Support NeoGAF

[farnham]

Not a flop, but given what we know so far, I doubt it will make Capcom's shipment goal which was IIRC 800K or so.

which are ridiculous for a rail shooter in the first place.. look at other platforms.. how much did time crisis sell on PS3.. (which is the biggest lightgun game on the HD consoles i believe)

 

[Mael]

Not a flop, but given what we know so far, I doubt it will make Capcom's shipment goal which was IIRC 800K or so.

The same Capcom that had a way bigger shipment goal for DarkVoid and Bionic Commando....just saying

 

[Dragmire]

I can't believe people are still banging on publishers for not making more core games for the Wii.

Get over it.

Sorry, but it's just kind of tragic that third parties in this industry so sorely lack business sense. No other entertainment industry quite has this kind of incompetence. There is demand for core Wii games, however small people think that demand is, and gamers have a right to complain when their needs aren't met.

Wii gets, at best, PS2 era core games like Silent Hill that aren't selling on any platform (was that series even selling in the PS2 era?). Current standards for core games have deeper, RPG-like gameplay, massive campaigns with side-quests, online, co-op, achievements, stuff like that. Think Bioware, Fallout 3, Bioshock. It amazes me that Wii, the fastest selling system ever, will never see a single game like this in its entire life. And of course, if it does, it won't be given to a good dev or supported by the publisher. That's absolutely amazing in the worst way.

 

[schuelma]

The same Capcom that had a way bigger shipment goal for DarkVoid and Bionic Commando....just saying

(this is also applicable to farnham)

The difference is Capcom had a precedent with Umbrella Chronicles which has shipped 1.1-1.2M so far. Certainly we can come up with valid reasons why the 2nd one was doomed to do significantly poorer, but superficially I can see why a sequel with a bigger budget than the first would be expected to perform reasonably well.

 

[Mael]

(this is also applicable to farnham)

The difference is Capcom had a precedent with Umbrella Chronicles which has shipped 1.1-1.2M so far. Certainly we can come up with valid reasons why the 2nd one was doomed to do significantly poorer, but superficially I can see why a sequel with a bigger budget than the first would be expected to perform reasonably well.

Because Umbrella's success was entirely due to
- Nintendo's marketing in Europe
- coming months after Resident Evil 4 : Wii Edition, leading people into thinking it was similar?

If 3rd party can't fathom why their games are sucessful, they deserve all the bombs they get

 

[Messi]

I thought saints row 2 was being prepped for a late 2011 release. Showing it at E3 surely means we should see it sooner than that?

Anywho

Red Faction and Saints Row 2 = Tigerwoods Fist pump.

 

[farnham]

(this is also applicable to farnham)

The difference is Capcom had a precedent with Umbrella Chronicles which has shipped 1.1-1.2M so far. Certainly we can come up with valid reasons why the 2nd one was doomed to do significantly poorer, but superficially I can see why a sequel with a bigger budget than the first would be expected to perform reasonably well.

it didnt sell that well overnight... Darkside Chronicles might have legs too..

Sorry, but it's just kind of tragic that third parties in this industry so sorely lack business sense. No other entertainment industry quite has this kind of incompetence. There is demand for core Wii games, however small people think that demand is, and gamers have a right to complain when their needs aren't met.

Wii gets, at best, PS2 era core games like Silent Hill that aren't selling on any platform (was that series even selling in the PS2 era?). Current standards for core games have deeper, RPG-like gameplay, massive campaigns with side-quests, online, co-op, achievements, stuff like that. Think Bioware, Fallout 3, Bioshock. It amazes me that Wii, the fastest selling system ever, will never see a single game like this in its entire life. And of course, if it does, it won't be given to a good dev or supported by the publisher. That's absolutely amazing in the worst way.

have you missed out on the whole DQ X, Last Story, Xenoblade announcement thing..?

and there are games like Monster Hunter 3, Tales of graces, Arc Rise Fantasia and Fire Emblem or Zelda..

 

[schuelma]

Because Umbrella's success was entirely due to
- Nintendo's marketing in Europe
- coming months after Resident Evil 4 : Wii Edition, leading people into thinking it was similar?

If 3rd party can't fathom why their games are sucessful, they deserve all the bombs they get

RE:UC did well in all regions.

 

[schuelma]

it didnt sell that well overnight... Darkside Chronicles might have legs too..

It sold significantly better in Japan and the U.S in similar timeframes.

 

[Dragmire]

I see Umbrella Chronicles' success as general market confusion. There are standouts in every genre, however niche they may be. I don't believe that means the genre has become mainstream. In fact, I don't believe the stigma that Wii gamers are as casual as people think. Some casual series have had runaway successes, but with a market as big as the Wii, that will happen. As I said, market confusion. What else is there to buy? What sells is what's on the shelves. The truth is that most casual crap doesn't sell. And Nintendo's core games do sell, very well. There's an audience and it wanted a good Resident Evil experience, not a series of light gun games.

 

[Bizzyb]

I can't believe people are still banging on publishers for not making more core games for the Wii.

Get over it.

The dynamic isn't going to change. Enjoy the niche and 1st party stuff that occasionally comes to the platform, but it'll be healthier for you if you just get a 360 or PS3.

I think you TOTALLY missed the point of why people are "banging" THQ here. These devs put out some of the weakest, most niche B-level games ever with NO marketing to back it up and then they act like the games should have done Nintendo level sales, and when they don't they say "well, we tried"

That is such bullshit.

You obviously either don't own a Wii or do but don't care for it except for Nintendo games.

 

[Mael]

RE:UC did well in all regions.

I don't the why for any other regions, but I can tell you that RE:UC was heavily marketed compared to Darkside Chronicle and also :
Heavy discount! 6 months after release it was selling at a 3rd of its asking price.
And again RE:UC was coming after RE4, people REALLY like that other RE game and expected more with RE:UC.
I mean, are people really surprised that Rare games sell like shit after Kameo and perfect dark Zero despite Conker and former glory?

When people see Darkside they see Umbrella Chronicle first, after being burnt once they won't get caught again.
Making the chronicles games rail shooters was a mistake for long term but a reasonable decision for short term gains.

In short NOBODY wants a Resident Evil rail shooter instead of a proper experience.
And Capcom hurt a lot of their consumers' goodwill with Chop till you drop whose only claim to fame was 'using the engine of resident evil4' effectively taking the consumer for a moron.

 

[Dragmire]

have you missed out on the whole DQ X, Last Story, Xenoblade announcement thing..?

and there are games like Monster Hunter 3, Tales of graces, Arc Rise Fantasia and Fire Emblem or Zelda..

I think you missed my point. Those games will probably be fantastic and some have a lot of sales potential, but I was talking about what the business model for big selling core games is in the US. I didn't specify the US market, but that's what I meant. None of those games are western, nor do they fit the model, but for other reasons some of them have great sales potential. You can have success outside the model. Dragon Quest X will sell, at least in Japan, because it's a 'genre king' (aka it will sell on name alone whether it falls in line with current market demands or not). Some of those others have potential too, like anything published by Nintendo. But in the US, even if they're successful, they would be standouts that don't really fall in line with the US business model.

As I mentioned, Bioware style RPG-type games, Fallout 3 type open world games with massive quests and campaigns, FPSs like Bioshock with looting and highly produced narratives, online gaming like Left 4 Dead... that's the business model for big core selling games in the US, and the Wii may never see a single game following that model in its entire life. And that is mind-boggling and shows the incompetence of publishers. Forget business school, these people need to go back to grade school.

 

[farnham]

I don't the why for any other regions, but I can tell you that RE:UC was heavily marketed compared to Darkside Chronicle and also :
Heavy discount! 6 months after release it was selling at a 3rd of its asking price.
And again RE:UC was coming after RE4, people REALLY like that other RE game and expected more with RE:UC.
I mean, are people really surprised that Rare games sell like shit after Kameo and perfect dark Zero despite Conker and former glory?

When people see Darkside they see Umbrella Chronicle first, after being burnt once they won't get caught again.
Making the chronicles games rail shooters was a mistake for long term but a reasonable decision for short term gains.

In short NOBODY wants a Resident Evil rail shooter instead of a proper experience.
And Capcom hurt a lot of their consumers' goodwill with Chop till you drop whose only claim to fame was 'using the engine of resident evil4' effectively taking the consumer for a moron.

oh well the chronicles series are great fanservice.. the funny thing is that its on the console that doesnt have the main new RE game.

I think you missed my point. Those games will probably be fantastic and some have a lot of sales potential, but I was talking about what the business model for big selling core games is in the US. I didn't specify the US market, but that's what I meant. None of those games are western, nor do they fit the model, but for other reasons some of them have great sales potential. You can have success outside the model. Dragon Quest X will sell, at least in Japan, because it's a 'genre king' (aka it will sell on name alone whether it falls in line with current market demands or not). Some of those others have potential too, like anything published by Nintendo. But in the US, even if they're successful, they would be standouts that don't really fall in line with the US business model.

As I mentioned, Bioware style RPG-type games, Fallout 3 type open world games with massive quests and campaigns, FPSs like Bioshock with looting and highly produced narratives, online gaming like Left 4 Dead... that's the business model for big core selling games in the US and the Wii may never see a single game following that model in its entire life. And that is mind-boggling and shows the incompetence of publishers. Forget business school, these people need to go back to grade school.

i was pointing to this

Nintendo published falls in the line within the successful US business model

but anyway i agree with you

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Boy oh boy I wish I could complain about THQ's treatment of the Wii but I'm too busy having the next Red Faction and Saint's Row to look forward to.

 

[hellclerk]

Boy oh boy I wish I could complain about THQ's treatment of the Wii but I'm too busy having the next Red Faction and Saint's Row to look forward to.

You can do both you know. I for one am very interested in Metro 2033.

 

[squicken]

Sorry, but it's just kind of tragic that third parties in this industry so sorely lack business sense. No other entertainment industry quite has this kind of incompetence. There is demand for core Wii games, however small people think that demand is, and gamers have a right to complain when their needs aren't met.

Wii gets, at best, PS2 era core games like Silent Hill that aren't selling on any platform (was that series even selling in the PS2 era?). Current standards for core games have deeper, RPG-like gameplay, massive campaigns with side-quests, online, co-op, achievements, stuff like that. Think Bioware, Fallout 3, Bioshock. It amazes me that Wii, the fastest selling system ever, will never see a single game like this in its entire life. And of course, if it does, it won't be given to a good dev or supported by the publisher. That's absolutely amazing in the worst way.

There isn't this vast amount of lost sales for Bioshock because it never got a Wii port, or wasn't targeted for Wii. People who want those kind of games know where to find them. People who are interested in Dead Rising know the Wii version is the gimped version.

I'm sure there are some people who want a Bioshock Wii, but there aren't enough to justify the port.

 

[farnham]

There isn't this vast amount of lost sales for Bioshock because it never got a Wii port, or wasn't targeted for Wii. People who want those kind of games know where to find them. People who are interested in Dead Rising know the Wii version is the gimped version.

I'm sure there are some people who want a Bioshock Wii, but there aren't enough to justify the port.

bio shock made it to the iphone for gods sake..

and why make a gimped version.. if you try to make a competent version like with call of duty 5 or 4 reflex.. you will get at least decent sales..

 

[Bizzyb]

I just realized something.

3rd party Pubs and Devs must take the Wii audience for a completely uninformed, and lower standard accepting group of people. Basically they think the average wii consumer is stupid and will buy anything as long as it has brand recognition or has "cool concepts"

For instance

- Anything with Resident Evil in it should sell bucket loads despit it being a major departure from the previous games.

-As someone else pointed out, Dead Rising should have sold because "It used the RE4 engine!" ("cool concept")

- Spyborgs - good graphics, but basic, repetitive uninspired gameplay, but it had a cool concept tho! right marketing research guys!??

- Play as a spider or Scorpion! ("cool concept") How could this NOT sell? Who needs advertising with a concept like this??

- Silent Hill - it's Silent Hill guys, c'mon remember that?? buy it, ok? *ZERO Marketing*

- Dead Space *I'm not even going into this. I guess EA thought DS was a real, strong brand, oh and people want to use their Wiimote to shoot things. Again ZERO Marketing*

Now, please tell me, how many of these games would have EVER been green lighted on 360/PS3? Yes, including the rail shooters. Or in Dead Rising's case in the condition it was released on Wii? Devs know that they cannot get away with such low quality products or ridiculously flawed "cool concepts" because the audience knows better and would not buy the game, especially with little to no marketing.

So why is it they feel they can "get away with it on Wii"? Because there is also a "casual" audience?? Does casual, to them, equate to stupid, uninformed, lowered standard audience? Because looking back at their releases I definitely think that that is exactly how they see the Wii audience.

Also, notice how when a game bombs on 360/PS3 the blame gets put on the Developer or Publisher for not making a good game that the audience would have liked, but when one of these ridiculous games (or a good game with NO marketing) bombs on Wii it is obviously the consumers fault because the game was obviously overflowing with such awesomeness (too much for the PS3/360) and high level polishing and awesomely cool concepts that there's NO WAY the consumer could not buy it in droves, even without advertising! Besides with a 50+ mil install base how can there NOT be enough people to buy their substandard Sub PS2/GC level games? and with an instal base like that who needs advertising when word of mouth is the best [cheapest] advertising of them all!?

It's double standards at it's worst and It makes me sick that they still don't get why Nintendo games sell and their don't. Or maybe they do but feel it's ultimately easier to just blame consumers for being Nintendo biased...

 

[farnham]

I just realized something.

3rd party Pubs and Devs must take the Wii audience for a completely uninformed, and lower standard accepting group of people. Basically they think the average wii consumer is stupid and will buy anything as long as it has brand recognition or has "cool concepts"

yet they dont have anything of that

and thats why they fail

That was my point, these guys take "cool concepts" (sometimes with strong brand names, i.e. RE) that would NEVER fly on 360/PS3 but somehow the Wii audience is supposed to lap it up and beg for seconds. you read my examples, right?

Yup I know.. i was agreeing with your post

 

[Bizzyb]

yet they dont have anything of that

and thats why they fail

That was my point, these guys take "cool concepts" (sometimes with strong brand names, i.e. RE) that would NEVER fly on 360/PS3 but somehow the Wii audience is supposed to lap it up and beg for seconds. you read my examples, right?

edit: ok wasn't sure. wonder if I should make a thread on this, just to see what the others think about this train of thought by devs and pubs...

 

[TunaLover]

Well, to be fair Nintendo was actively behind MH3, DQX, Fatal Frame 4. I really think that Nintendo has been pretty weak to chase big western franchise, or try building strong relationships here, maybe it's not its fort after all, and relay it on NoA is practically useless. The thing is that the whole weight of Nintendo as company is in Japan, transfer it to western side is not an easy task.

 

[BattleMonkey]

which are ridiculous for a rail shooter in the first place.. look at other platforms.. how much did time crisis sell on PS3.. (which is the biggest lightgun game on the HD consoles i believe)

Time Crisis on PS3 is such an awful example people love to keep bringing up. The franchise itself has never been a massive seller and generally had low key success. Toss in that people were forced to pay an extra premium for the game since it only came bundled and it cost more than any past light gun bundle, and you also couldn't even buy a 2nd gun by itself.

The game was horribly handled and had no chance of success.

 

[Messi]

Now that I think about it, is it not a little soon for us to be hearing about saints row 3?

 

[Dynoro]

Now that I think about it, is it not a little soon for us to be hearing about saints row 3?

Well its been a year and a half since release - say another 6 months (or early FY2011 as said in the financials iirc) then I don't think it is too early. Plus I can't wait to get more Saints goodness

 

[farnham]

Well, to be fair Nintendo was actively behind MH3, DQX, Fatal Frame 4. I really think that Nintendo has been pretty weak to chase big western franchise, or try building strong relationships here, maybe it's not its fort after all, and relay it on NoA is practically useless. The thing is that the whole weight of Nintendo as company is in Japan, transfer it to western side is not an easy task.

well

they made relationships with kuju, monster games and next level games..

 

[Chris Remo]

THQ is pretty much synonymous with mediocrity, so you really shouldn't care one way or another about what platform they support with what games. Unless of course you are an investor, but then I'll have to ask, if you've followed THQ's financials, why are you an investor. Seriously they make Take-Two look well managed. They stand out on GAF because they provide decent PC games beyond the Valve/Blizzard/PopCap trifecta. Even their decent console titles like SR and Darksiders aren't exactly classics that will be remember for years to come or lighting up sales charts. They tend to be short lived on shelves and in mind share.

Give me a break. They've released plenty of truly great PC games. You're saying I "shouldn't care one way or another" about that, because you've declared them to be "pretty much synonymous with mediocrity"?

They've released a lot of games I like. They're about to release two more games I want to buy in the next few weeks, Chaos Rising and Metro 2033. Are you saying I shouldn't care about those? Or I should care about those, but not about their other games I don't care about? Because that's already true for every publisher.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Did publishers make mistakes? Did Nintendo make mistakes? Should Dead Space Extraction have bombed? Are THQ nuts when they say there's a missing core audience on the Wii? Was Deadly Creatures any good? Are big HD bombs like Dark Void going to put companies out of business?

These questions are really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. All the discussion of platform strategy is interesting, but when it comes down to it most people here--especially in threads that are more about software support than about sales--are talking because they want to play games. The only question that matters from a gaming perspective is "Will I get games I want for my Wii?".

Here's a list of announced third party games for the Wii (exclusive or multi with Wii lead, excluding shovelware compilations):

1. Arc Rise Fantasia. Ignition - Status: Announced June 2008, released in Japan June 2009.
2. Calling - Hudson Status: Announced July 2009, released in Japan November 2009.
3. Disney's Epic Mickey. Disney - Status: Announced October 2009.
4. Dragon Quest X. Square Enix - Status: Paper announcement December 2008.
5. EA Sports Active *. EA Sports - Status: Announced in fiscal year plans, but this franchise is likely going multiplatform.
6. Flip's Twisted World. Majesco - Status: Announced E3 2009.
7. Fragile Dreams: Farewell Ruins of the Moon. XSeed - Status: Announced 2008, released January 2009 in Japan.
8. Lord of the Rings: Aragorn's Quest. Warner Bros - Status: Multiplat, announced E3 2009.
9. Lost in Shadow. Hudson - Status: Announced August 2009.
10. Monster Hunter Tri. Capcom - Status: Announced October 2007, released August 2009 in Japan.
11. NBA Jam. EA Sports - Status: Announced January 2010.
12. Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands. Ubisoft - Status: I include this multiplatform title.
13. Red Steel 2. Ubisoft - Status: Announced Mid-2008 although had been almost completed before this and rebooted entirely.
14. Rock of the Dead. Conspiracy Entertainment - Status: Announced February 2010.
15. Samurai Warriors 3. Koei - Status: Not announced for localization.
16. Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love. Nippon Ichi - Status: Multiplat, Released in Japan 2005, announced for localization in July 2009.
17. Super Monkey Ball Step and Roll. Sega - Status: Announced September 2009.
18. Tales of Graces. Namco - Status: Not likely to be localized.
19. Taiko Drum Master. Namco - Status: Not likely to be localized.
20. Tournament of Legends. Sega - Status: Announced E3 2009, reannounced February 2010.
21. TrackMania Wii. US Publisher Not Announced - Status: Announced June 2009.
22. Trauma Team. Atlus - Status: Announced May 2009

That's the lay of the land right now. That's literally everything that's announced and not released. We have release schedules, commentary, and localization options for most major publishers for the next year or so. E3 will of course bring new announcements, and I'm sure there'll be some great ones, especially underdog niche gems, but the balance of power is locked in at this point.

Eventually there comes a time where it doesn't make sense for every single thread where a publisher basically says they're not putting core games on the Wii to have ten pages of arguing about whether or not the Wii has a core gaming audience. Having the same argument three times a week every week with no new data or insight for more than a year is insanity.

We're certainly past the half-way mark in the generation at this point. The Wii has lead the whole way. Any pattern that is going to emerge has emerged. If you're happy with what you're getting on the Wii, awesome. If you're not, that's awesome too but keep in mind that the situation isn't going to change at this point.

 

[Drinking Hatorade]

THQ has my respect after releasing Saints Row and Red Faction and I expect to be impressed at E3 by what they have.

I'm also looking forward to that Metro game.

 

[FoeHammer]

It will be great to see the new Saint's Row; I wasn't a huge fan of the first one, but number 2 blew me away. The fun factor alone would put in among the best games of the generation for me. I hope they bring back the co-op and maybe even expand it a la Crackdown 2.

 

[Chris Remo]

Eventually there comes a time where it doesn't make sense for every single thread where a publisher basically says they're not putting core games on the Wii to have ten pages of arguing about whether or not the Wii has a core gaming audience. Having the same argument three times a week every week with no new data or insight for more than a year is insanity.

We're certainly past the half-way mark in the generation at this point. The Wii has lead the whole way. Any pattern that is going to emerge has emerged. If you're happy with what you're getting on the Wii, awesome. If you're not, that's awesome too but keep in mind that the situation isn't going to change at this point.

God, yes.

I'm so tired of this same routine every time. Maybe in some alternative universe every indignant Gaffer has his own well-funded publisher where he's figured out how to successfully develop and market a glorious cornucopia of hardcore games for the Wii, but in the real world, whether it's right or wrong, or possible or impossible, it's just not a machine that's going to get that kind of support on a broad scale from third parties.

And at this point, what difference does it make? I was a big advocate of the Wii early on. The system didn't end up going the way I wanted it to or maybe thought it might, but at this point that's been clear for a long time, and I'm certainly not exploding with rage at every executive who seems to come to the same conclusion as the other executives. If core games are that important to you, just play them on another system, and if the Wii is that important to you, play the type of games that get released to the Wii. Do one of those things, or do both of those things.

 

[AceBandage]

God, yes.

I'm so tired of this same routine every time. Maybe in some alternative universe every indignant Gaffer has his own well-funded publisher where he's figured out how to successfully develop and market a glorious cornucopia of hardcore games for the Wii, but in the real world, whether it's right or wrong, or possible or impossible, it's just not a machine that's going to get that kind of support on a broad scale from third parties.

And at this point, what difference does it make? I was a big advocate of the Wii early on. The system didn't end up going the way I wanted it to or maybe thought it might, but at this point that's been clear for a long time, and I'm certainly not exploding with rage at every executive who seems to come to the same conclusion as the other executives. If core games are that important to you, just play them on another system, and if the Wii is that important to you, play the type of games that get released to the Wii. Do one of those things, or do both of those things.

The thing is, it's not really about wanting things to change anymore, since by this point anyone that wasn't happy with the Wii would have moved on.
It's more about the sheer arrogance and stupidity of these companies.

 

[EDarkness]

God, yes.

I'm so tired of this same routine every time. Maybe in some alternative universe every indignant Gaffer has his own well-funded publisher where he's figured out how to successfully develop and market a glorious cornucopia of hardcore games for the Wii, but in the real world, whether it's right or wrong, or possible or impossible, it's just not a machine that's going to get that kind of support on a broad scale from third parties.

And at this point, what difference does it make? I was a big advocate of the Wii early on. The system didn't end up going the way I wanted it to or maybe thought it might, but at this point that's been clear for a long time, and I'm certainly not exploding with rage at every executive who seems to come to the same conclusion as the other executives. If core games are that important to you, just play them on another system, and if the Wii is that important to you, play the type of games that get released to the Wii. Do one of those things, or do both of those things.

I don't think it would have even mattered to be honest. If the Wii was more powerful, I doubt it would be getting games. What this THQ guy says pretty much says it all. Wii is for casuals and kids, and that's what they said about the Gamecube...and the N64.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The thing is, it's not really about wanting things to change anymore, since by this point anyone that wasn't happy with the Wii would have moved on.
It's more about the sheer arrogance and stupidity of these companies.

If they're arrogant and stupid in this thread, then they were arrogant and stupid in the last thread on this subject
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that

At this point, why aren't people literally copying and pasting their exact posts or just changing their avatars to "EA SUCKS" "THQ SUCKS" "FUCK ACTIVISION"? There's been no new input or material or evidence in a long time, at least since last fall, and there's not likely to be any new input or material or evidence for the next forseeable future. Will the conversation in July 2010 be any different than the conversation in February 2010?

 

[Doorman]

Well, good for THQ if they have a business model that's going to work for them. From a business perspective I can't really fault them for taking the popular direction of "core games to HD, casual kiddie stuff to Wii." But as a Wii owner, the announcement still comes as disappointing and mildly annoying.

Interesting to me how the original interview question mentions both de Blob and Deadly Creatures, but then goes on to make the focus about why DC didn't sell and what that says about the market. You couldn't have created more of a leading question if you were a prosecutor in the Phoenix Wright games. Instead of talking about why Deadly Creatures failed, why not get the guy to talk about what made de Blob a success? Why not explain that there IS a market, and it just needs to be targeted properly? I've seen plenty of commercials for Darksiders that show what sort of game it is (lots of action, weaponry, gods and demons battling), and it all falls within established bullet points of what the successful games on those systems have. Darksiders is a new IP but was marketed heavily, and as a very familiar experience. Deadly Creatures was a very different experience, possibly not even a very well-constructed one given the metacritic score, and it received no marketing to help people understand the concept. Was there ever any question about which one would perform and which one wouldn't?

If Nintendo is to be blamed for any of it, I would say that back in the early days of the Wii, there was a lot of talk going around about how "concept is king," and the thinking that Wii would be a hotbed for new game ideas. Well, that has been partially the case, but most companies have apparently made the assumption that a creative concept will guarantee sales, but the reality is they still have to do the same things that have always made games successful. They still need to be well-produced and well-marketed, especially in the case of new IPs. Hype and consumer perception are huge factors.

EDIT: And I am very much aware of the pointlessness and repetition of all of this. And yet every time something like this comes up, it still feels tremendously disappointing. Every system has its gripes, this just happens to be the great white whale when it comes to Wii owners.

 

[schuelma]

I don't think it would have even mattered to be honest. If the Wii was more powerful, I doubt it would be getting games. What this THQ guy says pretty much says it all. Wii is for casuals and kids, and that's what they said about the Gamecube...and the N64.

I really really doubt this is true. If the Wii had similiar specs and a similiar online infrastructure at the start, I am 99% sure that publishers would have ported every single HD big budget game to the Wii starting in 2007. Even if the developers resisted, the pubs would have found another company to do the port.

The Wii's specs had the effect of making 3rd parties choose one or the other- if Wii was essentially the same system they would not have had to make that choice. I buy that there is a "Nintendo am kiddy" vibe from a lot of Western developers..but I don't think that would have mattered in my hypothetical scenario because the executives would have seen how much the Wii was selling, would see how cheap a port could be delivered, and gave the go ahead.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Did publishers make mistakes? Did Nintendo make mistakes? Should Dead Space Extraction have bombed? Are THQ nuts when they say there's a missing core audience on the Wii? Was Deadly Creatures any good? Are big HD bombs like Dark Void going to put companies out of business?

These questions are really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. All the discussion of platform strategy is interesting, but when it comes down to it most people here--especially in threads that are more about software support than about sales--are talking because they want to play games. The only question that matters from a gaming perspective is "Will I get games I want for my Wii?".

Here's a list of announced third party games for the Wii (exclusive or multi with Wii lead, excluding shovelware compilations):

1. Arc Rise Fantasia. Ignition - Status: Announced June 2008, released in Japan June 2009.
2. Calling - Hudson Status: Announced July 2009, released in Japan November 2009.
3. Disney's Epic Mickey. Disney - Status: Announced October 2009.
4. Dragon Quest X. Square Enix - Status: Paper announcement December 2008.
5. EA Sports Active *. EA Sports - Status: Announced in fiscal year plans, but this franchise is likely going multiplatform.
6. Flip's Twisted World. Majesco - Status: Announced E3 2009.
7. Fragile Dreams: Farewell Ruins of the Moon. XSeed - Status: Announced 2008, released January 2009 in Japan.
8. Lord of the Rings: Aragorn's Quest. Warner Bros - Status: Multiplat, announced E3 2009.
9. Lost in Shadow. Hudson - Status: Announced August 2009.
10. Monster Hunter Tri. Capcom - Status: Announced October 2007, released August 2009 in Japan.
11. NBA Jam. EA Sports - Status: Announced January 2010.
12. Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands. Ubisoft - Status: I include this multiplatform title.
13. Red Steel 2. Ubisoft - Status: Announced Mid-2008 although had been almost completed before this and rebooted entirely.
14. Rock of the Dead. Conspiracy Entertainment - Status: Announced February 2010.
15. Samurai Warriors 3. Koei - Status: Not announced for localization.
16. Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love. Nippon Ichi - Status: Multiplat, Released in Japan 2005, announced for localization in July 2009.
17. Super Monkey Ball Step and Roll. Sega - Status: Announced September 2009.
18. Tales of Graces. Namco - Status: Not likely to be localized.
19. Taiko Drum Master. Namco - Status: Not likely to be localized.
20. Tournament of Legends. Sega - Status: Announced E3 2009, reannounced February 2010.
21. TrackMania Wii. US Publisher Not Announced - Status: Announced June 2009.
22. Trauma Team. Atlus - Status: Announced May 2009

That's the lay of the land right now. That's literally everything that's announced and not released. We have release schedules, commentary, and localization options for most major publishers for the next year or so. E3 will of course bring new announcements, and I'm sure there'll be some great ones, especially underdog niche gems, but the balance of power is locked in at this point.

Eventually there comes a time where it doesn't make sense for every single thread where a publisher basically says they're not putting core games on the Wii to have ten pages of arguing about whether or not the Wii has a core gaming audience. Having the same argument three times a week every week with no new data or insight for more than a year is insanity.

We're certainly past the half-way mark in the generation at this point. The Wii has lead the whole way. Any pattern that is going to emerge has emerged. If you're happy with what you're getting on the Wii, awesome. If you're not, that's awesome too but keep in mind that the situation isn't going to change at this point.

*claps*

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

Eventually there comes a time where it doesn't make sense for every single thread where a publisher basically says they're not putting core games on the Wii to have ten pages of arguing about whether or not the Wii has a core gaming audience. Having the same argument three times a week every week with no new data or insight for more than a year is insanity.

We're certainly past the half-way mark in the generation at this point. The Wii has lead the whole way. Any pattern that is going to emerge has emerged. If you're happy with what you're getting on the Wii, awesome. If you're not, that's awesome too but keep in mind that the situation isn't going to change at this point.

Thank you for saying what needed to be said.

This is an argument that's gone around a million times and at this point it's really just a drag on the dialogue. Meltdowns never do any good, but the same meltdown over and over again is hard to take. I tend toward thinking that most of the blame lies on the publishers (but honestly, if they can make money doing what they do, then I don't care if they're exclusive to the fucking Gizmondo), but really, at some point blame becomes irrelevant and just completely uninteresting to talk about. We're long past that point. Arguing over who pissed in the pool is not going to drain the water.

 

[AceBandage]

I really really doubt this is true. If the Wii had similiar specs and a similiar online infrastructure at the start, I am 99% sure that publishers would have ported every single HD big budget game to the Wii starting in 2007. Even if the developers resisted, the pubs would have found another company to do the port.

The Wii's specs had the effect of making 3rd parties choose one or the other- if Wii was essentially the same system they would not have had to make that choice. I buy that there is a "Nintendo am kiddy" vibe from a lot of Western developers..but I don't think that would have mattered in my hypothetical scenario because the executives would have seen how much the Wii was selling, would see how cheap a port could be delivered, and gave the go ahead.

Except that the Gamecube got shafted on a lot of multiplatform games (like Black) just because of the perception of its audience, and not it's power.
They would have treated the Wii exactly the same.

 

[Agnates]

Why not ignore these threads? No, you had to post about how tired of seeing the same shit over and over you are. And the people posting "against" such statements are mainly saying they're tired of seeing the same shit statements from publishers that have no evidence to back them up with. I fail to see the problem, but keep it up mister...

 

[BattleMonkey]

Except that the Gamecube got shafted on a lot of multiplatform games (like Black) just because of the perception of its audience, and not it's power.
They would have treated the Wii exactly the same.

At the time of Black's release, things were pretty far along for all the systems. Developers knew where there customer base was.

Why not ignore these threads? No, you had to post about how tired of seeing the same shit over and over you are. And the people posting "against" such statements are mainly saying they're tired of seeing the same shit statements from publishers that have no evidence to back them up with. I fail to see the problem, but keep it up mister...

Yes cause random gaffers are smarter and know more than actual publishers do.

 

[hellclerk]

If they're arrogant and stupid in this thread, then they were arrogant and stupid in the last thread on this subject
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that
and the thread before that

At this point, why aren't people literally copying and pasting their exact posts or just changing their avatars to "EA SUCKS" "THQ SUCKS" "FUCK ACTIVISION"? There's been no new input or material or evidence in a long time, at least since last fall, and there's not likely to be any new input or material or evidence for the next forseeable future. Will the conversation in July 2010 be any different than the conversation in February 2010?

Well, if the data hasn't changed, then why haven't 3rd party publishers noticed the discrepancies? Why have they continued to spout the same lines we know are total bullshit? I mean, no one here expects 3rd parties to outright say they were wrong, but why don't they just shut up about it? It's their blatant disregard for reason and logic that drive us to post. It spreads misinformation and falsehoods, and that cannot be tolerated, especially on a board so vested in the positive welfare of the games industry. It would be akin to saying "PS3 has no games" and "LOL TRU HD". they're all false, so we likewise snap back to correct it. The problem is that these executives aren't learning from their mistake, they're blaming the consumer for them. They're blaming ME. That's not what a good business does, and I'll be damned before I take blame for Low Budget Wii Game X not selling well. It's not the outcome, it's the principle of the matter.

 

[schuelma]

Except that the Gamecube got shafted on a lot of multiplatform games (like Black) just because of the perception of its audience, and not it's power.
They would have treated the Wii exactly the same.

You don't think the Gamecube's selling power had anything to do with that? I agree that there is a perception problem with Nintendo hardware, but in the Wii's case the absolute numbers would have spoken louder than anything.

 

[Chris Remo]

Why not ignore these threads? No, you had to post about how tired of seeing the same shit over and over you are. And the people posting "against" such statements are mainly saying they're tired of seeing the same shit statements from publishers that have no evidence to back them up with. I fail to see the problem, but keep it up mister...

So, what you're saying is, you genuinely enjoy the constantly rehashing of the same argument and again? Well, unlike core game publishers looking for Wii success, this thread has found its audience.

 

[schuelma]

Yes cause random gaffers are smarter and know more than actual publishers do.

I *really* hate this argument- its akin to telling sports fans they can never criticize coaches. Nintendo has been overwhelmingly successful this generation..does that mean they are beyond criticism? Should we accept that 599 was a good idea from Sony because afterall, none of us ever launched videogame hardware?

Now, I do think when you almost every major publisher saying something you have to take notice. But I don't like blanket dismissals of criticism because we aren't gaming execs.

 

[velvet_nitemare]

So, what you're saying is, you genuinely enjoy the constantly rehashing of the same argument and again? Well, unlike core game publishers looking for Wii success, this thread has found its audience.

:lol

 

[Agnates]

Yes cause random gaffers are smarter and know more than actual publishers do.

Do you really wanna start this discussion again, average gaffer? Third parties are hardly doing healthy business this generation, so yes, maybe they should listen to gaf more than make such clear cut statements with questionable evidence (lulz, Deadly Creaturez didn't sell much, we'll not do core on Wii).

So, what you're saying is, you genuinely enjoy the constantly rehashing of the same argument and again? Well, unlike core game publishers looking for Wii success, this thread has found its audience.

Your reading comprehension is lacking to say the least :lol

 

[AceBandage]

Well, if the data hasn't changed, then why haven't 3rd party publishers noticed the discrepancies? Why have they continued to spout the same lines we know are total bullshit? I mean, no one here expects 3rd parties to outright say they were wrong, but why don't they just shut up about it? It's their blatant disregard for reason and logic that drive us to post. It spreads misinformation and falsehoods, and that cannot be tolerated, especially on a board so vested in the positive welfare of the games industry. It would be akin to saying "PS3 has no games" and "LOL TRU HD". they're all false, so we likewise snap back to correct it. The problem is that these executives aren't learning from their mistake, they're blaming the consumer for them. They're blaming ME. That's not what a good business does, and I'll be damned before I take blame for Low Budget Wii Game X not selling well. It's not the outcome, it's the principle of the matter.

Bingo.

 

[avatar299]

The thing is, it's not really about wanting things to change anymore, since by this point anyone that wasn't happy with the Wii would have moved on.
It's more about the sheer arrogance and stupidity of these companies.

Pretty much.

Stump has a point, this topic is talked about a lot, but this is a discussion board. Why should this talk be banned or stopped? Should we kiss his ass instead? If you don't want to hear it, leave the thread.

 

[hellclerk]

Yes cause random gaffers are smarter and know more than actual publishers do.

Or even professional market analysts?

Just because they have the business card and the income doesn't mean that their insight in the matter is any better than a random gaffer. Now, they're better at managing their companies than I could ever hope to, but their business philosophy and directions are not consumer centric. It's just poor practice.

You don't think the Gamecube's selling power had anything to do with that? I agree that there is a perception problem with Nintendo hardware, but in the Wii's case the absolute numbers would have spoken louder than anything.

If I remember correctly, Gamecube numbers were comparable to Xbox and it wouldn't have taken a significant investment to port the PS2 version to the cube. The practice of leaving the GCN out started long before there was any significant difference between the it and the Xbox.