If only he had mentioned advertising/marketing then I would give this man a gold star.
but he has only earned a silver star for recognizing that we Wii owners expect more than another late port or another on-rails shooter (that can't even be played like a light gun game when it was obviously designed like one).

His game had better be good, or he's going to look a little foolish.

Not really. He'll just recognize that they did something wrong, like no advertising so that we are aware of his game, unless he made these statements as a way of advertising his game.

His game looks promising, but I'm concerned that the small WiiWare size will hamper it's quality.

I would argue the contrary. As Kawa said, "If the game doesn't sell, we did something wrong". It sounds like he is willing to accept his mistakes. I think it's all based on how he handles the fallout if his title crashes and burns. He didn't claim that his game would be amazing, he said quality games in general will sell better.

Either way, how different is this from us forum members and you journalists talking about how Capcom or EA or Sega need to make better than average titles to make good sales on Wii?

That's another thing... In this competitive business of INTERACTIVE TV PICTURES, why create products that you're unable to market effectively?  Do you not understand your own product's appeal (and what appeals to buyers)?  Do you even care about your product's appeal and communicating it (and not just ship/sales numbers on spreadsheets)?

Crapcom
EA
Ubi
Activision
THQ

If Nintendo raises the bar, 3rd parties go under it more easily (and some just crash into the bar).  IS THIS HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK?

For the most part I agree with him. However, it is not true that only bad games sell badly (take Psychonauts for example). It's the same way that good movies sometimes bomb, good TV shows sometimes have bad ratings, and good CD's sell sometimes sell badly.

Though i find quality products that sell poorly (Psychonauts, Zach and Wiki) flop because they are just too nich for their own good. Sure, maybe a better title or marketing campaign could have helped some of that but if a game's appeal is too niche, then it doesn't matter how good it is, the game will just not catch many people's attention.

Finally, there's a 3rd party executive that gets it.

Although I agree with the guy, he has no credibility until he can distance himself from Nibris by actually shipping a game.

Speaking of Nibris.....

How is Sadness coming along? Does anyone know? Has is been delayed till WiiHD?
what about Raid over the River?

Not a word from Nibris about Sadness... I already declared it dead in the water years ago.

Not that it matters because the game is vaporware (along with Sadness), but the games name was officially changed to just "ROTR" a couple of years ago. "Sadness" looks very interesting, too bad I doubt it will ever come out. I don't think we have even seen screenshots since 2007.

If it's all about quality, does anybody care to explain to me how Game Party became a multi-million seller?

"Only bad Wii games sell badly"

Terrible logic. This guy needs to shut his mouth and buy Zack and Wikki. The market just isn't that black and white. 

Z&W was bad at appealing to people.

I'll say it again.

The Wii is the only platform ever that third party games are expected to sell with no advertising.

Z&W is a point and click adventure. For its genre it is a good game, but that genre doesn't appeal to everyone. So whether Z&W is a great game or not is entirely a matter of opinion. For the record, I do think it didn't get the sales it deserved, but I wouldn't call it an A+ title by any means.

I think P&C isn't THAT niche but fewer people play them on consoles than PCs and Z&W had a very quirky theme (I'm talking about the anime look) that most of the people in the West don't like.

So what should publishers/developers do? Make games based on their marketability? How easily you can portray it?

Well, I hope he's right.  Might as well hope for the best, I guess.  Still, it's not like we haven't seen good 3rd party games fail to sell (Zack & Wiki, Okami, A Boy & His Blob, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories).

Er, how can you declare SH:SM a failure already? The weekly sales VGChartz lists are a bit better than those of the individual versions of SH:Homecoming and way better than SH:Origins.

I was listening to a recent podcast (I believe either Big Red Potion or Giant Bombcast) and one of the panelists commented that he might have seen some of the sales data on it and it wasn't promising.  In any case, it's a somewhat niche 3rd party Wii game released just before Christmas with no marketing.  It would take a miracle these days for such a game to actually sell well.  Hey, here's hoping, though.  It certainly deserves to sell well.

There's your problem, you're citing a website that pull their numbers out of their ass. I could make up a number too and it would be just as accurate as any from VG Chartz.

Zack and Wikki is just one example. The list of great Wii games that sold poorly is so long this man should just give up on life for mumbling such nonsense.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple quick responses to our exalted leader:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

BnM speaks Truth and Justice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much... so much hate! T_T

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

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

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

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

...realizes the thread is thoroughly delrailed...oops...  :-[

My work here is done.

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

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

A couple of interesting links about this subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Super Mario Galaxy says hi, Rize.

Also, New Super Mario Bros. Wii.

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

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

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

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

Who said that and where?

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

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

Deguello, you forgot part of his post.

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

For me the graphic aren't as important.  But the "better games" part of it is what turns me off of Wii third party games.  Nothing seems like a really serious effort.  It all seems like someone told the B-team to "make something for the Wii audience".  On the other consoles you get games where you can tell the developer has their top guys working on it and the whole thing is a labour of love.  You can tell that the goal is to make one of the greatest games ever.  Serious effort is made on the gameplay, controls, level design, graphics, art style, music, story and just overall presentation.  The Wii it's just like "pound out whatever".  Core gamers aren't interested in half-assed attempts.  We want those GOTY types of games and when a third party only makes those games on the other consoles you just develop this "eh, fuck 'em" indifference to them.

Super Mario Galaxy, SSB Brawl and Metroid Prime 3 seem like FULL efforts.  They have that "go for broke and make the best game EVER" ambitious design, regardless of whether you think they actually acheived that.  Not every game has to be like that.  I think Nintendo very noticably cuts corners these days and even an amazing game like NSMB Wii doesn't come across as very ambitious.  But at least Nintendo has made that sort of game on the Wii.  When a third party have never even made an attempt to do such a thing how can their support be taken seriously?  It comes across like the Wii is not a priority for them so core gamers might as well stick to the other consoles and just use their Wii as their Nintendo machine.

The effort I think is the key thing and you can put in that kind of effort on the Wii even without HD graphics.  The best games always made exceptional use of the hardware they were "stuck" with.  There was always something better be it arcades, PCs or some high-powered but obscure console.  Square could have made Final Fantasy VI on the 3DO and thus have FMV and CD-quality music and a lot of the bells of whistles they later had in FFVII.  But instead they used the "inferior" SNES with it's chip sound, cartridge format, and slow CPU but still busted out an amazing game that pushes the console to its limits.  Despite the limitations they went for broke and knocked the ball out of the park.  Nobody does that on the Wii, except Nintendo (sometimes), and then they wonder why after 20 years of being conditioned to favour these types of games we don't buy Wii games and instead focus on the 2nd and 3rd place consoles that contain those types of games.

Ian's basically right.  Although we see several counter-arguments, the basic idea is that quality can and will sell on the Wii.

I did a little math work last night and averaged all of Nintendo's review scores on GameRankigs and Metacritic and stuff.  For each it's around 80% for 30+ games.  I hold that this is the highest average on the console, and thus Nintendo deserves the most sales.  For fun and giggles I did UBISoft's average as well, and it comes around 59% for over fifty games (Can you believe IGN can Imagine: Party Babiez a 7.5?), with No More Heroes being their best game at 82%.  You would not believe the filth UBISoft published on the Wii.

So, has any other developer made games as good as Nintendo's?  If so, were there any mitigating factors that might have slowed their sales and caused consumers to balk at buying them?  Does Nintendo not deserve the best sales on their console because they've made the best games on it?

No Joke: I hear Imagine: Babyz Fashion was surprisingly good.

One of the 5-star reviews I read on Amazon for Imagine: Party Babiez was made by someone who realized their nephew was the baby model on the cover, they had never played it.

I envy you for having enough free time that you decided reading Amazon reviews for Imagine: Party Babiez was a good use of it.

This was back when I had no job.

Looked it up again, sounds like they did play it, but its obvious they rated it high because their child was on the cover.

Well that's a problem, then.  The cover is so off-putting and the basic premise was so horrid nobody bought it to know.

I remember when this game was announced (along with Dogz 2009 or something) that they had "zeroed in" on the Wii demographic and made both of those titles with "them" in mind.  Both flopped hard, selling less than No More Heroes, a game UBISoft just published.  With this set of data, it seems like Wii owners don't want baby games or Pet-raising game.  (Even Nintendo knows this, they've only ever released Nintendogs, way back in 2005, with no sequelicious cram-down to follow).  But Wii owners get told that they don't buy anything, or that they are Nintendo fans, or whatever.  So no wonder Wii owners mostly buy only Nintendo games.

"You've made your bed, now lie in it."  This is the problem third parties face on the Wii.  Nintendo has learned not to try and cntrol third parties, and thus third parties are free to make whatever their want on the Wii.  What third parties have chosen to make was a bunch of really bad shovelware games, made with the idea that the consumers are idiots who can't tell the difference between "Vacation Sports" and "Wii Sports Resort."  The consequence is that Wii owners are suspicious and not trusting of 3rd party games.  This would be pretty damning to Nintendo if Nintendo weren't #1 with a bullet, and third parties' current strategy is to let Nintendo have this:

http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/feature/4247/industry-marketshare-by-stakeholder-2009.png

All to themselves.  They want Nintendo making half of all the money while every body else splits the other half.  that's just bad long term strategy and will only strengthen Nintendo in the long run.

A good company will own up mistakes, admit failures, and strive to always make better products.  Nintendo has mostly done this.  A bad company throws blame around to everybody else except themselves, and will close up shop just because their preconceptions of easy money are wrong.  Third parties have mostly done this.  Who wouldn't prefer Nintendo?

Just a general impression I've gotten from many forum posters here, which Chozo Ghost reminded me of previously a few posts above my original post.  It seems every time someone brings up a wish to see good looking games in general, someone just has to post the good 'ol "well, I value gameplay over graphics!" as if those were two mutually-exclusive features.  If they were, logic would dictate that the Wii would be stuffed with games just bursting with awesome gameplay, but it isn't.  If you don't care about the visual quality of your video games, fine...but we can have both great gameplay and great visuals (though good art design) on Wii.

Looking at that chart Deg posted you can actually understand why third parties favoured the other consoles, at least initially.  The Wii and the PS360 are significantly different enough that it's hard to make a game for all three.  In 2007 and 2008 the combined market share of the other consoles was bigger than Nintendo's.  So making a game for those two consoles would in theory have a higher potential market than a Wii exclusive.  But things have changed and third parties have not.  You figure they would just shift their focus to where the money is.  But they haven't.  They'll bitch about how they can't make money on the Wii but they haven't changed their Wii output.  They're making the same stuff they did for the 37% market share console.  They have to make the Wii their FOCUS to succeed on it and that means putting in the effort I talked about before.

"Now we want our Wii game sales to carry our company, but we will not change our Wii support in any way."  Um... HUH?

Then again the development costs are less than half on the Wii so you could afford making special games for it either way.

They can certainly afford to make a DS version even if many of those don't sell well.

Something of relavance

The 3rd Party Wall of Shame
>> http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=30478.0

Exactly,  I'm a little late with this reply, but that's what I mean.  If a Wii game is *really* good, it's going to have good graphics and art direction in addition to good gameplay.  Poor graphics in a Wii game are a symptom of the larger problem that the publishers or developers don't really care.  By pitching the Wii to a huge non-core audience and neutering its hadware, Nintendo all but guaranteed that most games made for it would be junk.  Nintendo is interested in expanding its audience to include core gamers, by why would 3rd parties be interested in doing charity work for Nintendo when they can just milk the non-core base with little effort.

Because they fail at that milking?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *coughs* AHAHAHAHAHHAHA


The only way I ever see the 3rd party situation becoming better is if there is more competition. And I don't mean competition within the big companies, I mean those little ones that are developing for WiiWare. Next generation, Nintendo needs to expand on that idea and make it even easier for unknown developers to publish games (at larger sizes as well). That is only way your going to put enough pressure on them to actually concede some real effort.