DeaconKnowledge
Member
farnham said:
It would have to outsell it 2:1 from hereon out to match it by July. Possible, but I still have my reservations.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official March 2008 NPD - There are no words. Almost $1B in SW sales
- Thread starter sonycowboy
- Start date
It would have to outsell it 2:1 from hereon out to match it by July. Possible, but I still have my reservations.
Chumly said:
I missed the part where I hurled a racial slur at you, I guess. Apparently you, like others on here you can't read. Pages back I wondered why we couldn't all just be happy that everyone's doing well. As a tri-console owner, I want all three to do well, but some of the other folks here think Nintendo/360/PS3 can only do well on the corpses of the others and start spouting shit about how devs "have" to go to the Wii or fear being put out of business. It's ridiculous on it's face, and I said so.
Again, there's plenty of room in the market for devs to sell their wares on the systems they choose.
You may now return to being an idiot.
schuelma said:
Wii fit/Mario Kart vs. GTA4 is the wildcard here. Also, while I don't think MGS4 will cause 360 sales to be siphoned off by the PS3 too much, it's an entire possibility.
My take, you're going to see the "streams cross" in August or September, due not to Wii slowdowns but increased 360 sales for at least a month or two.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
farnham said:
My biggest reservation is how much stock Nintendo will have available. Not too worried about this month and May, but will Nintendo have enough stock to carry through to July?
Pureauthor
Member
Lobster said:
While it's all well and good to theorize about this, is there really any evidence of these smallers devs petering out?
Lobster said:
Your argument is ridiculous. There have already been successful release by smaller devs on the 360/PS3. One is not required to spend a fortune to release a game on those systems. You've made up this magical world in which small devs can only work for the Wii, with absolutely no evidence to support your conjecture.
I'd rather small devs make their own decisions on where to go. I don't feel a need to teach them how to handle the market, unlike you. I"m not the one trying to lock them down onto a single console, unlike you.
This, of course, is the place where you move the goalposts on what a smaller dev is. Proceed.
Oh, you already started. Don't let me interrupt you.
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
besada said:
Lobster said:
Define a smaller dev and I'd be happy to, even though you've already moved the goalpost by excluding a portion of the market. But whatever I put up, you're just going to say isn't a smaller dev, so really, what's the point? You've already defined smaller dev as a company that can only work on the Wii, so by your circular definition,you're completely correct.
gregor7777
Banned
Lobster said:
How about Real Time Worlds? Crackdown was a million seller and led to a $50 million endorsement for their next game.
gregor7777
Banned
pswii60 said:
Perhaps, but how many small houses publish their own stuff? Usually it's published by a big boy.
You and everyone else outside Nintendo are ignorant of how much Nintendo spends on development of any particular game. They just don't discuss it, except in relative terms. We know Twilight Princess was the most expensive Nintendo development project up to that point but we can't say how much that is in yen.WrikaWrek said:
You're talking out of your ass.
Lobster said:
Need better definitions. How small does the team have to be? Also, could you give me some examples on the Wii, so I'm sure what you're talking about?
Without your ridiculous exclusions, Metanet fits the bill perfectly. As do any number of other XBLA games. Pixel Junk is another great example of a small studio doing great work on a non-Wii console.
Pureauthor
Member
Lobster said:
By that logic, almost no 'small dev' has ever produced anything worth giving a shit about anyway.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
edit: nevermind, breaks two of the rules. That's a bit too specific.
Mithos Yggdrasill
Banned
PhoenixDark said:
I dind't mean what you're saying. It's a fact that Third Parties aren't fullfilling the promises that many of us had when the Wiimote was announced. And it's a fact that the dominant system always get the showelware of the industry. And I agree that X360 is doing incredibly well in the US, with an incredible attach rateand great profitability on the software side. But what about the PS3, for now it's only a hope. Third Parties are hoping since PS3's launch that the system, sooner or later, would have became the leader, both in hardware and sotware. They expected in other words a new PS2. Facts say, that it remaines only an hope for now and that PS3 isn't at all, for now, the driving force of the industry, under every possible espect outside the Blu-Ray.
What I contest is not the profitability of the X360 (often +PS3). I contest the fact that Wii is only a system for Nintendo's games. Facts doesn't prove that, simply because not a single Big Third Party games has, until now, bombed. And guess why? Because there isn't a single high budget game from third Parties that came out on the system until now !
The games I cited are very significative, because they're not party-games. They are traditional games (GHIII a little bit less, but still a game) that sold well on the system. Then, it is obvious to suppose that traditional games can sell on Wii as good as they sell on PS3 and X360. It is illogic to not take it as good hypothesis.
You know, in other words, what I mean is that there is always another point of view to see the problem: you see it from the fact that only Nintendo's games are selling. Try to consider the possibility that this is also due to the fact that we haven't seen nothing big from Third Parties bombing on the system until now. How many PS3 games bombed in comparison to their PS2 predecessors? Mmmmmmm.
Let be honest: I understand why Third Parties aren't developing big AAA games for Wii. And I accept it. But I don't accept the explication: "only Nintendo's games sell on Nintendo's systems". Still unproved.
There are other valid reasons: Third Partes don't work with pleasure with Nintendo because of the past bad experiences with Yamauchi and it is a solid and still valuable motivation for most japanese Third Party developers. Second, western Third Partes are graphics fanatics and they don't work willingly with a non-HD console anymore. Why Factor 5 and Silicon Knights left Nintendo in your opinion? Third Partes are now making their sequels of their big franchises with High Definition graphics and not a single developer would be happy to see them again with last-gen engines. Most of all because now they're all sticking with HD and they have invested a lot of money and time to learn to to develop decently with relative difficult architecture. Third, the Wiimote. One of the big problems with the Wii is that it needs a lot of imagination and it requires to escape from traditional way to build a game. And this is not easy and most importantly, it requires time, and time means money. Fourth, you cannot port Wii's games on X360/PS3 and viceversa. So, you have to assign a specific team to the creation of a Wii's game and this is expensive. Fifth, as long as PS3+X360 installed base in the US will be bigger then Wii's installed base, it is more safe (and this is the key word) to develop in a standard way, on 2 systems, using a well proved formula that is the analog joystick. Humans beings fear changes, dind't you know?
These, for me, are arguments that have solid fundaments. The prejudgement: "only Nintendo's games sell on Nintendo's systems" is only a stupid excuse.
(wow, this posts required a lot of time. I hope that it is understandable)
Aside from a shitload of XBLA games, retail 360 games past and future from extremely small devs with practically no funding include Flatout (Bugbear), Two Worlds (Reality Pump), Dead Island (Techland), Sacred 2 (Ascaron), etc..
There's a shit load of small independent development houses making PC games, and these can be easily ported to 360, either to XBLA or retail depending on the game. There's literally loads of 360/PC games in the pipeline due to this.
There's a shit load of small independent development houses making PC games, and these can be easily ported to 360, either to XBLA or retail depending on the game. There's literally loads of 360/PC games in the pipeline due to this.
Pureauthor
Member
Lobster said:
...Yeeeaaahhhh, I'm of the opinion that them crashing and burning would leave the industry better of.
Count Dookkake
Member
DeaconKnowledge said:
:lol
Lobster said:
I think you're making a category error between "small dev" and "shovelware producer". D3, publishers of the Simple series are hardly small. They have offices on four continents, and have been buying other developers.
Oh, and they released, to quite nice sales, EDF on the 360. So, it appears you were not only wrong, but don't know what a small dev is.
mentalfloss
Banned
speculawyer RE: Bully Sales for 360 said:
Great. So now developers will think they can make inferior ports on 360. THANKS NINTENDO
No More Heroes. That's the only one i can think of off the top of head. King's story and that Conduit game IGN just talked about would also fit the bill, i believepswii60 said:
You keep on talking like you care about a free market for small devs, yet you keep on with this strange line of thinking that DLC is the only place where they can succeed. Why do you care if small teams like the wii?
avatar299 said:
I do care. I like small devs. I never said they couldn't succeed on the 360/PS3. That was Lobster saying that. I did point out that digital distribution is great for small devs, because it's a cheaper route to a big market.
I don't care if small teams want to work on the Wii, I just don't think they have to work on the Wii or go out of business, unlike Lobster.
WrikaWrek said:
Why don't you get rid of all of your other arguments and stick with (C)? Clearly, there is no way they can rebut that one. This point basically boils down to this: A Wii game can never have the same production value as a PS3 game because no Wii game will be on the PS3!
Excellent use of circular reasoning!
P.D., again, if you actually look at the top 100 EU+NA games, you'll find third parties doing pretty well on the Wii. In the UK, at least, third party Wii games usually outnumber Nintendo Wii games listed on the charts. The problem is that we only get top ten numbers, so you only see the top sellers, and on that basis you might have assumed that PS2 software wasn't selling very well for most of '07--which is patently untrue. Maybe the third-party situation is similar in terms of high-quality games, but it sure as hell isn't in terms of successful ones.PhoenixDark said:
Version 3.0
Member
Mithos Yggdrasill said:
Nice post. The fact is, that's only been the case with Nintendo's systems since the N64--coincidentally, the same time that 3rd party publishers jumped ship en mass due to the PS1's cheaper media. Since then, the vast majority of hit games have been from Nintendo, or companies associated with Nintendo (ie. 2nd party). But there have always been a few 3rd party games that arrive and do well--those willing to 'risk it'.
But if the potential sales on the Wii can't convince publishers that it can be the same situation as the NES or SNES - in other words, great sales for Nintendo games and many other games as well - then nothing is going to change. Publishers are convinced they can't get a decent piece of the pie, no matter how big it is, so they'll have to settle for a larger piece of a smaller pie. It's a shame that it's such a lose-lose situation. I'm very happy with a lot of games the way they are, and prefer sequels in HD, but some games could potentially be great with Wii controls, and it's sad that we won't see most of them attempted.
mentalfloss
Banned
Sharp said:
.
Lobster said:
No, it wasn't. You responded to a question about small devs with Simple Series, which isn't made by any particular dev, large or small. Taito, hardly a small dev, has done simple series games. I simply pointed out the the publisher who actually controls these games (by directly assigning them to devs) is not a small dev, but a shovelware producer.
Did you have another example, maybe one that was actually a development studio, rather than a loosely collected series of shovelware games? Or was your original point that all work-for-hire shovelware devs would have to be on the Wii to succeed. If so, I agreed to that pages back. Whoever has the biggest hardware always gets the shovelware devs.