I don't mean to be rude but, look at all the f***s I give.

I don't mean to be rude, but you bothered to comment which doesn't imply a lack of caring.

I don't mean to be rude either, but I don't see myself losing any sleep over this.

I don't mean to be rude, but this stuff is what Nintendo deserves for setting dumb rules.

MDK2 is a pretty sweet game. This sucks and highlights why Nintendo needs to make Wii U's eShop way better. Luckily they seem to be better with devs on 3DS.

MDK2 is sweet, but it's also a port of a old game that was not too successful, financially, the first time. I'm not defending Nintendo, but a lot of time we hear a company blaming a platform or platform holder for their games lack of sales, I tend to think the blame lies equally with the designers and developers.
As a consumer, no matter how the designer tries to spin it, it comes of a little like sour grapes.

I'm sure all those things factor into it, but it is a fact that Nintendo designed a horrible system for WiiWare from pretty much all angles. The 3DS eShop has been fairly spectacular so far, so hopefully that means they've learned from that, and will continue to do so with the Wii U.

While he makes a lot of great points and while I don't blame him for wanting to move on, I think he is being very narrowminded in saying that he refuses to develop for Nintendo hardware ever again. I get that the Wii sucks, and the file size limit and poor attach rate are serious problems, but the thing is things change, or at least things CAN change. Maybe the Wii U will be a friendlier platform for smaller developers than the Wii has been? That's why I say he shouldn't just flat out refuse to develop for Nintendo ever again. If things improve he should reconsider.

MDK2 always seemed like a poorly thought out port to Wiiware anyway. They knew the memory restrictions and Nintendo's policy going into it (at least I hope they did). My hope is that the Wii U service will be on the level of PS3 and Xbox when it comes to not just interface, but allowing the developers flexibility in how large they want the game to be without having to sacrifice quality.

This guy shouldn't blame Nintendo for his lack of success.

I don't really understand why there is so much focus on Beamdog, they've been involved in 3 games, two were versions of MDK2, the other is an upcoming remake of Baldur's Gate. They have hardly demonstrated themselves as a competent and creative developer yet. I'm sorry they had trouble with Wiiware and NIntendo, but they knew what they were getting into whether it was memory restrictions or the amount a title has to sell before they received a profit. It sounds like sour grapes to me and maybe an attempt at getting publicity for themselves.


The fact still stands that they share responsibility in attempting to cram a larger game into the 40 mb restriction, and in turn the game suffered in some ways, though I did hear it was from horrendous. People just didn't buy the game in the amount they needed it to sell. They lost out on their business risk, just like other company out there. Undoubtedly some have benefited from their Wiiware games.

I think the video games industry becomes less and less professional as time goes on.

I don't mean to be rude, but I won't be buying Baldur's Gate either.

It would be fantastic if there were a way to buy a game outside of the device the store is currently solely attached to, like directly from a link at the bottom of a review to the Nintendo web store. Other than not being designed to browse more than a couple dozen titles, no screen shots or preview videos, that's the only real shortcoming from my perspective. If you were able to buy through a website, none of how the Wii store works would matter at all.

While I think that it is unfair to Nintendo to suggest that they are wholly to blame for the failings of MDK2, it's easy to forget that Nintendo's digital distribution service does not exist in a vacuum.  When a developer has to choose between WiiWare, XBLA, and PSN, iOS, etc, I see very little incentive to go the WiiWare route unless you really believe that the larger install base will pay off; in this case it clearly didn't.

I DO mean to be rude (  ;) ), so I have to point out that maybe if they wanted WiiWare sales for MDK2 perhaps they should have put a lot more effort into that port.  Despite the good review it got here at NWR, my time with MDK2 WiiWare was not a pleasant one.  In fact, I thought it was a pretty boring game overall, as well as requiring a needless amount of undirected precision for certain puzzles (I quit out of frustration at the part where you had to throw rocks you could barely see up in the air to get them to land through a hole in a distant building you could also barely see).

Nintendo deserves every bit of criticism they get for how they handled WiiWare (and the VC), but if I were these developers that WiiWare port of MDK2 would not be the battlefield I'd want to fight on.  Either that game was always crappy, or that WiiWare port was just messed-up.

This is the first time I've heard of either MDK2 or Beamdog. I think that says a lot about why the game didn't sell.

IMO Beamdog is not at fault here. They made a product for a service that is dead because of Nintendo. The WiiWare service, while although it does have some good games, is poorly marketed and organized. You have a horrible data cap and you have to have 6000 downloads just to make a profit for the first time. What if you product only sells 5000 downloads? Does that mean that you just put up a game for nothing and will never see profit from it? Sure, these devs may not have had good marketing but, WiiWare in general has not had much either. The E-Shop is certainly looking better each week, but they still have a lot to improve on to show developers they care about digital distribution.

Why does Trent care about disappointing WiiWare performance? Beamdog is one of the cornerstones of the industry and has proficiently provided profitable titles for decades now.  Sony and Microsoft will be tripping over themselves to ink exclusivity deals now that the Nintendo bridge is burned.

I can only hope Nintendo learns from this and changes their ways before they are, this time for sure, doomed.

What? Beamdog was founded in July 2010 (so they are less than 2 years old) and only released 2 games so far: MDK2 for WiiWare and MDK2 HD for PC. Maybe the founders of the company are former BioWare head people, but Beamdog itself is pretty new and doesn't have an impressive track record so far.

I think NinSage was being sarcastic.

LOL, probably. I have seen comments like that which aren't sarcastic, but I should have realized NinSage wouldn't mean it.

I agree with much of what you say... but why did Beamdog agree to develop for the platform in that case?  When contracts were signed, with Beamdog agreeing to fund development from their own pocket, didn't they take some responsibility for making sure the chosen platform could allow their product to be successful?  I always assumed that taking business risks meant accepting the possibility of failure and being big enough to move on to the next project when that happens.

Never heard of Beamdog before. It sounds like a hotdog delivery system.

I watched a couple videos of MDK2 which I've never heard before either. It looks ok, not great. Art style, gameplay and the interesting factor are all pretty bland. However, the type of game it is (3rd person shooter) definitely lends itself to the Wii.

If I were to place blame on someone, I would first blame the education system for not teaching the owners of Beamdog how to read. And I'd like to take the time to commend Nintendo for what I hope they did as Beamdog stuttered through the contract and that is yelling "To-to-today junior!" and high five-ing.

I'd then blame Nintendo for putting in place more restrictions than "Your bases are belong to us" Apple. Nintendo....Apple dominates the app field not because of their hawkish rules but because at one point developers had no place to go. Let me repeat myself...DEVELOPERS HAD NO PLACE TO GO. Ahem...that is not the same for your market, in fact it is the opposite. You weren't the first and unless you incentivise developers and react to the markets you won't be the last.

It sounds like an amazing hotdog delivery service.

9-Month Cert Process.
6,000 Sales before seeing any money.
40 mb size limit.
Not allowed to set your own pricing.

Its amazing the Wiiware service has anything on it that isn't from Nintendo.  That is ridiculously restrictive.  I can see Nintendo ultimately setting the public price, but paying the retailer a static wholesale price.

Yeah, it is a crappy system, but Beamdog knew about all of that when they decided to put a game on the service. There is personal responsibility on their part for getting involved in a service that is so restrictive. Do Nintendo's restrictions apparently suck? Yes they do. Does that eliminate the fact that a company KNEW going into it that it was a restrictive service and it would be hard to succeed? No it does not. In the end they made the choice, they have no one to blame but themselves for getting involved in a service that obviously wasn't right for them and their port of a decade old game that had to be significantly compressed and changed to fit the game size restrictions.

I don't think he's arguing that they weren't at fault here, just that he really regrets that choice, and won't make it again. If anyone is qualified to find fault with Nintendo's handling of WiiWare it's someone who suffered due to it, even if they put themselves there.

The 9 month certification process is at least partly the developer's fault though.  How many times did they fail certification?  According to his statements, Nintendo took 2 weeks to get back them regarding certification... I'm not sure how much time was spent fixing bugs in between attempts, but that seems like a lot of failed certification tests no matter how you slice things.
Not arguing the viability of the platform or that the other disadvantages aren't meaningful - just pointing out that a 9-month certification process isn't necessarily "normal".

Can't really blame them, Nintendo has very archaic rules, which I hope they will revise with the Wii U.

Seems like some devs enjoy WiiWare and plan to come back ...

http://gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=175782

This might be publicity more than actual opinion. I doubt the game will sell because the platform is (and has been for a while) essentially dead, so wait and see if the devs are still talking nice a year later when they haven't been paid.




That said, a number of small/medium devs have spoken out about positive experiences with WiiWare and other Nintendo downloadable platforms.  Part of this stems from differing personal experiences based on who they communicate with inside of Nintendo, part of it depends on how well suited the software being created is for the platform in question, part of it is reliant on end results -- it's always easier to be happy if you haven't failed miserably.


You see the same thing (a range of different opinions from different developers) on every digital platform - for example, just ask Team Meat how great it is to develop for XBLA and be ready for a blistering response.

Gaijin Games had a very good WiiWare experience as well. You have a mix of both sides.

It basically shows that while WiiWare has its faults, it's not a total failure. Some people made it work, but those people are, as far as I know, fewer. Then again, XBLA and PSN have their drawbacks as well. It's not just a Nintendo issue, but regardless, it's an issue that needs to be fixed to some degree. Fortunately, the eShop is promising.

Best comment in the whole thread.  This could have saved us all a lot of typing and should probably be "stickied" should this subject ever come  up again.

Well done, Neal  ;D

Sounds like a developer trying to earn street cred from beating a dead horse.

I must agree with them. Nintendo is a fantastic company they make innovative consoles and amazing games. They are personally my favourite gaming company.


However, they have an outdated third party business model and so far their online system has been a dud. The Virtual Console service has been amazing, but Nintendo approached WiiWare in the same manner which was a very bad move that cannot happen with the Wii U. With WiiWare developers do not get paid until they have sold a certain amount of units of software, and they have to develop around a 40 MB limitation.



For the Wii U Nintendo should develop a percentage based pay system that seeks to encourage third-party developers. They should make it so that Nintendo takes 10% of revenues made from a game or app until lets say 3000 units have been sold, than they will only take 5%. They should also lighten the restrictions on developers in order to get more indie game developers. Furthermore, 40 MB is a stupid limitation (which has been thankfully removed in the 3DS eShop)  for making games, the Wii U should have that cap increased significantly (which is probably will)


Also, Nintendo needs to do better at making sure third-party games are properly advertised. One reason why I believe (this is not scientific just based on my opinion and  opinion of friends and family members) people tend to not buy third-party games on Nintendo platforms is because the library of third-party titles is not the healthiest, there are a lot of over-priced waggle-fest games that great titles like Zack and Wiki get lost in it, as gamers we of course know better and we can search for better titles to buy but the average customer who is looking to pickup a game does not. In order to promote better titles being made Nintendo could once again focus on its Seal of Quality, which actually meant the game was of an acceptable quality during the NES days, and Nintendo outright rejected games that were not of quality. An easier approach (and one that does not reek havoc with anti-trust violations) is that they can better promote third-party titles.


They should also developers some of the things that they want to entice end users. For example, a unified network service (which is being done with Nintendo Network) complete with chatting capability and online capabilities. They should also create a universal achievement application with services like Facebook integrated to it (they can do this in a Nintendo Network app). As for apps developers, Nintendo could try to approach some and get them to develop some apps for the 3DS and Wii U so that as end users we have a catalogue of applications as well.

Charging only 10%, then 5% royalty? That is shockingly low (Sony, Microsoft, and Apple all charge around 30%). That might convince some developers to release them on Wii U instead though.