Support NeoGAF

[gantz85]

Then do what Microsoft did. Contract them for new IP's instead (I.E. Lost Planet, Dead Rising, Infinite Undiscovery, Saints Row, etc.) If Nintendo states that they'll aid them if they create a AAA IP its a near win-win situation for a developer. They get a shot at expanding their brand as well as adding a killer IP to their existing list.

A few of these games (like 6 in total) would have really gotten things kicking and started this generation for Nintendo. Hopefully they wise up and do it next generation.

I mean if Nintendo offers gaming for the 15-35 tech savvy male demographic as well as games for everyone else they'd have everything on lock down and the PS3 and 360 would be mere niche consoles only for people who want high end tech that are too scared to venture in PC gaming (something that isn't a problem outside of North America and Japan). If you think the Wii is killing the PS3/360 NOW, imagine if Nintendo also grabbed SONY's and Microsoft's premiere userbase as well.

New IP route is an option, but these top development companies have limited staff and can only produce so much in one year. If they choose to work with Nintendo there is the opportunity cost of working on and releasing another game of their own, which may be an AAA title or not, on consoles which already have proven audience for them. There is still moneyhatting needed to be done in my opinion, and not necessarily small hats.

I definitely think Nintendo can do more with third parties even now at this point in the generation.


But the idea of them permanently crippling or heavily handicapping Sony/Microsoft for the next generation is virutally impossible. There already have been huge third-party successes on these consoles and the audience have already been "locked in" into PS360. If Nintendo managed to do this at the start of the generation that would be a different case, but then again it couldn't because Wii was disruptive innovation and a risk.

Honestly, the only thing it can do is expand its userbase and tastes and get the hardcore on PS360 to overlap onto the Wii. Any idea about handicapping/destroying Sony/Microsoft can only be done the next generation. Too late for this one.

 

[Sadist]

Then do what Microsoft did. Contract them for new IP's instead (I.E. Lost Planet, Dead Rising, Infinite Undiscovery, Saints Row, etc.) If Nintendo states that they'll aid them if they create a AAA IP its a near win-win situation for a developer. They get a shot at expanding their brand as well as adding a killer IP to their existing list.

Capcom 5 something something.

 

[magash]

Moneyhatting is a.. goddamn I'm losing my clarity of thought although I can still see my logic :lol

Put it this way.

If I moneyhat AAA games, I get more console sales. I get to cockblock the opponents and damage their hardware share in the market. Eventually I want to maneuver myself into a position where I am absolute king in hardware share and there is no longer any moneyhat needed -- in fact, the third parties cannot choose anything apart from release their games on my console because I own the market. Now as a monopoly or sorts of, I can dick around and manipulate the market.


No one is using moneyhat as a long-term strategy. They're maneuvering themselves into a more favorable leadership position on the market. There are still very legitimate reasons to employ the moneyhatting strategy.

Tell that to M$ cuz thats their strategy this gen. They are monehatting games,DLC and closing internal studios instead of strengthening them. M$ stategy of money hatting isnt good because games you acquire through exclusive deals can appear on rival consoles(eg Ninja gaiden 2).

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Capcom 5 something something.

Nintendo should make sure to get Resident Evil exclusives, Metal Gear Solid, Soul Calibur, and Tales. Let Sega and Namco work on some of their IPs. Get a new exclusive Namco RPG series. With that and all of Nintendo's own popular franchises, things will be popping.

 

[gantz85]

Tell that to M$ cuz thats their strategy this gen. They are monehatting games,DLC and closing internal studios instead of strengthening them. M$ stategy of money hatting isnt good because games you acquire through exclusive deals can appear on rival consoles(eg Ninja gaiden 2).

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=2&cId=3172491

"There are many people in the industry that know nothing about games. In particular, a large American company is trying to do engulf software houses with money, but I don't believe that will go well. It looks like they'll sell their game system next year, but we'll see the answer to that the following year."

- Legendary Nintendo loudmouth, Hiroshi Yamauchi, in an "Oh shit!" moment


Yamauchi was referring to Microsoft, by the way. Everyone knows their strategy for this generation, and of course they have huge pockets. MS's strategy, in my opinion, has worked wonders for them in this generation both for Japan and globally. Closing internal studios and buying out surefire hit AAA exclusives (SKUs or content) has reaped big rewards -- see preferential treatment or exclusivity for COD4, GTA4, Fallout3, etc.

Microsoft can always set up internal studios later, and work on their own IPs.

They managed to eat into a LOT of Sony's hardware share this generation by wrestling away key IPs. Better to have spent that money on surefire third party hits (= more console sales) rather than place them in first party efforts that may not necessarily result in hits (e.g. RARE) although they do get to own the IP. Look at it this way -- if Sony did not fund Infamous, Uncharted, LBP and instead chose to use that money to lockdown GTA4, Assassin's Creed and other key titles as exclusive, will this generation look different? VERY.

Props, and I mean seriously big props to Microsoft. Outmaneuvered Sony.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

It is true that MHG for the Wii is basicly an old PS2 port, but MHG for the Wii also have a Monster Hunter 3 demo, one version of MHG for the Wii comes (or came at least) with a "special" (or maybe it is more correct to say "Limited Edition"?) Wii Classic Controller, and since the PS2 version of MHG came out, the Monster Hunter franchise has grown much in popularity.

Maybe someone started with the PSP version(s) of Monster Hunter and now wants to try a console version of Monster Hunter as well. They could get the PS2 version of course, but i would guess that it easier to find the Wii version in the stores in general I also think that MHG for the Wii has some exclusive content compared to the PS2 version if i am not mistaken. I mean that i read this here on NeoGAF at least.

But that said, i am sure that Capcom are satisified with the sales of MHG for the Wii. Afterall, it is an about 3 year old port from a PS2 game as you say. I am not saying anything negative about the MHG for the Wii sales just to underline that. I just wanted to mention some of the reasons might be why MHG for the Wii sells more than the PS2 version (at least so far), even of MHG for the Wii is a 3 year old port of the PS2 version

EDIT: I added some text.

You are right in that the Wii benefits from Monster Hunter G as Monster Hunter G does from the Wii. It's sales aren't exclusively due to the system its selling on. the crux of my argument with that example is that Monster Hunter is one (on a very short list) dedicated Wii game that is experiencing great sales.

As for gantz:

Where we differ is the point about AAA third-party titles on the Wii. I do agree with the point, as I expressed in a reply above, but I don't agree with that particular poster above trying to pin it down as the sole reason behind why third-party titles don't sell as well on the Wii. It is a reason; maybe even a big one, but I'm sure it's not all of it. My reasoning? Just different audiences on different systems. The hardcore composition on the PS3/360 are far higher than it is on the Wii.

Of course it is, these games aren't releasing on the Wii! That was the very problem I had with your argument in the first place!

Of course the PS3 and 360 versions of AAA games are going to outsell B and C Wii titles, they're B and C Wii titles! With this, the very attempt to compare the third party performance of the Wii to the PS3 one to one is flawed; from the beginning in Japan the PS3 has seen more muscle from third parties than the Wii ever has!

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

New IP route is an option, but these top development companies have limited staff and can only produce so much in one year. If they choose to work with Nintendo there is the opportunity cost of working on and releasing another game of their own, which may be an AAA title or not, on consoles which already have proven audience for them. There is still moneyhatting needed to be done in my opinion, and not necessarily small hats.

Then how did Microsoft do it? There will be room for some teams to work on a big project and if all else fails they'll most likely outsource. And money shouldn't be that big of an issue for Nintendo when its currently pouring in left and right.

I definitely think Nintendo can do more with third parties even now at this point in the generation.


But the idea of them permanently crippling or heavily handicapping Sony/Microsoft for the next generation is virutally impossible. There already have been huge third-party successes on these consoles and the audience have already been "locked in" into PS360. If Nintendo managed to do this at the start of the generation that would be a different case, but then again it couldn't because Wii was disruptive innovation and a risk.

Similar to saying that the Xbox's successor could in no way become the premier console for that said demographic in 2005 in which most believed?

Honestly, the only thing it can do is expand its userbase and tastes and get the hardcore on PS360 to overlap onto the Wii. Any idea about handicapping/destroying Sony/Microsoft can only be done the next generation. Too late for this one.

And overlapping userbases is handicapping SONY/Microsoft. The more Nintendo takes away the less they'll get. I do agree me saying "destroying" them was a too harsh of a word but if Nintendo plays their cards right they can really shrink SONY's and Microsoft's market share much further. And the more things that Nintendo offers the more likely people would prefer their platform over SONY's or Microsoft's. And how is it too late when the next generation hasn't even begun yet? Seriously the next generation is at a minimum of 2 years away.

Capcom 5 something something.

As I already stated most of those games weren't really AAA appealing games. And I'm referring to an exclusive game (2 at most) from a few publishers not an extravagant line-up.

 

[Dalthien]

It's the implicit backdrop to your argument below: "360 isn't winning, so it can't possibly be doing the best at thing X."

You misunderstood my words then. I fully agree with you that the 360 has had a better 3rd-party strategy than the Wii, even though the Wii is selling more 3rd-party software. As you said, the battle is close (right now), and different metrics can be used to come to different results in a close battle. Ultimately, I suspect that the Wii will eventually open up a pretty sizable gap in 3rd-party sales over the 360, and at that point I would probably have to give the nod to the Wii, but as of right now - yes, the 360 has had the better strategy even though it is currently selling less 3rd-party software.

What I was saying was that I find it incredibly difficult to imagine a scenario wherein a system's strategy could be called the best EVER, of all time, when it couldn't even produce the best results in it's own current battle. In that case, those metrics better be off-the-charts fucking blow-your-ass-away incredible.

Well, you didn't address my point about metrics. There are lots of ways that 360 can potentially be winning by metrics that a potential third-party developer would consider (average per-title sales, sales in relation to budget, projected sales boost from co-marketing, etc.) that wouldn't be reflected in total software sales numbers. It's possible to explain the 360's consistent lead in third-party development through stubbornness or irrationality, but it's also possible to assume that some of these factors are in play and greenlighting a 360 game is in some sense "better" than greenlighting a Wii game in a vacuum.

Well, are we talking about successful 3rd-party strategies for the actual 3rd-parties, or successful 3rd-party strategies for the home console manufacturer? Because it sounds like you are talking about successful strategies that benefit the 3rd-parties as your metrics, if those are the primary indicators that you are using. In that case, we have to start breaking it down to each individual publisher. What strategy was the best ever for EA? Or Activision? Or Koei? Or Square-Enix? And that is a much broader and more complicated discussion that I really have no interest in getting into.

If we are talking about successful 3rd-party strategies for the console manufacturer, then the primary goals for the manufacturer are to use a successful 3rd-party strategy to help sell systems, increase marketshare, and produce profitability. The metrics you listed are secondary indicators which can be used to try to judge a comparison between two strategies which produced fairly similar results. They are primary indicators for the 3rd-party publishers, but they are secondary indicators to the console manufacturer. The primary goals for the console manufacturer are ultimately related to marketshare and profitability.

There's also a context issue in play. Sony's third-party strategy was almost unquestionably the most effective, because they brought it into play at the right moment: there was a huge well of discontent with Nintendo, and Sony had the technical tools (i.e. optical media) to cut devs a huge deal.

Now we seem to be at the crux of the dispute between us. You admit that Sony's strategy was almost unquestionably the most effective. And I submit that results matter. A lot. That is why these strategies are in place. To produce results. At the end of the day, that is the ultimate barometer by which the effectiveness of a business strategy is judged. Did the strategy work? Did it produce the desired results?

In Sony's case with the PS1, the results speak for themselves. Phenomenal hardware sales, a virtually complete assemblance of all relevant 3rd-party efforts in that generation, a clear marketshare victory, and a very profitable generation for Sony.

We have to wait a few more years to judge the final results for the 360, but I'll go out on a limb and say that the 360 won't be the marketshare leader in any major market (not even close), there will be a sizable and significant number of quality 3rd-party properties which will be released on other systems but never make it to the 360 (or come over very late to the 360), and Microsoft will absorb a hefty and significant loss over the life of the 360.

The 1st-party efforts are roughly similar in overall effect on both the 360 and PS1. The star of the show on both systems is the 3rd-party output, and Sony achieved far better results with the PS1 than Microsoft did with the 360.

Now throw in the fact that the 360 is currently already losing the 3rd-party software sales battle to its own competitor (Wii) in North America, is quite possibly losing the 3rd-party software sales battle to both of its competitors (PS3, Wii) in Europe, and is definitely losing the 3rd-party software sales battle to both of its competitors (PS3, Wii) in Japan. And the 360 will likely lose the 3rd-party software sales battle to the Wii by a significant margin in North America by the end of the generation. I just don't see any rational means for stating that the 360 has had a better 3rd-party strategy than Sony did with the PS1. Especially when you admit yourself that Sony's 3rd-party strategy was almost (I personally wouldn't add the word 'almost') unquestionably the most effective. What is the point of a strategy if not to produce results?

Microsoft's strategy is just a refinement of Sony's; they're using the same basic tools but they've done a slightly better job overall in identifying good pick-ups and building ongoing relationships, and they don't have quite as much cross-interference between different regional HQs. But Sony's PSX third-party strategy was paired with an excellently-priced system going up against anemic competition, whereas Microsoft paired its strategy to an overpriced system with terrible reliability that's up against the Wii juggernaut.

You use things such as the 360 being overpriced and unreliable as excuses for the 360. I suggest that these are important components of the 3rd-party strategy.

Setting your price at a consumer-friendly level is a very important aspect of a 3rd-party strategy if you want 3rd-parties to feel comfortable knowing that they will have a significant userbase to sell to. Making your hardware reliable is also an important aspect of your 3rd-party strategy. Again, this relates to the size of the userbase, and the ability of those customers to have a functioning system for which they can buy games - which relates directly to 3rd-party interests. The fact that Microsoft messed up these two aspects tells me that Microsoft dropped the ball on these two aspects of their 3rd-party strategy. They aren't excuses to be dismissed in order to allow Microsoft to be able to lay claim to the best 3rd-party strategy ever - they are in fact failed components of the 360's 3rd-party strategy.

Likewise, Sony choosing to switch over to optical media for the PS1 is not an excuse to be used to deny Sony the claim to best 3rd-party strategy ever. In fact, Sony's choice of optical media was a huge and vitally important piece of Sony's 3rd-party strategy. And it is a big part of why Sony's PS1 had a more effective 3rd-party strategy than the 360.

I think the real sticking point for me here is that I don't actually see any reason that effectively courting third parties would have had to detract from any of Nintendo's numerous positive steps with the Wii. Third party relations are generally dealt with by a separate division within a company compared to managing first-party development (and I think there's lots of wiggle room between where Wii's 3rd party support is now, and the point at which it starts to interfere with 1st party titles' success), and Nintendo is not operating in a cash-limited or deficit-spending situation in which they are unable to afford an increase in expenditure on worthwhile tasks.

Generally speaking, I'm not disagreeing with you. Yes, it would have been preferable for Nintendo to have pursued a (financially tenable) 3rd-party strategy which would have worked out better than the strategy with which they started this generation.

In an ideal scenario, they would have put just as much energy and passion into developing their 3rd-party strategy as they did with developing the controls, or the design and pricing of the Wii, or the 1st-party software strategy for the first 18 months of the Wii, or the marketing strategy for the Wii, etc. But life doesn't work that way. In real life, an overarching strategy is conceived wherein priorities are placed, and some things get more focus and attention than others.

Nintendo conceived their overarching strategy for the Wii, and looking at it now 2.5 years into it, all of the primary business goals for the Wii have been achieved, and even greatly surpassed. In that context, the strategy has worked better than could have ever been hoped for. So going back and trying to nitpick particular elements of the strategy seems counterproductive. Change the focus on the 3rd-party element of the strategy, and it is quite likely that the focus on another element of the strategy would have been reduced. And I would suggest that many of the other portions of the strategy were far more important in the Wii's success than the 3rd-party strategy.

 

[gantz85]

Of course it is, these games aren't releasing on the Wii! That was the very problem I had with your argument in the first place!

Of course the PS3 and 360 versions of AAA games are going to outsell B and C Wii titles, they're B and C Wii titles! With this, the very attempt to compare the third party performance of the Wii to the PS3 one to one is flawed; from the beginning in Japan the PS3 has seen more muscle from third parties than the Wii ever has!

Why selectively respond? What about my reply about budgets and global development costs?

Also, your logic is not sound although I can see your point.. Your point is just not put across with the appropriate qualifiers. You can definitely compare third party performance of Wii to PS3, they are NUMBERS. Why can't we compare them? However, you're making the point that if the Wii had similiar third-party support to PS360 then the numbers for Wii would be different. I agree.

But the Wii was disruptive tech and a risk. No one in their right mind would have risked their AAA titles exclusively developed for Wii.

So right now the Wii is the market leader. But what KIND of market does it have? Does it have the same kind of audience from PS360 such that developing hardcore AAA games for Wii as PS360 have received, will guarantee similar or even better sales performances? (MadWorld for all its hype bombed, but yes it's not an established franchise).

Would it make sense for third parties to develop exclusive AAA titles for the Wii? Not necessarily, not at this point in the generation when their audiences have already moved to PS360.

Would it make sense for Nintendo to "work" with developers to get exclusive AAA titles on the Wii? Yes, yes it would because it would help them.


So the impetus is, I think, on Nintendo to approach the devs and cake'em up.

 

[birdchili]

And how is it too late when the next generation hasn't even begun yet? Seriously the next generation is at a minimum of 2 years away.

this gen is making a lot of analysts look silly. that said:

- new ip is typically created early in the gen, and sequelled later. japanese game companies did this on ps360 already this gen.

- a large chunk of the big ip from last gen had their big budget sequels released on ps360 already this gen.

i'm inclined to think that monster hunter is a potential hit, and dq will obviously sell well when it releases, but these aren't indicative of any sort of general trend. they're notable because they're lonely examples of this sort of thing.

 

[magash]

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=2&cId=3172491

"There are many people in the industry that know nothing about games. In particular, a large American company is trying to do engulf software houses with money, but I don't believe that will go well. It looks like they'll sell their game system next year, but we'll see the answer to that the following year."

- Legendary Nintendo loudmouth, Hiroshi Yamauchi, in an "Oh shit!" moment


Yamauchi was referring to Microsoft, by the way. Everyone knows their strategy for this generation, and of course they have huge pockets. MS's strategy, in my opinion, has worked wonders for them in this generation both for Japan and globally. Closing internal studios and buying out surefire hit AAA exclusives (SKUs or content) has reaped big rewards -- see preferential treatment or exclusivity for COD4, GTA4, Fallout3, etc.

Microsoft can always set up internal studios later, and work on their own IPs.

They managed to eat into a LOT of Sony's hardware share this generation by wrestling away key IPs. Better to have spent that money on surefire third party hits (= more console sales) rather than place them in first party efforts that may not necessarily result in hits (e.g. RARE) although they do get to own the IP. Look at it this way -- if Sony did not fund Infamous, Uncharted, LBP and instead chose to use that money to lockdown GTA4, Assassin's Creed and other key titles as exclusive, will this generation look different? VERY.

Props, and I mean seriously big props to Microsoft. Outmaneuvered Sony.

There is a reason why Nintendo occupies the list of highest selling video games ever. Creating new IP's that sell alot is not a small feat. This gen alone Nintendo has created and published atleast 10 games that have outsold Halo3 and COD4

 

[Sadist]

Nintendo should make sure to get Resident Evil exclusives, Metal Gear Solid, Soul Calibur, and Tales. Let Sega and Namco work on some of their IPs. Get a new exclusive Namco RPG series. With that and all of Nintendo's own popular franchises, things will be popping.

I agree. The question is, will Nintendo do it? That Tales game is allready there. Two infact.

As I already stated most of those games weren't really AAA appealing games. And I'm referring to an exclusive game (2 at most) from a few publishers not an extravagant line-up.

I didn't elaborate well enough of course, but somewhere I have this feeling Iwata is still kind of weary of securing games from third parties. Nintendo itself is doing great and there is huge potential, but even with Iwata in charge third parties still seem a bit cautious while working with Nintendo. So, mistrust from both sides.

 

[gantz85]

Then how did Microsoft do it? There will be room for some teams to work on a big project and if all else fails they'll most likely outsource. And money shouldn't be that big of an issue for Nintendo when its currently pouring in left and right.

Because the games Microsoft "moneyhatted"... are easily portable to the Playstation 3? Because it was done early in the generation?

Similar to saying that the Xbox's successor could in no way become the premier console for that said demographic in 2005 in which most believed?

Doesn't make sense

And overlapping userbases is handicapping SONY/Microsoft. The more Nintendo takes away the less they'll get. I do agree me saying "destroying" them was a too harsh of a word but if Nintendo plays their cards right they can really shrink SONY's and Microsoft's market share much further. And the more things that Nintendo offers the more likely people would prefer their platform over SONY's or Microsoft's. And how is it too late when the next generation hasn't even begun yet? Seriously the next generation is at a minimum of 2 years away.

But I don't think it's that simple a matter.. Audiences aren't necessarily going to migrate or Nintendo isn't exactly going to "take away" PS360 audiences

- ONLINE play (PS360 vs Wii)
- Graphics (PS360 vs Wii)

There's just a landscape already carved out for hardcore gamers and this also includes Trophies/Achievements, that Nintendo doesn't offer. They can't offer the same and the audience won't migrate.


The generation talk.. ugh.. I was referring to this one.. :lol I'm saying if they want to really shrink Sony/MSFT's share in the market it would have to be the next generation, it's just simply not going to happen this generation. Even if they secure the appropriate 3rd party exclusives, in my opinion.

 

[ksamedi]

Capcom is developing the only third party title that can give significant sales momentum and that game is coming to the Wii. So that must count for something

Seriously though, third parties should support the Wii if they want to save themselves and make money. Nintendo only needs to make the environment third party friendly by giving some incentive. We can't know what Iwata did in this area. What we do know is that Nintendo has done its biggest part in this, and that is to sell consoles. Now they need to release the next big hit title to fire up the sales again. Sales threads are becoming boring with numbers like these. I miss the "DS is on fire" days.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Why selectively respond? What about my reply about budgets and global development costs?

You've selectively quoted me on more than one occasion. While you do have a point about MGS4s budget being split globally, we're talking Japanese sales. My first reply was specific to what you said earlier.

Also, your logic is not sound although I can see your point.. Your point is just not put across with the appropriate qualifiers. You can definitely compare third party performance of Wii to PS3, they are NUMBERS. Why can't we compare them? However, you're making the point that if the Wii had similiar third-party support to PS360 then the numbers for Wii would be different. I agree.

You can compare numbers absolutely, but that's not what you were doing. Your argument was:

Third parties do better on PS3/360 despite Wii's larger userbase

Which is disingenuous because of the types of titles releasing on both consoles. Of course third parties are doing better; the support for the 360/Ps3 is better than Wiis support. Were the market equal and this statement made, I would have no argument. But that's not the case. Winning eleven was a perfect example: How many Wii versions are going to sell when the PS3/360, and Ps2 version could be had months earlier? You can't say "all else equal" when it clearly isn't.

But the Wii was disruptive tech and a risk. No one in their right mind would have risked their AAA titles exclusively developed for Wii.

I'm not saying they would have. Like I said earlier in this thread, third parties left Nintendo for dead at the start of this gen, mainly because of the Gamecube's worldwide performance, and Nintendo surprised them. My only argument is that the onus is on third parties to back the right horse, not Nintendo's. Nintendo's only responsibility (which in turn was Sony's only responsibility with the Playstation and again Nintendo's with the NES) was to guarantee a healthy platform for development.

Hindsight is 20/20, because people are now saying Nintendo should have kowtowed to devs at the start of the gen. I say that would have been fruitless, as Nintendo wouldn't have gotten much for their efforts anyway.

So right now the Wii is the market leader. But what KIND of market does it have? Does it have the same kind of audience from PS360 such that developing hardcore AAA games for Wii as PS360 have received, will guarantee similar or even better sales performances? (MadWorld for all its hype bombed, but yes it's not an established franchise).

the Wii has the market lead, and 3rd parties that aren't developing for it are suffering as a result. I can ask you the same question reversed; what market does the PS3 have? In Japan, it has done nothing but reap the benefits of its forefathers, and what does it have to show for it?

Would it make sense for third parties to develop exclusive AAA titles for the Wii? Not necessarily, not at this point in the generation when their audiences have already moved to PS360.

I agree.

Would it make sense for Nintendo to "work" with developers to get exclusive AAA titles on the Wii? Yes, yes it would because it would help them.

Again, I agree. The fallacy here though, is that Nintendo doesn't have to do this as much as third parties should naturally endeavor to work with Nintendo. Why third parties aren't doing this, even to their detriment, is beyond me.

So the impetus is, I think, on Nintendo to approach the devs and cake'em up.

Moneyhats have been, and always will be, bad for the industry. I couldn't disagree more.

 

[gantz85]

You've selectively quoted me on more than one occasion. While you do have a point about MGS4s budget being split globally, we're talking Japanese sales. My first reply was specific to what you said earlier.

...

Oh well.

You were also a very large twat before I was the bigger man and prevented this from being a fanboy war.

 

[Spirit Icana]

Nintendo should make sure to get Resident Evil exclusives, Metal Gear Solid, Soul Calibur, and Tales. Let Sega and Namco work on some of their IPs. Get a new exclusive Namco RPG series. With that and all of Nintendo's own popular franchises, things will be popping.

Spoiler

For some reason I think you're being sarcastic, but I'll play with this.

Ah, but for those original next gen installments, Nintendo played secret and nobody knew what Wii was until well after the 360 was out, and PS3 would line up nicely behind it in tech. Those games started development early for the next gen Xbox and Playstation. Nintendo would have to simply throw money around like Charlequin suggests and hope something sticks. They've got a ton of cash, so why not? Fact is, Iwata told us their intial plan, what was expected, and how things didn't go as planned in Japan. Obviously the US and Europe didn't face a simliar crisis as the console still faced shortages, thanks to Guitar Hero, Mario and Sonic, Rayman, etc, until recently. We can talk about how Nintendo should have chased third parties in the past, and I agree with dalthian in that relations is all they should be growing right now, but I believe that stuff is irrelevant for moving ahead.

Going by Iwata's investors meeting, Nintendo will continue to march ahead as they have been doing. They will up their game and third parties will follow on their own. Nintendo may lay advertisement money out for third parties on very few occasions, such as Dragon Quest X --established names that have system selling potential. Whatever third party title they decide to back, I doubt they'll be paying for exclusives anytime soon. They'll lend support and ask companies to join them for the most part.

bcn-ron, disruption is usually seen as a result, not an on-going process. However, the industry is showing a market ripe for it, such as core gamers throwing their arms up at Wii for drawing huge market share with simple games. Wii also launched out the gate at the cheapest price point. The other consoles are dropping prices and the Wii is still beating them. These are all signs of a disruptive product. Wii will likely not have a price cut in a very long time. Nintendo will try to heighten the system's value with bundles, colors, better games, whatever, before considering a price cut.

There is no doubt Nintendo is trying to disrupt the market. Reggie told us that much at E3 2007. And yes, things are different this time around compared to the PS2. The PS2 was also a DVD player at launch. That feature, and the consoles price point, all played a good role into that consoles initial success. The userbase rose high. Soon after, Sony got the good games, including their killer ape, GTA 3, rolling just in time to combat the competition, GCN and Xbox.

At E3, Nintendo will worry about their own software first. The third party situation is showing change as well, if but slowly. I think Nintendo's biggest goof-up's in Japan has been Wii Music and Animal Crossing. They let their competitors have an opening. Lucky for Nintendo, Wii lost traction but nobody as yet to take the ropes. I expect strong software to follow on Wii Sports Resort and Monster Hunter 3's back.

Pheonix, I think it's too late for Sony and Microsoft to release their alternative and turn the tides. We'll see. I'll give that notion the benefit of the doubt until E3 has come and gone. If their strategy remains the same, the market will favor Wii. If they decide to challenge Wii, it'll come down to the software. As far as software is concerned, Nintendo has an advantage in that area, as they are an integrated Software-Hardware house. It'll be interesting to watch someone challenge Nintendo.

Concerning ALL that money Nintendo has in the bank, they would be smart to reserve it for R&D for both their own software and hardware. They won't maximize profits by throwing money at third parties and hoping something sticks. They'd maximize it by making killer ape software of their own and having third parties join the Wii crusade on their own accord. To do that, they'll have to render the competition irrelevent to the market.

 

[RyuKanSan]

But didn't we hear just maybe a few months ago, that Nintendo bought a bunch of land outside of Osaka/Kyoto/Tokyo can't remember which, to build a new R&D facility closer to their own?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Oh well.

You were also a very large twat before I was the bigger man and prevented this from being a fanboy war.

I assure you, were this a fanboy war I would have been ranting and raving about Nintendo paying whatever amount possible to get games on the console I favor. Doesn't stop it from being a roundly poor business decision.

 

[magash]

But didn't we hear just maybe a few months ago, that Nintendo bought a bunch of land outside of Osaka/Kyoto/Tokyo can't remember which, to build a new R&D facility closer to their own?

That is another pproblem that 3rd partys have to work around...Nintendo expanding is very bad for the 3rd party devs

 

[Eteric Rice]

Spoiler

For some reason I think you're being sarcastic, but I'll play with this.

Ah, but for those original next gen installments, Nintendo played secret and nobody knew what Wii was until well after the 360 was out, and PS3 would line up nicely behind it in tech. Those games started development early for the next gen Xbox and Playstation. Nintendo would have to simply throw money around like Charlequin suggests and hope something sticks. They've got a ton of cash, so why not? Fact is, Iwata told us their intial plan, what was expected, and how things didn't go as planned in Japan. Obviously the US and Europe didn't face a simliar crisis as the console still faced shortages, thanks to Guitar Hero, Mario and Sonic, Rayman, etc, until recently. We can talk about how Nintendo should have chased third parties in the past, and I agree with dalthian in that relations is all they should be growing right now, but I believe that stuff is irrelevant for moving ahead.

Going by Iwata's investors meeting, Nintendo will continue to march ahead as they have been doing. They will up their game and third parties will follow on their own. Nintendo may lay advertisement money out for third parties on very few occasions, such as Dragon Quest X --established names that have system selling potential. Whatever third party title they decide to back, I doubt they'll be paying for exclusives anytime soon. They'll lend support and ask companies to join them for the most part.

bcn-ron, disruption is usually seen as a result, not an on-going process. However, the industry is showing a market ripe for it, such as core gamers throwing their arms up at Wii for drawing huge market share with simple games. Wii also launched out the gate at the cheapest price point. The other consoles are dropping prices and the Wii is still beating them. These are all signs of a disruptive product. Wii will likely not have a price cut in a very long time. Nintendo will try to heighten the system's value with bundles, colors, better games, whatever, before considering a price cut.

There is no doubt Nintendo is trying to disrupt the market. Reggie told us that much at E3 2007. And yes, things are different this time around compared to the PS2. The PS2 was also a DVD player at launch. That feature, and the consoles price point, all played a good role into that consoles initial success. The userbase rose high. Soon after, Sony got the good games, including their killer ape, GTA 3, rolling just in time to combat the competition, GCN and Xbox.

At E3, Nintendo will worry about their own software first. The third party situation is showing change as well, if but slowly. I think Nintendo's biggest goof-up's in Japan has been Wii Music and Animal Crossing. They let their competitors have an opening. Lucky for Nintendo, Wii lost traction but nobody as yet to take the ropes. I expect strong software to follow on Wii Sports Resort and Monster Hunter 3's back.

Pheonix, I think it's too late for Sony and Microsoft to release their alternative and turn the tides. We'll see. I'll give that notion the benefit of the doubt until E3 has come and gone. If their strategy remains the same, the market will favor Wii. If they decide to challenge Wii, it'll come down to the software. As far as software is concerned, Nintendo has an advantage in that area, as they are an integrated Software-Hardware house. It'll be interesting to watch someone challenge Nintendo.

Concerning ALL that money Nintendo has in the bank, they would be smart to reserve it for R&D for both their own software and hardware. They won't maximize profits by throwing money at third parties and hoping something sticks. They'd maximize it by making killer ape software of their own and having third parties join the Wii crusade on their own accord. To do that, they'll have to render the competition irrelevent to the market.

I don't think they should try to throw money at third parties, but I think they need to try to convince them to get key third party titles on the Wii. Persona, Tales of series, bigger Square-Enix games, etc. Games that people who buy a lot of games already want.

This would be to establish them as the go to console for older, liked games as well as new, innovative games.

 

[damisa]

The saddest thing about the wii, is that nintendo could have easily launched a profitable HD system with waggle for $300-350 and still have sold out everywhere. They would have then gotten games like RE5, DMC4, GTA4, etc. easily. It would have dominated hardware and software even more than the PS2 imo.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Nintendo got a mainline Tales, but they didn't get a Team Symphonia Tales. They're either working on a port or a new HD game, but either way, the arguably highest quality Tales games are not going to be on Wii.

It doesn't really matter if you get the big names if the developers aren't going to commit their best workers on it. Which, it seems, they are not going to do on the Wii no matter what. The biggest third party talent to do Wii development at this point has been, what, Platinum Games with MadWorld? Even then, their true stars have been mostly concentrating on a 360/PS3 game.

 

[Spirit Icana]

I don't think they should try to throw money at third parties, but I think they need to try to convince them to get key third party titles on the Wii. Persona, Tales of series, bigger Square-Enix games, etc. Games that people who buy a lot of games already want.

This would be to establish them as the go to console for older, liked games as well as new, innovative games.

I agree and I think they've been doing just that. Let's also remember that they've signed on companies like Treasure, Sandlot, and others to develop games like Dynamic Slash, Cosmic Walkers, Sin and Punishment, and even the recently released Takt of Magic for them. None of these are system sellers so they'll be support titles for Nintendo's next wave of games.

I'm sure they will lend out some of their IP's to an independant or third part as well, despite Miyamoto having implied that outside companies have been diluting some of their brands like Star Fox and F-Zero.

 

[charlequin]

Rather than continue in line-by-line mode I'm just gonna try to hit some highlights here.

You use things such as the 360 being overpriced and unreliable as excuses for the 360. I suggest that these are important components of the 3rd-party strategy.

If you define the strategy this broadly, though, you're essentially rendering "third-party strategy" synonymous with "overall market strategy" -- i.e. you're saying that the way to succeed is to sell lots of systems, the way to get third parties on board is to succeed, and so every factor in your overall console strategy is inherently a part of your third-party strategy. I think that obfuscates the specifics of how

I think it's fair to suggest that, for example, the decision to go with a reasonably high-powered design for 360, or to omit a standard HD, affects the package of system benefits being presented to devs upfront (before release), but after a certain point I think you have to cut things out of consideration. The shitty hardware of the 360 isn't a strategic decision at all, and the effect it has on third-party relations is only very tangentially, as news of it potentially reaches back and reduces system sell-through to people who are concerned about the problem.

But regardless, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to concede this definitional point. Instead of arguing that MS has the best third-party strategy ever, let's talk about my hypothetical proposal for best-ever strategy under your expanded definition: merging MS' third-party outreach/funding efforts with the Wii's being a system that sells a fuckton of units. :lol

Nintendo conceived their overarching strategy for the Wii, and looking at it now 2.5 years into it, all of the primary business goals for the Wii have been achieved, and even greatly surpassed.

This is my major point of difference here, I suspect. In terms of looking back at especially the first two years of the system's lifespan, absolutely; huge, drastic success. Looking at today, when the system is tanking (no softer word is appropriate here) in its home country and where softer sales, due to price saturation or recession or whatever, have at least proven possible again in the US, the Wii is for the first time in danger of sinking performance, and that (to me) is exactly the right time to look at areas the system has underperformed in (third-party development) rather than the areas that have remained pretty stellar (first-party software placement.)

Moneyhats have been, and always will be, bad for the industry. I couldn't disagree more.

It's very difficult for me to understand this line of thought. Is it because exclusives are bad? Because allowing titles that aren't necessarily economically feasible on their own to come out warps the market somehow? What?

 

[test_account]

You are right in that the Wii benefits from Monster Hunter G as Monster Hunter G does from the Wii. It's sales aren't exclusively due to the system its selling on. the crux of my argument with that example is that Monster Hunter is one (on a very short list) dedicated Wii game that is experiencing great sales.

Ok, i understand

What do you mean with "It's sales aren't exclusively due to the system its selling on" by the way?

 

[Opiate]

It's very difficult for me to understand this line of thought. Is it because exclusives are bad? Because allowing titles that aren't necessarily economically feasible on their own to come out warps the market somehow? What?

The latter, obviously. I doubt small moneyhats would do a great deal of harm, but significant ones with the size and frequency we've seen can create an environment that isn't sustainable long term. When subsidization becomes not only a bonus but a requirement for sustainable development, then the system is imbalanced.

Ideally, both hardware and software development would be self sustaining. In some other industries, permanent subsidies are indeed feasible, a la the locomotive transportation industry, but only because these are government funded. When discussing an open market, the moment that Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo do gain control over the industry more completely, you can assume the moneyhats will cease. For example, let's assume that Microsoft's approach does eventually pay off, and they accomplish a monopoly in this market. When there is a need for brutal competition, Microsoft is clearly willing to sacrifice, but I doubt they would be any more generous with a game console monopoly than they have been with an OS monopoly.

 

[Spirit Icana]

Oh, Opiate's here. Nice. Shocking Alberto, Opiate has a great theory about why you probably won't be seeing triple A teams working on Wii, at least yet. The higher end consoles need more experienced and talented men and women. It makes sense for third parties to put less experienced rookies on Wii/PSP/DS first.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Because the games Microsoft "moneyhatted"... are easily portable to the Playstation 3? Because it was done early in the generation?




Doesn't make sense





But I don't think it's that simple a matter.. Audiences aren't necessarily going to migrate or Nintendo isn't exactly going to "take away" PS360 audiences

- ONLINE play (PS360 vs Wii)
- Graphics (PS360 vs Wii)

There's just a landscape already carved out for hardcore gamers and this also includes Trophies/Achievements, that Nintendo doesn't offer. They can't offer the same and the audience won't migrate.


The generation talk.. ugh.. I was referring to this one.. :lol I'm saying if they want to really shrink Sony/MSFT's share in the market it would have to be the next generation, it's just simply not going to happen this generation. Even if they secure the appropriate 3rd party exclusives, in my opinion.

First off I was mainly referring to the next generation and not the current generation. I still think Nintendo should have contracted third parties early on when the Wii became a breakout success to make games to have release in 2008 but that didn't happen. As for Microsoft getting away with this form of relations because the games were easily portable to the PS3 doesn't make a whole lot of sense especially when these games were in development before anyone knew anything about the Playstation 3's hardware. I could understand that it would be more costly if they knew the games wouldn't be able to be ported but again Nintendo is a multi-billion dollar company and I'm sure they more then enough have the funds to fund a few ground up IP's.

As to the reference to the Xbox, I was referring to how the original Xbox was seen as no more then "another platform to sell your games on" as it took the backseat to the software monster known as the Playstation 2. After their strategy they are now the software beast in which developers and publishers immediately turn their heads to when making console games.

As for the Wii not attracting the PS3/360's demographics due to the lack of graphics and online. Well everything about the Wii's successor is unkown about this point so I'll leave it out. However in terms of the Wii now I'm very sure if the Wii started getting a steady stream of quality games that appeal to them they will buy, and there is no doubt that pulling in publishers to develop games is what ignites it. In terms of graphics and online, I can't speak for graphics, but in terms of online (put in ******* *that sites banned?) a little more then half of the 360's userbase uses Xbox Live. And it doesn't specify whether it includes online Gold or Gold and Silver (I strongly suspect it's the later or they would have specified. Outside of Gaf people really don't care about these things as we make them seem. If the Wii had a steady stream of serious games then there would be at least a fair share of that market buying Wii's.

I didn't elaborate well enough of course, but somewhere I have this feeling Iwata is still kind of weary of securing games from third parties. Nintendo itself is doing great and there is huge potential, but even with Iwata in charge third parties still seem a bit cautious while working with Nintendo. So, mistrust from both sides.

This is true but Nintendo should be the one to break the ice. I mean the "partnership" relation is only effective if the one your making a partnership with finds huge success in which in Capcom's case they really didn't. This is why I think Nintendo funding some new AAA IP's for their next console would be far better as it will be in the early generation, too early for companies to know where they are going to port to if that is on their minds.

 

[Dalthien]

If you define the strategy this broadly, though, you're essentially rendering "third-party strategy" synonymous with "overall market strategy" -- i.e. you're saying that the way to succeed is to sell lots of systems, the way to get third parties on board is to succeed, and so every factor in your overall console strategy is inherently a part of your third-party strategy. I think that obfuscates the specifics of how

I wouldn't use the word synonymous - but I would say that the 3rd-party strategy is intertwined with the overall market strategy. The number of systems you sell definitely affects how much 3rd-party software you will sell. You can't separate the two.

In fact, that was a big part of Nintendo's 3rd-party strategy. For all of the lack of outreach/funding on Nintendo's part, they did succeed in building a monstrous userbase to appeal to 3rd-parties. For all of the supposed failures on Nintendo's part, and the supposed successes on Microsoft's part - the fact is that the Wii is still selling more 3rd-party software than the 360, and will likely only increase that gap significantly in the years ahead. I could turn the entire discussion around on you and ask - how much better would Microsoft's 3rd-party software sell if they had combined their outreach/funding efforts with a laser-like focus on building a monstrous userbase like the Wii? I don't think you can remove the overall market strategy from the 3rd-party strategy - they are connected.

And I really think you overstate Microsoft's outreach/funding efforts to a certain degree. They have done a fabulous job at courting the high-tech 'mature' 3rd-party developers and publishers. But I submit that they have done a rather lousy job at courting the children's market, or the casual market. I don't have the actual statistics on hand, but the 'mature' rated market is only like 1/4 or 1/5 of the actual software market. So Microsoft has done a really poor job at outreach/funding when it comes to the vast majority of the market that deals with 'E' and 'T' software. That is yet another area where the 3rd-party strategy on the PS1 absolutely crushed the 360, and one of the reasons why the 360 will finish a distant 2nd or 3rd in the worldwide 3rd-party software market this generation. And there are a lot of publishers and developers who work on 'E' and 'T' software, and those publishers are generally far more comfortable working with the Wii than the 360 when it comes to that content.

But regardless, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to concede this definitional point. Instead of arguing that MS has the best third-party strategy ever, let's talk about my hypothetical proposal for best-ever strategy under your expanded definition: merging MS' third-party outreach/funding efforts with the Wii's being a system that sells a fuckton of units. :lol

Ha ha. Yeah - as a videogame player, it would certainly be interesting to see the results of a merger between the two strategies.

 

[d[-_-]b]

The saddest thing about the wii, is that nintendo could have easily launched a profitable HD system with waggle for $300-350 and still have sold out everywhere. They would have then gotten games like RE5, DMC4, GTA4, etc. easily. It would have dominated hardware and software even more than the PS2 imo.

Yeah great theory have any reasoning behind it.....
Because it sure didn't work for them last gen... where they had a comparable platform to it's competitors and didn't get anything....

 

[kswiston]

Looking at a brighter spot in Wii's release schedule, how do people think WSR will do in it's first week? I'm going to guess 500k for now. A little under MKWii, but higher than the other "Wii ____" debuts. Legs will be great of course. I doubt it will reach the LTD of the first game, but I think 2.5M+ is a good guess for now. We'll probably have to wait a few years to find out though :lol

 

[d[-_-]b]

Nintendo should make sure to get Resident Evil exclusives, Metal Gear Solid, Soul Calibur, and Tales. Let Sega and Namco work on some of their IPs. Get a new exclusive Namco RPG series. With that and all of Nintendo's own popular franchises, things will be popping.

:lol
How did I miss this post...

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Ok, i understand

What do you mean with "It's sales aren't exclusively due to the system its selling on" by the way?

What I meant is that Monster Hunter is selling because it is on the Wii platform, as well as it being a monster franchise in Japan (pardon the pun). As such the game still would have been popular had it been a PS3 exclusive instead, though how it would have done in comparison is anyone's guess.

It's very difficult for me to understand this line of thought. Is it because exclusives are bad? Because allowing titles that aren't necessarily economically feasible on their own to come out warps the market somehow? What?

I say roundly it is bad because it creates a false market for both software developers and the hardware manufacturers that solicit them.

As a level of service, it's one sided. A developer reaps a ton of benefit for what could do very little for the hardware manufacturer in the long run. Let's look at MS' Japanese sales. Presuming that they've laid out moneyhats to various Japanese Devs, what has it net them? Lukewarm sales in 3 territories? How has it translated to sustained hardware sales for them? Can we point to any moneyhat MS has laid out to be the tide turner in the war against PS3? As it stands in America, Microsoft had to make big investments in multiple companies to receive marginal gains. As successful as we claim the 360 to be, it's not even outstripping the console that came before it in even its strongest territory.

This is only supposition, but I think it stands to reason that moneyhats raise market costs unnaturally. A hardware manufacturer funded project will naturally be more ambitious than one that is internally funded. Let's say, for example, that game X is somewhat bankrolled by Sony, and as such is a smashing success. What of the sequel?

Let's look at Nintendo now. What if they had moneyhatted several companies thinking that the Wii was a sure thing and it became GameCube 2? What happens to Nintendo? What of the parties solicited? The Capcom 5 is a good example to this. As great as the games were, it can be argues that the GameCube did more to pull REs success DOWN than the series did to pull the GameCube UP.

 

[Dash Kappei]

Nintendo should make sure to get Resident Evil exclusives, Metal Gear Solid, Soul Calibur, and Tales. Let Sega and Namco work on some of their IPs. Get a new exclusive Namco RPG series. With that and all of Nintendo's own popular franchises, things will be popping.

For some reason I think you're being sarcastic, but I'll play with this.

Spoiler

:hint: Gamecube :hint:

 

[Spirit Icana]

Spoiler

:hint: Gamecube :hint:

Felt like a very un-Joshua like thing to say so I didn't think he meant it, but I failed to catch the funny. Thanks for the hint. That's awesome. :lol

 

[Grampa Simpson]

I don't think they should try to throw money at third parties, but I think they need to try to convince them to get key third party titles on the Wii.

So Nintendo should lobby other companies to put their franchises on the Wii?

 

[Eteric Rice]

So Nintendo should lobby other companies to put their franchises on the Wii?

Yes?...

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Yes?...

The image I have in my mind is of Nintendo having a branch that sends out energetic young men to hang out outside Capcom, Konami, Namco, and Squeenix HQs to hijack executives and buy hookers for them.

Everything is going to Keikaku.

 

[damisa]

Yeah great theory have any reasoning behind it.....
Because it sure didn't work for them last gen... where they had a comparable platform to it's competitors and didn't get anything....

Notice I said HD system WITH waggle. There were a lot of people willing to spend 300 or even 400+ to get a wii for its first couple years. Imagine the same system plus HD graphics plus games like DMC, RE, GTA etc.

 

[jeremy1456]

Notice I said HD system WITH waggle. There were a lot of people willing to spend 300 or even 400+ to get a wii for its first couple years. Imagine the same system plus HD graphics plus games like DMC, RE, GTA etc.

There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to suggest that DMC, RE, GTA or any of the other big series on the HD platforms would have been released on the Wii even if it did have comparable specs to the main platforms.

Suggesting that they would is absolutely pointless, so why bother? It's like saying that if Sony had motion controls in the PS3 controller that the PS3 would catch on like the Wii. Oh wait...

 

[Fredescu]

There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to suggest that DMC, RE, GTA or any of the other big series on the HD platforms would have been released on the Wii even if it did have comparable specs to the main platforms.

No evidence, just common sense.

 

[jeremy1456]

No evidence, just common sense.

It's not common sense, it's wishful thinking.

 

[Fredescu]

It's wishful thinking that the Wii was released with comparable power to it's contemporaries. It's common sense that if it did, it would be swimming in third party ports. No to mention, sales of the classic controller would be through the roof.

 

[Pureauthor]

There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to suggest that DMC, RE, GTA or any of the other big series on the HD platforms would have been released on the Wii even if it did have comparable specs to the main platforms.

Suggesting that they would is absolutely pointless, so why bother? It's like saying that if Sony had motion controls in the PS3 controller that the PS3 would catch on like the Wii. Oh wait...

Um, there is indeed evidence - it's called the X360 and PS3 software releases. A huge chunk of their games are crossed over with each other.

 

[Olaeh]

Nintendo should make sure to get Resident Evil exclusives, Metal Gear Solid, Soul Calibur, and Tales. Let Sega and Namco work on some of their IPs. Get a new exclusive Namco RPG series. With that and all of Nintendo's own popular franchises, things will be popping.

This is an incredible post.:lol

 

[BishopLamont]

Pretty sure JJS meant the Wii's own MGS/RE/SC/Tales and not a port of the HD versions, and I don't see why not?

 

[swerve]

Pretty sure JJS meant the Wii's own MGS/RE/SC/Tales and not a port of the HD versions, and I don't see why not?

*cough* gamecube *cough*

 

[AniHawk]

*cough* gamecube *cough*

I've had it up to here with your trolling of the Wii.

 

[Olaeh]

As for the people suggesting that Nintendo should start to moneyhat for games now- They've got Dragon Quest X, Monster Hunter 3, Tales of, and Samurai Warriors 3 already. It would be nice if they came sooner, but they are coming.... Also, everyone seems to think this gen will last longer. What other AAA games do you think they should fork over for? Dragon Quest and Monster Hunter seem to be the biggest (and safest) hitters.