TheChewyWaffles
Member
Vinci said:
Because they're apples and oranges. Nintendo literally owns the platform. EA does not. It would only be a fair question if Microsoft or Sony had 50% of the marketshare on their respective platforms.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Third Party Wii Games
- Thread starter michaelpachter
- Start date
Because they're apples and oranges. Nintendo literally owns the platform. EA does not. It would only be a fair question if Microsoft or Sony had 50% of the marketshare on their respective platforms.
I think publishers *have* figured out what works and what doesn't at this point. What works is the exercise/sports stuff, minigame collections (if they're cheap impulse buys) and name-brand licensed content.
What we went through over the past year was a period of expirimentation to see if they could get anything else to work. Nothing did, so publishers are cutting back on the experimenting.
Now GAF thinks the experimentation was substantially deficient, and that the games would have sold if publishers had only put in more effort, if only they had advertised more, if only they fostered the community better, etc.
Bottom line is that it doesn't matter, the cake is baked for the platform. Third parties can build successful franchises within the established genres (see EA Sports Active and all the Ubisoft exercise franchises), but if you try anything else you're swimming upstream and the current is strong.
What we went through over the past year was a period of expirimentation to see if they could get anything else to work. Nothing did, so publishers are cutting back on the experimenting.
Now GAF thinks the experimentation was substantially deficient, and that the games would have sold if publishers had only put in more effort, if only they had advertised more, if only they fostered the community better, etc.
Bottom line is that it doesn't matter, the cake is baked for the platform. Third parties can build successful franchises within the established genres (see EA Sports Active and all the Ubisoft exercise franchises), but if you try anything else you're swimming upstream and the current is strong.
boiled goose
good with gravy
TwinIonEngines said:
yes
BigNastyCurve said:
Dude.
Are you serious? Of course that is the difference between first party and third party. From the perspective of a publisher that is neither EA nor Nintendo, why the hell does it matter who holds 30% of the market as long as it is not you? It is about competition.
Unless you think that if EA is selling Madden on 360 it means that it will be easier for Konami to sell SH homecoming on it. The same way Nintendo selling Mario on Wii means nothing for SH SM's sales.
What you could argue is that the genres that nintendo cultivates on wii differ more from what third parties want to sell than what EA cultivates on 360 relative to what the rest of what third parties want to sell. Which could be a fair point. It is not about first vrs third party though.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Rhindle said:
The problem is also publishers keep expecting wii sales to suddenly stop. It is a fact that they have not built an audience for quality third party games at the moment. Why try to build an audience, if the thing will suddenly stop selling?
Any predictions for Wii's final install base?
Money has been left on the table. How much more will be left?
yeah it's true - read through the OP again. Ubisoft has been doing VERY well with Dance Party, Jillian Michaels and their other exercise games, Game Party has been Midway's biggest seller for the past couple of years, Wii is Lucasarts' best platform for the Lego and Star Wars games (and the same is generally true of other movie tie-ins and other licensed content).mantidor said:
Eteric Rice
Member
How do you know this? I mean really, I don't see anything in the Wii's library outside of Nintendo's own games with the quality of the high end HD games.
They haven't tried. You really can't argue that they have.
The only game with real quality and talent behind it for the hardcore audience is Resident Evil 4. Everything else has been spin-offs in unpopular genres.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Rhindle said:
Publishers should no by now that fitness games, quality tie ins or known IPs, music games , etc. sell well on wii.
I think the problem is that they really havent properly explored other spaces. A third person shooter still hasnt been released. The best FPS on the system is a two year old port.
These are the some of the biggest genres in the generation, yet they remain unexplored on wii. The wii has more light gun shooters and guided FPS than traditional FPSs or TPSs.
See the problem with that is that it usually is not up to 3rd parties to "build an audience" for games on a platform. It's almost always 1st party development that defines a platform. The 360 and PS3 have a "core audience" because that's where 1st party development was concentrated. Sony's 1st party development used to be a lot more diverse, so PS2 had a much broader base. Halo was Microsoft's flagship, so Xbox became the dominant FPS platform.amtentori said:
Nintendo defined the platform based on Wii Fit, Wii Sports and Mario. So stuff with Mario and fitness does well, because that's what people bought the platform for, and not much else does.
Rhindle said:
The problem I have with this is there was no need for experimentation though. Look at the launch games and the games that came out several months after that. From what I recall they did decently enough. Some more then others but no different then last generations and several of them were even ports. EA, Capcom, and Ubisoft had games and even franchises they could have fostered so that the next entry would sell even better. However they choose not to. EA themselves showed how an open world GTA like game would work with the Wii's controls in The Godfather: Blackhand Edition. Then there was Scarface: The World is Yours that also showed that. Both were simply released with no marketing from what I recall though so of course they didn't do well but they were resources that could have been reused by EA and Vivendi. Then there is Rockstar's Bully.
Where was the follow up from EA to SSX Blur? Why did EA changed the design for the Wii version of Madden NFL 09 when NFL 08 (which was exactly as the other versions and true to the how the series has always been) did well? Why the design change from Need for Speed Carbon to the cartoony look in Nitro when last I heard Carbon did well on the Wii? Why did Konami put the Elebits sequel on the DS instead on the Wii where the first one had established itself? Why did Ubisoft ignore the sales of Red Steel 1 and not bother with a sequel until now? Then there is Capcom ignoring the success of Resident Evil 4 (not only on the Wii but on the Cube as well)?
These questions aren't directed at anyone but ones that should be asked and should have been asked long ago. These games sold to varying degrees. They were foundations that could have been built on. They showed there was a market for these games early on and some of them were back when it was very hard to even get a Wii. There was never any need for any experimentation or "test" games. These publishers/developers have always had the information in front of them. Yet "analyst" seem to want to act as if these publishers have made all the right decisions.
That's a pretty dumb double standard posed here. Third parties can't/don't copy Nintendo's first party efforts by making amazing 3D platformers (honestly, 3D action adventure titles basically) because they can't have Mario, Samus or Link, so that just leaves fitness games for them, but it's fine to copy Microsoft and make FPS games that aren't Halo with Master Chief? No, third parties aren't trying at all on Wii, even though there's plenty to take from Nintendo, not that every 3rd party on the other systems copied MS/Sony, but anyway. There's plenty more than just Wii Fit to Nintendo's succesful output. Heck, De Blob did good showing that approach could pay off but even THQ dropped the ball afterwards. Where's De Blob 2? Other success stories didn't get follow ups of the same philosophy, if not IP, either. Where's a high budget 2D platformer after NSMB Wii's (lazy :lol !) showing? The system does have many platformers, but it's all low profile stuff from small developers (bless them!). None of the industry's giants can develop something in that vein with a decent budget and marketing push? People claim they're actually trying? :lol
Oh, and Just Dance isn't copying anything Nintendo made either. Wtf? Sorry but nobody tries to copy Wii Music. It's trying to be the new hot music game like the Guitar Hero type games which performed extremelly well on all systems, not just the Wii, so don't spin it like that just to reinforce such views. Besides, out of the fuckton of such games Ubisoft puts out, only a handfull sell, and mostly those with some more effort than usual. That only reinforces that all it takes is effort, not the opposite. The Lego games also sell good everywhere and if I'm not mistaken some of the recent ones show less effort in the Wii versions, possibly by different teams.
As for people saying it's too late, eh, that doesn't stop Sony and Microsoft from trying now, does it? Clearly 2 of the major players think there's time left in this gen.
Oh, and Just Dance isn't copying anything Nintendo made either. Wtf? Sorry but nobody tries to copy Wii Music. It's trying to be the new hot music game like the Guitar Hero type games which performed extremelly well on all systems, not just the Wii, so don't spin it like that just to reinforce such views. Besides, out of the fuckton of such games Ubisoft puts out, only a handfull sell, and mostly those with some more effort than usual. That only reinforces that all it takes is effort, not the opposite. The Lego games also sell good everywhere and if I'm not mistaken some of the recent ones show less effort in the Wii versions, possibly by different teams.
As for people saying it's too late, eh, that doesn't stop Sony and Microsoft from trying now, does it? Clearly 2 of the major players think there's time left in this gen.
KamenSenshi
Junior Member
nintendo has left entire genres open for 3rd parties, such as rpgs but that hasnt produced any large influx. we know developers complain when they have a game in a similar category as nintendo, they say they cant compete and all. theres no end to the excuses they can use.
the only games they seem to want to attempt to copy are fitness and mini game collections. nintendo has made other well recieved games such as galaxy, tp, and even prime 3 yet we dont see alot of platformers, adventure games or fps games. they cant possibly be waiting for nintendo to be leading the way in every genre. if 3rd parties want to pump out lame no effort games or spin-offs thats their mistake, they just shouldnt complain when no one rushes out to buy them.
the only games they seem to want to attempt to copy are fitness and mini game collections. nintendo has made other well recieved games such as galaxy, tp, and even prime 3 yet we dont see alot of platformers, adventure games or fps games. they cant possibly be waiting for nintendo to be leading the way in every genre. if 3rd parties want to pump out lame no effort games or spin-offs thats their mistake, they just shouldnt complain when no one rushes out to buy them.
Rhindle said:
And the OP mentions how all this big publishers are frustrated because they can't sell big numbers, what is it then?
If they are doing so great, why are third parties bailing out?, their recent statements are that they are cutting back wii support, if they are doing great cutting support is completely absurd.
Unless you mean they are the top third parties on wii, which is, well obvious. That doesn't mean they are doing great.
And are you putting the lego games and licensed content in the same line as sports/exercise/mini games collections?
i like pachter but this sounds like he's trolling a bit
i do agree that the hardcore market on the wii is smaller, you only need to look at the threads for wii games on here. but i still think it's there. there's quite a few people who bough mario galaxy and zelda. even punch out and metroid sold a million or something.
a lot of it i think stems from the terrible games press in america. shitty sites like gametrailers/ign/gamepro/kotaku just hate the system and everything about it. edge and eurogamer just treat it like a normal system that plays games and has some decent ones
what do you think third parties should do Michael?
you're an analyst so i'd hope you have some sort of idea. but at the same time you've been pretty negative about it for the past few years and you're constantly talking about how the bubble is going to burst.
i'd also like to ask what you think "gamer games" that have sold well have in common? no more heroes, hotd 2+3, re 4, red steel, sonic and the secret rings etc
i do agree that the hardcore market on the wii is smaller, you only need to look at the threads for wii games on here. but i still think it's there. there's quite a few people who bough mario galaxy and zelda. even punch out and metroid sold a million or something.
a lot of it i think stems from the terrible games press in america. shitty sites like gametrailers/ign/gamepro/kotaku just hate the system and everything about it. edge and eurogamer just treat it like a normal system that plays games and has some decent ones
what do you think third parties should do Michael?
you're an analyst so i'd hope you have some sort of idea. but at the same time you've been pretty negative about it for the past few years and you're constantly talking about how the bubble is going to burst.
i'd also like to ask what you think "gamer games" that have sold well have in common? no more heroes, hotd 2+3, re 4, red steel, sonic and the secret rings etc
KamenSenshi
Junior Member
this. there was no need for any test games. red steel sold a million, res 4 sold well, and cod 3 out sold the ps3 version all while the wii was constantly supply constrained. imagine if they would have followed up on any one of those once the supply issue was gone.Effect said:
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Well, a THQ rep did pretty much explicitly say they had the intention of making more (http://wii.ign.com/articles/947/947929p1.html), but that was almost a year ago, which worries me.Agnates said:
Eteric Rice
Member
mugwhump said:
That's the one that confuses me. What the fuck happened there? :lol
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
But those games are the islands in a sea of poorly selling games - Ubisoft has a ton of games that have sold poorly, Game Party 2 shipped half of what the original did and I am pretty certain sold much less, Carnival Games:Mini Golf sold poorly, Deca Sports 2 sold poorly - in the same way that RE4:Wii, COD:WaW, RE:UC, Red Steel are the islands in a sea of Conduits, Madworlds and Muramasas. If third parties really had it figures out then they wouldn't be struggling to sell games, the problem is they know even less about how to sell to the casual audience, hence why there aren't really any 3rd party casual franchises, beyond maybe the Rabbids titles. Because even when they make a game that resonates with the audience they have no clue why.Rhindle said:
So, by Pachter explanation, Wall-Mart gift card is the main reason for the Wii sales boost in Europe and Japan too. NSMBW or the cheaper price are just minor details. And 360 Arcade has never been cheaper than the Wii. I can agree to some extent with his concerns, but this reasoning is beyond me.Gamasutra said:
By the way, where is the Sony and Microsoft doom-analysis? If Wii and DS are going to have a hard time, Pachter should have been yelling for years: Stay away from PS3 and 360! Only gloom and sorrow await you on those consoles! :lol
KamenSenshi
Junior Member
in japan isnt it that they are way more handheld centric? that at least is something in a way. they arent just ignoring the wii its all home systems get the same treatment to a degree. wii is best selling so it gets dragon quest. ps3 is next and way over 360 so it retains ff. 360 gets everything else. what do you guys think would happen if square pulled its ff13 tactic on agito or birth by sleep? thats to say, it stays ps exclusive in japan but everywhere else its on wii also. lets even say it only outsells the psp version by 2 million worldwide. is it a victory and we get nothing else or do they write it of as a fluke since "of course it'll sell its ff"?Eteric Rice said:
KamenSenshi
Junior Member
why should the market leader need to go around begging for games and cutting deals when it hasn't worked that well in the past if at all? didn't they give ubi a deal on dev kits and have part of retro help them out on red steel? seems like if 3rd parties want to make money its in their best interest to want to make the games themselves. like with conduit.Stumpokapow said:
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
doomed1 said:
Not like it's 100% wrong though. Of course, publishers themselves created this situation.
Well, I don't believe in this whole segmented market bullshit in the first place. It presents too much room for error and it's bad policy to try and pigeonhole the market. Because of the reality of individualism, the best, most objective way, in fact the only way to break up the market is via objective demographics such as age group and sex, and even that doesn't do much to actually sell the game other than vague sociological patterns. Making, marketing, and selling games is pretty much a spray and pray, it's just that different combinations of each present different rates of fire(sales). Companies need to optimize their sales strategies for better effect on the Wii, and that includes marketing and having a polished product. It's worked for games like EA Sports Active, but only because those are the games that get that kind of optimization. No one's really tried giving other Wii games that kind of treatment. I'd like to see how it goes over.Andrex said:
Hellsing321
Member
I think its honestly too late to salvage the situation. The only thing for publishers to do is not miss the boat next time when Wii's successor comes out.
Eteric Rice
Member
KamenSenshi said:
When the 360 has more RPGs than the market leading console in Japan, something is very, very wrong.
Hellsing321 said:
I'm honestly starting to think that even if Nintendo has a high powered system with online, with a huge user base, they'll be looked over next generation too.
With all the illogical decisions made this generation, I'm honestly starting to believe there is a huge resistance to make games on Nintendo home platforms. It may be by publishers, developers, or both. But I'm really starting to think it's there, and that they'll make as many excuses as possible to avoid making games on a Nintendo platform.
I know that wasn't the point but I'm pretty sure The Conduit made a good profit. It was hardly an IW caliber studio working on it, how much are those guys paid? They're a third rate studio at best mostly doing licenced crap. That they made every effort to overhype the game doesn't mean it was ever possible for it to be a Wii best seller, you know. How were the sales compared to their past games? That co-op shooter on PS2? How were the sales compared to studios of comparable size (but not scope!)? it almost did No More Heroes numbers, didn't it? If that was Grasshopper's greatest success yet, then surely that was pretty damn good for HVS also, especially with no licences attached on it. If it was such a failure then The Grinder would have moved platforms or been cancelled right there. Hopefully that ends up better, and hopefully it actually deserves to end up better. But yes, he should have picked a better example to make his point.
Penguin said:
Yeah, especially since Nintendo does have the most momentum going forward. Hell with all the cash they made they will probably have a powerful console + whatever new innovation they want to introduce. I'm not an HD whore but I can't wait to see Zelda or Metroid in higher resolutions.
Agnates said:
No, I'm pretty sure it didn't. There's no way HVS made back whatever investment they put into it due to the royalty structure unless they sold the IP to Sega for the dev cost and I doubt Sega has broken even with the game (cogs, marketing, overhead).
The grinder doesn't even have a publisher. Why? Because no one wants a "more mature/bloody" version of The Conduit. Why? Because the Conduit didn't sell well. Will they get a publisher? Possibly, but it won't be anyone big.
How much did it cost to HVS, and how much did it cost to SEGA as they entered the game close to the development's end? Seriously, how much should it sell to justify its development? As much as Killzone 2, like any investment HVS could even afford can be close to Sony's? :lol
What, you don't know? So it's just your negative attitude and speculation and my positive attitude and speculation? God damn. What now?
What, you don't know? So it's just your negative attitude and speculation and my positive attitude and speculation? God damn. What now?
Maybe you should call me a junior?
Jackson said:
It has to be at least 300K units by now. I found this article, not sure how reliable but it was 270k in september. Seems to be the most "up to date" info I could find for now.
http://gamerblips.dailyradar.com/story/the-conduit-has-sold-270-000-units-through-september/
So let's assume that maybe 200k copies sold at full price of $50 (rounding)
Thats: $10,000,000
And then assume if that extra 70 thousand sold at a discount, say $30 bucks.
Thats: $2,100,000
So 12 million ish in sales up to september as a guesstimate. Who knows what the game cost but it might be around break even or just under. Who know? I'm not a mathmatician or analyst.
That's not entirely true. Both the critical and sales reception of the game was lukewarm, much like the actual game. It wasn't a failure I don't think, since I think it covered its bill. I remember a figure of about 300k units worldwide. That would be about $15million in raw revenue for the game. assuming retailer and licensing costs would take $10 away from the price (you can correct me if I'm wrong on the retailer prices), that would still be about $12 million in return revenue, which is likely above what they spent on making and marketing the game. The Conduit wasn't a runaway hit, but for what it was, it did well enough to justify its business existence.Jackson said:
But again, the Conduit is a bad example, since it was a game even I traded in within a month.
Faxanadu said:
So where is Nintendo's cut? Where is retailer's cut? Where is Sega's cut? Where is HVS's cut? How many units did Sega produce (if they produced more than they sold that's cash gone). How much money did they spend on marketing? how much does it cost to make? How much did Sega pay HVS for the IP (if anything?)
It's not 12m, even if retail it is.
doomed1 said:
I disagree, which is why you won't see a Conduit 2 and which is why The Grinder doesn't have a publisher and which is why Sega won't be publishing it.
The game was still at full price in September. I remember because I traded it in that month for Phantom Brave, a game I really need to work on, so that would be about $13.5million in raw revenue. What would you say the general retailer/licensing cut would be?Jackson said:
I'm not so sure. Just because we haven't seen a Conduit 2 YET doesn't mean we won't. Similarly, the Grinder doesn't have a publisher because what we've seen so far seems about as lukewarm as the Conduit. I have no excuses for that game, but I'm pretty sure they broke even with it.
doomed1 said:
I never said Sega didn't break even, I assumed they're right around it. I said HVS didn't break even, unless Sega paid them upfront for their IP and paid out the dev budget they invested, which is possible. Otherwise if Sega didn't pay them and fronted the bill on the game, I doubt HVS has earned out thier advance from their royalty. Remember HVS was looking for a publisher when they announced, that tells me they couldn't finish it themselves.Game deals are always very different and dependent on a lot of factors. I would assume HVS didn't front the full cost of the Conduit though, and Sega had to foot a few million to finish it at least. Also the market is different when that deal was made, was the Conduit a 8million dollar budget game? When Wii had promise? Or a 3 million dollar game when Wii didn't have promise for 3rd parties and pubs weren't willing to spend cash. Did Sega put in 1m for advertising and marketing? or 5 million? I remember seeing tv commercials, so I assume it was a decent marketing budget for a Wii game.
And the Grinder is way more lukewarm than The Conduit buzz was. Reggie ain't calling out the Grinder like he was The Conduit.
The bottom line for a publisher is... is the ROI worth spending money and resources on? And with Conduit the answer I conclude is no. The margins are too slim to focus more/secondary effort on. It's better to try something with a larger margin than a smaller margin. That same money and effort could return more potential profit on a different game than on Conduit 2 or The Grinder.
Could I be wrong and they're making the Conduit 2 and The Grinder is being published by EA? Yes. But I doubt highly it.
For the Conduit I'll wholeheartedly agree with you, but I don't consider it meaning anything more than the reception of TimeShift on the 360. It was a pretty blatantly average game that had some advertising, but it wasn't well received at retail was well as was hoped. Meanwhile there were other FPSs that did better than it before because of better gameplay and IP, i.e. World at War. There's really nothing that can be done about what happened to the Conduit, but every game has to be taken on a case by case basis. The Conduit didn't really do that well, but World at War sure did, and with much less. It just all really depends on a solid core concept, polish, and marketing. That's what sells games. The Conuit lacked the first of the two, and while it had the most important, marketing, that's never a guarantee.
Similar threads
- Poll