thestopsign
Member
If Tatsunoko sells over 30k in its first month, I would be very, very happy. It only has a few days on sale anyways, so that is going to effect sales a bit. LTD, I would expect somewhere in the range of 200k, which is respectable.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Third Party Wii Games
- Thread starter michaelpachter
- Start date
Flachmatuch
Member
We're in a pretty bad position to discuss this tbh. We don't have either cost or sales information for the overwhelming majority of games, so all we know is basically how much the top 10 or so games sell in the US and that's all :-/ It'd be pretty nice to know at least how much different companies invested in different platforms over time, in tools development and individual games, but of course sales and cost of the majority of games would be the best.
Well okay, maybe that was a little overblown, it doesn't apply to all core games, but there are definitely some genres that can be chalked up as lost causes for any rematriculation effort. FPS gamers in particular just aren't going to be lured, they have a burden of choice on the other platforms as is, and what they've come to expect of multiplayer is not something the Wii can deliver. That's kind of a big deal to this discussion, as FPS gamers are, y'know, sorta the 800-lb gorillas of the core gaming industry in the US.Agnates said:
Really, anything with 'realistic' graphics is going to be pretty sharply scrutinized against its HD brethren. Anyone that's trying to be the Wii's equivalent of Modern Warfare even if it's not necessarily an FPS: Cut it out, it's not gonna happen.
3rd parties need to keep stuff lighthearted on the Wii. Core gamers' blood 'n guts tendencies are being more than served elsewhere and those type of games are never going to become a hit with the casual Wii crowd. I think the best blueprint to look at would be the Dreamcast, really; the games almost all had this sort of bubblegum arcadey optimism to them stylistically, but they did so in a way that somehow neatly avoided the 'kiddy' label gamers like to throw around. Not to say it's a sure thing, but something like a new Jet Set Radio or Hydro Thunder has a lot higher chance of breakout success on the Wii than it would have on the PS3 or 360.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
I wasn't expecting a brain_stew meltdown today. Hooray for Tuesdays?
brain_stew
Member
Cosmonaut X said:
See, that's kind of the point, you can very easily find a reason why each individual title may fail to succeed but if there was such unfulfilled demand, then something would be selling. I agree with you, on their own, each individual example is pretty easily writtent off, but despite that, the overwhelming volume of failures (despite their flaws) is starting to become pretty telling. People aren't making the statement that Monster Hunter is "the last chance" because it should be a guaranteed blockbuster, more because its the straw that'll break the camels back.
When you play that game with "HD" titles, you'll find plenty of games that could have just as easily have been excused for under performance, stuff like Borderlands, Dead Space, Darksiders, Bayonetta, Bioshock and Saints Row were far from a guaranteed success yet all managed to find their market. The two RE lightgun games games, HOTD: Overkill, Dead Space, Silent Hill, The Conduit, surely one of those should have pulled respectable numbers? Yours is an easy position to defend because by getting into the minutiae you can very easily justify your opinion but the problem is your ignoring the overarching theme, which doesn't paint a very pretty picture, any way you look at it.
Betting on a PS3/360/PC title is much safer than a "traditional/core" Wii title and the investment per platform is almost certainly lower because over 90% of the work can be reused, that's just not the case with Wii projects, you've one shot at success and a very poorly defined target market, its just too damn risky. Throw a load of low cost, broad reaching titles at the system though, and your potential of managing to find that "special something" becomes much higher.
You're definitely onto something with the whole timing situation as well. Publishers needed to have made this move two years ago. Sure, the install base is increasing but if you underserve a particular market for so long, they'll move elsewhere and after three years of being underserved, I feel pretty confident in saying a lot have done just that.
Shig said:
This kind of thinking is what makes me sad. Wii games do not have to be "colorful", "arcadey", "kiddy", or "light hearted". I think this is where they failed. Wii "core" owners want those edgy games like everyone else, but the have to be high quality. I think a game like Infamous would do quite well on the Wii as long as it got the same amount of polish as the HD versions are getting. Not to mention the amount of hype. I think if Dead Space had been a 3rd person game like the other versions, then it would have caught on better. That's what drives hype and gets the player base energized. This is no different than the 360 market. Get people hyped and explain why this game is the coolest thing on the planet. The 18-30 crowd loves that kind of stuff. We all know it can't live up as far as graphics go, but that shouldn't hinder the gameplay.
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
I see a lot of people posting stuff like "make good games."
No, that's not going to cut it. Make great games. Make games that people will want to go to a midnight launch for. Make something that's going to get a 95 from IGN and an A from 1up. Make something that EGM will do a feature article on. There are only eight games that have a 90+ rating on gamerankings on the Wii, 4 by Nintendo, a downloadable game, two Rock Band games and a port of a Gamecube game. Meanwhile, the 360 has like two dozen games with a 90+ rating and the ps3 has like 20.
Great games sell. Third parties are not making great games on the Wii. They are making passable games and occasionally good games. No one other than Nintendo is putting out great games for the Wii.
No, that's not going to cut it. Make great games. Make games that people will want to go to a midnight launch for. Make something that's going to get a 95 from IGN and an A from 1up. Make something that EGM will do a feature article on. There are only eight games that have a 90+ rating on gamerankings on the Wii, 4 by Nintendo, a downloadable game, two Rock Band games and a port of a Gamecube game. Meanwhile, the 360 has like two dozen games with a 90+ rating and the ps3 has like 20.
Great games sell. Third parties are not making great games on the Wii. They are making passable games and occasionally good games. No one other than Nintendo is putting out great games for the Wii.
brain_stew
Member
Puncture said:
Its not an excuse though, its the realities of how development works in 2010. Commision a project for just the 360 and commisioning a project for the PS3/360/PC is very similar in terms of costs. The tool chain is setup so that the vast, vast majority of code and assets can be shared between these three platforms. The Wii just can't use that same tool chain and set of assets so it has to be spun off as a completely separate project, that's the reality of it.
Creating a PC version of a PS3/360 game is infinitely cheaper than creating a Wii version, so the PC version can continue to sell less copies and it doesn't matter because it wins from a ROI point of view.
At the end of the day, its basically Nintendo's fault, they knew how developers were gearing up for this generation, they knew the areas they were researching, they knew the egines they were licensing and they knew the level of assets that were being targetted. If they created a system compatible with all of that, the Wii would have received just as good third party support as the PS3 and 360, but it isn't so they don't.
It tells me that third oarty support never was a priority for Nintendo, they'd already proven to themselves that they could do it by themselves with the NDS, so that's why they chose this path, despite being blatently aware it would mean they'd suffer worse third party support.
Soneet said:
Indeed you can but the problem is the PS2 and PSP are both pretty much dead platforms. Publishers can no longer rely on them to spread the risk of a Wii project. In that sense the situation has the potential to get even worse.
Edit: I firmly belive at this point the ship has sailed. If publishers had followed up the early success of RE4 and Red Steal then things may have turned out differently but they didn't, so that niche moved on.
I agree with some of the things brain stew is saying. If you're making an expesive "core" game that's a big name FPS or shooty type game or more traditional type game 360/PS3/PC is by far the best choice because you'll get more sales. the problem is that if you dont or if it's a new ip that doesnt do very well you'll fucking destroy your company
something like silent hill was a much better idea on PS2/PSP/Wii because it sold like crap on 360/PS3. they're spending less making it and they'll make a lot more profit. They could have twice as much if they'd hyped it like they did with the PS3/360 version and they had adverts and stuff but that's their own fault
i think the wii has its strengths. as brain stew said it's the most "consoley" type systemm. but the pointer controls , motion+ controls and sporadic use of normal motion controls can add a lot to games. it's also much better for local co-op i've found. and if you're making a colourful/cartoony or a party/lightgun game it's the only real choice you've got
something like silent hill was a much better idea on PS2/PSP/Wii because it sold like crap on 360/PS3. they're spending less making it and they'll make a lot more profit. They could have twice as much if they'd hyped it like they did with the PS3/360 version and they had adverts and stuff but that's their own fault
i think the wii has its strengths. as brain stew said it's the most "consoley" type systemm. but the pointer controls , motion+ controls and sporadic use of normal motion controls can add a lot to games. it's also much better for local co-op i've found. and if you're making a colourful/cartoony or a party/lightgun game it's the only real choice you've got
brain_stew
Member
Sipowicz said:
You're using too much hyperbole there. Quality titles are expensive regardless of platform, though, yes, they may cost more if you're targetting high end platforms, they're still expensive if you're targetting the Wii, and doing things properly. The point is that you've got three roles of the dice, if it bombs on the PS3, well you've still got 360 and PC sales to help ease the pain, if your title bombs on the Wii then you're pretty much fucked. You can try pawning it off to the PS2 and PSP (which coincidentally is a worse fit than moving a PS3 title to the 360, but whatever) but those platforms are becoming ever more redundant, you just can't use them as a fall back in 2010.
Maybe Nintendo actually recognises this, the rumours that the DS2's successor will be Tegra 2 based certainly seems to suggest they do. Being compatible with industry standard tools and have titles easily ported from other platforms makes all kinds of sense, its all about spreading the risk of your investment the end of the day.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
The third parties hold a large part of the blame for the current mess, but whoever's fault it is, there's still a mess in the room. There's been no audience cultivated for these kinds of games on the Wii, so the only stuff that's really going to break through are the MEGAHIT type titles that are best served being multiplat anyway.
Meanwhile, the third parties have tried very hard to cultivate an audience for this stuff on the HD consoles, which is why we're getting this weird reversal of usual trends with regards to 1st/2nd/3rd place consoles and their software sales.
At this point in the generation there isn't much point trying to reverse things. It would take considerable effort on a lot of businesses part and the overall upside of doing it is probably not that big.
What third parties *can* do is do a better job of serving the casual/core overlap on the Wii. That's an audience you can sell big numbers to.
Hopefully everyone's learned their lesson for the next time something like this gen happens. You can swim farther going with the flow than fighting the current. Meanwhile, Nintendo doesn't give a shit because this is basically an ideal situation for them.
Meanwhile, the third parties have tried very hard to cultivate an audience for this stuff on the HD consoles, which is why we're getting this weird reversal of usual trends with regards to 1st/2nd/3rd place consoles and their software sales.
At this point in the generation there isn't much point trying to reverse things. It would take considerable effort on a lot of businesses part and the overall upside of doing it is probably not that big.
What third parties *can* do is do a better job of serving the casual/core overlap on the Wii. That's an audience you can sell big numbers to.
Hopefully everyone's learned their lesson for the next time something like this gen happens. You can swim farther going with the flow than fighting the current. Meanwhile, Nintendo doesn't give a shit because this is basically an ideal situation for them.
brain_stew said:
I don't buy it. The Gamecube was on the same level as the Xbox and PS2 last generation and yet Nintendo couldn't get multiplatform games for their system and if they got them, they were usually half-hearted ports not worth anyone's time. If being on the same level wasn't going to net them anything, then why even bother with them? There was no guarantee that the Wii (being at the same powerlevel as the PS3/360) would get support. It didn't work for the Gamecube, so why would anyone assume it would work for the Wii? It's easy to look back with current information and make comments about what could have been. No one would have even given the Wii a second thought before it was released. I'm not saying that Nintendo is blameless in all of this, but developers are more at fault and they are the ones to blame for the current situation.
michaelpachter said:
Yes, yes. A few of us have said, though not as eloquently, the same exact things many times in the past(I know you read the Bonus Round threads). Especially the 'they buy "Wii" and "Mario".' I'm many others thought of it independently too, its a pretty apparent phenomenon. For example, one of the highest selling 3rd party games is called "We Ski" a game with mediocre reviews and next to no marketing, yet an eerily familiar title... Needless to say, of course I agree with everything you say
. Those who don't agree will just say "but 3rd parties aren't even trying", etc...Maybe that's true to an extent. But they would have to try pretty damn hard to compete with Nintendo's titles. There is only a certain amount of dollars consumers will spend on Wii games, so good luck making content compelling enough to take that from Nintendo. There is no reason for them to try and risk a core Wii game when they can just make a 360/ps3 game.
I had quite an...'interesting' debate with a fellow GAFer on that core/casual issue in the BR thread. By interesting, I its mean funny what absolutely ridiculous things people will say to try and disagree with us: "The Wii market is a single audience. If you advertise a hardcore game enough to a soccer mom, she will buy it."
The Wii is inherently casual. When people buy a Wii, they buy it for Wii Sports. They don't buy it for CoD or Resident Evil. Only the relatively small core Wii audience cares for such games.
To directly answer your question as to what publishers should do(hey isn't that part of your job?
)... make low-budget casual games and hope they catch on, Just Dance is a great example. Core games, with maybe a couple exceptions, should be left for ps3/360. Making a core Wii game is just too risky a proposition. Few have even been profitable(mostly ones early on in Wii's PLC when the userbase still had lots of core gamers involved), and those profits were likely too small to be worth the profits from opportunities foregone.I'm sure Pachter has some such data...Obviously he can't share it with us, so he has to make his arguments here with what is publicly available. Or maybe he doesn't have such data, I really don't know.Flachmatuch said:
That might be true, but I would like more of such games coming to Wii ala WaW and MWR. And clearly they do sell, despite brain_stew saying that they don't count...Segata Sanshiro said:
Why the PSP got Assasin's Creed, Dante's Inferno and Army of Two 2? Stuff like that is what puzzle me.
Flachmatuch
Member
brain_stew said:
If each individual example is pretty easily written off, than the overwhelming volume of failures doesn't mean anything (the amount of failures doesn't mean anything anyway, using ratio of failures to successes is more meaningful). It's the same as if you said that "even though each individual UFO sighting can be easily proven to be something else, the mass of UFO sightings must mean that UFOs exist", it's faulty logic.
MH3 is about the first and only example of a high quality, reasonably budgeted original title on the Wii though, and it's in no way a guaranteed blockbuster in the West, no matter the platform. Its main market was Japan, and it sold mostly as expected there (not that this means anything).
I don't know what your point about the Wii games is. RE:UC did about 1m iirc, and seriously, of the 6 games you listed, 4 were lightgun games. The Conduit is around 300k (I think that's around games like TimeShift). SH isn't doing significantly worse than the HD counterpart. The bigger problem is that this list covers a lot more of worthwhile third party Wii games than your HD list :-/
First, publishers betting on the blockbuster model are actually doing very badly overall, so "much safer" is obviously not true. Second, nothing at all says that cost per platform is lower for HD games than for Wii games; in fact, every tiny bit of information that we do have says that the opposite is true. High development costs for HD consoles is in fact the main problem and should have been the primary draw for third parties to form a real Wii strategy (which would probably mean neither direct porting of all core games to the Wii nor the complete lack of core games, but something more meaningful).
You might be right about the low cost, broad reaching titles - the problem is that that wasn't what third parties were doing - they were not trying to discover what the market wanted, they just wanted to make easy money off cheap shovelware quickly and predictably :-/
Nintendo has no responsibility for third parties making money. Since it's third parties that are in the shitter, it's "basically" their fault.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
That stuff baffles me, as well. It's why I've got no sympathy for third parties who whine about this stuff. If you're putting out PSP versions of your big guns and you can't be arsed to cover the Wii as well, don't complain that you can't sell shit. The PSP makes the Wii look like a fucking PS2 as far as selling third party core titles in North America.Lonely1 said:
brain_stew said:
nah not really. a lot of companies have been killed by bad decision although that expands to the wii as well. my point is that it's a lot harsher when you're making HD games. and they dont always put them on pc because they're dumb
i still maintain that the wii is a lot suitable for certain genres and types of games than the PS3/360/PC even though as you pointed out you only get one roll of the dice. If they made a 2D sonic which was actually good and had 4 player support they would sell shitloads. same goes for good mario kart type game like that crash bandicoot one one PS1. they'd need good and sustained marketing but they'd do amazingly well. but they wont do that cause that would be smart
other examples like no more heroes which was really low budget but sold half a million because there's not many action games on the wii and it was quite cool. or house of the dead which sold loads especially in the uk. or red steel and conduit which were really bad but marketed loads. or rayman rabbids which has become synonymous with the wii
i also feel you're wrong about the PSP and PS2. PSP isn't dead in Japan and certain games sell really well. silent hill is a good example. the last i saw origins on PSP sold almost as much as homecoming on PS3/360 combined for NPD. you're telling me that shattered memories is not going to do better on PS2/Wii/PSP then it did on HD systems?
What I want them to do is put a Saint's Row style game and a Dead Space style game on the Wii. Both of those types aren't well represented on the Wii and if they were quality I'd buy em. Throw in some 3rd person motionplus sword action that's as sharp as the WSR speed game and I'm on that too.michaelpachter said:
brain_stew
Member
Soneet said:
I know it was, its still a relevant point.
brain_stew
Member
Segata Sanshiro said:
Nailed it. Things just aren't going to change now, too much money has been invested and it'd be far too expensive (and counter prodcutive) to try and right the wrongs of the past. The ship has sailed and it isn't coming back into harbour until next generation.
Lonely1 said:
I've wondered about that, too. My roommate wondered why the Wii didn't get Mercenaries 2, but the PS2 did. That was the game he was most excited about. It's decisions like that which really boggle my mind. Games like The Force Unleashed and Call of Duty games show that there is a market there which can be tapped. Why wouldn't they go after it? Doesn't make any sense.
brain_stew said:
If the generation goes on as long as people expect, then it's not too late. Start hyping games up now to get people paying attention and I think they'll be able o change the dynamic a bit. All it takes is one good super awesome game in that age group to really get people interested. As long as there's a flow of those games (and gamers know they can trust in that flow), then they'll be able to right the ship....but it won't be easy.
brain_stew
Member
Flachmatuch said:
You're missing the point. If you create a game for just the Wii or just the PS3, then, yes, the PS3 title will be more expensive but the fact is third party PS3 exclusives (that aren't receiveing a moneyhat) pretty much don't exist these days and nor should they. A PS3 title means you can get a 360 and PC version out of it for very little extra investment, you just don't have that luxury with the Wii. So the cost of that PS3/360/PC project is higher, sure, but you' get three roles of the dice for your money, whereas the Wii project only gives you one chance. So yes, the actual cost, per platform does work out less for the PS3, 360 and PC because of the nature of modern multiplatform development.
If Nintendo had packed a X1300 (restricted to 480p output), 256MB or RAM and a dual core PowerPC in the Wii, something they could have done for very cheap, then the same could have been said for the Wii. Creating a Wii version would have been a simple matter of outputting in SD and haling the texture resolution (something you'd probably do for the PC version anyway), you could have kept all the same shared tools, assets and code,a nd got a Wii version out for a nominal extra amount. Sadly, the hardware was half a decade out of date at launch and was wholly incompatible with modern game development tools and approaches so Nintendo got the shaft. Frankly, I don't think they care, its to their advantage that they have a software monopoly on their platform so if anything, it was a specific goal of theirs.
Lonely1 said:
I'll be honest, I can't rationalise this, and they all seem like incredibly poor investments. Since the games are already in production its simply madness that they don't spin off a cheap Wii port but honestly, those games should exist in the first place, they're basically just money sinks. PSP software is completely dead in the west and has been for at least 2 years. The one and only justification I can come up is moneyhats from Sony and since a new wave of software all seemed to come at a similar time maybe its not such a radical idea, I don't know.
I'm equally as sad that you took 'lighthearted' as synonymous with 'kiddy' despite me explicitly giving an example of types of those games that core gamers fucking loved, that I've never once heard mocked as 'kiddy'.EDarkness said:
If we were having this conversation two years ago I'd agree. Like I said earlier, however, a significant number of people who want 'mature' games have long since gotten fed up with their shoddy, patronizing handling on Wii and crossed over towards the other platforms that deliver the goods. And now that their needs are being met there with amenities above and beyond what Wii can offer, it's going to be a very hard sell to bring 'em back.
Infamous is going to have to stay a far-distant hypothetical, considering it's a first-party Sony game. But to counter with another hypothetical, I think Sly Cooper would stand to do even better.
I agree on Dead Space, but all the same I don't think it would have performed as well as the HD versions. In any case, another opportunity, another patronizing effort towards Wii owners. Another reason for people who wanted a "real" version of an HD franchise to leave the Wii and never look back.
You can't approach a product with years of history and treat as though its in the exact same position now as it was on day one. The Wii is not the system people think of when they think of 'cool' games for the 18-30 market. There's been years of third-class treatment paid to 'mature' franchises and efforts on the system, it's going to take a long, concentrated effort to bring goodwill for those types of game back to anything approaching parity with the HD consoles.
You can label the DC-esque games effort I described earlier "phase 1" if you like; Those are games with some nice gamer cred that very well may lure your 'cool' market back bit-by-bit, but they're also pretty welcoming to the Wii-market's outsiders that maybe just buy things that look fun. They're much less risky than going whole-hog on a mature blood n' guts game with the presupposition that the people you drove away will all do some magical 180° and make some mass exodus back. If and/or when the stuff with broader appeal draws back more of your 'cool' market, then you can then enact "phase 2," springing the mature stuff back on them to a much better likelihood of success.
AceBandage
Banned
You know, we have this topic at least once a week, and it basically boils down to:
1. Third parties shit on the Wii for the first three years of its life.
2. Nintendo didn't pay third parties enough to care.
3. Third parties are run by retarded monkeys.
1. Third parties shit on the Wii for the first three years of its life.
2. Nintendo didn't pay third parties enough to care.
3. Third parties are run by retarded monkeys.
Mayor Haggar
Banned
I would NOT want a cheap Wii version of the PSP port of Dante's Inferno. Which is being made by A2M, and I know first-hand that it is a big steaming pile of shit.
The thing with all that PSP software is they're always made by 5th tier devs who are just trying to stay afloat. I'd rather have Wii shovelware based on properties or genres I don't care about, and therefore, will never want to play, then Wii shovelware of major franchises like AC or DI.
The thing with all that PSP software is they're always made by 5th tier devs who are just trying to stay afloat. I'd rather have Wii shovelware based on properties or genres I don't care about, and therefore, will never want to play, then Wii shovelware of major franchises like AC or DI.
brain_stew
Member
Mayor Haggar said:
The reality is that the Wii hardware is much closer to PSP hardware than it is to PS3 and 360 hardware, so it can share projects with the PSP but it can't share titles with the PS3 and 360. If Wii buyers aren't going to buy titles that can be easily ported to the PSP then you've pretty much created your own grave.
I'll not go into your other points, since we've already discussed this and you'll just continue to misunderstand me.NeoUltima said:To directly answer your question as to what publishers should do(hey isn't that part of your job?
Irregardless, as to the bolded, this has already been done, and failed at. So called "casual" games that had solid initial showings have depreciating sales over releases. Ubisoft alone has 4 of 5 failed titles aimed at the new audience for every Just Dance (which by the way is a decent game WITH a very impressive marketing campaign). If it was as easy as "just make casual games", Ubisoft would be making hand over fist and EA would be selling so much Madden All Play. They're not though, because those low budget "casual" games aren't the kinds of cash cows you're making them out to be.
Shit, these fucking 500 errors...
I think the 'casual' view of the system is a strawman and somewhat of a misnomer. I believe that the truth is:
All the userbase has to choose from is a crowded market of casual games and some niche titles. What sells is a hodgepodge of what's out there.
- Casuals do buy games when ones they deem as "good" come out (NSMB Wii, Mario Kart, Wii Fit, Wii Sports...)
- Casuals are not the majority of Wii owners but a large sector.
- There is sales confusion amongst consumers that muddies the view of who's buying what, due to third party dumping shovelware and oversaturating casual games, and now the overwhelming budget game market
- There still have not been any good third party titles that aren't niche, aka titles that meet demands of the hardcore market.
- Light gun games are not and almost never have been mainstream. Like every genre, there are exceptions, but it's not the norm.
- Great hardcore games have come out and have sold, but they were half-hearted and didn't meet some demands of the market (RE4 port, World at War, Madden)
- There was never demand for half-hearted casual/hardcore hybrids like Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam, the Madden All-Play games, the glut of light gun shooters, etc.
- Nintendo's hardcore games have sold very well and even when they didn't, Nintendo still catered strongly to that market with games like Fire Emblem, Metroid Prime Trilogy, Punchout, etc
- Many major casual games have failed and companies like Ubisoft have turned off from the casual market
- Nintendo did pay and talk to third parties to put games on Wii.
All the userbase has to choose from is a crowded market of casual games and some niche titles. What sells is a hodgepodge of what's out there.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
There's a caveat. If they completely leave the Wii behind, they're leaving potential money on the table and leaving a bad taste for the expanded audience. Would it not be better for them to try and turn around their brand image? Make sure that their brands are seen on the system, maybe not as a force to be reckoned with, but at least a company who's delivering decent software? Software with great decent concepts, quality, and marketing? No more shovelware? Could Ubisoft go to releasing 7-8 games a year instead of 30, all of them of quality, and nothing petz or imagine? Maybe so that when the next generation comes around they're not considered shit peddlers? How about EA? They're doing much better than they were, but can they make it a situation where if you buy a brand new EA game on the Wii, you won't feel buyer's remorse?brain_stew said:
Nintendo is building an absolute ton of brand equity by being the only consistent provider of quality games to their expanded audience. Wouldn't it be nice for Activision could repair their image a little with these new customers before the new generation starts?
ShinNL
Member
Just an advice brain_stew, but if you have any clue about game development, you would stop talking. You're not a programmer and if you were, you would know how silly you sound with this sharing project argument you're trying to convince people of. Funny enough, all architects that you mentioned are completely different. None of them are converted 'easy'.brain_stew said:
Flachmatuch
Member
brain_stew said:
This is a few separate issues. First is "cost per platform", which is development costs divided by number of platforms (no idea about what this number means though). We don't know much about development costs, but what little we know actually does not really support what you're saying. We know some stuff about sales requirements for breaking even, and it's usually a few hundred thousand units for the Wii vs around 1m for HD stuff, so yeah, HD costs could be 2-3x Wii costs. This is of course not direct comparison of the same game for Wii and HD consoles (doh); on the other hand, the CoD games, for example, show that it's also possible to reuse HD stuff for Wii games and that this decreases development costs. Maybe it'd be more than the 10-15% increase that I remember for porting costs (to the PS3, it was Ubisoft iirc), but it's also a larger userbase. Again, I don't think this is a good strategy, I'm just saying the technological problems aren't the main issue. I also dislike the entire blockbuster approach and I don't think it works either.
Second is about "separate rolls of the dice". This would be true if the PS3 and the 360 markets were significantly different not to be considered a single market...but afaics it's really only about considering the HD consoles as a single user base, so not really separate rolls of the dice. You have a larger userbase, basically.
It's sad that we don't really know enough about this, but the whole issue is mostly theoretical anyway. From the few numbers we have, we know that MS and Sony together have lost about $5bn this gen and that most large publishers aren't doing very well either...so regardless of how many throws of the dice they have, what they're doing simply isn't working. I don't think extending this model to the Wii would work, I think that's also a bit silly, but focusing on the HD platforms is also not really that great.
Afaics the problem is that the HD market isn't really growing fast enough to support rising development costs, even though it very much expects developers to compete on production quality (ie. increasing development costs). MW2 sales, for example, sound awesome, but if the market isn't growing as fast as overall game costs, it only means more concentration of sales, which means a market that can sustain fewer (but larger) players. Even if the Wii market seems strange and unpredictable, it still seems to be closer to the experience that traditional publishers have than the mobile market or Facebook games and afaik it's also bigger and growing.
Thing is, it's not about how Nintendo could help third parties (as you said, who knows if they even want to). It's about how third parties can help themselves using whatever's available.
Soneet said:
Well we know at least that Ubisoft (iirc) said that project costs increase by about 10-15% (iirc) if you port a 360 game to PS3, so I don't really think the technical details are relevant.
brain_stew
Member
Soneet said:
Developers don't code to the metal anymore, they use high level languages and share code between systems. Someone from Criterion was quoted as saying that over 90% of the code between the PS3, 360 and PC was identical and there was only specific optimisations made for each specific platform. All the assets can remain completely identical because of the similar capabilities of a PS3, 360 and low end gaming PC. Just look at the CE3 demonstrations, a developer messes about on a map on the PC and the PS3 and 360 versions are all updated in real time. The 360 uses DirectX for its graphics programming just as you would on a PC and despite the fact that PC version of 360 titles bring in a comparitively low amount of sales they still remain viable ecause there's so much code and assets you can reuse.
That's the nature of the beast and that's how all these tools have been setup to work. A lot can be shared between these platforms if you build to a similar base. Now, if you're trying to port a game that was created specifically around the PS3 from the get go with no consideration for multiplatform development, that's different. See Bayonetta for an example of how this sort of approach can turn to shit but if a project is multiplatform from the get go (which it invariably will be) then there's no reason why costs should rise by a linear amount. The majority of code and assets can be shared by targeting a happy middle ground.
You just can't bring the Wii into that approach to development. Its hardware is too outdated and too slow for it to work.
brain_stew
Member
Flachmatuch said:
I wouldn't use the Wii port of COD4 as any sort of barometer as to how an average multiplatform title could be ported to Wii. Its a game with very high performance goals (60fps), on an engine steeped in Quake 3 technology with no texture streaming, incredibly linear levels, that even runs decently on a piece of shit Atom CPU on the PC side. Its just about a best case scenario and even then pretty much all the assets had to be reworked, it looked like shit and performed really poorly. Something like Danté's Inferno might be a good candidate as well but very little else Its an interesting approach, sure, and Treyarch did a pretty damn fine job but its not something that can be applied as a rule.
Mariah Carey
Member
michaelpachter said:
You realize if this is true that the "hardcore" market has contracted by a lot since last generation?
brain_stew
Member
Flachmatuch said:
Well I really think they've made their bed. There's no doubt in my mind that they completely fucked it up at the start of the generation, the Wii completely caught them off guard and the endless fumbling/stalling has sealed their fate. They've messed up a decent opportunity. For now, they've got to ride it out until next generation and since they know targetted core titles on the PS3/360/PC are much less likely to bomb than any random Wii project, that's where the big budget titles will (and should) go.
Why don't Nintendo's titles count as hardcore games? Is NSMB wii, Metroid Prime Trilogy and the others from Nintendo are they not hardcore games?
If they sell and sell well. That proves there is a market for hardcore games. It just shows that a lot of developers aren't competing with Nintendo. They should put the same effort Nintendo does into the titles and they can then see if the results are high sales.
If they sell and sell well. That proves there is a market for hardcore games. It just shows that a lot of developers aren't competing with Nintendo. They should put the same effort Nintendo does into the titles and they can then see if the results are high sales.
Flachmatuch
Member
brain_stew said:
You keep focusing on incidental details and ignore everything else...it shouldn't be that difficult to remember more than the post you're replying to
The question is not about whether third parties could somehow make reasonable quality Wii ports for a reasonable price for (some or most of) their big games. (They obviously could btw, no question about that, but that's not really the main question here.) The original point you made was how I was missing the point on the "cost per platform" issue, which I wasn't.brain_stew
Member
Lonely1 said:
By your standards, maybe, I've seen the framerate analysis and from where I'm sitting saying it performs like crap is a perfectly valid position to take. Its an interesting achievement, sure, but its a sorry shadow of the game its trying to represent.
AceBandage
Banned
Ulairi said:
Because then third parties cry that they can't compete with Nintendo's games (which is true, so no third party really even comes close to matching Nintendo's quality.)
Similar threads
- Poll