When the hell will nintendo meet demands

Really, I wonder if Nintendo is really all that worried about the demand. With the shortage of Wii's, the Wii actually feels like a newer system still to the general public, where the PS3 feels like it's been out awhile. Why would Nintendo hurry to change that, especially since everyone can get Wii's. Think about it, people get up at 4am to buy one 18ish months after launch. Could you imagine waking up at 4am now to buy a PS3, nope.

So, maybe they are working hard to correc this. My guess is that no one at Nintendo is losing sleep over the US Wii shortage.
 
[quote name='VGI-Shinobi']I think the real question you should be asking is "When the hell will Nintendo release more quality games for Wii?" Nintendo's Wii line up for 2008 is too weak. Besides only afew 1st party games, what other 3rd party games that look promising?[/quote]
Well, I personally can't wait for Deca Sports and We Ski, but that's probably not the "hardcore" stuff you're looking for. ;)

[quote name='VGI-Shinobi']Its game sale isn't stellar either.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that Wii software outsold XBox 360 software (in North America) in December 2007, and tied it in January 2008, right? And it's a no-brainer that Wii software outsells XBox 360 and PS3 software if you look at the worldwide view...

--R.J.
 
[quote name='rjung']
You do realize that Wii software outsold XBox 360 software (in North America) in December 2007, and tied it in January 2008, right? And it's a no-brainer that Wii software outsells XBox 360 and PS3 software if you look at the worldwide view...

--R.J.[/QUOTE]

There are more Wii's than 360's out there, so you have to look at attach rate ( games sold/console sold) to adjust for the different sized user bases. I have no idea what those are though.
 
[quote name='rjung']You do realize that Wii software outsold XBox 360 software (in North America) in December 2007, and tied it in January 2008, right? And it's a no-brainer that Wii software outsells XBox 360 and PS3 software if you look at the worldwide view...

--R.J.[/quote]
You do realize that the majority of people in Asia besides play Wii games bootlegged? That worldwide view is much smaller than you think. I know Wii is outselling Xbox 360 and PS3 console wise (easily understandable due to a huge difference in price, $250 compare to $400+) but last Sunday when I went to get my Wii, I realized that most people there were resellers. No wonder it's difficult for the average people to find a Wii in store. They're all up on eBay, Amazon, ect.

Also, if you look at the ratio between Wii games sold versus Wii console sold, then you will see that Wii owners are less likely to buy games than 360 owners. The Wii is currently a hot wanted item and everyone wants a Wii (myself included). My former HS teacher even bought a Wii out of curiousity, but can you guess how many games he's going to buy in a year?
 
[quote name='VGI-Shinobi']You do realize that the majority of people in Asia besides play Wii games bootlegged? That worldwide view is much smaller than you think. I know Wii is outselling Xbox 360 and PS3 console wise (easily understandable due to a huge difference in price, $250 compare to $400+) but last Sunday when I went to get my Wii, I realized that most people there were resellers. No wonder it's difficult for the average people to find a Wii in store. They're all up on eBay, Amazon, ect.[/QUOTE]

Source on the bootlegged games? Not saying it isnt possible (its very likely), but I wasnt aware that Wii games had been fabbed yet.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There are more Wii's than 360's out there, so you have to look at attach rate ( games sold/console sold) to adjust for the different sized user bases. I have no idea what those are though.[/QUOTE]
Attach rate is a meaningless statistic, and is used only as a desperation plea by fanboys. The XBox 360 has the highest attach rate in Japan, but nobody in their right mind would suggest that Japanese developers move all of their projects to the XBox 360.

The only statistic that matters in the end is how many units get sold.

[quote name='VGI-Shinobi']You do realize that the majority of people in Asia besides play Wii games bootlegged?[/quote]
Even assuming that's true, what's that got to do with anything? In terms of number of titles sold at retail, the Wii outsells the PS3 and XBox 360 worldwide, and is either approaching or tied with the XBox 360 in its strongest territory (North America). Piracy isn't even counted in these numbers.

[quote name='VGI-Shinobi']Also, if you look at the ratio between Wii games sold versus Wii console sold, then you will see that Wii owners are less likely to buy games than 360 owners.[/quote]
See above re: attach rates.

The simple truth is that Wii software sales (in North America) have been slowly creeping up to XBox 360 software sales since last fall (note that Microsoft's NPD PR statements stopped bragging about the number of games sold and focused on revenue instead), and got ahead in December due to the holiday shopping season. I don't know if Wii software sales will tie/exceed XBox 360 software sales for February, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Wii regularly sells more titles by the end of 2008.

--R.J.
 
The big three this gen are all lagging. Nintendo still can't make systems, Microsoft can't fix the RRoD and Sony lost all the ps2 momentum.
 
This might have been mentioned already, but:

Having a friend who works at GS/EB certainly helps...especially if they're a keyholder/manager, since they can see pending shipments. Who knows, maybe if you're cool with one of the employees, they'll hold one for you for a couple of hours. I have went out of my way and called regulars whenever we receive new shipments. I know this may sound unfair, but since I work at GS, I was able to buy my Wii yesterday when I opened the store in the morning. I guess there IS something good about working at GS, for once.
 
Walked into Best Buy 5 minutes after they opened just over a week ago and got one without a problem. They had started the day with about 50 and were down to 20 already, but still, much better than having to be in line at 4 am like it was a couple months ago.
 
[quote name='rjung']Attach rate is a meaningless statistic, and is used only as a desperation plea by fanboys. [/QUOTE]

In and all sales discussion is stupid fanboy bullshit IMO. I really don't care who sells how many. I just like to play good games and buy the console(s) that have the most good games I want to play.

Yes the Wii has sold more consoles, and sold more total games as a result. Doesn't seem to matter to third parties though since the big franchise AAA blockbuster games are still largely going to the 360 and/or PS3 (some on PC as well) and not coming to the Wii at all or getting a half assed port (see Call of Duty 3--4 didn't even get a port). They're more interested in making a quick buck with shovelware, casual games and half assed ports while putting their real games (like CoD4) on the HD systems with real online setups.

Point being, as a gamer that just likes to play games that interest me, I really couldn't care about total sales figures as it seems to have very little bearing on which console gets the most games I want to play.
 
I recommend doing two things:

Go to a retailer during the middle of the week around lunch time. That's when a shipment comes in and normally when I see it.

See what stores have it in their Sunday ad and wait in front of the store very early.
 
Whether it's supply/demand, eBay hoarders, Nintendo strategically keeping the 'carrot' just out of reach for the long-term effect of keeping the system coveted by the non-gamers, whatever the case may be, between their perpetual shortage, the 360's failure rate, the Format War, and Sony changing SKUs and stories (i.e. "BC is important...let's remove BC") every other month, this has quickly turned into the most absurd 'generation' I can remember.

But yeah, I still maintain that it's all three major factors coming into play for the Wii, so '08 is the same as '07 along those lines, too. I see no reason why '09 will be any different, either. Price drops and/or color changes equal another spike. It's going to take the next iteration or generation of the Wii to distract peoples' interest away from the current one.
 
I'm in Colorado and I've been seeing the Wii on a pretty regular basis at Best Buy, Target and Walmart over the past 2 months.

Granted, it is only 1-3 units at a time but before these past few months I never saw a Wii just sitting on a shelf at any store.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']In and all sales discussion is stupid fanboy bullshit IMO. I really don't care who sells how many. I just like to play good games and buy the console(s) that have the most good games I want to play.[/quote]Sure, but it's no secret that third-party developers put more titles and support behind the market leader, so it does affect you to some degree.

Outside of that, if discussions about sales and market positions upset you, then it's best to simply not read those messages/threads. There's certainly no shortage of other threads where we can all rave/complain/mock the latest Game Of the Week...

--R.J.
 
I think this is all being carefully orchestrated by Nintendo. They like to play their cards close to the chest. There are several things going on.

One, by keeping the supply fairly short, they're generating hype. If someone sees a Wii in a store, they're compelled to just buy it. If the supply were plentiful, people would put it off, saying that they could just go get one anytime they want.

Two, the short supply leads to an inflation in the price of used units. This doesn't benefit Nintendo directly, but rather indirectly. They don't get the extra cash, but the high used prices encourages people to buy new. The sale of used consoles doesn't make Nintendo any money, but selling new ones does. And if people are buying Wiis for the purpose of reselling them, Nintendo gets money from that too. The problem comes up when people are selling them after a few months because they simply don't want them anymore, but I don't think that happens much with the Wii.

Three, they're still making tons of them. I'm sure they could increase supply, but they're not. They're not really holding back so much as just not making more. They want to keep things how they are. If there are too many available, then they lose the aforementioned benefits of having a console that is in (somewhat) short supply. That also saves them money that they'd have to spend if they wanted to make more - not just the cost of making more, but the cost of the infrastructure necessary to increase their production capacity.

Remember, every single Wii that sits on a store shelf is ~$200+ that Nintendo spent without getting any money for it. That represents a lot of lost profit potential. Look at the PS3 and Xbox 360. There's a reason Nintendo is profitable and Sony and MS aren't (well, not with their consoles).
 
When is this stupid argument going to end already.

Why is it that people cannot understand that Nintendo has no reason to build/commision a new factory to produce more units, as that is not financially viable to their bottom line?

Say all you want and ignore the facts all you want, but dropping tens of millions on a new factory that might be useful for - I'd wager at best - 6 months is ludicrous. There's absolutely no reason for them to do it, and scores of crying idiots on the Internet doesn't change that.

I like how the first year of the Wii was nothing more than series of excuses about why the system was selling. Now it's still selling roughly 1.5 years later, and still all people can do is make up excuses and other conspiracy theories about how the "fad" is still going.

It's retarded that - at no time in all these discussions - does anyone actually give credit to the machine's staying power. Instead of actually focusing on why it is selling, everyone around here is too busy making up narrow minded excuses. Quit hiding behind this myth that the system is like Bigfoot. It takes a little footwork to get one, and anyone could nab one any given week with little effort.

Otherwise this whole discussion is just hot air being blown around.

Higher prices for used systems encourages people to buy new? That's a new one. I like how it conveniently dismisses the fact that people are buying brand new systems to resell them without ever opening the box. Think about that.
 
Quit hiding behind this myth that the system is like Bigfoot.

Ah, but Reggie created the "Bigfoot" when he was with Pizza Hut!

(Taps forehead knowingly.)
 
Sunday I was at Target and happened to see a bunch of Wii's in stock (yes, I know they were put out that day as well).

Moral of the story is, if you really want one and don't have one yet you aren't looking hard enough.
 
[quote name='Strell']When is this stupid argument going to end already.

Why is it that people cannot understand that Nintendo has no reason to build/commision a new factory to produce more units, as that is not financially viable to their bottom line?

Say all you want and ignore the facts all you want, but dropping tens of millions on a new factory that might be useful for - I'd wager at best - 6 months is ludicrous. There's absolutely no reason for them to do it, and scores of crying idiots on the Internet doesn't change that.

I like how the first year of the Wii was nothing more than series of excuses about why the system was selling. Now it's still selling roughly 1.5 years later, and still all people can do is make up excuses and other conspiracy theories about how the "fad" is still going.

It's retarded that - at no time in all these discussions - does anyone actually give credit to the machine's staying power. Instead of actually focusing on why it is selling, everyone around here is too busy making up narrow minded excuses. Quit hiding behind this myth that the system is like Bigfoot. It takes a little footwork to get one, and anyone could nab one any given week with little effort.

Otherwise this whole discussion is just hot air being blown around.

Higher prices for used systems encourages people to buy new? That's a new one. I like how it conveniently dismisses the fact that people are buying brand new systems to resell them without ever opening the box. Think about that.[/quote]

I thought you were responding to someone else's post until I read your last paragraph. Now I wonder if you understood what I was trying to say, because I think we're in perfect agreement.

I'm not saying that Nintendo is purposely holding back on demand. I mean, look at my post - it says, right there, " They're not really holding back so much as just not making more."

I probably should have phrased my first two paragraphs more clearly. What I was trying to say was that Nintendo was making exactly as many as they can make without having to spend lots of money on new infrastructure. The amount they're making isn't quite enough to meet demand, but it's close enough that it wouldn't make sense for them to build another factory or do whatever they'd need to do to ship more Wiis.

I probably should have also left out the bit about it being "carefully orchestrated." I doubt anyone at Nintendo said beforehand that short supplies would lead to inflated prices on the used market, which would lead to better sales of new units. It's just a theory on a possible effect (not a cause) of the Wii's success.

But the thing is, the demand is clearly saturated. There are no extra Wiis being made. Every single one they make, they sell, and they're making a lot. That's really, really good. Every company wants their products to sell that quickly! Investing lots of money in a big infrastructure overhaul would be dumb, like you said, because in a year or two demand might slow down as more and more people who want Wiis get them. I'm not saying they'll have trouble selling them, but the fact is that no matter how popular it is, demand will fall over time, and that money will have been wasted.

So yeah, I think we agree. Nintendo's doing great, they're not hoarding their own systems (which would be really stupid), and they're not increasing their production capacity (which would be almost as stupid, and would only help in the short term). The bottom line is, no matter how you look at things, Nintendo's making tons of money, so whatever they're doing, they're doing it right.
 
[quote name='rjung']Sure, but it's no secret that third-party developers put more titles and support behind the market leader, so it does affect you to some degree.
[/QUOTE]

Usually. It's not happening with the Wii thus far, and remains to be seen if it will.
For whatever reason, publishers seem to be shitting out shovelware, ports and casual games on the Wii for the most part while their AAA efforts are coming out on the other consoles.

Maybe it's that some developers like to push the graphics envelopes and have in depth online modes in their games (i.e. CoD4 by Infinity Ward only being on 360/PS3 while the crappy Treyarch developed CoD3 got a shoddy Wii port) seems to be keeping most of the AAA third party franchises on the 360/PS3 rather than the Wii despite the Wii having the market lead.

Being able to sell them for $60 instead of $50 may have something to do with it as well.
 
[quote name='astromanluca']What I was trying to say was that Nintendo was making exactly as many as they can make without having to spend lots of money on new infrastructure.[/quote]
Yes; this is called "good business."

Nobody -- not even Nintendo -- knows what the upper limit is on Wii demand at this point. They're currently selling around 1.8 million worldwide per month, but is the demand 3 million? 2.5 million? 1.9 million? What if Nintendo puts in the time and money to increase manufacturing to 2.5 million Wiis a month -- and then discover that the market reaches equilibrium at 1.9 million? Then they're stuck with an extra 600,000 Wiis a month, and anything they do in response (warehouse the surplus, decrease production, stuff the channel) costs more money. Product-line manufacturing is not like flipping an assembly-line switch from "Fast" to "Insanely fast"; everything takes time and money, and when you're the CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company, being cautious trumps placating internet fanboys any day.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Usually. It's not happening with the Wii thus far, and remains to be seen if it will.[/quote]
It is happening with the Wii, and I expect to see the fruits of these efforts around the end of 2008 and early 2009. This week alone Konami is releasing Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 for the Wii, a game that was built entirely from the ground up around the Wii's pointer control, and early reviews are saying it completely revolutionizes soccer video games.

As it stands now, though, the Wii is certainly not being ignored by developers (even if the popular misconception is otherwise). Wii versions of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Tomb Raider: Underworld, Sega Superstars Tennis, Call of Duty 5, and Ghostbusters are happening because ignoring the Wii is bad business. Original and exclusive titles like Deadly Creatures, De Blob, Mushroom Men, Samba Del Amigo, Battle of the Bands, Family Ski, Secret Files: Tunguska, Monster Lab, Fragile, and Boom Blox are coming because the Wii's low development costs and casual-friendly fanbase makes it more appealing for developers who don't want to fight in the meat grinder of high-priced FPS mania. And hardcore titles like Monster Hunter 3 and Fatal Frame 4 are just the beginning of the non-shovelware, non-casual Wii output. I'm not sure, but I believe the number of exclusive titles currently in development for the Wii currently outnumbers those for the XBox 360 -- but since they're not hardcore-oriented FPSes, they don't get much coverage from the likes of 1Up or IGN.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Being able to sell them for $60 instead of $50 may have something to do with it as well.[/quote]
Nah, they're only selling the games for $60 because the development costs are higher. It's no secret that a publisher sells more copies when a game costs less; why do you think Wii owners are buying software faster than XBox 360 owners? Those XBox 360 publishers wish they could sell their games for $30 or $40 -- but they can't, because they need to recoup their expenses from developing an HD game instead of an SD one.

--R.J.
 
[quote name='rjung'] I'm not sure, but I believe the number of exclusive titles currently in development for the Wii currently outnumbers those for the XBox 360 -- but since they're not hardcore-oriented FPSes, they don't get much coverage from the likes of 1Up or IGN.
.[/QUOTE]

Those are all fair points. I was mainly just staying that it's not getting the gigantic AAA blockbuster third party franchises like GTAIV, Soul Calibur IV, the big FPS games like you mention, western RPGs like Mass Effect and Oblivion and so forth.

It's getting shovelware, ports, casual games, lesser third party games (i.e. getting CoD3 and CoD5 made by treyarch, but not CoD4 by Infinity Ward), tired franchises like Tomb Raider, Star Wars games etc.

Yes, it's going to get a lot of innovative games as time goes on, but who knows if any of those will be AAA 1 million plus sellers.

So we may well have the unusual case this gen where the vast majority of the best selling 3rd party games are not on the system with the largest installed base.

At any rate, I'm definitely not regretting ditching the Wii and focusing on the 360 as it just has more of the type of games I love. All I really miss on the Wii is Nintendo's games, and I already played and loved Mario, Metroid and Zelda which are my 3 favorite of their franchises. And I kind of doubt any of those will get a sequel this gen other than maybe Zelda.

If they gain third party support and make their next console a graphics powerhouse with a good online setup I may jump back on their bandwagon. But if not, I'm probably done with them as the lack of HD graphics, online play and AAA third party games in the genre's I play the most has forced me to jump ship.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My bitching in the Wii forum is done with, as I'm pretty much done with the system and that forum and the asswipe fanboys that frequent it. [/quote]

Reminder: You are currently in the Wii forum.
 
Hardly, this is the only thread I've posted in here since ditching it. And this is discussing, not bitching. ;)

I just find this trend of grabbing market share but not getting the major AAA third party games (in terms of huge selling blockbusters) on the console an intersting contrast the the PS1 and PS2 which grabbed big leads and got all the big third party games.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hardly, this is the only thread I've posted in here since ditching it. And this is discussing, not bitching. ;)

I just find this trend of grabbing market share but not getting the major AAA third party games (in terms of huge selling blockbusters) on the console an intersting contrast the the PS1 and PS2 which grabbed big leads and got all the big third party games.[/QUOTE]

Disregarding the first part...

The PS1 grabbed big franchises because developers had no where else to go at that time. Sega was around, but they were so busy destroying themselves that a lot of the big companies didn't want to mess with them (Square and EA come to mind). This was the transition away from cartridges, and since Nintendo had already pissed off a good portion of them by promising a CD format and then dropping it like it was hot (again, think Square), the PS1 was the prime place to go. I imagine Sony enticed them with the promise of lower licensing costs and other benefits, as their focused laser of rage at Nintendo was burning brightly.

PS2 rode the coattails of its daddy, plain and simple. And frankly, a lot of companies still think that Sony is the one to go to, despite some harsh words from some of their execs and polls in various countries saying that lots of people think Sony is in trouble (which they aren't, they just bumbled their launch and first year with great flare, and were surviving until their big games start showing up).

The situation isn't 100% comparable. It somewhat is, but not quite.
 
No, its definitely the same tired bitching that you were doing back when you had the system, except now instead of talking about how you'll probably ditch it, you mention again and again that you have ditched it.

Most if not all of the major franchise games had already made their commitments to the HD platforms before the PS3 or Wii had launched. They are not in a position to go back and have pretty much made their bed.

Sony played it right in successfully selling to many developers the idea that PS3 was going to follow in the footsteps of the PS2.

Now not only are so much of their first-tier development resources tied up for YEARS, but they are locked into spending an exponentially greater amount of money.

Nintendo is GUARANTEED 3rd party support from Japanese developers on the grounds that at some point, someone is going to want to sell a home console game in Japan. What Western developers think is largely irrelevant to me.
 
[quote name='Strell']
PS2 rode the coattails of its daddy, plain and simple. And frankly, a lot of companies still think that Sony is the one to go to, despite some harsh words from some of their execs and polls in various countries saying that lots of people think Sony is in trouble (which they aren't, they just bumbled their launch and first year with great flare, and were surviving until their big games start showing up).

The situation isn't 100% comparable. It somewhat is, but not quite.[/QUOTE]

Those are fair points about Sony's success with third parties the past two gens. But neither really get at why the 360 is the lead sku for a lot of the big third party games. It explains why Sony still has games like MGS4 and FF13 as exclusives, but not why games are developed for the 360 first, ported to the PS3 and not showing up on the Wii at all in many cases even though it has the lead.


[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']No, its definitely the same tired bitching that you were doing back when you had the system, except now instead of talking about how you'll probably ditch it, you mention again and again that you have ditched it.
[/quote]

Again and again? This is the only thread I've posted in here since ditching it.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']
Most if not all of the major franchise games had already made their commitments to the HD platforms before the PS3 or Wii had launched. They are not in a position to go back and have pretty much made their bed.
[/quote]

I'd argue they are happy in that bed. Games like CoD4 look great, have robust online modes and have sold a shit ton of copies at $60. So Infinity Ward made the game they wanted--a shooter that pushed graphics envelopes and advances online FPS play and made a killing doing it.

Then you have Treyarch, who bastardizes the franchise every other year so Activision can have CoD as a yearly franchise who has no problem crapping out shitty games with shitty Wii ports like CoD3. And CoD5 will probably be just as bad.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']
Sony played it right in successfully selling to many developers the idea that PS3 was going to follow in the footsteps of the PS2.
[/quote]

Again, that doesn't explain why a lot/most of the big third party games are made with the 360 as the lead sku and don't come to the Wii at all. It just explains why they still have games like MGS4 and FF13 as exclusives despite having the smallest installed base.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']
Now not only are so much of their first-tier development resources tied up for YEARS, but they are locked into spending an exponentially greater amount of money. [/quote]

Costs will come down as time goes on. But quite frankly, that's the price of advancement. I'm fine getting a good CoD game every 2 or 3 years when it's as good as CoD2 and CoD4, for example. And the developers still make a killing on those games.

Sure it's tough for small art house developers, but I don't have much interest in games beyond the big AAA blockbusters anyway. Nor do most gamers--hence why the the blockbusters are selling multiple millions.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']
Nintendo is GUARANTEED 3rd party support from Japanese developers on the grounds that at some point, someone is going to want to sell a home console game in Japan. What Western developers think is largely irrelevant to me.[/QUOTE]

That's fair enough, as that just comes down to preference. What Japanese developers think it largely irrelevant to me.

But it also explains why the Wii isn't getting a lot of the big third party blockbusters--many of them are from Western developers who don't care much about the Japanese market.

But even with Japanese developers, they seem to be getting non-mainstream stuff like No More Heroes. Or getting spin offs like RE: Umbrella Chronicles rather than the main game like RE5.

So even with Japanese developers the Wii isn't getting the big AAA, popular in the US franchises thus far.

I just find it interesting that it has this marketshare lead, but isn't attracting the top selling franchises. Maybe it's just the Wii is for "casual gamers and grandmothers" stigma scaring them off. Maybe it's developers like Infinity Ward wanting to push HD graphics and online play deciding the Wii isn't a viable platform for their work. Maybe it's developers not wanting to compete with Nintendo first party games as many have whined that those are all that sell on Nintendo consoles. Maybe it's all of these and a host of other factors.

It's just an interesting trend IMO.
 
I already brought up at one point that I'm curious if other developers harbor resentment toward Nintendo for X reason (where X could be their totalitarian overlordship of the 80s/early 90s, the fact that their games are scary to compete against, the fact that they notoriously don't give proper instruction on how to program for their systems to achieve good graphics, poor licensing, etc etc). That could be a reason why it's not being the lead sku as well.

I personally don't buy this "casual" gamer stigma as much as the Internets would have me believe because it's nonsense and almost entirely without merit, but that's not really what I'm getting at right now. Saying "it's not powerful" in terms of raw power is a slightly better excuse, and I actually imagine developers are saying that in their PR realms more than anything else, since it can't really be considered a slight.

As for the 360 being the lead sku, part of that is because it's been out the longest, and thus companies can have spent the most time comfortably along with it. As for Western developers, I imagine the 360's development structure is largely based on existing C++/C#/DirectX standards, which makes it appealing to companies who are very familiar there (Epic comes to mind). The online capabilities are very appealing for lots of reasons.

They get ported to the PS3 because of high dev costs, and they don't start on the PS3 because that system is a bastard to develop for (since that's what multiple core multi-thread infrastructure will do to you).

The 360 - in all reality - is basically in the best position right now. It's successful, it'll continue to be successful with games that are appealing to the American core audience (which is the largest market), it's cheaper than the PS3, has more robust online, and some additional advantages to its name (Halo).

Whether or not any of that changes can't be said right now.
 
3/06 - Wii Forum
[quote name='dmaul1114']I really hope they didn't fuck this up! Even though I wouldn't buy it (even if I kept my Wii) I really wanted it to sell well on the Wii in hopes of getting a sequel down the road![/quote]

A few more if we include the Wii topics in the General Industry Subforum. You even shoehorn the comment into your more benign posts.
 
[quote name='Strell']I already brought up at one point that I'm curious if other developers harbor resentment toward Nintendo for X reason (where X could be their totalitarian overlordship of the 80s/early 90s, the fact that their games are scary to compete against, the fact that they notoriously don't give proper instruction on how to program for their systems to achieve good graphics, poor licensing, etc etc). That could be a reason why it's not being the lead sku as well.
[/quote]

That definitely could be a big part of it. Rec entment over the licensing fees on the cartridge consoles, and fear of competing with Mario, Metroid and Zelda as I noted above.


[quote name='Strell']
I personally don't buy this "casual" gamer stigma as much as the Internets would have me believe because it's nonsense and almost entirely without merit, but that's not really what I'm getting at right now.
[/quote]

I don't think it's a stigma per se. I think it's developers see they can shit out a game like Carnival Games, have it sell a million copies and make a killing that nets them more profit than if they develop say a full fledged FPS game with a robust online mode.

[quote name='Strell']
Saying "it's not powerful" in terms of raw power is a slightly better excuse, and I actually imagine developers are saying that in their PR realms more than anything else, since it can't really be considered a slight.
[/quote]

I don't think it's PR, some developers just like to push graphics envelopes. One of CoD4s biggest strengths is how realistic the graphics are. Same with Bioshock's graphics adding to the atmosphere which really makes the game. Those things just couldn't be accomplished on the Wii to the same extent, so that's going to keep away games where developers want to do such things that are dependent on having cutting edge graphics.

[quote name='Strell']
As for the 360 being the lead sku, part of that is because it's been out the longest, and thus companies can have spent the most time comfortably along with it. As for Western developers, I imagine the 360's development structure is largely based on existing C++/C#/DirectX standards, which makes it appealing to companies who are very familiar there (Epic comes to mind). The online capabilities are very appealing for lots of reasons.

They get ported to the PS3 because of high dev costs, and they don't start on the PS3 because that system is a bastard to develop for (since that's what multiple core multi-thread infrastructure will do to you).
[/quote]

Those are definitely good reasons. Time out, larger base, best online infrastructure, and being easier to develop for are all solid reasons.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']3/06 - Wii Forum


A few more if we include the Wii topics in the General Industry Subforum. You even shoehorn the comment into your more benign posts.[/QUOTE]

I don't consider that a bitching post. That was post hoping Okami turned out well and sold well so it would get a sequel.

But you really need to get a life if you spend that much time remembering what people post on a forum so you can look it up later. :roll:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I don't think it's a stigma per se. I think it's developers see they can shit out a game like Carnival Games, have it sell a million copies and make a killing that nets them more profit than if they develop say a full fledged FPS game with a robust online mode.
[/quote]

But that doesn't really explain the attitude. "We don't want to put games out that are casual." Yet at the same time they acknowledge this supposed "omfg, it looks like they made it one weekend and then sold a billion copies."

So on the one hand you claim to hate casual games, but on the other you are whining you aren't getting the cash?

Besides, you could just as easily make the claim that "if you build it, they will come." Granted, this is where the problem blurs, since that calls into question things like the lack of proper online, which is one less bullet point to entice customers, and thus one giant reason to not undergo development on a big game.

It's like how Conspiracy Games churns out goatshit on the system, but netted 5 million in sales last year, and proudly put out a press release saying that was some 2400% increase in sales over the previous year. It's just really hard for me to believe all this companies who walk around with big balls are so scared of taking a game onto a system overrun with Billy's Broomstick Racing and Ninjabreadman. I can just as easily make the claim that such is prime ground for awesome core games, since I'm fairly sure a quality game aimed at that crowd could net a million slaes easily.

There's just a disconnection there. I don't get why a company can say they are adamently avoiding the system with a big sales base, yet are pissed other companies are banking.

There's something in here about how little resources are netting big profits, but that's ... man, that's just too much for my headache riddled mind to look at right now.

I don't think it's PR, some developers just like to push graphics envelopes. One of CoD4s biggest strengths is how realistic the graphics are. Same with Bioshock's graphics adding to the atmosphere which really makes the game. Those things just couldn't be accomplished on the Wii to the same extent, so that's going to keep away games where developers want to do such things that are dependent on having cutting edge graphics.
Click to expand...

This is valid, but I just don't buy that the system couldn't push out something better-than-Xbox quality, which would be more than sufficient to send out an atmospheric game with good graphics.

I guess the problem I have is that every time I hear this sort of thing, I start wondering why they had no problem working on the system 5 years ago. It's just a more proper form of elitism to some degree, because I don't buy for a second that someone actually attempting to make something look nice on the Wii simply can't do it. Plus they'd do so at lower cost.

But that's starting to enter a big discussion.

As for the exchange with DMK, you have to understand that it doesn't take a lot of effort for someone to pull up you being kind of prick in here, dm. I imagine running a check on any post you've made in the Wii forum will net usable material in that argument.
 
[quote name='Strell']But that doesn't really explain the attitude. "We don't want to put games out that are casual." Yet at the same time they acknowledge this supposed "omfg, it looks like they made it one weekend and then sold a billion copies."

So on the one hand you claim to hate casual games, but on the other you are whining you aren't getting the cash?
[/quote]

This is mixing up developers and publishers. Notice I said some developers don't want to make casual games, may want to push graphics and online gaming etc.

For instance, to keep with my example, Infinity Ward probably has no desire to make casual games. They want to focus on making their CoD games the best they can be.

But Activision, who publishes their CoD games, has no problems shitting out shovelware to increase their profits, or hiring Treyarch to make a shitty CoD game every other year etc. And they probably use some of the cash they make off of their shit games to fund their more serious development teams like Infinity Ward.


[quote name='Strell']
There's just a disconnection there. I don't get why a company can say they are adamently avoiding the system with a big sales base, yet are pissed other companies are banking. [/quote]

That's the same issue. Some developers avoid it, but their publishers are cashing in with casual games, ports, shovelware etc.


[quote name='Strell']
This is valid, but I just don't buy that the system couldn't push out something better-than-Xbox quality, which would be more than sufficient to send out an atmospheric game with good graphics.[/quote]

I disagree. The best looking X-box games don't even approach the quality of stuff liek Gears of War, Bioshock, CoD4 etc. Yeah, you could still make a good, atmospheric game that looks ok. Metroid Prime 3 is a good example of this. But it's still not as good as being in full on HD with 360/PS3 caliber graphics.


[quote name='Strell']
I guess the problem I have is that every time I hear this sort of thing, I start wondering why they had no problem working on the system 5 years ago. I
[/quote]

That's just common sense. Developers who want to push cutting edge can only go as cutting edge as current technology allows. They were doing all they could on the PS2, GC and Xbox last gen, and now they're doing the same this gen.

We just heard less about it last gen as the gap in graphical capabilities between the 3 consoles was much less than the gap between the Wii and the PS3/360.

This gen, graphic capabilities can be a deciding factor for developers who want to do something like Bioshock or CoD4 as the Wii simply can't push those kind of graphics, can't do HD etc. etc.

[quote name='Strell']
As for the exchange with DMK, you have to understand that it doesn't take a lot of effort for someone to pull up you being kind of prick in here, dm. I imagine running a check on any post you've made in the Wii forum will net usable material in that argument.[/QUOTE]

I just think it's pathetic that he (and others) care what random people on the internet have to say about something as silly as game consoles. The Wii was a huge dissapointment to me as I've always been a huge Nintendo fan so I hate seeing them go off in a direction I don't like. So yeah, maybe I voice my lament about that fairly often.

But again, who the fuck cares? He can put me on ignore if he doesn't like it, or at least quit stalking my posts all over CAG if they offend him so much. Better yet, since he's so anti-HD, anti-online gaming, anti-anything related to tech advances in gaming, maybe he should just stay the fuck of the internet before he catches technology poisoning! :p
 
To be sympathetic to third-party developers, it's worth noting that while the Wii marketshare is obviously profitable, it was also (initially) a big unknown -- it's still not entirely clear what kind of games Wii owners want to buy, so it was unclear to third parties how they should tailor their offerings to court this market. That's largely why early third party Wii games tended to be copies of what Nintendo did, since it appeared that casual games like Wii Sports and Wii Play were moving the system, and aping Nintendo was the safe move.

And while that's true, it's also now becoming apparent that the core gamer contingent is healthy on the Wii as well: stuff like No More Heroes and Resident Evil show that Wii owners are not adverse to "mature" :roll: games, and Wii software sales show that it's possible to profit from both casual and core Wii owners. In that regard, the Wii market closely resembles the PS2 market; if you take the time and effort to properly develop and market your game -- regardless of genre -- it will (probably) sell well.

As I said before, though, since it takes anywhere from 18-30 months for a big-budget AAA title to go from conception to completion, I think we won't really see a sea change in third-party Wii titles until around the end of 2008 or early 2009. In the end, between the lower development costs, higher market share, and market viability, any company not looking at making a major effort on the Wii is just begging to become irrelevant in the future.

(In an unrelated sidebar, it's worth noting that this week Famitsu reported that Namco's Ace Combat team is developing Sky Crawlers for the Wii. I've also heard rumors that their Ridge Racer team worked on Family Ski. Is this a sign that Namco is planning to move more of their titles to the Wii?)

--R.J.
 
[quote name='rjung']To be sympathetic to third-party developers, it's worth noting that while the Wii marketshare is obviously profitable, it was also (initially) a big unknown -- it's still not entirely clear what kind of games Wii owners want to buy, so it was unclear to third parties how they should tailor their offerings to court this market. That's largely why early third party Wii games tended to be copies of what Nintendo did, since it appeared that casual games like Wii Sports and Wii Play were moving the system, and aping Nintendo was the safe move.

And while that's true, it's also now becoming apparent that the core gamer contingent is healthy on the Wii as well: stuff like No More Heroes and Resident Evil show that Wii owners are not adverse to "mature" :roll: games, and Wii software sales show that it's possible to profit from both casual and core Wii owners. In that regard, the Wii market closely resembles the PS2 market; if you take the time and effort to properly develop and market your game -- regardless of genre -- it will (probably) sell well.

As I said before, though, since it takes anywhere from 18-30 months for a big-budget AAA title to go from conception to completion, I think we won't really see a sea change in third-party Wii titles until around the end of 2008 or early 2009. In the end, between the lower development costs, higher market share, and market viability, any company not looking at making a major effort on the Wii is just begging to become irrelevant in the future.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with all of that. It will be interesting to see if things do pick up as they should. With the DS it was pretty sucky it's first year or so, but right around the end of that first year into the first half of the second year it really took off with both better first party games and much better third party games.

Maybe it will just take a bit longer to pan out that way for the Wii since console games probably take longer to develop than handheld games.

At any rate, I'm sure 3rd party support will pick up in general. I'm not optimistic that it will ever have a lot of top notch FPS or western RPGs which is what I like to play. But I think it will eventually see some JRPGs (due to it's success in Japan), more stuff like No More Heroes, and what not. I'm less optimistic about it getting many of the AAA blockbuster franchises from third parties, particularly the "mature" ones and particularly any that are by nature titles designed to push graphics and online play.

But on the other hand, it's possible that we may see little change if developers are content to just cash in with ports and shovelware to make a profit and help fund core games on the other platforms. Time will tell.
 
OP you could always build your own wii.

Step 1. Buy to Gamecubes and tape them together
Step 2. Enjoy

I kid I kid. The wii will not be in stock and readily available until at least 2009 (my guess). Online is the way to go for buying one.
 
[quote name='fraggedbylaggers']I kid I kid. The wii will not be in stock and readily available until at least 2009 (my guess). Online is the way to go for buying one.[/quote]
Getting a Wii online is significantly more time consuming (or costly, take your pick) than just driving to your local Target/BB/Wal-Mart and getting one when it opens.

When I got mine this past Sunday, I had Target and Best Buy as backups - I was going to go to Wal-Mart at midnight, and if I didn't get one, I'd go to Best Buy before opening to see if I could get a ticket for one, then go to Target at 8am if that wasn't available, and then back to BB at 10am.

You can certainly get one. Oh, or you could buy one online for $100+ over retail!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But on the other hand, it's possible that we may see little change if developers are content to just cash in with ports and shovelware to make a profit and help fund core games on the other platforms.[/QUOTE]
That's the safe route, sure. But the problem with that is that if you're a publisher just "phoning it in" for your Wii games, another publisher could release a polished Wii title in your area of expertise, ride the tsunami of Wii owners to record growth, and leave your company relegated to the likes of LJN and Acclaim. As with any other competitive area, once the environment changes, you either adapt or die.

The idea of third parties using profits from Wii games to fund PS3/XBox 360 titles is a laughable one, though -- that's simply throwing good money after bad, and the shareholders would storm the corporate offices with pitchforks and Frankenstein torches if a CEO announced that as a business plan. A $10 million AAA Wii title selling one million copies is a much better ROI than a $20 million AAA PS3 title selling 500,000 copies...

--R.J.
 
[quote name='rjung']
The idea of third parties using profits from Wii games to fund PS3/XBox 360 titles is a laughable one, though -- that's simply throwing good money after bad.[/QUOTE]

Not true if they're funding 360/PS3 games that wouldn't sell as many copies on the Wii.

Namely FPS games, even MP3 had sluggish sales, and that's a first party FPS game, and none of the third party ones aside form Red Steel's inflated lauch sales (when crappy games sell as there's nothing else to buy) have sold well.

Of course, the best case scenario is to put it on the PS3/360 and port it over to the Wii. Probably doesn't cost much to port and should make some extra profits.

Kind of interesting that Activision does that with the crappy Treyarch CoD games (CoD3, CoD5 this year), but not with the real Infinity Ward games.
 
According to the weekly video game show on a local radio station I listen to occasionally, Gamestop has stated that they don't expect Wii supply to meet demand for at least another 6 months. How much Gamestop knows is questionable, but if that's correct it could be a while until Wiis are easy to find in stores.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not true if they're funding 360/PS3 games that wouldn't sell as many copies on the Wii.

Namely FPS games, even MP3 had sluggish sales, and that's a first party FPS game[/quote]Calling Metroid Prime 3 an FPS is a real stretch, IMO. I got it from Amazon's $30 sale last month, and while the first part is kinda-sorta-Halo-ish, the bulk of the game is more Zelda than Quake. I personally wish MP3 was something like Unreal Tournament, then maybe I wouldn't have sold it.

[quote name='dmaul1114']and none of the third party ones aside form Red Steel's inflated lauch sales (when crappy games sell as there's nothing else to buy) have sold well.[/quote]
And the fact that they were all quickie PS2/PSP ports with zero advertising had nothing to do with the poor sales, right? ;)

The Wii (and the remote) is screaming for a quality built-for-the-system Quake III Arena-style FPS, and I predict the first company to release such a title will get sales that make all the skeptics sit down and shut up...

--R.J.
 
[quote name='rjung']
The Wii (and the remote) is screaming for a quality built-for-the-system Quake III Arena-style FPS, and I predict the first company to release such a title will get sales that make all the skeptics sit down and shut up...

--R.J.[/QUOTE]

Well,, the Medal of Honor game was made for Wii and was ok, and still didn't sell well.

But in general, I agree there just hasn't been a top list FPS put out on Wii yet. Time will tell on how one would sell I guess, assuming something like that actually comes out.

But the Wii has several strikes against it for ever having a major AAA blockbuster FPS game.

1. Lack of a good online system. Online play is key in having a huge hit FPS game. Particularly the Quake type of game you're talking about.

2. Graphics. FPS is the main graphic whore genre. Developers like to push graphics in this genre, and many fans are very into graphics.

3. Control. It was ok in Metroid Prime 3, but the aiming just isn't super precise for sniping quickly etc. unless you have uber steady hands. And having to aim at the middle of the screen to keep the camera/view from spinning gets old fast--though maybe they can come up with a better system than MP3 for that.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well,, the Medal of Honor game was made for Wii and was ok, and still didn't sell well.[/quote]
It was? Medal of Honor: Vanguard was a PS2 port. Medal of Honor: Heores 2 was a PSP port.

[quote name='dmaul1114']3. Control. It was ok in Metroid Prime 3, but the aiming just isn't super precise for sniping quickly etc. unless you have uber steady hands.[/quote]I don't think you need "uber steady hands"; just resting your arm on a leg or a sofa arm is sufficient, IMO. Besides, there are ways to code the Wii pointer to compensate for shaky aim, whether it's averaging out cursor movement (Wii Play's target shooting game) or allowing a larger target to count as a hit (Tomb Raider: Anniversary).

--R.J.
 
There shouldnt be any complaints about control schemes. Even the worst Wii implementation possible is going to be better than the dual stick solution.

I do believe that the shooter fanbase has already largely picked a platform though. The online multiplayer is certainly a big deal to a lot of them, as is the graphical component.

Under those circumstances, I would urge developers not to do FPS/3PS, shooter/rpg, other shooter hybrid, etc on the Wii.

Demographics are indeed important.

I'm glad that the console doesnt have the native requirements necessary to support that group. It would have to be a fundamentally different console. Also, imagine a bunch of dmauls running around the place D:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well,, the Medal of Honor game was made for Wii and was ok, and still didn't sell well.[/quote]No local multiplayer in a conventional FPS = no buy. There is just no excuse there.

[quote name='dmaul1114']3. Control. It was ok in Metroid Prime 3, but the aiming just isn't super precise for sniping quickly etc. unless you have uber steady hands.[/quote]I think we established a while ago that you have the hands of an epileptic 86-year-old man on the tail end of a five-day coffee binge in the middle of an earthquake.

I think we also established that the Protoss are indeed better than the Terrans, but my memory's kinda hazy.
[quote name='dmaul1114']And having to aim at the middle of the screen to keep the camera/view from spinning gets old fast--though maybe they can come up with a better system than MP3 for that.[/quote]Erm. Hold down the Z button?

Now, I absolutely loathe the dual-analogue-stick control scheme used by most console FPS' these days. I've adjusted to it, sure, but it's still not something I enjoy using. It just feels so clumsy to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top