Topic: EA CEO Frustrated by Low Wii Sales

[broodwars]

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 *huggles]

What you hear is different from what everyone else knows.

[BranDonk Kong]

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.

[broodwars]

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 Ghost]

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.

[BeautifulShy]

*Looks at topic and keeps walking*

[smallsharkbigbite]

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.

[UncleBob]

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...)

[that Baby guy]

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.

[jakeOSX]

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.

[Jonnyboy117]

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.

[vudu]

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 *huggles]

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.

[oohhboy]

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.

[broodwars]

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 Ghost]

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.

[broodwars]

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 Ghost]

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 Sane]

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_Average]

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.

[smallsharkbigbite]

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.

[Halbred]

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.

[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.

[Halbred]

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

[GoldenPhoenix]

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?