" and all that stuff. What does it mean to third parties? It means that they'd sell just about the same amount of software anyway! So why bother investing even more money into the console? Just to make "expanded audience games", that's not what they're good at, and to which the power of the Wii wouldn't have mattered at all? They might have made that investment for the slight chance that at least a small part of the expanded audience bought into their ports or their 'bridge games'. Could it have worked? You couldn't have blamed the developers if they hadn't believed that.

In conclusion, all this reasoning makes me think that a more powerful Wii wouldn't have changed anything, for Nintendo as much as for third parties. I believe the Wiimote (and the online system for the American market) is a much more significant barrier in comparison.

Sorry for my English.
 
Jun 11, 2006
9,239
0
0
wazoo said:
MS lose billions with the X360. How do you see these loss coming from if they were close to be even in 2006 not even talking about the 1B$ provision due to heat problems (I am not saying they are not profitable now).

Notice that in the same article you pointed out, MS own voice was only hoping to be cost neutral over the life of the X360 (no loss on average over the whole lifespan of the X360). This is not very compatible with almost breaking even in 2006 4 years ago.
I'm assuming that Nintendo wouldn't be pissing away money the way Microsoft did. The margins on hardware aren't the only reason Nintendo was making money and Microsoft wasn't.
 

ViperVisor

Member
Jun 20, 2007
8,019
0
905
#761
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22720287&postcount=761

Amir0x said:
Again, a true foundation is not built based on launch-year software, which is almost uniformly buggy and shitty across all platforms (as it was on Wii). People stick around because they know the future might offer something different.
If a foundation isn't built at the beginning then the notion is non-existent and just a meaningless buzzword. People who want different are likely not going to buy a system then play the waiting game.

Amir0x said:
Nintendo however had the Wii pegged from the gate as a system that catered toward a specific set of games, and all their marketing, game development focus and developer support suggested this precise same thing. Any consumer would have made the same logical conclusion.
This is a inverse blind spot. There was no precise element to the Wii. NES came out 20 years ago. Videogames are a fact of entertainment. The marketing should aim at the edges. Game development wasn't radically shifted and absence of evidence of dev support isn't evidence.

Amir0x said:
There was never a foundation because Nintendo never built it, nor wanted it.
Repeat of Nintendo not making games they did and making them out to be a evil genius.

Amir0x said:
You'll forgive me for calling bullshit. The idea that pointer controls - which are a shoddy, mid-level improvement at best over traditional controllers which are functionally worse than keyboard+mouse controls - magically LIT UP this entire genre for you (despite the games being corroded, horrible ports) which you were bored at is typical abused spouse behavior.

If all it took was "better controls" to make you interested in FPS again, then you should have been always interested in it - on the PC. But you're suggesting that you were bored across the board, and that this stop-gap pointing solution which isn't even close to as good KB+M and only incrementally superior than the typical controller magically changed your whole mind about the genre.

So magically that you were willing to take the fact that the developer was clearly gimping the shit out of the title because of the Wii's horrendously limited functionality.

That is someone who likes abuse, period. Anyone whose issue was controls in FPS would have moved to PC gaming, and anyone who hated the way traditional controllers functioned would not turn to shitty ports with poor gameplay propped up by the barest attempt at Wiimote immersion.
It's complex. PC is certainly more in the FPS area but more isn't better for everyone. Precision is a hook but the feel of the remote engages some more. It is true that the stuff that trickles down is far from great; but I see a gap that optimally would of been filled as the traditional shooters have continued to climb in complexity and competitiveness.

Amir0x said:
They simply should develop the good shit for platforms that do want their stuff. That's PS360PC.
Been said before but self-fulfilling prophecy.

Amir0x said:
Because it has the features hardcore gamers want, the power hardcore gamers want and because Sony and Microsoft marketed it that way.
Self-fulfilling again due to $400-$500 pricing.

Amir0x said:
And because developers can port across all platforms with ease. The biggest mistake for gimping the shit out of Wii's power was this.

In the end, what motivation exactly did these developers have to even START putting their biggest effort on Wii? Nintendo showed no desire for their support, and Sony and Microsoft did. And occasionally... they even paid for it.
It was different as it was taking out the power difference. Mapping Madden or whatever from the 4 button 4 trigger 2 click sticks to the Wii is hard to impossible.

Amir0x said:
Trying to say it's even mostly developers fault is hilarious reflexive fanboy bullshit, in my opinion. Nintendo did not support developers, did not care about them, they marketed their system a certain way and their own software reflected that. For the first two years the Wii was a horrible thing for hardcore gamers. Again, there was no foundation built.
We don't know what Nintendo did to try are remedy a difficult situation. Reinventing history again with what Nintendo made for Wii the fist 24 months.

Amir0x said:
Nintendo defines how consumers look at the Wii, not other developers. They had to lead the way. They did lead the way - to a paradise of casual tardware which developers have no interest in making (or when they do, they make it poorly). Because it's NOT IN THEIR DNA. And they shouldn't have to lower their standards to such a catastrophically low place simply because Nintendo doesn't focus on it.
Nintendo would like to define their stuff and try. They are the #1 influence but they can't just make it so. Once again I believe your characterization of Nintendo games is flat out wrong.
Don't doubt that this is in the mind of them but it is disrespectful along the peasants line of thinking.
 

farnham

Banned
Nov 18, 2006
18,018
0
0
35
Germany (Bayern)
ITA84 said:
Even if it were possible for Nintendo to make competitive hardware spec-wise, I think they wouldn't have made it anyway because of software. Third party invested in the other two consoles early on, and that's something Nintendo couldn't have changed (except by buying exclusives; they'd have needed a lot of money for that, given their situation back then).

Assuming the Wii+ could have met with as much success as the Wii did (very unlikely, since the Wii was supply constained already and a more powerful console would have hurt even more), third party developers would have had another incentive to port their games to it; Epic might even have had UE3 ported to it. But even then, the Wii+ would still have the same difficulties as the PS3 in terms of ease of programming (most western-developed games are developed for the X360 and then ported over); dev kits probably wouldn't have been as cheap either. Third parties would have had to invest more and still need some time to get up to speed, and all of this for what? More sales overall?

This leads me to the very last point: a lot of people seem to believe that the Wii could have sold more third party software to the expanded audience, which is a pretty big assumption, if not a right out impossibility. Think about it... The Wii could have gathered more support only by 'stealing' sales from the other consoles, because we all know "casual gamers only play Wii Sports" and all that stuff. What does it mean to third parties? It means that they'd sell just about the same amount of software anyway! So why bother investing even more money into the console? Just to make "expanded audience games", that's not what they're good at, and to which the power of the Wii wouldn't have mattered at all? They might have made that investment for the slight chance that at least a small part of the expanded audience bought into their ports or their 'bridge games'. Could it have worked? You couldn't have blamed the developers if they hadn't believed that.

In conclusion, all this reasoning makes me think that a more powerful Wii wouldn't have changed anything, for Nintendo as much as for third parties. I believe the Wiimote (and the online system for the American market) is a much more significant barrier in comparison.

Sorry for my English.
thats the wrong assumption

that nintendo successfully proved wrong and third parties just dont seem to be able to
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,711
3
0
35
Nowhere, PA
farnham said:
thats the wrong assumption

that nintendo successfully proved wrong and third parties just dont seem to be able to
Another thing I always wonder about, since I see it mentioned (for DS too). Did Nintendo actually prove them wrong, or does Nintendo just have a stable of extremely successful core IPs that they can bandy about on any platform - successful or not - and provide a hit?

Let me rephrase that for specificity. Obviously, because the Wii is as successful as it is, Nintendo's core IPs are even more successful than normal... but I don't think them selling more Mario, Zelda or whatever is an indication that they've proved devs wrong and that there's a diverse hardcore market there.

Those IPs sell on any platform, whether it's a success or not. Because Wii has a wider audience it's naturally going to sell even more proportionate to the size of the base, but I don't think it's the indicator people like to claim it is.

Indeed, until I see one of Nintendo's NEW HARDCORE IPs grab this sort of attention, I do not believe they're proving third parties wrong. So far, that has NOT been the case. Indeed, any new hardcore IP they have had has failed.

I think the only bit of data we can get from this is that 99.9999% of all developer's don't have the stable of incredibly powerful time-proof brands, and Nintendo DOES. And this is genuinely beyond developer's control... they can't go back in time and ingratiate themselves with consumers from childhood. They have to start new or attempt to bring one of their own IPs, which they already have a platform to do that on (PS360PC). And building a new IP from scratch is infinitely harder than a competitor who already has those IPs built for twenty years
 

Proven

Member
Jan 19, 2007
7,241
0
0
Amir0x said:
Another thing I always wonder about. Did Nintendo actually prove them wrong, or does Nintendo just have a stable of extremely successful core IPs that they can bandy about on any platform - successful or not - and provide a hit?

Let me rephrase that for specificity. Obviously, because the Wii is as successful as it is, Nintendo's core IPs are even more successful than normal... but I don't think them selling more Mario, Zelda or whatever is an indication that they've proved devs wrong and that there's a diverse hardcore market there.

Those IPs sell on any platform, whether it's a success or not. Because Wii has a wider audience it's naturally going to sell even more proportionate to the size of the base, but I don't think it's the indicator people like to claim it is.

Indeed, until I see one of Nintendo's NEW HARDCORE IPs grab this sort of attention, I do not believe they're proving third parties wrong. So far, that has NOT been the case. Indeed, any new hardcore IP they have had has failed.

I think the only bit of data we can get from this is that 99.9999% of all developer's don't have the stable of incredibly powerful time-proof brands, and Nintendo DOES. And this is genuinely beyond developer's control... they can't go back in time and ingratiate themselves with consumers from childhood.
I know you're not making this argument, but my gut tells me that if I were to agree with this, then I'd have to say Nintendo isn't very good at making hardcore games. They make games that people can play hardcore like, but actual hardcore games with their name on it they have to send to second parties (Metroid Prime, Last Story, etc.)

From there, although they can bring in gamers of all types onto the system, they're still completely beholden to third parties to getting hardcore gamers onto the system, unlike the other two console owners.

Which is really the problem. The closest Nintendo gets to hardcore titles is with RPGs and second parties. They never want to go all the way in that direction. And hardly anyone is willing to do it for them. But not only must you bring people to the system, you must provide the types of games that will curtail the type of audience on your system.
 

Penguin

Member
Jun 15, 2004
32,800
0
1,530
www.nerdsontherocks.com
Amir0x said:
Another thing I always wonder about, since I see it mentioned (for DS too). Did Nintendo actually prove them wrong, or does Nintendo just have a stable of extremely successful core IPs that they can bandy about on any platform - successful or not - and provide a hit?

Let me rephrase that for specificity. Obviously, because the Wii is as successful as it is, Nintendo's core IPs are even more successful than normal... but I don't think them selling more Mario, Zelda or whatever is an indication that they've proved devs wrong and that there's a diverse hardcore market there.

Those IPs sell on any platform, whether it's a success or not. Because Wii has a wider audience it's naturally going to sell even more proportionate to the size of the base, but I don't think it's the indicator people like to claim it is.

Indeed, until I see one of Nintendo's NEW HARDCORE IPs grab this sort of attention, I do not believe they're proving third parties wrong. So far, that has NOT been the case. Indeed, any new hardcore IP they have had has failed.

I think the only bit of data we can get from this is that 99.9999% of all developer's don't have the stable of incredibly powerful time-proof brands, and Nintendo DOES. And this is genuinely beyond developer's control... they can't go back in time and ingratiate themselves with consumers from childhood. They have to start new or attempt to bring one of their own IPs, which they already have a platform to do that on (PS360PC). And building a new IP from scratch is infinitely harder than a competitor who already has those IPs built for twenty years
Well I know this is a whole another can of worms, but what "new" IPs did they have this gen that sold poorly?

At least out in the States.

Punch-Out did well. I think ExciteTruck did, but Excitebots didn't.

And I'm drawing a blank on the rest. I would assume Sin and Punishment didn't do too well.

I guess to your point, nothing that sold well on the Wii was surprising. Not that sold poorly from them was too surprising either, or maybe people had different expectations for em.
 

Boombloxer

Member
Dec 5, 2008
9,265
0
775
Los Angeles
Did Nintendo actually prove them wrong, or does Nintendo just have a stable of extremely successful core IPs that they can bandy about on any platform - successful or not - and provide a hit?
I think it's more the second one. The market isn't there for those titles the way it is on other platforms, and part of that is Nintendo's fault. It was never marketed as a hardcore machine.

Obviously, they've sold gangbusters, so it doesn't matter now, but when places do analysis of competitors, market, and internal efforts, just about all of the analysis I've seen says similar things--they don't think a market is there, they have examples of some titles doing badly, and that's that. You get a dance game. Or a puzzle game. Or <insert casual title here>.

There are also other factors, like internal resources and being able to honestly look at your dev teams and judge if its better to have them work on a shooter for two consoles or an adventure game for one.

I don't know if its "done", but I think the days of hoping for that hardcore Wii-centric title is. Epic Mickey looks great, and seeing that makes me wonder how Project H.A.M.M.E.R. would've turned out.
 

onipex

Member
Jan 3, 2008
3,294
15
1,010
Proven said:
I know you're not making this argument, but my gut tells me that if I were to agree with this, then I'd have to say Nintendo isn't very good at making hardcore games. They make games that people can play hardcore like, but actual hardcore games with their name on it they have to send to second parties (Metroid Prime, Last Story, etc.)

From there, although they can bring in gamers of all types onto the system, they're still completely beholden to third parties to getting hardcore gamers onto the system, unlike the other two console owners.

Which is really the problem. The closest Nintendo gets to hardcore titles is with RPGs and second parties. They never want to go all the way in that direction. And hardly anyone is willing to do it for them. But not only must you bring people to the system, you must provide the types of games that will curtail the type of audience on your system.

I don't see why it is a problem that Nintendo does not try to make m rated games. You guys say hardcore , but I take that you really mean m rated since Nintendo does make hardcore games. Nintendo does what they are good at.

I think even if they did decide to make a first party m rated game that was successful it would still be dismissed because it is a Nintendo game.
 

Boombloxer

Member
Dec 5, 2008
9,265
0
775
Los Angeles
onipex said:
I don't see why it is a problem that Nintendo does not try to make m rated games. You guys say hardcore , but I take that you really mean m rated since Nintendo does make hardcore games. Nintendo does what they are good at.

I think even if they did decide to make a first party m rated game that was successful it would still be dismissed because it is a Nintendo game.
No way. I'd love to try a stealth/spy action game from them, precisely because they'd be the ones making it.

I'm not sure anyone could really dismiss it because of that. If it looked/played bad, ok, but if they announced they were making I dunno, "Onyx Chamber" or something like that, I'd be interested to see what they could do.
 

Indyana

Member
Sep 18, 2009
711
0
0
Amir0x said:
Another thing I always wonder about, since I see it mentioned (for DS too). Did Nintendo actually prove them wrong, or does Nintendo just have a stable of extremely successful core IPs that they can bandy about on any platform - successful or not - and provide a hit?
I think it's safe to assume that there's an overlap between the people that like Nintendo core games and the people that like third party core games.

You can see it in the forum, and you can/could see it in other Nintendo systems. Of course, the overlap seems smaller now, because of the diminishing third party support and the bigger importance of the western games. But in Japan you can see that there's an overlap between Wii and PS3 core gamers. Sengoku Musou 3 sold 121k (Media Create) the first week and 277k LTD (Famitsu). Sengoku Basara 3 Wii version sold only 50k last week (Media Create).
 

Proven

Member
Jan 19, 2007
7,241
0
0
onipex said:
I don't see why it is a problem that Nintendo does not try to make m rated games. You guys say hardcore , but I take that you really mean m rated since Nintendo does make hardcore games. Nintendo does what they are good at.

I think even if they did decide to make a first party m rated game that was successful it would still be dismissed because it is a Nintendo game.
No, I mean hardcore. I'm playing the hell out of Monster Hunter Tri right now, recently rented Sin and Punishment 2, and the last game that came even close to these in an involved and difficult type of gameplay that I can recall right now is Muramasa: The Demon Blade.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
Oct 30, 2007
12,846
1
1,050
i agree with Amirox that Nintendo did not successfully release a new core IP this generation. Maybe they know the audience best huh?

Familiar core IPs with a hint of nostalgia are the ones that did will on the system. (which is why I always mention that a normal RE game and SF4 should have been released on the platform)

The truth is that the core audience of the wii is probably just a slighly expanded version of the gamecube's core audience. The rest of the audience is probably a mix of ps2 era casuals (mario kart, guitar hero, nsmb) and expanded audience gamers.
 

Proven

Member
Jan 19, 2007
7,241
0
0
amtentori said:
i agree with Amirox that Nintendo did not successfully release a new core IP this generation. Maybe they know the audience best huh?

Familiar core IPs with a hint of nostalgia are the ones that did will on the system. (which is why I always mention that a normal RE game and SF4 should have been released on the platform)

The truth is that the core audience of the wii is probably just a slighly expanded version of the gamecube's core audience. The rest of the audience is probably a mix of ps2 era casuals (mario kart, guitar hero, nsmb) and expanded audience gamers.
The thing is, many of the PS2 era casuals would have bought games like Final Fantasy and Resident Evil if they were done properly on the Wii. So yeah, I agree with you.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
Oct 30, 2007
12,846
1
1,050
Proven said:
The thing is, many of the PS2 era casuals would have bought games like Final Fantasy and Resident Evil if they were done properly on the Wii. So yeah, I agree with you.
i definitely agree.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Jun 1, 2009
7,243
185
1,090
Like this thread - Amir0x's original is where I cut my GAF teeth.

It’s really two questions. Whether there is strong potential for third parties on the Wii, and whether they will take the opportunity. (There’s a subsidiary question, which is whether Nintendo should have done more for third parties in the early days – but I don’t find that particularly interesting as any answers just come with too much hindsight).

Third party potential on Wii

My particular hobbyhorses on this topic are in this post

Nothing much seems to have changed since. In particular there’s no evidence that third parties have grasped the nettle, and their approach seems to be governed by three misperceptions: that the Wii is underpowered; that the Wii audience is intractable and incomprehensible; and that the Wii will soon be replaced. All of these are wrong.

The Wii isn’t underpowered for what its audience wants, only for what the developers (who geared up for HD systems) want. It’s the audience that is important for sales.

The audience isn’t intractable – it is just a whole load of ordinary people. The problem the third parties have is their marketing departments are geared to marketing to gamers and have no knowledge of marketing to normal people like pretty well every marketing department everywhere else does.

The Wii will be around a long time. Claiming it won’t be is just another excuse for not doing anything, like ‘it will bomb’ (because it’s underpowered), ‘it is a fad’ (because it sells well), ‘it is just casuals’ (because the audience is growing in unexpected directions). Lame excuses the whole lot of them.

The potential is out there, it is ripe for the picking even now, and it is beyond belief that third parties are not taking advantage of it. It is not as if there’s a whole lot of competition out there. Even Nintendo. There’s a whole load of areas that Nintendo doesn’t go into.

Will anyone bite the bullet?

Probably not. There are too many mantras around that third party on Wii is doomed for the guys in suits to be persuaded, too many analysts still briefing against the Wii, too many shareholders not putting the right sort of pressure on their boards, too many people blowing smoke.

Even now there is enormous potential to expand the market, but I can’t see it coming from the traditional third party companies unless they are persuaded to do so by others – by educationists, by writers, by schools, lawyers, film-makers, artists, sportsmen, historians, scientists, tourist agencies and so on and so forth.

What happens next?

Well, there’s the whole business of how much the market will fragment through Move and Kinect, so the HD twins become less of twins, there’s the question of next time round whether third parties will be able to so blithely ignore Nintendo, there’s the shift from living room to handheld (and the strong potential of the porn market on 3DS), there's the enormous uncertainty of 'what the fuck will Nintendo do next?' (hey, you don't get that feeling from MS or Sony do you?).

And of course, there is the possibility, however slim it may seem, that some third party somewhere will make an absolute killing on Wii through taking its potential seriously. If one of them does, especially if it is an outsider, then maybe the rest of them will hang their heads in shame instead of hiding behind excuses.
 

Jokeropia

Member
May 15, 2006
6,556
0
0
Proven said:
I know you're not making this argument, but my gut tells me that if I were to agree with this, then I'd have to say Nintendo isn't very good at making hardcore games. They make games that people can play hardcore like, but actual hardcore games with their name on it they have to send to second parties (Metroid Prime, Last Story, etc.)
Retro Studios is a Nintendo first party.
Proven said:
No, I mean hardcore. I'm playing the hell out of Monster Hunter Tri right now, recently rented Sin and Punishment 2, and the last game that came even close to these in an involved and difficult type of gameplay that I can recall right now is Muramasa: The Demon Blade.
Well, getting 100% in SMG2 or NSMB: Wii involves some pretty hardcore gameplay.