I figured that lost post woulda been my last with you. Hence the "very well" at the end. I try to keep it civilized. And then you come back with a very hostile post. When all that was necessary was to say "nope I still don't agree".
doomed1 said:
You really have no idea what you're talking about. I do have data to support my hypothesis (year+ old data from Nintendo. I don't have the time looking through their conference slides from the past three years though, sorry). And this would be data that wouldn't change much over the years). You don't. My hypothesis has to do with explaining the sales of the the alleged "casual" games and games with long tails (families don't necessarily buy what's brand new) and the realities of neglected potential genre markets. The only reason we don't have any data for these potential buyers, and that includes you by the way, is because no one's tried to reach out to them. For this reason, I have said that greater advertising should be done across the board for new games from 3rd parties. In addition, they should stop treating the games like "tests" beyond understanding what exactly the reaction to their release was. Dead Space Extraction's reaction was poor due to poor outreach to potential consumers and a poor core concept for consumers to be interested in. Not the case with Just Dance. I watched some of the commercials and now even I kind of want it. Am I now suddenly a casual gamer? Should I cancel my order for No More Heroes now and buy Wii Fit instead? No, because my interest in a mainstream game does not change the values I seek in gaming.
You constantly just say "you don't understand, you have no data, blah blah". It's ignorant to be frank. You have less, real, hard data in fact. Demographic figures from Nintendo hold little value. Sales are what speak volume. Just look at the sales chart, what does that tell you? When DSE(which did have a very strong marketing effort btw) flops and EA Sports Active sells millions, what would you do as EA?
There is plenty of data to support what we(most ppl, not you) claim. What would you call the data in the OP? If that doesn't suffice, what sort of data are you looking for?
You claim 3rd parties are not giving Wii a chance and are not trying and that is why they under perform. When in fact, they are trying and they are failing because the Wii is a fundamentally different audience. Look at it this way, the Wii install base is roughly that of 360+ps3. So, unless 100% of the Wii audience is willing to purchase core games, which it clearly is not, there is no reason to risk making high budget core games. I mean, doesn't Nintendo have all this data about all the new people they are bringing into games cause? They didn't coming into games to play core games, they want to play the casual stuff. So clearly that number will not be anywhere near 100%, lets be generous and say 70% of Wii owners aren't "new" gamers. Well 30% is still a fucking lot. Well more than enough to justify keeping core games on the other consoles. (this is a loose example to stress a point, DO NOT take it literally)
All you have is a "hypothesis": 'All it takes is advertising to sell games to anyone and that Wii is a family console. Each family will have members that fill in niches and thus validate more 3rd party, particularly core, support. '
Is that right? If its wrong I would love for you to write definitively what your "hypothesis" is. (actually I wouldn't we can just end this)
...Advertise games to increase sales!? What a damn revelation. What makes you think Wii games are advertised any less than other games? (I'll pull a
you, give me data if you want to say they are, not some anecdotal "I didn't see a commercial".) And the whole family thing is unrealistic:
You describe it like each member of the family is buying their own games. That would mean the attach ratio for Wii would be 3x(or however big the average family is) as big as it is now. The same amount of software is sold(same AR as other consoles). This family theory is asinine. If the Wii is purchased for use by a family, the family as a whole is looked at as a single consumer.
You do not think rationally, you are asking publishers to go against the real data, the analysts, etc, in favor of a theory with nothing behind it but a kid on a forum overthinking Wii demographic data.
You have no significant data to back up your claims. There's nothing saying that Jake's parents would or would not approve of him playing Madworld because he's a fictional construct I used to apply sample consumer values to. In addition, your comparisons with NMH2 and UC2 are unfair as well. NMH is a niche game with a niche abstract presentation made by a niche studio funded by a niche Japanese publisher produced by eccentric and very niche developer given no mainstream media advertising support all Rated M, while Uncharted is a 1st party Sony title made by a mainstream developer with a mainstream presentation and a multi-million dollar mainstream ad campaign all rated T. Someone who plays No More Heroes isn't necessarily going to want to play Uncharted, and vis versa.
That was a hypothetical example to prove a point(put dif games in the example, it makes no difference). I said not to focus on the little things and you do. You ignore my main point there and rip into an example. Well actually, you are kinda proving part of my point(see bolded). Advertising to someone who doesn't care for a game is pointless.
Regarding your call to increase advertising for Wii games...they advertise as much as they should. They determine the cost per thousand, they project how much sales when increase if they reach X thousand consumers. They weigh it out and find the optimal level. Is this always the case? No. But don't assume advertising more is always better. Extra sales revenue does no good if it doesn't cover the advertising costs.
Is it a risk to make a higher budget game for the Wii? Sure it is! Was it a risk to go modern with Call of Duty? A risk to put all that money behind a new IP like Assassin's Creed? A risk to put the Wii out to market in the first place? Fuck yes, and look where they are now. Risk brings reward, but you can't go half-way on it. Sometimes it'll work and sometimes it won't, but being as risk adverse as they are with the Wii, I am shocked and appalled that 3rd parties haven't just curled up into a fetal position and started crying.
...Just silly. Publishers have taken risks with Wii and failed. You claim they were only half there, but that is nothing but an opinion. In their eyes they tried and failed. There is no reason to risk even more when they can make lower risk games elsewhere. In fact, I can guarantee you these publishers perform risk analysis. They calculate expected profits, factoring in risk and probability of success and failure. Are these calculations perfect? No. The calculations are based on models, models are not perfect. But they offer the most educated decisions you can expect.
This isn't about risk or market predictability, because we've determined that the "predictable" HD market is insufficient for games to be significantly profitable in. This is about developers swallowing their pride, admitting they've fucked up, and trying to fix it.
No. Just no. It
is about risk and market predictability. The companies are not losing money simply because games are not selling enough, there's many factors at play(overhead, rising costs, bad economy, mismanagement, etc). Most games do sell enough to cover their costs. There is nothing to indicate the Wii market would be more profitable...
The answer is not necessarily to throw all money into the Wii, but rather to look at the games marketplace from the consumer point of view; ask why rather than what, ask how rather than if.
What the hell...
I don't have the business credentials to say for certain what 3rd parties should do about the Wii for certain, but if some literature academic is thinking more proactively about a market he has no real stake in than those paid to do so, then where the fuck is my paycheck for analyst services?
Well this explains everything.
EDIT: I should really stop doing this. I don't have the energy to argue with you over the bullshit you spew all hours of the night. I find you're looking at things from the worst point of view possible, but let's just agree to disagree.
You turn it into an argument.
Funny, I absolutely admire Nintendo for what they have done these last 5 years(yes, including this casual revolution, bravo to them).
/nods towards bolded
