Support NeoGAF

[Tiktaalik]

Yeah, I hear this argument a lot, but what do you think will be better with the next Wii? Why couldn't they invest smaller amounts of money to try what works and what doesn't? Less money shouldn't mean shovelware though - a lot of the crapware that's released couldn't be better even if a hundred times as much money was spent on it.

Anyway, I still think that the best solution for third parties (meaning the large publishers) is to go bankrupt. They should not be saved, because they're bad for the industry. The only way they can be (and will be) saved is through mergers and buying up successful stuff, nothing to do with the actual market. The mishandling of the Wii (even if people who're saying it could only work for Nintendo aren't right, and they might be fwiw) is just a symptom - the industry collapsed by itself, without basically anyone noticing.



This is imo exactly the kind of thinking that got them into trouble, and why no forum thread will be able to solve these problems :-/ Seeing that "mobile" and "facebook gaming" are doing well now and growing isn't really insightful, it's stating the obvious, and you can't make money off of this (or base a strategy on it). I don't think there's an easy solution for the large publishers (other than buying up the other large ones and control more of the market and hope it'll work out).

Ideally, it'd be time for new, smaller companies to step in. They'd grow game by game though, and probably through a few individual people's creativity. It'll take some years for people to understand what works in this new market - you can't have this knowledge right now, even Nintendo doesn't have it. For someone to come up with a strategy that a company like, say, EA, could just implement...I think that's basically impossible for a lot of reasons.

My observations are based on the fact that the industry is cyclical. I think the core issue is that 3rd parties haven't really produced any new IPs that are appropriate for the expanded audience. The solution is to invest, much as Nintendo has, in quality IPs that work for everyone at all ages and sexes. Given that the industry is cyclical and new IPs are most successful at the start of of a generation, I feel that introducing new expanded audience friendly IPs will be most successful at the start of the generation (or during the launch of the Natal). For this reason I think it may be a better use of money to hold off and adopt a wait and see approach on big new IPs.

I bring up Facebook and Mobile as an example of something to invest in while waiting for a generational relaunch. Frankly they should be investing in it at this point anyway as the market is still relatively open and there's going to be a lot of money to be made here.

At this snapshot in time I see a lot more compelling areas to invest in than the Wii. In two years or so when the Wii 2 is launching, that will absolutely be the best bet when investing heavily in new IP production.

 

[Version 3.0]

Michael, I’m very wary of boring people who have been round this argument six or seven times in the last couple of months – so here is a condensed version of my particular hobby horses. It is still long.

Everyone else - we've been round this already way too often, so I think I'll duck out of the rest of the thread this time round!

Excellent post. I'd like to make a small suggestion for a single game. It's blatantly obvious, I think, and I've suggested it before. Of course, no one's listening, but...

Atari Combat. Take the tank game from Wii Play and make a full game out of it, single-player and vs. mode, and do a bunch of variations like in the original Combat for the Atari 2600 (invisible tanks, ricochet . Even with added online play, leaderboards, and so on, it ought to cost about a buck fifty to make. Spend some real money on advertising, and now that New Super Mario Bros Wii is a runaway success, call it New Atari Combat.

That's hardcore (online, vs., co-op, team play). And casual (accessible, family friendly). It's a recognizable franchise, even (maybe especially) to the older "non-gamer" or "lapsed gamer" Wii demographic that's supposedly so huge. I think it has great potential.

 

[BDGAME]

It's too late now.

Analyzing the sales of N64 and NGC, We can assume that Nintendo has a public of 20 to 30 millions of fans. Wii bring to market 35+ millions of gamers (and some hardcores in the middle).

When Wii launch, the new public and the old public were with yours minds open for new and quality games with the new interface that wiimotion bring to us.

The old public receive, from third party, games like Red Steel, Far Cry, RE on-rail, ugly Ps2 ports with bad controls and long periods without any game to play. Many of theses games sells well ( 1+ million), but that public get boring and buy a Ps360 to have something to play and sell yours Wiis or maintain it only to play Nintendo games.

The new public receive games like Rayman Rabbids, deca Sports, Family Carnival, Babyz and notice that the third party games are very bad while the Nintendo ones are goods.

Now, thanks to the third party, the old and the new public only buy Nintendo games and don't know nothing about other games that third party do (quality games or not).

Third party companies need regain confidence of the public. They can do it? I doubt.

 

[legend166]

agreeing with phisheep itt


Unless you're coming in with an established IP (and I mean actually established. Dead Space was not established) and/or great developer pedigree, don't bother making M rated traditional games on the Wii. It's pointless. I know doomed1 is probably going to come in here and go crazy at that, but it's the truth.

This does not mean you should make nothing but 'casual games'.

Make high quality, T/E rated tradtional games, and then market them. That's the audience for tradtional games on the Wii. Take a cue from Nintendo and Pixar - make entertainment that is suitable for all ages. Something like Zack and Wiki was heading in the right direction, but fumbled the ball because unless you were a knowledgable gamer, there's no way the game would appeal to people over 12 on a superficial level.

Look at games like Professor Layton on the DS. That series has become a HUGE hit in Japan and the UK because it appeal to all ages.


A question for Michael - there's a lot of talk about marketing Wii games. I think a good comparison is Borderlands. Before the game released, you said you believed the game was 'sent to die'. I don't know if everyone shared that sentiment, but the game was considered to be somewhat of a surprise hit. However, the marketing for Borderlands was relatively big:

Borderlands it set to make the most of big name titles moving out of Q4, and 2K has planned a huge marketing push, including a heavyweight TV campaign on terrestrial and satellite channels, cinema ads, specialist press and a website take-overs on IGN, Eurogamer and Gamespot.

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/35539/Borderlands-can-rival-GTA8200and-Halo

I don't know what kind of access you have, but would you be able to do research into the marketing budget of Borderlands, compared to that of, say, Deadspace: Extraction? Something tells me it's fairly huge.

 

[Flachmatuch]

My observations are based on the fact that the industry is cyclical. I think the core issue is that 3rd parties haven't really produced any new IPs that are appropriate for the expanded audience. The solution is to invest, much as Nintendo has, in quality IPs that work for everyone at all ages and sexes. Given that the industry is cyclical and new IPs are most successful at the start of of a generation, I feel that introducing new expanded audience friendly IPs will be most successful at the start of the generation (or during the launch of the Natal). For this reason I think it may be a better use of money to hold off and adopt a wait and see approach on big new IPs.

I think the focus on "big new IPs" is part of the problem tbh. What you call an "IP" is the end result of a long development. It includes the genre and its rules, the balance of refinement and accessibility, production values, setting and so on. For example, Dante's Inferno, a "new IP" is basically a copy of GoW, which has a long ancestry before it and completes what the older games did by refining it into a real mass market product. You can't do that with the Wii yet, because you don't have the DMCs and Ninja Gaidens and the games before them.

I bring up Facebook and Mobile as an example of something to invest in while waiting for a generational relaunch. Frankly they should be investing in it at this point anyway as the market is still relatively open and there's going to be a lot of money to be made here.

Errr, yeah, that's the point I wanted to make...or rather, even more importantly than money (at this stage), there's a lot of knowledge to be gained. Third parties seem to have no clue about anything but the "core", so they should invest in learning about where the new money's coming from. So, maybe they should make a relatively bigger number of small (but not shitty) games that are really aimed at understanding what people really want, with small but relatively good teams, which should not be lead by traditional technology-focused people, but by people who're good with people I don't think they could make huge profits with the first or second generation of games tbh, before they understand what they're doing.

At this snapshot in time I see a lot more compelling areas to invest in than the Wii. In two years or so when the Wii 2 is launching, that will absolutely be the best bet when investing heavily in new IP production.

I really dislike this "IP" stuff a lot. Of course you can create a brand with enough marketing money, but every one of your competitors can and will do that too. (Just look at EA for example, their "new IPs" are basically copies (although very high quality copies) of already successful games, and it's not really getting them anywhere.) You need a real "knowledge based" advantage imo. It's true that Nintendo had the Nintendo name and stuff, but the Wii stuff that became successful at first was completely new, they created the whole brand from scratch. Not saying they had no advantage, but the really important stuff was to understand what people wanted. Same thing's true about Facebook and mobile gaming too actually (and there may be a lot of shareable experience between these and the new casual console stuff too).

 

[JJConrad]

Stumpy, you've repeated that B-tier, C-tier a number of times now. You must know that that scenerio of yours does not apply to the Wii any more than does any other system every created. Games under and over perform everywhere.

Look at number's provided by Patcher... you have the garbage that third parties have released on the Wii selling almost as much the what was released on the 360 (and he excluded about 1.5 million in sales). Wii software sales are healthy, Wii third party sales are heathy despite themselves, Wii thrid party support is not healthy.


I can agree it Opiate to an extent. Third parties should not be trying to make big-budget IP's to sell on the Wii. But for completely different reasons... we are at a point in this generation that creating a new IP is risky and should be held off for next gen. That applies to all systems.
I dissagree that 3rd parties don't need to try to improve the standings with Wii owner's. If the don't change something now, they're going to be in the exact same situation then. Their forfeiting too much marketshare and mindshare to Nintendo. Hoping that next-gen will play out differently is foolishness.


Patch Pachter implied it, but didn't go all the way with it. 3rd parties need to be putting all of their big name titles on the Wii. Even if they don't sell as well as their HD counterparts upfront, these games have shown to be near universally profittable. Plus Wii games are known for their stronger legs over their HD counterparts... being able to expand and extend your visibilty is always a good thing. Its a complete shame that a game like Batman AA, with a strong brand, great reviews and then receives multiple GOTY awards, yet debuted and has never been seen again. The is no excuse for games like BatmanAA2, SSF4, or COD-next to not launch on Wii alongside the HD versions.

 

[Ultimo hombre]

Given that NeoGAF is a hard core site, I'm curious to hear your spin. What should publishers do?

Get team leads with a different mindset. You can't expect the same people who come up with 360/PS3 centric game to shift mindsets and come up with products like Wii Sports/EA active and such. Get some people with a fresh mindset, perhaps from even outside the industry. This way they're not pre conditioned to a certain train of thought of what a game should be. The pre conditioned mindsets of industry veterans at the places is likely one of the biggest flaws in 3rd party Wii development.

They also have to be realistic of what portion of the Wii market is available to them. What I mean is this: they can't look at 1st party titles and base their expectations off that. They need to budget according to what 3rd party games do, in terms of sales. If a product does end up exceeding expectations that's great but dont' start dumping money hoping to be the next WiiFii/NSMB/WiiPlay etc.

For developers and publishers, accepting their role in the Wii hiearchy and putting projects in capable hands is what it will take.

Personally, I would abandon the hardcore completely. Quit with the spin offs and trying to come up with creative Wii games for the hardcore. Your potential sales pool is very small to begin with and within that, you have various elitist mentalites that can't all be catered to. Let Nintendo send a game or two their way each year to keep them happy. It's the Nintendo games they really want, anyway. It's a wasted effort. For every success, you'll have many failures. net net, it's a loss.

The final piece would be marketing. At this point, if these companies are not trying to recruit staff from Nintendo's various marketing divisions, they deserve to be left behind. One of the key's to marketing with the Wii is having the name "Wii" in your title. It's a simple thing easily overlooked but never underestimate the casual consumers response to repititon. They're conditioned to buy "Wii Play/Wii Sports/Wii Fit/Mario Kart Wii" and so on, so use that to your advantage.

 

[hellclerk]

My post ended at the bottom of the last page, so I'll repost it here for a bit more exposure. This is looking at you Mr. Pachter.

I've stated my family model before, and I would argue that the large reason that the high selling shovelware seems so obvious is because there aren't many grand 3rd party efforts to overshadow them like there were with the PS2. I don't entirely believe that such numbers are all that higher on the Wii, there are just a lower number of full budget games for the system.

Furthermore, I would like to stress what I do all the time: IT IS NEVER WISE TO CLASSIFY A CONSUMER USING ARBITRARY AND FLUID TERMS THAT SUGGEST A BLACK AND WHITE DICHOTOMY. These terms are casual and hardcore/core. I'm with Nintendo on this, we should abolish these terms from our mind when making games, thinking less about a false model and more about general demographics. One 18-35 y/o will be different from another. My tastes in games brings me to pursue and buy games at a much higher rate than my brother, who as a fellow literature academic, doesn't see games as anything more than an idle distraction. I'll buy over a dozen games over the course of a year, but he won't buy more than a new soccer game every couple of years and maybe an odd FPS or other game he might be interested in, and he's shown interest in getting a 360.

It's this kind of attitude that ALL game makers have to surmount: those individual consumers that need to be convinced that the game is worth the time and effort put into it. If too much effort seems necessary for the values they seek in the game, then they won't bother, but if they see a low enough barrier of entry, they'll go for it. The Wii by its nature lowers the barrier of entry across all kinds of games. Now the question is if companies can communicate that for their games.

In addition to that, I would like to (re)present my family model. I have hypothesized that the standard Wii household would involve a parental unit or units, and child(ren) of varying ages. Before the Wii, the family game console (before this, likely the PS2 or Gamecube) was the sole domain of the children in the household and maybe one of the parents who was into it. Now, the entire family has something that they could find value in, such as Mother and her new Wii Fit or Father and the retro games he remembers as a kid on the VC. Because the initial barrier of the very word "video games" has been removed, the individuals would be more willing to purchase more complex games to expand their horizons, similar to someone new to films moving beyond the romantic comedies they're initially shown. Meanwhile, the children (aged anywhere from 9-18) will still have their gaming interest and purchase games that line up with their more absorbent abilities. This is your usual audience for more complex titles. For this reason, I proposition that each Wii household is market for a number of different genres and tastes since all potential users of the Wii are using it. This is further suggested by data from Nintendo that more people per household use the Wii than prior and current consoles.

Finally, there's the question of what 3rd parties are to do. Because of the nature of so called "casual games" you can't release many of them over a short period of time, so suggestion one would be to cut production of these casual games and reallocate resources. Suggestion two would be mirroring what Na'Gai Croal said a while back, and I quote: "... with Nintendo as top dog, I think it's time for publishers to throw it a much bigger bone by leading development on Wii, then up-porting the games to the more powerful systems, which should result in a larger addressable audience." I think that makes sense and is reasonable. Not only would it lower development costs drastically across the board, it would maximize polish and exposure of Wii games in general. You can worry about comprehensive and focused development on Nintendo console games next hardware generation. Right now, it's time to batten down the hatches and bite the bullet, because otherwise they're just going to keep losing money.

 

[Shig]

The Wii dug its grave with the core audience with its hardware limitations. Most gamers like to puff out their chests and brag that they're not interested in 'bells and whistles' as long as the game is good, but that front has taken a beating, whether they realize it or not. Gamers that like core games are, at this point, also familiar with the other consoles practically by necessity, as that's where a lion's share of this gen's standout games are available exclusively. They've become accustomed to HD and decent online and achievements/trophies. Wii games don't give them that, so they're naturally going be a hard sell, they're going to make people say "Why here, instead of there?" Unless the game has a mechanic that's only done justice by the Wii controls (and let's face it, most don't), a significant portion of the people the game is intended for will resent the game for its choice of platform right off the bat.

When people transfer from one gen to the next, they become naturally and increasingly disinclined to pay top dollar for last gen's games. To be frank, the Wii is last-gen hardware, so why should it be an exception? Even among the hardcore community, not many people would pay $40-50 for a new PS2 game now; Wii games aren't far removed.

In fact, they're often a step back. We hear devs fritter on about how much less it costs to make a Wii game yet even their best efforts largely seem to be budgeted and/or produced with far less ambition than any of last gen's AAA games, let alone this gen's. Yet such a divide is not appropriately reflected on the consumers' end. Gamers didn't care about B-grade FPSes like Project Snowblind and Pariah 4 years ago at $40 new, so why should they care about a B-grade FPS that looks of much the same quality graphically, if not lesser, like the Conduit at $50 new? Why does Silent Hill Shattered Memories, one of many such examples, cost 33% more on Wii than the exact same game on other systems? Waggle tax? Platform popularity tax? It's hard to justify the markups.

Spoiler

Put down that shrimp fork, Barbie, I know 360/PS3 games are often marked up $10 from PC games, but yes, there are easier justifications from the consumers' standpoint there, whether they're correct to make or not. Many people don't have PCs with the specs to run those games and aren't willing to make the lump sum investment to do so, many people just like putting a disc in a system without worrying it will work, and some people simply have a bunch of friends in those categories that they'd really prefer to play the game with.

 

[Agnates]

Monster Hunter 3 western release is going to be my personal barometer for "these people just dont want hardcore games".

- a franchise that never sold well in the West, not even on the most succesful console ever, should sell well on Wii, or prove Wii sux for corez

Literally nothing else Capcom could bring to the table with it.

Fix'd, that's the only bullet point that really matters with this game, eh? You're setting up a trap and it's obvious every time you mention this :lol

We hear devs fritter on about how much less it costs to make a Wii game yet even their best efforts largely seem to be budgeted and/or produced with far less ambition than any of last gen's AAA games, let alone this gen's. Yet such a divide is not appropriately reflected on the consumers' end. Gamers didn't care about B-grade FPSes like Project Snowblind and Pariah 4 years ago at $40 new, so why should they care about a B-grade FPS that looks of much the same quality graphically, if not lesser, like the Conduit at $50 new?

You know, you started your post blaming Nintendo/the Wii, but with this paragraph you're spot on. Whose fault is that? The Wii's? Clearly not, it's the developers' and publishers' own fault. The Wii already provides last-gen development costs, and instead of being happy enough to exploit that compared to the HD development costs which keep increasing as the profits remain the same, they take it two steps further and cut corners in both development and marketing which leads to all these spin offs and sub par titles that wouldn't have sold on any system, as the money's just not enough for decent titles. Therefor, it is something they can change, at any time they choose. You just offered a solution to what 'the pach' ( :lol ) asked without realising. Disregard your other paragraphs and re-read this one carefully, good job.

Well, it's nothing others haven't already said, but it's always good for more people to realise it

Also, since some people mention TvC as a good example that will apparently prove quality and marketing don't equal sales because Wii haz no corez. Ehm, why pick TvC? TvC is just as much of a spin off as any of the games discussed here. There's a portion of hardcore gamers that love the vs games and will likely purchase it, but set your expectations appropriately please. How much did past vs games sell on home consoles like the PS2? Didn't they all top at something like a few hundred thousand copies, even though they exploited far more popular to the West licenses (ie, Marvel)? Also, while TvC is indeed getting some marketing, I'm pretty sure people have already said it's not even half the marketing SFIV got, with the commercial aired in half the networks CAPCOM titles usually advertise on. So, when the sales data arrives, don't start comparing what is essentially a continuation of spin offs that never did as good as the mainline SF titles, with the colossus that is SFIV. Especially with a market already saturated with such titles. Not on Wii, but we all know hardcore gamers are multi platform owners. They got SFIV. They got MvC2. They're waiting for SSFIV. Would TvC really perform in the millions on the HD systems, if it was handled in the same manner this is? I've even seen so called professional reviews downplay the title for "only" offering 26 characters against MvC2's gigantic roster (even though that was the 5th CAPCOM title using Marvel characters which means they had a large amount of sprites to use already, while TvC is brand new in every way), as if SFIV offered any more. Meh.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Why does Silent Hill Shattered Memories, one of many such examples, cost 33% more on Wii than the exact same game on other systems? Waggle tax? Platform popularity tax? It's hard to justify the markups.

66%. $30 for the PS2 version. $50 for the Wii version.

They could at least charge the same for both versions at first. Keep it at $50 for either version for the first 3 months.

 

[EDarkness]

What should they do? It's simple, make better games. I didn't buy many Wii games last year compared to 2008. Why? Because so much of it was stuff that I wouldn't let my worst enemy play. If companies want my money, then they need more stuff like Mass Effect and less stuff like Dead Space Extraction. What appeals to the 360/PS3 crowd has the same appeal everywhere. I don't want a dumbed down version of Final Fantasy like Crystal Bearers. Just nothing worthy of spending money on since most developers think that Wii gamers have the IQ of a tick.

 

[brain_stew]

Because people just line up to play boring, shitty shooters and games with hugely divisive art styles.

At some point you guys are going to run out of excuses as to why each game continues to flop. After 3 years the only answer anyone can bring to the table is still Resident Evil 4. What about Silent Hill then? That was a ground up quality "core" Wii game with a strong brand attached and it still bombed. The market for these games is elsewhere, I suggest you make the move yourself.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

At some point you guys are going to run out of excuses as to why each game continues to flop. After 3 years the only answer anyone can bring to the table is still Resident Evil 4. What about Silent Hill then? That was a ground up quality "core" Wii game with a strong brand attached and it still bombed. The market for these games is elsewhere, I suggest you make the move yourself.

Homecoming didn't light the charts on fire, either. In fact SM (all platforms) will probably outsell Homecoming and Origins (all platforms), maybe. The series has been on a decline since 3.

 

[Agnates]

At some point you guys are going to run out of excuses as to why each game continues to flop. After 3 years the only answer anyone can bring to the table is still Resident Evil 4. What about Silent Hill then? That was a ground up quality "core" Wii game with a strong brand attached and it still bombed. The market for these games is elsewhere, I suggest you make the move yourself.

There are plenty more titles than RE4 that sold good. Please don't sprout random crap like this in a thread that so far mostly includes rational, fanboy and troll free discussion. Many have already been mentioned and constantly provocing people to keep repeating the same things doesn't do any good to, well, anything. Please?

As for Silent Hill, we already knew it was both a limited release and received next to no marketing. How many times did you come across the commercial? As for the sales for the genre being elsewhere, ehm, what Shatted Memories-like games (ie, horror adventure, little to no combat, etc) sold so good on other platforms? There are none that I know of. Siren? Was that such a runaway success story that should mean Konami's stupid for not making Shattered Memories for the PS360?

 

[Shig]

You know, you started your post blaming Nintendo/the Wii, but with this paragraph you're spot on. Whose fault is that? The Wii's? Clearly not, it's the developers' and publishers' own fault. The Wii already provides last-gen development costs, and instead of being happy enough to exploit that compared to the HD development costs which keep increasing as the profits remain the same, they take it two steps further and cut corners in both development and marketing which leads to all these spin offs and sub par titles that wouldn't have sold on any system. Therefor, it is something they can change, at any time they choose. You just offered a solution to what 'the pach' ( :lol ) asked without realising. Disregard your other paragraphs and re-read this one carefully, good job.

Well, it's nothing others haven't already said, but it's always good for more people to realise it

Well, thanks for the approval but I still think both arguments figure into it. Core gamers have long since looked away from the Wii to satiate them at this point, gotten their taste of a more robust set of amenities and grown to like them; maybe even expect them. No matter what devs do with those types of games on the Wii, they simply can't deliver an equivalent experience to the HD consoles due to limitations intrinsic to the Wii hardware. It may have been a different story if 3rd parties had figured out their shit earlier on and done a better job to keep people from straying in the first place, but I think they're past the point of no return now. I fear that no matter what resources a 3rd party pumps into a core Wii game now, it's nearly an insurmountable task to lure any large amount of gamers back into a comfort zone they've cast aside and upgraded.

 

[brain_stew]

Homecoming didn't light the charts on fire, either. In fact SM (all platforms) will probably outsell Homecoming and Origins (all platforms), maybe. The series has been on a decline since 3.

I knew you'd find an excuse, its the raison d'etre of the Wii sales brigade these day it seems but honestly there's just been one too many bombs by this point. You could find a reason why any game shouldn't light up the charts but when after three years people are still pulling out only one example of success for "core" third party Wii titles, you know something is amiss. The fact is publishers know what the PS3 and 360 crowd want and the recipe for success is pretty damn perfected b y this point, its a high stakes game but at least you know the probability of success is pretty damn high.

Honestly, at this point I think Ubi's strategy of throw any old piece of crap at the wall until something sticks is probably the right way to go on Wii. Each individual title has very little chance of success, no matter the quality, but if your portfolio is broad and large enough you've got a good chance of getting one or two breakout hits that can pay for all the rest of the crap. With seemingly no correlation between the calibre of developer or money invested to sales, taking a big chance on a single title makes no sense at all really. Just Dance has been a phenomenal success and yet its almost impossible to nail down what sets it out from the rest of the dross, and there seems no good way to use it as a model for reproducible success either.

For GAF members then, just enjoy your Nintendo games, if you want something else there's 3 platforms that now have a low cost of entry that can more than fulfill those needs. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

There are plenty more titles than RE4 that sold good. Please don't sprout random crap like this in a thread that so far mostly includes rational, fanboy and troll free discussion. Many have already been mentioned and constantly provocing people to keep repeating the same things doesn't do any good to, well, anything. Please?

Traditional core titles? Really? If that's the case then why does everyone keep bringing up RE4 each and every time we go through this?

 

[Agnates]

Core gamers have long since looked away from the Wii to satiate them at this point, gotten their taste of a more robust set of amenities and grown to like them; maybe even expect them.

Yep, more robust games is all it takes to attract their attention. I think we're on the same page, sans that you believe they'd shun a quality experience on Wii because of the lesser visuals. I don't buy that. If a game looks good, it looks good, and some Wii games do look pretty damn good. Its power isn't an unsurmountable barrier. All it needs on top of that is solid gameplay and for them to know it actually exists somewhere out there.

Lol @ post above this one, stop dismissing facts as excuses duder, and yes, traditional titles with far less brand recognition and marketing than the hyped titles of PS360 games have sold pretty well on the lowly Wii, read through this thread already :lol

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Homecoming didn't light the charts on fire, either. In fact SM (all platforms) will probably outsell Homecoming and Origins (all platforms), maybe. The series has been on a decline since 3.

I think I posted this elsewhere, but...

Silent Hill Homecoming after three months on the market:

360 - 73k
PS3 - 84k

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories after one month on the market:

Wii - <50k (no exact figure, but the suggestion I've seen elsewhere from posters with NPD access is that it is close to 50k rather than well below it)

I fully expect SH:SM to at least equal the sales of the 360 or PS3 games, and I'd be interested to know - assuming that does happen - what posters here pooh-poohing its sales would have to say about that. If the market for this type of game is elsewhere, why did it sell such low numbers on those platforms? Or are we going to play add-the-SKUs and say that SH:SM bombed because it didn't equal or exceed the joint sales of SH:H on the 360/PS3?

 

[Flachmatuch]

At some point you guys are going to run out of excuses as to why each game continues to flop. After 3 years the only answer anyone can bring to the table is still Resident Evil 4. What about Silent Hill then? That was a ground up quality "core" Wii game with a strong brand attached and it still bombed. The market for these games is elsewhere, I suggest you make the move yourself.

There were a few games like Red Steel or the other RE games, NMH, MH3 in Japan, A Boy and his Blob etc that did decently. As for RE4 being the main example, well yeah, guess why - it's about the only mainstream third party game on the Wii, and it's still the best. Of course it's going to get brought up all the time, because there's simply nothing else that's comparable (and afaik, the CoD games are also selling decently). So, next time, please make an actual argument.

 

[ShinNL]

This topic has been beaten to death, and I don't have time to get into it again just now, but in a nutshell:

Your conclusions are backwards. 3rd party games' sales on the Wii are not a reflection of the Wii demographic, they're a reflection of the effort made by 3rd parties. If they were a proper reflection of the demographic, they'd also mirror the sales of 1st party games much more closely.

I really hate the attitude that Nintendo's games magically sell. It's not magic, and it's not impossible for another company to accomplish. It's just quality and consistency: make good games and keep making good games, and you can build brands and earn trust.

Another thing: it's not necessarily the correct approach to figure out what the audience wants and then give it to them. Sometimes it's a much better approach to make a good game and then convince people that they want it. The first approach usually means you're getting sloppy seconds (in this case, Nintendo's scraps). The second one leads to the real runaway hits.

Pfff, I thought I couldn't find a good post that represents my opinion (thus making me having to type it all myself). This post is a perfect summery of everything that is logical. Bolded just in case, but every word is written well.

Basically, you can't compare casual vs core games if there are no core games. If the best efforts are Resident Evil The Darkside Chronicles and Dead Space Extraction and people can't see why that isn't the same as core games we've been playing for years, then maybe the game industry isn't really the best thing for them to focus on.

 

[brain_stew]

I think I posted this elsewhere, but...

Silent Hill Homecoming after three months on the market:

360 - 73k
PS3 - 84k

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories after one month on the market:

Wii - <50k (no exact figure)

I fully expect SH:SM to at least equal the sales of the 360 or PS3 games, and I'd be interested to know - assuming that does happen - what posters here pooh-poohing its sales would have to say about that. If the market for this type of game is elsewhere, why did it sell such low numbers on those platforms? Or are we going to play add-the-SKUs and say that SH:SM bombed because it didn't equal or exceed the joint sales of SH:H on the 360/PS3?

You absolutely should be adding the SKUs though. That's the nature of PS3/360/PC "blockbuster" development these days, they all draw from the same shared codebase and assets with a small amount of time spent optimising for the individual platforms. You just can't do that with a Wii project, its sales have to hold up on their own as you've got no platforms (barring perhaps the PS2 but that hasn't been relevant for a year or more so the point is moot) to easily spread that investment across.

 

[Flachmatuch]

Traditional core titles? Really? If that's the case then why does everyone keep bringing up RE4 each and every time we go through this?

Because it's the best loved traditional Wii game, practically one of its kind, and something Wii fans on GAF would like more of, obviously. It's not that difficult.

You absolutely should be adding the SKUs though. That's the nature of PS3/360/PC "blockbuster" development these days, they all draw from the same shared codebase and assets with a small amount of time spent optimising for the individual platforms. You just can't do that with a Wii project, its sales have to hold up on their own as you've got no platforms (barring perhaps the PS2 but that hasn't been relevant for a year or more so the point is moot) to easily spread that investment across.

In addition to this, you need to compare development costs also, so actually comparing a single platform sounds cool.

 

[Version 3.0]

At some point you guys are going to run out of excuses as to why each game continues to flop. After 3 years the only answer anyone can bring to the table is still Resident Evil 4. What about Silent Hill then? That was a ground up quality "core" Wii game with a strong brand attached and it still bombed. The market for these games is elsewhere, I suggest you make the move yourself.

First of all, you're wrong if you believe the market for "these games" is elsewhere. No Wii game yet shows any evidence that it would've had better success elsewhere. In some cases, you're provably wrong, such as your choice of example, Silent Hill.

And secondly, you're making a huge assumption when you say "I suggest you make the move yourself", by implying that people who want good Wii games have nowhere else to play. Around here, I'd expect that most people asking for good Wii games DO own another current console. I own both, and have since launch. I don't care if a game comes to the PS3 or 360; they're similar enough that it doesn't matter. But I would like big budget Wii games, too, when Wii controls would be a big plus.

 

[Agnates]

Nvm, this is hopeless, I'll stand back and enjoy :lol

 

[EDarkness]

I knew you'd find an excuse, its the raison d'etre of the Wii sales brigade these day it seems but honestly there's just been one too many bombs by this point. You could find a reason why any game shouldn't light up the charts but when after three years people are still pulling out only one example of success for "core" third party Wii titles, you know something is amiss. The fact is publishers know what the PS3 and 360 crowd want and the recipe for success is pretty damn perfected b y this point, its a high stakes game but at least you know the probability of success is pretty damn high.

Honestly, at this point I think Ubi's strategy of throw any old piece of crap at the wall until something sticks is probably the right way to go on Wii. Each individual title has very little chance of success, no matter the quality, but if your portfolio is broad and large enough you've got a good chance of getting one or two breakout hits that can pay for all the rest of the crap. With seemingly no correlation between the calibre of developer or money invested to sales, taking a big chance on a single title makes no sense at all really. Just Dance has been a phenomenal success and yet its almost impossible to nail down what sets it out from the rest of the dross, and there seems no good way to use it as a model for reproducible success either.

For GAF members then, just enjoy your Nintendo games, if you want something else there's 3 platforms that now have a low cost of entry that can more than fulfill those needs. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.




Traditional core titles? Really? If that's the case then why does everyone keep bringing up RE4 each and every time we go through this?

Heh, heh. I find this funny because Konami already tried to make Silent Hill on PS3/360. The game ended up bombing. I think people are ignoring this fact in order to make it seem like putting Silent Hill on the Wii was the problem in the first place instead looking at the series in general. My guess is that the only real reason Silent Hill ended up on the Wii was because they tried the HD route and that didn't work, so they figured they'd try the Wii/PS2 route to see if that was better.

 

[brain_stew]

First of all, you're wrong if you believe the market for "these games" is elsewhere. No Wii game yet shows any evidence that it would've had better success elsewhere. In some cases, you're provably wrong, such as your choice of example, Silent Hill.

I fail to see what Silent Hill is proving. It bombed on all consoles, great. But despite the fact that the PS3/360/PC version was significantly worse and received very poorly by critics and fans accross the platforms it still looks like its brought in a better return on investment. You can protest that "adding up the SKUs" is "unfair" but tough shit, that's the way multiplatform development works these days and creating a title across the PS3/PC/360 really isn't anymore expensive than just creating a PS3 version if its buil as a multilatform title from the start.

And anyway, Silent Hill wasn't the point. Its just yet another
in a long line of "traditional/core/whatever you want to call them titles on Wii that have bombed one after the other. Sure it hasn't been given as fair a shake as the 360 or PS3 but its failed enough tests to prove its not a publisher's safest option.

And secondly, you're making a huge assumption when you say "I suggest you make the move yourself", by implying that people who want good Wii games have nowhere else to play. Around here, I'd expect that most people asking for good Wii games DO own another current console. I own both, and have since launch. I don't care if a game comes to the PS3 or 360; they're similar enough that it doesn't matter. But I would like big budget Wii games, too, when Wii controls would be a big plus.

Then why the do they want these games on Wii then!? Do they have some weird fetish for aliasing and dithering or something? I've owned a Wii since launch but if less money invested in the Wii means more money invested in PC titles, then I'm all for it. I've grown tired of 90s technology at this point. At least Dolphin continues to improve.

 

[Flachmatuch]

Nvm, this is hopeless, I'll stand back and enjoy :lol

Yeah, as soon as a thread makes progress, someone will come in and completely derail it by repeating the same idiotic arguments that were discussed and refuted a thousand times already.

 

[Version 3.0]

The fact is publishers know what the PS3 and 360 crowd want and the recipe for success is pretty damn perfected b y this point, its a high stakes game but at least you know the probability of success is pretty damn high.

Good for them, they can keep making them. It's not one or the other; they can do that and still make decent Wii games. Resources are going to waste these days.

For GAF members then, just enjoy your Nintendo games, if you want something else there's 3 platforms that now have a low cost of entry that can more than fulfill those needs. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

There you go with the simplistic, black-and-white, us-vs-them system wars mentality again. Get off of it. It's not that I want "something else"--I already have that. Forget about the PS3 and 360. They have nothing to do with this conversation. Not really. Forget anyone mentioned them, and let me put it this way: I want the Wii to be supported like the PS2 was: same budgets (in other words, all across the board), same genres (all across the board), same marketing...get the picture?

 

[ThatObviousUser]

I guess PS3/360 games never bomb. Oh well. Wii had a good run.

 

[Version 3.0]

Then why the do they want these games on Wii then!? Do they have some weird fetish for aliasing and dithering or something? I've owned a Wii since launch but if less money invested in the Wii means more money invested in PC titles, then I'm all for it. I've grown tired of 90s technology at this point. At least Dolphin continues to improve.

Are you just trolling, or what? Read the last sentence of my post.

 

[brain_stew]

There you go with the simplistic, black-and-white, us-vs-them system wars mentality again. Get off of it. It's not that I want "something else"--I already have that. Forget about the PS3 and 360. They have nothing to do with this conversation. Not really. Forget anyone mentioned them, and let me put it this way: I want the Wii to be supported like the PS2 was: same budgets (in other words, all across the board), same genres (all across the board), same marketing...get the picture?

Then you're in for disappointment, if it hasn't happened after three years its not going to happen. The point is if you already own a decent PC or PS3/360 it really shouldn't matter anyway, you're getting these games anyway, just with better graphics and no tacked on motion controls. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

Are you just trolling, or what? Read the last sentence of my post.

So accelerometer controls mean that much to you, really? It hadn't even crossed my mind that people still enjoyed them after 3 years of being relegated to button replacements. I could understand it in 2006 when Iwata sold the dream (heck I was right there with you) but the hardware has proven far from capable enough on delivering what it was advertised as doing. I guess the motion+ might lend that argument some credence but if the entire Wii userbase isn't enough to support these titles then the Motion+ userbase sure as hell isn't, especially since it was a party game that launched that accessory.

Hell, the PS3, 360 and PC are all launching motion controllers with serious industry backing and better technology than the base Wii remote, so you don't even have to give up the waggle if you don't want to.

 

[ShinNL]

Now you're just trolling brain_stew.

Games don't pop out of nowhere, they have to be made and it takes time. Guess what? Actual traditional games are finally coming. Tatsunoko vs Capcom, No More Heroes 2, Monster Hunter Tri, Red Steel 2. I would say you start analyzing after we get data from those kind of upcoming games, but let's be honest shall we? You're just a troll, you really don't care if those games sell well.

 

[thestopsign]

Then you're in for disappointment, if it hasn't happened after three years its not going to happen. The point is if you already own a decent PC or PS3/360 it really shouldn't matter anyway, you're getting these games anyway, just with better graphics and no tacked on motion controls. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

The Wii has other things to offer in place of graphics, you have obviously been blinded by HD graphics, so you can't see that, but some people haven't been. Graphical fidelity can only bring a game so far, it's the effort creatively that really brings a game to another level, it doesn't matter what console it's on.

So accelerometer controls mean that much to you, really? It hadn't even crossed my mind that people still enjoyed them after 3 years of being relegated to button replacements. I could understand it in 2006 when Iwata sold the dream (heck I was right there with you) but the hardware has proven far from capable enough on delivering what it was advertised as doing. I guess the motion+ might lend that argument some credence but if the entire Wii userbase isn't enough to support these titles then the Motion+ userbase sure as hell isn't, especially since it was a party game that launched that accessory.

Some people enjoy the tactile involvement that motion controls bring to the table. If it's not for you, it's not for you, but the mass majority of the world has shown that they do indeed prefer being physically connected with their games.

 

[Flachmatuch]

Then why the do they want these games on Wii then!? Do they have some weird fetish for aliasing and dithering or something? I've owned a Wii since launch but if less money invested in the Wii means more money invested in PC titles, then I'm all for it. I've grown tired of 90s technology at this point. At least Dolphin continues to improve.

You're indirectly attacking the taste of people who want Wii stuff, and fail to understand that people may want these games on the Wii because of Wiimote controls (not accelerometers mostly, but the pointer stuff) or because they don't have other consoles, both of which are valid reasons.

You're also picking and choosing arguments, ignoring everything that doesn't fit with what you're saying, like ignoring the development cost issue with the SH argument, and that there have been reasonably successful third party games on the Wii. You look like a troll to me and imo you're a negative influence on the general quality of this thread.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Now you're just trolling brain_stew.

Games don't pop out of nowhere, they have to be made and it takes time. Guess what? Actual traditional games are finally coming. Tatsunoko vs Capcom, No More Heroes 2, Monster Hunter Tri, Red Steel 2. I would say you start analyzing after we get data from those kind of upcoming games, but let's be honest shall we? You're just a troll, you really don't care if those games sell well.

First half of the year is definitely promising, probably the best third-party wise the Wii's ever had. Of course, 1H 2009 looked good too, it's hard to see how it'll all pan out. But already TvC and NMH2 are critically certified, and MH3 looks like the definition of quality.

 

[Agnates]

At best, you're a delusional troll. You constantly ignore facts and spin already skewed statistics to match your misguided views. Your posts speak volumes of how blind to reality you are. You don't try to understand what's happening and explain it and offer solutions, you just try to prove what you want is what everyone should want. It's not. I don't want it, and my primary platform is the PC. This thread isn't about personal pet peeves and fetishes it's about, well, the first post among other things. Understanding why the industry is quickly running itself to the ground. And lol @ thinking the PC gets any meaningful amount of the big budget AAA titles tailored to it nowadays, or that the industry is as diversified and succesful as it was 5 years ago with all the "you're already getting the games you want, just better on other platforms than the Wii" bullshit. No, we aren't getting that. We're getting an increasigly limited selection of titles from the big publishers, and that will continue because their revenue remains the same, or is reduced, while the costs, development and marketing, keep increasing. With Wii, they had a chance to continue business as usual from their most succesful era, and some still do, but constantly refuse to understand that, and you applaud it because you have the brain of a 12 year old who thinks his world is all there is. It's not the way forward, it won't last, and, despite being what you want to see continue, is not going to continue one way or another. They're doing everything they can on the other platforms, and it's not working for most of them. They're not doing everything they can on Wii however, and that's simply a wasted opportunity. Things may not change to the better, after all, our discussions here are meaningless, but they're still interesting up until someone like you comes along with his delusion rants. Get over yourself boy. As for all your graphics and motion controls insults, not everyone's a moronic (if you can't control - good - Wii games decently and blame the controller, you must be) shallow graphics whore like you are. Thank God. Hence all the shock & awe at upscaled PS2 games in the emulator threads. Yeah, no jaggies totally make them next gen! Not. It's the art that shines through, as it does in low res also, and is still impressive when effort is put into it. The Wii's more than sufficient for great art, few companies even exploit its abilities, and not every company has the budget to fully exploit the PS360 either, yet vocal minorities like you make them think it's what they should do, and in turn slowly destroy the industry.

 

[brain_stew]

Now you're just trolling brain_stew.

Games don't pop out of nowhere, they have to be made and it takes time. Guess what? Actual traditional games are finally coming. Tatsunoko vs Capcom, No More Heroes 2, Monster Hunter Tri, Red Steel 2. I would say you start analyzing after we get data from those kind of upcoming games, but let's be honest shall we? You're just a troll, you really don't care if those games sell well.

Three years is half of a console's lifetime (or more), if there's only one real standout core/traditional sales success from a thrid party by that point then surely something is amiss, no? Fine, if all those title bomb will you lot finally conceive the point? Heck I was on your side up until about a year ago, making the same arguments (check my post history if you don't believe me) but at some point you've just got to concede defeat, and I feel the halfway point of the Wii's lifespan is the point of no return. Things aren't going to change.#

The Wii has other things to offer in place of graphics, you have obviously been blinded by HD graphics, so you can't see that, but some people haven't been. Graphical fidelity can only bring a game so far, it's the effort creatively that really brings a game to another level, it doesn't matter what console it's on.



Some people enjoy the tactile involvement that motion controls bring to the table. If it's not for you, it's not for you, but the mass majority of the world has shown that they do indeed prefer being physically connected with their games.

Like what exactly? Like I say I was as excited as anybody at the potential of the Wii remote early on and I still believe Nintendo has the most legitamite vision of what a console is but the hardware has continually proven incapable of delivering the experience promised. Waggling in place of button press is a waste of time, its a backwards step. Sure the pointer is a step above dual analog but its still a million miles away from mouse control, so again, for me, its a backwards step to what I get on my other platform of choice.

 

[Version 3.0]

Then you're in for disappointment, if it hasn't happened after three years its not going to happen. The point is if you already own a decent PC or PS3/360 it really shouldn't matter anyway, you're getting these games anyway, just with better graphics and no tacked on motion controls. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.




So accelerometer controls mean that much to you, really? It hadn't even crossed my mind that people still enjoyed them after 3 years of being relegated to button replacements. I could understand it in 2006 when Iwata sold the dream (heck I was right there with you) but the hardware has proven far from capable enough on delivering what it was advertised as doing. I guess the motion+ might lend that argument some credence but if the entire Wii userbase isn't enough to support these titles then the Motion+ userbase sure as hell isn't, especially since it was a party game that launched that accessory.

Hell, the PS3, 360 and PC are all launching motion controllers with serious industry backing and better technology than the base Wii remote, so you don't even have to give up the waggle if you don't want to.

Oh, I guess you are just trolling after all. Good job, though, you did have me going for a bit.

 

[brain_stew]

Oh, I guess you are just trolling after all. Good job, though, you did have me going for a bit.

Genuine question, which games, Wii sports aside, have used the motion controller in a meaningful way? The old waggle to replace a button press is still just as prevelant today as it was at launch. I'm as disappointed as anybody but the standard Wii controller just didn't deliver what its suppose to do. Pointing is a step above titling an analog stick, agreed, but when the vast majority of worthwile PS3/360 games can be played on the PC with a much better pointing device, that advantage doesn't hold much weight with me. Accelerometer control is horrible and no one will convince me otherwise.

Maybe if motion+ was standard from launch we wouldn't be having this debate, but it wasn't and its userbase is no where near large enough for a bulk of the system's content to be designed around its existance from the ground up.

 

[Owzers]

I guess PS3/360 games never bomb. Oh well. Wii had a good run.

Except people pretend like with Wii's higher install base developers are absolutely insane not to focus entirely on it. " HOW CAN DEVELOPERS KEEP IGNORING THE WII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
But the truth is, even with the higher install base a game like Madworld WITH ADVERTISING ( even tv ads) is still going to bomb, and it would probably bomb on 360/PS3. But it is very telling how little Wii's higher install base means when it comes to certain games. Yes the install base will benefit games like...........Just Dance. An advertised casual-friendly "fun" game has a GREAT chance at selling to Wii's huge install base a lot more than it would to the more core-ish-ish 360/ps3 base, but let's not pretend that applies to EVERY game in EVERY genre BEFORE it releases, then when it bombs simply shrug it off " eh it would have bombed elsewhere".

 

[avatar299]

Three years is half of a console's lifetime (or more), if there's only one real standout core/traditional sales success from a thrid party by that point then surely something is amiss, no? Fine, if all those title bomb will you lot finally conceive the point? Heck I was on your side up until about a year ago, making the same arguments (check my post history if you don't believe me) but at some point you've just got to concede defeat, and I feel the halfway point of the Wii's lifespan is the point of no return. Things aren't going to change.#

What the hell is core/traditional success? Does a game like TW hit that bullet point? What about something like the CoD games or Boy and his Blob?

 

[Flachmatuch]

Genuine question, which games, Wii sports aside, have used the motion controller in a meaningful way? The old waggle to replace a button press is still just as prevelant today as it was at launch. I'm as disappointed as anybody but the standard Wii controller just didn't deliver what its suppose to do. Pointing is a step above titling an analog stick, agreed, but when the vast majority of worthwile PS3/360 games can be played on the PC with a much better pointing device, that advantage doesn't hold much weight with me. Accelerometer control is horrible and no one will convince me otherwise.

Maybe if motion+ was standard from launch we wouldn't be having this debate, but it wasn't and its userbase is no where near large enough for a bulk of the system's content to be designed around its existance from the ground up.

This is not at all relevant to this thread though. Make a new one about this question (there are probably some old ones too), please, because it completely derails the discussion, which was pretty interesting.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Three years is half of a console's lifetime (or more), if there's only one real standout core/traditional sales success from a thrid party by that point then surely something is amiss, no? Fine, if all those title bomb will you lot finally conceive the point? Heck I was on your side up until about a year ago, making the same arguments (check my post history if you don't believe me) but at some point you've just got to concede defeat, and I feel the halfway point of the Wii's lifespan is the point of no return. Things aren't going to change.

See, I do kind of agree with you - I think the chance to build a solid audience for certain types of games on the system was missed around two years ago and I think that has made it harder for third parties to sell the games they are now bringing to the system than it could have been.

HOWEVER

I don't think the people playing the "core games don't sell" game are being entirely fair, and are often quite happy to leap on the performance of a particular game to try and back up their position, twisting the actual significance of a title to suit their argument.

The latest example is Monster Hunter Tri. The game is apparently going to get solid promotion over here from Nintendo and Capcom, but it is a game in a series that has been a hard sell in the West and none of its previous instalments have done any significant numbers. However, to hear some posters here tell it, it's the last shake of the dice and if it flops there is no audience for core games, a position that seems to fly in the face of series history just for the sake of trying to score points.

Is that playing damage control or rifling through the drawers for another excuse? Or is it simply being realistic about the game and not expecting it to set the charts alight just because it happens to be a core game on the system?

 

[thestopsign]

Like what exactly? Like I say I was as excited as anybody at the potential of the Wii remote early on and I still believe Nintendo has the most legitamite vision of what a console is but the hardware has continually proven incapable of delivering the experience promised. Waggling in place of button press is a waste of time, its a backwards step. Sure the pointer is a step above dual analog but its still a million miles away from mouse control, so again, for me, its a backwards step to what I get on my other platform of choice.

You're right in saying that there have been surprisingly few games that truly take advantage of what the Wii is capable of. It really is disappointing in many ways. It doesn't mean that there haven't been any games that effectively use the motion controls. If you haven't tried No More Heroes, the game is legitimately fun because of the controls. Boom Blox also shows a great use of both the pointer and the motion controls. Shattered Memories uses the flashlight to a great effect. The main problem is that finding way to implement motion controls so they are fun takes just a bit to much creative effort for most developers to even try. Is it too much to wish for more games like Red Steel 2 that look to take full advantage of the Wii's offerings?

Edit: Tiger Woods has also found a lot of success on the Wii due to it's controls being better than the 360 and PS3 versions.

 

[avatar299]

Genuine question, which games, Wii sports aside, have used the motion controller in a meaningful way? The old waggle to replace a button press is still just as prevelant today as it was at launch. I'm as disappointed as anybody but the standard Wii controller just didn't deliver what its suppose to do. Pointing is a step above titling an analog stick, agreed, but when the vast majority of worthwile PS3/360 games can be played on the PC with a much better pointing device, that advantage doesn't hold much weight with me. Accelerometer control is horrible and no one will convince me otherwise.

How the hell does Wii Sports use "waggle" in a meaningful way if "replacing button presses" is the bar. The Wiimote has always replaced button presses, that is the fucking point. it's just another method of input. You're basically trolling the wiimote for being what it is?

You're asking a ton of vague, borderline stupid questions.

 

[Conrad Link]

66%. $30 for the PS2 version. $50 for the Wii version.

They could at least charge the same for both versions at first. Keep it at $50 for either version for the first 3 months.

I saw that last night when browsing the GameStop website and couldn't understand it, because its 'current gen' they think they can get more? Or the other way round cause PS2 is not they feel they have to make it cheaper?

I don't know, either way I didn't end up getting either. I really want the Wii one but I'll pick it up locally instead of importing.

 

[Effect]

It will be interesting to see how Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All Stars sells as its one of the first "hardcore" games in awhile that has been exclusive to the Wii. And Capcom is actually doing ads for it as well which was a shock to me.

It could be argued that Capcom is a damaged brand on the Wii. The same way it could be argued that Ubisoft is to as well as EA outside of EA Sports. Let's not forget that while the other systems and the PC got a new Street Figher game the Wii gets a Tatsunko vs Capcom game. A game where half the characters are unknown unless you are a fan of anime and even then many of those characters have never made it outside of Japan. Then the other half are from series that haven't been on a Nintendo system in long time if at all. Where the more popular fighting game characters are all but absent save for two. There there is Super Street Fighter 4 that is on the way. The whole situation kinda looks bad.

I personally think TvC looks great. I plan on getting it sometime next month as I still have some games to work through. Like I said though the whole situation looks bad. Big named franchise on the PS3 and 360 while the Wii gets a spin off. Now the Vs games aren't a spin off really but it's own franchise but that's what it looks like I think. Had they pushed the history of the Vs. series it might not look like that but they didn't from what I can tell. I don't remember seeing any "Next entry in the Capcom Vs. series" phrases being used. I know it sounds like making excuses and while Capcom seems to be moving in the right direction they have a cloud over them due to their past actions on the Wii.

I agree that actions by 3rd parties have caused Wii game buyers to be jaded. I have a PS3 and a 360 but I'm extremely careful about what games I get on my Wii now. Nintendo game are simply a sure bet as Nintendo has never let me down. I've been burned far to much by 3rd party publishers on the system. It's only because I know of the Vs. series and have been following TvC that I'm even picking it up. However if I had no knowledge of it and saw that the Wii was getting that while Street Fighter 4 went to other systems, especially the wake Resident Evil situation I'd call spin off on the game and look the other way.

 

[EDarkness]

Three years is half of a console's lifetime (or more), if there's only one real standout core/traditional sales success from a thrid party by that point then surely something is amiss, no? Fine, if all those title bomb will you lot finally conceive the point? Heck I was on your side up until about a year ago, making the same arguments (check my post history if you don't believe me) but at some point you've just got to concede defeat, and I feel the halfway point of the Wii's lifespan is the point of no return. Things aren't going to change.

I'm still waiting for games on the Wii that are on the same level as those on the 360. Comparing the two is like night and day. Who's fault is that? In my opinion it's 3rd parties who should be taking the blame for this. Instead of going into Wii development with the same excitement as they were with 360 games, they decided that they'd pay it some kind of lip service by putting spinoffs and their C teams on games. You know, I don't think that anyone who is a "core" gamer couldn't see where this was headed back then. These guys never intended to give the Wii more than that. Of course, they're the first ones to complain when their games bomb. I don't believe that developers and publisher can't figure out what works on the Wii. They know what games are cool and what makes them good. They obviously can do it on the other systems. I don't believe that the Wii audience is any different. They want cool games just like everyone else.

 

[Agnates]

TvC will probably perform in line with past VS titles, subtracting an amount for the use of an unknown license, unlike Marvel was at the time. Essentially, it's also a spin off of the main SF entries. Don't expect SFIV sales basically. It'd likely perform worse on other systems though, as they already have SFIV, MvC2, and await SSFIV, and there's definitely player base overlap, but its likely got its best chances on Wii. Just thought I'd repeat that from my first comment here before disappearing. VS titles were nowhere near as succesful as SFIV in the past. They're a niche in a niche. More details near the top of this page