Topic: Bloober Executive Says "Don't Blame Wii" For Poor Sales

[KDR_11k]

Yeah but they claim around 40k first week for each of the Homecoming versions and Shattered Memories. Considering SM had very small shipment numbers Konami probably expected fairly low sales so even if it does bad numbers it may be living up to expectations

[NWR_Lindy]

I think third-parties are stuck between a rock and a hard place this generation.  If they make a top-tier, AAA, "expensive" Wii game, it would be unique on the platform but might not sell regardless of their effort, since the buying habits of the Wii audience is a little hard to predict.  If they make a top-tier, AAA, "expensive" 360/PS3 game, it will not be unique on those platforms, but it will *probably* sell because the buying habits of those audiences are more predictable.

I think third-parties are reticent to dive into Wii development whole-hog because very few companies besides Nintendo have really put up huge numbers.  You have your Just Dance titles that do well, but those "casual" genres get saturated too.  And people looking for the more "hardcore" titles probably already have a 360 or PS3 anyways, and abandoned the Wii long ago.

In a landscape of gambles, the Wii ironically seems to be MORE of a gamble, since the platform has been pigeonholed as a family-oriented console by gamers and press alike.  I think perception has become reality on Wii, and its hard to reverse that sentiment once it's become entrenched.

<Side rant incoming...>

Nintendo also hasn't done anything to really cultivate audiences in the more "hardcore" genres either.  Why not have the Wii equivalent of Goldeneye 007?  Why is the new installment of Golden Sun going to DS instead of Wii?  It doesn't seem like Nintendo themselves even have any faith in those genres on their own console, or even care about growing those genres on Wii.  It's not the job of third-parties to test out the waters for a genre on a console; that should be done by the console-maker, since they have the money to incur the most risk.  Nintendo would help out a lot by at least having some flagship franchises that don't involve Link, Mario, Samus, or Miis. 

Why Nintendo doesn't have a Dragon Quest-type RPG franchise, I'll never know.  They could do it as well or better than anybody else.  Somebody will say, "Oh, but JRPGs are a dying genre, Nintendo doesn't want to make a money sink, red ocean blah blah blah" but come on.  The 3D platformer could be considered a dying genre, yet Nintendo still creates amazing Mario games that set the industry on fire.  The reason why the 360 is huge for first-person shooters is because Microsoft made it a priority to cultivate the Halo franchise.  They created an audience for first-person shooters on their console out of thin air, and third-parties have been feeding off of it ever since.  Until Nintendo steps outside the boundaries of their general-interest fare, then the third-party output for the console will cater mostly to the audience that those general-interest games create.  Granted, that's a big audience, but not the total audience.

<Side rant finished>

[BlackNMild2k1]

This isn't a direct response to Lindy but I think it kinda fits here as well (from the sales thread)

Broodwars: Sounds like you are saying that Nintendo is doing a bang up jump of bringing in the casuals(stocking the lake) and proving bridge games(baiting the hook), but then no one is transitioning them in to traditional gamers. So it sounds like your beef isn't with Nintendo, but your beef is more that 3rd parties aren't doing their part on the Wii if you can't find what your looking for.

I don't smoke anymore, but 3rd parties remining me of those people that would come up to you and ask to bum a smoke, so you give them a cigarette, then they ask to borrow a light, you look at them funny but you light the cigarette for them but have to ask "Would you like me smoke that for you too?".

Is Nintendo really expected to do everything? 3rd parties aren't even trying to fill the gaps in the Wii release schedule even when Nintendo purposely leaves them wiiiiiiiiide open. All 3rd parties have done is copy some of the early things that Nintendo has done successfully on the Wii, do it extremely cheaply and repeatedly until it doesn't sell anymore. But just like the 3rd parties you blame Nintendo for this?

You say that there are no "traditional" gamers left on the Wii (outside of Nintendo fans), and it may or may not be true, but it's no one fault but the 3rd parties.

Nintendo releases WiiSports
3rd Parties see sports mini games. Deca Sports and countless other sports minis are born

Nintendo releases WiiPlay
3rd parties see mini game collection. Carnival games, Raving Rabbids and countless other minigame collection are born. Not to mention that that for some reason Light Gun games and On Rails shooters become a focus.

Nintendo releases Mario Galaxy
3rd parties ignore it because it's Mario. Where are all the damn platformers?

Nintendo releases Metroid Prime 3
3rd parties ignore that too. Wii owners don't like 1st person shooters.

Nintendo releases WiiFit
3rd parties see fitness games. Some good software actually came from this, but there are still some very obvious gaps being left wide open.

Now you have to look at 3rd party success that hasn't even been followed up and much less even copied.

Capcom re-re-releases Resident Evil 4.
Does Capcom follow that up with a similar style game?
Nope. RE5, Lost Planet, Dead Rising and anything else in the genre never shows up.
Does EA capitalize and release Dead Space on Wii to fill the obvious gap being ignored here?
of course not.
Does any 3rd party put any sort of effort into filling the 3rd person shooter gap on the Wii?

CoD whatever is released.
Does Activision push for more.... yeah, but late ports on low budgets.
Conduit is released. Solid effort from a C grade studio that actually brought something to the table.
Does anyone try to step up and be the FPS of the Wii?
Nah... but here is another 2yr late port.

So you can't blame Nintendo for the shortcoming in the Wii line up when it is the job of the 3rd parties to get in there and make the games that fill out the line up. I don't see anyone pointing any fingers at Sony or MS for having the 3rd parties do 90% of their heavy lifting  while Nintendo carries all their own weight.

Nintendo is selling more hardware to more people faster than any console or handheld before this gen and 3rfd parties are abandoning the platform because they forgot how to make games that aren't HD? And when they do manage to make something worthwhile, they send it out to die with absolutely no advertising whatsoever.That is ridiculous and for every 3rd party that fails to stay profitable this generation has no one but themselves to blame.

And to follow up on what Lindy said,
Yes, there are lots of things Nintendo could have done better, more genres they could explore, more games they could release, and I would be ecstatic about it. But lots of those games are genres that the 3rd parties excel at and instead of showing Nintendo and their audience what they are capable of, they slink back in the red waters of the HD consoles where they are more comfortable just pushing the hardware for more visuals over something more interesting, innovative and fun than the last 3 games that came out last month. Besides, if Nintendo did step in and dominate those genres on their own consoles, that would only give 3rd parties one more reason to ignore the system and publicly complain about how they don't want to compete with Nintendo.

We don't need to give 3rd parties anymore excuses not to, but I do agree that Nintendo could do more to get them to say "why not".

edit:
But Nintendo has left plenty of room for 3rd parties to shine and hardly any of them choose to take advantage of that opportunity. Many 3rd parties have the franchises in the genres that have been given an invitation to Nintendo's Potluck. All they had to was bring a dish that no one else was bringing, yet they decide to bring beans in a can and a bowl filled with mayo and potatoes that whey want to call potato salad and wonder why no one is eating what their dish.

[NWR_insanolord]

A couple quick responses to our exalted leader:

I think third-parties are stuck between a rock and a hard place this generation.  If they make a top-tier, AAA, "expensive" Wii game, it would be unique on the platform but might not sell regardless of their effort, since the buying habits of the Wii audience is a little hard to predict. 

"Hard to predict" is an excellent way of describing it; I don't agree with those who argue that there's no market for mature content on the Wii, but I will concede that it's harder to figure out what will sell and how to sell it.

Nintendo also hasn't done anything to really cultivate audiences in the more "hardcore" genres either.  Why not have the Wii equivalent of Goldeneye 007?  Why is the new installment of Golden Sun going to DS instead of Wii?  It doesn't seem like Nintendo themselves even have any faith in those genres on their own console, or even care about growing those genres on Wii.  It's not the job of third-parties to test out the waters for a genre on a console; that should be done by the console-maker, since they have the money to incur the most risk.  Nintendo would help out a lot by at least having some flagship franchises that don't involve Link, Mario, Samus, or Miis. 

Why Nintendo doesn't have a Dragon Quest-type RPG franchise, I'll never know.  They could do it as well or better than anybody else.  Somebody will say, "Oh, but JRPGs are a dying genre, Nintendo doesn't want to make a money sink, red ocean blah blah blah" but come on.  The 3D platformer could be considered a dying genre, yet Nintendo still creates amazing Mario games that set the industry on fire.  The reason why the 360 is huge for first-person shooters is because Microsoft made it a priority to cultivate the Halo franchise.  They created an audience for first-person shooters on their console out of thin air, and third-parties have been feeding off of it ever since.  Until Nintendo steps outside the boundaries of their general-interest fare, then the third-party output for the console will cater mostly to the audience that those general-interest games create.  Granted, that's a big audience, but not the total audience.

It's not that Nintendo doesn't have faith in those genres; they simply have no desire to make games in those genres, and historically never have. Nintendo always has and probably always will do what they want to do. As for your question why Nintendo doesn't have their own equivalent to Dragon Quest, what do you think Pokemon is?

[BlackNMild2k1]

3rd parties need to know their place.*
Nintendo has left them plenty of seats at the table and it's them(3rd Parties) that have chosen not to sit in them.


*Their place is filling in the genre gaps and the software holes. Nintendo focuses on certain genres and when they make a game in it, they make sure they do it well. There are plenty of 3rd parties that do what they do very well too. They just either need to step up and put forth the effort or shut up. Nobody wants a half-assed one foot in, one foot out effort. You're either in our your out, but either way shut the door behind you.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"but I will concede that it's harder to figure out what will sell and how to sell it."

Well, they need to put in that Good-Faith Reasonable Effort first before making a conclusion.  They kept doing "lithmus tests" when they should've conducted a robust experiment (from game concept, to game execution, to marketing).  We haven't seen a full-grade 3rd party effort in the N. American market yet, while Japan saw Monster Hunter 3 with reasonable success in inviting a portable franchise's audience to a console.

The closest we've got was The Conduit, but that endeavor still doesn't meet the criteria I'm describing.

BnM speaks Truth and Justice.

[broodwars]

It's not that Nintendo doesn't have faith in those genres; they simply have no desire to make games in those genres, and historically never have. Nintendo always has and probably always will do what they want to do. As for your question why Nintendo doesn't have their own equivalent to Dragon Quest, what do you think Pokemon is?

Yet Pokemon is also the big franchise Nintendo just steadfastly refuses to bring to any of their consoles in its traditional format.  Nintendo treats their consoles as shovelware platforms when it comes to Pokemon, to the extent that it's hard to care about the franchise anymore.

[King of Twitch]

Yea, it probably is tricky to figure out what kind of product that 60 million potential customers might want to buy.

But, it's like that old adage goes: "Better to cower under the sofa and not try at all"

Edit: I've found a picture of a third party in the wild that illustrates this.

[BlackNMild2k1]

It's not that Nintendo doesn't have faith in those genres; they simply have no desire to make games in those genres, and historically never have. Nintendo always has and probably always will do what they want to do. As for your question why Nintendo doesn't have their own equivalent to Dragon Quest, what do you think Pokemon is?

Yet Pokemon is also the big franchise Nintendo just steadfastly refuses to bring to any of their consoles in its traditional format.  Nintendo treats their consoles as shovelware platforms when it comes to Pokemon, to the extent that it's hard to care about the franchise anymore.

We're all waiting for Pokemon to come to the consoles in some way other than a spin-off or stadium focused side-game. We all know that Pokemon would work as a MMO too if Nintendo wanted it to, but I kinda understand their approach to Pokemon. I've never played it, but I understand it to be a pick up and play on-the-go type of game that is best suited for the handheld sector. Nintendo is trying to bring familiar characters to the consoles while providing a different experience than what you would get on the GBA/DS.

The DS games are consistently some of the best selling games period and why would you want to dilute those sales by spreading them out onto the consoles? If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Chozo Ghost]

3rd parties need to know their place.*
Nintendo has left them plenty of seats at the table and it's them(3rd Parties) that have chosen not to sit in them.

Actually, the 3rd parties' place is beneath the table where they beg like dogs for the scraps, but Nintendo is the John Goodman wiping out the thanksgiving feast so there isn't much leftovers for anyone else.

[Kairon]

So much... so much hate! T_T

[Mop it up]

I've never played it, but I understand it to be a pick up and play on-the-go type of game that is best suited for the handheld sector.

The great thing about Pokémon is that it can suit both the "casual" and "hardcore" moods. The design is simple and the goals are clear, but there is more complexity to the game than its cutesy surface might have you believe. The team-building element of the game is quite intricate, with hundreds of Pokémon separated into over a dozen different types, all with different potentials for stats and various ways to build up stats. The limitation of four moves also instills even more strategy, and even things like the sex of a creature affects how its stats are built.

That's the "hardcore" side of the game, but it is not a necessary part of it. You can get through the main game without ever having to learn what an EV is or what methodology is used in raising a specific stat, as the enemies you'll face along the main quest will never have a fully leveled, well-trained team. You need to care about that only if you want to battle with other players. A console Pokémon RPG could work in a similar manner, and with the online functions of the Wii, it doesn't really need to be portable in order to find people to trade with. The offline quest would be the more "casual" element of it, and the online portion would be the more "hardcore" element, sort of like that Pokémon Battle Revolution that was released on Wii.

It'll probably never happen though, as being on a console gives less reason and benefit to releasing two "versions" of the same exact game, and would eliminate the release of the console "stadium" type of game, all of which sell better as they are.

[Stratos]

I think a new game like Gales of Darkness on Gamecube (is that what it's called?) would be a good step. Except allow you to upload your team from the DS games to play in a new 3-D RPG. Maybe even make an 'add-on' of sorts where you can 'travel' from the DS game to the console versuion and explore a whole new region with different pokemon and gym leaders and what-not.

...realizes the thread is thoroughly delrailed...oops... 

[Mop it up]

...realizes the thread is thoroughly delrailed...oops... 

My work here is done.

[KDR_11k]

Blackn~1 is right to quote that here, it seems when Nintendo makes a game third parties complain that they cannot compete, when Nintendo doesn't make a game third parties complain that Nintendo doesn't invent the market first.

[Peachylala]

Nintendo isn't going bankrupt and laying off people, third parties have the right to complain!

[Deguello]

A couple of interesting links about this subject.

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/01/npd-analysis-how-to-sell-a-wii-game

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19299100&postcount=732

Kohler's analysis is a bit flawed, for saying Nintendo even deserves a tiny bit of blame for third party woes.  And for saying "Just Dance" is apparently the answer or "better casual games."  Both of these are not supported by the data, which still has such core games like Smash Bros., Mario Galaxy, And Zelda:TP Selling more than any budget-price casual game around.  But mostly, he's spot on, saying that third parties should adopt a Nintendo-style model for development.

The neogaf post is illustrative of what happens when you either ineptly or intentionally make a terrible game, or an unnecessary spinoff.  HE makes an excellent case that "brand loyalty does not exist in a vacuum." Nintendo has earned theirs over DECADES of making high quality games.  The consumers will distrust your brand and go for the one that doesn't experiment on you or take you for a moron.  Particularly good is the final sentence, where one is asked to compare Nintendo's lineup of games vs. other publishers and see who made the best efforts possible to build brand loyalty.

The best way to ensure a monopoly is to not compete, and so far, third parties have not been competing with Nintendo at all, merely content to port and drop, sabotage (like day-after-Christmas launches, for example), or just not give a damn (Activision's awful line of casual games) and blame the Wii when they ultimately fail.

[Rize]

Wii game's aren't going to sell to core gamers because we can get better games with better graphics on the 360 and PS3.  For a Wii game intended for core gamers to sell really well to multi-console owning "core" gamers, it can't be merely "great for a Wii game".  It has to compete with the 360 and PS3 and that includes graphics so you developers and publishers better start looking for some Metroid Prime caliber artists.

[Chozo Ghost]

Wii game's aren't going to sell to core gamers because we can get better games with better graphics on the 360 and PS3.  For a Wii game intended for core gamers to sell really well to multi-console owning "core" gamers, it can't be merely "great for a Wii game".  It has to compete with the 360 and PS3 and that includes graphics so you developers and publishers better start looking for some Metroid Prime caliber artists.

Speak for yourself. I'm a core gamer and I value gameplay over graphics.

[Peachylala]

Super Mario Galaxy says hi, Rize.

Also, New Super Mario Bros. Wii.

[KDR_11k]

It has to compete with the 360 and PS3 and that includes graphics so you developers and publishers better start looking for some Metroid Prime caliber artists.

I don't expect a Wii game to look like a 360 game but I expect it to play well and I think that's the part where most trip up.

[broodwars]

I just love the assumption that for a game to have good gameplay it has to look like ****, and if a game has good graphics the gameplay must suck...don't you?

I don't see anything wrong with saying at this point for core gamers to embrace a Wii game it has to have good art direction so the game looks the best it can on Wii.  Good art direction should be a given on any game on any system.  I'm replaying FF X from the PS2 on my PS3 right now, and I have said in the past that if most Wii games looked as good as that game I'd be perfectly content with the system.  That game was released in 2001, and from sheer art direction it still looks better than most Wii games...which is pathetic.  We've been getting some great-looking games this year (Punch Out, Muramasa, A Boy & His Blob), but they still seem the exception rather than the rule.

Of course, in any game the developers need to bring the gameplay as well, though I wonder how much of that lacking on Wii comes from incompetent programming/design and how much stems from the Wiimote being a motion controller so obviously flawed that Nintendo had to release Motion+ as a bandaid.

[Deguello]

I just love the assumption that for a game to have good gameplay it has to look like ****, and if a game has good graphics the gameplay must suck...don't you?

Who said that and where?

Of course, in any game the developers need to bring the gameplay as well, though I wonder how much of that lacking on Wii comes from incompetent programming/design and how much stems from the Wiimote being a motion controller so obviously flawed that Nintendo had to release Motion+ as a bandaid.

Yeah how dare Nintendo release a product whose technology matured over time.    That's some bad hindsight thinking.  It's like faulting the NES because "16-bit graphics are just around the corner, so they should wait."And considering third parties have released some real turkeys on the Wii and Nintendo more or less hasn't, I'd say it's probably on the third parties, mostly.  Of course, we can never let another opportunity pass to blame Nintendo for third parties making bad games, can we?

I'm replaying FF X from the PS2 on my PS3 right now, and I have said in the past that if most Wii games looked as good as that game I'd be perfectly content with the system.  That game was released in 2001, and from sheer art direction it still looks better than most Wii games...which is pathetic.  We've been getting some great-looking games this year (Punch Out, Muramasa, A Boy & His Blob), but they still seem the exception rather than the rule.

Don't you think maybe FFX was also an exception on the PS2?  It's not like every PS2 game was a paragon of art direction.  Most were pretty groady, and in low rez, too.  Sure it does look better than most of the Shovelware, but then again, FFX looked better than the PS2's shovelware as well.  However, since FFX doesn't look better than the Wii's best, Mario Galaxy (nowhere near, in fact), It's fair to say that most Wii games would look like that if every developer who wasn't Nintendo pulled their fingers out of their asses.  Sure, the Wii has some **** looking games.  Thankfully, most of them do pretty poorly while the good games typically float to the top.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Deguello, you forgot part of his post.

Of course, in any game the developers need to bring the gameplay as well, though I wonder how much of that lacking on Wii comes from incompetent programming/design and how much stems from the Wiimote being a motion controller so obviously flawed that Nintendo had to release Motion+ as a bandaid.

I think we all know that Nintendo intended to have M+ in the wiimote from the start, but I don't think anybody was either ready for that level of control just yet nor were we willing to pay close to $100 upfront for each complete controller. It was too expensive and motion control needed a baby steps for the introduction of the new concept.

[Ian Sane]

Wii game's aren't going to sell to core gamers because we can get better games with better graphics on the 360 and PS3.  For a Wii game intended for core gamers to sell really well to multi-console owning "core" gamers, it can't be merely "great for a Wii game".  It has to compete with the 360 and PS3 and that includes graphics so you developers and publishers better start looking for some Metroid Prime caliber artists.

For me the graphic aren't as important.  But the "better games" part of it is what turns me off of Wii third party games.  Nothing seems like a really serious effort.  It all seems like someone told the B-team to "make something for the Wii audience".  On the other consoles you get games where you can tell the developer has their top guys working on it and the whole thing is a labour of love.  You can tell that the goal is to make one of the greatest games ever.  Serious effort is made on the gameplay, controls, level design, graphics, art style, music, story and just overall presentation.  The Wii it's just like "pound out whatever".  Core gamers aren't interested in half-assed attempts.  We want those GOTY types of games and when a third party only makes those games on the other consoles you just develop this "eh, **** 'em" indifference to them.
 
Super Mario Galaxy, SSB Brawl and Metroid Prime 3 seem like FULL efforts.  They have that "go for broke and make the best game EVER" ambitious design, regardless of whether you think they actually acheived that.  Not every game has to be like that.  I think Nintendo very noticably cuts corners these days and even an amazing game like NSMB Wii doesn't come across as very ambitious.  But at least Nintendo has made that sort of game on the Wii.  When a third party have never even made an attempt to do such a thing how can their support be taken seriously?  It comes across like the Wii is not a priority for them so core gamers might as well stick to the other consoles and just use their Wii as their Nintendo machine.
 
The effort I think is the key thing and you can put in that kind of effort on the Wii even without HD graphics.  The best games always made exceptional use of the hardware they were "stuck" with.  There was always something better be it arcades, PCs or some high-powered but obscure console.  Square could have made Final Fantasy VI on the 3DO and thus have FMV and CD-quality music and a lot of the bells of whistles they later had in FFVII.  But instead they used the "inferior" SNES with it's chip sound, cartridge format, and slow CPU but still busted out an amazing game that pushes the console to its limits.  Despite the limitations they went for broke and knocked the ball out of the park.  Nobody does that on the Wii, except Nintendo (sometimes), and then they wonder why after 20 years of being conditioned to favour these types of games we don't buy Wii games and instead focus on the 2nd and 3rd place consoles that contain those types of games.