Topic: Nintendo: Fire Emblem on Wii U Would Need to Sell 700,000 Units to be Worth It

[Enner]

Sorry, but I don't buy that number as accurate, given how relatively low-budget and simple the Fire Emblem games are outside the handful of FMVs every installment.

That seems a bit unfair to Intelligent Systems and Nintendo unless there are uncovered details on costs and budgets that I'm unaware of. Granted, I think Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn look drab and ugly for their respective platforms (example : https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+emblem+radiant+dawn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=0endUb-4LcKdiQLX3oHIAw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1418&bih=718 ).

700k doesn't sound to be an unreasonably high expectation of unit sales for a turn-based strategy game on a console, though I have nothing to base that on other than gut feelings. I'm probably still bummed from all the news of big video games that sold millions and are considered unprofitable.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I don't care if the 700, 000 is real or not.

It's a solid game for a platform badly in need of solid games.  If Nintendo isn't willing to invest in the Wii U how can we possibly expect third parties to?

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

If Nintendo themselves is making excuses on why to NOT support the Wii U, then I can't be mad at 3rd parties for doing the same exact thing...

[Kytim89]

I don't care if the 700, 000 is real or not.

It's a solid game for a platform badly in need of solid games.  If Nintendo isn't willing to invest in the Wii U how can we possibly expect third parties to?

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

If Nintendo themselves is making excuses on why to NOT support the Wii U, then I can't be mad at 3rd parties for doing the same exact thing...

Nintendo has drastically underestimated how much resources are required to develop HD games.

[broodwars]

I don't care if the 700, 000 is real or not.

It's a solid game for a platform badly in need of solid games.  If Nintendo isn't willing to invest in the Wii U how can we possibly expect third parties to?

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

If Nintendo themselves is making excuses on why to NOT support the Wii U, then I can't be mad at 3rd parties for doing the same exact thing...

Nintendo has drastically underestimated how much resources are required to develop HD games.

Yeah, Nintendo completely ignored 8 years of everyone else in the industry discovering exactly what resources were needed for HD games. They were pretty stupid that way.

[Luigi Dude]

I don't care if the 700, 000 is real or not.

It's a solid game for a platform badly in need of solid games.  If Nintendo isn't willing to invest in the Wii U how can we possibly expect third parties to?

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

If Nintendo themselves is making excuses on why to NOT support the Wii U, then I can't be mad at 3rd parties for doing the same exact thing...

Only Nintendo is releasing a Fire Emblem for the Wii U.  Yeah it's a crossover with Shin Megami Tensei that probably won't play like a traditional Fire Emblem but it still counts as a Fire Emblem game.  Hell the original idea came from IS looking for a studio to help make a Fire Emblem game that took place in the modern world, which eventually lead to them and Atlus making a SMT crossover.

So Nintendo is still supporting the Wii U with a Fire Emblem game of some kind that they are funding and publishing.  What about this is so hard for some of you to understand?

[Kytim89]

I don't care if the 700, 000 is real or not.

It's a solid game for a platform badly in need of solid games.  If Nintendo isn't willing to invest in the Wii U how can we possibly expect third parties to?

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

If Nintendo themselves is making excuses on why to NOT support the Wii U, then I can't be mad at 3rd parties for doing the same exact thing...

Nintendo has drastically underestimated how much resources are required to develop HD games.

Yeah, Nintendo completely ignored 8 years of everyone else in the industry discovering exactly what resources were needed for HD games. They were pretty stupid that way.

I do not feel the least bit sorry for Nintendo. Common sense would tell you that while they were managing the Wii they would research and develop their methods for making high profile games for the day when they would enter that field themselves. The learning curve for HD game development is non-existent at this point. It really just boils down to cost-benefit at this point. Hell, even small developers seems to make games faster than Nintendo.

[UncleBob]

Yeah, Nintendo completely ignored 8 years of everyone else in the industry discovering exactly what resources were needed for HD games.

Is that how you've revised the previous HD/Wii generation in your history book?

It appears to me that Nintendo was well aware of what was going on - which was half their reasoning behind creating an SD console in the Wii and pushing the lower development costs as a strong point for Wii developers.

Of course, everyone (gamers, retailers, publishers and developers [at least, the ones that didn't go out of business]) bitched and whined about how they wanted Nintendo to create an HD console, so Nintendo was left with no choice but to give in - even while warning everyone about the high costs of HD development.  Now, we have an HD Nintendo console that third parties *still* won't develop for and that Nintendo is having a hard time supporting themselves.

Everyone act surprised.

[Kytim89]

I don't care if the 700, 000 is real or not.

It's a solid game for a platform badly in need of solid games.  If Nintendo isn't willing to invest in the Wii U how can we possibly expect third parties to?

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

If Nintendo themselves is making excuses on why to NOT support the Wii U, then I can't be mad at 3rd parties for doing the same exact thing...

Only Nintendo is releasing a Fire Emblem for the Wii U.  Yeah it's a crossover with Shin Megami Tensei that probably won't play like a traditional Fire Emblem but it still counts as a Fire Emblem game.  Hell the original idea came from IS looking for a studio to help make a Fire Emblem game that took place in the modern world, which eventually lead to them and Atlus making a SMT crossover.

So Nintendo is still supporting the Wii U with a Fire Emblem game of some kind that they are funding and publishing.  What about this is so hard for some of you to understand?

I said this before but it might be a great idea if IS collaborated with the developer of the recent XCOM game, Fireaxis, on an Advanced Wars and Fire Emblem game for the Wii U.

[broodwars]

Is that how you've revised the previous HD/Wii generation in your history book?

It appears to me that Nintendo was well aware of what was going on - which was half their reasoning behind creating an SD console in the Wii and pushing the lower development costs as a strong point for Wii developers.

Of course, everyone (gamers, retailers, publishers and developers [at least, the ones that didn't go out of business]) bitched and whined about how they wanted Nintendo to create an HD console, so Nintendo was left with no choice but to give in - even while warning everyone about the high costs of HD development.  Now, we have an HD Nintendo console that third parties *still* won't develop for and that Nintendo is having a hard time supporting themselves.

Everyone act surprised.

We just spent the last 8 years watching companies adjust to making games in HD.  FOR EIGHT YEARS, companies have been commenting on and going out of business thanks to the higher resource cost and risk of HD game development. NINTENDO HAS NO EXCUSE FOR NOT BEING READY WHEN THEY FINALLY DECIDED TO SHOW UP THIS GENERATION.  NONE.  ZERO.  They may have made an HD console like everyone else did 8 years ago, but they didn't have their **** together. They've admitted it.  They've said they were surprised and unprepared by the higher demands of HD gaming.  Sorry, but there's no excuse for not learning from the mistakes of your competitors, and now they're paying the price.

[broodwars]

And since I know Uncle Bob will probably ask me for a link to where I got that assertion, here: Miyamoto says Nintendo "underestimated" challenge of HD games.

[UncleBob]

You mean to say that Nintendo talked about concerns regarding the high costs of HD development, then, when they got into creating HD games, found out they were even higher costs than even they thought?

Again, everyone act surprised.

[Soren]

So Nintendo is still supporting the Wii U with a Fire Emblem game of some kind that they are funding and publishing.  What about this is so hard for some of you to understand?

I'm trying to understand why Yamagami said this even though there's a FE game in co-development with Atlus. It shows two things, neither of which apply just to FE games:
1) Nintendo doesn't have full grasp yet of the true cost of developing HD games.
2) Nintendo is balking at the idea of releasing mid-to-high budget niche games for a system THAT DESPERATELY NEEDS GAMES PERIOD just because the cost would outweigh the return. Even though, again, THE SYSTEM NEEDS GAMES ASAP!


This will not be the Wii U's only software drought. If this attitude persists, the next drought could very well kill off the console.

[broodwars]

You mean to say that Nintendo talked about concerns regarding the high costs of HD development, then, when they got into creating HD games, found out they were even higher costs than even they thought?

Again, everyone act surprised.

Nintendo had 8 years of data showing where their competitors failed and where they succeeded with HD games.  They had 8 years to plan out how large of teams they would need and what expenses would be required.  Instead, they chose to throw all that out the window and go through the same growing pains everyone else did 8 years ago.  That's on them.  They chose to go into the Wii U unprepared, and wonder of wonders they got caught flat-footed and are having their ass handed to them by 8 year old consoles.  Everyone act surprised.

[UncleBob]

If eight years of data means so much, then why are developers and publishers *still* going out of business?

Why are both Microsoft's gaming division and Sony's Playstation division struggling to make a profit, this far into the game?

[broodwars]

If eight years of data means so much, then why are developers and publishers *still* going out of business?

Because they made games people didn't want to buy.

Why are both Microsoft's gaming division and Sony's Playstation division struggling to make a profit, this far into the game?

Well, Sony's loss probably has a lot to do with R&D expenses on the PS4 and the unfortunate failure of the Vita.  The PlayStation division in general is one of Sony's few profitable divisions, or at least it had been in recent years.  As for Microsoft, look at the graph provided: a large period of loss from 2003-2008, where they were losing money on the original Xbox and the painful transition period into the 360.  Then, from 2008 onward, they're profitable after the release of Kinect and the end of the HD transition.  Your Microsoft link actually validates my point.

[UncleBob]

If eight years of data means so much, then why are developers and publishers *still* going out of business?

Because they made games people didn't want to buy.

True for some - but not all.

Why are both Microsoft's gaming division and Sony's Playstation division struggling to make a profit, this far into the game?

Well, Sony's loss probably has a lot to do with R&D expenses on the PS4 and the unfortunate failure of the Vita.  The PlayStation division in general is one of Sony's few profitable divisions, or at least it had been in recent years.

I'm not arguing if Sony's PS division is profitable.

I'm pointing out the fact that it's struggling.

For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, Sony's PlayStation business saw revenues of 707.1 billion yen ($7.2 billion), down 12.2 percent year-over-year, and operating income of 1.7 billion yen ($17.2 million), down by a significant 94.1 percent year-over-year.

As for Microsoft, look at the graph provided: a large period of loss from 2003-2008, where they were losing money on the original Xbox and the painful transition period into the 360.  Then, from 2008 onward, they're profitable after the release of Kinect and the end of the HD transition.  Your Microsoft link actually validates my point.

Did you see the giant bar for Fiscal Year 2011 and the bar that was about 1/4th the size for 2012?  Heck, 2011 was about the only year with a significant profit.

[Kytim89]

Here is a scenario: Suppose that the Wii U, PS4 and Xbone are the only home consoles on the market in 2014. Because the Wii U has been on the market for a year longer than its rival systems it has a bigger install base. Now, because of the bigger install base the weaker game developers use the Wii U as their primary console to put their games onto the system. Companies such as EA, Activision, etc, also adopt the Wii U as the lead platform in a similar manner to the PS2 in its era.

[broodwars]

Here is a scenario: Suppose that the Wii U, PS4 and Xbone are the only home consoles on the market in 2014. Because the Wii U has been on the market for a year longer than its rival systems it has a bigger install base. Now, because of the bigger install base the weaker game developers use the Wii U as their primary console to put their games onto the system. Companies such as EA, Activision, etc, also adopt the Wii U as the lead platform in a similar manner to the PS2 in its era.

Actually, just based on the how long Sony let the pre-orders go on for, I wouldn't be surprised if the PS4 caught up to the Wii U in terms of year-end-2013 user base by mid-2014.  I'm not so sure about the Xbone, but it probably will as well by the end of 2014.  The big question will be how big a console-selling impact yet another Mario Kart and Smash Bros. will have on Wii U's 2014 hardware sales.

[Kytim89]

Here is a scenario: Suppose that the Wii U, PS4 and Xbone are the only home consoles on the market in 2014. Because the Wii U has been on the market for a year longer than its rival systems it has a bigger install base. Now, because of the bigger install base the weaker game developers use the Wii U as their primary console to put their games onto the system. Companies such as EA, Activision, etc, also adopt the Wii U as the lead platform in a similar manner to the PS2 in its era.

Actually, just based on the how long Sony let the pre-orders go on for, I wouldn't be surprised if the PS4 caught up to the Wii U in terms of year-end-2013 user base by mid-2014.  I'm not so sure about the Xbone, but it probably will as well by the end of 2014.  The big question will be how big a console-selling impact yet another Mario Kart and Smash Bros. will have on Wii U's 2014 hardware sales.

From what I understand most pre-orders have been froze at this point, or is it just with Gamestop? How many of those pre-orders are people buying the systems to sell on eBay for higher than the market price?

[broodwars]

Here is a scenario: Suppose that the Wii U, PS4 and Xbone are the only home consoles on the market in 2014. Because the Wii U has been on the market for a year longer than its rival systems it has a bigger install base. Now, because of the bigger install base the weaker game developers use the Wii U as their primary console to put their games onto the system. Companies such as EA, Activision, etc, also adopt the Wii U as the lead platform in a similar manner to the PS2 in its era.

Actually, just based on the how long Sony let the pre-orders go on for, I wouldn't be surprised if the PS4 caught up to the Wii U in terms of year-end-2013 user base by mid-2014.  I'm not so sure about the Xbone, but it probably will as well by the end of 2014.  The big question will be how big a console-selling impact yet another Mario Kart and Smash Bros. will have on Wii U's 2014 hardware sales.

From what I understand most pre-orders have been froze at this point, or is it just with Gamestop? How many of those pre-orders are people buying the systems to sell on eBay for higher than the market price?

Does it really matter? Sold consoles are sold consoles.

[UncleBob]

Sold consoles are sold consoles.

Sometimes...

[broodwars]

Sold consoles are sold consoles.

Sometimes...

That assumes that people return the console when they fail at "flipping" it.  Assuming those Ebay-ed consoles sold, I don't see what different it would make why someone bought a PS4.  Besides, the Wii U's sales have proven to be pitiful since that January NPD report, as low as mid-30,000 in a recent month.  Whatever speculator bust happened w/ the Wii U, at worst it only affected one month.  Then the truth revealed itself, and it wasn't pretty for the Wii U.

[Kytim89]

Here is a scenario: Suppose that the Wii U, PS4 and Xbone are the only home consoles on the market in 2014. Because the Wii U has been on the market for a year longer than its rival systems it has a bigger install base. Now, because of the bigger install base the weaker game developers use the Wii U as their primary console to put their games onto the system. Companies such as EA, Activision, etc, also adopt the Wii U as the lead platform in a similar manner to the PS2 in its era.

Actually, just based on the how long Sony let the pre-orders go on for, I wouldn't be surprised if the PS4 caught up to the Wii U in terms of year-end-2013 user base by mid-2014.  I'm not so sure about the Xbone, but it probably will as well by the end of 2014.  The big question will be how big a console-selling impact yet another Mario Kart and Smash Bros. will have on Wii U's 2014 hardware sales.

From what I understand most pre-orders have been froze at this point, or is it just with Gamestop? How many of those pre-orders are people buying the systems to sell on eBay for higher than the market price?

Does it really matter? Sold consoles are sold consoles.

Brood, I saw a Wii U with all the fixings selling for $239.99 with no shipping costs on eBay earlier today. When I went to buy it it was sold before I could purchase it. Now, when a game console is sold used then it does not register in the sales that a new purchase would if it were bought at retail.

[broodwars]

Here is a scenario: Suppose that the Wii U, PS4 and Xbone are the only home consoles on the market in 2014. Because the Wii U has been on the market for a year longer than its rival systems it has a bigger install base. Now, because of the bigger install base the weaker game developers use the Wii U as their primary console to put their games onto the system. Companies such as EA, Activision, etc, also adopt the Wii U as the lead platform in a similar manner to the PS2 in its era.

Actually, just based on the how long Sony let the pre-orders go on for, I wouldn't be surprised if the PS4 caught up to the Wii U in terms of year-end-2013 user base by mid-2014.  I'm not so sure about the Xbone, but it probably will as well by the end of 2014.  The big question will be how big a console-selling impact yet another Mario Kart and Smash Bros. will have on Wii U's 2014 hardware sales.

From what I understand most pre-orders have been froze at this point, or is it just with Gamestop? How many of those pre-orders are people buying the systems to sell on eBay for higher than the market price?

Does it really matter? Sold consoles are sold consoles.

Brood, I saw a Wii U with all the fixings selling for $239.99 with no shipping costs on eBay earlier today. When I went to buy it it was sold before I could purchase it. Now, when a game console is sold used then it does not register in the sales that a new purchase would if it were bought at retail.

So?  From Nintendo's point of view, nothing has changed in terms of their Wii user base.  One person dropped out of the Wii U user base, and another signed on for a net result of zero.  And neither Nintendo, nor developers can track that anyway.  All that matters is how many consoles are in the wild.  That's your user base.  It doesn't matter what happens to those consoles once they're sold, so long as they're not returned.

[Adrock]

I'm trying to understand why Yamagami said this even though there's a FE game in co-development with Atlus.

Do we know the context of why Yamagami said this? Was he asked? Producers tend to paint themselves into a corner when asked questions they're not prepared for. Miyamoto does this all the time. It's a rigged game for them. We see cherry picked quotes all the time. Knowing where it came from would would help in understanding what it means.

Yamagami could be trying to drum up support for such a game. Awakening outsold both Path of Radiance on GameCube and Radiant Dawn on Wii individually and by a fair margin (according to the link in the article). Fire Emblem U would cost more thus requiring more sales to make it worth the trouble. Yamagami's estimate is still less than what Awakening sold but more than Path of Radiance so what he's saying makes sense. Fire Emblem U would need better sales than the previous console installments, which probably had budgets close to Awakening anyway. A higher budget requires higher sales; that seems fair to me.

More importantly, while Wii U is in dire need of games and Nintendo has absolutely dropped the ball so far, ask yourself if Fire Emblem is really the kind of game that will satisfy the masses. It's a good game to have, but it's one meant to supplement an already healthy lineup, not be an unhealthy one's cure. Sure, this shouldn't be an issue, but it is and there's nothing to be done with what's already done. How do you fix it? Not with Fire Emblem. If Nintendo is going to spend years developing a game, ideally they want one that reaches as many people as possible. Intelligent Systems wouldn't be sitting on their hands, doing nothing. They would be making something that hopefully has longer legs than Fire Emblem.