EA CEO Frustrated by Low Wii Sales

by Neal Ronaghan - November 10, 2009, 11:14 am PST
Total comments: 171 Source: GamesIndustry.biz

John Riccitiello wants Nintendo to release more first-party titles to spur interest in the platform.

Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello discussed the company's low Wii sales in an investor conference call last night. He noted that he was frustrated with the poor performance of EA software on the platform, despite what he considers to be the best third-party lineup on the console.

Riccitiello described the Wii market overall to be "weaker than….anticipated," which made it especially frustrating since EA has what is, in his opinion, "the strongest third-party share" of any company creating games for the platform.

He cited that his products are the most highly-rated and highest revenue-producing of any third-party Wii publisher, yet they are still not performing at a desired level.

He placed part of the blame on Nintendo themselves. He noted that Nintendo's lack of major first-party releases throughout the year have failed to generate sustained interest in the Wii platform, and that Nintendo needs to increase its partnering with third parties at retail and push third-party software harder in general.

He particularly lamented the struggles of multiplatform Wii titles, commenting that "the opportunity exists to find different ways to partner with first party in this case to sort of help establish in the minds of the consumer legitimacy of some of these other brands when they are going out multiplatform because very, very few multiplatform titles are succeeding on the Wii."

He also considers Asian markets a lost cause for Western third parties, estimating that of the console's 50 million plus userbase, 10 million (i.e. Japan and the rest of Asia) are virtually unreachable. Riccitiello was very frank in this regard, stating "I don’t think any of the Western companies are likely to participate much at all on the Wii platform in Japan, so the addressable market we see is just a little bit below 40 million."

He did, however, reiterate that he considered this to still be "an important opportunity".

Talkback

GoldenPhoenixNovember 10, 2009

Maybe they could, I dunno, advertise their games? Seriously they released a high quality game in Dead Space Extraction but no one even knew about it coming out!

HypotheliciouslyNovember 10, 2009

Or maybe, they could not completely change the game for the Wii? No matter how good it is, it's a completely different game.

PeachylalaNovember 10, 2009

It's a sad state in gamedom when us Nintendo fans know what is truly wrong yet third excuse makers can't wrap their tiny little brains around it.

It is almost like the game of Frogger. We, the fans, are the cars/trucks/alligators; third excuse makers are Frogger and Nintendo is the holes at the top of the stage.

I wonder if Ms. Pac-Man is a better game to compare?

BrandoggNovember 10, 2009

Or they could just shut the fuck up. Seriously though, it's simple. Make a great game. Advertise the game. Sell the game. OBVIOUSLY doing stupid shit like "All Play" and giving games like Madden '10 "character" only *hurt* sales. Putting some effort into making a game, and then advertising it can make a big impact. Tiger Woods sells more on Wii than the other consoles, same with Guitar Hero.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

EA Exec should be frustrated with the poor performance of EA's promotion of their own products.

3rd parties are lazy?  Is that it?  They expect the console maker to do the advertising for them?  TOUGH LUCK, THIS ISN'T THE SAME MONEYHAT GENERATION LIKE WE HAD LAST TIME.

Nice to know that even XSEED can compete with EA on these conditions.

HypotheliciouslyNovember 10, 2009

I don't know what Nintendo needs to do other than sell systems.

They have a price drop and an instant classic this winter. What else do you want EA?!

PeachylalaNovember 10, 2009

A power pallet?

A fire flower?

Talking pizza?

The list can go on and on and on and on... and on.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

"Talking pizza?"

Wow.

PeachylalaNovember 10, 2009

TMNT The Arcade Game says hello.

I don't even think the EA CEO is capable of saving April from her burning apartment building, with giant cannon balls falling from the stairs.

GKNovember 10, 2009

This on the heels of EA announcing layoffs today...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=acHpsnkxuIOc

So.. it's the first party's fault that the 3rd party doesn't have a best seller? Wait what?

HypotheliciouslyNovember 10, 2009

It's all a ploy to keep stock high...

sigh.

Quote from: Brandogg

OBVIOUSLY doing stupid **** like "All Play" and giving games like Madden '10 "character" only *hurt* sales. Putting some effort into making a game

You contradict yourself a bit. EA did put effort into the Madden games. They put effort to make them unique and something different than a the PS2 game with waggle.

I don't think All Play and "character" hurt sales for Madden. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that loyal Madden players developed on PS2 and branched out to the PS3 or 360. Even if Madden Wii was miraculously the same game as the HD versions, I think it'd be selling the same, maybe even worse.
Personally, I love what EA Sports is doing on Wii. Tiger Woods is great, Madden 10 was the best Wii version yet, and FIFA 10 is awesome.

Now Dead Space: Extraction on the other hand. EA just dropped the ball on that.

Ian SaneNovember 10, 2009

I suppose EA would be one of the more competent Wii third parties but, seriously, that's just being the best of the worst.  And while Dead Space: Extraction could be the best game in the world the sheer fact that it's a re-worked on-rails shooter of a PS360 game is insulting to its target market.  It says "you're not worthy of the REAL game so we have to alter it for your needs."  Maybe that's because of the hardware restrictions but it still gives the impression that for whatever reason we have to be treated differently.  That stigma doomed the game from day one.

Though I do agree that there has been a significant lack of major first-party releases throughout the year.  Off the top of my head I can think of only four Wii games made by Nintendo for the whole year that are not a port or enhanced remake or special edition (Wii Fit Plus).  In the beginning of the year they pretty much were releasing NPC titles and NOTHING else.  The output comes across as complacent, that they assume that the Wii is such a big deal that they don't have to really put much of an effort into it.

Overall though I feel that the blame is shared between Nintendo and the third parties.  It really comes across that all involved parties are half-assing it and then pointing fingers when they get the poor results one would expect.

PeachylalaNovember 10, 2009

Nintendo isn't to blame for Highly Dramatic flops that cause Highly Dramatic layoffs. It's Highly Disappointing.

God I love the letters HD now.

vuduNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: NWR_Neal

You contradict yourself a bit. EA did put effort into the Madden games. They put effort to make them unique and something different than a the PS2 game with waggle.

I don't think All Play and "character" hurt sales for Madden. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that loyal Madden players developed on PS2 and branched out to the PS3 or 360. Even if Madden Wii was miraculously the same game as the HD versions, I think it'd be selling the same, maybe even worse.
Personally, I love what EA Sports is doing on Wii. Tiger Woods is great, Madden 10 was the best Wii version yet, and FIFA 10 is awesome.

But EA didn't bother to tell anyone with a Wii why they should care about the game.  We've already established that typical Madden fans will buy the 360 or PS3 version.  But what about all the potential fans on Wii?  I'm talking about the people who don't buy Madden games because they're too complicated.  What about the dads who love football but don't buy football games because the controls are confusing?  Or the gamers who want to actually play Madden casually?  These people don't typically buy Madden because every button has several contextual functions that are confusing unless you put a lot of time and energy into memorizing how to play.  At the same time they don't want to buy a dumbed-down or incomplete version of the game.

If EA advertised that this was the full Madden experience with easier to pick-up-and-play controls they would create a new market for the game.  But like you, they believe that there isn't a huge market for the game on Wii so they don't put forth the effort or advertising dollars necessary to ensure the game is a hit.

EA certainly dropped the ball on Extraction big time.

BlackNMild2k1November 10, 2009

It's a serious crime against themselves when they put in the time and effort that they did on DSE and even the gamers on the forums across the internet that were waiting for the game to be released didn't know it was out yet.
Yet they have the nerve to say that it's Nintendo's fault that EA themselves didn't inform the general and enthusiast public that one of their games was infact being released. There was not a single television ad for the game or even an announcement from PR abiout the game .

It goes back to the 500 Copies Roundtable. Companies complain that games don't sell on the Wii, but they don't put their best foot forward to pimp it.

Although I don't recall seeing much ad support for Madden at all this year. Maybe this is a bigger issue that has to be with flailing economy?

BlackNMild2k1November 10, 2009

EA just spent $250million to buy a company that makes games for Facebook, this is on the same day that they laid off 1500 workers. I'm not saying that the 2 are related, but it certainly shows that EA has the resources to advertise their games if they have enough money to acquire yet another company.

vuduNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: NWR_Neal

Although I don't recall seeing much ad support for Madden at all this year. Maybe this is a bigger issue that has to be with flailing economy?

EA doesn't really need to advertise typical Madden games.  The people who buy them know that August is Madden month.

They only need to advertise the game if they're trying to sell to a market that doesn't already buy their games (see my previous post).

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

EA just spent $250million to buy a company that makes games for Facebook, this is on the same day that they laid off 1500 workers. I'm not saying that the 2 are related, but it certainly shows that EA has the resources to advertise their games if they have enough money to acquire yet another company.

That makes me hope they get negative game sales next month.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: vudu

Quote from: NWR_Neal

Although I don't recall seeing much ad support for Madden at all this year. Maybe this is a bigger issue that has to be with flailing economy?

EA doesn't really need to advertise typical Madden games.  The people who buy them know that August is Madden month.

They only need to advertise the game if they're trying to sell to a market that doesn't already buy their games (see my previous post).

So where was their Boom Blox advertising blitz?

Quote from: vudu

Quote from: NWR_Neal

Although I don't recall seeing much ad support for Madden at all this year. Maybe this is a bigger issue that has to be with flailing economy?

EA doesn't really need to advertise typical Madden games.  The people who buy them know that August is Madden month.

They only need to advertise the game if they're trying to sell to a market that doesn't already buy their games (see my previous post).

You're right, but I do recall seeing more Madden advertisements in the past. I usually watch a lot of ESPN, especially during the NFL/MLB overlap period, and I'm bombarded with Madden ads in August. Looking back, this year I noticed a lack of ads.

I'm not even trying to defend EA. I feel that they made their bed and now they have to lie in it. I'm trying to figure out why they don't bother advertising games, and the only answer I'm coming up with besides ignorance is ad budget cuts.


EDIT: And if we're talking about Boom Blox, I was still floored at how little love that game got. I went to an event for it about a week before it came out and they restricted us heavily. We could only write a preview based on a little amount of information. I have no idea why.

UncleBobRichard Cook, Guest ContributorNovember 10, 2009

Man, where are the good old days.
You remember... when third parties used to blame Nintendo for releasing really great games and hogging all the sales.

Now, third parties are mad at Nintendo for not releasing games?

Me am Bizarro?

vuduNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: NinGurl69

So where was their Boom Blox advertising blitz?

Spielberg lost a lot of money last year.  It wasn't in the budget.

The good old days for me were when Nintendo made awesome games and couldn't market themselves out of a paper during the GameCube era.

BlackNMild2k1November 10, 2009

EA of all people know that you have to spend money to make money, so they should also know that if you don't spend money advertising your game, then people won't spend money buying it.
It's not like Dead Space was such a massive hit that if I see it on the shelf I automatically know what it is and might buy it for the title alone(It's not a Madden or TW). Dead Space meant enough to EA to make a movie about it and they even advertised this movie for it's direct to DVD release.
EA spent all it's time and money on convincing the enthusiast market that the game was not just an on-rails shooter (it is a first person guided shooter) and forgot to spend time and money on actually selling the game.

Nobodies fault but their own.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

Did you see the boxart as well?  What kind of shit is that?

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: NinGurl69

It's the beginning of the end for Activision.

I think it's the James Bond license curse.  Whoever acquires it will Rise & Fall within a generation's timeframe.

EA must be on the tail end of its curse.

I don't know what you're all talking about with Extraction not being advertised. I saw tons of ads for it on Hulu as well as banners on gaming sites. I don't have cable TV, so I can't speak to that, but the fact is that EA certainly did advertise this game. Maybe not as much as they should have, or as much as you would like, but they had a marketing budget and they spent it. That's more than you can say for many other third-party Wii games.

BlackNMild2k1November 10, 2009

You are likely hitting the same market when advertising on a gaming sites and on Hulu.
There were 0 (zero) TV ads for this game and I didn't see a single ad on Hulu BTW. SO if htey had a marketing budget, then they wasted it cause it didn't go very far and it certainly hasn't produced much as far as awareness.

ArbokNovember 10, 2009

Wait, Dead Space Extraction is already out?

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

You are likely hitting the same market when advertising on a gaming sites and on Hulu.
There were 0 (zero) TV ads for this game and I didn't see a single ad on Hulu BTW. SO if htey had a marketing budget, then they wasted it cause it didn't go very far and it certainly hasn't produced much as far as awareness.

Possible Marketing Logic: Our demographic is probably the people who go on Hulu and frequent gaming sites.

I don't think they really wasted it. I just think their plan didn't work as well as they hoped.

GoldenPhoenixNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: Jonnyboy117

I don't know what you're all talking about with Extraction not being advertised. I saw tons of ads for it on Hulu as well as banners on gaming sites. I don't have cable TV, so I can't speak to that, but the fact is that EA certainly did advertise this game. Maybe not as much as they should have, or as much as you would like, but they had a marketing budget and they spent it. That's more than you can say for many other third-party Wii games.

The thing is that if even those following the game were caught off guard when it was released shows the marketing was terrible. Especially since those gamers are NOT the casual crowd.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

You didn't know?  The ads are plastered all over HuTube.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: NWR_Neal

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

You are likely hitting the same market when advertising on a gaming sites and on Hulu.
There were 0 (zero) TV ads for this game and I didn't see a single ad on Hulu BTW. SO if htey had a marketing budget, then they wasted it cause it didn't go very far and it certainly hasn't produced much as far as awareness.

Possible Marketing Logic: Our demographic is probably the people who go on Hulu and frequent gaming sites.

I don't think they really wasted it. I just think their plan didn't work as well as they hoped.

Part of the problem is they made a "casualized" horror game yet still attempted to market it to the seasoned in-the-know gamers -- I thought they were trying to reach out to horror-loving casuals in the first place?  what gives?

The EA I used to know last generation would plaster their ads on Spike TV, History, Court TV, USA, WB, Comedy Central, and the major national networks.  I even remember the short little commercial for Criterion's "Black."  What are they doing now?  Putting banners on IGN cuz IGN comprises 3/4 of the internet?  Are they for real?

ZapNovember 10, 2009

"I don’t think any of the Western companies are likely to participate much at all on the Wii platform in Japan, so the addressable market we see is just a little bit below 40 million but that is still an important opportunity."

So EA and other third panty-waisters have basically no idea what 20% of the market wants and don't know how to find out? Way to raise the bar.

broodwarsNovember 10, 2009

Sorry, EA, but most of the fault for your losses lies with you.  You neither put forth the effort to develop interesting and high-quality games on Wii, nor did you put together any competent effort to support them with advertising.  You've spent a good deal of the last few years not giving Nintendo gamers the games they want to buy: you bragged that Spielburg (master of emotion in film) was working on a major title, and then you revealed it was a physics party game (Boom Blox).  You also decided that on a platform where Resident Evil 4 was a major seller to create a rail shooter out of your RE4-type game, and then you never gave anyone a good reason to buy it.  Experimental games are great, but you have to convince gamers that the experiment resulted in a quality game.  Nintendo gamers in particular are used to 3rd party companies producing lousy games at minimal effort, and EA never gave them a reason to think they were any different.

That said, I do think he has a point that Nintendo has essentially abandoned the Wii to 3rd parties these past few years, and Nintendo games are what drive platform sales on Nintendo platforms.  It certainly didn't help drive interest in the platform that in Nintendo's absence 3rd parties have almost completely dropped the ball themselves (with notable exceptions, particularly this year).  Thing is, it's  hard to sympathize with EA when Nintendo gave 3rd parties these past few years the sales environment they've wanted for years: a 3rd party-centric one where Nintendo was not openly competing with them.  Nintendo gave them the opportunity to shine and distinguish themselves with Wii gamers, and they failed.

JLowtherJesse Lowther, Guest ContributorNovember 10, 2009

On the subject of Extraction, has anyone here actually PLAYED it? It seems to have had good reviews (http://wii.ign.com/articles/102/1028144p1.html) and I've also seen it advertised plenty. But if no one here has actually even played it, why are they acting as though they have the right to call it a good or bad game?

I think this whole thread is indicative of exactly what EA's problem on the Wii is, though I think the CEO either didn't say it or is barking up the wrong tree.

The blame doesn't fall on Nintendo. Nintendo's lack of 1st party titles is probably being done to avoid smothering 3rd party releases. And let me say this: all of my dealings with Nintendo and its representatives have been absolutely wonderful. They've been nothing but the most polite, helpful and accommodating group of people I've dealt with (though up to their ears in work, but that's not something to get upset about).

The problem is that Nintendo fans (myself included) are the most xenophobic gamers on the planet. We REALLY are. We know what we want before it's offered. Dead Space: Extraction, from everything I've read, sounds like a story-driven prequel to the original game that explains the events leading up to the first game, and it sounds like it may very well be superior in storytelling to the original, given the original was just a lone guy on a ship.

I've been a Nintendo fan since the N64. I too have spent most of my gaming life only keeping an eye out for the next Mario, Zelda or SSB game. It wasn't until the GC that I started looking to 3rd party releases and seeing what they had to offer and I found some real gems as a result.

The point is, the attitude of "We don't want a lightgun spinoff!" is both elitist and unwarranted. It's unwarranted because RE:UC showed that players on the Wii buy lightgun spinoffs (though HOTD went on to debunk that notion) and it's elitist because who cares if it's a lightgun game, a FPS or a dating sim? The reviewers are giving it a clean bill of health, it was well-advertised. In the old days, that's all it took to get a good word of mouth going and more sales would result.

The real truth of the matter is that, even if EA released a full-blown Dead Space game on the Wii tomorrow, we'd STILL turn our noses up at it because it's "Not the kind of game we want.", "It's generic", and we'd find reasons to nitpick it, blaming its lack of sales on anything but a xenophobic fanbase. It's not just Dead Space, either. There have been plenty of 3rd party games on the Wii that deserved better sales than they got, and beating the same dead horse excuses just isn't going to cut it anymore.

GoldenPhoenixNovember 10, 2009

EA's Wii output has been quite good, Boom Blox 1 and 2 were both fantastic and unique games. Tiger Woods 10 is the best version. Also they've done a good job with many of the ports such as Godfather, and Medal of Honor. Dead Space Extraction is a high quality game by most accounts. Smarty Pants is probably the best trivia game out there.

Now could EA be doing better, sure. But saying they didn't put an effort in developing games is silly, just because you may not like the genre doesn't mean effort wasn't put into it. Heck even EA Sports Active had quite a bit of effort put into it.

Quote from: NinGurl69

The EA I used to know last generation would plaster their ads on Spike TV, History, Court TV, USA, WB, Comedy Central, and the major national networks.  I even remember the short little commercial for Criterion's "Black."  What are they doing now?  Putting banners on IGN cuz IGN comprises 3/4 of the internet?  Are they for real?

The EA you used to know wasn't operating in a recession and laying off people.

The more we discuss this, the more I think that's why they can't throw as much money at advertising.

As far as the Facebook game purchase...well I've got nothing for that except for the fact that Facebook games are a potential (if not already) gold mine.


Also, House of the Dead: Overkill sold well in Sega's eyes.

Ian SaneNovember 10, 2009

Dead Space Extraction comes across a dumbed-down Dead Space.  And yet it is targetted at the core gamers that would prefer the REAL Dead Space.  They could have had TV ads on every primetime network TV show and it wouldn't make a difference.

Dumbed-down Wii versions and spin-offs have become associated with casual focused shovelware.  Wanted core gamers to buy Extraction?  Sorry, the day you announced that it was an on-rails shooter (of all genres to pick; you couldn't possibly pick something that would piss off Wii owners more) it was DOOMED.  It could have got perfect tens but Wii spin-offs = horseshit.  Call it unfair but that's the trend and so that assumption is going to made every time.  That's why Madden All Play doesn't sell.  The name change suggests a dumbed down spinoff so the target market immediately rejects it.

I'd say the Wii third party situation is so dire that nothing short of a grand gesture can repair things.  Third parties treated the Wii so poorly initially that there's no trust between the third party and the core gamer consumer.  The negative stigma is too thick.  The Wii is the casual console for third party shovelware.  That's the image.

So releasing a decent game or the odd great game here and there isn't enough anymore.  It's an uphill battle to get the core gamer to care (especially now that the other consoles are affordable) so it has to come across as a major shift.  It has to be games that cannot be ignored.  It has to be mulitplatform games being released on all three consoles simultaneously.  No late Wii port, no compromised Wii port.  It has to be REAL entries in popular franchise, not spin-offs.  It can't just be "hey we don't suck so much anymore."  It was to be "the Wii is our FOCUS and our BEST GAMES are going to be made for it!"  The PS360 has to be seen as the second choice instead of the first.

For that to happen I think we need the Wii 2.  We need a fresh start with hardware comparable to the other consoles and an image that's more neutral and doesn't come across as specifically casual focused.

broodwarsNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: Ian

Dead Space Extraction comes across a dumbed-down Dead Space.  And yet it is targetted at the core gamers that would prefer the REAL Dead Space.  They could have had TV ads on every primetime network TV show and it wouldn't make a difference.

Dumbed-down Wii versions and spin-offs have become associated with casual focused shovelware.  Wanted core gamers to buy Extraction?  Sorry, the day you announced that it was an on-rails shooter (of all genres to pick; you couldn't possibly pick something that would piss off Wii owners more) it was DOOMED.  It could have got perfect tens but Wii spin-offs = horse****.  Call it unfair but that's the trend and so that assumption is going to made every time.  That's why Madden All Play doesn't sell.  The name change suggests a dumbed down spinoff so the target market immediately rejects it.

I'd say the Wii third party situation is so dire that nothing short of a grand gesture can repair things.  Third parties treated the Wii so poorly initially that there's no trust between the third party and the core gamer consumer.  The negative stigma is too thick.  The Wii is the casual console for third party shovelware.  That's the image.

So releasing a decent game or the odd great game here and there isn't enough anymore.  It's an uphill battle to get the core gamer to care (especially now that the other consoles are affordable) so it has to come across as a major shift.  It has to be games that cannot be ignored.  It has to be mulitplatform games being released on all three consoles simultaneously.  No late Wii port, no compromised Wii port.  It has to be REAL entries in popular franchise, not spin-offs.  It can't just be "hey we don't suck so much anymore."  It was to be "the Wii is our FOCUS and our BEST GAMES are going to be made for it!"  The PS360 has to be seen as the second choice instead of the first.

Thank you for better articulating what I was trying to say.  I'm rather pissed at EA for personal reasons right now related to other recent news out of the company, and seeing their CEO (who I've seen take responsibility for the failures of his company before) totally pass the buck here just irritates me.

JLowtherJesse Lowther, Guest ContributorNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: Ian

Sorry, the day you announced that it was an on-rails shooter (of all genres to pick; you couldn't possibly pick something that would piss off Wii owners more) it was DOOMED.

Except for the fact that RE:UC has sold over a million copies and RE:DC will probably do the same, sure.

Why is Extraction "dumbed down" and unworthy of purchase, yet the Wii fanbase bought RE:UC despite not getting RE5?

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

"Also, House of the Dead: Overkill sold well in Sega's eyes."

It also likely didn't cost as much as DSE, so even better for Sega.

The spending limits brought on by the recession is also a strong argument.  EA could at least admit they're unable to operate with the same extravagance they used to afford.  But no, like BnM said, blame Nintendo for releasing good games, blame Nintendo for not releasing any games.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 10, 2009

The real answer is everyone deserves some blame. 

Nintendo did a great job of bringing in traditionally non-gamers but didn't expand that market.  I.E. they brought in people that bought Wii Fit and basically play Wii Fit and Wii Sports.  I do blame them that they were not able to cultivate these gamers into 1-2 game a year purchasers. 

Nintendo also did a poor job collaborating with third party developers.  It was obvious from the beginning with UbiSoft coming up with serious support (although flawed) to EA coming through with serious support that developers have struggled making games that reach the Wii demographic but have tried.  Nintendo makes a licensing fee for every game sold on the Wii so they should have been ecstatic to help third parties sell on the Wii. 

Third Parties (EA in this case) did not come out with great games for the Wii for the longest time.  Like for instance if you a big Capcom fan, how could you not purchase a PS3 or Xbox360?  Your going to miss SF4, DMC4, Bionic Commando, SSF2Turbo, RE5, Soul Calibur, etc?  Even Xseed wants to port Maramasu and some of their other games due to poor Wii sales.  If you like those games you probably already moved on from the Wii.  Even They could have done a much better job of cultivating their market on the Wii to facilitate the types of games they make. 

The gaming market in general has been stupid to allow costs to increase so much and push game prices up.  Now when a couple of games fail, a studio could end up closing.  And the market in general won't spend $50/$60 on a game so much of it gets dumped at $20 because the store can't sell it.  This leads to the approach that EA is taking which is horrible for consumers and Nintendo is somewhat doing.  The plan is release fewer games and the games that you do release, make sure they are well known IPs so that you are assured of good sales. 

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

"They could have had TV ads on every primetime network TV show and it wouldn't make a difference."

We would've seen SOME difference, especially compared to that last NPD report, if they made an attempt to appeal to the "Wii casuals."  The casuals don't know it's dumbed down, after all.

Personally I think the more effective key to success is to reach those untapped casuals and leave the rest of you non-casuals behind.  Go play Sega Genesis or something.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: JLowther

Quote from: Ian

Sorry, the day you announced that it was an on-rails shooter (of all genres to pick; you couldn't possibly pick something that would piss off Wii owners more) it was DOOMED.

Except for the fact that RE:UC has sold over a million copies and RE:DC will probably do the same, sure.

Why is Extraction "dumbed down" and unworthy of purchase, yet the Wii fanbase bought RE:UC despite not getting RE5?

The Wii fanbase has some overlap with the RESIDENT EVIL fanbase, which is a pretty big longtime brand you might've noticed.  When REUC came out, so long ago, there was still some hunger for new RE content, especially on the exciting Wii platform of interesting gameplay possibilities.  Dead Space doesn't have that brand power worldwide, and present-day people are definitely not "hungering" for more on-rails content.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

"The real answer is everyone deserves some blame."

Hay now, let's not diffuse the bomb so quickly.  If we start accepting blame rather than continue directing it, the discussion will go flaccid.

NWR_pap64Pedro Hernandez, Contributing WriterNovember 10, 2009

I agree with JLowther in that it's silly to blame Nintendo for a game's failure. Yes, they may have the best selling console at the moment. But just because they made a game on a very popular console it doesn't always guarantee success, because the consumer can be hard to figure out. I mean, what about the hundreds of Wii Fit knock offs and mini games compilations that flop? The console should be perfect for them so why are they selling less than expected?

Also, some might blame that the "gimped" hardware has affected developers. So? Last generation, the PlayStation 2 was the weaker console when compared to the GameCube and Xbox. Yet, developers braved complicated design and confusing development tools and created some of the best games on the system. So the minute anyone says "It's because the Wii has crappy hardware" its making an excuse. Developers can create great games no matter the hardware. It only matters when the hardware offers an specific feature that couldn't be done on the other systems. For example, if the game relies on detailed worlds, then the HD consoles are the best. If the game is designed around intricate controls, then the Wii is the machine. But other than that developers have no excuses.

Mop it upNovember 10, 2009

What's with people saying that Nintendo hasn't released very many games? Haven't they released more games during the first three years than they did on the Nintendo 64 and GameCube during that same time period?

GoldenPhoenixNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: Mop_it_up

What's with people saying that Nintendo hasn't released very many games? Haven't they released more games during the first three years than they did on the Nintendo 64 and GameCube during that same time period?

Games in genres people don't like do not count.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

"The console should be perfect for them so why are they selling less than expected?"

Without commercials and Oprah and Ellen, the casuals don't know the knockoffs exist or should even be considered once discovered.

=D

"Also, some might blame that the "gimped" hardware has affected developers. So? Last generation, the PlayStation 2 was the weaker console when compared to the GameCube and Xbox. Yet, developers braved complicated design and confusing development tools and created some of the best games on the system. So the minute anyone says "It's because the Wii has crappy hardware" its making an excuse. Developers can create great games no matter the hardware. It only matters when the hardware offers an specific feature that couldn't be done on the other systems. For example, if the game relies on detailed worlds, then the HD consoles are the best. If the game is designed around intricate controls, then the Wii is the machine. But other than that developers have no excuses."

This is leads to an amazing point I've been waiting to address:

Despite all these high-end modern game developers neck-deep in high horsepower hardware, they seem incapable and unwilling to master the "old" Wii hardware (unless it's DS) when you'd think that mastery of the old should be a given.  Why is this too much to ask for?

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: GoldenPhoenix

Quote from: Mop_it_up

What's with people saying that Nintendo hasn't released very many games? Haven't they released more games during the first three years than they did on the Nintendo 64 and GameCube during that same time period?

Games in genres people don't like do not count.

This is the one-two punch of the generation.

broodwarsNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: Mop_it_up

What's with people saying that Nintendo hasn't released very many games? Haven't they released more games during the first three years than they did on the Nintendo 64 and GameCube during that same time period?

Maybe because for 2 years all we've seen (besides the awesome Metroid Prime Trilogy, which is a re-release, and Animal Crossing City Folk, which might as well be a re-release) are a combination of the "Wii" and "New Play Control" series?  So it's a combination of expanded audience games and games we already own.  The first 1 1/2 years of the Wii were awesome, though.

Mop it upNovember 10, 2009

Mario Kart Wii, Wario Land Shake It, Punch-Out!!, and ExciteBots were all released over the past two years.

broodwarsNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: Mop_it_up

Mario Kart Wii, Wario Land Shake It, Punch-Out!!, and ExciteBots were all released over the past two years.

Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years").  Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about."  I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.

GoldenPhoenixNovember 10, 2009

Captain Rainbow and Disaster Day of Crisis as well.

JLowtherJesse Lowther, Guest ContributorNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: NinGurl69

The Wii fanbase has some overlap with the RESIDENT EVIL fanbase, which is a pretty big longtime brand you might've noticed.  When REUC came out, so long ago, there was still some hunger for new RE content, especially on the exciting Wii platform of interesting gameplay possibilities.  Dead Space doesn't have that brand power worldwide, and present-day people are definitely not "hungering" for more on-rails content.

True.

Point being, though, EA was doing the best they could in terms of bringing over what seems like it would work. DS is the closest thing they have to a survival horror franchise so they tried to do what Capcom did.

BTW, I'm going to rent DS:E tonight and see how it is. I liked UC, but there wasn't much replay value beyond scores and unlocking guns that further made the bosses look like jokes.

And as a 3rd party, I don't mind Nintendo not releasing games that often. It increases the chances that bored Nintendo fans may give my game a try. :P

broodwarsNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: GoldenPhoenix

Captain Rainbow and Disaster Day of Crisis as well.

Ok, now those don't count.  We're talking in reference to a major North American developer, and those games have never crossed over.

StratosNovember 10, 2009

I would have bought Dead Space in a heart-beat if it was a sequel, prequel or port of the original HD title. Dead Space is not established enough to draw me in with such a radical genre change. You know what I just got in the mail instead of Extraction? Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition. That was the type of game I was looking for and would have gladly ordered DS instead if it was what it should have been. RE Chronicles games get away with it because I am familiar with the RE series all the way back to RE 2.

What if the Silent Hill game that is coming next month had actually revealed to be an 'on-rails horror experience'? People would be just as upset I would bet.

And Nintendo could be releasing more Wii games. No Disaster Day of Crisis in NA, no Excitebots in PAL-Land, no Fatal Frame or Tact of Magic in either region. W.T.F. Nintendo couldn't even be bothered to bring over Pikmin 2 NPC despite that seeming to be one of the ones people would have actually wanted to buy and play.

Mop it upNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: broodwars

Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years").  Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about."  I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.

People didn't say "games people care about" or "games that were marketed", they simply said "games". Besides, who are you to judge what games people care about?

broodwarsNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: Mop_it_up

Quote from: broodwars

Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years").  Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about."  I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.

People didn't say "games people care about" or "games that were marketed", they simply said "games". Besides, who are you to judge what games people care about?

Actually, John Ricatello said that they weren't games people care about or marketed, since he said that Nintendo didn't release games that drove interest in the platform.  And that's where this whole discussion originated.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

Those little games exist thanks to money Nintendo made by making those other games that drove the platform.  I think.

GoldenPhoenixNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: broodwars

Quote from: Mop_it_up

Mario Kart Wii, Wario Land Shake It, Punch-Out!!, and ExciteBots were all released over the past two years.

Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years").  Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about."  I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.

Yeah we only have games like Wii Sports Resort that sell millions and drive interest, stupid Nintendo.

StratosNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: broodwars

Quote from: Mop_it_up

Quote from: broodwars

Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years").  Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about."  I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.

People didn't say "games people care about" or "games that were marketed", they simply said "games". Besides, who are you to judge what games people care about?

Actually, John Ricatello said that they weren't games people care about or marketed, since he said that Nintendo didn't release games that drove interest in the platform.  And that's where this whole discussion originated.

That's funny considering how 3rd parties are viewed as the ones who uphold the XBox or Playstation systems. Final Fantasy? Metal Gear? Gears of War? GTA?Resident Evil? Aren't these what have carried those systems since the 32-bit era?

BlackNMild2k1November 10, 2009

Quote from: JLowther

Quote from: Ian

Sorry, the day you announced that it was an on-rails shooter (of all genres to pick; you couldn't possibly pick something that would piss off Wii owners more) it was DOOMED.

Except for the fact that RE:UC has sold over a million copies and RE:DC will probably do the same, sure.

Why is Extraction "dumbed down" and unworthy of purchase, yet the Wii fanbase bought RE:UC despite not getting RE5?

I don't know if this has been said yet, but RE:UC not only has brand recognition, but was offered up as a test(1st game to do so), so we were all buying it in anticipation of RE5 which up till that point seemed like a shoe-in for Wii.

RE:UC was alright for what it was, but it definitely wasn't what most of us wanted out of a RE title. That good will might be gone now, but we will know for sure after the release of RE:DSC.


p.s. No one said DSE was a bad game, I actually stated that they put a lot of effort into the game (i do own it BTW). The problem was the lack of effective advertising. Lots of people still don't know the game exist, and lots of those that do know, still don't know it's out.

Mop it upNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: broodwars

Quote from: Mop_it_up

Quote from: broodwars

Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years").  Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about."  I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.

People didn't say "games people care about" or "games that were marketed", they simply said "games". Besides, who are you to judge what games people care about?

Actually, John Ricatello said that they weren't games people care about or marketed, since he said that Nintendo didn't release games that drove interest in the platform.  And that's where this whole discussion originated.

He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

"I don't know if this has been said yet, but RE:UC not only has brand recognition, but was offered up as a test(1st game to do so), so we were all buying it in anticipation of DEAD RISING: FLOP TILL YOU DELIST YOURSELF FROM THE NPD CHART which up till that point seemed like a shoe-in for Wii."

=O

JLowtherJesse Lowther, Guest ContributorNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

I don't know if this has been said yet, but RE:UC not only has brand recognition, but was offered up as a test(1st game to do so), so we were all buying it in anticipation of RE5 which up till that point seemed like a shoe-in for Wii.

I dunno...I have a hard time believing 1.5 million people bought a lightgun game in anticipation of a non-lightgun game from the same franchise. Maybe some people, but 1.5 million?

Yeah, RE has far more brand recognition, but the point is that EA was working with what they had to use. Had they released 2-3 more Dead Space games and THEN released one for the Wii, yes, it would've been a more well-known franchise, but I think that would've only served to further alienate the Wii userbase from the series.

All I'm saying is that I don't blame the CEO for being frustrated (blaming Nintendo is silly, but not being frustrated). I'm rather frustrated myself because I just got through designing a game around the ideals of what the Nintendo fanbase often cries out for (unique game, hinges on motion controls, gameplay over graphics) and it's the non-Nintendo gaming sites that have liked the game the best.

So yeah, I understand his plight.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 10, 2009

If EA never made DSE, they wouldn't be so disappointed.

BlackNMild2k1November 10, 2009

Quote from: JLowther

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

I don't know if this has been said yet, but RE:UC not only has brand recognition, but was offered up as a test(1st game to do so), so we were all buying it in anticipation of RE5 which up till that point seemed like a shoe-in for Wii.

I dunno...I have a hard time believing 1.5 million people bought a lightgun game in anticipation of a non-lightgun game from the same franchise.

Yeah, RE has far more brand recognition, but the point is that EA was working with what they had to use. Had they released 2-3 more Dead Space games and THEN released one for the Wii, yes, it would've been a more well-known franchise, but I think that would've only served to further alienate the Wii userbase from the series.

You have a hard time believing that 1.5 million gamers would buy a light gun spin off when Capcom themselves called it a test to see what could be done on the Wii with the assumption that the next game coming was RE5?

Hard to believe that the 1.3 million gamers that re-bought RE4Wii edition for the controls and realized how awesome RE5 would be with the same controls wouldn't want to pass this "test" to assure themselves of getting the assumed RE5 for Wii?

All EA had to do was remake Dead Space with Wii controls and maybe add in an extra mission or two (secret scenarios or something to make PS360 users double dip).  That would have taken a whole lot less effort and would have given us exactly what we were asking for. A new RE4 Wii Edition.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 10, 2009

I'm not going to dispute that some awesome games exist for the Wii and third parties missed some oportunities by not bringing over some of their epic stuff, however, the Wii is gimped hardware and that does scare third party developers.  You can't just say PS2 was weaker than Gamecube and Xbox but still won.  In the real world, they were indistinguishable.  You could take the 5 best looking games on each and they all looked about the same.  However, the Wii's A+ library doesn't look as good as most PSN games.  It's not even close graphically.  It doesn't mean I don't love Mario Kart Wii, it just means that a game like BioShock is not possible on the Wii. 

It doesn't matter anyway.  You can argue until you are all blue in the face.  The self fulfilling prophesy has already came true.  For three years, all we heard was the Wii isn't capable, etc, etc as third parties put their best content on the PS3/360.  And now all of the core gamers (or PC "people who enjoy their games") already own a PS3 or 360.  Even if DeadSpace was an exact PS3/360 port with SD graphics and awesome controls it wouldn't have sold well.  The PS3/360 versions are on the cheap now and support HD.  I purchased a PS3 well after I had a Wii.  And now I'm 99% likely to get the PS3 version of any multi-plat games because it usually is a better experience for me. 

BlackNMild2k1November 10, 2009

I'm sure I can lower the setting on my computer to be visually crap and still play Bioshock just fine. That means that Bioshock could be done on a Wii, it just won't look as good as the PS360 version which in turn wouldn't look as good as the PC version. Why bother making games for consoles.... It's such a stupid argument to make.

StratosNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

I'm sure I can lower the setting on my computer to be visually crap and still play Bioshock just fine. That means that Bioshock could be done on a Wii, it just won't look as good as the PS360 version which in turn wouldn't look as good as the PC version. Why bother making games for consoles.... It's such a stupid argument to make.

They tried to put Dead Rising on Wii. I'm wonder BioShock would have turned out better. Also, Modern Warfare is on the Wii now and runs quite well from videos leaked. All it takes is a little bit of effort.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 10, 2009

It's not a stupid argument to make.  While graphics aren't everything they are part of the game's ability to draw you in.  Graphics are a part of the equation.  If graphics didn't matter, we'd still have 13" black and white TVs instead of high def 50" tvs.  And while an awesome game, who would have paid $50 for Mega Man 9?

JLowtherJesse Lowther, Guest ContributorNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

You have a hard time believing that 1.5 million gamers would buy a light gun spin off when Capcom themselves called it a test to see what could be done on the Wii with the assumption that the next game coming was RE5?

The internet alone wouldn't be enough to garner that many sales, even with a "test marketing" promise from Capcom. It would help, I'm sure, but that's a LOT of sales that would have to come from the internet which I just don't see happening.

I'm guessing people bought it because it was a RE game, really.

broodwarsNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

I'm sure I can lower the setting on my computer to be visually crap and still play Bioshock just fine. That means that Bioshock could be done on a Wii, it just won't look as good as the PS360 version which in turn wouldn't look as good as the PC version. Why bother making games for consoles.... It's such a stupid argument to make.

Having had to play Bioshock my first time on this laptop with the lowest possible graphical settings (which had lots of framerate problems during the more hectic firefights), I can say that the game could be released on the Wii if 2K really wanted to do it.  Even on the PS3, the game isn't the most technically outstanding game.  It's the game's art deco style that makes the game look great, which could be replicated on the Wii no problem.  Actually, I'm kind of surprised that we haven't seen some sort of prequel or sidestory Bioshock Wii project after Metroid Prime Corruption came out and showed it was a superior platform for FPS gaming.

GoldenPhoenixNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: broodwars

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

I'm sure I can lower the setting on my computer to be visually crap and still play Bioshock just fine. That means that Bioshock could be done on a Wii, it just won't look as good as the PS360 version which in turn wouldn't look as good as the PC version. Why bother making games for consoles.... It's such a stupid argument to make.

Having had to play Bioshock my first time on this laptop with the lowest possible graphical settings (which had lots of framerate problems during the more hectic firefights), I can say that the game could be released on the Wii if 2K really wanted to do it.  Even on the PS3, the game isn't the most technically outstanding game.  It's the game's art deco style that makes the game look great, which could be replicated on the Wii no problem.  Actually, I'm kind of surprised that we haven't seen some sort of prequel or sidestory Bioshock Wii project after Metroid Prime Corruption came out and showed it was a superior platform for FPS gaming.

Yeah Bioshock was impressive because of the art direction more then the under the hood visual engine (which was good but not outstanding)>

Mop it upNovember 10, 2009

The extra processing power and RAM of those other systems accounts for more than just graphics. It also means more expansive environments, more moving objects on screen, more complicated A.I. scripts, etc. I don't think any amount of graphical reduction would allow this game to run on Wii:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnsdkdVPmYE

And I can't imagine this game being any good after cutbacks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eyDBgy0fCA

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 10, 2009

It could have still been a good game.  But it would have been a different experience.  Simply put you cannot get the same experience on the Wii as you can on the PS3.  However, vice versa, with the Wii's controls you can't get the same experience on the PS3 as the Wii. 

BlackNMild2k1November 10, 2009

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

It's not a stupid argument to make.  While graphics aren't everything they are part of the game's ability to draw you in.  Graphics are a part of the equation.  If graphics didn't matter, we'd still have 13" black and white TVs instead of high def 50" tvs.  And while an awesome game, who would have paid $50 for Mega Man 9?

You're right, I can't watch Transformers 2 on my 13" B&W TV, its just not possible....

Ian SaneNovember 10, 2009

Quote:

Except for the fact that RE:UC has sold over a million copies and RE:DC will probably do the same, sure.

Why is Extraction "dumbed down" and unworthy of purchase, yet the Wii fanbase bought RE:UC despite not getting RE5?

RE:UC did come out at a different time period.  It was the first example of getting an on-rails game instead of a "real" entry into the series.  By the time DSE came out on-rails shooters of popular franchises had become an annoying trend.  RE:UC was the start of that trend.  Wii owners weren't pissed off or upset about getting tons of on-rails shooters yet.  It should also be noted that Resident Evil 5 sold better despite being released on consoles with a smaller userbase.  I think that indicates what core gamers were really interested in.

Also we're now at a time where I suspect much of the core gamer demographic on the Wii has given up on Wii third party support and has bought an Xbox 360 or PS3 to get access to the games they've been missing.  Hell people on this forum were talking about that being a requirement over a year before a bought a PS3.  Just a personal example but now that I have a PS3 I can't see myself ever buying something like DSE or RE:DC.  I can now buy the REAL Dead Space and the REAL Resident Evil so why would I even give a second look to a Wii spin-off?  When RE:UC was released it was earlier in the Wii life so there was more optimism.  Now we know that we're not getting the real Resident Evil and that Capcom considers the Wii as clearly their THIRD choice for support.  The other consoles are affordable now, no one has to put up with second rate support.

Quote:

Actually, John Ricatello said that they weren't games people care about or marketed, since he said that Nintendo didn't release games that drove interest in the platform.  And that's where this whole discussion originated.

Yeah if we're talking about driving interest in the platform Excitebots doesn't really count as it's a minor release at best.  Wii Sports Resort is a major release but not for the core market EA was looking for.  So on that count Punch-Out and the upcoming NSMB Wii would be the only games that I feel would really be the sort of titles to drive core gamer interest in the Wii.

In comparison Sony released the following games this year for the PS3:
God of War Collection
InFamous
Killzone 2
MLB 09: The Show
Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
Buzz Quiz World
Singstar Motown
EyePet

So we've got a last-gen collection of ports which is like their Metroid Prime Trilogy.  We've got three casual focused titles at the bottom.  A sports game and then four pretty major releases aimed at the core market.  And Sony is known for being a weak first party and the PS3 has decent third party support and thus doesn't even NEED this much first party support.  I think this is more what EA is expecting.  On just sheer non-port core games Sony beat Nintendo this year 5-3.  5 games isn't even one for every two months.  Surely Nintendo could match that.

Excitebots and Punch-Out were also released only a month apart.  So while we get 3 core games we get only two periods of major releases.  This would be thin even if spread out evenly over the year.  But in this case we're going six months between releases.  Six months where the Wii is out-of-sight and out-of-mind.

Clearly third parties are being pretty incompetent here.  But shouldn't Nintendo ackowledge this?  No one is picking up the ball here.  Sony has good third party support and they've still releasing a steady first party output.  Now they're in last place and they're hungry so I can why they would.  Nintendo still should realize "we have shitty third party support, we should do something about this. The Wii has major droughts between major releases and that risks hurting our momentum.  We need to carry this console on our back until our third party support is strong enough to fill in the gaps."

You can talk all you want about Nintendo giving third parties a chance but when third parties blow this chance Nintendo doesn't take over to make up for it.

GoldenPhoenixNovember 10, 2009

::skips over Ian post:: I think the moral of the story is that EA had crappy marketing, and should have put more effort in pushing games on Wii.

ZapNovember 10, 2009

Wasted away again in Redinkaville,
Searchin' for a surefire hit in the IP vault
Some people claim that there's a gamer to blame
But I know
it's Nintendo's fault.

Don't know the reason
Checked out all season
With nothing to show but this brand new on-rails-prequel-to-a-game-that-was-originally-on-PS2
But it's a real beauty,
A non-HD cutie, how it got here
I haven't a clue.

JLowtherJesse Lowther, Guest ContributorNovember 10, 2009

Quote from: Ian

RE:UC did come out at a different time period.  It was the first example of getting an on-rails game instead of a "real" entry into the series.  By the time DSE came out on-rails shooters of popular franchises had become an annoying trend.  RE:UC was the start of that trend.  Wii owners weren't pissed off or upset about getting tons of on-rails shooters yet.  It should also be noted that Resident Evil 5 sold better despite being released on consoles with a smaller userbase.  I think that indicates what core gamers were really interested in.

Also we're now at a time where I suspect much of the core gamer demographic on the Wii has given up on Wii third party support and has bought an Xbox 360 or PS3 to get access to the games they've been missing.  Hell people on this forum were talking about that being a requirement over a year before a bought a PS3.  Just a personal example but now that I have a PS3 I can't see myself ever buying something like DSE or RE:DC.  I can now buy the REAL Dead Space and the REAL Resident Evil so why would I even give a second look to a Wii spin-off?  When RE:UC was released it was earlier in the Wii life so there was more optimism.  Now we know that we're not getting the real Resident Evil and that Capcom considers the Wii as clearly their THIRD choice for support.  The other consoles are affordable now, no one has to put up with second rate support.

That's true: EA was kinda late to the table there, but they probably started developing DSE around the time RE:UC was selling well.

It'll be interesting to see how REDSC sells, now that everyone knows there's no RE5 coming for Wii.

Also, "testing" a console for interest with a half-game is a pretty lousy thing to do to the fans of that console to start with...

GoldenPhoenixNovember 10, 2009

Quote:

Also, "testing" a console for interest with a half-game is a pretty lousy thing to do to the fans of that console to start with...

It is especially bad with Capcom considering how well RE4: Wii Edition did. That should have been all the testing they needed. Personally I think it was just an excuse.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 11, 2009

They were never testing.  It was marketing BS.  It's the same thing we here every time a marginal core game is released for the Wii.  Well, if you don't buy this game there probably won't be any more core games for the Wii.  Like buying loads of crap will get us better games.

I do think it's interesting.  Although I am in the Nintendo is partially responsible for this mess, is that the Wii has it's best support in the survival horror realm.  And in the Gamecube this is the only realm they tried to push by grabbing RE as an exclusive series and making the first party Eternal Darkness. 

JLowtherJesse Lowther, Guest ContributorNovember 11, 2009

Quote from: GoldenPhoenix

Quote:

Also, "testing" a console for interest with a half-game is a pretty lousy thing to do to the fans of that console to start with...

It is especially bad with Capcom considering how well RE4: Wii Edition did. That should have been all the testing they needed. Personally I think it was just an excuse.

I never understood that, either. RE4Wii was so good with the controls that I played through it on professional mode and couldn't stand the analogue controls of the RE5 demo after that.

GoldenPhoenixNovember 11, 2009

RE5 would have gotten me excited to play it if it was on Wii, as it stands I bought it but haven't touched it because I dread the analog controls.

JLowtherJesse Lowther, Guest ContributorNovember 11, 2009

Quote from: GoldenPhoenix

RE5 would have gotten me excited to play it if it was on Wii, as it stands I bought it but haven't touched it because I dread the analog controls.

Yeah, as much as I love the basic gameplay, I just can't go through another "control scheme-challenged horror". :P

The thought of an RE game built around the speed of Wii remote aiming, though...wow...

BlackNMild2k1November 11, 2009

I still think Capcom is gonna make a sound business(and undo a wrong) decision and make a Wii version of RE5 with all the DLC content already on the disc.

ArbokNovember 11, 2009

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

I still think Capcom is gonna make a sound business(and undo a wrong) decision and make a Wii version of RE5 with all the DLC content already on the disc.

Be nice, and very sound from a business perspective as you say, although I'm not holding my breath. I think it's more likely we get a "Code Veronica" type of spin off, a spin off in name only but lacks the normal number rather than 5 itself. Hopefully Capcom proves me wrong.

Anyway, just wanted to throw my hat into the arena, as it was mentioned earlier, and say that I got Umbrella Chronicles... for Umbrella Chronicles. Not as part of a test or anything. I don't understand all the spoken disinterest it seems to get either. It's not an amazing title, a little short, but it's solid and catered to exactly what I wanted:
1. An on-rail shooter when I had none at this point
2. Utilizing an established franchise that I cared about
3. Co-op

The last of which is more important than anything else, and why I will be getting the sequel as we had a blast with it.

I think a big problem with Dead Space Extraction, and there are many as mentioned in this thread, is that it's late to the party. UC was a hit on the Wii, although doesn't seem to be a beloved title. Those that didn't care for it likely passed up DSE, while those who loved the game, like me, are probably holding out for the next RE on-rail shooter instead, which is just around the corner now.

Ian SaneNovember 11, 2009

Quote:

I still think Capcom is gonna make a sound business(and undo a wrong) decision and make a Wii version of RE5 with all the DLC content already on the disc.

They'll announce it at next year's E3... at the same time they announce Resident Evil 6 for the PS3 and X360.

The correct decision is to make Resident Evil 6 specifically with the Wii in mind and then port to the other consoles if the controls allow it.  That is the sort of "grand gesture" that I'm talking about.

GoldenPhoenixNovember 11, 2009

Code Veronica was a spin-off? I thought it was considered a sequel at the time.

ArbokNovember 11, 2009

Quote from: GoldenPhoenix

Code Veronica was a spin-off? I thought it was considered a sequel at the time.

Like I said, spin off in name only since it lost the numbering system that RE4 picked up again.

EDIT: Maybe I should have just said "non-numbered sequel"? Would have been less confusing I admit, but I love my verbose habit...

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 11, 2009

I'll gladly take the BARRY BURTON non-numbered sequel over RE5, but I won't count on any more decent RE adventures ever.  What they (those RE5 non-Mikami devs) did to Chris/Jill/Wesker is beyond wacky.

EasyCureNovember 11, 2009

jesus christ, i hate missing out on good threads cuz i can't slack off at work anymorem..

look i'm not gonna bother reading thru all four pages because the conversation has been the same over and over every time a story like this pops up, so i'll just say two things:

1. someone get me a postal address for whichever office the EA CEO works out of so i can send him a letter stating:

"Dear ______,

Please make more high quality games developed from the ground up for Wii and that pushes its strong points to the limits, then be sure to advertise it so that gamers like myself who enjoy "core" games but don't spend all their time on the internet can actually find out when these games come out and go purchase them.

Thank you"

2. Every single time Deadspace Extraction gets brought up, i think the same fucking thing "holy shit this games out!?" and when i'm browsing the game selection at:

best buy, gamestop, target, walmart, fye, etc..

i never fucking see it on shelves, and even if its sitting there on a shelf, when i'm out at those stores I never remember to look for it because there was never any advertising around to put the product in my head.

wait, you know what? That second part might as well go in the letter to EA's CEO.

I suggest you all write similar letters (please, keep it civil) because hopefully we can all bring about change in EA...
sure, it won't make him/her turn around and change they way things operate but maybe he/she will be so irritated that they'll resign/shoot themselves in the fucking face and someone competent can take their place

PeachylalaNovember 11, 2009

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

It's not a stupid argument to make.  While graphics aren't everything they are part of the game's ability to draw you in.

When frankly games with very pretty grapiks nothing else to go by except shallow entertainment. mgs4 gta4 bionic commando re5

Only one of those games in the crossed out list flopped hard. The rest, disappointedly, sold well.

broodwarsNovember 11, 2009

Quote from: Peachylala

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

It's not a stupid argument to make.  While graphics aren't everything they are part of the game's ability to draw you in.

When frankly games with very pretty grapiks nothing else to go by except shallow entertainment. mgs4 gta4 bionic commando re5

Only one of those games in the crossed out list flopped hard. The rest, disappointedly, sold well.

I suppose this means that the Wii has the greatest library in the history of gaming, then, when it comes to gameplay?  Sorry, you don't get to make the "graphics mean NOTHING and gameplay is EVERYTHING!" argument when the Wii's overall library is as ****ty as it is.  Both aspects have their part to play in any game.  And last time I heard, there was little "shallow" about MGS4 or GTA4, and RE5 is just as shallow as RE4.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 11, 2009

What you hear is different from what everyone else knows.

BrandoggNovember 11, 2009

Quote from: NWR_Neal

Quote from: Brandogg

OBVIOUSLY doing stupid **** like "All Play" and giving games like Madden '10 "character" only *hurt* sales. Putting some effort into making a game

You contradict yourself a bit. EA did put effort into the Madden games. They put effort to make them unique and something different than a the PS2 game with waggle.

I don't think All Play and "character" hurt sales for Madden. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that loyal Madden players developed on PS2 and branched out to the PS3 or 360. Even if Madden Wii was miraculously the same game as the HD versions, I think it'd be selling the same, maybe even worse.
Personally, I love what EA Sports is doing on Wii. Tiger Woods is great, Madden 10 was the best Wii version yet, and FIFA 10 is awesome.

Now Dead Space: Extraction on the other hand. EA just dropped the ball on that.

Madden's sales on the Wii drop every year. Madden 07 sold 560,000 copies, which is good considering it came out 4 months after the PS2 and 360 versions, Madden 08 sold 940,000, then Madden 09 sold 820,000, and the new "My First Madden 10" has sold 240,000 copies. There's a difference between putting in real effort and dumbing down gameplay.

broodwarsNovember 11, 2009

Quote from: Brandogg

Quote from: NWR_Neal

Quote from: Brandogg

OBVIOUSLY doing stupid **** like "All Play" and giving games like Madden '10 "character" only *hurt* sales. Putting some effort into making a game

You contradict yourself a bit. EA did put effort into the Madden games. They put effort to make them unique and something different than a the PS2 game with waggle.

I don't think All Play and "character" hurt sales for Madden. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that loyal Madden players developed on PS2 and branched out to the PS3 or 360. Even if Madden Wii was miraculously the same game as the HD versions, I think it'd be selling the same, maybe even worse.
Personally, I love what EA Sports is doing on Wii. Tiger Woods is great, Madden 10 was the best Wii version yet, and FIFA 10 is awesome.

Now Dead Space: Extraction on the other hand. EA just dropped the ball on that.

Madden's sales on the Wii drop every year. Madden 07 sold 560,000 copies, which is good considering it came out 4 months after the PS2 and 360 versions, Madden 08 sold 940,000, then Madden 09 sold 820,000, and the new "My First Madden 10" has sold 240,000 copies. There's a difference between putting in real effort and dumbing down gameplay.

It's worth noting that Madden's sales have gone down every year on all platforms.  Maybe gamers have...finally...had enough of buying the same game every year with a new mode or two and a roster update.  I actually commend EA for trying something different this year with Madden Wii and trying to make a more Wii-centric game.

Chozo GhostNovember 11, 2009

It wouldn't hurt if they advertised more (Nintendo and 3rd parties both), but my main gripe is the games that are coming out on the Wii are utter garbage, and whether they are advertised or not I will not pay $50 for them.

It is a disappointment that Dead Space is performing so terribly, but to me it is also a disappointment that the game is a rail shooter. Those games are okay, but they are definitely not worth the full price to me. I'll spend $19 or $29 on that sort of game, but that's it. I will only spend $39 or $49 on a real game that doesn't have my tethered to a rail.

My guess is most people didn't buy this game because either A) they weren't aware it exists, B) They weren't aware it was released, or C) They are aware about it but aren't interested because it is a rail-shooter.

IMHO, Rail-shooters belong in the bargain bin and have no business being the same price as real games.

MaxiNovember 11, 2009

*Looks at topic and keeps walking*

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 11, 2009

Choz,

Only the big games have ever had alot of Advertising.  The Halo 3's, MGS's, Mario's, GTA's.  Everything else has a much smaller budget. 

While game quality is certainly an issue with most third party games, the PS2 was king of shovelware.  And their shovelware sold, usually in the millions.  It seemed like every game was a greatest hit (seperate rant but I think it's an abomination that Wii doesn't have a player's choice/greatest hit library).  I think the bigger issue is EA has tried more than any third party and they are throwing the white flag.  Grand Slam Tennis, Tiger Woods, Boom Blox, Madden, these are all games that were designed specifically for the Wii, adertised well, got good reviews, yet only Tiger Woods is not a dissapointment in the sales category. 

What's worse is if you were a third party and wanted to make a profitable Wii game, what are you going to make?  They market has responded so sporatically.

On rails - RE-UC sells great.  Another well known IP House of the Dead sells crap.  Deadspace - crap. 

Mature - RE4 sells great.  Bully, Godfather, Manhunt sell crap.

Shooters- Medal of Honor, Metroid, Conduit, Call of Duty 3 all sold like crap. 

I'm not saying those all are A+ games, but most of them are at least C+ games that would have sold millions on the PS2 during it's prime.  The only known way to success on the Wii (if you don't have the Nintendo licence library) is A. Party game (Mario & Sonic, Raving Rabids, Carnival Games etc, all Successes) or B. Fitness game (Wii Fit, EA Active, heck even Gold's Gym sold great.) 

Not saying they've brought their best content but by now most third parties have tried to find the Wii market and failed.  Wii may be cheaper to develop for than PS3/360 but it still costs millions of dollars to bring a full retail game to market.  They don't have multiple failures to figure out Nintendo's market.  Nintendo should be helping them with that.

UncleBobRichard Cook, Guest ContributorNovember 11, 2009

I would hardly call House of the Dead a well-known IP.  Sure, gamers know it - but gamers don't play Wii.

Resident Evil, however - that's a well-known IP.  Several games on multiple systems through the years (PS1, N64, PS2, GCN, Wii, PS3, XBox 360, DS, Dreamcast, Saturn, PC, Game Boy Color, mobile phones, arcade, Game.com... did I miss anything?)  There's been, what, five movies that have done fairly well at the box office.

Meanwhile, House of the Dead has been in, what, arcades?  Haven't seen one of those in years!  (Well, I have... but most people really haven't...)

thatguyNovember 11, 2009

Quote from: JLowther

Quote from: Ian

Sorry, the day you announced that it was an on-rails shooter (of all genres to pick; you couldn't possibly pick something that would piss off Wii owners more) it was DOOMED.

Except for the fact that RE:UC has sold over a million copies and RE:DC will probably do the same, sure.

Why is Extraction "dumbed down" and unworthy of purchase, yet the Wii fanbase bought RE:UC despite not getting RE5?

So, I know I'm late to the party, but the truth is, I'm someone who bought RE:UC and passed on DSE after loosely paying attention to commercials and only owning/having ever played RE4Wii, in addition.

Why?  For one thing, UC was, from the impression I received, a sort of review of the story of previous RE games, which I hadn't played, if you recall.  It was early in the Wii's lifetime, and seemed like it had good content and ideas for a lightgun-style game.  It was presented as a two-player gaming experience in the lightgun style, and that's what I saw it as.

DSE, though, seemed like an afterthought.  I didn't know what it was.  I'm still not really aware of what it is, besides an on-rails space horror game.  I've heard it's good, but I haven't heard why.  I haven't heard of anything about the story.  In fact, I was under the impression that EA had taken the 360/PS3 game and dumbed it down to an on-rails shooter, which is different than the impression with RE:UC, where I knew the story was re-written with new content.  I was surprised to hear it's actually a Dead Space prequel in the round table thread, and I've probably seen the hulu trailer about 20 times.  I had no idea it was actually out, to be truthful, because I figured EA was doing their usual market blitz before the game was released!  I saw the game as a cash in for the Wii, and just turned my nose to it.  I still see it as that, even knowing it's a prequel, compared to RE:UC, which lent the impression it was a companion piece for RE4Wii.

Additionally, with Madden, it's kind of sad.  The First game was the PS2 port cash in with less features and waggle controls.  From there, EA offered a little more innovation each time, but still didn't match features with higher versions.  By the time Madden on the Wii was anything resembling what could be a "unique, fun, yet accurate" experience, everyone believed the better graphics and modes in the other versions were better.  Why would they buy the Wii version?  And what did EA do to try to solve this?  Stick an "All-Play" on the front, and don't explain the actual new content.

Didn't the last Tiger Woods game sell amazing on the Wii?  Wasn't it the unique experience catered to the Wii?  Wouldn't that mean that when Wii owners know the Wii version has truly definitive features, they look for it?

EA's just not a company run by people who understand the people who play video games.  Boom Blox was a good start, but Boom Blox was never advertised.  That's about it, aside from Tiger Woods, that I can think of that was actually quality.  Somebody can prove me wrong, I'm sure, but the good tries that are advertised performed well.  EA's just been terrible at putting out things like that.

jakeOSXNovember 11, 2009

i returned RE:UC after a short playing session. the game was crap. just my humble opinion though.

house of the dead overkill got my money. it was a light gun game that was always a light gun game with a great style and purpose.

i do think that ea blaming its lack of sales on nintendo's lack of games doesn't make much sense. also i think there will be a resurgance of FPS's now that the M+ is out. it will start with Red Steel 2, and if it is good (meaning we buy it) there will be more. the potential for wii-controlled FPS's is so great, i just keep hoping something comes of it.

Well now, this is quite a thread.

Umbrella Chronicles seems like a major fulcrum of the discussions surrounding third-party Wii sales. It was a full-priced, M-rated, on-rails shooter that sold very well. Are we to hold this up as a case study and compare all subsequent games to it? Probably not.

As some other people have wisely noted, Umbrella Chronicles was released early in the Wii's lifespan, when good games were particularly uncommon, and when any major brand like Resident Evil commanded even more interest than normal. Moreover, the idea of applying the on-rails shooter design, which had been dormant for years, to a classic franchise seemed novel. I admit to being surprised at the game's brisk sales, but it makes sense given these market conditions as well as the brand recognition. (The theory that any significant number of people bought it to support Capcom's "market test" for future RE games is, quite frankly, ludicrous and ignorant of real consumer behavior.)

Two years later, Dead Space Extraction appears to be a very similar product. The problem is that Wii gamers aren't starved for releases to the same extent now. On-rails shooters are a known quantity, and many people consider this retro fad's appeal to be thoroughly exhausted. And the original Dead Space had disappointing sales, even on platforms where it should have more appeal than on Wii. All of these factors set up an extremely challenging retail environment for Extraction, regardless of its quality (which is, by all accounts, commendable).

EA knew this and probably developed a limited marketing plan in accordance with projected sales of the game, hoping that word of mouth and positive reviews might continue to propel it after the release. That may in fact have happened; we won't know until later this week, with the new NPDs.

One thing I don't see mentioned very often is the effect of Nintendo's massive release push on third-party sales. What we've seen is that there were several notable third-party successes in the Wii's first year, up through fall of 2007. Then Nintendo began releasing major titles like Galaxy, Metroid, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, and Wii Fit. Although the company's output has slowed down since then, all of these titles remain highly visible at retail. Now, when new customers buy the Wii system, they have little reason to investigate known hits like Red Steel, Umbrella Chronicles, RE4: Wii Edition, etc. There are too many famous Nintendo games to buy first. Games like Resort and NSMBWii are just going to make the platform even more hostile to third-parties.

Now I'm not making excuses for companies like EA. The very simple answer to competing with Nintendo's games is to make games as good or better. Unfortunately, no third-party has even come close on Wii. There are been a few bright spots, but in terms of overall publisher portfolios and certainly across all third-parties, the level of quality is pathetic compared to the first-party releases, and the difference in marketing commitment is even more lop-sided. In short:

YOU GOT TO SPEND MONEY TO MAKE MONEY
and no third-party is willing to spend nearly as much money on Wii games as Nintendo does, so obviously they have difficulty competing.

vuduNovember 11, 2009

We'll know in a couple months--when we get Darkside Chronicles sales--whether consumers are just tired of light-gun games or if it's just that the Dead Space name doesn't have the same clout as the Resident Evil name.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 11, 2009

REDC will not sell nearly as well as REUC.  It'll sell to the few, like myself, who want to gobble up some pre-RE5 fanservice.

It will also be completely overshadowed by Mario and its more interesting co-op play.

oohhboyHong Hang Ho, Staff AlumnusNovember 12, 2009

There could have been a lot of easy money made on the Wii. There has been a decade or two of good rail shooters that could have been ported from the arcades. Where is time crisis? Crisis Zone? Police 24/7? Virtual cop? Even the hard as balls Ninja attack? A full on silent scope could have been a possibility.

Sure you couldn't sell them as completely full price games, but damn it, the games are already made. Most of the hard work is done. We get house of the dead and Ghost Squad, but that's it? The Wii screamed to be the arcade shooter machine.

In any case, EA has caught a case of foot in mouth disease and the man quite frankly doesn't know what he is on about, let alone where his ass is if he had two hands on them.

The guy obviously tries to run everything by the numbers and treat everything like product. While games aren't art, they are artistic. His lack of vision is holding back EA and if this is his usual quality of press releases, he has no right to be running any company.

broodwarsNovember 12, 2009

Quote from: oohhboy

The guy obviously tries to run everything by the numbers and treat everything like product. While games aren't art, they are artistic. His lack of vision is holding back EA and if this is his usual quality of press releases, he has no right to be running any company.

Right, the guy who spear-headed the charge by EA to develop new IPs, who green-lit doomed experiments like Dead Space and Mirror's Edge has a lack of vision.  They tried to develop new IPs into big franchises, and for the most part they failed so now EA's trying to re-establish itself with the known hits before they try that again.  We can blame EA's CEO for many things, but "lack of vision" isn't one of them.  I'd rephrase it as a "lack of will to support new efforts with the full backing of the EA Marketing machine."

Chozo GhostNovember 12, 2009

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

While game quality is certainly an issue with most third party games, the PS2 was king of shovelware.  And their shovelware sold, usually in the millions.  It seemed like every game was a greatest hit (seperate rant but I think it's an abomination that Wii doesn't have a player's choice/greatest hit library).  I think the bigger issue is EA has tried more than any third party and they are throwing the white flag.  Grand Slam Tennis, Tiger Woods, Boom Blox, Madden, these are all games that were designed specifically for the Wii, adertised well, got good reviews, yet only Tiger Woods is not a dissapointment in the sales category. 

I want games that arent one of the following: A) Sports B) Rail-shooter C) Parlor crap

Is that really too much to ask? The Wii's library is full of those three flavors of crap, but there's little that I actually like. If 3rd parties want my money they need to produce games that actually interest me. I'm not going to buy something I don't like, so if they produce stuff I don't like then they shouldn't be surprised when I don't buy it. And I am sure many gamers feel the same way. These sorts of games are an insult, and the Wii market has done the right thing by rejecting them.

But the problem is, 3rd parties don't understand why their games are failures. They get frustrated and maybe think nothing but Nintendo games will sell on the Wii, but that's not true. RE4 sold extremely well and there is a reason for that. But despite its success, are we getting RE5? Hell no! There's the problem. Instead of good games we're getting party games and sports games or rail shooters. That's it. Like I said, its an insult.... its like a chef spitting on the food and expecting us to eat it while the PS3 and 360 tables are served food that hasn't been spit on.

broodwarsNovember 12, 2009

Quote from: Chozo

But the problem is, 3rd parties don't understand why their games are failures. They get frustrated and maybe think nothing but Nintendo games will sell on the Wii, but that's not true. RE4 sold extremely well and there is a reason for that. But despite its success, are we getting RE5? Hell no! There's the problem.

Thing is, let's say Capcom decided to make RE5 on the Wii.  Capcom's much-vaunted new feature for that title was online Co-op, and they pretty much hyped that as the reason the game existed.  Like it or not, Nintendo's online service is abysmal and I'm not sure the expense that Capcom would have had to put into making it work on Wii would have been justified.  I don't know if you've tried playing RE5 on split-screen co-op at home, but it's practically unplayable even on the next-gen systems (the viewing window's too small for that kind of gameplay) so that's out as well.  So let's say that Capcom stripped that out for the Wii version.  What you have left is a game that's noticeably inferior in just about every conceivable way (except bosses) from RE4, doesn't look particularly grand, and is also $20 more expensive than its predecessor.  How do you think that would have sold on Wii, with 3rd party sales on Nintendo platforms being what they usually are? 

I don't like the way 3rd parties have approached the Wii these past few years, but you have to put some of the blame on the fact that Nintendo put out a half-assed (from a technical standpoint) system with a laughably bad online structure in an age of online games.  Phenomenal games can still be made on Wii, but they require specialized teams and budgets and I'm not sure there's a market on Wii to support that (at least not anymore).

Chozo GhostNovember 12, 2009

I understand what you're saying, but Capcom didn't have to design RE5 from the ground up for the non-Nintendo platforms. They supported the GC with the RE series throughout its life, and that worked out well. Why did they abandon Nintendo now that  they're number one? It doesn't make sense. They could have used the RE4 engine and built an entirely new game from that. Why didn't they? No one said they had to make a game too complex for the Wii hardware.

Ian SaneNovember 12, 2009

Quote:

One thing I don't see mentioned very often is the effect of Nintendo's massive release push on third-party sales. What we've seen is that there were several notable third-party successes in the Wii's first year, up through fall of 2007. Then Nintendo began releasing major titles like Galaxy, Metroid, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, and Wii Fit. Although the company's output has slowed down since then, all of these titles remain highly visible at retail. Now, when new customers buy the Wii system, they have little reason to investigate known hits like Red Steel, Umbrella Chronicles, RE4: Wii Edition, etc. There are too many famous Nintendo games to buy first. Games like Resort and NSMBWii are just going to make the platform even more hostile to third-parties.

Would those big Nintendo games overshadow Resident Evil 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, Soul Calibur IV, Final Fantasy XIII, Grand Theft Auto 4 or the recent Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2?  I don't think those games stand out merely because they're not on a Nintendo console.  And Red Steel, Umbrella Chronicles and RE4: Wii Edition would likely also be overshadowed by those third party games I mentioned.  This is normal.  Every game released has to fight against big releases with strong marketing pushes and sequels to popular games.  That's just how it is.  But on the Wii no one is really putting up their NSMB Wii to compete with Nintendo's, in that Nintendo releases their absolute BEST stuff while the third parties don't.  Who but Nintendo is putting their best foot forward?  The whole thing is just a lame excuse.  You put your farm team against a major league club, lose, and then whine about it?  Bullshit.

D_AverageNovember 12, 2009

Was Extraction shown on the Nintendo Channel at all?  With so many games now in the Wii aisles, the channel does have some potential to spotlight the gems for new owners, if they would only sign on.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 12, 2009

Quote from: Chozo

I understand what you're saying, but Capcom didn't have to design RE5 from the ground up for the non-Nintendo platforms. They supported the GC with the RE series throughout its life, and that worked out well. Why did they abandon Nintendo now that  they're number one? It doesn't make sense. They could have used the RE4 engine and built an entirely new game from that. Why didn't they? No one said they had to make a game too complex for the Wii hardware.

It makes perfect sense.  First all REs except 0 are playable on the PS2.  So it's leave Nintendo's crowd or Sony's crowd since the two are so technically different it's hard to create an RE5 and port to the other one.  By siding with the PS3, they set themselves up for easy ports to the 360 and to PC which WILL get a much greater base than the Wii.  The PS3/360 market are much easier to predict.  While third parties have had failures, you can accuraty guess how much your going to sale.  From a business perspective they nailed everything.  They made a game that was reviewed highly, was thought to be fairly technical, and sold millions and made lots of money. 

The question isn't should RE5 be made for the PS3/360, the question is should a technically inferior version be made for the Wii?  Or maybe a RE 4.5 exclusive for the Wii?  They probably could have made money with either but they chose not to water down the RE name.

The whole gamecube experiment was Capcom seeing if they could bring back RE.  Before RE0, the last original RE game was Veronica for the DREAMCAST.  Most of the reviews for that game were the same, horrible control scheme, more of the same puzzles, but RE games are still pretty good.  The gamecube while not having a huge base, it was a market of core gamers.  By picking the gamecube, RE didn't have to compete with Silent Hill or Rockstar or other big time games that arguably had a better brand name at the time.  ReMake was to make sure an RE game would sell to the market.  Zero was simply a filler to bridge the gap to RE4.  RE4 was a big question mark.  It was rebuilding it's brand, but how many games have changed control schemes and gameplay so drastically?  There's loads of games that couldn't make simpler transitions. 

Then came the critical acclaims that RE4 got.  They couldn't port it soon enough to the PS2 and later cashed in on the gravy train with the Wii.  Make no mistake, the business decisions surrounding RE4 and RE5 were both solid.  It's just that we as Nintendo gamers were the beneficiary of RE4 and not of RE5.

Okay, total naysayer here.

I appreciate the graphical fidelity offered by the HD systems for RE5 and, for that matter, Call of Duty 4. The graphics are a major factor in both of those games, and for good reason. I think Capcom understands that they'd be seriously dumbing down their product for the Wii, and I think it would require a pretty massive graphical overhaul. Why bother? The game has already sold gangbusters. They've moved on.

Many, many people, including me have said that graphics don't matter if the gameplay holds up. Well, that's not entirely true. Ocarina of Time is very playable, but it looks like ass now. Most N64 games look like ass. Graphical quality DOES matter, but the Wii is not an HD system, so we can't expect the same graphical quality as you see on an HD system. Having said that, developers need to be SMART about their art direction for Wii games.

I'll use Patapon as an example (as I've done before): That game has extremely simple graphics, but they're supposed to be simple, and for eff's sake, they're GORGEOUS. Wario Land: Shake It is GORGEOUS. Boy & His Blob is GORGEOUS. Super Mario Galaxy is GORGEOUS.

Modern Warfare and RE5 are shooting for a completely different aesthetic, one the Wii cannot support. That's FINE, but I think that Wii developers (and gamers) have to accept that some games just won't have a good showing on the Wii.

I'm not trying to diss the Wii at all, I'm merely suggesting that developers should make games that the Wii will support from a hardware perspective. Can you imagine a Patapon game on the Wii that uses Rock Band/Guitar Hero drums? I would sh*t my fracking pants.

GoldenPhoenixNovember 12, 2009

Why would RE5 not work on Wii? This shooting for a different aesthetic is a silly argument too, the PC can run circles around any of the consoles if you have a high end computer with a well programmed game (Crysis wastes Uncharted 2 visually). Yes there are some things that cannot be done on Wii, but it is mostly for things other then visuals (AI, number of characters on screen etc etc). There is no reason why RE5 can't be on Wii, even if they have to take out the online co-op. My point is that visual fidelity can be relative.

Eff. I'm going to blog about my concept of "author intent" later today.

GoldenPhoenixNovember 12, 2009

Quote from: Halbred

Eff. I'm going to blog about my concept of "author intent" later today.

This conversation brings up a question for you. Which version of Jurassic the Hunted is Halbred getting? Which graphical awesomeness of dinosaurs will make Halbred happiest?

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 12, 2009

It's not that RE5 would not work on the Wii, it's that it doesn't make business sense to put it there.  RE is now a premium brand.  Think about a company like Ferrari.  Ferrari isn't going to try and compete with the Ford Taurus even though the Ford Taurus is going to sell a bunch more.  By putting RE5 on the Wii, they may make $.  But it has the possibility of 2 negative consequences.

1.  Water down the series.  Most good series can only see a sequel ever 2-3 years without the gaming public getting tired of them. 

2.  Lead the public to believe RE is not a premium brand.  I.E., poor graphics, poor game from a technical perspective, etc.  They are trying to sell you a $60-$80 game with DLC.  On top of that several premium games try to sell a collector's edition for over $100.  They don't want you to think RE is only worth $50 and they don't want you thinking it isn't from a performance perspective among the best in this generation.

Bottom line is they made enough $ on the PS3/360 versions not to risk a Wii version and they aren't going to.

broodwarsNovember 12, 2009

Quote from: GoldenPhoenix

Why would RE5 not work on Wii? This shooting for a different aesthetic is a silly argument too, the PC can run circles around any of the consoles if you have a high end computer with a well programmed game (Crysis wastes Uncharted 2 visually). Yes there are some things that cannot be done on Wii, but it is mostly for things other then visuals (AI, number of characters on screen etc etc). There is no reason why RE5 can't be on Wii, even if they have to take out the online co-op. My point is that visual fidelity can be relative.

It's not a matter of the game not being able to work on Wii.  I'm sure if the game was properly rebuilt for the Wii with the right people and right attitude it could be phenomenal and a worthy successor to RE4.  The question is "is it worth it?"  Even when 3rd parties release good games on the Wii (Okami, Zack & Wiki, etc.), Wii owners don't buy them.  I just don't see the kind of effort that would be required to turn RE5 into a stellar Wii game generating the sales to justify it.

vuduNovember 12, 2009

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

It's not that RE5 would not work on the Wii, it's that it doesn't make business sense to put it there.  RE is now a premium brand.  Think about a company like Ferrari.  Ferrari isn't going to try and compete with the Ford Taurus even though the Ford Taurus is going to sell a bunch more.  By putting RE5 on the Wii, they may make $.  But it has the possibility of 2 negative consequences.

1.  Water down the series.  Most good series can only see a sequel ever 2-3 years without the gaming public getting tired of them. 

Bologna.  You're talking about the company that ported Resident Evil to the DS.  You're talking about the company that ported RE4 to the iPhone.  You're talking about the company that put Leon and Claire into a snowboarding game on PlayStation.  Capcom will put the series on anything as long as they think they can make money on it.

Quote from: Halbred

I appreciate the graphical fidelity offered by the HD systems for RE5 and, for that matter, Call of Duty 4. The graphics are a major factor in both of those games, and for good reason. I think Capcom understands that they'd be seriously dumbing down their product for the Wii, and I think it would require a pretty massive graphical overhaul. Why bother? The game has already sold gangbusters. They've moved on.

Last I checked RE5 sold 5.0 million copies and RE4 sold 5.2 million copies.  Chances are RE5 will pass RE4 eventually, but it's not like it's the best selling game in the series by a ton.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 12, 2009

RE5 is only the worst game in the series, the shortest game in the series, the ugliest game in the series, the most expensive game in the series.

Gamers disappoint.

broodwarsNovember 12, 2009

Quote from: NinGurl69

RE5 is only the worst game in the series, the shortest game in the series, the ugliest game in the series, the most expensive game in the series.

Gamers disappoint.

It can't be the worst game in the series while Resident Evil 0 still exists, along with the many Gun Survivor games.  I didn't think it was too short for the story it was trying to tell, but I do think the "all brown, everywhere" color palette does make the game look uglier than it really is.  I will say it's up there in the series on the list of most laughably bad stories, though, and considering the general quality of story in this franchise that's saying something.

BlackNMild2k1November 12, 2009

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

It's not that RE5 would not work on the Wii, it's that it doesn't make business sense to put it there.

That's a lot of BS you're chewing on there, I hope you don't choke on it.

Why would Capcom spend so much time bringing the RE fanbase over to the Nintendo consoles only to not bring out the next sequel on a Nintendo console?
That's what doesn't make business sense. 1.3+ million people double dipped on RE4 Wii in anticipation of what a RE5 must be like and then they leave the entire RE fanbase on a Nintendo console holding their Wii in their hands staring at Umbrella Chronicles.

How much business sense would it make for SquareEnix to bring every single DQ ever made and put it out on the DS, sell millions upon millions of copies bringing over their entire DQ fanbase to the DS and then release DQ9 on the PSP?

This is essentially the same thing.

As for visual fidelity and "author intent"
I really don't see how 2-3 less zombies on screen or not being able to see individual strands of hair, sweat dripping and wounds pulsating really changes the game or the "authors intent" on delivering a solid game that's fun to play. I don't see how a really nicely done texture inplace of a 50k polygonal wall with bump mapping and reflective surface HDR antiscotropic filtering and 10xAA really changes the game. Sure it may look a whole lot nicer and be really easy on the eyes, but unless the gameplay is based off one of those elements, I really don't see how that is just nothing more than my cake being served on a silver platter instead of a paper plate. WHO CARES!? I just wanna eat the cake.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 12, 2009

The PS3 and 360 are affordable now.  If you wanted to try RE5 you'd buy one of those and play the game.  Also, the gamecube was last gen and also the last time that Nintendo focused on the core market.  The gamecube was almost all core market.  The Wii has some core market holdovers, mainly for the Nintendo branded games, but even most of them have a PS3 or 360.  Notwithstanding exclusives change hands all the time.  RE alone started with Sega, moved to Sony, moved to Nintendo, moved to Microsoft and Sony.  It happens alot.  And generally the series continue to sell well no matter who their on. 

The bottom line is Capcom is doing great financially, so they know more than you right?  That's what I was always told when I thought Nintendo could be doing a better job with the Wii.  I'm just joking about that, but the truth of the matter comes down to numbers none of us have a clue about.  A.  Cost of porting to Wii, B.  Sales revenue brought in by the game.  We can speculate but they don't think it is worth their time. 

Hahahaha...as to Jurassic: The Hunted, here's my complicated paleo-nerd answer.

As long as the dinosaurs in this game are closer to those of the Jurassic Park series than Walking With Dinosaurs, I'll be happy. Or, to go the other direction, I will be just as happy if the dinosaurs are closer to those in Harryhousen movies than Walking With Dinosaurs.

I do NOT like Walking With Dinosaurs. EVERYBODY IS FAT AND CONSTANTLY SHAKING THEIR NECK. Yes, it's a cool effect, but it completely ignores phylogenetic bracketing.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 12, 2009

Halbred, can you provide a hypothesis as to why Activision thought Jurassic:  Cabella's BIGGER Game was worth bringing to Wii?

Good question. My guess is that it's Activision wanting to make money, as usual. They've been very good about supporting the Wii with quality ports in the past. Plus, I can certainly see a more immersive experience with the pointer instead of dual-sticks.

I am worried about how my precious prehistoric beasties will turn out. Actually, I'm just nervous about the game generally. Aside from the initial announcement and screenshots, I don't really know shit about this game.

StratosNovember 12, 2009

I saw a trailer for it and it was pretty terrible. By that I mean the trailer, not the game. It was a very low budget trailer.

Ian SaneNovember 12, 2009

One thing a new console generation provides is an easy way for new games to differentiate themselves from old ones.  If I'm making a sequel I have to come up with new ideas or the series will become stale.  The noticable "step up" that a new console provides makes it easy to differentiate the sequel from the original, even if there's in reality not that much newness to it.

The PS3 and X360 provide very clear improvements.  The graphics are noticably better.  The better hardware allows for larger areas, more characters on screen at once, and more advanced AI.  Making a new game stand out from last gen is easy.  Even if the true gameplay difference is minor the game will differentiate itself from it's last gen predecessor.

With the Wii the ONLY difference is the controls.  That's it.  It may be more powerful than a Gamecube but it's close enough that it's more or less the same thing aside from motion control.  Now ignoring market share if I'm making a game and I don't plan on it having motion control, then there is no reason to make it for the Wii.  Nintendo made it an either/or situation.  You can have the better hardware or you can have the new controller.  Well if I can't come up with a decent idea for the controller then anything I make for the Wii will come across as last gen.  At least with the other consoles I can make my game seem relevent by just having better graphics.

Let's use Soul Calibur IV as an example.  Namco HAD to design it for the PS360 for one simple reason: the formula is too restrictive to make any really significant change without pissing off the fanbase so upping the graphics was logically the only way to get a new Soul Calibur game out there without it looking like a superflous upgrade.  If they weren't going to use motion control and the made that game with the Wii as the base platform it would come across as no different at all from Soul Calibur II & III.  It would be pointless.  The improved graphics give the game some purpose, even if it's superficial.  Meanwhile when making a Soul Calibur for the Wii Namco did try to use the unique feature of the Wii, only the results sucked.

Part of that problem lies in what I see as the restrictive nature of the remote.  Nintendo passes it off as the "new standard" but I think it's far too limiting for that.  It works well in sports games where you recreate the real-life movement.  The pointer functionality works well in games that would normally use a mouse or a lightgun.  But aside from that?  Even Nintendo has had to settle for lame waggle in their games that extend outside these two scenarios.

The problem is no one wants stuff that feels last gen.  New consoles cost money and no one wants to spend money on something that provides the same stuff that last gen did.  There has to be some justification even if it is just graphics.  And we also want something that has responsive controls and plays well.  The Wii has the unfortunate problem that the only way for a Wii game to feel current is if it uses motion control.  But it has to use it well.  So for most genres it's lose-lose.  The game is either a crappy wagglefest or it uses traditional controls and comes across as a last gen game that realistically no one should have had to pay for a new console to play.

Though ironically Resident Evil 5 is one of those games that could easily come across as next gen with only new controls to differentiate it.  Go figure.  I guess the creators wanted the co-op aspect of it, which needed the better hardware.

Let's face it when any one of us desires a game on another console do we really want it visually scalled down so that it looks like a slighty enhanced Gamecube game?  We want the real deal but it cannot exist.

StratosNovember 12, 2009

But Ian, what about making special 'for Wii' versions? We have a working Soul Calibur engine (Soul Calibur 2) so where is a genuine SC for Wii?, a working RE engine (RE4) so where is a new RE for Wii? Among a few other titles. Square is making a FF game for Wii that genuinely appears to be ground up.

Is there something wrong with giving us a similar game? they do it when they make a DS version of popular games. Modern Warfare 2 got a DS version and a lot of others did too. Why not a Wii one? Modern Warfare Reflex on Wii proves it is doable.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 12, 2009

But supporting all platforms with proper funding and attention would make too much sense.  That's just not in the cards here.

Stratos, you're basically asking companies to make two different games. It costs enough money to make ONE. RE4: Wii Edition was very cheap turnaround for Capcom--they basically ported the PS2 game but turned on the GC textures and added pointer functionality. Not a big gamble. They probably make dollars on the penny.

But making a brand-new Wii version of RE5? You'd be producing an entirely new game. Yeah, they've got the RE4 engine, and it would probably work, but you'd still have to build new assets, maps, and friendly AI. And with Nintendo's restrictive online shenanigans, I'd bet money that online co-op would be out the window. You could get rid of Sheva, but then the story wouldn't make a lot of sense, and the cutscenes would have to be re-done. It really WOULD be a totally different game.

Look, Capcom had a goal in mind (an intention) for the sequel to RE4. They simply couldn't do what they wanted on the Wii. I think it really is as simple as that.

But they could totally make a new RE4-style game for the Wii. I'd be all for that. I'd buy it on launch day. But I just don't think it's gonna be RE5.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: NinGurl69

But supporting all platforms with proper funding and attention would make too much sense.  That's just not in the cards here.

Why would that make sense?  You support the platforms the most that you expect the most profit from.  I'm sorry if Capcom decided that porting RE5 to the Wii wouldn't make them more money than making DLC for RE5, or bringing Tatsunoko VS Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars to the Wii or whatever other projects they were working on.  Making money alone isn't justification enough for a project.  Making the most money is.  And they decided they should use their resources elsewhere.  A pc version of RE5 is looking likely though if you don't want to pick up a PS3/360.  And that may not have Wii type controls but it should have better than console controls.

BlackNMild2k1November 13, 2009

Yes. we all know that the Wii can't handle online therefore it can't handle online co-op.

Somebody should probably tell that to HVS and Treyarch because that online deathmatch FPS just aint gonna happen, then someone should tell Nintendo too because releasing Dynamic Slash with 4 player co-op gameplay is gonna be a complete waste of time and resources since it's obviously not possible since no one has bothered to attempt it yet.


edit:  & why is everyone acting as if the only way you can play RE5 is online co-op?
Are you trying to say that the computer doesn't control Sheva when you don't have another person to play with? Are you saying that you have to wait for a second player of you want to play the game? the amount of palms that need to hit faces are not available to me right now.

It's not like it couldn't happen. It's just I don't think Capcom is going to bother trying.

broodwarsNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

Yes. we all know that the Wii can't handle online therefore it can't handle online co-op.

Somebody should probably tell that to HVS and Treyarch because that online deathmatch FPS just aint gonna happen, then someone should tell Nintendo too because releasing Dynamic Slash with 4 player co-op gameplay is gonna be a complete waste of time and resources since it's obviously not possible since no one has bothered to attempt it yet.

edit:  & why is everyone acting as if the only way you can play RE5 is online co-op?
Are you trying to say that the computer doesn't control Sheva when you don't have another person to play with? Are you saying that you have to wait for a second player of you want to play the game? the amount of palms that need to hit faces are not available to me right now.

Wow, where to start.  Alright, first off the online multiplayer in HVS's Conduit is a laggy, buggy POS so I don't know why you'd even bring that up to support an argument.  Second, I didn't say it wasn't possible to have online Co-op in a Wii RE5, just that making it work on Nintendo's antiquated online system probably isn't worth the cost.

You can play RE5 offline (as I did), but the computer does such a poor job with Sheva it completely ruined the game for me.  She constantly gets herself into trouble, never uses any weapon other than her damn pistol, and worst of all she goes out of her way to run up and grab ammo from barrels and whatnot before you can.  The AI Sheva is an abomination (the only thing she's good at is accuracy), which is why I have a whole AI classification system in games I like to refer to as the Elika/Sheva system.

Elika is high, Sheva is low, right?

That reminds me, where's the sequel to PoP, Ubisoft?

UncleBobRichard Cook, Guest ContributorNovember 13, 2009

Why not by-pass Nintendo's online system and use your own servers?

broodwarsNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: Halbred

Elika is high, Sheva is low, right?

That reminds me, where's the sequel to PoP, Ubisoft?

Exactly.  Elikas don't need to be protected, and they don't need to be babysat.  They take care of themselves and only interfere in your experience when you actually need them or when you ask for it.  Shevas are the opposite.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 13, 2009

I don't necessarily mean take 1 game and make sure it's developed for all systems semi-equally, per se (otherwise we'd end up with Jurassic:  The Humped), but rather putting your good foot forward to provide those products that do similar jobs despite targetting different platforms.  Street Fighter went HD, while TatsuCap went Wii -- different projects with different targets yet doing similar jobs without the Wii version being some ugly duckling that remains ugly -- all well and good.

"Why would that make sense?"

Because it provides a clean frame of reference for a company to speak from before they blame Nintendo/Wii/casuals on disappointing sales.  "Did you apply your best efforts, like you're so happy to do on other platforms?"  Yes?--OK you can blame the casuals.  No?--OK 3rd party, you're full of shit.

Let's stop talking about RE5.  That's not a game I want to see on Wii.  Legend of Barry or some other original RE4Wii-based adventure that would've gotten Mikami's blessing, yes.

RE5 "not on Wii", if anything, just highlights the gap left by a potential full-fledged Wii Resident Evil title.  Wii got Monster Hunter Tri, a huge huge game everyone has forgotten, so it shows Capcom had significant resouces go SOMEWHERE substantial, but it doesn't address the gap for a dedicated Wii RE title.

BlackNMild2k1November 13, 2009

Quote from: broodwars

Wow, where to start.  Alright, first off the online multiplayer in HVS's Conduit is a laggy, buggy POS so I don't know why you'd even bring that up to support an argument.  Second, I didn't say it wasn't possible to have online Co-op in a Wii RE5, just that making it work on Nintendo's antiquated online system probably isn't worth the cost.

You can play RE5 offline (as I did), but the computer does such a poor job with Sheva it completely ruined the game for me.  She constantly gets herself into trouble, never uses any weapon other than her damn pistol, and worst of all she goes out of her way to run up and grab ammo from barrels and whatnot before you can.  The AI Sheva is an abomination (the only thing she's good at is accuracy), which is why I have a whole AI classification system in games I like to refer to as the Elika/Sheva system.

HVS is a second rate developer branching out on their first big game. It was ambitious and a solid first effort.

Second, I never mentioned you as saying anything and was actually responding to Halbred. I left it a general "everyone" because you two aren't the only people I've sen say "what about the online co-op". My response is "What about it?"

I think that the Wii has proven that it is capable of any gameplay experience and only requires that the developer actually try to make it work.

Capcom might not want to put in the time and effort to make such a thing work, but people are giving them the excuse to be lazy by saying that it's just not possible. Just because it's easier to port around between HD systems doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth the time and resources to create a system or an engine that works for Wii. It's very common to re-use these engines for many different games and they already built a RE fanbase on the Nintendo console, that's why it makes sense to attempt it in the first place.


edit: I don't mean to focus on any specific game, but RE5 is where we were obviously misdirected while Capcom stole our wallets.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: NinGurl69

I don't necessarily mean take 1 game and make sure it's developed for all systems semi-equally, per se (otherwise we'd end up with Jurassic:  The Humped), but rather putting your good foot forward to provide those products that do similar jobs despite targetting different platforms.  Street Fighter went HD, while TatsuCap went Wii -- different projects with different targets yet doing similar jobs without the Wii version being some ugly duckling that remains ugly -- all well and good.

"Why would that make sense?"

Because it provides a clean frame of reference for a company to speak from before they blame Nintendo/Wii/casuals on disappointing sales.  "Did you apply your best efforts, like you're so happy to do on other platforms?"  Yes?--OK you can blame the casuals.  No?--OK 3rd party, you're full of ****.

Who is the judge of equal?  That will always be subjective.  EA had it's big guns on the Wii.  They had their most releases on the Wii.  They tried to get the Wii market and they failed.  You say it's not good enough.  For the record Capcom has never blamed anything on the Wii.  They've done exactly what you said.  They gave the Wii Monster Hunter, they gave it Tan vs. Cap, they gave it that Spyborgs game.  They gave the PS3/360 Resi, Street Fighter, DMC.  And they aren't blaming anything on the Wii, just raking in the profits of good planning.

Quote:

RE5 "not on Wii", if anything, just highlights the gap left by a potential full-fledged Wii Resident Evil title.  Wii got Monster Hunter Tri, a huge huge game everyone has forgotten, so it shows Capcom had significant resouces go SOMEWHERE substantial, but it doesn't address the gap for a dedicated Wii RE title.

Shows your biasedness.  Of all third parties Capcom has probably balanced the best between Wii/HD and are raking in profits.  But since your a Nintendo fan, best efforts mean puts everything on the Wii and makes sure the Wii version is better than HD systems if they choose to support those systems.

broodwarsNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

Capcom might not want to put in the time and effort to make such a thing work, but people are giving them the excuse to be lazy by saying that it's just not possible. Just because it's easier to port around between HD systems doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth the time and resources to create a system or an engine that works for Wii. It's very common to re-use these engines for many different games and they already built a RE fanbase on the Nintendo console, that's why it makes sense to attempt it in the first place.

Well, that's the thing.  I have to agree with Pro on this and say that I didn't want RE5 on the Wii.  I didn't want to see them try to down-convert all those HD resources on crappy SD Wii.  I was (and am) still fond of the idea of doing a proper Wiimake or Resident Evil 2 (which it seems just about everyone wants in some form or fashion) using that RE4 Wii engine.  Or hell, make a proper sequel or sidestory to RE4 using the RE4 engine that actually continues that game's story rather than the direction that RE5 took in closing the long-running Wesker story.  New game, ground-up designed for Wii, everyone's happy.  Instead, we're getting Darkside Chronicles on Wii, which is kind of what we wanted but not really.  Oh joy.

I think it's a waste of time to criticize Capcom for not putting RE5 on Wii when what we should be criticizing them for is not doing anything else with that engine on Wii.

BlackNMild2k1November 13, 2009

That's not biased. Capcom released every mainline RE title on the Nintendo Console(RE0 - RE4) and didn't follow up with RE5. The fanbase for RE likely already had a Wii in wait for RE5 and it never came. That is the gap.

I'm glad we are getting MH3 and I will be buying it. I will probably get TvC too, but it still doesn't make sense how something like MvC can go to PSN/XBLA and not come to Wii. That would have been a perfect way to build anticipation for another vs Capcom game that we are getting with TvC.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

That's not biased. Capcom released every mainline RE title on the Nintendo Console(RE0 - RE4) and didn't follow up with RE5. The fanbase for RE likely already had a Wii in wait for RE5 and it never came. That is the gap.

The same can be said for Sony except RE 0.  RE5 sold more than RE4 on the Cube and Wii combined and will shortly become the best selling RE of all time.  I think it did okay without being on a Nintendo console.  Most people also avoided RE2,3 and CV on the GC.  They were dreaded ports and were quickly dropped from retail.  On PS2 they sold at least decently.  This article isn't the newest and doesn't include RE4 sales.  However, it doesn't paint the picture of the Wii being the best RE fans.  http://uk.cube.ign.com/articles/463/463614p1.html 

Summary for US
RE1 on PS1 almost 2 million units.  GC almost 500,000
RE2 on PS1 about 1.7 million units.  GC almost 33,000
RE3 on PS1 about 1 million units.  GC almost 42,000
CV on PS2/DC about 1.2 million units.  GC Unknown.

Sure it was a bad idea to not move this to the Wii?  You could have had those 33,000 (at most) that grabbed the entire series.

According to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_evil_4
The GC RE4 sold 1.6m to the PS2 2.0m.  Didn't help that they announced the PS2 version before releasing the GC version, but you would have hoped that the GC version being superior would have pushed sales.

They probably figured releasing MvC on the Wii would mean people would buy the $10 MvC and forgo the $50 TvC altogether.  They probably also figured Wii owners are less likely to buy a download only title rather than a full retail title. 

broodwarsNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

They probably figured releasing MvC on the Wii would mean people would buy the $10 MvC and forgo the $50 TvC altogether.  They probably also figured Wii owners are less likely to buy a download only title rather than a full retail title.

With MvC there's a problem with Wii owners just not supporting online downloads as much as Nintendo would like.  Maybe if more Wii owners purchase Virtual Console and WiiWare we could still see it.  We're certainly seeing the HD consoles getting each other's download games after a certain period of time.  Also keep in mind that this incarnation of MvC's big new feature was online play, something that (once again) is not a strong suit of the Wii.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

That's not biased. Capcom released every mainline RE title on the Nintendo Console(RE0 - RE4) and didn't follow up with RE5. The fanbase for RE likely already had a Wii in wait for RE5 and it never came. That is the gap.

The same can be said for Sony except RE 0.  RE5 sold more than RE4 on the Cube and Wii combined and will shortly become the best selling RE of all time.  I think it did okay without being on a Nintendo console.  Most people also avoided RE2,3 and CV on the GC.  They were dreaded ports and were quickly dropped from retail.  On PS2 they sold at least decently.  This article isn't the newest and doesn't include RE4 sales.  However, it doesn't paint the picture of the Wii being the best RE fans.  http://uk.cube.ign.com/articles/463/463614p1.html 

Summary for US
RE1 on PS1 almost 2 million units.  GC almost 500,000
RE2 on PS2 about 1.7 million units.  GC almost 33,000
RE3 on PS2 about 1 million units.  GC almost 42,000
CV on PS2/DC about 1.2 million units.  GC Unknown.

Sure it was a bad idea to not move this to the Wii?  You could have had those 33,000 (at most) that grabbed the entire series.

According to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_evil_4
The GC RE4 sold 1.6m to the PS2 2.0m.  Didn't help that they announced the PS2 version before releasing the GC version, but you would have hoped that the GC version being superior would have pushed sales.

They probably figured releasing MvC on the Wii would mean people would buy the $10 MvC and forgo the $50 TvC altogether.  They probably also figured Wii owners are less likely to buy a download only title rather than a full retail title. 

There's so much factually wrong and misleading in this, I don't know where to begin or want to begin.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 13, 2009

Thanks for reposting my whole post and giving no new information.  Some of the #'s may be outdated, but it's no surprise that the PS2 versions of RE have sold much better than the GC versions. 

broodwarsNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

Thanks for reposting my whole post and giving no new information.  Some of the #'s may be outdated, but it's no surprise that the PS2 versions of RE have sold much better than the GC versions.

*psst*  Resident Evils 2 and 3 were on the Playstation 1, not Playstation 2.  The only direct comparisons you can make between GC and PS2 are with Code Veronica X and RE4.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: broodwars

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

Thanks for reposting my whole post and giving no new information.  Some of the #'s may be outdated, but it's no surprise that the PS2 versions of RE have sold much better than the GC versions.

*psst*  Resident Evils 2 and 3 were on the Playstation 1, not Playstation 2.

So there's a typo in my typed (not linked) information.  Does that mean they sold on a Nintendo System but not on a Sony System?  According to this CV on the PS2 almost sold as much as RE1, RE2, RE3, CV, and RE0 on the Wii.  If you add RE4 and CV on the PS2 together they do outsell all GC sales.  The point was that their was an untapped Wii RE fanbase that was ignored.  I don't see that.  From PS1 to PS2, most RE titles have sold very well with CV being the only one under a million sold.  RE4 was the only GC title to go over 1 million.  RE2,3,CV on the GC shouldn't even count because they sold so poorly. 

broodwarsNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

Quote from: broodwars

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

Thanks for reposting my whole post and giving no new information.  Some of the #'s may be outdated, but it's no surprise that the PS2 versions of RE have sold much better than the GC versions.

*psst*  Resident Evils 2 and 3 were on the Playstation 1, not Playstation 2.

So there's a typo in my typed (not linked) information.  Does that mean they sold on a Nintendo System but not on a Sony System?

The problem with your logic is that you're trying to explain how the series sold tremendously better on the PS2 than GC, yet you're using PS1 sales figures instead of comparing the only 2 RE games on both GC and PS2: Code Veronica X and RE4.  I do think there's a particular problem with GCN gamers not supporting games on the GCN, hence the total meltdown of the Capcom 5.  It's the same problem we're seeing with the Wii right now, but you have to pull up better figures to demonstrate your case.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 13, 2009

I wasn't actually trying to show that the PS2 games outsold the GC games.  I was trying to show that the GC sales were poor compared to the prior sales of RE games on other systems (PS1 +PS2).  I edited my post to convey that.  If you have better #'s you can add them to the post.  As noted these may not be the most updated numbers but they are from reputable sources.

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 13, 2009

I don't think there's a problem with GC owners rejecting nearly-full priced ($40) dreadfully-ported PS1 games.  Those games were originally released during PS1's glorious reign to PS1's astronomically huge install base.

Code Veronica was originally released with decent timing in the Dreamcast's life, and was released a year later to PS2's rapidly-growing audience (still a relatively recent game then) even before GC/Xbox made their playable debuts in E3 2001.  RECV was 3 years old by the time it hit GC at a bargain bin price of $40, sitting next to the $15 copies of the game on PS2.

It wasn't a case of Capcom sharing the classics of the RE series as it was just to RIP PEOPLE OFF.

And PS2 RE4 only sold 400K more than GC RE4?  A sound defeat?  That's worth some head scratching considering how PS2's install base absolutely dwarfed GC's install base.  You'd think it'd sell MOAR.  Or maybe the rest of the PS2 gamers were hesitant to jump into RE's new direction, still clinging onto the traditional play found in spinoff RE Outbreak games.

The Outbreak games would be more suitable for a PS2-GC comparison.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 13, 2009

I didn't say RE4 on the PS2 selling 400,000 more than the GC was a sound defeat.  But it is noteworthy becuase the PS2 was released 10 months after the GC, was inferior to the GC version (except the Wong levels) and supposedly the GC version had the advantage of the RE fanbase due to Capcom making all RE games to this date available for GC.  And despite the deck being stacked towards the GC, it still lost by 25%.

Not sure why the spin offs would be a better comparison?  Because they sold more appropriately due to the fact they are spin offs that weren't at all like the main series?

ZapNovember 13, 2009

Capcom 5.. Resident Evil 5...I should've seen this disaster coming

NinGurl69 *hugglesNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: Zap

Capcom 5.. Resident Evil 5...I should've seen this disaster coming

Great SCOTT, another one of your BIBLE CODE Mayan Calendar revelations.

BlackNMild2k1November 13, 2009

I can't believe we are having an argument from 2004 again.

GC RE4 was technically superior, but 1 month before the release of the highly anticipated game, a game that many PS2 owners were thinking of picking up a $99 Gamecube for, the HYPE was neutered by the announcement of the PS2 version with extra level with Ada Wong. Why would all those PS2 owners that were oh so close to finally pulling the trigger on a GC buy one now that they know the same game with an extra level is coming a little bit later.

Meantime, the GC with it's 25million install base happens to still sell 1.6 mill vs PS2 with their 70 million install base sell 2mill.

That actually sounds more like a victory for the GC to me with a higher percentage of console owners buying the game. Then 1.3 million more rebuy the game with it comes to Wii with improved controls.

But I was never saying that RE5 shouldn't have existed on PS360, I'm just saying that it should have also come to Wii since that is where they were steering the franchises fan base. They left the Nintendo RE fans hanging and to keep us happy, they give us the consolation prize.


I'm glad Pro said it already, but you can't seriously compare the RE games from PS1/2/Dreamcast to the ones that showed up on GC 3 years later at an almost full price.

JLowtherJesse Lowther, Guest ContributorNovember 13, 2009

Quote from: NinGurl69

Quote from: Zap

Capcom 5.. Resident Evil 5...I should've seen this disaster coming

Great SCOTT, another one of your BIBLE CODE Mayan Calendar revelations.

Tom Hanks' mullet is involved here somewhere.

As for the discussion, I think it's a shame we never got anymore RE games (or any games) that controlled like RE4 did with the remote and nunchuk.

I've never replayed a game that long in the past but the new controls made it so easy and fun...

Chozo GhostNovember 13, 2009

If RE4 can be done on the Ipod phone, then RE5 can definitely be done on the Wii. I think contrary to popular myth, the Wii actually isn't that far behind the competition. The Wii (like the GC which it evolved from) actually has very good capabilities, but the problem is that graphical potential is seldom realized. We know decent graphics are possible because in games like RE4 and Zelda this is actually achieved. But sadly, most games on the Wii are non-gamer crap that uses the ugly Miis and so forth. I think people tend to under-rate the Wii's potential because of games like Wii Play and Wii Sports. People are a lot more familiar with these sorts of games, so when they think about the Wii that's the sort of graphics they have in mind.

So graphics aren't too much of an issue. The Wii can't do HD, but that's the only real limitation and not a huge deal to me personally. The only real problem might be with the Co-op and AI stuff as was mentioned, but these things could be modified until they are workable. I am 100% certain Capcom could make RE5 work on the Wii if they really wanted to.

Capcom might have to cut some things out to make an RE5 work on the Wii, but they could also compensate for that by adding new features and better controls and new bonus content that would make the Wii version balance out with the competitors, and possibly a worthy purchase even for those who already own it on the other systems.

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 13, 2009

The iphone is technically superior to the Gamecube and even gives the Wii a run for it's money.  It was also Capcom's first major support for the device, they didn't have a failed attempt for the series to fall back on. 

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

I can't believe we are having an argument from 2004 again.

GC RE4 was technically superior, but 1 month before the release of the highly anticipated game, a game that many PS2 owners were thinking of picking up a $99 Gamecube for, the HYPE was neutered by the announcement of the PS2 version with extra level with Ada Wong. Why would all those PS2 owners that were oh so close to finally pulling the trigger on a GC buy one now that they know the same game with an extra level is coming a little bit later.

Meantime, the GC with it's 25million install base happens to still sell 1.6 mill vs PS2 with their 70 million install base sell 2mill.

That actually sounds more like a victory for the GC to me with a higher percentage of console owners buying the game. Then 1.3 million more rebuy the game with it comes to Wii with improved controls.

But I was never saying that RE5 shouldn't have existed on PS360, I'm just saying that it should have also come to Wii since that is where they were steering the franchises fan base. They left the Nintendo RE fans hanging and to keep us happy, they give us the consolation prize.


I'm glad Pro said it already, but you can't seriously compare the RE games from PS1/2/Dreamcast to the ones that showed up on GC 3 years later at an almost full price.

Tomatoes/tomatoes.  Maybe the GC did a good job with RE4, it wasn't the most "fair" expiriment.  But nothing in life is fair and it didn't do good enough in Capcom's mind.  The Wii version is a port, but you guys want to play the #'s game?  It has a base well on it's way to 3x the size of the GC, it is the superior version in every way, it was a budget price so even people that had already bought the game could upgrade easily and it was still outsold by the GC version.  Fair?  Maybe not, but sales weren't strong enough to forgo the PS3/360 and make RE5 a Wii exclusive.  We want to compare the Wii to the PS2 because of how many units they each sold.  But the truth is the PS2 versions routinely kicked the teeth of other consoles sales in multi console titles and made third parties take notice of their population.  It was never, PS2 needs a special version to take advantage of it's strengths.  The Wii or GC have never done that with any multi console release (unless you count that they did port a late Rabbids game to the HD systems).

I also think it's interesting that you say the entire RE fanbase is on Wii, because alot of RE games (that we can't use to compare sales) were on the GC.  The interesting thing is this goes back to the original point.  Did the RE ports fail because of Capcom or Nintendo?  Rumor was Capcom thought they had a preferred licence fee for these ports to release these games at $19.99.  There were no budget GC games at the time and Nintendo balked wanting to keep their licence fee at an outrageous $12 (for a $20 game).  Capcom was then forced to make the games $40 to make any money thus killing their chance to make sales and any real money on the games.  Thus they stop producing them and the few copies made sat at retail at $40 until the stores decided to dump them.  Is this confirmed?  Obviously no way to confirm it unless you work at Capcom or Nintendo Japan.  But third parties tend to avoid working with Nintendo for a reason.  Could Nintendo done something small to ensure that a RE5 was made beside the HD versions?  Maybe. 

thatguyNovember 14, 2009

You say tomato, and I say tomato!

Did the RE ports fail?  They were ports.  There was no incentive for anyone involved to buy them, really, unless you just wanted to play a port of a very old game on a new system.  Wait, didn't one port succeed?  Oh, right, the most recent one, RE4:Wii.  The other ports offered nothing new, and no matter what, could be found cheaper on the PS1.

And I've never heard your conspiracy theory about licensing before, but it makes no sense.  If the games were to be priced at $20 considering a preferred license, but then Nintendo required the standard license, wouldn't the game have been priced at $30?  I don't know how licensing works, but I wouldn't imagine there'd be more than a $10 difference IF your unsourced fantasy licensing numbers are true.

Please don't do random speculation and comparisons like you have been doing throughout this thread without proof-reading, and then sourcing some of the stuff.  While I'm not saying what you're saying doesn't hold a thread of truth, I am saying that I've got no reason to believe random numbers you post when you've already made some easily noticeable errors in this thread.  While it's one thing to suggest something as possibility, you portray rumor as fact.  Watch as I post something for consideration that could be a possibility, without knowing anything about the truth of the matter, but still manage to get the point across without making baseless claims and the like:

Isn't it possible that Capcom was already developing Resident Evil 5 back when they received the full information on Resident Evil 4's sales?  I haven't looked to see when it began development, but I'd imagine Capcom might have been looking at creating RE5 back right around when Dead Rising was a success on the 360!  Could this be the case?

smallsharkbigbiteNovember 18, 2009

Quote from: thatguy

Did the RE ports fail?  They were ports.  There was no incentive for anyone involved to buy them, really, unless you just wanted to play a port of a very old game on a new system.  Wait, didn't one port succeed?  Oh, right, the most recent one, RE4:Wii.  The other ports offered nothing new, and no matter what, could be found cheaper on the PS1.


So if people don't don't buy the Nintendo version because they have the Sony version..... then people wouldn't buy RE5 Wii because they have the Sony version?  This was more to counter a point that all REs had been released on Nintendo so should have RE5.  Only 3 RE gamecube titles are worth talking about saleswise.  REmake was great, I own it.  However, it was outsold by RE1 on the PS1.  RE0, another I liked and own, was by all accounts the worst selling of the main RE series.  RE4 Cube was outsold by the PS2 version.  Oh yeah and RE4 Wii was outsold by the PS2 version.

Quote:

And I've never heard your conspiracy theory about licensing before, but it makes no sense.  If the games were to be priced at $20 considering a preferred license, but then Nintendo required the standard license, wouldn't the game have been priced at $30?  I don't know how licensing works, but I wouldn't imagine there'd be more than a $10 difference IF your unsourced fantasy licensing numbers are true.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/384/384167p1.html
I thought I read the "licence speculation" from a Matt Cassimassina blog but couldn't find it.  So I won't speculate further on this point except to point out from this review that.

"Both Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3: Nemesis would ship to the Nintendo home console at a somewhat attractive price point: $19.99 U.S.", "Unfortunately, plans change, and Capcom has since dropped the lowball MSRP for a near-standard tag of $39.99. Why? We've heard no official reasoning for this price hike."

So the price did double from the initial announcement.  $30/$40 probably dead at either price point since it was a straight PS1 port. 

Quote:

Isn't it possible that Capcom was already developing Resident Evil 5 back when they received the full information on Resident Evil 4's sales?  I haven't looked to see when it began development, but I'd imagine Capcom might have been looking at creating RE5 back right around when Dead Rising was a success on the 360!  Could this be the case?

Not sure I understand your point.  I'm sure Capcom knew how much RE4 sold and Dead Rising.  I thought we had determined PS3/360 versions were good business decisions.  The question was should a Wii RE5 should have been developed as well.

PeachylalaNovember 18, 2009

Guys.

Let's just quit arguing and make fun of Capcom losing their good game development staff.

Why? Why not.

KDR_11kNovember 18, 2009

There are Wii games that started at 30€ (there are also some that started at 40€ despite being $30 in the US, I'M LOOKING AT YOU NAMCO).

For example Castlevania Judgment. 30€ was a great price for that.

Got a news tip? Send it in!
Advertisement
Advertisement