[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Actually, i do feel sorry for those dudes loosing their jobs.

Yeah, your previous post contradicts that.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And competition is a great thing. But it's those studios, developers and publishers who made the 'wrong' decision willingly to develop for the wrong platforms and ALSO ignore the most popular console.

Yeah, 'wrong' is the wrong term to use here. I don't see the Wii handling (or doing a good job implementing) those non-Wii games that made the Top 10 this year. It's also still unlcear whether a game like Gears of War would move units on the Wii -- Call of Duty: World at War outsold the Wii version on both the PS3 and 360 even though the Wii has a much higher install base. I wonder why that is?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Actually, if it was just the recession to blame for these job losses, Nintendo would have announced layoffs as well.

Look to Apple for your parallel. It's not just the games industry, but their profit-making model as well. Not to mention Sony and MS are both diverse companies who weren't looking particularly competent previous to the economic downturn.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

http://forums.macnn.com/77/gaming/37...ing-wii-games/

This half of 2009 Wii will be getting Deadly Creatures, MadWorld, Conduit and House of The Dead.

How many of those games do you think will receive a rating above 8.5?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

A studio making a bad game has little to do with the platform. Garbage is garbage no matter what hardware it's running. Lot's of these companies made bad games, look at the sales and reviews of the latest games they have done up to their layoffs and closings.

I'm curious what games spring to your mind when you say this.

The year has seen some interesting failures. I think EA (a company I shun, now) presents a curious case; Their new ventures failed miserably (such as mirror's edge) while their more traditional franchises continued to sell. Not exactly a great motivation to continue taking chances with new gameplay and franchises.

Hell, look at the Top sellers this year. With the exception of Wii Play and Wii Fit, they're ALL established franchises. Wii Play comes with the Wiimote, so most people are buying it because of its inclusion in the bundle. That leaves Wii Fit as the lone creative entry, and I wouldn't consider that a traditional game, nor do I see it eating up tons of your time because its so addictive.

[exca1ibur]

I referring to just the companies that have either downsized or gone under.

Tomb Raider, Age of Conan, Mortal Kombats (Midway), Need for Speeds, Facebreaker, Sonic , Any game made from a movie (Hulk, Iron Man, etc), Silent Hill, Alone in the Dark, Haze, Fall of Liberty, etc.

A lot of these guys have been milking the hell out of a franchise to just sell on the name alone.

The real winner this generation is Gamestop, at $60 a pop I find myself buying more used stuff than I ever have.

[Dakar V]

Yeah, I saw a report last week on how Gamestop is raping all of us. I stopped shopping there as soon as I picked up my system. They're just too dickish regarding the disparity between what they pay and what they sell a used game for.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Yeah, your previous post contradicts that.


Yeah, 'wrong' is the wrong term to use here. I don't see the Wii handling (or doing a good job implementing) those non-Wii games that made the Top 10 this year. It's also still unlcear whether a game like Gears of War would move units on the Wii -- Call of Duty: World at War outsold the Wii version on both the PS3 and 360 even though the Wii has a much higher install base. I wonder why that is?


Look to Apple for your parallel. It's not just the games industry, but their profit-making model as well. Not to mention Sony and MS are both diverse companies who weren't looking particularly competent previous to the economic downturn.

Yeah thats why i retracted it, luckily forum posts are carved in stone... or are they ?

Call of Duty was a great effort for a Wii game, i bought it. And despite it being a good effort on the Wii, it was still lacking the 'full feature' set of the other SKU (some online stuff, vehicles, etc).... so it isnt a 1-1 comparison here. its evident that the Wii build was not the primary build. But then, from the developer's perspective..... whats he ROI on the XB360/PS3 when compared to the Wii build ? i'd wager that for ever Wii unit sold at $50 theyre probably making more than on every $60 XB/PS unit they sell.(thats a complete guess there).

But what say you on games like Haze, Too Human, Mirror's Edge, Little Big Planet, Prince of Persia, etc.... with all those millions invested in there and not even cracking the top 20 ? wouldnt it have made sense for the devs to invest a fraction of what they did in the XB/PS game and make a A+ Wii title that has a much larger audience ? Shaun White, GH: WT and CoD: WaW were third party titles with probably smaller budgets than the aforementioned flops(as far as sales/returns), and they made the top 20. What would that decision(to develop for the Wii as opposed to the XB/PS) have meant to their bottom lines and consequently the number of people who were let go ?

As far as that list of games in the other thread...... i'd say Deadly Creatures, MadWorld, Conduit, Monster Hunter 3, Fatal Frame 4 are 8.5+ capable at this point.

Cheers

[Hawkeye_a]

That used games issue is a whole other can of worms. im not sure where i stand on it tho. On one hand it was never sch a big issue in previous generations, was it ? On the other, when you're selling an 'experience', it definitely hurts if customers resell that one copy they purchased.

How do used Book/CD/DVD sales affect those markets ?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Call of Duty was a great effort for a Wii game, i bought it. And despite it being a good effort on the Wii, it was still lacking the 'full feature' set of the other SKU (some online stuff, vehicles, etc).... so it isnt a 1-1 comparison here. its evident that the Wii build was not the primary build. But then, from the developer's perspective..... whats he ROI on the XB360/PS3 when compared to the Wii build ? i'd wager that for ever Wii unit sold at $50 theyre probably making more than on every $60 XB/PS unit they sell.(thats a complete guess there).

I think you're speculating a ton here.

Firstly, there's no incentive to make the Wii the primary build, and you can thank Nintendo for that. It's much easier to downgrade graphics & sound for the Wii than the reverse.
Regarding features that are missing, I'd love to hear from the developer as to why, and the Wii owners as to whether they care. As far as single-player is concerned, it is a 1-to-1 comparison, though.
Third, the ROI is probably worse for the Wii, as more work probably went to into porting it than it would go to 360>PS3 or vice versa, depending what the case was. I admit this is speculation, but its logical. The Wii port is the only one that isn't straight (Modifications in graphics, gameplay, netplay), and the game is priced less.
(I also see that this was put on the PS2, which has the largest install base of all)

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

But what say you on games like Haze, Too Human, Mirror's Edge, Little Big Planet, Prince of Persia, etc.... with all those millions invested in there and not even cracking the top 20?
I already commented on Mirror's Edge, but to answer your question, I need to ask you one: Do you think these games would have done better if they had been sent to the Wii?

• Haze sold poorly because it was awful, not because it was sent to a system with a smaller install base.
• LBP is what it is – an exclusive with the intent of luring players to the PS3, not just making straight cash.
• Having played the ME demo, I'm not sure the controls could have been adapted too well.
• Prince of Persia was out for a whole month. This is not the proper frame of time to judge the game against other games from the year.

That aside, I think the video game industry has been due for this failure. Games have been increasing in development time, costs, and actual length forever. But this is like making an endless amount of 3 1/2 big budget movies - it makes no sense. Let's face it, the prices of games have gotten staggering (50% increase in two generations) when they're cousins, the DVD, have gotten cheaper. I'm of the opinion the that the industry would benefit from shorter, cheaper games, but this would either undermine the idea of DLC or contradict it outright (there is the third option, that it supplements it better, but I don't see anyone being happy with that thought)

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

wouldnt it have made sense for the devs to invest a fraction of what they did in the XB/PS game and make a A+ Wii title that has a much larger audience ? Shaun White, GH: WT and CoD: WaW were third party titles with probably smaller budgets than the aforementioned flops(as far as sales/returns), and they made the top 20. What would that decision(to develop for the Wii as opposed to the XB/PS) have meant to their bottom lines and consequently the number of people who were let go ?

It would have made business sense, but it's obviously not what developers want to do. Why do you think that is?

Honestly, I see the Wii 3rd party future coming from new "independent" developers. Most of the current industry has neither the ability nor the inclination to do anything truly original for the Wii.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Regarding features that are missing, I'd love to hear from the developer as to why, and the Wii owners as to whether they care. As far as single-player is concerned, it is a 1-to-1 comparison, though.

People who own the Wii don't care about minor feature differences or worse graphics. Most won't notice since it's their first console. So who cares if a few people buy the Wii as a "serious" game system only to be disappointed? Those people are far outnumbered by casual gamers who don't notice those details. Thus, there's no incentive to make Wii games look good or play well. It's a lot of effort that only a few people will notice, and those who do have probably already made their mind up about the Wii anyway.

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I'm of the opinion the that the industry would benefit from shorter, cheaper games, but this would either undermine the idea of DLC or contradict it outright (there is the third option, that it supplements it better, but I don't see anyone being happy with that thought)

I agree. I like games that have shorter, more intense single player games. A lot of the longer ones tend to drag on. They can create game content at the same rate, but release it more frequently, less at a time, and (hopefully) at a lower price. Valve tried/is trying this with the Half-Life 2 episodes. I like the idea of it. Too bad more developers aren't doing that because I think it could work well. Fallout 3 looks to expand this way, except with DLC (in other words, the base game is still required).

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Honestly, I see the Wii 3rd party future coming from new "independent" developers. Most of the current industry has neither the ability nor the inclination to do anything truly original for the Wii.

Yes; unfortunately, a lot of those smaller developers for the Wii are really, really, really bad. What's that company that released "Anubis II" and "Ninjabread Man" and "Billy the Wizard"? Like that. They think they can get a leg up by undercutting everyone else on price and selling games based entirely on marketing, when the games themselves are atrocious.

Interestingly enough, even though the Wii is cheaper to develop for than the 360 or PS3, it's still not the platform of choice for "indie" developers. That's what the XBLA and PSN are for. They're much easier and cheaper to develop for than the Wii, and the developer doesn't have to figure out how they're going to ship copies of their game to stores across the country.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Yeah, I saw a report last week on how Gamestop is raping all of us. I stopped shopping there as soon as I picked up my system. They're just too dickish regarding the disparity between what they pay and what they sell a used game for.

I really don't understand the hatred of Gamestop, or how they're "raping" anyone. They offer what to me seems like a fair deal - if you don't want to take the time to sell your game yourself online they'll give you credit in a lesser amount. You're paying for convenience. Where exactly is the problem? Just that they mark up the games and attempt to make money?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

It would have made business sense, but it's obviously not what developers want to do. Why do you think that is?

Thats my point. No matter what that reason is, it was obviously the wrong reason to base a business decision on, imo.

What i'm trying to say is that a lot fewer developers and people in the industry would have gotten laid off if:
-They focused on the most popular platform to develop for.
-They focused on the cheapest of the 3 platforms to develop for.

The result of making such illogical business decisions are playing out right now, in the ways of studios shutting down and people getting laid off.

Kutaragi wanted to make the most powerful home console to outdo the XB360 ? well look at the looses that Sony has posted fo the first time in 14 years, and look who pays the price (employees).

Microsoft wanted to enter the industry and gain a foothold by being the biggest looser (aka 'loss leader'), they end up making up for that loss by axing jobs for the first time in their history.

While these bozos (including developers who have shunned the Wii) are bring this industry down, Nintendo and it's partners seem to be picking up their slack, and then some.

And as much as i'd like to see more third party Wii software in the top 10, i can only fault third parties for not putting in the effort/resources into developing quality on the Wii to begin with.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I really don't understand the hatred of Gamestop, or how they're "raping" anyone. They offer what to me seems like a fair deal - if you don't want to take the time to sell your game yourself online they'll give you credit in a lesser amount. You're paying for convenience. Where exactly is the problem? Just that they mark up the games and attempt to make money?

It's all there in the post you quoted.

They're just too dickish regarding the disparity between what they pay and what they sell a used game for.

Obviously, I don't think it's a fair deal.

[Luca Rescigno]

The way I see the Gamestop thing, every company has to dick people somehow. With Apple, it's BTO upgrades. With car dealerships, they're extended warranties and "rustproofing" or other pointless accessories. With Gamestop, it's buying used games. You're completely free to avoid it entirely. I guess it's too bad that so many people fall for it (I hear stories of people trading in whole collections of games for an old console and getting $1/game or something), but it's really their fault for not doing the research.

As for Hawkeye's comments, you really think the MS layoffs are connected to MS not selling enough games or systems because their system isn't cheap like the Wii? Really? You don't think perhaps it has something to do with the failures of the Zune, Vista, and the economic crisis that has led to more and more people choosing to stick with old versions of their software instead of buying the latest and greatest version of Office the day it comes out?

And you're still ignoring the XBLA angle. Xbox Live Arcade games, as well as PSN games, are easier and cheaper to develop than Wii games and are very popular. So technically, the Wii is the most expensive of the three consoles to develop for.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Thats my point. No matter what that reason is, it was obviously the wrong reason to base a business decision on, imo.

To some developers, video games are more than a business, like movies. Some directors won't tone down their movies to get a more "friendly" rating. And some developers won't dumb down their game to get a more widespread audience. Call it stubborn. Call it integrity. I don't care.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

What i'm trying to say is that a lot fewer developers and people in the industry would have gotten laid off if:
-They focused on the most popular platform to develop for.
-They focused on the cheapest of the 3 platforms to develop for.

You didn't answer if you thought those games you pointed out would have sold well on the Wii.

I already told you why developers are doing lay-offs. A combination of bad games, bloated development style, and a bad economy. That won't be changed significantly by what system you develop for.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Kutaragi wanted to make the most powerful home console to outdo the XB360 ? well look at the looses that Sony has posted fo the first time in 14 years, and look who pays the price (employees).

Microsoft wanted to enter the industry and gain a foothold by being the biggest looser (aka 'loss leader'), they end up making up for that loss by axing jobs for the first time in their history.

Yes, Sony & MS are taking losses all because of their gaming divisions.
Last time I checked, these divisions were always loss-leaders. These guys don't have the benefit of 20+ year loyalists and a vast renown first party library to move consoles.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

While these bozos (including developers who have shunned the Wii) are bring this industry down

Bringing the industry down? Are you kidding me? This is a recession, nothing more. Think of it like the tech bubble bursting in the 90s.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Nintendo and it's partners seem to be picking up their slack, and then some.

No, it actually looks like Nintendo isn't picking up the slack. It's just opened a new market for itself that no one has been able to tap into.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And as much as i'd like to see more third party Wii software in the top 10, i can only fault third parties for not putting in the effort/resources into developing quality on the Wii to begin with.

And I'd fault Nintendo for not being attractive to developers. But really, they're a victim of their own success. Nintendo is the company that has not needed software sales to turn a profit. And no one has really wanted to work with Nintendo since the late 90s.

It's going to take more than 2 years and a ton of consoles to reverse the sentiment.

[Chuckit]

The Xbox division is turning a profit, AFAIK. Although they initially lost a little money on each initial console sale, I don't believe that's true anymore and they're making money hand-over-fist on XBL and everything else. Nobody actually involved with the Xbox got the ax, last I heard. (I think a couple of people under the heading of "Xbox Division" were let go, but they were peripheral employees like Web site staff.)

[Dakar V]

Guess who's bored at work...

Here's why your developers aren't jumping on the Wii.
Three cross-platform games: CoD5, Madden 09, and Force Unleashed. A quick check on IGN shows all versions got very similar scores, regardless of system (8+ out of 10).

Call of Duty 5, December Sales
360 - 1.33 mil units
PS3 - 533,000 units
Wii - n/a didn't make the Top 10

Of the three cross-platform games, this was the biggest mover in its month, yet the Wii version failed to even register.


Madden NFL 09, August Sales
360 - 1.0 mil units
PS3 - 643,000 units
WII - 115,800 units

In depth look at some of the numbers. But more interestingly, the PS2 sold 424,500 units, more than twice that of the Wii. Could that indicate that the Wii isn't the same audience as other console owners?


Star Wars: Force Unleashed, September Sales
360- 610,000 units
PS3 - 325,000 units
Wii - 223,000 units

This is my favorite one, because feature-wise, the Wii version should have been the most inviting. Swinging the Wii-mote like a light-saber would be a more fun mechanic, plus Lucas Arts took the time to make a special duel mode not featured in the 360 and PS3 counterparts. So why no love from the Wii owners?

---

Now here's an interesting up and comer, Dead Rising for the Wii (A cult 360 favorite). Interesting notes about its transfer to the Wii:

The Good
• As much as we liked the original, we were frustrated by losing track of side missions and the unforgiving save system. The Wii remake addresses both issues.
• Most often, we stuck with a bat, which we swung by waving the Remote. Our motion didn't matter, but we had more fun than tapping an attack button.

The Bad
• We were told that many game weapons have been consolidated, plus Capcom is including more frequent guns because of the Wii controls.
• There's no photojournalism, many weapons have been cut, and we're just not sure if the Wii can push enough zombies-per-second to create the ambling masses of the first.

Two technical limitations attributed to the Wii early on (and from one of the 360s first games, none-the-less). Doesn't sound inviting for developers.

[Jawbone54]

Even with all the Wii's problems like no HD, gimmicky waggle games, hordes of crap software, kiddie feel (the All-Play line is poop), and freakin' stupid dadgum hockin' friend codes, there are still some great titles out there for Wii.

Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Mario Kart Wii, Super Smash Bros., Zelda: Twilight Princess, and UH OHHHH...almost all their best sellers are first-party games.

Third-party developers hate Nintendo consoles for a reason.

That being said, I liked the Wii when I owned it (twice). I sold them both for a massive profit.

[Railroader]

And I always thought Dakar couldn't keep his mind focused long enough for more than two sentences...

Oh, and good info!

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Third-party developers hate Nintendo consoles for a reason.

Their first party titles overshadow good third party offerings greatly, regardless of originality or quality of gameplay.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

And I always thought Dakar couldn't keep his mind focused long enough for more than two sentences...

Oh, and good info!

Thanks. I have to say I didn't expect some of the results to be so lop-sided.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Their first party titles overshadow good third party offerings greatly, regardless of originality or quality of gameplay.

Which is why Mario and Zelda lovers everywhere will write songs and poetry about how great the latest Nintendo console is, but others will scoff at it.

I personally love Nintendo's first-party games, but I can see why a lot of people wouldn't.

Also, is Smash Bros. really that great? I've never been able to get into it.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Which is why Mario and Zelda lovers everywhere will write songs and poetry about how great the latest Nintendo console is, but others will scoff at it.

I personally love Nintendo's first-party games, but I can see why a lot of people wouldn't.

Also, is Smash Bros. really that great? I've never been able to get into it.

I've never been able to get into the game play. I'm not much into fighting games anymore, and thats what is its, a Nintendofied fighter.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

And I'd fault Nintendo for not being attractive to developers.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Third-party developers hate Nintendo consoles for a reason.

Thats where i have issues with you guys' argument. Can either one of you actually specify what that reason is !?!?!?

And as far as comparing multi platform releases, why not chuck Guitar Hero World Tour, Rock Band 1/2 and Shaun White Snowboarding into that list ? And lets not forget that tie ratios and units sales of these SKUs dont factor in the amount the studios actually spent on each version. For example they could have sold fewer copies on Wii but still managed to break even, unlike the version that cost them a few magnitudes higher to make. agreed ?

CoDWaW, like i mentioned was a good effort, but it wasnt a feature-feature equivalent, and i only remember seeing ads for the XB360 version of the game, but thats another issue.

Madden, heck..if i was in a store and saw the XB360 branding and the Wii branding, even i would pick up the XB360 version as opposed to the 'this is for novice gamers'(All Play) version.

I would hardly fault Nintendo(or any of the 3) for selling great products. When the PS2 was king, the only games that caught my attention on those systems were Sony published games... GT4, SotC, ICO, GoW1/2 (i think). yet third parties were able to find success on that platform as well. If third parties put Nintendo games on such high pedestals, thats their problem..... Square Enix seems to have done just fine when compared to Nintendo.(i've never played any of their games personally)

Nintendo has provided studios and publishers with a huge, diverse installed base and a platform that costs a fraction to develop for. So as far as anyone is concerned, Nintendo's done it's job. If most developers just arent bothered to try and instead focus on the financially unsound systems, well.... they risked their jobs.

I think Prince of Persia would have sold better on the Wii. Mirror's Edge could have gone either way. Dont forget they would have cost less to develop on the Wii(even from scratch as opposed to porting), so even if they had fewer unit sales the studios could have stood a better chance of breaking even or even making money. Last generation Beyond Good & Evil sold best on the GCN of all consoles, and this time around they arent even releasing it on the Nintendo platform. that to me, is a stupid decision from any angle. SFIV SHOULD be on the Wii as well as it has a very cas-core vibe to it and could find financial success on the Wii if marketed well.

Take a look at Monster Hunter 3. the developers, probably to ensure their 'artistic integrity'(and not having to skimp on features due to high costs) while not risking the studio's existence they switched the product from the PS3 to the Wii. that doesnt mean they cant make the game they wanted to, but rather invest in making a polished product that exploits the system completely and who knows... probably cost less and save a few jobs along the way.

Good discussion guys.

Cheers

PS>> Never been a fan of Smash Brother or that pink ball thing or FireEmblem and truth be told, of those 4 Wii titles at the top, i only own MK.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Thats where i have issues with you guys' argument. Can either one of you actually specify what that reason is !?!?!?

Yeah, my past couple posts are littered with my theories on the subject.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And as far as comparing multi platform releases, why not chuck Guitar Hero World Tour, Rock Band 1/2 and Shaun White Snowboarding into that list ?

Feel free to compile the data is you want. I wasn't sure if GHWT was available for the Wii. RB just seems unfair with the massive lead time they have on the Wii.(Though I think both lend themselves more to the Wii audience than 360/PS3, so I expect them to beat MS/Sony). Haven't really heard anything on the Snowboarding one.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And lets not forget that tie ratios and units sales of these SKUs dont factor in the amount the studios actually spent on each version. For example they could have sold fewer copies on Wii but still managed to break even, unlike the version that cost them a few magnitudes higher to make. agreed ?

Do you have any articles to corroborate your theories? I'd posit the Wii game's lower cost offsets the theoretical lower production costs.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

CoDWaW, like i mentioned was a good effort, but it wasnt a feature-feature equivalent, and i only remember seeing ads for the XB360 version of the game, but thats another issue.

Nintendo's definitely gets to share the blame here. Their online gaming system isn't nearly as mature as the 360 or PS3s. I guess it was the developers call not to spend extra time and money trying to create a viable system on the Wii.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Madden, heck..if i was in a store and saw the XB360 branding and the Wii branding, even i would pick up the XB360 version as opposed to the 'this is for novice gamers'(All Play) version.

A fair enough answer. One wonders if EA trying to play to Wii's supposed demographic hurt them, or its just that the hardcore kind of players who buy Madden year after year own the other consoles.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I would hardly fault Nintendo(or any of the 3) for selling great products. When the PS2 was king, the only games that caught my attention on those systems were Sony published games... GT4, SotC, ICO, GoW1/2 (i think). yet third parties were able to find success on that platform as well. If third parties put Nintendo games on such high pedestals, thats their problem..... Square Enix seems to have done just fine when compared to Nintendo.(i've never played any of their games personally)

It's not that the developers put Nintendo games on such high pedestals, it's that the (nintendo) gamers do. Regarding Square Enix, they are a revered franchise in their own right. They went hand-in-hand with Nintendo for many years.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Nintendo has provided studios and publishers with a huge, diverse installed base and a platform that costs a fraction to develop for.

A fraction? Please, do post some numbers.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

So as far as anyone is concerned, Nintendo's done it's job. If most developers just arent bothered to try and instead focus on the financially unsound systems, well.... they risked their jobs

And yet, you've still missed the point. The 360 is not financially unsound. Some of the developers gaming ideas are, however.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Last generation Beyond Good & Evil sold best on the GCN of all consoles, and this time around they arent even releasing it on the Nintendo platform. that to me, is a stupid decision from any angle. SFIV SHOULD be on the Wii as well as it has a very cas-core vibe to it and could find financial success on the Wii if marketed well.

Agree on the first. Not sure how you convert a complicated fighter to the Wii, but I look forward to the reviews.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Take a look at Monster Hunter 3. the developers, probably to ensure their 'artistic integrity'(and not having to skimp on features due to high costs) while not risking the studio's existence they switched the product from the PS3 to the Wii. that doesnt mean they cant make the game they wanted to, but rather invest in making a polished product that exploits the system completely and who knows... probably cost less and save a few jobs along the way.

It's a sound business decision. But I've never heard of Monster Hunter referred to as a game trying to push boundaries (Like a GTA). That's where things like artistic integrity tend to factor in.

---

I'm curious for your commentary on Force Unleashed. Do you not agree that it was best suited for the Wii platform out off the three games I listed? Would you not also agree that with it's exclusive content that Lucas Arts lovingly crafted for it, and lower cost it had several competitive advantages over it's cross platform counter-parts? Do you have any thoughts as to why it might have undersold so much in comparison to its counterparts?

[Dakar V]

I just can't not post this.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

The way I see the Gamestop thing, every company has to dick people somehow. With Apple, it's BTO upgrades. With car dealerships, they're extended warranties and "rustproofing" or other pointless accessories. With Gamestop, it's buying used games. You're completely free to avoid it entirely. I guess it's too bad that so many people fall for it (I hear stories of people trading in whole collections of games for an old console and getting $1/game or something), but it's really their fault for not doing the research.

I understand the argument people make, but it seems as though they think Gamestop should be set up as a charity. It is a for-profit corporation. The majority of stories you hear like that (people getting $1 for their games) you never get the list of games they were trying to trade in. If someone tries to trade in Madden '06 for the 360, what would a "fair" price be? In all likelihood Gamestop would *NEVER* sell it, so why should they fork over $10 for it?

The only time I see a big difference in values is when people try to trade in a game released recently, and get $30 or so and GS sells it for $55. But again, you're paying for your own laziness, nothing more.

[Jawbone54]

Sports games lose their value as soon as the playoffs are over. I wouldn't mind getting $4 for a copy of NCAA Football 09. It's not like anyone is going to buy it anyways.

Getting $5 for a game I know they sell used for $40, however...

[Dakar V]

GameFly's 10 most requested rentals during 2008:

1. Assassin's Creed - PS3, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS
2. Army of Two - PS3, Xbox 360
3. Grand Theft Auto IV - PS3, Xbox 360
4. Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2 - PS3, Xbox 360
5. Devil May Cry 4 - PS3, Xbox 360
6. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - PS3, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS
7. Call of Duty: World at War - PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, Nintendo DS
8. Burnout Paradise - PS3, Xbox 360
9. Dead Space - PS3, Xbox 360
10. Prince of Persia - PS3, Xbox 360

[jokell82]

Look at all those Wii games!

[Hawkeye_a]

Yeah, i'm sure all those rentals for systems with HDD really helps developers make money Great going M$ and $ony

Besides, having 9 of the top 20 SELLING games on the Wii is indicative of the Wii's success at selling software. myth busted ... again.

With regard to Wii development costs vs the XB360/PS3..... I havent found any $ value omparisons, but as percentages, they're anywhere from 33%-50% the cost of releasing a game on the XB/PS. And we're talking millions of $$$ here.

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/fe...s/69714/?biz=1

Hence, get ready for even more losses and layoffs from studios and publishers who treated the Wii as a 'secondary' console. And those who will still continue to ignore the Wii, good luck in preserving your 'artistic integrity'(ie tech-elitism) and getting the funding to make your next game for the 'HD' consoles. (i do mean that sincerely, cause if you can't, you'll be out of a job)

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Yeah, i'm sure all those rentals for systems with HDD really helps developers make money Great going M$ and $ony

I love it – if tons of people are renting your games, you must suck!

What does the HDD have to do with this?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Besides, having 9 of the top 20 SELLING games on the Wii is indicative of the Wii's success at selling software. myth busted ... again.

Yeah for December. And half the titles come bundled with hardware.

And what's the myth?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Hence, get ready for even more losses and layoffs from studios and publishers who treated the Wii as a 'secondary' console. And those who will still continue to ignore the Wii, good luck in preserving your 'artistic integrity'(ie tech-elitism) and getting the funding to make your next game for the 'HD' consoles. (i do mean that sincerely, cause if you can't, you'll be out of a job)

Jesus, could you be any more of a broken record?


Any comment on Force Unleashed? Any? Please?

Here, I'll even requote it for you:

I'm curious for your commentary on Force Unleashed. Do you not agree that it was best suited for the Wii platform out off the three games I listed? Would you not also agree that with it's exclusive content that Lucas Arts lovingly crafted for it, and lower cost it had several competitive advantages over it's cross platform counter-parts? Do you have any thoughts as to why it might have undersold so much in comparison to its counterparts?

[Hawkeye_a]

Force Unleashed(Wii).

Was it developed in house by LucasArts ?Was it developed by the same team that made the XB360/PS3 build ? OR was it developed by a 'B-team' that also happened to be developing the PS2&PSP version ? Was it a sincere effort to use the console to it's fullest or was it put on the Wii(porting the PS2/PSP build) just so they could have a SKU on all major platforms ? That's why i didn't pick up the game, and im sure most Wii owners who looked into the game, saw that it was a second rate effort on the console. Technically and artistically it couldnt even measure up to most AAA GCN games. why would i or anyone want to buy a product like that ?

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Actually, if it was just the recession to blame for these job losses, Nintendo would have announced layoffs as well. We might be in a recession, but the gaming industry(unlike other industries) is actually still growing, which means there's incrementally more money to be made (if you are selling a product that people want, that is). So instead of yelling 'recession', maybe one should be questioning the business making decisions at these companies, and why so many jobs were put at risk to begin with ?(just to make a prettier game) Why did they CHOOSE to develop games that required so much money/credit that in the end could not be made back from the installed base of those consoles ? And now that it's that much harder to get funding for new games, i wonder how many of those studios will be capable of making more 'next-gen' games ?

Electronista - Nintendo lowers annual profit prediction by a third

Nintendo on Thursday announced it expects to post a 2008 profit 33 percent lower than it originally expected due to the slowing economy. The predicted difference comes despite the video game maker selling about 1 million more Wii systems than it originally predicted by the end of 2008. When the fiscal year ends at the end of March, Nintendo is expecting to post a profit of $2.5 billion instead of the $3.8 billion it predicted in October.
Apart from the 24 percent rise in the value of the Japanese yen against the US dollar, the game industry blames the change in forecast on a less desirable game lineup than what existed six months ago. Nintendo is coming off a strong third quarter during which sales were 21 percent higher than the same time in 2007, but the sudden economic collapse in the fourth quarter resulted in the lowest overall sales the company has experienced in three years.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Stogieman 

Electronista - Nintendo lowers annual profit prediction by a third

Nintendo on Thursday announced it expects to post a 2008 profit 33 percent lower than it originally expected due to the slowing economy. The predicted difference comes despite the video game maker selling about 1 million more Wii systems than it originally predicted by the end of 2008. When the fiscal year ends at the end of March, Nintendo is expecting to post a profit of $2.5 billion instead of the $3.8 billion it predicted in October.
Apart from the 24 percent rise in the value of the Japanese yen against the US dollar, the game industry blames the change in forecast on a less desirable game lineup than what existed six months ago. Nintendo is coming off a strong third quarter during which sales were 21 percent higher than the same time in 2007, but the sudden economic collapse in the fourth quarter resulted in the lowest overall sales the company has experienced in three years.

It's obvious that the recession will have a toll on all companies. Some companies will be hit harder than others (Apple and Nintendo for example). Companies who's books are in the black will be better off than companie's those with books in the red.

I'm not implying that Nintendo and Apple are recession-proof. But i am suggesting that their business practices and strategy (for example, not being the biggest losers) have put them in a much more favorable position than companies like Sony and M$, and therefore Apple and Nintendo are more stable, with fewer jobs losses, etc.

That Nintendo decreased it's forecast is surprising in and of itself, but focus on the what they said.... "profit will fall by 33%"..... Sony doesnt have any profit to speak of now (in fact im sure the PS3/BR-DVDs development and 'biggest looser' business strategy firmly put the company in the red as far as profits. Their revenue was hit hard cause their TVs wernt selling either). As far as Microsoft....Vista, Zune and XB360 all probably contributed to the job losses as the investment into those products have obviously not paid off. (for example with the XB360, if it cost $1b to develop and if during the first year they lost $500m(biggest looser strategy), turning a profit of $300m for the last two quarters still puts the XB Division in the red), and with lower projected demand, there's only one easy way to cut costs......

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Force Unleashed(Wii).

Was it developed in house by LucasArts ?Was it developed by the same team that made the XB360/PS3 build ? OR was it developed by a 'B-team' that also happened to be developing the PS2&PSP version ? Was it a sincere effort to use the console to it's fullest or was it put on the Wii(porting the PS2/PSP build) just so they could have a SKU on all major platforms ? That's why i didn't pick up the game, and im sure most Wii owners who looked into the game, saw that it was a second rate effort on the console. Technically and artistically it couldnt even measure up to most AAA GCN games. why would i or anyone want to buy a product like that ?

Obviously you skipped Dakar's post that pointed out that there were MORE features on the Wii version than any other version.

So you didn't pick up the game because you assumed it was a crappy port? Maybe that's why third party Wii titles don't sell - owners like you assume it all to be crap and just pass it over

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Force Unleashed(Wii).

Was it developed in house by LucasArts ?Was it developed by the same team that made the XB360/PS3 build ? OR was it developed by a 'B-team' that also happened to be developing the PS2&PSP version ? Was it a sincere effort to use the console to it's fullest or was it put on the Wii(porting the PS2/PSP build) just so they could have a SKU on all major platforms ? That's why i didn't pick up the game, and im sure most Wii owners who looked into the game, saw that it was a second rate effort on the console. Technically and artistically it couldnt even measure up to most AAA GCN games. why would i or anyone want to buy a product like that ?

This why it's so hard to take you seriously. Most of your posts' content is conjecture, very little facts are presented, and you never have a bad word to say about Nintendo, while I post numbers, figures, and links, some (such as sales numbers) with no regard for how they might portray my favored system. How did you even come to the conclusion in your post without the information you're asking for in the beginning of it?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

So you didn't pick up the game because you assumed it was a crappy port? Maybe that's why third party Wii titles don't sell - owners like you assume it all to be crap and just pass it over

Yup. It's become a chicken/egg situation. Why would 3rd party developers move over to the Wii if current 3rd party sales suck on it (like the GC)?

It's interesting, but THQ (the company that had a guy talking about how cheap it is to develop for the Wii), 2009 release list is dominated by non-Wii releases. Which begs the question, why would someone who said development costs favor the Wii still decide to focus elsewhere?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Yup. It's become a chicken/egg situation. Why would 3rd party developers move over to the Wii if current 3rd party sales suck on it (like the GC)?

It's interesting, but THQ (the company that had a guy talking about how cheap it is to develop for the Wii), 2009 release list is dominated by non-Wii releases. Which begs the question, why would someone who said development costs favor the Wii still decide to focus elsewhere?

I'd be very interested to see how many third party titles Hawkeye owns for the Wii. Specifically if he owns Okami or Boom Blox. Both titles were critically acclaimed but sold like crap, and they are big reasons why third party developers are hesitant to invest in Wii games...

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

This why it's so hard to take you seriously. Most of your posts' content is conjecture, very little facts are presented, and you never have a bad word to say about Nintendo, while I post numbers, figures, and links, some (such as sales numbers) with no regard for how they might portray my favored system. How did you even come to the conclusion in your post without the information you're asking for in the beginning of it?

Wow that's a bit much. very little facts ? By the way, those questions were rhetorical. But to answer both you guys.....

1. Nintendo has the top 4 selling games of 2008 (with or without bundled hardware)
2. Nintendo, unlike it's hardware competitors has made money on it's console, and also sold a heck of a lot more (despite one of the competitors having a 12 month head start).
3. Sony's PS3,PS2 and PSP sales are down yoy. price is probably an issue.... probably cause the 'engineer's artistic integrity' had to be preserved by making an unreasonably powerful system.
4. Microsoft's XB division is probably still in the red.... speaking of red, the quality of almost all their products suck (more than their competitors anyway) imo.
5. 49% of dollars spent on gaming in 2008 was on Nintendo hardware and software for said systems.
6. 99% of growth in 2008 was thanks to Nintendo. (which leaves Sony and Microsoft to fight for the remaining 1%)
7. Both Sony and Microsoft have announced layoffs. Nintendo hasn't... yet.
8. Studio's that focused and invested primarily on the Microsoft and Sony platforms are having troubles now, that fact is only compounded by the state of the economy.

Force Unleashed (Wii) was developed by Krome studios from Brisbane Australia, the same guys who developed the PSP and PS2 versions of said game. They admitted to using the same assets across the different SKUs, with the Wii version having a bit more higher resolution textures. frankly, after seeing screenshots of the PS2 and Wii version, i couldn't tell the difference. And seeing as how even the GCN is capable of better visuals than the PS2 (see RE4), i didnt think the game was worthy of my $$$, despite the added features and motion controls. If on the other hand they had a studio develop the game from scratch, instead of porting the PS2 engine (like Platinum games is doing with MadWorld and High Voltage Software is doing with the Conduit) they would have stoof a better chance with the Wii audience imo.

Nintendo's faults(imo):
-Virtualboy
-GameCube (marketed terribly)
-GCN - GBA connectivity, what a waste that turned out to be
-Way too family friendly most of the time
-Arrogance towards third parties during the SNES days (i owned a Genesis)

Cheers

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

-Arrogance towards third parties during the SNES, N64, and Gamecube days (i owned a Genesis)

Fixed.

Cartridges and mini discs say thpt.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Wow that's a bit much. very little facts ? By the way, those questions were rhetorical. But to answer both you guys.....

1. Nintendo has the top 4 selling games of 2008 (with or without bundled hardware)
2. Nintendo, unlike it's hardware competitors has made money on it's console, and also sold a heck of a lot more (despite one of the competitors having a 12 month head start).
3. Sony's PS3,PS2 and PSP sales are down yoy. price is probably an issue.... probably cause the 'engineer's artistic integrity' had to be preserved by making an unreasonably powerful system.
4. Microsoft's XB division is probably still in the red.... speaking of red, the quality of almost all their products suck (more than their competitors anyway) imo.
5. 49% of dollars spent on gaming in 2008 was on Nintendo hardware and software for said systems.
6. 99% of growth in 2008 was thanks to Nintendo. (which leaves Sony and Microsoft to fight for the remaining 1%)
7. Both Sony and Microsoft have announced layoffs. Nintendo hasn't... yet.
8. Studio's that focused and invested primarily on the Microsoft and Sony platforms are having troubles now, that fact is only compounded by the state of the economy.

This is an answer to...what question?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Force Unleashed (Wii) was developed by Krome studios from Brisbane Australia, the same guys who developed the PSP and PS2 versions of said game. They admitted to using the same assets across the different SKUs, with the Wii version having a bit more higher resolution textures. frankly, after seeing screenshots of the PS2 and Wii version, i couldn't tell the difference. And seeing as how even the GCN is capable of better visuals than the PS2 (see RE4), i didnt think the game was worthy of my $$$, despite the added features and motion controls. If on the other hand they had a studio develop the game from scratch, instead of porting the PS2 engine (like Platinum games is doing with MadWorld and High Voltage Software is doing with the Conduit) they would have stoof a better chance with the Wii audience imo.

So your answer is the graphics weren't good enough? Sounds like a cop-out to me. If people can stand playing games with the horrible Miis, I don't see how they could possibly cringe at Force Unleashed (unless they were comparing it to the nextgen versions). You think most Wii owners are care a lot about graphics? That would sort of the contradict previous assertions that ppl were spurning the high def systems because "graphics don't matter as much".

Glad you brought up Conduit, though, as I'm looking forward to how it does. Just remember, one huge 3rd party success doesn't a trend make (See Eternal Darkness, GC).

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Nintendo's faults(imo):
-Virtualboy
-GameCube (marketed terribly)
-GCN - GBA connectivity, what a waste that turned out to be
-Way too family friendly most of the time
-Arrogance towards third parties during the SNES days (i owned a Genesis)

Cheers

I guess I should have been more specific. Regarding the Wii.

[Mac User #001]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

one huge 3rd party success doesn't a trend make

Okay Yoda.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Mac User #001 

Okay Yoda.

Don't make fun of my height.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And seeing as how even the GCN is capable of better visuals than the PS2 (see RE4)...

But the visuals on the Wii can't even handle RE5's intro screen according to the game's producer, Masachika Kawata.

http://nintendo.joystiq.com/2008/10/...-intro-screen/

[analogue SPRINKLES]

You know it doesn't matter that the Wii is selling tons of games, that doesn't change the fact that most of them are total **** for anyone over 12 or who was a nintendo fan for the last 20 years.

Wii Music, Wii Play and other crap like that don't even get good reviews yet they sell like mad to children and people who don't have good taste in video games.

If nintendo was selling good games like Zelda, Mario Galaxy, Metroid, Bloom Blox etc then it would matter. But a top 10 list of crap titles proves only how much bad taste people have.

[angelmb]

I wonder about Bloom Blox since I had read it sold decently -whatever that means- and it is getting a sequel, "Boom Blox Bash Party". I know there was an agreement between Spielberg and EA to "collaborate with the game makers at EA's Los Angeles studio (EALA) to create three new original games."

But does a sequel counts as a second original game? I would say highly doubtable, to enhance multiplayer and adding downloadable scenarios is well, far from original… even the name is not original… party? like what? any other game out there since Mario Party old days?, and isn't bash a synonym for brawl? -just asking- What we are getting here is people living in a comfort zone where the less the risk, the higher the satisfaction.

Common sense says that if Boom Blox was a flop I guess they wouldn't be reading a second game… Anyhow, I really liked the original Boom Blox (I had recommended it here), I wonder if the upcoming BBBP is going to be able to keep up with its roots.

As for the rest… well, I think people takes gaming discussion too seriously when IMHO it is not that worth, but well, it is up to you.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

As for the rest… well, I think people takes gaming discussion too seriously when IMHO it is not that worth, but well, it is up to you.

To be honest, if I didn't have this free time at work, I wouldn't be doing this fact digging.

Anyway, this nothing compared to 2 1/2 years ago.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

I wonder about Bloom Blox since I had read it sold decently -whatever that means- and it is getting a sequel, "Boom Blox Bash Party". I know there was an agreement between Spielberg and EA to "collaborate with the game makers at EA's Los Angeles studio (EALA) to create three new original games."

But does a sequel counts as a second original game? I would say highly doubtable, to enhance multiplayer and adding downloadable scenarios is well, far from original… even the name is not original… party? like what? any other game out there since Mario Party old days?, and isn't bash a synonym for brawl? -just asking- What we are getting here is people living in a comfort zone where the less the risk, the higher the satisfaction.

Common sense says that if Boom Blox was a flop I guess they wouldn't be reading a second game… Anyhow, I really liked the original Boom Blox (I had recommended it here), I wonder if the upcoming BBBP is going to be able to keep up with its roots.

As for the rest… well, I think people takes gaming discussion too seriously when IMHO it is not that worth, but well, it is up to you.

Sold decently? At first it was a complete bomb, selling only 60k units in the first month of release. Since then it has picked up quite a bit, but still hasn't broken the 1mil mark (last numbers I have are 450k units worldwide, but they're from the end of summer).

They are still doing a sequel, though.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Sold decently? At first it was a complete bomb, selling only 60k units in the first month of release. Since then it has picked up quite a bit, but still hasn't broken the 1mil mark (last numbers I have are 450k units worldwide, but they're from the end of summer).

They are still doing a sequel, though.

I think with Wii games, though, you're going to see them sell at totally different rates compared to 360/PS3 games. Big 360/PS3 games are like blockbuster movies - highly anticipated, hyped for months in advance, and on release day, everyone wants to go see it. A huge percentage of sales take place in the first week of release. Wii games can sometimes be the same way for the big Nintendo titles, but for most games they sell slowly over their first year of release. Since most Wii owners are non-gamers, they probably don't pay much attention to release schedules or review websites. When they are bored with all their games and want a new one, they just go to Target and get whatever looks good or is cheap. Whether that game just came out or is a year old doesn't make much difference to them.

[Hawkeye_a]

The press is finally coming around..... Follow the Leader? - EDGE (NGai Croal)