Support NeoGAF

[gerg]

Actually you can tell quite a bit.

I was thinking 400k-450k first two days would be OK but dissapointing

500k first two days ... good shape for 1 million

550k+ = quite good shape for 1 million+

That was sorta the barometer I had. I'm assuming it will trend like MH2 on the PS2. Now if it grows legs beyond that ala the portable versions that's another can of worms.

Which is why we should wait for at least a week so that we can narrow down the possibilities.

 

[Soundwave2000]

Which is why we should wait for at least a week so that we can narrow down the possibilities.

I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that if it sold 585k in two days, that you can extrapolate that to at least 650k in a more traditional 4 day period at the very least.

If it's even higher than that, great.

 

[Road]

Could you remind us what he/the company thinks?

They wanted 5 million shipped in Japan. (I think.)

 

[slaughterking]

Could you remind us what he/the company thinks?

5 million copies.

I, for one, am not sure, though, if this statement was just wishful thinking on Wada's side or if this is a real, internal sales target the company wants to hit with DQIX.

 

[schuelma]

Are we sure the 5 million was only for domestic sales?

 

[Soundwave2000]

They wanted 5 million shipped in Japan. (I think.)

I think that was worldwide but I could be wrong.

Again, I'm not entirely upset this probably won't happen because if it did, I think the DQ series would not be coming back to consoles any time soon (if ever).

 

[gerg]

I'd actually suggest that it goes both ways (which you hint at in the rest of your post.) The software is the first-mover in a sense, but both feed into each other. PSP became a more popular platform because of the draw of MHP, which in turn helped catapult MHP2 to drastically higher heights.

A self-perpetuating cycle indeed.

I think that's going too far. In a series of ludicrously wordy arguments, gerg and I settled on one thing we could agree on: there was basically no way the Wii could ever build a good market for FPSes, and I think the principles there can apply to other genres as well.

Indeed. We all say that no matter how much software targeted towards the expanded audience the 360 would have received, innate design factors mean that it would never have been so successful at selling to this audience as the Wii is. The same logic can be applied to the Wii and other genres.

That said, are there a lot of popular Japanese genres that I think could never have conceivably done well on Wii? No. I've been on record before as believing that at least RPGs, fighters, whatever the hell Musou games are, and sports titles could all have done well on Wii, and that committing this stuff to Wii right away would have been an actively good move.

Also agreed. But as I said, they haven't found a home on the PS3 or 360 yet either.

 

[schuelma]

Also agreed. But as I said, they haven't found a home on the PS3 or 360 yet either.

I think to a certain extent, at least relative to the Wii, the HD platforms have shown a decent home to lower budget, lower profile RPG's.

 

[Soundwave2000]

I think to a certain extent, at least relative to the Wii, the HD platforms have shown a decent home to lower budget, lower profile RPG's.

Square-Enix needs to bring at least one of those Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest remakes (DQVII?) to the Wii next year I think. The DS has too many of them as is anyway. Capcom has gotten the ball rolling now, New Super Mario Bros. to an extent should also be a strong "bridge" title for casuals to core players, but Square-Enix needs to step their game up too beyond Crystal Chronicles.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I think that's going too far. In a series of ludicrously wordy arguments, gerg and I settled on one thing we could agree on: there was basically no way the Wii could ever build a good market for FPSes, and I think the principles there can apply to other genres as well.

That said, are there a lot of popular Japanese genres that I think could never have conceivably done well on Wii? No. I've been on record before as believing that at least RPGs, fighters, whatever the hell Musou games are, and sports titles could all have done well on Wii, and that committing this stuff to Wii right away would have been an actively good move.

Uh, Media Create thread here. Why do we care about FPS'?

Also, frankly I don't know that I agree that there aren't markets that can't be foisted on any console, given the time and the care. I will agree that a neglected genre that suddenly gets a burst of attention later in the hardware cycle has a steeper hill to climb, but to be impossible? Can't accept that.

 

[slaughterking]

Are we sure the 5 million was only for domestic sales?

Yes, he was definitely talking about Japan.

"We expect Dragon Quest IX's shipments to reach more than five million, and expect it to bring life to the game market as a whole."

http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2009/07/18/dqix_five_million/

 

[Road]

Are we sure the 5 million was only for domestic sales?

This has been discussed here and I'm basing what I say on memory, but I think Wada was talking to the Japanese press, and about the domestic market, which lead us to believe that, yes, 5 million in Japan.

I think this is more of a vanity goal than anything. DQIX surely already is one of the most profitable games of the company since Square and Enix merged.

But it might at the same time be an actual goal. We have to remember that (warning: dumb math ahead) DQVIII MRSP was 9,240 yen, and IX is 5,980, which means that, as far as gross revenue is concerned DQIX, would have to sell 54% more to generate the same amount of money (not profit).

 

[Vinci]

Uh, Media Create thread here. Why do we care about FPS'?

Also, frankly I don't know that I agree that there aren't markets that can't be foisted on any console, given the time and the care. I will agree that a neglected genre that suddenly gets a burst of attention later in the hardware cycle has a steeper hill to climb, but to be impossible? Can't accept that.

I agree with charlequin on this one. In the beginning of the Wii's life, within the first year and a half or two? It's basically a blank slate, do with it what you wish, situation. But now, anything that hasn't been solidly built - from a userbase standpoint - is pretty much being sent to die on it. It's not so much a 'steep hill' alone, it's more like a steep hill made of yogurt that keeps sending you sliding back down with each step.

...


Now I want yogurt.

 

[gerg]

Uh, Media Create thread here. Why do we care about FPS'?

Because they're a genre, and we're discussing the viability of genres on platforms?

Also, frankly I don't know that I agree that there aren't markets that can't be foisted on any console, given the time and the care. I will agree that a neglected genre that suddenly gets a burst of attention later in the hardware cycle has a steeper hill to climb, but to be impossible? Can't accept that.

Of course you can have some percentage of a market on any console, but that's not what I'm denying. Rather, to think that any console can have absolute success with any market and/or demographic ignores the particular design choices of that console in regards to the values of that market.

For example, consider the 360. Even if it had the legion of fitness software the Wii has had (ignoring games that use the Balance Board), do you think it would have been as successful within the expanded audience as the Wii has? If we answer "no" to this, we'd probably suggest that this would be because the innate design features of the 360 (controller pad, price point, etc.) wouldn't be as successful within this market either. And if this is true of the 360 for fitness software, why can't it be the same with the Wii for FPSs?

I think to a certain extent, at least relative to the Wii, the HD platforms have shown a decent home to lower budget, lower profile RPG's.

But to the detriment of the Wii? Arguable.

I agree with charlequin on this one. In the beginning of the Wii's life, within the first year and a half or two? It's basically a blank slate, do with it what you wish, situation. But now, anything that hasn't been solidly built - from a userbase standpoint - is pretty much being sent to die on it. It's not so much a 'steep hill' alone, it's more like a steep hill made of yogurt that keeps sending you sliding back down with each step.

I think the point that charlequin and I are trying to make is that it is too simple to call consoles "blank slates". While I don't want to say that consoles are predisposed to have certain software sell a certain amount, I think that the design features of a console can certainly affect the situation before games have even been released. As the problem with Sony's strategy has been Microsoft, so too has the problem with the Wii been the 360.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

See, Joshua. Something comes up? Post a graph. Instant win.

"We got the tools, we got the talent!"

 

[Sadist]

It woudn't suprise me if Sega would try something with Phantasy Star on Wii in the near future.

Still, I don't believe there will be anything very surprising from Japanese 3rd parties. Maybe Capcom... but as for the rest: I remain sceptical.

 

[Soundwave2000]

It woudn't suprise me if Sega would try something with Phantasy Star on Wii in the near future.

Still, I don't believe there will be anything very surprising from Japanese 3rd parties. Maybe Capcom... but ad fir the rest: I remain sceptical.

Maybe some of those PSP devs might want to look at the Wii moreso now (particularly because its much stronger in Western markets than the PSP is to boot).

I know people hate ports, but I certainly would not mind an "enhanced" version of Final Fantasy Dissidia or something like that on Wii. Throw in Link and Gannondorf as playable characters sort of like Soul Calibur 2 and watch the sales rack up.

 

[donny2112]

Out of curiousity, what was his "The Conduit" prediction?

Several months before The Conduit came out, I predicted that it would sell 300-500K first month with a LTD over 1 million (including the eventual budget release) in the U.S. For the NPD software predictions, I kept with that previous prediction and said 325K. According to NPD, it sold 72K on a max shipment of 150K for June.

 

[schuelma]

Still, I don't believe there will be anything very surprising from Japanese 3rd parties. Maybe Capcom... but as for the rest: I remain sceptical.

I assume SE will give Wii some RPG support if DQX is still on track.

And yeah I think Capcom will continue its support..more Monster Hunter, Resident Evil, and maybe Basara?

 

[gerg]

Several months before The Conduit came out, I predicted that it would sell 300-500K first month with a LTD over 1 million (including the eventual budget release) in the U.S. For the NPD software predictions, I kept with that previous prediction and said 325K. According to NPD, it sold 72K on a max shipment of 150K for June.

If you spin hard enough, you might be able to convince us that your "first month" prediction concerned a literal 30/31-day period, rather than the period in which the game was available in June. You never know...

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It woudn't suprise me if Sega would try something with Phantasy Star on Wii in the near future.

I thought it was more surprising to begin with that after GCN was the system with the most PSO games last gen, multiplatform PSU went to everything else but GCN/Wii.

Still, I don't believe there will be anything very surprising from Japanese 3rd parties. Maybe Capcom... but as for the rest: I remain sceptical.

Well, there are already some pretty notable games coming in the next half from Koei, Namco, and Square Enix. Not exactly expecting an MH3 performance from them, but they could make a difference one way or the other.

 

[SlipperySlope]

In truth, what should be done is that publishers should focus the development of certain series towards whatever platform they can take full advantage of. If a game concept simply cannot be done on a platform that is cheaper to develop for, then put it on one or both of the others; if it doesn't require HD or intensive online functionality to achieve its core appeal, then why bother with the added costs?

But that requires publishers looking at their franchises, really looking at them, and determining what the core appeal of the product is. Why did people buy it before? And once they figure out what the core appeal is, decide to possibly put a very popular series on a weaker system that makes its development less costly.

I can't think of a single game from this generation, on any console or even PC, that requires HD. Actually, most "HD" games aren't even really HD. They run in some between resolution.

 

[Vinci]

I think the point that charlequin and I are trying to make is that it is too simple to call consoles "blank slates". While I don't want to say that consoles are predisposed to have certain software sell a certain amount, I think that the design features of a console can certainly affect the situation before games have even been released. As the problem with Sony's strategy has been Microsoft, so too has the problem with the Wii been the 360.

Maybe for something typically as graphically intensive as a FPS, but otherwise? No, I don't think that's true. What lopsided the building of genres on the Wii this gen was what happened last gen and the impact that had on developers' decisions. Also, of course, MS had a great deal of sway. Under normal conditions, a system is open to interpretation. The Wii could have easily gone in any one of a hundred different directions; I don't believe there was any inherent genre mitigation by its design with the exception of the FPS genre.

 

[Soundwave2000]

I assume SE will give Wii some RPG support if DQX is still on track.

And yeah I think Capcom will continue its support..more Monster Hunter, Resident Evil, and maybe Basara?

S-E needs to start building the RPG audience on the Wii stat. That combined with a chunk of Monster Hunter players on the Wii should ensure the system is at least healthy in the future.

 

[Vinci]

I can't think of a single game from this generation, on any console or even PC, that requires HD. Actually, most "HD" games aren't even really HD. They run in some between resolution.

To be fair, I was using HD in that particular discussion as graphics, which was a mistake on my part; basically the need for high-end graphics. If a game's sales in prior generations were predicated (at least partially) on it being the frontrunner of graphics - such as Final Fantasy or FPSs in general - then it would likely only hit its target audience by focusing on the same appeals that worked in the past.

 

[Sadist]

Maybe some of those PSP devs might want to look at the Wii moreso now (particularly because its much stronger in Western markets than the PSP is to boot).

I know people hate ports, but I certainly would not mind an "enhanced" version of Final Fantasy Dissidia or something like that on Wii. Throw in Link and Gannondorf as playable characters sort of like Soul Calibur 2 and watch the sales rack up.

At first I wanted to say Dissidia wouldn't make any sense, but forget about the first 6 FF games being on Nintendo systems But I agree that PSP developers could switch to Wii games.

I thought it was more surprising to begin with that after GCN was the system with the most PSO games last gen, multiplatform PSU went to everything else but GCN/Wii.

Well, there are already some pretty notable games coming in the next half from Koei, Namco, and Square Enix. Not exactly expecting an MH3 performance from them, but they could make a difference one way or the other.

Yeah, I know. 2 was recently announced for PSP right? But with these results it wouldn't be a big surprise if Sega would try something.

And notable releases...
Namco = Tales of Graces?
S-E = Crystal Bearers?
Koei = Samurai Warrior 3?

 

[gerg]

Maybe for something typically as graphically intensive as a FPS, but otherwise? No, I don't think that's true. What lopsided the building of genres on the Wii this gen was what happened last gen and the impact that had on developers' decisions. Also, of course, MS had a great deal of sway. Under normal conditions, a system is open to interpretation. The Wii could have easily gone in any one of a hundred different directions; I don't believe there was any inherent genre mitigation by its design with the exception of the FPS genre.

In this case, regarding the Wii, there was nothing particularly wrong with its design in and of itself. However, to analyse it in such a manner necessitates that one understands it in a vacuum, and of course consoles don't launch into vacuums. I'm not denying the validity of the idea that the Wii "could have been anything", but its usefulness in evaluating the market.

 

[Soundwave2000]

At first I wanted to say Dissidia wouldn't make any sense, but forget about the first 6 FF games being on Nintendo systems But I agree that PSP developers could switch to Wii games.

Well I dunno about *switching* per se, but take that Kingdom Hearts Birth By Sleep ... you gotta figure if Square-Enix put in a little effort and upgraded the graphics for the Wii and released it at the same time, they could easily probably double the sales of the title by having it on Wii (worldwide) if not more.

Stuff like that, some companies maybe need to use a little common sense. Sure Kingdom Hearts 3 would be great too ... but it doesn't really help a platform if the game is like 3 years out from release.

I would rather have FFV and/or FFVI Remakes on the Wii instead of the DS though. I think you could make those games with a super deformed style look really great on the Wii and S-E needs to start building up the RPG fanbase on the Wii anyway as mentioned before. The DS has so many RPGs that at this point it won't really miss those two.

 

[donny2112]

If you spin hard enough, you might be able to convince us that your "first month" prediction concerned a literal 30/31-day period, rather than the period in which the game was available in June.

It didn't, though. When we found out it would be available for 12 days in June, I went with the lower end of my initial range. If retailers had had enough faith in the game to order 500K copies in June (along with the requisite retailer promotions of the game), could it have hit 200K+? Maybe. However since it turned out that they only ordered at most 150K, 300K was never a possibility. 72K in that light (50% of the initial shipment in two weeks) may actually be a good result, but it was still way under my own expectations.

As I said in the NPD thread, it appears that the first-day core buying set doesn't have a big presence on Wii in the U.S., at the moment. :/

 

[Soundwave2000]

It didn't, though. When we found out it would be available for 12 days in June, I went with the lower end of my initial range. If retailers had had enough faith in the game to order 500K copies in June (along with the requisite retailer promotions of the game), could it have hit 200K+? Maybe. However since it turned out that they only ordered at most 150K, 300K was never a possibility. 72K in that light (50% of the initial shipment in two weeks) may actually be a good result, but it was still way under my own expectations.

As I said in the NPD thread, it appears that the first-day core buying set doesn't have a big presence on Wii in the U.S., at the moment. :/

This is getting off on another tangent ... but the real truth is IMO, The Conduit simply isn't that great of a game. There's no reason for someone to line-up or rush to the store to buy -- it's a fairly average game that likely wouldn't do any better on any other platform.

 

[markatisu]

I know, just clarifying that as of now MH G has not doubled its 1st week.

My fault, I thought it was near 250 but I was ~30k short.

That is being nitpicky as hell though, my point was that MHG was a old port which required the CC to play and still sold after its first week (~80-90k).

MH3 will be most likely in the 600-700k range after its 1st full week which means it would only need to find 50% of that LTD to reach 1m

 

[gerg]

It didn't, though. When we found out it would be available for 12 days in June, I went with the lower end of my initial range. If retailers had had enough faith in the game to order 500K copies in June (along with the requisite retailer promotions of the game), could it have hit 200K+? Maybe. However since it turned out that they only ordered at most 150K, 300K was never a possibility. 72K in that light (50% of the initial shipment in two weeks) may actually be a good result, but it was still way under my own expectations.

Don't worry, I wasn't being serious.

As I said in the NPD thread, it appears that the first-day core buying set doesn't have a big presence on Wii in the U.S., at the moment. :/

As I've said before, it's statistics, no? The Wii seems to have a pretty consistent one million+ audience of FPS fans. It wouldn't surprise me that a new IP from a new developer would only appeal to a small proportion of them.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I know people hate ports, but I certainly would not mind an "enhanced" version of Final Fantasy Dissidia or something like that on Wii. Throw in Link and Gannondorf as playable characters sort of like Soul Calibur 2 and watch the sales rack up.

I kind of want Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep to be ported to Wii, primarily because I don't have a PSP

Spoiler

but also to lead into the inevitable Kingdom Hearts III on Wii

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Because they're a genre, and we're discussing the viability of genres on platforms?



Of course you can have some percentage of a market on any console, but that's not what I'm denying. Rather, to think that any console can have absolute success with any market and/or demographic ignores the particular design choices of that console in regards to the values of that market.

For example, consider the 360. Even if it had the legion of fitness software the Wii has had (ignoring games that use the Balance Board), do you think it would have been as successful within the expanded audience as the Wii has? If we answer "no" to this, we'd probably suggest that this would be because the innate design features of the 360 (controller pad, price point, etc.) wouldn't be as successful within this market either. And if this is true of the 360 for fitness software, why can't it be the same with the Wii for FPSs?



But to the detriment of the Wii? Arguable.

While I see what you're saying, the problem with this is that it values the systems in a bubble.

Wii's problem with FPS isn't that the machine is not capable of selling them based on its featureset, but that another console exists which has been selling better quality products for longer, and as such the base for FPS has built there. Developers don't look to Wii for FPS games, they look to the 360, whereas for fitness games, they look to Wii.

Keeping FPS's in mind, the Wii has gone from none, to a slow trickle. Can we really still say FPS don't sell on Wii, or are we accustomed to doing this because developers don't PUT these titles on the console? Which is it?


As I said before, I cannot agree that a genre cannot flourish on a console if bred enough, and as an example, I point to the 360 in Japan. RPG after RPG died on the console, to the point that while they're not mega successful in Japan, the 360 has actually gained a name for itself for having RPGs. Would they be successful on other consoles? Almost assuredly. Can they have success on the 360? Of course.

Too often in the Media Create threads we seem to believe that "X genre can only exist on X system" which thankfully, Monster Hunter Tri helped to dispel just a little today. It's not about what systems are tailor made for the games, but in fact the opposite.

 

[Vinci]

In this case, regarding the Wii, there was nothing particularly wrong with its design in and of itself. However, to analyse it in such a manner necessitates that one understands it in a vacuum, and of course consoles don't launch into vacuums. I'm not denying the validity of the idea that the Wii "could have been anything", but its usefulness in evaluating the market.

That's why I used the phrase 'under normal conditions' in my post, because I understand none of this exists in a vacuum. It's not the Wii's design that is dictating the 3rd parties' responses to the system; it's the PS2 and a company as massively powerful and wealthy as Microsoft being involved that have made this generation turn out the way it has. Without those factors? The Wii would have gotten as much support as the DS did early on, and at least enough to create the sort of ecosystem that system enjoys. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Developers were hell-bent on following Sony to the end of time. The fact that MS was so willing to pay huge amounts of money and launched early, with a system not necessarily weaker than the successor to the best selling console of all time? Nice stroke of luck. If the game fails on the 360, put it on the PS3 - after all, it's going to be huge. Sony says so.

 

[charlequin]

Uh, Media Create thread here. Why do we care about FPS'?

I just mean it as an easy example of why I don't think your statement is universally applicable.

Also, frankly I don't know that I agree that there aren't markets that can't be foisted on any console, given the time and the care.

I think technical considerations get in the way. Some genres really are more dependent on visual power or ability to track different objects at once (not very many, but more than zero) and some genres are reliant on varieties of multiplayer support or portability that aren't supported by every system. Or buy-in price can keep a genre best suited to more budget-conscious

I don't think there's any conceivable situation in which Monster Hunter could have become as big on DS as it did on PSP. I scoffed at the idea that Pokemon could ever be as big on consoles as it has been handheld. And so on.

I can't think of a single game from this generation, on any console or even PC, that requires HD.

Requires HD specifically? There is none. Requires processing power greater than what is available on the Wii? I think there are clearly examples, though far, far fewer and more niche examples than in any previous transition. Dead Rising is my #1 go-to example here.

Maybe for something typically as graphically intensive as a FPS, but otherwise? No, I don't think that's true.

I don't think graphics are the important part of the equation for FPSes; I think it's all about online play.

The transition of FPS from a solidly PC-centric genre to an A-list console attraction perfectly aligns with the introduction of real online gaming to the console space. 75+% of hit console FPSes, and 100% of the really huge smash hit ones, sold on the back of their multiplayer.

The Wii can't offer a remotely comparable experience to either HD system in this area, so there was never a chance that this genre could take root there.

Wii's problem with FPS isn't that the machine is not capable of selling them based on its featureset, but that another console exists which has been selling better quality products for longer, and as such the base for FPS has built there.]

I don't actually think that's the problem, exactly. If Wii had launched in 2005, I think you might see it with much more 3PP support in general, but FPSes would still be exactly where they are today because the Wii can't even conceivably compete in the most important feature area (online play) with any one of the PS3, the 360, or the PC.

This is a lot like the Pokemon issue, to me. I don't think it's even conceivable that Pokemon could be in the Top 5 gaming franchises if it was a home-console exclusive; the core feature areas just aren't possible.

 

[Chris1964]

I think I would be disappointed somewhat if DQIX didn't become the best selling in the series. I never believed 5 Million was in the cards and always thought that was way too optimistic. DQ is still DQ. But I do maintain that it has the potential to break through DQVII, but it looking iffier with each week.

I don't think there is any doubt that Dragon Quest IX won't surpass Dragon Quest VII. Even if we go by shipments the numbers are:

Dragon Quest Series: Total Shipment Figures (Japan)

1986.05.27 [FC] Dragon Quest (1.50M)
1987.01.26 [FC] Dragon Quest II (2.40M)
1988.02.10 [FC] Dragon Quest III (3.80M)
1990.02.11 [FC] Dragon Quest IV (3.00M)
1992.09.27 [SFC] Dragon Quest V (2.80M)
1995.12.09 [SFC] Dragon Quest VI (3.20M)
2000.08.26 [PS] Dragon Quest VII (4.15M)
2004.12.27 [PS2] Dragon Quest VIII (3.70M)
2009.07.11 [NDS] Dragon Quest IX (?)

http://ameblo.jp/sinobi/entry-10299190849.html

Dragon Quest IX will have to sell 4.15M to beat Dragon Quest VII.
Their first weeks are:

Dragon Quest VII: 1,862,065 / 1,072,286 / 329,317 / 154,797 / 83,918 / 64,351 / 43,717 / 33,852 / 21,429 / 18,191 / 18,360 / 13,941 / 10,541 / 8,841 / 9,147
Dragon Quest IX: 2,343,440 / 602,856 / 271,206 / 172,728

After 4 weeks Dragon Quest VII is at 3,418,465 and Dragon Quest IX at 3,390,230
Do you think with the hold in sales it had this week and Obon coming that Dragon Quest IX will fall below 100K the next 2 weeks? Like I have said before 5M is a (small as it seems) possibility. The weeks after Obon and until Pokemon will show if this possibility continues to exist or not.

 

[gerg]

While I see what you're saying, the problem with this is that it values the systems in a bubble.

You must have misunderstood me, because my argument as to why the Wii would never sell to the FPS crowd views it outside of that bubble. Viewing the Wii in a bubble is something I said we shouldn't do.

Wii's problem with FPS isn't that the machine is not capable of selling them based on its featureset, but that another console exists which has been selling better quality products for longer, and as such the base for FPS has built there. Developers don't look to Wii for FPS games, they look to the 360, whereas for fitness games, they look to Wii.

Which is exactly what I was saying.

Keeping FPS's in mind, the Wii has gone from none, to a slow trickle. Can we really still say FPS don't sell on Wii, or are we accustomed to doing this because developers don't PUT these titles on the console? Which is it?

I'm saying that unless Nintendo had actively stopped other games targeted towards the US 18-25 male demographic coming out for the 360 and gained several major exclusives, the idea that this market would migrate to the Wii in almost its entirety is incorrect.

As I said before, I cannot agree that a genre cannot flourish on a console if bred enough, and as an example, I point to the 360 in Japan. RPG after RPG died on the console, to the point that while they're not mega successful in Japan, the 360 has actually gained a name for itself for having RPGs. Would they be successful on other consoles? Almost assuredly. Can they have success on the 360? Of course.

But we need to look at why the 360 has achieved some success with the RPG genre. I would argue that this is because the Japanese RPG audience does not care for graphics, but for features that can be found on almost any console (such as the story and certain gameplay elements, perhaps). We have to evaluate each genre separately. To use the 360's success with an audience that does not care for graphics to predict the Wii's success with one that (in a roundabout manner) does is inconsistent.

Too often in the Media Create threads we seem to believe that "X genre can only exist on X system" which thankfully, Monster Hunter Tri helped to dispel just a little today.

Just because it may be correct in all cases, it does not mean

It's not about what systems are tailor made for the games, but in fact the opposite.

I never denied this.

 

[Vinci]

I don't think graphics are the important part of the equation for FPSes; I think it's all about online play.

*nods* Okay, that's a good point.

The transition of FPS from a solidly PC-centric genre to an A-list console attraction perfectly aligns with the introduction of real online gaming to the console space. 75+% of hit console FPSes, and 100% of the really huge smash hit ones, sold on the back of their multiplayer.

The Wii can't offer a remotely comparable experience to either HD system in this area, so there was never a chance that this genre could take root there.

I agreed with the exception of FPSs, but I don't see how the Wii's core design would necessitate the absolute neglect that it has received from 3rd parties on any number of other genres. Which is why I think it has more to do with last generation, not the Wii's design.

 

[schuelma]

gerg made member quick. Congrats, you made it past the hardest part of gaf :lol

 

[gerg]

That's why I used the phrase 'under normal conditions' in my post, because I understand none of this exists in a vacuum. It's not the Wii's design that is dictating the 3rd parties' responses to the system; it's the PS2 and a company as massively powerful and wealthy as Microsoft being involved that have made this generation turn out the way it has. Without those factors? The Wii would have gotten as much support as the DS did early on, and at least enough to create the sort of ecosystem that system enjoys. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Developers were hell-bent on following Sony to the end of time. The fact that MS was so willing to pay huge amounts of money and launched early, with a system not necessarily weaker than the successor to the best selling console of all time? Nice stroke of luck. If the game fails on the 360, put it on the PS3 - after all, it's going to be huge. Sony says so.

We're basically agreeing with each other at this point, no?

I agreed with the exception of FPSs, but I don't see how the Wii's core design would necessitate the absolute neglect that it has received from 3rd parties on any number of other genres. Which is why I think it has more to do with last generation, not the Wii's design.

I think the point that I'm trying to push is also the fact that the Wii's competitors - the 360 and the PS3 - affected how the consumer would evaluate any games released for the system, irrespective of what the developers would prefer to do.

 

[Vinci]

We're basically agreeing with each other at this point, no?

More or less, though I take exception to the concept that the Wii's design makes it inherently at odds with genres outside of FPSs. That doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

[gerg]

More or less, though I take exception to the concept that the Wii's design makes it inherently at odds with genres outside of FPSs. That doesn't make sense to me at all.

I don't think I've ever said that.

gerg made member quick. Congrats, you made it past the hardest part of gaf :lol

Thanks. I think it helps when you make 400+ posts in little over two (three?) weeks.

Although stuburns has already put me on his ignore list. :lol :lol

 

[charlequin]

I agreed with the exception of FPSs, but I don't see how the Wii's core design would necessitate the absolute neglect that it has received from 3rd parties on any number of other genres. Which is why I think it has more to do with last generation, not the Wii's design.

Sure. I brought up FPSes mostly as a proof of concept: if it's essentially impossible for the Wii to take the lead in that area, then it should be easy to imagine other genres where it's by no means impossible but there's a structural bias that makes it somewhat harder.

My position has been that these structural biases existed, but were massively overestimated by 3PPs in most areas, and that they were far more relevant to Western-centric genres (FPSes, sandbox games, etc.) than the titles that do well in Japan.

gerg made member quick.

Now he can flame out on people and do soft time in the clink instead of getting fed immediately to the Sarlacc. :lol

 

[schuelma]

Now he can flame out on people and do soft time in the clink instead of getting fed immediately to the Sarlacc. :lol

:lol :lol :lol Love the last line

 

[Vinci]

I don't think I've ever said that.

Perhaps I'm misreading this then:

I think the point that charlequin and I are trying to make is that it is too simple to call consoles "blank slates". While I don't want to say that consoles are predisposed to have certain software sell a certain amount, I think that the design features of a console can certainly affect the situation before games have even been released. As the problem with Sony's strategy has been Microsoft, so too has the problem with the Wii been the 360.

Because my only issue with the bolded is extending that thinking beyond the FPS genre. If you're suggesting that only the FPS genre is affected by this, that's all well and good - and we can go back to being buddies.

Sure. I brought up FPSes mostly as a proof of concept: if it's essentially impossible for the Wii to take the lead in that area, then it should be easy to imagine other genres where it's by no means impossible but there's a structural bias that makes it somewhat harder.

My position has been that these structural biases existed, but were massively overestimated by 3PPs in most areas, and that they were far more relevant to Western-centric genres (FPSes, sandbox games, etc.) than the titles that do well in Japan.

This is fair. What I'm trying to state though is why that bias existed in the first place. Outside of the scenario in which the PS2 is the greatest selling console of all time and trounces all others, there's no inherent bias to direct the entirety of a 3rd party's resources towards HD development. I suppose in the end we're not disagreeing, I'm simply trying to discern where this bias came from - and, IMO, it had very very little to do with the Wii's design or Nintendo being too dominate on its platforms and how we all hate waggle and whatnot. It had everything to do with the precedent set by last generation.

The FPS genre is the one genre I can see an exception to that; other than that one, I think the Wii was a blank slate for developers to do with what they liked.

 

[gerg]

Because my only issue with the bolded is extending that thinking beyond the FPS genre. If you're suggesting that only the FPS genre is affected by this, that's all well and good - and we can go back to being buddies.

What he said:

Sure. I brought up FPSes mostly as a proof of concept: if it's essentially impossible for the Wii to take the lead in that area, then it should be easy to imagine other genres where it's by no means impossible but there's a structural bias that makes it somewhat harder.

I'm simply suggesting that all genres exist on a "how successful would they be" scale in regards to the Wii. Outside of FPSs (would almost always be unsuccessful) and games for the expanded audience (would almost always be successful), I'm not exactly claiming to pin-point any other genres on it.

This is fair. What I'm trying to state though is why that bias existed in the first place. Outside of the scenario in which the PS2 is the greatest selling console of all time and trounces all others, there's no inherent bias to direct the entirety of a 3rd party's resources towards HD development. I suppose in the end we're not disagreeing, I'm simply trying to discern where this bias came from - and, IMO, it had very very little to do with the Wii's design or Nintendo being too dominate on its platforms and how we all hate waggle and whatnot. It had everything to do with the precedent set by last generation.

But what about the consumers? Why can't this "bias" against the Wii originate from the market to which they're trying to sell games?

 

[donny2112]

I brought up FPSes mostly as a proof of concept: if it's essentially impossible for the Wii to take the lead in that area, then it should be easy to imagine other genres where it's by no means impossible but there's a structural bias that makes it somewhat harder.

In my opinion, Xbox was the lead for FPSs last generation with Halo 1/2. However that didn't stop PS2 from having a FPS sell over 2 million on its console. Wii doesn't have to be the leader to still have a favorable environment for particular genres.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I'm just gonna sit back on this one because it seems to me we're all mincing words.

 

[Meier]

I don't think there is any doubt that Dragon Quest IX won't surpass Dragon Quest VII.

Dragon Quest can transcend genre success especially with the multiplayer aspect and it's popularity. I feel pretty confident it will have the legs to surpass DQ7.

Oh woops, double negative threw me off. We're in agreeance.