Wada also said he believes Nintendo will release their next console by 2011, and that he expects it to have functionality closer to that of the Sony PlayStation 3 and the Microsoft Xbox 360. He noted that it is possible that this new system may even come with a new input device.
Speaking on the state of the industry, Wada stated that despite the global recession and softer industry sales, year-on-year sales are only down 16 per cent as of this August. He points to the slowdown in sales for Nintendo games this year as the biggest contributor to the weaker sales numbers, noting that Nintendo has not released many major titles in the first half of 2009.
By comparison, Square Enix has already had a strong year. Dragon Quest IX for Nintendo DS has sold four-million copies in Japan, and Batman: Arkham Asylum (co-published by Square Enix subsidiary Eidos Interactive and Warner Bros. Interactive) has also experienced strong sales. Wada expects another strong showing when Final Fantasy XIII releases in Japan later this year.
What puzzles me is why third parties care about the future of a platform that they never make their best games for.
I can't wait for the Wii port of Dissidia Final Fantasy.
Well since Wii came out in 2006 and Nintendo systems usually come out in 5 or 6 year cycles that can make sense in terms of how Nintendo traditionally rolled out consoles. I think Wii will have a slightly longer life cycle than that even if Nintendo launches a brand new console in 2011 or 2012.
Also a lot of 3rd party support is coming. Wii is just about to end it's 3rd year on the market and 2010 is looking strong as far 3d party support. It takes time to make good games and most 3rd parties were caught off guard with the Wii success and some even tied to write it off as a fad (missing the boat). But alot of them are coming around and 2010 will finally see the 3rd party support that the Wii should have had 2 years ago. It's better late than never, but its coming.
I know that SE is banking on FFCC:TCB to do good because they are already looking towards doing another sequel. It's even been rumored that FFCC has taken on more priority than FFXIII and if it sells, the sequel could be a launch window game.
Well since Wii came out in 2006 and Nintendo systems usually come out in 5 or 6 year cycles that can make sense in terms of how Nintendo traditionally rolled out consoles. I think Wii will have a slightly longer life cycle than that even if Nintendo launches a brand new console in 2011 or 2012.
So whats going to be the new thing? Motion will be in no doubt, but another camera like device from natal? But it'l be old news by then. What could nintendo possibly do to inovate this time around since everyone else is getting into motion now?
Many analysts I've seen (including Michael Pacter) are pointing to an HD Wii coming at the end of 2010/early 2011, so this would be just around the expected time.
QuoteMany analysts I've seen (including Michael Pacter) are pointing to an HD Wii coming at the end of 2010/early 2011, so this would be just around the expected time.
Michael Pachter is an idiot. He's basically gotten everything wrong THIS generation, why should anybody trust him for the next? So he's predicting a new Nintendo system with a Graphics card that will be able to output 1080p or so? DURRRR I can get one of those for $60. Of course Nintendo will have one in 201X. What a prediction.
QuoteMany analysts I've seen (including Michael Pacter) are pointing to an HD Wii coming at the end of 2010/early 2011, so this would be just around the expected time.
Michael Pachter is an idiot. He's basically gotten everything wrong THIS generation, why should anybody trust him for the next? So he's predicting a new Nintendo system with a Graphics card that will be able to output 1080p or so? DURRRR I can get one of those for $60. Of course Nintendo will have one in 201X. What a prediction.
I think Pachters been predicting and revising his prediction for a WiiHD since 2009 to early 2010 to late 2010 to sometime in 2011. I can throw darts a board of things that will eventually happen too.
QuoteMany analysts I've seen (including Michael Pacter) are pointing to an HD Wii coming at the end of 2010/early 2011, so this would be just around the expected time.
Michael Pachter is an idiot. He's basically gotten everything wrong THIS generation, why should anybody trust him for the next? So he's predicting a new Nintendo system with a Graphics card that will be able to output 1080p or so? DURRRR I can get one of those for $60. Of course Nintendo will have one in 201X. What a prediction.
I think Pachters been predicting and revising his prediction for a WiiHD since 2009 to early 2010 to late 2010 to sometime in 2011. I can throw darts a board of things that will eventually happen too.
I predict in the next 24 hours you will either eat, drink, blink, inhale, or communicate verbally. I might be off for a few of them but i should be right?
Yeah, in 2011 Nintendo will finally see the folly of their profitable ways and copy notes from those who fail to make money...
PS2 didn't lose money... not even close.
If they do it i'm going to be slightly annoyed. Have i maximised value out of my Wii? No. Absolutely not.
If they do it i'm going to be slightly annoyed. Have i maximised value out of my Wii? No. Absolutely not.
No one is forcing you to upgrade 2 years from now. So why don't you take your time and think about it for a while.... you can upgrade when you're ready.
QuoteMany analysts I've seen (including Michael Pacter) are pointing to an HD Wii coming at the end of 2010/early 2011, so this would be just around the expected time.
Michael Pachter is an idiot. He's basically gotten everything wrong THIS generation, why should anybody trust him for the next? So he's predicting a new Nintendo system with a Graphics card that will be able to output 1080p or so? DURRRR I can get one of those for $60. Of course Nintendo will have one in 201X. What a prediction.
QuoteMany analysts I've seen (including Michael Pacter) are pointing to an HD Wii coming at the end of 2010/early 2011, so this would be just around the expected time.
Michael Pachter is an idiot. He's basically gotten everything wrong THIS generation, why should anybody trust him for the next? So he's predicting a new Nintendo system with a Graphics card that will be able to output 1080p or so? DURRRR I can get one of those for $60. Of course Nintendo will have one in 201X. What a prediction.
You know, Pachter took a lot of flak over his decision to throw in his lot with Sony at the beginning of this generation, but in all fairness was there any reason to believe Nintendo would be where it is now? At the time, HD TVs and High-Speed Internet Connections were only rising in market penetration, Sony was coming off of the phenomenally successful PS2, Nintendo was coming off a distant 3rd place GameCube, and suddenly Nintendo had decided to throw its lot in with people who don't care about games with bathroom scales and a waggling remote control (all without a single notable 3rd party game, mind you). No one knew if Nintendo would pull it off, as it had failed twice before from a market share standpoint.
Analysts aren't fortune tellers: they make their predictions based on current market conditions and trends so they can properly advise their investors, and all trends pointed away from Nintendo at the time. Of course, that's not what happened and it's easy now to look at things with 20/20 hindsight, but all that means is that the unexpected can occur despite all odds.
QuoteMany analysts I've seen (including Michael Pacter) are pointing to an HD Wii coming at the end of 2010/early 2011, so this would be just around the expected time.
Michael Pachter is an idiot. He's basically gotten everything wrong THIS generation, why should anybody trust him for the next? So he's predicting a new Nintendo system with a Graphics card that will be able to output 1080p or so? DURRRR I can get one of those for $60. Of course Nintendo will have one in 201X. What a prediction.
You know, Pachter took a lot of flak over his decision to throw in his lot with Sony at the beginning of this generation, but in all fairness was there any reason to believe Nintendo would be where it is now? At the time, HD TVs and High-Speed Internet Connections were only rising in market penetration, Sony was coming off of the phenomenally successful PS2, Nintendo was coming off a distant 3rd place GameCube, and suddenly Nintendo had decided to throw its lot in with people who don't care about games with bathroom scales and a waggling remote control (all without a single notable 3rd party game, mind you). No one knew if Nintendo would pull it off, as it had failed twice before from a market share standpoint.
Analysts aren't fortune tellers: they make their predictions based on current market conditions and trends so they can properly advise their investors, and all trends pointed away from Nintendo at the time. Of course, that's not what happened and it's easy now to look at things with 20/20 hindsight, but all that means is that the unexpected can occur despite all odds.
Pachter's problem is he is extremely anti-Wii and most of his predictions and comments are slanted against Wii. He has been proclaiming Wii's doom far longer then his predictions pre-launch.
Analysts aren't fortune tellers: they make their predictions based on current market conditions and trends so they can properly advise their investors, and all trends pointed away from Nintendo at the time. Of course, that's not what happened and it's easy now to look at things with 20/20 hindsight, but all that means is that the unexpected can occur despite all odds.
Analysts may not be fortune tellers, but they are expected to perform some amount of analysis/research/thought before making predictions. Nintendo didn't have any information that wasn't readily available to Michael Pachter (or any other analyst for that matter) at the start of this generation. So why was Nintendo so right while most analysts were so wrong?
You have to remember when the Wii came out it created a whole new market with a whole new audience.
What puzzles me is why third parties care about the future of a platform that they never make their best games for.
You know, Pachter took a lot of flak over his decision to throw in his lot with Sony at the beginning of this generation, but in all fairness was there any reason to believe Nintendo would be where it is now?Was there any reason to believe a $600 console would be the sales leader? This was the widespread prediction by almost all "analysts". Strong start for 360, but PS3 would eventually steal the lead and Nintendo wouldn't even make a dent.
My guess is that it's because the people who bought the Wii in droves wouldn't normally show up in standard market analysis: the elderly and previously-uninterested. You have to remember when the Wii came out it created a whole new market with a whole new audience. I'm going to assume that general market research on the gaming industry tends to skew towards the enthusiast consumer like us (the people who tend to buy the most games and drive the market) rather than...say...the audience of Reader's Digest. By all accounts, gaming consumers before the Wii's launch were likely more interested in Sony and Microsoft, and I'll bet if that same audience were studied today that would still be the case. Is it a serious flaw that the analysts didn't look outside the established gaming market when performing their research? Hell yes, but I get the feeling this is not an uncommon practice with any market.For a second, forget the expanded audience. They might skew the percentage of sales, but it's understandable that the analysts missed this market. They look at past trends, from which they generate their analysis. What I find noteworthy is how they overestimated the HD console unit sales (mostly PS3). Even with the expanded audience, PS3 should have performed much better. Again, this was widespread. Of course there was one company who, a few years ago, predicted something like this would happen in the market...
You know, Pachter took a lot of flak over his decision to throw in his lot with Sony at the beginning of this generation, but in all fairness was there any reason to believe Nintendo would be where it is now?Was there any reason to believe a $600 console would be the sales leader? This was the widespread prediction by almost all "analysts". Strong start for 360, but PS3 would eventually steal the lead and Nintendo wouldn't even make a dent.My guess is that it's because the people who bought the Wii in droves wouldn't normally show up in standard market analysis: the elderly and previously-uninterested. You have to remember when the Wii came out it created a whole new market with a whole new audience. I'm going to assume that general market research on the gaming industry tends to skew towards the enthusiast consumer like us (the people who tend to buy the most games and drive the market) rather than...say...the audience of Reader's Digest. By all accounts, gaming consumers before the Wii's launch were likely more interested in Sony and Microsoft, and I'll bet if that same audience were studied today that would still be the case. Is it a serious flaw that the analysts didn't look outside the established gaming market when performing their research? Hell yes, but I get the feeling this is not an uncommon practice with any market.For a second, forget the expanded audience. They might skew the percentage of sales, but it's understandable that the analysts missed this market. They look at past trends, from which they generate their analysis. What I find noteworthy is how they overestimated the HD console unit sales (mostly PS3). Even with the expanded audience, PS3 should have performed much better.
Huh? In Japan the PS3 went right back to its piss-poor sales after a 1 week boost from the PS3 slim. Who knows if it will be the same in North America/Europe, but so far the new model and price drop did nothing more than a brief increase (which is the same effect big games like Metal Gear Solid 4 do). I don't think the new price point will make a big difference since there isn't really an incentive for Xbox 360 owners to get a PS3 and casual gamers would probably be more likely to get a Xbox 360 Arcade before they would choose a PlayStation 3.
Well since Wii came out in 2006 and Nintendo systems usually come out in 5 or 6 year cycles that can make sense in terms of how Nintendo traditionally rolled out consoles. I think Wii will have a slightly longer life cycle than that even if Nintendo launches a brand new console in 2011 or 2012.
As for Nintendo, well this is all about third party support and that directly affects customer satisfaction and product image. It should be in Nintendo's own interests that videogame customers of all tastes be satisfied with their console's library and for their console to be associated with quality games (ie: associating the Wii, and thus Nintendo, with shovelware trash is not good).
QuoteAs for Nintendo, well this is all about third party support and that directly affects customer satisfaction and product image. It should be in Nintendo's own interests that videogame customers of all tastes be satisfied with their console's library and for their console to be associated with quality games (ie: associating the Wii, and thus Nintendo, with shovelware trash is not good).
But Nintendo can't force third parties to make good games. They tried that with the NES and everybody called them Tyrant Nintendo for daring to control quality and micromanage third parties.
Another perplexing development this generation is that apparently, when left to their own devices, third parties will make really bad games by default.
You can certainly make that case for the 3rd party support on the Wii, but that is not the case for the market in general.
S-E may not be able to port FF13 now but they could have canceled it for the HD systems years ago and made it for the Wii instead. You know, like Capcom did with Monster Hunter 3. Nothing forces S-E to remain focused on the HD systems for that longI personally don't think any of Sqeenix's HD games set the charts ablaze, and some of their PSP titles as well. FFXIII will sell, despite the fact I think it looks almost on the same levels of stupid as FFVIII, but FF fanboys/girls will buy anything FF related.
But Nintendo can't force third parties to make good games. They tried that with the NES and everybody called them Tyrant Nintendo for daring to control quality and micromanage third parties.
I'm hoping by 2011 we'll see a Wii 2 with specs comparable to the PS3 (hardware that is now affordable to mass produce)
But it's still really difficult to make a profit on the games since they cost so much to make.
(do HD graphics really increase our enjoyment of the game 2.5 fold?).
It is a similar concept to CGI movies, as time goes on they aren't getting any cheaper, they are getting more and more expensive.
Good luck supporting that statement.
"The Wii's success is deceiving since it relied so much on catching a target market largely ignorant of videogames off guard."
So...what's your excuse for getting a Wii?
Quote"The Wii's success is deceiving since it relied so much on catching a target market largely ignorant of videogames off guard."
Kind of like the PS2, DS, GBA, GB, NES.
What about the Atari or Game And Watch? Didn't they do that too?Quote"The Wii's success is deceiving since it relied so much on catching a target market largely ignorant of videogames off guard."
Kind of like the PS2, DS, GBA, GB, NES.
Don't forget the original PlayStation as well.
QuoteSo...what's your excuse for getting a Wii?
Well I'm a longtime fan of Nintendo and it had some games I really wanted to play.
Since this is not the case Nintendo cannot assume that their market share is secure because it is largely undeserved. The quality of the product is not proportionate to the level of success. Therefore I would assume there is a certain amount of consumer ignorance in the market share which is understandably since Nintendo very cleverly targetted a demographic that was otherwise unfamiliar with videogames. Great idea, great marketing strategy. But ignorance is finite. In time Nintendo will not be able to keep the market share if they don't keep the quality of their product up. They'll either lose customers to the competition or just lose customers that grow disinterested and leave the market altogether.
Why does Nintendo, who moved heaven and earth to fight the game market decay brought about by the 360 and the PS3, went against constant criticism and stupid jokes, survived the worst games and most devious sabotage, now have to again capitulate to third party demands made in bad faith?
Yes, Nintendo suffered so much with their giant mountain of money they had before this generation when they decided to "sacrifice" and use tech for the Wii that was well over 5 years old,
use tech for the Wii that was well over 5 years old, instead of using tech that everyone else was using and letting the developers decide how they wanted to use it.
I think the reason the whole "Nintendo must update to HD" third party movement really irks me is it signals an inability or the lack of motivation to go to where the customers are, as opposed to hoping the customers will come to them in high-priced HD-land.
Why don't they just make Wii games NOW and save their HD-stuff for when Nintendo does upgrade? Why does Nintendo, who moved heaven and earth to fight the game market decay brought about by the 360 and the PS3, went against constant criticism and stupid jokes, survived the worst games and most devious sabotage, now have to again capitulate to third party demands made in bad faith?
Ah, the "Wii Hate HD" threads...always a favorite around here.
Wii is like cable TV, and PS3/360 is like HBO. Both cable and HBO have some great content, but cable is the one that everybody's gonna have because it's cheap and has something for everyone.
What was hyberbolic again? Are the combined totals of the 360 and PS3 MORE than the PS2? If not, can we assume that Nintendo basically saved the industry from a more than 50% user freefall?
QuoteYes, Nintendo suffered so much with their giant mountain of money they had before this generation when they decided to "sacrifice" and use tech for the Wii that was well over 5 years old,
What's your point here?
The way you referred to Nintendo having to "move heaven and earth" to "save" the industry. One of the more laughable hyperbolic statements I've read in a while.
That Nintendo sacrificed exactly nothing when they put the Wii out. They started from a position of nothing with the Wii and were already a massively-profitable company. They just did the same thing with the Wii that Nintendo always does: exactly opposite to what the rest of the industry is doing and is most profitable to Nintendo.
Nintendo would have been "sacrificing" if they were willing to drop the probably ridiculous profit margin they have on the Wii and give it true HD capability from the get-go. Yes, it would have been more expensive for Nintendo and they would have had a harder time making a profit, but the Wii didn't sell on its graphics capability but on its motion control.
Just because something has HD capability, that doesn't mean it has to look a particular way. We still could have had the cheap-looking "Wii" line of games Nintendo's in love of doing,
but for those 3rd parties that want to go that extra step that would have been an option for them as well.
You get the kind of games you want, I get the kind of games I want. Everyone's happy. But no, Nintendo cheap-ed out on the Wii and made it substandard compared to what the rest of the industry had already prepared for, limiting the tools developers had to work with.
As usual, Nintendo did what was best for Nintendo only and 3rd parties suffered for it. This doesn't excuse the **** they've put out on the Wii thus far, but look at what they have to work with.
Nintendo gave them a single paintbrush and some watercolors. That's what irritates me most about the Wii: we could have had all the benefits of the two other consoles and motion controls, but because it wasn't in Nintendo's best interests we got only motion controls.
What was hyberbolic again? Are the combined totals of the 360 and PS3 MORE than the PS2? If not, can we assume that Nintendo basically saved the industry from a more than 50% user freefall?
The way you referred to Nintendo having to "move heaven and earth" to "save" the industry. One of the more laughable hyperbolic statements I've read in a while.QuoteQuoteYes, Nintendo suffered so much with their giant mountain of money they had before this generation when they decided to "sacrifice" and use tech for the Wii that was well over 5 years old,
What's your point here?
That Nintendo sacrificed exactly nothing when they put the Wii out. They started from a position of nothing with the Wii and were already a massively-profitable company. They just did the same thing with the Wii that Nintendo always does: exactly opposite to what the rest of the industry is doing and is most profitable to Nintendo.
Nintendo would have been "sacrificing" if they were willing to drop the probably ridiculous profit margin they have on the Wii and give it true HD capability from the get-go. Yes, it would have been more expensive for Nintendo and they would have had a harder time making a profit, but the Wii didn't sell on its graphics capability but on its motion control. Just because something has HD capability, that doesn't mean it has to look a particular way. We still could have had the cheap-looking "Wii" line of games Nintendo's in love of doing, but for those 3rd parties that want to go that extra step that would have been an option for them as well. You get the kind of games you want, I get the kind of games I want. Everyone's happy. But no, Nintendo cheap-ed out on the Wii and made it substandard compared to what the rest of the industry had already prepared for, limiting the tools developers had to work with. As usual, Nintendo did what was best for Nintendo only and 3rd parties suffered for it. This doesn't excuse the **** they've put out on the Wii thus far, but look at what they have to work with. You have entire teams of artists and programmers who want to paint works with a full canvas of tools. Nintendo gave them a single paintbrush and some watercolors. That's what irritates me most about the Wii: we could have had all the benefits of the two other consoles and motion controls, but because it wasn't in Nintendo's best interests we got only motion controls.
Secondly, they didn't **** over third parties. They have the cheapest dev kits, the best consultations, and even a system to deliver games that publishers won't touch.
Thirdly, the fact that you're pissed off because of one tiny issue that really doesn't help gaming just shows how completely naive and unrealistic you really are.
Except for one minor problem: the gaming market has diversified to a point where console exclusivity isn't as viable as it once was, so the name of the game is multiplatform.
They have to make a specialized version just for Wii, which by the way Wii owners don't buy.
Nintendo gamers to assume a 3rd party game will be crap after 2 generations of having to deal with it.
However it works out, 3rd parties can't do what is most profitable to them, so they focus on the platforms they can.
I brought it up because I thought we were having a sensible and fairly-cordial discussion on the subject. I find it hard to believe that Nintendo couldn't have put a Wii in with firepower equivalent to the 360 as well as motion control, rather than just throw in an upgraded GameCube.
I can't see why anyone, especially a person with multiple consoles could be truly irritated about the situation. Games are games; so pick the ones you like and get on with your life.
So I pretty much had to buy a PS3 to get experiences that if the Wii were more powerful it probably would have gotten anyway.
So I pretty much had to buy a PS3 to get experiences that if the Wii were more powerful it probably would have gotten anyway.
Probably not. Gamecube was a beast and third parties largely ignored it. The few ports it did get were often half assed and even ran worse than the PS2 version. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't treat a more powerful Wii the same way.
And how much do you think such a console would've cost at launch anyway? Sony and Microsoft both sold their systems at a loss, so I can't imagine this hypothetical Super Wii retailing for anything less than $400. So whatever appeal the Wiimote had would've been moot since the mainstream would never dish out that much cash for a game console, so Nintendo would neither have marketshare nor third party support.
To jump up and touch the bar with their fingers is worthy of high-fives for them. They've figured out this whole blue ocean revenue bizniss.
Wii Play being placed in the list of "garbage' is silly at best, most people bought it for the extra controller. The game is a fun, though shallow experience that is well worth the $10. Also Carnival Games is far from being garbage either, it may not be amazing but it is a solid casual game.
Why do people still hold on to strange conspiracy theories 3rd parties have a secret grudge against the Wii? Its all about the dolla dolla bill ya'll. Business will get in bed with anyone as long as it brings in the cash. HD, SD, it doesn't matter. Whatever sells is what matters. Just take a look at all the 3rd party games with a Metracritic score of 80 or above that have less than stellar sales. People aren't buying them. Therefore, they've stopped making them. Pretty simple. The vast majority of Wii owners just aren't into what we are.
Your point relies on the games being garbage, and three of the four aren't. Ubisoft's games didn't sell nearly as well of the other three because they really aren't any good.Wii Play being placed in the list of "garbage' is silly at best, most people bought it for the extra controller. The game is a fun, though shallow experience that is well worth the $10. Also Carnival Games is far from being garbage either, it may not be amazing but it is a solid casual game.
You may disagree with my list of games, but do you disagree with my point?
Your point relies on the games being garbage, and three of the four aren't. Ubisoft's games didn't sell nearly as well of the other three because they really aren't any good.Wii Play being placed in the list of "garbage' is silly at best, most people bought it for the extra controller. The game is a fun, though shallow experience that is well worth the $10. Also Carnival Games is far from being garbage either, it may not be amazing but it is a solid casual game.
You may disagree with my list of games, but do you disagree with my point?
It's better for our peace of mind to come up with complex explanations that don't result in things changing in a way that leaves us out in the cold.Quote
My point relies on a large body of shovelware crap, only 3 of which I specfiically named (and for the record, I don't care if people only bought Wii Play for the remote. They still bought it). If you want more, go look at Metacritic or something. There's certainly been no shortage of it.But how many of the games sold well?
My point relies on a large body of shovelware crap, only 3 of which I specfiically named (and for the record, I don't care if people only bought Wii Play for the remote. They still bought it). If you want more, go look at Metacritic or something. There's certainly been no shortage of it.But how many of the games sold well?
Geometry Wars is a perfect example. Its sits on the shelf at 20 dollars. On the 360, every owner eats it up. On the wii, its neglected.
So at the end of the day, it sounds like we can blame the lack of quality Wii titles on under achieving PR reps? So strange that they could be responsible for a generation long dry spell. Maybe they should hire Peyton Manning. His comercials are grrrreat!
Why do people still hold on to strange conspiracy theories 3rd parties have a secret grudge against the Wii? Its all about the dolla dolla bill ya'll. Business will get in bed with anyone as long as it brings in the cash. HD, SD, it doesn't matter. Whatever sells is what matters. Just take a look at all the 3rd party games with a Metracritic score of 80 or above that have less than stellar sales. People aren't buying them. Therefore, they've stopped making them. Pretty simple. The vast majority of Wii owners just aren't into what we are.
And the business angle is retarded, because even WITH their haphazard, awful support, some third parties still manage to do better on the Wii, despite all the sabotage. The highest selling game Sega's ever made is a Wii game, Mario and Sonic @ Olympics. Capcom's highest selling game in Japan, despite it being their ONLY real Wii game this generation, outsold everything they've published on other consoles. I believe that DQX will outsell FFXIII there too.
I think my favorite part of this ridiculous post is the premise that third parties actually tried on the Wii. They haven't. If you think they've given the Wii equal resources, equal content, and equal time, then you are an idiot. And like Ian said in previous anti-Third party rants of his, they expect us to by their substandard efforts, substandard contents, because that's all they'll offer, and when we refuse, they'll use that against us and say we're all casual gamers, Non-gaming grandmas, Nintendo fans, etc. Just because their awful game failed.
It is simply stunning how anybody can be on their side in this.
I think that would mean more hardcore RPG-playing type peoples exist on the Wii there, yes?
Or has DQ succumb to the TAINT of casual?
I think that would mean more hardcore RPG-playing type peoples exist on the Wii there, yes?
Or has DQ succumb to the TAINT of casual?
Maybe it's always been casual, to the horror of traditional game proponents. Like a cultural favorite, like the Disney brand or Bugs Bunny or Georgio Lucaski's Star Milk Francise Wars.
You know what. I actually agree with you! Come to think of it, you're right! Nobody has tried! Had any of the third parties actually applied themselves things would be sooooooooo different. Take Sega for instance. Had they actually put time and effort in their Wii games instead of quickly dumping new and old IP's out like Madworld, HOD Overkill, and The Conduit, maybe I would have picked them up. Even though the reviews were good, I could tell it was just the same old same old. And if I'm gonna get same the old, I'll spend my time in HD paradise with Killzone 2. Am I right or am I right!?
If you want to run with the big boys like Mario or Sonic at the Olympics or Carnival Games and push out 3 mil, then you better bring your A game.
Things like updating an old boxing classic with new graphics or replacing excited bikes with excited robots won't cut it these days. Been there, done that. Give me new mini games. I don't have time for 30 hour Okami wagging adventures!
As I've said before Deguello, you should totally work for one of these third parties. There is so much they can learn from you!
I'm done with you Jug. If you really want to go on wasting your time posting conspiracy theories on the internets then so be it. Third parties have tried to make money with the "Wii hardcore" and they have failed. If they could make money in this market, they would. Their primary goal is profit, profit, profit, as is Nintendo's. The only reason they stopped is they weren't making money. Its nothing personal against the Wii.
I want data that backs up your argument that 3rd party sales would definitely thrive on the Wii and 3rd parties are ignoring it out of spite and/or ignorance.
The numbers I posted speak for themselves. The best selling 3rd party games are not anywhere close to the Wii.
D_Average: Do away with the personal insults and namecalling, or the banhammer will be coming your way. Thanks.
Excuses, excuses. I want data that backs up your argument that 3rd party sales would definitely thrive on the Wii and 3rd parties are ignoring it out of spite and/or ignorance. The numbers I posted speak for themselves. The best selling 3rd party games are not anywhere close to the Wii.
D_Average: Do away with the personal insults and namecalling, or the banhammer will be coming your way. Thanks.
To be fair, I was only responding to Dug calling me an "idiot" unprovoked. I know he's a former staffer but I can't let that slide if no one else responds. I have intentionally avoided him for weeks. He reopened this dialogue.
If you think they've given the Wii equal resources, equal content, and equal time, then you are an idiot.
ConsiderIng that the vast majority of the industry leans on my take and we have data to prove it, I'll start taking this fringe theory seriously once someones offers stats to back it up.
Until then I'm moving on to less taxing topics. Why I decided to discuss anything negative regarding the Wii on a Nintendo forum was pretty ignorant and futile on my part and for that I apologise.
Interesting game Industry definition you've got there.
And lol. Show me one thread on this forum where you or any other Ninty loyalist admitted they were wrong and adopted an a new perspective that putNintendo in a negative light.
In society, people debate all the time and change their minds. On fansites, such human behavior has never been documented.
The only reason Geometry Wars got so popular with the 360 crowd was because of early adopters desperately trying to justify their purchase. When a vector graphics game gets more attention on a $400 console than anything else at the time, you know it's because the rest of the launch line-up wasn't very compelling.
Provide a list of the Top 10 3rd party games on all 3 consoles.The only PS3 third party games I know that sell well is Street Fighter 4, GTA4, RE5 and MGS4 (lookee all the fours!). Batman: AA is selling well from what I hear, and isn't over-rated trash from what I've heard.
QuoteProvide a list of the Top 10 3rd party games on all 3 consoles.The only PS3 third party games I know that sell well is Street Fighter 4, GTA4, RE5 and MGS4 (lookee all the fours!). Batman: AA is selling well from what I hear, and isn't over-rated trash from what I've heard.
X360: Street Fighter 4, some FPS games, GTA4, Batman: AA, RE5.
That's all I know of right now. Sales figures would be great.
So no, third parties haven't really given the Wii a fair shake.Nice pun. I'd quote it in my sig if I hadn't just changed it.
The third party games that sell are in the same bucket as Carnival Games while fabulous titles like Zack and Wiki, The Conduit, and Madworld rot 6 feet under. This is truly sad. It has nothing to do with the fact that gamers aren't interested in those titles, but everything to do with the fact they are vastly outnumbered by soccer moms and business men picking up the game with the neatest box art.
Zack and Wiki, The Conduit, and Madworld
Zack and Wiki, The Conduit, and Madworld
None of those games would have done any better saleswise on the 360; Zack & Wiki and Madworld were very niche and The Conduit was solid but nothing special compared to other games in the genre. Your argument doesn't work without examples of high quality games on the Wii that didn't sell well and would have sold well on the 360.
The argument will never be over because there's no way to satisfactorily prove either side's argument.
Regardless of what you come up with, the counter argument to it is to point out that only 5 third-party Wii games (not counting World of Goo, which I'm treating as something different) achieved a Metacritic score of 90 or better, and all of them are either rhythm games or last-gen ports. That means that no third parties have actually put forth enough effort on the Wii to be able to tell whether good Wii games sell or not. (By the way, of those 5 games, and throw in number 6, Tiger Woods 10 with an 88, only one hasn't sold well, Okami, which didn't do any better on the PS2)
bwaahaha, I know I said I'd leave, but I can't help but chime in one more time, as I was far from embarrassed. If anything, I felt pity for my opponents who have such a strange desire to defend such basic titles they know deep down they're really not in to. I used to do the same thing, back in 4th grade.
How many people on this forum are dying to play those third party games on the Wii compared to the 360/PS3 list (aside from Guitar Hero)? You just proved my point.
The third party games that sell are in the same bucket as Carnival Games while fabulous titles like Zack and Wiki, The Conduit, and Madworld rot 6 feet under. This is truly sad. It has nothing to do with the fact that gamers aren't interested in those titles, but everything to do with the fact they are vastly outnumbered by soccer moms and business men picking up the game with the neatest box art.
And furthermore, third parties will continue to make teh casual titles similar to the ones noted above, I never said they wouldn't. I said they have not given up on the Wii, they just given up on "hardcore" titles, which is really all that matters to the folks on this forum.
In terms of 3rd parties its the cheap casual games that rule the Wii, while the titles we really want sit on the bench.
You want to make a casual title, put it on the Wii, even once the other lotion controls come out (the same people who bought Carnival Games are not about to drop another $300 for mini games in HD) Thats pretty much all that will sell well on Wii for third parties, while creative "gamers games" are an absolute disaster on the Wii.
It sucks, and it frustrates me too, but its the truth. There's no sense in pretending all the third parties are involved in some sort of underground conspiracy.
Well, maybe it is, makes things more interesting.
Thats it, I'm done.
As you wish. Just watching the way D_Average debates irritates me.
What now, Juggaman? Your points don't matter so I'll sidestep the argument I started and call you a fanboy, call the rest of you on the forum fanboys, and pass Juggment on all you Juggamen, before I peace out. Got anything to say to that, jabroni? And what you got to say, ChoadWars? You try to insult me FoodSores? In society, people debate. You got that KurtCobainWars?
The argument will never be over because there's no way to satisfactorily prove either side's argument.
Regardless of what you come up with, the counter argument to it is to point out that only 5 third-party Wii games (not counting World of Goo, which I'm treating as something different) achieved a Metacritic score of 90 or better, and all of them are either rhythm games or last-gen ports. That means that no third parties have actually put forth enough effort on the Wii to be able to tell whether good Wii games sell or not. (By the way, of those 5 games, and throw in number 6, Tiger Woods 10 with an 88, only one hasn't sold well, Okami, which didn't do any better on the PS2)
Where is the Wiis equivalent to what is selling on the PS360?Guitar Hero III on Wii sold 4.5 million. Guitar Hero III on the XBox 360 sold 4.5 million. Doesn't this support that third-party games on Wii of actual quality sell just as well (or better in the PS3's case) as they would on the XBox 360?
Where is the Wiis equivalent to what is selling on the PS360?Guitar Hero III on Wii sold 4.5 million. Guitar Hero III on the XBox 360 sold 4.5 million. Doesn't this support that third-party games on Wii of actual quality sell just as well (or better in the PS3's case) as they would on the XBox 360?
Then why don't you take the list of Top 10 3rd party games on PS360 and show me it's equivalent on the Wii.
And by equivalent, I mean same quality game, same genre, same caliber Developer with similar marketing support.
Beyond Guitar Hero, Rock Band & Tiger Woods (which all sold better on the Wii I believe), you aren't gonna have much to compare.