SALES-AGE: Why Wii will be getting Japanese exclusives (but not Western!)

vanguardian1

poor, homeless and tasteless
Feb 1, 2007
2,310
7
960
#51
virtuafightermaster said:
It probably has something to do with the Wii hardware limitation as well. Do you think Capcom or other companies really want to big hit title like RE5, DMC4, MGS4 on a console that is just slightly better than PS2?
The only problem with that is it is MORE than slightly better than the PS2. The Gamecube was quite a bit more powerful than the PS2, and the Wii's upgrades increases that amount further. 360/PS3 level? Of course not. But sticking it right next to the PS2 in graphical capacity is still just plain wrong.

Edit : Btw, kudos to you, PantherLotus, for making such a clean and well structured thread on such a touchy topic. ;)
 
Aug 18, 2007
6,819
0
0
#52
borghe said:
Very good analysis, too long to quote though. :)

People have been right from the start. The Wii is 75% expansion of the industry, 25% serving the existing masses with the classics. If that expansions becomes larger than the hardcore base that currently drives the industry, we could be in for some seriously strange times.

Very good analysis - indeed, the major 3rd party games for the Wii seems to be more from the small developers or rather a smaller budget endeavour from big developers.

It's interesting to see how Wii's 2nd year will shape up.
 
Mar 2, 2007
7,877
0
0
#53
GitarooMan said:
Maybe I'm crazy but I don't see Wii passing the combined total of 360/PS3 in NA anytime soon.
Considering the Wii is still on second place in NA, I think it's pretty common sense. I don't see anyone who would see the Wii passing 360+PS3 in the near future.
 
Dec 11, 2006
913
0
0
#54
vanguardian1 said:
The only problem with that is it is MORE than slightly better than the PS2. The Gamecube was quite a bit more powerful than the PS2, and the Wii's upgrades increases that amount further. 360/PS3 level? Of course not. But sticking it right next to the PS2 in graphical capacity is still just plain wrong.

Edit : Btw, kudos to you, PantherLotus, for making such a clean and well structured thread on such a touchy topic. ;)
Gamecube is more powerful than PS2? Thats the first time I heard that.
 
Mar 25, 2005
35,145
0
0
Canada
#55
Starchasing said:
Some companies will shift faster, some companies will shift later, some will go multiplatform. But at this rate in a couple of years, shareholders will demand Wii games, so most companies will develop with Wii and DS in mind first.
It's a lot more complicated than you make it seem. Take the DS for example. Development costs are obviously much lower than they are for HD consoles, but the money publishers earn per copy sold is also a great deal less.

For arguements sake, let's estimate that publishers earn 35% of the retail price of a sold game (after paying manufacturing and shipping costs), regardless of whether it's a DS title or a 360/PS3 title.

Accepting that value, consider the following scenario:

Lets say you've developed a Brain Training type title for the DS at the dirt cheap cost of $250k and manage to sell 10M copies at $20 a piece.

For this game, your earnings would be 35% of $20 x 10M for a total of $70M. Subtract the 250k development cost and you're left with 69.75M

Now, taking that profit, you fund a Call of Duty 4 caliber game for HD consoles. This project costs you $30M (120x more than your brain training game!), but it's a hit and you manage to sell 8M copies at $60.

Your earnings on the COD4-type game would be 35% of $60 x 8M for a total of $168M. Subtract the 30M development cost and you're left with 138M

So. Even though you sold 2M more copies of your DS title, you made nearly twice as much profit on your 360 title. These numbers are all hypothetical, but it does explain why some companies are willing to shell out a ton of money on HD console titles instead of focusing exclusively on DS software, even if the DS is a safer bet due to much cheaper development costs.
 
Jul 12, 2005
15,250
0
0
#56
borghe said:
The bottom line is that Nintendo essentially did two things:

1. Made one of the most innovative console moves since the creation of home video game consoles

2. Made a console almost exclusively for where THEY wanted to go and not where the industry wanted to go.
Great post, lot of good points. Point 2 here especially is well taken and explains the fracturing game market that is now developing. People seem to think it will all fall into line like other generations, but I'm more and more convinced that this gen won't change much from how it exists now. The Wii will probably sell the most units, but because a lot of what succeeds there doesn't mesh with a lot of Western devs strengths, they will be content to make profits of 360/PS3 games targeted at markets they know and have cultivated.
 
Sep 11, 2006
3,921
0
0
#57
borghe said:
The bottom line is that Nintendo essentially did two things:

1. Made one of the most innovative console moves since the creation of home video game consoles

2. Made a console almost exclusively for where THEY wanted to go and not where the industry wanted to go.

I love the Wii. For me personally it is my favorite out of all three consoles. But in this day and age in the industry, and it is safe to say this after almost 1.5 years, the industry doesn't want to be forced to change. They want GTAIV to largely be like GTAIII. They want Halo3 to largely be like Halo2. And they want Rockin' High Profile Shooter Title to be like Halo3 as well. This is what sells, this is what makes money. The DS succeeded in its quirkiness because at the end of it it was still the only viable handheld (before PSP started to take hold finally). With Wii, the PS3 and 360 are still viable.

I never understood the logic. It's cheaper to develop for the Wii. In the next few months it will have the largest userbase in every territory. You would think it prints money. But the bottom line is that developers DO NOT WANT to try and figure it out. ...
Very good points and excellent post but you are missing one thing.

Executives call the shots. Executives are share-holders bitc**s. Share holders demand growth. Do you think they will be happy when they see other companies riding the Wii wave while they are stuck?

What most gaffers dont see is that Nintendo strategy pleases share-holders more than Sony´s and MS´s. Nintendo proposes lower costs and bigger audiences.... and thats a no brainier from a share holder POV

And as i said earlier they are the ones calling the shots

So. Even though you sold 2M more copies of your DS title, you made nearly twice as much profit on your 360 title. These numbers are all hypothetical, but it does explain why some companies are willing to shell out a ton of money on HD console titles instead of focusing exclusively on DS software, even if the DS is a safer bet due to much cheaper development costs.
I did not want to imply that companies will focus only on Wii and DS. Thats too risky too. They will continue to develop HD games, just like they continued to develop games for Xbox and Gamecube.

But companies will follow the market no matter what, because if they dont they dissapear.
Adventure games were a great commercial succes many years ago and now they are nothing. Same thing can happen to any genre.
 
Apr 22, 2005
9,253
0
0
lfoclub.com
#58
borghe said:
The bottom line is that Nintendo essentially did two things:

1. Made one of the most innovative console moves since the creation of home video game consoles

2. Made a console almost exclusively for where THEY wanted to go and not where the industry wanted to go.

I love the Wii. For me personally it is my favorite out of all three consoles. But in this day and age in the industry, and it is safe to say this after almost 1.5 years, the industry doesn't want to be forced to change. They want GTAIV to largely be like GTAIII. They want Halo3 to largely be like Halo2. And they want Rockin' High Profile Shooter Title to be like Halo3 as well. This is what sells, this is what makes money. The DS succeeded in its quirkiness because at the end of it it was still the only viable handheld (before PSP started to take hold finally). With Wii, the PS3 and 360 are still viable.

I never understood the logic. It's cheaper to develop for the Wii. In the next few months it will have the largest userbase in every territory. You would think it prints money. But the bottom line is that developers DO NOT WANT to try and figure it out. They don't want to take risks on what game mechanics will and won't work on it. They don't want to take risks on what genres will sell on it. They don't want to figure out ways to move assets down to it.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the Wii was too much at one time. It was essentially like going from the Atari joystick to the modern day controller for most developers. They were used to one stick and a button, and Nintendo gave them two analog sticks, a dpad, 6 face buttons, 4 should buttons and rumble. Everyone thought the developers would be like "Thank you nintendo! Finally someone gave us the tools we need!" Instead developers said "Umm.... fuck that. It's cool, but we're really not going to try and figure out what to do with that."

And why? Because companies like EA, Activision, Take-Two, and Square have built their vast fortunes on releasing new versions of game engines with very little changing in the way of user interaction and play mechanics.

The Wii will end the generation a success, probably the winner, and a great machine. I'm definitely not worried. But it won't be on the backs of Final Fantasy, Madden, GTA, or Tony Hawk. The Wii will succeed because of titles like Zack and Wiki, Trauma Center, No More Heroes, PES 2008, Nintendo published titles, WiiWare, VC, etc.

And that will really be the odd thing about this generation, and far away the most alienating to many hardcore gamers. That for the first time EVER in the industry, the lead console WON'T have the monstrous 3rd party titles on it. That Square and others WON'T be shifting primary support to the hardware leader. This really has to be a scary time for them.... because in this situation it is ripe for a NEW Square, Enix, Take-Two, Activision, etc to rise up on Wii and become a major player the same way those companies did in the past. (I left out EA because they ALWAYS have their hands in everything. Who knows, it could be them?)

People have been right from the start. The Wii is 75% expansion of the industry, 25% serving the existing masses with the classics. If that expansions becomes larger than the hardcore base that currently drives the industry, we could be in for some seriously strange times.
Really interesting post. I agree to some extent. However I don't see things don't changing in the end. When there's a paradigm shift things change, until there's a new paradigm shift. It happened when the NES appeared and when the first PlayStation appeared. platformers began their big decline and gameplay focused games took a deep in favor of story oriented games.

This many years later it's hard to think videogames haven't been like this forever. But you know, there're a bazillion companies that where really important back in the 16bits era and are next to nothing today, because they couldn't get with the times. I expect the same to happen now.

New Resident Evils will be born, New Metal Gears will be born, and a lot of great franchises will be born. Maybe they won't be story centric, or they might be, but what most people can't get to understand here is that Nintendogs is one of the most important games in recent history, the same as Brain Trainning or Wii Sports. It's the same case that has happened with The Sims. It's been a downplayed game by hardcore gamers, but in the end it's the most important PC game.

You can see the change as something bad, but it won't matter in the end, because it's the mass market that decides. At one time it decided Metal Gears over Marios, now they might decide Wii Sports over Metal Gears.

You shall keep in mind there're a bazillion talented people with a different perspective that might have a voice that now will be heard, a voice that has been ignored up until now. And may be the case that people having a voice now will lose their rights because they won't get with the times.
 
Nov 26, 2006
17,210
0
0
#59
Starchasing said:
Very good points and excellent post but you are missing one thing.

Executives call the shots. Executives are share-holders bitc**s. Share holders demand growth. Do you think they will be happy when they see other companies riding the Wii wave while they are stuck?

What most gaffers dont see is that Nintendo strategy pleases share-holders more than Sony´s and MS´s. Nintendo proposes lower costs and bigger audiences.... and thats a no brainier from a share holder POV

And as i said earlier they are the ones calling the shots
When shareholders see the day-1 sales of GTA4 across both platforms, I don't think they are going to be asking for a Wii port.

The combined audience of 360+PS3+PC is enough to overcome Wii installed base, especially as long as Wii's audiences is perceived as non-gamers/casuals/family.
 
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
#60
They will be satisfied, Starchasing, if the executives convince them sufficiently that the Wii is too risky, too uncertain.

This question should focus the point nicely: which would you prefer, 100 dollars in your hand, or 200 dollars in the bush?

The Wii clearly has the most profit potential of the three current consoles, but it's also the most difficult to tap. Many developers would prefer to take the tried and true, safer route, even if that means less profit. And I don't think the shareholders will automatically disagree with that notion.
 
Apr 22, 2005
9,253
0
0
lfoclub.com
#61
kswiston said:
It's a lot more complicated than you make it seem. Take the DS for example. Development costs are obviously much lower than they are for HD consoles, but the money publishers earn per copy sold is also a great deal less.

For arguements sake, let's estimate that publishers earn 35% of the retail price of a sold game (after paying manufacturing and shipping costs), regardless of whether it's a DS title or a 360/PS3 title.

Accepting that value, consider the following scenario:

Lets say you've developed a Brain Training type title for the DS at the dirt cheap cost of $250k and manage to sell 10M copies at $20 a piece.

For this game, your earnings would be 35% of $20 x 10M for a total of $70M. Subtract the 250k development cost and you're left with 69.75M

Now, taking that profit, you fund a Call of Duty 4 caliber game for HD consoles. This project costs you $30M (120x more than your brain training game!), but it's a hit and you manage to sell 8M copies at $60.

Your earnings on the COD4-type game would be 35% of $60 x 8M for a total of $168M. Subtract the 30M development cost and you're left with 138M

So. Even though you sold 2M more copies of your DS title, you made nearly twice as much profit on your 360 title. These numbers are all hypothetical, but it does explain why some companies are willing to shell out a ton of money on HD console titles instead of focusing exclusively on DS software, even if the DS is a safer bet due to much cheaper development costs.
I won't do the numbers, but the main problem is that HD gaming forces many devs to put all their eggs in one basket. It's life or death. Selling two million copies is not an easy feat. On the other hand, bombing with a low budget title your company won't have to close doors.
 

vanguardian1

poor, homeless and tasteless
Feb 1, 2007
2,310
7
960
#62
theBishop said:
When shareholders see the day-1 sales of GTA4 across both platforms, I don't think they are going to be asking for a Wii port.

The combined audience of 360+PS3+PC is enough to overcome Wii installed base, especially as long as Wii's audiences is perceived as non-gamers/casuals/family.

So GTA4 is going to save the gaming industry? There are far more non-GTA gamers than there are GTA fans, you know.

And the Wii isn't non-gamer/casuals/family only by design, this is what many/most 3rd parties are trying to make it out to be by the software and efforts they're putting into it. And it's thanks to THAT PROBLEM that an astounding amount of traditional gamers have abandoned the platform. Nintendo needs 3rd parties to get the traditional gaming market, only a majority of the traditional gaming developers never gave the platform a chance, much less the time of day.
 

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
Oct 9, 2007
29,365
0
0
#63
Starchasing said:
All those games were green lighted when numbers indicated that PS3 was going to be a monster hit. Today i doubt it would be the same
Pretty much. Quite a bit of them were in development when they thought PS3 would have been a major success again.
Allot also are sticking around because 360 turned into a strong software system(Multiplatform) or moneybags.
 

Arhal_Katarn

Junior Member
Dec 2, 2006
604
0
0
#64
I would hate to see something like FF14 on the wii. Not that i hate the wii but i love FF and after playing a visual feast such as FF13 i wouldn't want the sequel to be taking a step backwards. Sony Japan need to lock down some Japanese exclusives imo and make sure SE are still gonna make the main FF games on Playstation formats.
 
Jan 13, 2006
12,837
15
1,050
33
#65
virtuafightermaster said:
Gamecube is more powerful than PS2? Thats the first time I heard that.
Really? I though it was a well known fact...

I agree that there will be more japanese exclusives instead of western but I don´t think that sales is the sole reason for that. For example, Nintendo still is associated with kids and family friendly games, while both Xbox and Ps3 are associated with a more mature public...
 
Apr 10, 2007
15,235
0
0
#66
On the bright side, whatever the Wii gets, will most likely stay exclusive, or exclusive in spirit. I think Nintendo made the calculated riosk of really differentiating the Wii from the HD consoles. From the lack of proper HD support, to waggle, they went out of thier way to really make it hard for Wii exclusives to become multiplatform.

In the end, it should pay off since the Wii is on track to garner a hundred million userbase anyway. No matter what anyone says, 100M is hard to ignore at the end of the day.
 
Mar 25, 2005
35,145
0
0
Canada
#67
fresquito said:
I won't do the numbers, but the main problem is that HD gaming forces many devs to put all their eggs in one basket. It's life or death. Selling two million copies is not an easy feat. On the other hand, bombing with a low budget title your company won't have to close doors.
It's the same deal in the movie industry though. Cheap horror movies seem to average $5-10M to make and bring in $20-30M domestically (sometimes more. Look at the Saw movies). Blockbusters go for $125-200M these days and often don't make that back before hitting DVD. The thing is, with horror movies, the best case scenario is tens of millions in profit to the studio (before DVD). With a summer blockbuster, the potential earnings can be hundreds of millions. On the other hand, a few low budget flops isn't a big deal to a movie studio. A few flopped blockbusters on the could put you out of business.

There's always a risk involved with the chance to make major money. If movie studios thought that potential earnings weren't worth the risk that big budgeted movies carry, they wouldn't greenlight them.
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
Feb 11, 2007
21,700
0
0
nipponsalesage.blogspot.com
#68
Arhal_Katarn said:
I would hate to see something like FF14 on the wii. Not that i hate the wii but i love FF and after playing a visual feast such as FF13 i wouldn't want the sequel to be taking a step backwards. Sony Japan need to lock down some Japanese exclusives imo and make sure SE are still gonna make the main FF games on Playstation formats.
I would bet that FF14 most likely will be on the next iteration of systems.
 

manueldelalas

Time Traveler
Mar 18, 2007
6,033
0
995
#69
Arhal_Katarn said:
I would hate to see something like FF14 on the wii. Not that i hate the wii but i love FF and after playing a visual feast such as FF13 i wouldn't want the sequel to be taking a step backwards. Sony Japan need to lock down some Japanese exclusives imo and make sure SE are still gonna make the main FF games on Playstation formats.
So you play games just for the graphics? A downgrade in graphics means a "step backwards??

I will look at the sales of DQ9 for the fucking DS to see if all people think like you (oh and I will enjoy that game even though it is according to you a step backwards in that series)

Screw you graphic whore!
 
Jun 15, 2007
3,438
0
0
#70
titiklabingapat said:
On the bright side, whatever the Wii gets, will most likely stay exclusive, or exclusive in spirit. I think Nintendo made the calculated riosk of really differentiating the Wii from the HD consoles. From the lack of proper HD support, to waggle, they went out of thier way to really make it hard for Wii exclusives to become multiplatform.

In the end, it should pay off since the Wii is on track to garner a hundred million userbase anyway. No matter what anyone says, 100M is hard to ignore at the end of the day.
Now if only the majority of those exclusive-by-design games were actually creative and good.

But you're wrong Panther, I'll be enjoying my Western exclusive Wii game next year, hopefully.
Where's the Red Steel 2 defense force?
 
Apr 22, 2005
9,253
0
0
lfoclub.com
#71
kswiston said:
It's the same deal in the movie industry though. Cheap horror movies seem to average $5-10M to make and bring in $20-30M domestically (sometimes more. Look at the Saw movies). Blockbusters go for $125-200M these days and often don't make that back before hitting DVD. The thing is, with horror movies, the best case scenario is tens of millions in profit to the studio (before DVD). With a summer blockbuster, the potential earnings can be hundreds of millions. On the other hand, a few low budget flops isn't a big deal to a movie studio. A few flopped blockbusters on the otherhand could put you out of business.

There's always a risk involved with the chance to make major money. If movie studios thought that potential earnings weren't worth the risk that big budgeted movies carry, they wouldn't greenlight them.
But you can do big budget games on the Wii. But it's hard to do low budgets on HD consoles. That's the thing.
 
Mar 2, 2007
7,877
0
0
#72
borghe said:
I never understood the logic. It's cheaper to develop for the Wii. In the next few months it will have the largest userbase in every territory. You would think it prints money. But the bottom line is that developers DO NOT WANT to try and figure it out. They don't want to take risks on what game mechanics will and won't work on it. They don't want to take risks on what genres will sell on it. They don't want to figure out ways to move assets down to it.
I'm optimistic. We already have seen for example PES in which the devs take some risks. I know several studios and publishers want to make safe bets, but if someone takes some risks and develops an innovative game for the Wii, he could make some big return of investement. Take the PES example: Konami now has a solid fundament and can make some good profits in the next few years with the next iterations. The big userbase offers huge potential profits, some teams will (or have to?) try finding a way to succeed on the Wii.
 
Sep 18, 2005
3,210
0
0
#73
the perception is feeding the problem with wii.

with lots of core gamers wanting a big graphics bump every gen, as well as general skepticism about the precision of motion controls in general, the wii always had a lot to prove.

nintendo has done nothing but release gamecube sequels targeting core gamers. third parties have very little to show at all for the core. many non-nintendo-fanatic lists of AAA core games on the platform still start and finish with Mario Galaxy.

wii has a big image problem among people who championed games during the ps2 era, partly a result of nintendo's new direction, and partly a result of the way they have developed software targeting these people. third parties see this, and see core software not doing call of duty-level numbers and extrapolate accordingly.

it's not easy to figure out what is going to sell on this platform. it's also not easy to make a core game that really exploits the new controls.
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
Jun 18, 2004
23,394
2
1,575
www.borgh.us
#74
Opiate said:
The Wii clearly has the most profit potential of the three current consoles, but it's also the most difficult to tap. Many developers would prefer to take the tried and true, safer route, even if that means less profit. And I don't think the shareholders will automatically disagree with that notion.
Very true... but this can come back and bite them. Because if the majority of consumers PREFER the new style to the old style.. you are going to end up with a NEW EA creating Wii games that people want to play, and the original EA, Activision, Square, etc left trying to catch up.

I mean we are already seeing it right now! The number one SELLING CONSOLE IN THE WORLD is the console WITHOUT Halo 3, DMC4, Grand Theft Auto (we'll see, but it's a pretty safe bet), Metal Gear Solid (again, a pretty safe bet), etc, and a console that through technical limitations and installed userbase prevents them from throwing some quick spinoff/downport to the system to keep the franchise alive there. That HAS TO be a pretty scary reality for Capcom, Konami, Take-Two, Square, etc to contend with.

I realize the hardcore gamers either hate it or don't care enough to be bothered with it, but seriously, as a gamer since 1980 this is probably one of the most interesting times in the video game industry that I remember, if only because this is the first shift that has occurred in the industry since its inception that wasn't just about making the existing industry more appealing to a wider group of users. And it's working. I don't hink even the analysts have a clear picture on where the industry is going to be by 2009 or 2010.

Neo C. said:
Take the PES example: Konami now has a solid fundament and can make some good profits in the next few years with the next iterations. The big userbase offers huge potential profits, some teams will (or have to?) try finding a way to succeeding on the Wii.
PES will be an example used all this year and beyond I have a feeling. It could be the very catalyst to everything that's being talked about in this thread. If PES Wii sales spike, it could very well become the lead version. PES players would actually seek out the Wii as their preferred platform to play the game on.

It's possible, and in many more genres than football. But IF it happens, it will take baby steps, and might not even see fruition this generation.

As I said, Nintendo forced a change on the industry that the industry wasn't ready to adopt. If Nintendo can continue to remain relevant, especially if they can continue to be the sales leader, companies are going to start figuring out how to makes serious money off of its 20M, 24M, 30M, 35M, etc userbase.

But for this to happen, I have a feeling Nintendo will have to lead the charge themselves and KEEP themselves relevant and the sales leader... because it certainly isn't going to happen based even in large part on current third party support. It's definitely possible for them to do this.. just far from guaranteed. Although all they really need is another Nintendogs, Wii Sports, Animal Crossing, etc. Actually, thinking about it, Wii Fit is pretty much make or break for Nintendo. If Wii Fit fails, I have a feeling that eventually Nintendo will take a sound 2nd place to "HD gaming" in the mass market this gen. If Wii Fit succeeds, Nintendo could very well quell "HD gaming" in the eyes of the mass market for the remainder of the generation.
 
Sep 11, 2006
3,921
0
0
#75
theBishop said:
When shareholders see the day-1 sales of GTA4 across both platforms, I don't think they are going to be asking for a Wii port.

The combined audience of 360+PS3+PC is enough to overcome Wii installed base, especially as long as Wii's audiences is perceived as non-gamers/casuals/family.
GTA4 wont sell more than Nintendogs, wich was way more cheaper to produce...

thats what shareholders are going to see... they are going to think "we are spending millions of dollars in making this games when there are companies out there making billions out of a game that was three month in develpment (brain training)

Any rational shareholder would want its company to follow the more profitable way, and that way in the mid or long term will be the nintendo way...


I also would like to say that i am talking from the bussiness POV, not as a gamer, i dont like nintendogs or wii play or anything like that. I like games like turrican and xenon 2 and monkey island ... you dont see games like that often anymore do you??

EDIT: all i wanted to say is what borgue said above me, althou he is far more articulate.
 
Oct 1, 2006
48,836
0
0
peter.metaclassofnil.com
#76
manueldelalas said:
So you play games just for the graphics? A downgrade in graphics means a "step backwards??
Why is it always "WHAT? YOU LIKE GRAPHICS? YOU MUST HATE GAMEPLAY!" with some people? Why should the two be mutually exclusive? And can you really dispute that good presentation adds a lot to a cinematic game like Final Fantasy?

fresquito said:
But you can do big budget games on the Wii. But it's hard to do low budgets on HD consoles. That's the thing.
That's an oft-repeated claim, but it's simply not true. An extreme example is Disgaea 3, but I'm also sure that games like Folklore and Project Sylpheed didn't have anything more than an average last-gen budget. (and a smaller one than many Wii titles)
 
Nov 16, 2006
78,207
0
0
steamcommunity.com
#77
borghe said:
The bottom line is that Nintendo essentially did two things:

1. Made one of the most innovative console moves since the creation of home video game consoles

2. Made a console almost exclusively for where THEY wanted to go and not where the industry wanted to go.

I love the Wii. For me personally it is my favorite out of all three consoles. But in this day and age in the industry, and it is safe to say this after almost 1.5 years, the industry doesn't want to be forced to change. They want GTAIV to largely be like GTAIII. They want Halo3 to largely be like Halo2. And they want Rockin' High Profile Shooter Title to be like Halo3 as well. This is what sells, this is what makes money. The DS succeeded in its quirkiness because at the end of it it was still the only viable handheld (before PSP started to take hold finally). With Wii, the PS3 and 360 are still viable.

I never understood the logic. It's cheaper to develop for the Wii. In the next few months it will have the largest userbase in every territory. You would think it prints money. But the bottom line is that developers DO NOT WANT to try and figure it out. They don't want to take risks on what game mechanics will and won't work on it. They don't want to take risks on what genres will sell on it. They don't want to figure out ways to move assets down to it.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the Wii was too much at one time. It was essentially like going from the Atari joystick to the modern day controller for most developers. They were used to one stick and a button, and Nintendo gave them two analog sticks, a dpad, 6 face buttons, 4 should buttons and rumble. Everyone thought the developers would be like "Thank you nintendo! Finally someone gave us the tools we need!" Instead developers said "Umm.... fuck that. It's cool, but we're really not going to try and figure out what to do with that."

And why? Because companies like EA, Activision, Take-Two, and Square have built their vast fortunes on releasing new versions of game engines with very little changing in the way of user interaction and play mechanics.

The Wii will end the generation a success, probably the winner, and a great machine. I'm definitely not worried. But it won't be on the backs of Final Fantasy, Madden, GTA, or Tony Hawk. The Wii will succeed because of titles like Zack and Wiki, Trauma Center, No More Heroes, PES 2008, Nintendo published titles, WiiWare, VC, etc.

And that will really be the odd thing about this generation, and far away the most alienating to many hardcore gamers. That for the first time EVER in the industry, the lead console WON'T have the monstrous 3rd party titles on it. That Square and others WON'T be shifting primary support to the hardware leader. This really has to be a scary time for them.... because in this situation it is ripe for a NEW Square, Enix, Take-Two, Activision, etc to rise up on Wii and become a major player the same way those companies did in the past. (I left out EA because they ALWAYS have their hands in everything. Who knows, it could be them?)

People have been right from the start. The Wii is 75% expansion of the industry, 25% serving the existing masses with the classics. If that expansions becomes larger than the hardcore base that currently drives the industry, we could be in for some seriously strange times.
Very very good post.
 

Arhal_Katarn

Junior Member
Dec 2, 2006
604
0
0
#78
manueldelalas said:
So you play games just for the graphics? A downgrade in graphics means a "step backwards??

I will look at the sales of DQ9 for the fucking DS to see if all people think like you (oh and I will enjoy that game even though it is according to you a step backwards in that series)

Screw you graphic whore!

Jesus christ no need to over react dude. Its not just about the graphics if a main FF game was on wii would be a massive downgrade from ps3 in every department. And i am not a graphics whore the game i play the most at the moment is pixel junk monsters.
 
Apr 10, 2007
15,235
0
0
#79
GitarooMan said:
Great post, lot of good points. Point 2 here especially is well taken and explains the fracturing game market that is now developing. People seem to think it will all fall into line like other generations, but I'm more and more convinced that this gen won't change much from how it exists now. The Wii will probably sell the most units, but because a lot of what succeeds there doesn't mesh with a lot of Western devs strengths, they will be content to make profits of 360/PS3 games targeted at markets they know and have cultivated.
Blue Ocean, basically. Nintendo made the competition irrelevant to them.
 
#80
virtuafightermaster said:
Gamecube is more powerful than PS2? Thats the first time I heard that.

That's ot

In a lot of respects GC kills ps2 especially when you throw in texturing, shading techniques(TEV), and lighting with certain amounts of environmental amounts ie the polys of levels. For effects they trade off in a lot of areas though PS2 even owns xbox at some things. There are games that come close to what GC's best does but when you talk about the best of what each of three systems did tecnhincally you can't really compare since it really does become apples vs oranges. Though I hate comments like that the person that made the response probably had little technical context and it meant it as a generalized statement.

Short story it is more powerful but since the person doesn't say how not all that effective of a point. My only point when it comes to GC and PS2 things is devs are still using PS2 based assets for games which can never excell at what gc does therefore at best wii will make glorified gc ps2 ports which didn't even look all that good in comparison to ground up gc titles. Outside of EA and sega in bits with f5, capcom, ubisoft, and konami trying to push the archecticture in limited ways ot fit the title I've resigned myself that publishers will stick devs that know next to about making good looking opengl or opengles based on a Wii title.

It's bad enough the gameplay sucks from a lot of 3rd parties but they really screwed themselves on Wii but not exerting at least the amount of effort nintendo does for it's titles which really isn't all that much to be honest outside of two titles.
 
Nov 26, 2006
17,210
0
0
#81
Starchasing said:
GTA4 wont sell more than Nintendogs, wich was way more cheaper to produce...

thats what shareholders are going to see... they are going to think "we are spending millions of dollars in making this games when there are companies out there making billions out of a game that was three month in develpment (brain training)

Any rational shareholder would want its company to follow the more profitable way, and that way in the mid or long term will be the nintendo way...


I also would like to say that i am talking from the bussiness POV, not as a gamer, i dont like nintendogs or wii play or anything like that. I like games like turrican and xenon 2 and monkey island ... you dont see games like that often anymore do you??
your point illustrates a key weakness in the "sales = support" belief. today's crop of game developers have a legacy. Rockstar could no more make Nintendogs than Radiohead could make The Chronic. Most game developers are set-up to build the games that Sony and Microsoft had in mind when they designed their next-gen consoles.
 
Apr 22, 2005
9,253
0
0
lfoclub.com
#82
Durante said:
That's an oft-repeated claim, but it's simply not true. An extreme example is Disgaea 3, but I'm also sure that games like Folklore and Project Sylpheed didn't have anything more than an average last-gen budget. (and a smaller one than many Wii titles)
Point is: do you think a low budget title can be king in HD land? By definition, low budgets titles can exist on HD systems, problem being they won't go beyond the niche market. WIi is more open in this regard, and that was my whole point.
 
Dec 11, 2006
913
0
0
#83
Arhal_Katarn said:
Jesus christ no need to over react dude. Its not just about the graphics if a main FF game was on wii would be a massive downgrade from ps3 in every department. And i am not a graphics whore the game i play the most at the moment is pixel junk monsters.
Agree, graphic is a big part of games, sure a game can be good with only good gameplay, but why bother upgrade hardware at all. We can just stay with SNES and Genesis forever.
If DMC4 or MGS4 is Wii exclusive a lot people would be very pissed because the graphic downgrade alone.
 
Sep 11, 2006
3,921
0
0
#84
borghe said:
Very true... but this can come back and bite them. Because if the majority of consumers PREFER the new style to the old style.. you are going to end up with a NEW EA creating Wii games that people want to play, and the original EA, Activision, Square, etc left trying to catch up.
I think this is the main point of why Wii will get the exclusives eventually, but i dont beleive there will be a new EA or anything... im sure all the big companies have the resources and talent to turn around...

Also, as of today old genres can coexist with new genres... digital distribution and lower cost enable this. The only thing is that you will be playing those exclusives in SD, till next gen...

how many hardocre gamers bitched and moaned about the DS only to be playing right now etrian odyssey???

Most game developers are set-up to build the games that Sony and Microsoft had in mind when they designed their next-gen consoles.
Well, if they dont adapt to the new market they will have to find another job. Other new developers will appear and substitute them.
 
Jan 21, 2008
11,029
7
830
USA
#86
kswiston said:
It's a lot more complicated than you make it seem. Take the DS for example. Development costs are obviously much lower than they are for HD consoles, but the money publishers earn per copy sold is also a great deal less.

For arguements sake, let's estimate that publishers earn 35% of the retail price of a sold game (after paying manufacturing and shipping costs), regardless of whether it's a DS title or a 360/PS3 title.

Accepting that value, consider the following scenario:

Lets say you've developed a Brain Training type title for the DS at the dirt cheap cost of $250k and manage to sell 10M copies at $20 a piece.

For this game, your earnings would be 35% of $20 x 10M for a total of $70M. Subtract the 250k development cost and you're left with 69.75M

Now, taking that profit, you fund a Call of Duty 4 caliber game for HD consoles. This project costs you $30M (120x more than your brain training game!), but it's a hit and you manage to sell 8M copies at $60.

Your earnings on the COD4-type game would be 35% of $60 x 8M for a total of $168M. Subtract the 30M development cost and you're left with 138M

So. Even though you sold 2M more copies of your DS title, you made nearly twice as much profit on your 360 title. These numbers are all hypothetical, but it does explain why some companies are willing to shell out a ton of money on HD console titles instead of focusing exclusively on DS software, even if the DS is a safer bet due to much cheaper development costs.
But how about this.
You take your $30 million spend it making a high profile game and it sells 1 million - you just lost $9 million
You take your $30 million and make 120 of your 250k games - you only need to sell ~4.5 million across all 120 games to make a profit. If each game sells a million (a money losing flop in the case of your big budget game) - you just made 840 million, 6 times as much as on your COD4 style game when it was a mega hit.
The reality of how game companies work lies somewhere in between, balancing risk, reward, market saturation, prestige, marketing expenses and a whole slew of other things
 
Mar 2, 2007
7,877
0
0
#87
fresquito said:
This many years later it's hard to think videogames haven't been like this forever. But you know, there're a bazillion companies that where really important back in the 16bits era and are next to nothing today, because they couldn't get with the times. I expect the same to happen now.
borghe said:
Very true... but this can come back and bite them. Because if the majority of consumers PREFER the new style to the old style.. you are going to end up with a NEW EA creating Wii games that people want to play, and the original EA, Activision, Square, etc left trying to catch up.
So far, I think Capcom has made and is making good bets, their offering is quite diversive und successful on every platform (even PSP). If they only perform even better on the DS...
 
Sep 18, 2005
3,210
0
0
#88
theBishop said:
your point illustrates a key weakness in the "sales = support" belief. today's crop of game developers have a legacy. Rockstar could no more make Nintendogs than Radiohead could make The Chronic. Most game developers are set-up to build the games that Sony and Microsoft had in mind when they designed their next-gen consoles.
sure. but to really keep delivering the hd hits you're going to need to undergo a big software development paradigm shift too: parallelism, physics simulation, crowds, animation, etc... it's not like you can just upscale your ps2 engine and rock the hd sales ladder (though there will surely be a bunch of successes that do this).

every gen the big hits tend to be in new ip (or very-evolved older ip) doing things that couldn't be done the previous gen (*other* than just graphics). the exciting stuff being done in hd is going to be more than just a sequel with more polygons. devs are wise to this, of course and were planning for the new ps3 age, but it's not like devs are strangers to change - this industry moves pretty fast.
 
Aug 6, 2004
12,871
0
0
#89
It's interesting that the probably most successful Japanese 3rd party this gen, Capcom, was the only one that recognized the importance of the western market and which decided to treat the 360 and PS3 as one console and heavily orient their efforts to where that "console" would be strongest, the west. The other Japanese 3rd parties are much more in disarray, as the horse they solely banked isn't doing as well, and they're having to adjust a lot more.
 
#90
borghe said:
Very true... but this can come back and bite them. Because if the majority of consumers PREFER the new style to the old style.. you are going to end up with a NEW EA creating Wii games that people want to play, and the original EA, Activision, Square, etc left trying to catch up.

I mean we are already seeing it right now! The number one SELLING CONSOLE IN THE WORLD is the console WITHOUT Halo 3, DMC4, Grand Theft Auto (we'll see, but it's a pretty safe bet), Metal Gear Solid (again, a pretty safe bet), etc, and a console that through technical limitations and installed userbase prevents them from throwing some quick spinoff/downport to the system to keep the franchise alive there. That HAS TO be a pretty scary reality for Capcom, Konami, Take-Two, Square, etc to contend with.

I realize the hardcore gamers either hate it or don't care enough to be bothered with it, but seriously, as a gamer since 1980 this is probably one of the most interesting times in the video game industry that I remember, if only because this is the first shift that has occurred in the industry since its inception that wasn't just about making the existing industry more appealing to a wider group of users. And it's working. I don't hink even the analysts have a clear picture on where the industry is going to be by 2009 or 2010.
That's a such a bs argument in reference to engine or engine assets

First we thought UE3 couldn't be done on Wii than epic and other confirm a partner is doing a Wii title using it. The rendering is quite a subject and from what i've seen devs and 3d enthusiasts say Wii could easily be inbetween UE2.5 which vegas was based not 3 actually and actually UE3 level games.

Eggebrecht in interviews said lair started off the on the gc archictecture and is now saying aspects of the current Wii engine exceed the PS3 version. Could be many things including rendering

SE announced that a huge of theirs was doable now on the Wii.

Yes Wii is limited just PS3 and 360 limit what devs can do in mulitplatform titles that are PC based. Not saying that Wii is on their level no way in hell with the gpu hardware it can even be near the same. I'm saying there are ways to fit most devs outside of texturing and shader complexity and somewhat bigger environments aren't doing anything all that impressive or new. Infact I will go as far to say that outside of lighting/shadowing jack in terms of techniques has been brought to the table compared to what devs had before.

I'm more pissed how they won't retrofit titles. They waste all this money on PS3 versions ie GTA4 just to make it at level 360 or pc but damned if they can't genuinely learn the architecture and spend time to make great looking games for what the system can do.

Furthermore I hate this notion of technical limits like it's a damn new thing to devs/publishers. Just seems these days both publishers and devs are nothing more than profit pussies they'll do all the easy jobs anything hard they just avoid.
 
May 25, 2005
6,441
3
1,370
#91
sakuragi said:
Big Japanese titles released and to be released on the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii:



Devil may cry 4 - PS3/Xbox 360

Resident Evil 5 - PS3/ Xbox 360

Dynasty warrior 6 - PS3/ Xbox 360

Yakuza 3 - PS3

Final Fantasy 13 - PS3

Final Fantasy 13 versus - PS3

Persona 4 - PS2

MGS4 - PS3

Silent hill 5 - PS3

Ace combat 6 - Xbox 360

Tales of Vesperia - Xbox 360

The last remnant - PS3/Xbox 360


The only big game I see for the Wii is Monster hunter 3. Anyone care to add?
How many of those games were already in development for PS3/360? Not many publisher will pull the plug on those projects having spen a ton of money already.
 
Sep 11, 2006
3,921
0
0
#93
Neo C. said:
So far, I think Capcom has made and is making good bets, their offering is quite diversive und successful on every platform (even PSP). If they only perform even better on the DS...
yeah capcom has been right on the money and im sure they will continue to do so for quite a time... their Wii strategy has been very sound and im sure they will show RE WII sooner or later.

I like SE strategy too, it is good for people with mulyiple consoles...

I want to play RE5 on the 360 as much as i want to play a new RE WII with wiimote pointing
I want to play FF13 and im enjoying SE NDS games so far too.

As long as companies play it safe and smart there will be games for every one
 
Aug 18, 2007
6,819
0
0
#94
Durante said:
That's an oft-repeated claim, but it's simply not true. An extreme example is Disgaea 3, but I'm also sure that games like Folklore and Project Sylpheed didn't have anything more than an average last-gen budget. (and a smaller one than many Wii titles)
Compare the number of average budget games for the Wii with PS3 or 360.

The Wii is pretty much the breeding ground for average budget games now console-wise.

borghe said:
But for this to happen, I have a feeling Nintendo will have to lead the charge themselves and KEEP themselves relevant and the sales leader... because it certainly isn't going to happen based even in large part on current third party support. It's definitely possible for them to do this.. just far from guaranteed. Although all they really need is another Nintendogs, Wii Sports, Animal Crossing, etc.
This is another thing that differentiates Nintendo from Sony or MS - Ninty's 1st party products cater to a wide range of demographics, from the non-gamer to the core gamer.

As long as Ninty can keep up this effort, which until now they have done, I see no problem for them keeping the Wii steady as 3rd party try to figure out what games to develop for the Wii.
 
#95
virtuafightermaster said:
Agree, graphic is a big part of games, sure a game can be good with only good gameplay, but why bother upgrade hardware at all. We can just stay with SNES and Genesis forever.
If DMC4 or MGS4 is Wii exclusive a lot people would be very pissed because the graphic downgrade alone.
As if DMC or MGS fans can say the graphics of the games last gen exceed what the architecture is already offering or could. Honestly DMC 4 and MGS4 aren't the series as much as the other 3 titles in the last generation or two have been. I'd say more people would be disappointed at the controls, I know for me in dmc it would be an issue. If anything this gen has proven graphics don't matter after a certain point same could be for handhelds.

Also I doubt either of those games would've ever been Wii exclusive.
 
Jun 7, 2004
4,849
0
0
Winnipeg, Canada
#99
while somewhat dissappoiting it comes back to the reason most people bought a Wii in the first place. the wii audience will have to rely on nintendo for their exclusives. and that is not a bad thing at all.

in fact, if the Wii expanded audience is a reality they will be composed not of hardcore games, but new nintendo gamers instead. and let's not forget one thing either, the Wii was to be an alternative console from its inception. The fact that such an alternate gaming device has achieved this level of success is utterly amazing. And while the hardcore audience is not going away anytime soon, it is pretty evident that consumers are willing to embrace new ways of gaming.

the Wii may not get the same treatment as the other 2 mayor consoles do when it comes to exclusive but if the face of gaming changes in the next few years by way of the Wii you can bet that what is now considered the core audience for videogames and what is now considered and "exclusive" will become less relevant and the current gaming heavyhitters will become obsolete.

Those are big ifs however, but 3 years ago, can anyone have imagined the success nintendo would enjoy with its Wii console?

I just think its funny how nintendo just lifted the table mantle from under the whole industy's dinning table and said, "never-you-mind. REBOOT." the interesting thing is how much it is working for them. its almost as if they are the only ones that can do this. can you see any other gaming company do the same thing> Sega? SE? EA? Sony? MS? Its as if they wrote the book on videogaming and they alone can edit the text because everybody else is too scared to change the rules that nintendo wrote.

EDIT: i think borghe and i attended the same game seminar heh
 
Mar 2, 2007
7,877
0
0
borghe said:
But for this to happen, I have a feeling Nintendo will have to lead the charge themselves and KEEP themselves relevant and the sales leader... because it certainly isn't going to happen based even in large part on current third party support. It's definitely possible for them to do this.. just far from guaranteed. Although all they really need is another Nintendogs, Wii Sports, Animal Crossing, etc. Actually, thinking about it, Wii Fit is pretty much make or break for Nintendo. If Wii Fit fails, I have a feeling that eventually Nintendo will take a sound 2nd place to "HD gaming" in the mass market this gen. If Wii Fit succeeds, Nintendo could very well quell "HD gaming" in the eyes of the mass market for the remainder of the generation.
Nintendo knows this better than anyone else. They have fully shifted their ressources to the Wii development, though it will be hard even for them to make surprise hits regularly.