Support NeoGAF

[Mael]

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.

the :lol was because unless you weren't paying attention EVERY single piece of news the gaming media has about Nintendo is : they're struggling and about to die

Nintendo's successes is magical if you don't know what they're doing,
the gaming media is certainly not interested in doing journalist work to know why Nintendo is succeeding, I mean when the only indepth analysis you can get of Nintendo's strategy comes from some crazy Texas blogger :-/

 

[Grampa Simpson]

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.

My own pet theory at this point is that Nintendo just goes at it with the knowledge that they're the only company that they can count on to produce quality software for their platforms, and that if their platforms fail, they don't have anything to fall back on. They go at it with gusto and assurance. They don't hold back. If they have a piece of software that they can not only sell, but they also feel will satisfy their consumers, they sell it, but if it's not up to snuff, it doesn't see the light of day. I think it's an ingrained culture with them, and I think that it shows through clearly to the consumer.

Someone's going to point out counterexamples of games that weren't that great. Yes there's going to be exceptions, but more often than not, I think my theory holds true.

 

[zigg]

Something about their marketing, packaging, design, branding, and word of mouth is giving them a huge edge

I see word-of-mouth highly active even today. People have been at someone's house with Wii, hearing stories about having a blast at parties, etc. etc. The "Wii" brand is prominent. Nobody else has access to it. This is probably why Wii Music still managed to move millions even though (I feel) its mis-branding caused a lot of negative word-of-mouth.

NSMBW combined the widely-held childhood memories of the Mario brand with Wii, got the "Wii family room experience" thing going on, and lit up the word-of-mouth thing once again.

This might be why Nintendo's other quality games, like Excitebots, don't necessarily do so well.

 

[AceBandage]

n/m

 

[Vgamer]

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.

I think you are under-estimating the customers just like the third parties are. The reason they are buying Nintendo games is they are the only company putting effort and top talent into the Wii games. These days most of the third parties just put their entry level staff on a game slap a caption next to a known brand and hope customers buy the game. If they put in a real effort and had marketing behind it I think they would sell.

 

[Eteric Rice]

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.

I can pretty much tell you what I think it is. Consistency and legacy. Look, Mario, Zelda, etc, are pop culture icons. Everyone recognizes them. Mario is pretty much the video game equivilant of Mickey Mouse. They've been around since the 80s (technically 70s for Mario and Donkey Kong), and they've been consistant.

What do I mean by consistant?

I mean that you can buy a Nintendo game without having to worry about it being a lemon. When you buy a Nintendo game, you know it's either going to be good, or amazing. There really isn't much "bad" from Nintendo.

Ubisoft and EA on the other hand, have published low quality third party clones of Nintendo games. Why would I buy that M&M Racer shit when I can get Mario Kart? Why get the Petz games when I can get Nintendogs?

Basically, why buy their clones when I can buy the one that's sure to be quality?

Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither were Nintendo's IPs. They've been in the gaming business since the 70s. They're known, and their characters are know.

Bottom line is this. If you want to do what Nintendo has done, it's going to take time to build that awareness and trust with consumers. Publishers seem all so eager to throw something on the system, and when it fails, cry about it.

Also, another thing. Rail shooters are seen as second and third tier games by pretty much everyone. When you make something like Dead Space Extraction, people will blow it off once they find out that it's a rail shooter.

Actually, you can see this in the first thread for the game before it was announced. Everyone was pretty hyped for DSE before they found out it was a rail shooter.

I also wouldn't be surprised that the only reason REUC sold so well is because people thought it was a follow up to RE4. Once they got burned by that, they were reluctant to buy REDC.

Thing is, while Wii games are cheaper to make, they still require what any title needs to make it a big success. It has to be something people enjoy (FPS, TPS, etc), and it has to be advertised.

If it bombs? Keep pushing. Even if a game doesn't sell very well, if it's a quality AAA product worth their money, other people will find out from their friends/family over time. Eventually, if a sequel is released, it may have people that just rented or borrowed the original, buy it this time.

 

[Vinci]

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.

Nintendo has been pretty upfront about what they're doing: Iwata said it himself on several occasions - they're not competing with other companies; they're competing with the general populace's lack of interest in gaming. They're looking at folks and saying to themselves, "How do these people see games? What do they think about them? Why don't they play? Is it a total lack of interest, or is there something about how we're designing these things that makes them unfriendly to these people?" And what they found - again, something they've said numerous times - is that the mechanics of gaming had become so insular and complex that it was like asking people to learn another language. It wasn't fun; it was frustrating and intimidating. So much of how game designers develop and build their games is predicated on prior gaming experiences. Think of it like comic books: When every issue of Amazing Spider-Man references and/or has a small notation saying, '* seen in ASM #126 (when you're reading #289),' that's massively off-putting to people. Video games are young, but they're so inbred that they've become this other animal altogether.

Nintendo looks at this and says, "How do we make games that people can understand or relate to?" The easiest solution: Take life experience and make that applicable to a game environment. Wii Sports and Wii Fit both do this, except the latter also has the benefit of potentially 'helping' people. Wii Sports asked people to rarely push buttons - just swing a tennis racket, a golf club, or a baseball bat; Wii Fit used, by and large, routine exercises; Mario Kart lets them drive using a wheel without the need to purchase any peripheral outside of what came with the Wii (or game) itself. Not only is this immediately understandable, it's not altogether very expensive compared to alternatives.

Every time you see a commercial by Nintendo, look at it and imagine this subliminal message repeating in the background: C'mon, you can do this. It's coaxing, luring. The Wii's philosophy is built on taking the familiar and applying it, in a fun way, to something that isn't.

In essence, they're building their games (not all of them, but many) for everyone.

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.

It's because EA finds targeting everyone really difficult, whereas gamers are far easier to communicate to. They've been doing it for a long time, after all.

 

[Mael]

I can pretty much tell you what I think it is. Consistency and legacy. Look, Mario, Zelda, etc, are pop culture icons. Everyone recognizes them. Mario is pretty much the video game equivilant of Mickey Mouse. They've been around since the 80s (technically 70s for Mario and Donkey Kong), and they've been consistant.

What do I mean by consistant?

I mean that you can buy a Nintendo game without having to worry about it being a lemon. When you buy a Nintendo game, you know it's either going to be good, or amazing. There really isn't much "bad" from Nintendo.

Ubisoft and EA on the other hand, have published low quality third party clones of Nintendo games. Why would I buy that M&M Racer shit when I can get Mario Kart? Why get the Petz games when I can get Nintendogs?

Basically, why buy their clones when I can buy the one that's sure to be quality?

Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither were Nintendo's IPs. They've been in the gaming business since the 70s. They're known, and their characters are know.

Bottom line is this. If you want to do what Nintendo has done, it's going to take time to build that awareness and trust with consumers. Publishers seem all so eager to throw something on the system, and when it fails, cry about it.

Also, another thing. Rail shooters are seen as second and third tier games by pretty much everyone. When you make something like Dead Space Extraction, people will blow it off once they find out that it's a rail shooter.

Actually, you can see this in the first thread for the game before it was announced. Everyone was pretty hyped for DSE before they found out it was a rail shooter.

I also wouldn't be surprised that the only reason REUC sold so well is because people thought it was a follow up to RE4. Once they got burned by that, they were reluctant to buy REDC.

Thing is, while Wii games are cheaper to make, they still require what any title needs to make it a big success. It has to be something people enjoy (FPS, TPS, etc), and it has to be advertised.

If it bombs? Keep pushing. Even if a game doesn't sell very well, if it's a quality AAA product worth their money, other people will find out from their friends/family over time. Eventually, if a sequel is released, it may have people that just rented or borrowed the original, buy it this time.

Eteric Rice
I think I'm retarded
(Today, 05:16 PM)
Reply | Quote

Very good post

edit:
especially that part

I also wouldn't be surprised that the only reason REUC sold so well is because people thought it was a follow up to RE4. Once they got burned by that, they were reluctant to buy REDC.

I'm exactly this case study.
Heck when I did try it, I was FLOORED seeing that the game wasn't a total lemon and was actually worth getting.
I mean if people that are actually searching data and info for your games feel like you're doing your best to NOT sell your game, less enthusiast people will not even know it exists.

 

[gamergirly]

I can pretty much tell you what I think it is. Consistency and legacy. Look, Mario, Zelda, etc, are pop culture icons. Everyone recognizes them. Mario is pretty much the video game equivilant of Mickey Mouse. They've been around since the 80s (technically 70s for Mario and Donkey Kong), and they've been consistant.

What do I mean by consistant?

I mean that you can buy a Nintendo game without having to worry about it being a lemon. When you buy a Nintendo game, you know it's either going to be good, or amazing. There really isn't much "bad" from Nintendo.

Ubisoft and EA on the other hand, have published low quality third party clones of Nintendo games. Why would I buy that M&M Racer shit when I can get Mario Kart? Why get the Petz games when I can get Nintendogs?

Basically, why buy their clones when I can buy the one that's sure to be quality?

Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither were Nintendo's IPs. They've been in the gaming business since the 70s. They're known, and their characters are know.

Bottom line is this. If you want to do what Nintendo has done, it's going to take time to build that awareness and trust with consumers. Publishers seem all so eager to throw something on the system, and when it fails, cry about it.

Also, another thing. Rail shooters are seen as second and third tier games by pretty much everyone. When you make something like Dead Space Extraction, people will blow it off once they find out that it's a rail shooter.

Actually, you can see this in the first thread for the game before it was announced. Everyone was pretty hyped for DSE before they found out it was a rail shooter.

I also wouldn't be surprised that the only reason REUC sold so well is because people thought it was a follow up to RE4. Once they got burned by that, they were reluctant to buy REDC.

Thing is, while Wii games are cheaper to make, they still require what any title needs to make it a big success. It has to be something people enjoy (FPS, TPS, etc), and it has to be advertised.

If it bombs? Keep pushing. Even if a game doesn't sell very well, if it's a quality AAA product worth their money, other people will find out from their friends/family over time. Eventually, if a sequel is released, it may have people that just rented or borrowed the original, buy it this time.

They really need more efforts like Red Steel/Red Steel 2. The first one wasnt "great" but well received with alot of promise. The sequel seems to be an improvement on almost everything the original had. And right now, it's a game that I can only see being successful on the Wii.

I made a reply about this already, but Splosion Man would have done wonders for motivation and sales on the system. I repeat, SPLOSION MAN for Nintendo Wii :lol

 

[AceBandage]

They really need more efforts like Red Steel/Red Steel 2

Yeah, but the problem is that it's too little too late.
The original RS did well, but by now the Ubisoft name on the Wii is far too tainted.
I doubt RS2 will even hit 400K, but we'll see.

 

[Lenardo]

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.

what nintendo is doing isn't "magic"

for 3 years almost every single 3rd party game has been of POORER quality than main stream ps2 games. almost every 3rd party game that has been good, as barely equaled/slightly surpassed the better looking ps2 games, yet has had a marketing platform for said product be non-existant.


the average long term wii owner- lets take ME and my family. we own over 100 wii games(including VC and wiiware), of which I personally bought- or had gifted to me(ie i specifically asked for it 70 of them- they are all good b level games with a few gems in there the rest were gifted to my kids or bought by my wife(not a soccer mom my kids don't do soccer)

my wife invariably buys shovelware games because she does not research, she does not put the effort into them. however if she sees a commercial for said game, she is more apt to buy it (lumberjack for one- shovelware game, that is a wagglefest, but my kids like it)


what you need to do is look at the wii game platform in general

look at what the 3rd parties are putting out, then COMPARE, the actual advertising/marketing budget and see if there is a correlation between how much the game was marketed and how well it sold.

re4 wii DID have marketing(i saw commercials for it) it also had a huge bonus as being a budget re-release of an "AAA" game with altered controls to accentuate the pointer controls for the wii... it's sold VERY well and continues to sell Very well (@19.99)

carnival games- decent game- HUGE marketing platform when it was released, sold million plus

de blob- very good game- had a decent marketing platform(again i saw commercials)- first called a bomb, but it's sold around 600 or 700 thousand units all told

dead space extraction- Very good game- Zero main stream audience marketing, like NONE-- sold very poorly... ALSO in a saturated genre for the wii- rail shooter

RE: darkside chron- very good game- ZERO main stream audience marketing- sold poorly-ALSO in a saturated genre for the wii- rail shooter


Call of duty world at war- Zero initial main stream audience marketing- sold poorly,- 2nd month good sized marketing platform specifically for the wii version- sold ~500k that month alone

Call of Duty- MW reflex- port of 2 year old game for the ps3/360- ZERO prior marketing besides saying, "its coming out" - NONE- media had previews from initial announcement- nothing after, no screenshots besides really shitty "alpha build" shots, no advance review copies- NOTHING- ZERO marketing to main stream audience OR "hard core" audience (ie websites etc)- sent out to die- semi-decent sales- ONLY because of the COD name- by all accounts its BETTER than World at War, but is not getting the sales...wonder why?


Rabbids go home- Decent sized marketing to main stream audience, very good funny game (my kids love it, so do i) selling "very well" (heard its around half a million+ world wide now)

final fantasy CCCB- spin off of final fantasy, no marketing at all to main stream audience, supposedly a decent game-one of the better looking graphically...selling poorly.


for me it's monster hunter 3- if nintendo/capcom put out a huge marketing push (hope hope) and if that "bombs" after having a marketing push EQUAL the AAA games(i'm talking RE5/COD sized marketing push) put out for the ps3/360, then i'd say the wii "hardcore" games have no shot... but if MH3 does have it, and still does not outperform other MH games for consoles in the west, then we have problems.

 

[jay]

If so many people believe Nintendo is magical why do they so often bet against them?

 

[Opiate]

Word of mouth sticks out here to me. It doesn't seem like word of mouth occurs because of branding: it occurs because people enjoy the product and tell others. That's certainly how word of mouth typically works, at least. In fact, I'd argue it's the purest metric of consumer satisfaction: total sales are a decent metric, for example, but heavily tainted by marketing. A game can sell very strongly on day 1 due to good marketing, but then drop off precipitously as people discover that they don't enjoy it. Word doesn't spread, and sales stagnate. Nintendo's games seem to be working in exactly the opposite direction, with sales often modest at launch and then picking up as word spreads of the game's quality.

I think it would be more edifying to look at other companies on the Wii than to look at Nintendo. Nintendo is as bright as the sun, and I likewise find analysis of them almost blinding. However, look at companies like Take 2 and particularly Ubisoft. From a "core" gamer's perspective, almost all of the games both companies have produced on the Wii are bad. However, out of this swathe of bad titles, a few have sold exceptionally well: Carnival Games is one example, and I think Ubisoft's Just Dance is a more recent one.

One could conclude that these games just happened to do well. That is, that of the dozens of shovelware titles produced by these publishers, these two franchises were the randomly chosen victors. However, I'm not one to believe in randonimity: if we can't see a pattern, it doesn't mean no pattern exists, it simply means we haven't figured it out yet. In other words, I would argue that both Carnival Games and Just Dance are quality titles -- they just have qualities I (and most others on this board) don't appreciate or understand.

Here's a list of possible qualities that I've begun to enumerate after a few years of examining this phenomenon:

1) New idea. Sequels, particularly iterative ones of the ilk "core" gamers are used to, seem to do poorly with this audience. Put differently, I think many Wii owners would rather play a game with distinct, unique, but very unpolished mechanics, while "core" gamers seem to prefer very tried, tested, but therefore unoriginal mechanics. Carnival Games was one of the first minigame compilations on the Wii, and none have done nearly as well since: Just Dance seems to have a pretty distinct hook, as well.

2) A far different system of risk vs. reward. It isn't just making the games easier, here. The example I've given in the past is Mario Kart (I know, I'm trying to avoid Nintendo here). In that game, players who are losing badly are given more powerful items to help them move back up front. This specific quality was harshly criticized by game critics, and I think most "core" gamers don't appreciate this seemingly insane risk/reward system. It essentially rewards you for doing poorly. Better items for stinking. However, it seems clear to me now that many Wii owners actually find this mechanic appealing: it allows people of very different skill levels to play together and still have fun. I'm not destined to destroy my dad round after round because I've played games like this so much.

3) Branding. I don't want to suggest in the slightest that Nintendo's branding and marketing aren't important here: they are. The problem is, I believe, that Nintendo's method of branding has long been abandoned by other developers. Nintendo games tend to be mascot driven, either Mario, or Zelda, or Metroid, or even more recently, the Wii Resort Island that has now shown up in several Wii _____ Games. Other publishers had this type of branding long ago, but seem to have deliberately avoided it in the last decade or so. How did Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Sonic, and others fall so far? In some cases, those franchises were deliberately shunned by their original publisher or developer. In others, it seems that quality was allowed to fall precipitously, as publishers assumed the brand would sell forever on name alone. At this point, building another Mario-like brand is near impossible, because virtually everyone allowed any similar mascots to atrophy or die.

There are other points I can make, but this is already a long post and I don't think I can articulate others quite as well as I have done with these three. Let me just reiterate that I believe intelligent branding and marketing are a very significant portion of Nintendo's success, but I think it's a huge disservice to ourselves to chalk their victories up to that exclusively or even majoratively. Game design is clearly playing a very significant role in their success, and I think the examples of Carnival Games and Just Dance make it easier to focus in on this.

 

[Dave Long]

My own pet theory at this point is that Nintendo just goes at it with the knowledge that they're the only company that they can count on to produce quality software for their platforms, and that if their platforms fail, they don't have anything to fall back on. They go at it with gusto and assurance. They don't hold back. If they have a piece of software that they can not only sell, but they also feel will satisfy their consumers, they sell it, but if it's not up to snuff, it doesn't see the light of day. I think it's an ingrained culture with them, and I think that it shows through clearly to the consumer.

Someone's going to point out counterexamples of games that weren't that great. Yes there's going to be exceptions, but more often than not, I think my theory holds true.

They've pretty much said this out loud on a number of occasions. Nintendo is not a follower. They are consistently producing the best games they can to make their platform successful. Unlike Sony and Microsoft, they count on their internal developers to help design the platform (specifically for games... a key point) and then produce games that are of specifically high quality to sell the platform.

With Miyamoto's help, they also don't just recreate the same games over and over again. While you'll hear people claim this, it's really not true. Every new iteration of Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, etc. has lots of brand new hooks in them to separate them from what came before. They're often not the obvious progressions either, and that's the real genius of Nintendo. They have reinvented their classic franchises again and again, sometimes turning off some fans while creating brand new ones.

Most of all though, as you say at the end there, they create quality products that are never truly "bad" games. Even their middling quality titles are polished and show no contempt for the customer.

Anyway, the most important takeaway from this generation when you look at sales and sheer dollars going into the bank is that first party software being successful is far more important for a platform holder than third party software being successful. You don't make Nintendo-like dollar volumes by having third parties being the best sellers on your system. You do it with software created in house and let the third party chips fall where they may.

 

[[Nintex]]

for me it's monster hunter 3- if nintendo/capcom put out a huge marketing push (hope hope) and if that "bombs" after having a marketing push EQUAL the AAA games(i'm talking RE5/COD sized marketing push) put out for the ps3/360, then i'd say the wii "hardcore" games have no shot... but if MH3 does have it, and still does not outperform other MH games for consoles in the west, then we have problems.

I wouldn't put my eggs in the Monster Hunter 3 basket if I were you. The real 'test' seems to be Epic Mickey.

 

[AceBandage]

If so many people believe Nintendo is magical why do they so often bet against them?

Because they don't understand how the industry works.
Which is why it's amazing that they can become analysts...

 

[Mael]

my wife invariably buys shovelware games because she does not research, she does not put the effort into them. however if she sees a commercial for said game, she is more apt to buy it (lumberjack for one- shovelware game, that is a wagglefest, but my kids like it)

I have a very good friend working at retail that complains all the time that everyday a commercial is aired the next morning there were tons of people asking to get the game :lol.
In some case of advance marketing, it led to some funny situations where people were actually going to the store to get the game only to learn that it wouldn't be out until 3 weeks later (wiifit had commericals EVERYWHERE).

Heck Resident Evil 4 in Europe was advertised by Nintendo, as such its ads used the gap styled people in white and all the stuffs you usually saw for Wiisports and WiiPlay

 

[Taker666]

Yeah, but the problem is that it's too little too late.
The original RS did well, but by now the Ubisoft name on the Wii is far too tainted.
I doubt RS2 will even hit 400K, but we'll see.

They are already setting it up to fail.

They have slashed their predictions from 1 million to 500k..

..which means they have also slashed their marketing budget, which likely means limited or no tv advertisng ....which means stores won't want as many copies.... which means they won't have manufactured as many copies.... which means it'll be less easy to find and won't stand out on stores shelves...which means the mass market won't buy it.

You treat your game like it's going to fail...and it will.

 

[[Nintex]]

They are already setting it up to fail.

They have slashed their predictions from 1 million to 500k..

..which means they have also slashed their marketing budget, which likely means limited or no tv advertisng ....which means stores won't want as many copies.... which means they won't have manufactured as many copies.... which means it'll be less easy to find and won't stand out on stores shelves...which means the mass market won't buy it.

You treat your game like it's going to fail...and it will.

The Dutch Ubisoft employee elaborated on this. He said that they cut the European forecast of 1 million units because the game needed to sell 60k in the Dutch market alone to reach that milestone and that simply wasn't going to happen. So they lowered the forecast to a number that made more sense.

 

[RurouniZel]

Here's my opinion on the subject, and I'll try to make it as short and sweet as possible.

In the 80s and early 90s, the vast majority of 3rd party videogame developers were run mostly by professionals who were doing a job and trying to make money in the most efficient manner possible (i.e. appeal to certain demographics, userbase, licences, budget etc.)

In the late 90s-today, the vast majority of 3rd party videogame developers are run mostly by professional fanboys who are doing what they want to do and live to create their dream game on the most powerful hardware despite userbase numbers or concessions to broaden appeal, despite the fact that it runs against most common logic.

Really, the results were predictable. Let fanboys take over any market and watch as it proceeds to never expand beyond the occasional one-hit wonder (see American comics, anime, and now videogames).

At least we have Nintendo.

 

[TheGreatDave]

Here's my opinion on the subject, and I'll try to make it as short and sweet as possible.

In the 80s and early 90s, the vast majority of 3rd party videogame developers were run mostly by professionals who were doing a job and trying to make money in the most efficient manner possible (i.e. appeal to certain demographics, userbase, licences, budget etc.)

In the late 90s-today, the vast majority of 3rd party videogame developers are run mostly by professional fanboys who are doing what they want to do and live to create their dream game on the most powerful hardware despite userbase numbers or concessions to broaden appeal, despite the fact that it runs against most common logic.

Really, the results were predictable. Let fanboys take over any market and watch as it proceeds to never expand beyond the occasional one-hit wonder (see American comics, anime, and now videogames).

At least we have Nintendo.

Teehee.

 

[Owzers]

Yeah, but the problem is that it's too little too late.
The original RS did well, but by now the Ubisoft name on the Wii is far too tainted.
I doubt RS2 will even hit 400K, but we'll see.

Ubisoft's name isn't tainted at all imo. Maybe some of their titles like Petz are tainted from mediocrity + overabundance, but people will still be buying No More Heroes 2 despite Ubisoft's name. People bought Just Dance despite it apparently not even being a good game. And on the HD consoles, people bought Assassin's Creed 2 after not even liking the first game. There isn't faith in the name but it doesn't look like there's a deterrent either

 

[Mael]

As always Opiate's posts stand as a voice of reason in the threads he posts

Really, the results were predictable. Let fanboys take over any market and watch as it proceeds to never expand beyond the occasional one-hit wonder (see American comics, anime, and now videogames).

I've seen many compare the VG market to comics...
But it's true that you can compare it to Anime too...
Heck the parallel makes even more sense.

 

[gamergirly]

Here's my opinion on the subject, and I'll try to make it as short and sweet as possible.

In the 80s and early 90s, the vast majority of 3rd party videogame developers were run mostly by professionals who were doing a job and trying to make money in the most efficient manner possible (i.e. appeal to certain demographics, userbase, licences, budget etc.)

In the late 90s-today, the vast majority of 3rd party videogame developers are run mostly by professional fanboys who are doing what they want to do and live to create their dream game on the most powerful hardware despite userbase numbers or concessions to broaden appeal, despite the fact that it runs against most common logic.

Really, the results were predictable. Let fanboys take over any market and watch as it proceeds to never expand beyond the occasional one-hit wonder (see American comics, anime, and now videogames).

At least we have Nintendo.

These "dream worlds" are causing millions of dollars in losses for "failed" games and laid off employees once the worlds are complete.

 

[Great Rumbler]

Here's my opinion on the subject, and I'll try to make it as short and sweet as possible.

In the 80s and early 90s, the vast majority of 3rd party videogame developers were run mostly by professionals who were doing a job and trying to make money in the most efficient manner possible (i.e. appeal to certain demographics, userbase, licences, budget etc.)

In the late 90s-today, the vast majority of 3rd party videogame developers are run mostly by professional fanboys who are doing what they want to do and live to create their dream game on the most powerful hardware despite userbase numbers or concessions to broaden appeal, despite the fact that it runs against most common logic.

Really, the results were predictable. Let fanboys take over any market and watch as it proceeds to never expand beyond the occasional one-hit wonder (see American comics, anime, and now videogames).

At least we have Nintendo.

I totally agree with you on this one. It really feels like companies these days are so concerned with "sticking it to Nintendo" that they are actively sabotaging their own companies just to achieve that goal. It's sickening to see this happening and it's got to stop sooner or late, the whole industry depends on it.

Just look at what we have these days in terms of games: Big-budget shooters with wave after wave of brainless enemies, but, OH!, it looks really, really pretty! So let's sell it for $60 and watch as the hoards of fanboys lap it up like mother's milk. Where's the innovation? Where's the craftmanship? No here, my friends, not on the Hollywood gaming platforms like the PS3 and Xbox360. Just the same old, same old that we saw plenty of last generation and the generation before.

Nintendo, on the other hand, they've got the right of it. They're not just concerned with putting out the same old stuff that appeals to the same, narrow fanbase. They actually, genuinely CARE about expanding the industry to include not just teens and twenty-something males, but to also include the whole family. And you know what? It's working! They're providing games that anyone and everyone can enjoy, types of games that you just can't get on any other system out there, and they're being handsomely rewarded for it. All you have to do is look at the NPD sales charts from December to see that Nintendo's doing what's best for the industry.

It's be fun to see how things are in another five years or so. I'm not an industry insider, but I think it's going to be bad for a lot of companies out there. But, I'm don't feel sorry for them. They turned their backs on Nintendo and the future of videogames in a vain effort to "hang on to the past" and they'll eventually reap the fruits of that little mistake.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

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.

I think it's safe to say that hard core gamers have given up on most third party games on Wii. There are too many variables of why this is the case to list in this post. To answer your question of why third party games have been worse on Wii, you would have to go all the way back to N64. Third parties need to start talking to Nintendo now about the successor to Wii and what can be done to remedy the situation. Both Nintendo and the third parties are at fault with the situation. Neither one of them have put forth the effort needed that would have released Wii's full potential. The only way to fix it is to get everyone on the same page and start over. I don't keep track of sales, but perhaps they should also look at the success of DS and GameBoy for reference as well. Bottom line, gamers will follow wherever the games are, but Nintendo systems have the momentum going forward and will be the one that casuals are looking at.

 

[fabprems]

If it bombs? Keep pushing. Even if a game doesn't sell very well, if it's a quality AAA product worth their money, other people will find out from their friends/family over time. Eventually, if a sequel is released, it may have people that just rented or borrowed the original, buy it this time.

Yeah, that's something that is not enough said. The industry is too much short term oriented right now.
Cod 4 didn't only sold well because it was modern warfare, it was because of CoD1, CoD2, CoD3, products that have bought a legacy to this franchise, they were good and people knew the CoD were good.
Guitar Hero 3 sold very well because there was a GH1 and 2 before....
....

Nintendo have 20 years of good games, so people are confident about spending their money in a Nintendo game.

Mirror Edge or Dead space don't match their expectations ? Make ME2 and DS2 and build upon their legacy, don't think every AAA game should be a Halo / Assassin Creed ...

 

[jrricky]

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.

First and foremost, thank you for responding.

Lets go into GTA...oh look, why did Chinatown Wars crash and burn worst on the PSP?

Monster Hunter?...looks at sales of Monster Hunter that was released on PSP recently
...umm...yea...I think you should have a talk with those publishers and dig deep to find out what they are thinking...

THE POINT IS THAT PSP DOESN'T SELL GAMES CASUAL OR HARDCORE!!!

Developers have no excuses after releasing those games for the PSP...

PS:thanks for the response, when you get the chance, post a rebuttal.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I wouldn't put my eggs in the Monster Hunter 3 basket if I were you. The real 'test' seems to be Epic Mickey.

Actually, I think with the right advertising campaign, MH3 could be pretty big. People like games where they can work to improve their armor and skill. A good example of this is World of Warcraft.

But as I said, it would need a good advertising campaign. Maybe slogan that tells them what you do in MH. Something that tells them you beat monsters, use their armor, and beat bigger monsters. Also make sure you show that it's online. That's pretty important.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Developers have no excuses after releasing those games for the PSP...

Except that Sony was very vocal about the fact that they spent 2008 and 2009 walking around to developers and publishers begging with their hats in hand and knees on the floor to return to the PSP and work on games there, and that begging almost certainly came with an enormous quantity of publisher-favourable initiatives including free or discounted dev kits, free or discounted licensing and platform fees, comarketing initiatives.

Also, I dare say that Sony revealing that they had a game-changing new piece of hardware that would revitalize software sales (sure, they failed utterly at delivering that) probably helped reassure developers that software sales were turning a corner.

I'm not saying this is a big "The Producers", but if you want to reconcile why a hardware platform that is apparently a utter failure at selling software gets more support than a platform that nominally does better, I'd start looking at this angle.

If it bombs? Keep pushing. Even if a game doesn't sell very well, if it's a quality AAA product worth their money, other people will find out from their friends/family over time. Eventually, if a sequel is released, it may have people that just rented or borrowed the original, buy it this time.

"Throw good money after bad" might sometimes work, but it's not good business to follow as a rule.

 

[The Technomancer]

Actually, I think with the right advertising campaign, MH3 could be pretty big. People like games where they can work to improve their armor and skill. A good example of this is World of Warcraft.

But as I said, it would need a good advertising campaign. Maybe slogan that tells them what you do in MH. Something that tells them you beat monsters, use their armor, and beat bigger monsters. Also make sure you show that it's online. That's pretty important.

When I actually first heard Monster Hunter, I thought it was related to Monster Rancher, which was very big on with the "semi-casuals" back on PS2 in the day. (At least where I lived)
Maybe others will make that same mistake. *shrug*

 

[KamenSenshi]

for me it's monster hunter 3- if nintendo/capcom put out a huge marketing push (hope hope) and if that "bombs" after having a marketing push EQUAL the AAA games(i'm talking RE5/COD sized marketing push) put out for the ps3/360, then i'd say the wii "hardcore" games have no shot... but if MH3 does have it, and still does not outperform other MH games for consoles in the west, then we have problems.

dont really disagree with most of your post just wondering why its monster hunter. it was never popular here on ps2 and the psp games even with the freedom unite push still haven't caught on. even in japan the wii version is "only" just about a million seller, so what would you consider a respectable number for it to sale here?

 

[wazoo]

Ubisoft's name isn't tainted at all imo. Maybe some of their titles like Petz are tainted from mediocrity + overabundance, but people will still be buying No More Heroes 2 despite Ubisoft's name. People bought Just Dance despite it apparently not even being a good game. And on the HD consoles, people bought Assassin's Creed 2 after not even liking the first game. There isn't faith in the name but it doesn't look like there's a deterrent either

UBi soft seems too much to me accused of providing shovelware to the Wii, and they did a lot, but at some time those shovelware were selling a lot, so the public had no problem with it, and if you look at Just Dance, reviews are quite bad, but it resonates very well with the Wii audience.

As for the core games, Rabbids go home, 2 shawn White snowboard games, probably Red Steel 2, for me it is more than most 3rd parties in terms of quality.

 

[botticus]

and if you look at Just Dance, reviews are quite bad, but it resonates very well with the Wii audience.

I almost wanted that game even after hearing it sucked. MC Hammer on the TV has that effect.

 

[mugurumakensei]

UBi soft seems too much to me accused of providing shovelware to the Wii, and they did a lot, but at some time those shovelware were selling a lot, so the public had no problem with it, and if you look at Just Dance, reviews are quite bad, but it resonates very well with the Wii audience.

As for the core games, Rabbids go home, 2 shawn White snowboard games, probably Red Steel 2, for me it is more than most 3rd parties in terms of quality.

You know the Petz games sold horribly on the Wii right? They never sold well on the Wii. The whole reason Ubisoft put those titles on the Wii was cause they sold well on the DS. That success never translated to the Wii, and, eventually, those titles couldn't succeed on the DS either. Hence, part of the reason why Ubisoft's revenue is down. None of their shovelware titles sold.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Signal to Noise ratio. Nintendo is almost always signal.

 

[RurouniZel]

These "dream worlds" are causing millions of dollars in losses for "failed" games and laid off employees once the worlds are complete.

Like how just today we found out Warner laid off staff at studios like Monolith?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=384786

Yeah, this shit needs to stop. Someone needs to take the reigns away from the fanboys and let people with common sense run these studios so that they can start making money again.

I totally agree with you on this one. It really feels like companies these days are so concerned with "sticking it to Nintendo" that they are actively sabotaging their own companies just to achieve that goal. It's sickening to see this happening and it's got to stop sooner or late, the whole industry depends on it.

Just look at what we have these days in terms of games: Big-budget shooters with wave after wave of brainless enemies, but, OH!, it looks really, really pretty! So let's sell it for $60 and watch as the hoards of fanboys lap it up like mother's milk. Where's the innovation? Where's the craftmanship? No here, my friends, not on the Hollywood gaming platforms like the PS3 and Xbox360. Just the same old, same old that we saw plenty of last generation and the generation before.

Nintendo, on the other hand, they've got the right of it. They're not just concerned with putting out the same old stuff that appeals to the same, narrow fanbase. They actually, genuinely CARE about expanding the industry to include not just teens and twenty-something males, but to also include the whole family. And you know what? It's working! They're providing games that anyone and everyone can enjoy, types of games that you just can't get on any other system out there, and they're being handsomely rewarded for it. All you have to do is look at the NPD sales charts from December to see that Nintendo's doing what's best for the industry.

It's be fun to see how things are in another five years or so. I'm not an industry insider, but I think it's going to be bad for a lot of companies out there. But, I'm don't feel sorry for them. They turned their backs on Nintendo and the future of videogames in a vain effort to "hang on to the past" and they'll eventually reap the fruits of that little mistake.

Basically. Nintendo isn't above making new Marios or Zeldas to appease their fanbase, but they're mixing in a healthy dose of other games that appeal to broader audiences (read: Wii_____ series), both young and old, men and women.

 

[Tiktaalik]

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.

Is there research that shows this is the case? If folks are walking into the store, vaguely knowing that they want a wii, but not knowing what else, and are leaving with a stack of Nintendo games then the third parties have to work harder on their distribution, in store marketing and most of all reputation.

Red NSMB box aside, Nintendo games don't have a special advantage from the pack other than they generally have higher quality box art than the rest of the crowd. One thing that I have noticed is that Nintendo games are pushed by stores. They often get special kiosks and TV displays. I've never worked retail so I don't know how this works, but here's an obvious advantage here. I'm really not sure why EA doesn't have little EA stores at Best Buy that are promoting their games. In Canada Nintendo has special kiosks at a local ubiquitous drug mart chain Shoppers Drug Mart. No third party games to be found anywhere however. It seems that 3rd party efforts end when the game hits the shelves, and then their game is just another white box between Game Party and Petz. Third parties simply just aren't trying as hard as Nintendo is to reach that expanded audience.

As well one has to recognize that folks come into stores and ask the clerk "what's good?" We've all seen this before. This is where reputation comes into play. It really, really matters if a game is good or not, because these guys are almost always young male gamers that are knowledgeable and will make a recommendation. If they aren't gamers themselves they'll likely at least say the 2nd best thing, which is what has been selling well recently. On the Wii the recommendation in both of these cases will be Nintendo games. I would bet that if we did an informal survey asking this question at stores this last xmas we'd get the answer NSMB Wii and Mario Kart 100% of the time.

So bottom line is that the quality needs to go up and the games need to be pushed in store harder. Fortunately at least some companies recognize the quality issue. I recently read the recent Nintendo Power feature on EA's NBA Jam and man that game looks really great. If EA makes big in store displays for this game, your average consumer will pick it up and ask the clerk, "is this good?" and if the quality is there he'll say yes. It's a simple sale.

 

[Great Rumbler]

Basically. Nintendo isn't above making new Marios or Zeldas to appease their fanbase, but they're mixing in a healthy dose of other games that appeal to broader audiences (read: Wii_____ series), both young and old, men and women.

It really is refreshing to see this from a big corporation like Nintendo. Normally, as in Sony and Microsoft, they're all about just putting out the same mass-market games that have been proven time and again and never taking any chances with something new.

With the way this generation's gone, it's clear that the status quo just isn't going to work anymore. Halo and Call of Duty sell millions of copy, right we all know that, but for how much longer? I think it'll only be a matter of time before the people who buys those games just stand up and say "enough". When that happens, what will those companies that have invested so much time and energy into narrowing their focus and tweaking age-old gameplay types do? It'll be hard to make the transition like Nintendo did. A lot of them will probably have to shut down just because they've become so used to doing one type of thing that a sudden change to something else, something that will actually provide them with long-term stability, just isn't achievable.

Nintendo decided that changes was necessary and they made it NOW. Not tomorrow or next year, when it's change or die time, but NOW. They can see what's coming down in the next few years and they realized that it in order to weather that storm, they had to build a ship capable of reaching broad horizons.

I see these pictures all the time of women playing the Wii and old people too and it just makes me smile. These people GET IT. Nintendo's about everybody playing games and having fun and laughing. Why can't "hardcore gamers" understand that? The problem is that they're too focused on that same old formula, they don't like change. They want games that are hard and complex so they can feel good about themselves and then point their gamer score and say "Look at the score. Can you do that?" But that's not what games are about, competition and "being better than somebody else", they're about having fun.

Wii gamers get it, Nintendo gets it. It's time for the rest of the world to wake up and realize it too before it's too late.

 

[Dave Long]

Nintendo also isn't afraid to make games for children, and in fact goes out of their way to do so without dumbing them down and treating kids like... well... children.

This is just one more significant thing in their favor. Most third parties aren't interested in kids, mainly because of the above noted factor that many third party games come from nerds for nerds.

 

[AceBandage]

Nintendo also isn't afraid to make games for children, and in fact goes out of their way to do so without dumbing them down and treating kids like... well... children.

This is just one more significant thing in their favor. Most third parties aren't interested in kids, mainly because of the above noted factor that many third party games come from nerds for nerds.

Except that they're usually mainstream nerds, which is why there's such a glut of shooters this gen.

 

[Lenardo]

dont really disagree with most of your post just wondering why its monster hunter. it was never popular here on ps2 and the psp games even with the freedom unite push still haven't caught on. even in japan the wii version is "only" just about a million seller, so what would you consider a respectable number for it to sale here?

why monster hunter 3?


it is - in my opinion- the first "exclusive" 3rd party "AAA" title that any major 3rd party dev has produced- to date- for the wii. on that should be worthy of a COD/Halo sized marketing program, if the marketing is done Correctly first month- again if they market this game CORRECTLY- could see ~500k+- no marketing it'll be sub 200k., all depending on how they market the game to the western(us and eu) consumer.

free online
one of the best 3rd party games for the wii
one of the best looking games for the wii


look at the cod/halo campaigns and do something that large advertising it. if it hits the right cords with the consumer it WILL blow all other MH console games away sales wise.

 

[poppabk]

Halo and Call of Duty sell millions of copy, right we all know that, but for how much longer? I think it'll only be a matter of time before the people who buys those games just stand up and say "enough".

This isn't how it works. What will happen is the shooter genre will become more and more specialized - slowly pushing out the audience that exists on the periphery, and becoming more and more difficult for new players to join. People with no interest in multiplayer are already being pushed out to a certain extent as campaigns get shorter while MP options get expanded. Next will be people who don't play enough to advance through the leveling/perk systems and so a massive roadblock is erected between them and MP. And so on and so on until you have a game that at the outset is something akin to joining a quake server for the first time in the present day.

 

[Sadist]

why monster hunter 3?


it is - in my opinion- the first "exclusive" 3rd party "AAA" title that any major 3rd party dev has produced- to date- for the wii. on that should be worthy of a COD/Halo sized marketing program, if the marketing is done Correctly first month- again if they market this game CORRECTLY- could see ~500k+- no marketing it'll be sub 200k., all depending on how they market the game to the western(us and eu) consumer.

free online
one of the best 3rd party games for the wii
one of the best looking games for the wii


look at the cod/halo campaigns and do something that large advertising it. if it hits the right cords with the consumer it WILL blow all other MH console games away sales wise.

Thou must be truly insane.

Monster Hunter isn't that popular in the west. Props for Nintendo if they want to give the series a boost here, but you know as well as I do that MH will be a very hard sell to western audiences. MH Tri might be a good package as a whole, but it's typical Japanese series.

Look at the PSP games. In Japan the games are insanely popular with sales rising above the 2 million units and even the re-releases as PSP "The Best" series are selling bucketloads. You know what MH Freedom Unite did in the USA? 67k at launch.

 

[ShinNL]

13 is usually a bad number but this page is filled with lots of good points.

Michael Pachter, your answers are here.

 

[ElFly]

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 the marketing blitz is kind of obvious in how it works. Nintendo's insistence on showing people playing the game, and not just the game seems to have worked.

As for design, the Iwata Asks series show that they don't really have a rigorous design process. It seems that a lot of the casual success comes from Miyamoto or another designer just casually grabbing a secretary or a janitor from the building and putting them in front of the game and doing a in situ focus group. This was also mentioned in a E3, with the famous Miyamoto Bandito shot.

Word of mouth is probably easy, because most of their popular games have local multiplayer. People probably just show their friends the game in person. Opposed to regular games, where word of mouth has to happen in a gamer to gamer fashion, given how non-gamers will roll their eyes if you start droning about the last Metal Gear Solid.

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.

Eh. I think that Wii Music sales could be attributed to this (probably the Wii branding), but Nintendo has also had lots of flops. Excitebots, Wario Land Shake and other games have sold poorly, and stuff like Punchout, Mario Strikers, etc, sold more in line with the Gamecube era.

Here's my opinion on the subject, and I'll try to make it as short and sweet as possible.

In the 80s and early 90s, the vast majority of 3rd party videogame developers were run mostly by professionals who were doing a job and trying to make money in the most efficient manner possible (i.e. appeal to certain demographics, userbase, licences, budget etc.)

In the late 90s-today, the vast majority of 3rd party videogame developers are run mostly by professional fanboys who are doing what they want to do and live to create their dream game on the most powerful hardware despite userbase numbers or concessions to broaden appeal, despite the fact that it runs against most common logic.

Really, the results were predictable. Let fanboys take over any market and watch as it proceeds to never expand beyond the occasional one-hit wonder (see American comics, anime, and now videogames).

At least we have Nintendo.

I'd tend to think that, as the game market expands, the upper management jobs will more and more be claimed by management professionals, sometimes from outside the industry (Bobby Kotick is the ultimate example).

 

[Dude Abides]

Why can't "hardcore gamers" understand that? The problem is that they're too focused on that same old formula, they don't like change. They want games that are hard and complex so they can feel good about themselves and then point their gamer score and say "Look at the score. Can you do that?" But that's not what games are about, competition and "being better than somebody else", they're about having fun.

Wii gamers get it, Nintendo gets it. It's time for the rest of the world to wake up and realize it too before it's too late.

Before it's too late for what? Them to play games they don't want to play? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they like those "hard games" because they get enjoyment out of games that are deep and require a bit more skill and effort to master? This nonsense is no better than the people who dismiss the Wii as a toy for children.

 

[RurouniZel]

Before it's too late for what? Them to play games they don't want to play? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they like those "hard games" because they get enjoyment out of games that are deep and require a bit more skill and effort to master? This nonsense is no better than the people who dismiss the Wii as a toy for children.

You're missing the point. The problem is that these people hate that such material exists. Anything that isn't explicitly catered to their "highly refined tastes" *snort* must be purged from existence lest it destroy the very fabric of space and time.

If you've never seen this sort of sentiment here, you haven't been reading. I don't like dudebro games, but there's nothing wrong with them being there. What I can't stand is the attitude these people constantly display toward the Wii's success. They literally seethe at its numbers and happily write off anyone who likes those sorts of games as "non gamers" or "casuals", invoking those terms in the most negative light possible.

It's not the taste, it's the attitude. And sadly this attitude doesn't just permeate gamers, it's permeated the developers as well because as I mentioned before, it's run not by professionals anymore, but professional fanboys.

 

[Faxanadu]

You're missing the point. The problem is that these people hate that such material exists. Anything that isn't explicitly catered to their "highly refined tastes" *snort* must be purged from existence lest it destroy the very fabric of space and time.

If you've never seen this sort of sentiment here, you haven't been reading. I don't like dudebro games, but there's nothing wrong with them being there. What I can't stand is the attitude these people constantly display toward the Wii's success. They literally seethe at its numbers and happily write off anyone who likes those sorts of games as "non gamers" or "casuals", invoking those terms in the most negative light possible.

It's not the taste, it's the attitude.

Kind of like MAC owners. SHABANG! OHH!

But you're right. It's most definately the attitude.

 

[Version 3.0]

As well one has to recognize that folks come into stores and ask the clerk "what's good?" We've all seen this before. This is where reputation comes into play. It really, really matters if a game is good or not, because these guys are almost always young male gamers that are knowledgeable and will make a recommendation. If they aren't gamers themselves they'll likely at least say the 2nd best thing, which is what has been selling well recently. On the Wii the recommendation in both of these cases will be Nintendo games. I would bet that if we did an informal survey asking this question at stores this last xmas we'd get the answer NSMB Wii and Mario Kart 100% of the time.

Good point. It's not only recommendations on immediate purchases, either. Gamestop and other stores that push pre-orders always have an upcoming game ready to pre-sell you. I'd be surprised if their corporate-approved Wii pre-order suggestion isn't a Nintendo game 90+% of the time. I'd guess the exceptions would be maybe Rock Band/Guitar Hero or possibly the direct sequel to the purchased game (Game Party 2, Boom Blox 2, Rabbids 3, etc).