Support NeoGAF

[Indyana]

Exactly...

There is way way more competition on the HD platforms. Nintendo has 30% on wii, EA has 30% on PS360. That 70% is way more contested on the HD consoles than it is on the Wii.

With the shit that is released on Wii, I'm surprised third parties are still taking 70% of the market. If they released quality software, they sure as hell would have a higher percentage.

To be fair, third parties are taking 52% of the revenues. We know why it's happening but it's scary when someone looks at the numbers. And it could be used by a CEO to explain their Wii results and support at an earnings report.

Dalthien posted this (sales breakdown) in npd thread. Quite interesting.

So now the elephant at the gates of the third parties buildings is bigger, green and has a police siren in the head. Somehow, they are going to keep ignoring it.

At the same time, PSP third party support avoiding the Wii is incredible.

 

[Johann]

I don't know if I'm clear enough though,
my point is that : make compeling software and I'll buy it.
I go to my game store nearly every week to know if there's something new.
Well if I browse the Wii part, I sure as hell compare it to Nintendo's stuffs and if I don't see anything interesting I don't buy anything.
I mean in regards to Dead Space :
I know about the game but I feel like I can't experience it if I don't know about Dead Space first.
I already have House of the Dead and the Resident Evils(Link crossbow stuffs too), do I really need this one too?
Is there someone I know who played it?(answer NO)
There's not even any ads anywhere so I can't even go by that.
There's basically nothing that separates it from Obscure 2 at this point.

Dead Space Extraction's problem wasn't marketing. It was the fact that the entire videogame community willed it into failure. People simply wanted Dead Space Extraction to fail. The Wii-owners, in particular, wanted everyone who greenlighted the game to lie dying in a gutter. Publishers can deal with apathy for their game but outright hate? What can you do when your consumers have willed the very universe to destroy you? It's like the relentless Angry Sun from Super Mario Bros. 3.

It was quite obvious from that Extraction would be a commercial failure from the moment of its announcement. The lightgun genre was a niche genre. Many of the success stories on the Wii can be explained by a dedicated niche fanbase for a series or a very strong license, such as Zelda, Resident Evil, or Nerf. Dead Space on the 360/PS3 had severely underperformed EA's expectations (it's likely the sales target was in the neighborhood of 3 million+ copies). It wasn't a very strong license since the first game underperformed and spin-off was in a new genre. Players who enjoyed the original game would not find the same gameplay on the Wii. While the game could standout as a third-person action horror game, it would face competition or apathy as a rail-shooter. These were all arguments presented during the revelation that the game was a rail-shooter.

If some kids on an internet forum could predict failure the moment of the rail-shooter's reveal, then just what did EA expect to accomplish? Have some out-sourced spin-off game bomb on the Wii and use to as an example to shareholders of how the Wii market was bonkers? Have an excuse to why it's acceptable to spend hundreds of millions on the volatile MMO genre, release two modern military first-person shooters in the same year, understand every single commercially successful genre through developer acquisition or grueling R&D since the company's inception as Amazin' Software in 1982, but not to understand the Wii? Maybe EA doesn't really care about succeeding on the Wii or any other console for that matter. Maybe it's sort of a game the executives play about who troll as many people as possible. Like "I'm going to say that I'll revolutionize the first-person experience on the Wii and then tell Wii owners that they are a bunch of retards who are better off with dumbed down game out-sourced to Eurocom" or "That's nothing. I swindled the entire company into grossly overpaying during an acquisition and got a nice kickback to boot" or "I orchestrated a failed company takeover that cost our company $21 million in legal fees and untold damage in our stock price and investor confidence" or "I'm going to rape my secretary."

I also think Wii Music was hurt by coming out after Guitar Hero and Rock Band had exploded in popularity, even if it's not really the same. Wii Sports was packed in and Wii Play came with a Friimote (I'm sorry), so those two had/were incentives. Wii Fit was the first fitness game on the console so it essentially invented the genre, while Wii Music was... well, a music game. Not much going on there.

Still amazing that 3 million is considered a flop.

It was a flop. It failed to do the job that Nintendo intended it to do and underperformed expectations. When it failed alongside Animal Crossing City Folk, the Wii went from near-constant supply issues to an ineffectual $50 price-slash. Older games, such as Mario Kart Wii and Wii Fit, had to do the heavy lifting well into 2009 until Wii Sports Resort and New Super Mario Bros. Wii arrived. We're now seeing the job Wii Music should have done in 2008-9 with NSMB Wii.

 

[Agnates]

DS: Extraction could still have been marketed and sold better. All that bullshit first person guided experience talk only made people hate EA even more. They could have just been honest about what it is, about what everyone knew it is, instead of hide behind their finger. Market it as a kick ass lightgun shooter and sell it for $30. Oh and add freaking lightgun calibreation too, I hate that DS: E and the Chronicles games are unplayable with the hand cannon since the aiming isn't exact as it lacks calibration so you're better off playing them like you do Wii FPS titles with the controllers in your lap, just moving the cursor, not trying to aim by any skill, just speed.

The developers even openly mocked gamers in the beginning. Seriously, you start the game up, and after a short intro it gives you a third person view like the original, and it looks damn good, then you realise that isn't you but you're watching someone else from a first person on-rails perspective (1:30). If someone didn't know it's on-rails before, I could see them have a rage fit at that point. It was still annoying for people who knew that I'm sure, like, WTF :lol

And I'm sure Wii Music made a fuckton of profit cpmpared to dev costs so it was far from a flop just because it wasn't a Wii Sports caliber success (but that was even bundled, would it have sold that much if it wasn't so?). They probably had similar resources spent and one was cheap enough to bundle with the system, like a demo.

 

[jrricky]

Is pachter still here?

If he is, what do you think of Ubisoft, Namco and EAs reasoning of putting Assasins Creed, Soul Calibur, Dante's Inferno, and Army Of Two on the PSP and not Wii?

This alone makes me go !Que!

I came back. Did Pachter answer?

 

[Grampa Simpson]

I came back. Did Pachter answer?

Nope. Hopefully he'll come back and provide his opinion on the matter.

 

[jrricky]

Nope. Hopefully he'll come back and provide his opinion on the matter.

Wait, Pachter planned this didnt he? How can he make this thread then disappear?...

 

[Ulairi]

Nope. Hopefully he'll come back and provide his opinion on the matter.

He won't.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

He won't.

That's certainly a negative outlook on the situation.

 

[Ulairi]

That's certainly a negative outlook on the situation.

He won't do it because all that will happen is people will pick apart what he says. There is no gain for him to join in. He started the question and he can get what he wants from the thread.

 

[KamenSenshi]

it would be nice to hear thoughts on that. at this point i'm just curious what kind of reasons they could use for that.

 

[mugurumakensei]

it would be nice to hear thoughts on that. at this point i'm just curious what kind of reasons they could use for that.

A final fantasy 7 prequel, a God of War title, and a couple GTA games were successful at some point. That means there's a stable market for new and existing hardcore ips on the PSP!
Others would claim that Sony offered financial assistance on the titles, but I doubt it. Sony was lessening the amount of financial assistance it was giving developers even during the PS3's lowest points. So, I doubt they offered much money at all for those psp titles.

 

[EDarkness]

Dead Space Extraction's problem wasn't marketing. It was the fact that the entire videogame community willed it into failure. People simply wanted Dead Space Extraction to fail. The Wii-owners, in particular, wanted everyone who greenlighted the game to lie dying in a gutter. Publishers can deal with apathy for their game but outright hate? What can you do when your consumers have willed the very universe to destroy you? It's like the relentless Angry Sun from Super Mario Bros. 3.

It was quite obvious from that Extraction would be a commercial failure from the moment of its announcement. The lightgun genre was a niche genre. Many of the success stories on the Wii can be explained by a dedicated niche fanbase for a series or a very strong license, such as Zelda, Resident Evil, or Nerf. Dead Space on the 360/PS3 had severely underperformed EA's expectations (it's likely the sales target was in the neighborhood of 3 million+ copies). It wasn't a very strong license since the first game underperformed and spin-off was in a new genre. Players who enjoyed the original game would not find the same gameplay on the Wii. While the game could standout as a third-person action horror game, it would face competition or apathy as a rail-shooter. These were all arguments presented during the revelation that the game was a rail-shooter.

If some kids on an internet forum could predict failure the moment of the rail-shooter's reveal, then just what did EA expect to accomplish? Have some out-sourced spin-off game bomb on the Wii and use to as an example to shareholders of how the Wii market was bonkers? Have an excuse to why it's acceptable to spend hundreds of millions on the volatile MMO genre, release two modern military first-person shooters in the same year, understand every single commercially successful genre through developer acquisition or grueling R&D since the company's inception as Amazin' Software in 1982, but not to understand the Wii? Maybe EA doesn't really care about succeeding on the Wii or any other console for that matter. Maybe it's sort of a game the executives play about who troll as many people as possible. Like "I'm going to say that I'll revolutionize the first-person experience on the Wii and then tell Wii owners that they are a bunch of retards who are better off with dumbed down game out-sourced to Eurocom" or "That's nothing. I swindled the entire company into grossly overpaying during an acquisition and got a nice kickback to boot" or "I orchestrated a failed company takeover that cost our company $21 million in legal fees and untold damage in our stock price and investor confidence" or "I'm going to rape my secretary."

So basically you're saying that consumers should just take whatever it is the developers/publisher give them? That's not how it works. It's their job to make games the population wants and they knew this game was going to be a hard sell from the very first announcement. It's not a game that people wanted. They wanted to sell the game to the "core" Wii market and they were asking for 3rd person games. So what did EA give them? Another rail shooter. They were trying to build some hype, but it wasn't the game people wanted and why didn't they make the game people wanted? Wouldn't it have served them better to do so? It's not like grandma and grandpa were going to be playing Dead Space. So they decided to make a game that was unpopular with their audience and it didn't sell. It's not the Wii owners or even internet groups who are at fault. It's EA. No one "willed it to failure". EA did that by themselves.

 

[Agnates]

Um? He just said people hated the game, and even explained why they hated it and how it was totally stupid of EA to expect it to do well. How do you get that he thinks the game should have been success from that? He didn't outright say the hate was justified, but he implied it at least. Unless I missed a line.

 

[Effect]

I honestly would love to know what the reaction was at EA when the backlash to Dead Space Extraction took place. How the developers reacted and felt. If they even cared or were even surprised themselves. Does anyone know what the reaction from EA, if any at all, was after the announcement? Was there anything reported by the gaming media?

They had to know something was coming because they tried that "guided first person adventure" nonsense. Curious if they were really prepared for what happen.

 

[Vinci]

If Mr. Pachter does come back, I'd really like to know why he and other analysts spend so much time lamenting Nintendo's 'domination' on the Wii - given the factors I spoke of earlier in this thread - and exactly zero effort discussing how a poorly run company like EA is holding damn near 30% marketshare on two platforms with far greater competition. Why is the one a bad thing and the other not? What's the sodding difference, besides the outcome of the former being pretty damned predictable considering the massive lack of true competition Nintendo has faced this generation?

I mean, seriously... we keep having this argument, but I can't fathom how anyone could look at those factors and say that Nintendo's 'domination' is in any way a sign of something other than 3rd parties putting all their worthwhile shit on the other systems.

 

[AceBandage]

If Mr. Pachter does come back, I'd really like to know why he and other analysts spend so much time lamenting Nintendo's 'domination' on the Wii - given the factors I spoke of earlier in this thread - and exactly zero effort discussing how a poorly run company like EA is holding damn near 30% marketshare on two platforms with far greater competition. Why is the one a bad thing and the other not? What's the sodding difference, besides the outcome of the former being pretty damned predictable considering the massive lack of true competition Nintendo has faced this generation?

I mean, seriously... we keep having this argument, but I can't fathom how anyone could look at those factors and say that Nintendo's 'domination' is in any way a sign of something other than 3rd parties putting all their worthwhile shit on the other systems.

Because even analysts rage out when they see the blue ocean strategy Nintendo is gliding on.
Honestly, paid video game analysts are no better than your average forum goer.
They see a disruption in the industry and they just can't handle it.

 

[Freezie KO]

The ironic thing about marketing Dead Space Extraction is that the more people found out about the game, the less they wanted it. Certainly was the case with me. Dead Space? Great. Spin-off? Umm... okay. "Guided first-person experience?" Nope.

Marketing helps, but in the end people have to want the product. EA was doing damage control from the second they revealed what DS: E actually was.

There are third-party games that disappoint me with their lack of sales. Madworld being a key example. But DS: E? Yeah, I wouldn't pay the $15 I've seen it selling for.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

how a poorly run company like EA is holding damn near 30% marketshare on two platforms with far greater competition.

That's a rather aggressive way to put it.

 

[Vinci]

That's a rather aggressive way to put it.

Compared to Nintendo, EA is a poorly run company. That's undeniable. Even people who detest Nintendo's games and direction can at least admit that it's a remarkably well run company. I'm being blunt only because I'm sick of this conversation; I'm tired of beating around the bush.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Compared to Nintendo, EA is a poorly run company. That's undeniable. Even people who detest Nintendo's games and direction can at least admit that it's a remarkably well run company. I'm being blunt only because I'm sick of this conversation; I'm tired of beating around the bush.

Yes, but by putting it that way you put him in a position of not being able to answer. It's just shy of asking him if he still beats his wife.

 

[AceBandage]

Yes, but by putting it that way you put him in a position of not being able to answer. It's just shy of asking him if he still beats his wife.

I'd say that's a fair question.
Does Pachter still beat his wife?

 

[Grampa Simpson]

And at the end of the day, we have one of the industry's most trusted pundits posting here and occasionally offering his opinion and answering questions. Don't create an atmosphere where he can't participate without harming his ability to interact with the companies that are the bread and butter of his career.

 

[AceBandage]

And at the end of the day, we have one of the industry's most trusted pundits posting here and occasionally offering his opinion and answering questions. Don't create an atmosphere where he can't participate without harming his ability to interact with the companies that are the bread and butter of his career.

He really shouldn't be posting here then, if he isn't prepared for a heaping helping of criticism.

 

[Vinci]

Yes, but by putting it that way you put him in a position of not being able to answer. It's just shy of asking him if he still beats his wife.

My questions are these: Why is Nintendo's marketshare on the Wii a cause for concern when it appears directly related to them having little to no competition on the system? And why is it not concerning when a 3rd party publisher (EA in this case) commands nearly the same marketshare on the PS3 and 360, despite it facing far greater competition on those platforms? And if EA were facing less competition from other 3rd parties on those platforms, thus likely raising its marketshare to Nintendo's Wii level or higher, would he feel compelled to create a thread to discuss it?

 

[Grampa Simpson]

My questions are these: Why is Nintendo's marketshare on the Wii a cause for concern when it appears directly related to them having little to no competition on the system? And why is it not concerning when a 3rd party publisher (EA in this case) commands nearly the same marketshare on the PS3 and 360, despite it facing far greater competition on those platforms? And if EA were facing less competition from other 3rd parties on those platforms, thus likely raising its marketshare to Nintendo's Wii level or higher, would he feel compelled to create a thread to discuss it?

Much better.

 

[KamenSenshi]

A final fantasy 7 prequel, a God of War title, and a couple GTA games were successful at some point. That means there's a stable market for new and existing hardcore ips on the PSP!
Others would claim that Sony offered financial assistance on the titles, but I doubt it. Sony was lessening the amount of financial assistance it was giving developers even during the PS3's lowest points. So, I doubt they offered much money at all for those psp titles.

thats the thing though. even when those titles were announced for psp it wasn't selling games like gangbusters. it could be argued that those games sold what they did because of what they are, which is well made well advertised focused games that were not just spin off stuff for a portable audience.

the wii does get its ff:cc game iguess but i didnt see the push that crisis core got likely due to ff ps3. and the wii cant even get a gta, i remember hearing how it wouldn't have the power or wouldn't work for one reason or another but if they can make full blown ps2 quality entries for psp, niether of which sold really well if i remember correctly, then why not bundle those two on a disk for wii. the first one sold ok i think, but once they announced it for ps2 the sales pretty much stopped afaicr.

if they have to do these tests at least make it reasonable. i mean, both psp gtas plus san an stories would be a test even i would go for. if once they could have a testgame that is not completely different than the game people actually want.

 

[boiled goose]

The ironic thing about marketing Dead Space Extraction is that the more people found out about the game, the less they wanted it. Certainly was the case with me. Dead Space? Great. Spin-off? Umm... okay. "Guided first-person experience?" Nope.

Marketing helps, but in the end people have to want the product. EA was doing damage control from the second they revealed what DS: E actually was.

There are third-party games that disappoint me with their lack of sales. Madworld being a key example. But DS: E? Yeah, I wouldn't pay the $15 I've seen it selling for.

marketing is more than advertising.
Selling something people want is part of marketing.

 

[Faxanadu]

Where to begin really? Stop being fanboys. Yeah, I'm looking at you developers.

Don't treat the Wii or Nintendo as the red headed step child. You can argue 'till you're blue in the face about HD advantages but the Wii is the undeniable market leader and the developers generally have treated them with the same respect as they did with the Gamecube. In other words, not much. At least with the cube you could make the excuse of market position.

When was the last time in the history of video games has the market leader been shunned so badly? Really? Think about that. It wasn't that long ago that "epic" games were made on hardware similar in power to the Wii. See: XBOX.

The industry has its head up its own ass. The "hardcore" (AKA Fanboy) players have their heads severely deep up their own asses.

Speaking of Epic, here's some examples on the industry being retarded:
Mark Reign on not supporting Wii -
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/08/mark-rein-says-no-unreal-engine-3-for-wii/
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=173181

But it's possible and profitable to make engines for iPhone? Really Mark?
http://wireless.ign.com/articles/105/1057087p1.html

Examples of Gamer -
Go to any forum and see how many post how they won't buy a game because it's specifically for Wii. Examples: NBA Jam, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars

There is nothing Wrong with HD. There is clearly strong demand for Wii. What will the 3rd Party excuse be when WiiHd comes out? Ohh they will find one I'm sure.

 

[Flachmatuch]

And at the end of the day, we have one of the industry's most trusted pundits posting here and occasionally offering his opinion and answering questions. Don't create an atmosphere where he can't participate without harming his ability to interact with the companies that are the bread and butter of his career.

I think you're taking this way too seriously. He's more like a celebrity showing off than someone who takes this forum or any discussion on it seriously to any degree (understandably of course). His best effect is that threads in which he posts remain more civil and discussions stay more on topic, because people like to imagine that he's reading their posts.

 

[KamenSenshi]

Faxanadu above seems right on. developers/pubs can be fanboys too. anytime its not worth it to make games or an engine for the run-away leader in console sales but for a phone says something. thats just leaving money on the table there.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

I think you're taking this way too seriously. He's more like a celebrity showing off than someone who takes this forum or any discussion on it seriously to any degree (understandably of course). His best effect is that threads in which he posts remain more civil and discussions stay more on topic, because people like to imagine that he's reading their posts.

Maybe. It still comes down to the decision to be rude or to be civil. Civility is the better policy.

 

[mugurumakensei]

post above seems right on. developers/pubs can be fanboys too. anytime its not worth it to make games or an engine for the run-away leader in console sales but for a phone says something. thats just leaving money on the table there.

Well, there was also that time when Mark Rein asked an entire room of journalists to raise their hand if they owned a gamecube cause he wanted to prove how unpopular gamecube was with hardcore gamers. That one actually backfired on him.

But yeah, I'd say saying development companies can't be fanboys is just as bad as saying all development companies are fanboys. Some are, and some aren't. In Epic's case, it's definitely anti-Nintendo and nothing Nintendo can do will ever get an Epic game on their platforms.

 

[qizah]

You want your Wii games to sell - put forth effort and put your first tier developers on Wii titles.

Though this will never happen, because why should it? Theres no reason for developers like say, Infinity Ward, to waste their time making an excellent Wii title - because it will not be able to capture their full vision/dream of that title.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Hahaha, I just read that EA spent 2.5 million dollars on a single commercial for Dante's Inferno.

I wouldn't be surprised if the money spent on that single commercial was the amount spent on Dead Space Extraction.

:lol

This shit is so retarded it's sad. I mean really, these are supposed to be businesses. But sometimes they really do act like fanboys.

And the fact that developers and publishers don't know what they're doing wrong is even more hilarious. I'm personally starting to think they know damn well what they're doing.

 

[Faxanadu]

Hahaha, I just read that EA spent 2.5 million dollars on a single commercial for Dante's Inferno.

I wouldn't be surprised if the money spent on that single commercial was the amount spent on Dead Space Extraction.

:lol

This shit is so retarded it's sad. I mean really, these are supposed to be businesses. But sometimes they really do act like fanboys.

And the fact that developers and publishers don't know what they're doing wrong is even more hilarious. I'm personally starting to think they know damn well what they're doing.

They think they do. They try to damage Nintendo and Nintendo still kicks all their asses. It really pisses them off.

 

[Agnates]

You want your Wii games to sell - put forth effort and put your first tier developers on Wii titles.

Though this will never happen, because why should it? Theres no reason for developers like say, Infinity Ward, to waste their time making an excellent Wii title - because it will not be able to capture their full vision/dream of that title.

Then why did they shun the one platform that could bring them closer to their vision so badly :lol

Seriously, when people say stuff like that, do they really believe the PS360 are close to being the most powerful systems ever? The PC could pull off far better stuff if it wasn't dragged behind by PS360 ports. Look at Crysis, a 2+ year old game, and for all intents and purposes at least a last gen title by PC standards... Also, Reflex wasn't a bad impression of MW, especially the multiplayer modes, and it was a mere port done under pretty shitty circumstances. With an actual team and artists making content for such a game it could have looked far better. Scaled-down HD content is ugly compared to content created with those limitations in mind in the first place. Anyway, don't idealise developers so much please, besides, only a minority has griped about the Wii being weak, and even fewer (if any outside Nintendo) have actually exploited the Wii's power in the first place to claim they wanted more to do well. And that doesn't explain the portables' support either. Besides, we're discussing this because publishers claim they try and want to sell on Wii but they can't because of Nintendo. At least you too understand that part is bullshit :lol

Also, nobody argues so much about titles like MW. They're the minority (singularity?) that actually have a VERY successful marketing model on the HD systems. Other developers/publishers are leaking money as development costs keep increasing, yet revenue at best remains identical, and they still don't put forth actual effort on the one market they haven't attempted to properly exploit. I dunno how they expect to get out of this mess, next gen will either mean even higher development costs, or the same as now if the first parties opt for a different, Nintendo-like approach, and maybe then they won't have a low-cost Wii-like system to fall back on either...

 

[Effect]

Back to the topic. I think developers/publishers that worry or complain about the sales of their games and that Nintendo is doing so well need to ask themselves a very simple question. They have to be honest about it too.

Why should anyone buy our games (any of them mostly) over a Nintendo made or published game when given a choice?

If they choose to answer that question honestly then they'll know where to start. However I don't buy they don't know what to do or don't know why their games don't sell.They do. They simply choose not to do what needs to be done.

 

[LSauchelli]

Edit: Gah, wrong thread

 

[MadOdorMachine]

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

There are a ton of gamers that own Wiis who are waiting for a "hard core" experience. They need to bring the real franchises over. Everyone loved RE4. The two RE spin offs and Dead Space probably would have fared better had they followed RE4's formula and not been rail shooters. Also, I would love a Metal Gear or Splinter Cell game that used the pointer, but as already mentioned, the PSP is getting more franchises than Wii. It's good that third parties are trying new IP's on Wii, but it seems like that's all they're doing.

Another problem is multiplayer in FPS games. All of the ideas I mentioned so far are single player. I take it it's hard to get the controls right in split screen, but a FPS party game on Wii like Golden Eye or TimeSplitters would probably do well. I'm talking about something you can play with girls too.

 

[michaelpachter]

Is pachter still here?

If he is, what do you think of Ubisoft, Namco and EAs reasoning of putting Assasins Creed, Soul Calibur, Dante's Inferno, and Army Of Two on the PSP and not Wii?

This alone makes me go !Que!

I think that these companies have pretty much concluded that the Wii audience is all casual, all the time. Ubisoft has Red Steel 2 (and recently took down its expectations for the game), but in general, all they produce are sports, pets and music games for the Wii. In contrast, the success of games like GTA and Monster Hunter on the PSP have led them to conclude that the PSP is a hard core platform.

I agree that a port of something like Assassin's Creed would be inexpensive, and would not entail much of a risk, and I personally would enjoy playing a co-op game like Army of Two on the Wii. However, the publishers seem to think in black and white, and for now, have concluded that the Wii is only for casual games.

I'll follow up with Ubisoft and EA about this, as I have decent relationships with their CEOs. I don't know the Namco guys at all, and can only remember Namco Museum from them on the Wii.

 

[Mango Positive]

How is this news? I bought the N64 because I wanted to play Ocarina. I bought the Game Cube because I saw a friend playing Mario Sunshine and I wanted to play it. I bought another differently shaped Game Cube so I could play Zelda Twilight Princess with motion control. I always assumed that's what everyone did. Sure, there was RE4, but that was graphically on par with the best of the best when it came out.

Nintendo games don't need great graphics. Everyone else's games do. That's my take.

 

[KTGarda]

My questions are these: Why is Nintendo's marketshare on the Wii a cause for concern when it appears directly related to them having little to no competition on the system? And why is it not concerning when a 3rd party publisher (EA in this case) commands nearly the same marketshare on the PS3 and 360, despite it facing far greater competition on those platforms? And if EA were facing less competition from other 3rd parties on those platforms, thus likely raising its marketshare to Nintendo's Wii level or higher, would he feel compelled to create a thread to discuss it?

I've frequently wondered why there seems to be so many double standards being applied to Nintendo. Thanks for clearly laying one out.

How is this news? I bought the N64 because I wanted to play Ocarina. I bought the Game Cube because I saw a friend playing Mario Sunshine and I wanted to play it. I bought another differently shaped Game Cube so I could play Zelda Twilight Princess with motion control. I always assumed that's what everyone did. Sure, there was RE4, but that was graphically on par with the best of the best when it came out.

Nintendo games don't need great graphics. Everyone else's games do. That's my take.

Do you really believe that 'everyone else' is so far out of Nintendo's league when it comes to the games business?

 

[Vdragoon]

"I think that these companies have pretty much concluded that the Wii audience is all casual, all the time. Ubisoft has Red Steel 2 (and recently took down its expectations for the game), but in general, all they produce are sports, pets and music games for the Wii. In contrast, the success of games like GTA and Monster Hunter on the PSP have led them to conclude that the PSP is a hard core platform."

I think you answered your own question as to why third parties can't sell shit on wii. These companies need to smarten up, they are the only ones at fault here.

 

[AceBandage]

I think that these companies have pretty much concluded that the Wii audience is all casual, all the time. Ubisoft has Red Steel 2 (and recently took down its expectations for the game), but in general, all they produce are sports, pets and music games for the Wii. In contrast, the success of games like GTA and Monster Hunter on the PSP have led them to conclude that the PSP is a hard core platform.

So, you agree that because third parties just shit on the Wii with shit games, their "real games" (IE spin offs made by D level teams with a budget less than the normal advertising budget of a PS3/360 game) obviously will sell like shit because people are tired of being burned by them.

...Shit.

 

[Mael]

I've frequently wondered why there seems to be so many double standards being applied to Nintendo. Thanks for clearly laying one out.

double standard? :lol
There's 2 threads right here that can be framed as :
Sony's comeback
Nintendo struggling
I mean that's pretty telling

Do you really believe that 'everyone else' is so far out of Nintendo's league when it comes to the games business?

Well which other game company do you know that is as successful as Nintendo?

 

[michaelpachter]

If Mr. Pachter does come back, I'd really like to know why he and other analysts spend so much time lamenting Nintendo's 'domination' on the Wii - given the factors I spoke of earlier in this thread - and exactly zero effort discussing how a poorly run company like EA is holding damn near 30% marketshare on two platforms with far greater competition. Why is the one a bad thing and the other not? What's the sodding difference, besides the outcome of the former being pretty damned predictable considering the massive lack of true competition Nintendo has faced this generation?

I mean, seriously... we keep having this argument, but I can't fathom how anyone could look at those factors and say that Nintendo's 'domination' is in any way a sign of something other than 3rd parties putting all their worthwhile shit on the other systems.

I think you misunderstand my job. I don't "lament" anything, but want to understand it.

Nintendo's success on its own platforms is unusual, not bad. All I'm trying to do is understand what Nintendo does that can't be replicated by the others. Clearly, they have great games, but the granny who buys a Wii for Wii Fit doesn't know that. Something about their marketing, packaging, design, branding, and word of mouth is giving them a huge edge, and I'm merely trying to understand what that is, and then assess whether others are likely to "get it" and replicate it or not.

I think that EA has a large share on the other platforms because they understand the Xbox 360 and PS3 customer, and think that they and others do not understand the Wii customer as well. What continues to surprise me is that the Wii customer buys Nintendo games almost half the time without actually knowing what they are. That's a marvel of branding and marketing.

 

[Mael]

I think that EA has a large share on the other platforms because they understand the Xbox 360 and PS3 customer, and think that they and others do not understand the Wii customer as well. What continues to surprise me is that the Wii customer buys Nintendo games almost half the time without actually knowing what they are. That's a marvel of branding and marketing.

Do you really believe the bolded part?

 

[AceBandage]

I think you misunderstand my job. I don't "lament" anything, but want to understand it.

Nintendo's success on its own platforms is unusual, not bad. All I'm trying to do is understand what Nintendo does that can't be replicated by the others. Clearly, they have great games, but the granny who buys a Wii for Wii Fit doesn't know that. Something about their marketing, packaging, design, branding, and word of mouth is giving them a huge edge, and I'm merely trying to understand what that is, and then assess whether others are likely to "get it" and replicate it or not.

They make good games that appeal to everyone and market them properly.
Third parties make dumbed down games that appeal to brain dead monkeys and market them to no one.

It's really quite simple, but it seems all industry "insiders" can't seem to grasp this.

While Nintendo is making WiiSports, Ubisoft is making a Petz game that no one wants and is going "Well, we can't compete with Nintendo in their casual games!"

While Nintendo is making Zelda, EA is making Dead Space Extraction and saying "Well, obviously there are no hardcore gamers on the Wii."

I mean, it's like these people want to e blind. It's truly amazing.
I would LOVE to do a psychological study on these people.

Do you really believe the bolded part?

He believed the Wii would stop selling last year and Nintendo would have to release a WiiHD by now. So...

 

[Mael]

They make good games that appeal to everyone and market them properly.
Third parties make dumbed down games that appeal to brain dead monkeys and market them to no one.

It's really quite simple, but it seems all industry "insiders" can't seem to grasp this.

While Nintendo is making WiiSports, Ubisoft is making a Petz game that no one wants and is going "Well, we can't compete with Nintendo in their casual games!"

While Nintendo is making Zelda, EA is making Dead Space Extraction and saying "Well, obviously there are no hardcore gamers on the Wii."

I mean, it's like these people want to e blind. It's truly amazing.
I would LOVE to do a psychological study on these people.

Actually no one wanted WiiSports when Nintendo made it, BUT Wiisports was doing a job people wanted contrary to Petz so...

Spoiler

btw ace, nice seeing you on gaf

 

[KTGarda]

double standard? :lol
There's 2 threads right here that can be framed as :
Sony's comeback
Nintendo struggling
I mean that's pretty telling



Well which other game company do you know that is as successful as Nintendo?

A. I don't follow. Why the :lol ?

B. I just don't like the implication that Nintendo's successes are 'magical' or can't be repeated.