Riccitiello described the Wii market overall to be "weaker than
.anticipated," which made it especially frustrating since EA has what is, in his opinion, "the strongest third-party share" of any company creating games for the platform.
He cited that his products are the most highly-rated and highest revenue-producing of any third-party Wii publisher, yet they are still not performing at a desired level.
He placed part of the blame on Nintendo themselves. He noted that Nintendo's lack of major first-party releases throughout the year have failed to generate sustained interest in the Wii platform, and that Nintendo needs to increase its partnering with third parties at retail and push third-party software harder in general.
He particularly lamented the struggles of multiplatform Wii titles, commenting that "the opportunity exists to find different ways to partner with first party in this case to sort of help establish in the minds of the consumer legitimacy of some of these other brands when they are going out multiplatform because very, very few multiplatform titles are succeeding on the Wii."
He also considers Asian markets a lost cause for Western third parties, estimating that of the console's 50 million plus userbase, 10 million (i.e. Japan and the rest of Asia) are virtually unreachable. Riccitiello was very frank in this regard, stating "I dont think any of the Western companies are likely to participate much at all on the Wii platform in Japan, so the addressable market we see is just a little bit below 40 million."
He did, however, reiterate that he considered this to still be "an important opportunity".
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.
Although I don't recall seeing much ad support for Madden at all this year. Maybe this is a bigger issue that has to be with flailing economy?
EA just spent $250million to buy a company that makes games for Facebook, this is on the same day that they laid off 1500 workers. I'm not saying that the 2 are related, but it certainly shows that EA has the resources to advertise their games if they have enough money to acquire yet another company.
Although I don't recall seeing much ad support for Madden at all this year. Maybe this is a bigger issue that has to be with flailing economy?
EA doesn't really need to advertise typical Madden games. The people who buy them know that August is Madden month.
They only need to advertise the game if they're trying to sell to a market that doesn't already buy their games (see my previous post (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=29845.msg563295#msg563295)).
Although I don't recall seeing much ad support for Madden at all this year. Maybe this is a bigger issue that has to be with flailing economy?
EA doesn't really need to advertise typical Madden games. The people who buy them know that August is Madden month.
They only need to advertise the game if they're trying to sell to a market that doesn't already buy their games (see my previous post (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=29845.msg563295#msg563295)).
So where was their Boom Blox advertising blitz?
It's the beginning of the end for Activision.
I think it's the James Bond license curse. Whoever acquires it will Rise & Fall within a generation's timeframe.
You are likely hitting the same market when advertising on a gaming sites and on Hulu.
There were 0 (zero) TV ads for this game and I didn't see a single ad on Hulu BTW. SO if htey had a marketing budget, then they wasted it cause it didn't go very far and it certainly hasn't produced much as far as awareness.
I don't know what you're all talking about with Extraction not being advertised. I saw tons of ads for it on Hulu as well as banners on gaming sites. I don't have cable TV, so I can't speak to that, but the fact is that EA certainly did advertise this game. Maybe not as much as they should have, or as much as you would like, but they had a marketing budget and they spent it. That's more than you can say for many other third-party Wii games.
You are likely hitting the same market when advertising on a gaming sites and on Hulu.
There were 0 (zero) TV ads for this game and I didn't see a single ad on Hulu BTW. SO if htey had a marketing budget, then they wasted it cause it didn't go very far and it certainly hasn't produced much as far as awareness.
Possible Marketing Logic: Our demographic is probably the people who go on Hulu and frequent gaming sites.
I don't think they really wasted it. I just think their plan didn't work as well as they hoped.
The EA I used to know last generation would plaster their ads on Spike TV, History, Court TV, USA, WB, Comedy Central, and the major national networks. I even remember the short little commercial for Criterion's "Black." What are they doing now? Putting banners on IGN cuz IGN comprises 3/4 of the internet? Are they for real?
Dead Space Extraction comes across a dumbed-down Dead Space. And yet it is targetted at the core gamers that would prefer the REAL Dead Space. They could have had TV ads on every primetime network TV show and it wouldn't make a difference.
Dumbed-down Wii versions and spin-offs have become associated with casual focused shovelware. Wanted core gamers to buy Extraction? Sorry, the day you announced that it was an on-rails shooter (of all genres to pick; you couldn't possibly pick something that would piss off Wii owners more) it was DOOMED. It could have got perfect tens but Wii spin-offs = horse****. Call it unfair but that's the trend and so that assumption is going to made every time. That's why Madden All Play doesn't sell. The name change suggests a dumbed down spinoff so the target market immediately rejects it.
I'd say the Wii third party situation is so dire that nothing short of a grand gesture can repair things. Third parties treated the Wii so poorly initially that there's no trust between the third party and the core gamer consumer. The negative stigma is too thick. The Wii is the casual console for third party shovelware. That's the image.
So releasing a decent game or the odd great game here and there isn't enough anymore. It's an uphill battle to get the core gamer to care (especially now that the other consoles are affordable) so it has to come across as a major shift. It has to be games that cannot be ignored. It has to be mulitplatform games being released on all three consoles simultaneously. No late Wii port, no compromised Wii port. It has to be REAL entries in popular franchise, not spin-offs. It can't just be "hey we don't suck so much anymore." It was to be "the Wii is our FOCUS and our BEST GAMES are going to be made for it!" The PS360 has to be seen as the second choice instead of the first.
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.
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?
What's with people saying that Nintendo hasn't released very many games? Haven't they released more games during the first three years than they did on the Nintendo 64 and GameCube during that same time period?
What's with people saying that Nintendo hasn't released very many games? Haven't they released more games during the first three years than they did on the Nintendo 64 and GameCube during that same time period?
Games in genres people don't like do not count.
What's with people saying that Nintendo hasn't released very many games? Haven't they released more games during the first three years than they did on the Nintendo 64 and GameCube during that same time period?
Mario Kart Wii, Wario Land Shake It, Punch-Out!!, and ExciteBots were all released over the past two years.
The Wii fanbase has some overlap with the RESIDENT EVIL fanbase, which is a pretty big longtime brand you might've noticed. When REUC came out, so long ago, there was still some hunger for new RE content, especially on the exciting Wii platform of interesting gameplay possibilities. Dead Space doesn't have that brand power worldwide, and present-day people are definitely not "hungering" for more on-rails content.
Captain Rainbow and Disaster Day of Crisis as well.
Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years"). Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about." I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.People didn't say "games people care about" or "games that were marketed", they simply said "games". Besides, who are you to judge what games people care about?
Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years"). Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about." I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.People didn't say "games people care about" or "games that were marketed", they simply said "games". Besides, who are you to judge what games people care about?
Mario Kart Wii, Wario Land Shake It, Punch-Out!!, and ExciteBots were all released over the past two years.
Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years"). Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about." I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.
Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years"). Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about." I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.People didn't say "games people care about" or "games that were marketed", they simply said "games". Besides, who are you to judge what games people care about?
Actually, John Ricatello said that they weren't games people care about or marketed, since he said that Nintendo didn't release games that drove interest in the platform. And that's where this whole discussion originated.
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?
He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.Touche, I forgot to mention some of those (I count Mario Kart Wii as part of that "first 1 1/2 years"). Yeah, I guess it does go back to "games people care about." I would mention, though, that Wario Land Shake It and ExciteBots got no advertising from Nintendo and sold accordingly, so I'm not really sure they count as games that drive interest in the platform.People didn't say "games people care about" or "games that were marketed", they simply said "games". Besides, who are you to judge what games people care about?
Actually, John Ricatello said that they weren't games people care about or marketed, since he said that Nintendo didn't release games that drove interest in the platform. And that's where this whole discussion originated.
I don't know if this has been said yet, but RE:UC not only has brand recognition, but was offered up as a test(1st game to do so), so we were all buying it in anticipation of RE5 which up till that point seemed like a shoe-in for Wii.
I don't know if this has been said yet, but RE:UC not only has brand recognition, but was offered up as a test(1st game to do so), so we were all buying it in anticipation of RE5 which up till that point seemed like a shoe-in for Wii.
I dunno...I have a hard time believing 1.5 million people bought a lightgun game in anticipation of a non-lightgun game from the same franchise.
Yeah, RE has far more brand recognition, but the point is that EA was working with what they had to use. Had they released 2-3 more Dead Space games and THEN released one for the Wii, yes, it would've been a more well-known franchise, but I think that would've only served to further alienate the Wii userbase from the series.
I'm sure I can lower the setting on my computer to be visually crap and still play Bioshock just fine. That means that Bioshock could be done on a Wii, it just won't look as good as the PS360 version which in turn wouldn't look as good as the PC version. Why bother making games for consoles.... It's such a stupid argument to make.
You have a hard time believing that 1.5 million gamers would buy a light gun spin off when Capcom themselves called it a test to see what could be done on the Wii with the assumption that the next game coming was RE5?
I'm sure I can lower the setting on my computer to be visually crap and still play Bioshock just fine. That means that Bioshock could be done on a Wii, it just won't look as good as the PS360 version which in turn wouldn't look as good as the PC version. Why bother making games for consoles.... It's such a stupid argument to make.
I'm sure I can lower the setting on my computer to be visually crap and still play Bioshock just fine. That means that Bioshock could be done on a Wii, it just won't look as good as the PS360 version which in turn wouldn't look as good as the PC version. Why bother making games for consoles.... It's such a stupid argument to make.
Having had to play Bioshock my first time on this laptop with the lowest possible graphical settings (which had lots of framerate problems during the more hectic firefights), I can say that the game could be released on the Wii if 2K really wanted to do it. Even on the PS3, the game isn't the most technically outstanding game. It's the game's art deco style that makes the game look great, which could be replicated on the Wii no problem. Actually, I'm kind of surprised that we haven't seen some sort of prequel or sidestory Bioshock Wii project after Metroid Prime Corruption came out and showed it was a superior platform for FPS gaming.
It's not a stupid argument to make. While graphics aren't everything they are part of the game's ability to draw you in. Graphics are a part of the equation. If graphics didn't matter, we'd still have 13" black and white TVs instead of high def 50" tvs. And while an awesome game, who would have paid $50 for Mega Man 9?
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?
Actually, John Ricatello said that they weren't games people care about or marketed, since he said that Nintendo didn't release games that drove interest in the platform. And that's where this whole discussion originated.
RE:UC did come out at a different time period. It was the first example of getting an on-rails game instead of a "real" entry into the series. By the time DSE came out on-rails shooters of popular franchises had become an annoying trend. RE:UC was the start of that trend. Wii owners weren't pissed off or upset about getting tons of on-rails shooters yet. It should also be noted that Resident Evil 5 sold better despite being released on consoles with a smaller userbase. I think that indicates what core gamers were really interested in.
Also we're now at a time where I suspect much of the core gamer demographic on the Wii has given up on Wii third party support and has bought an Xbox 360 or PS3 to get access to the games they've been missing. Hell people on this forum were talking about that being a requirement over a year before a bought a PS3. Just a personal example but now that I have a PS3 I can't see myself ever buying something like DSE or RE:DC. I can now buy the REAL Dead Space and the REAL Resident Evil so why would I even give a second look to a Wii spin-off? When RE:UC was released it was earlier in the Wii life so there was more optimism. Now we know that we're not getting the real Resident Evil and that Capcom considers the Wii as clearly their THIRD choice for support. The other consoles are affordable now, no one has to put up with second rate support.
Also, "testing" a console for interest with a half-game is a pretty lousy thing to do to the fans of that console to start with...
QuoteAlso, "testing" a console for interest with a half-game is a pretty lousy thing to do to the fans of that console to start with...
It is especially bad with Capcom considering how well RE4: Wii Edition did. That should have been all the testing they needed. Personally I think it was just an excuse.
RE5 would have gotten me excited to play it if it was on Wii, as it stands I bought it but haven't touched it because I dread the analog controls.
I still think Capcom is gonna make a sound business(and undo a wrong) decision and make a Wii version of RE5 with all the DLC content already on the disc.
I still think Capcom is gonna make a sound business(and undo a wrong) decision and make a Wii version of RE5 with all the DLC content already on the disc.
Code Veronica was a spin-off? I thought it was considered a sequel at the time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, the day you announced that it was an on-rails shooter (of all genres to pick; you couldn't possibly pick something that would piss off Wii owners more) it was DOOMED.
Except for the fact that RE:UC has sold over a million copies and RE:DC will probably do the same, sure.
Why is Extraction "dumbed down" and unworthy of purchase, yet the Wii fanbase bought RE:UC despite not getting RE5?
The 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eff. I'm going to blog about my concept of "author intent" later today.
Why would RE5 not work on Wii? This shooting for a different aesthetic is a silly argument too, the PC can run circles around any of the consoles if you have a high end computer with a well programmed game (Crysis wastes Uncharted 2 visually). Yes there are some things that cannot be done on Wii, but it is mostly for things other then visuals (AI, number of characters on screen etc etc). There is no reason why RE5 can't be on Wii, even if they have to take out the online co-op. My point is that visual fidelity can be relative.
It's not that RE5 would not work on the Wii, it's that it doesn't make business sense to put it there. RE is now a premium brand. Think about a company like Ferrari. Ferrari isn't going to try and compete with the Ford Taurus even though the Ford Taurus is going to sell a bunch more. By putting RE5 on the Wii, they may make $. But it has the possibility of 2 negative consequences.
1. Water down the series. Most good series can only see a sequel ever 2-3 years without the gaming public getting tired of them.
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.
RE5 is only the worst game in the series, the shortest game in the series, the ugliest game in the series, the most expensive game in the series.
Gamers disappoint.
It's not that RE5 would not work on the Wii, it's that it doesn't make business sense to put it there.
But supporting all platforms with proper funding and attention would make too much sense. That's just not in the cards here.
Yes. we all know that the Wii can't handle online therefore it can't handle online co-op.
Somebody should probably tell that to HVS and Treyarch because that online deathmatch FPS just aint gonna happen, then someone should tell Nintendo too because releasing Dynamic Slash with 4 player co-op gameplay is gonna be a complete waste of time and resources since it's obviously not possible since no one has bothered to attempt it yet.
edit: & why is everyone acting as if the only way you can play RE5 is online co-op?
Are you trying to say that the computer doesn't control Sheva when you don't have another person to play with? Are you saying that you have to wait for a second player of you want to play the game? the amount of palms that need to hit faces are not available to me right now.
Elika is high, Sheva is low, right?
That reminds me, where's the sequel to PoP, Ubisoft?
Wow, where to start. Alright, first off the online multiplayer in HVS's Conduit is a laggy, buggy POS so I don't know why you'd even bring that up to support an argument. Second, I didn't say it wasn't possible to have online Co-op in a Wii RE5, just that making it work on Nintendo's antiquated online system probably isn't worth the cost.
You can play RE5 offline (as I did), but the computer does such a poor job with Sheva it completely ruined the game for me. She constantly gets herself into trouble, never uses any weapon other than her damn pistol, and worst of all she goes out of her way to run up and grab ammo from barrels and whatnot before you can. The AI Sheva is an abomination (the only thing she's good at is accuracy), which is why I have a whole AI classification system in games I like to refer to as the Elika/Sheva system.
I don't necessarily mean take 1 game and make sure it's developed for all systems semi-equally, per se (otherwise we'd end up with Jurassic: The Humped), but rather putting your good foot forward to provide those products that do similar jobs despite targetting different platforms. Street Fighter went HD, while TatsuCap went Wii -- different projects with different targets yet doing similar jobs without the Wii version being some ugly duckling that remains ugly -- all well and good.Who is the judge of equal? That will always be subjective. EA had it's big guns on the Wii. They had their most releases on the Wii. They tried to get the Wii market and they failed. You say it's not good enough. For the record Capcom has never blamed anything on the Wii. They've done exactly what you said. They gave the Wii Monster Hunter, they gave it Tan vs. Cap, they gave it that Spyborgs game. They gave the PS3/360 Resi, Street Fighter, DMC. And they aren't blaming anything on the Wii, just raking in the profits of good planning.
"Why would that make sense?"
Because it provides a clean frame of reference for a company to speak from before they blame Nintendo/Wii/casuals on disappointing sales. "Did you apply your best efforts, like you're so happy to do on other platforms?" Yes?--OK you can blame the casuals. No?--OK 3rd party, you're full of ****.
RE5 "not on Wii", if anything, just highlights the gap left by a potential full-fledged Wii Resident Evil title. Wii got Monster Hunter Tri, a huge huge game everyone has forgotten, so it shows Capcom had significant resouces go SOMEWHERE substantial, but it doesn't address the gap for a dedicated Wii RE title.Shows your biasedness. Of all third parties Capcom has probably balanced the best between Wii/HD and are raking in profits. But since your a Nintendo fan, best efforts mean puts everything on the Wii and makes sure the Wii version is better than HD systems if they choose to support those systems.
Capcom might not want to put in the time and effort to make such a thing work, but people are giving them the excuse to be lazy by saying that it's just not possible. Just because it's easier to port around between HD systems doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth the time and resources to create a system or an engine that works for Wii. It's very common to re-use these engines for many different games and they already built a RE fanbase on the Nintendo console, that's why it makes sense to attempt it in the first place.
That's not biased. Capcom released every mainline RE title on the Nintendo Console(RE0 - RE4) and didn't follow up with RE5. The fanbase for RE likely already had a Wii in wait for RE5 and it never came. That is the gap.
They probably figured releasing MvC on the Wii would mean people would buy the $10 MvC and forgo the $50 TvC altogether. They probably also figured Wii owners are less likely to buy a download only title rather than a full retail title.
That's not biased. Capcom released every mainline RE title on the Nintendo Console(RE0 - RE4) and didn't follow up with RE5. The fanbase for RE likely already had a Wii in wait for RE5 and it never came. That is the gap.
The same can be said for Sony except RE 0. RE5 sold more than RE4 on the Cube and Wii combined and will shortly become the best selling RE of all time. I think it did okay without being on a Nintendo console. Most people also avoided RE2,3 and CV on the GC. They were dreaded ports and were quickly dropped from retail. On PS2 they sold at least decently. This article isn't the newest and doesn't include RE4 sales. However, it doesn't paint the picture of the Wii being the best RE fans. http://uk.cube.ign.com/articles/463/463614p1.html
Summary for US
RE1 on PS1 almost 2 million units. GC almost 500,000
RE2 on PS2 about 1.7 million units. GC almost 33,000
RE3 on PS2 about 1 million units. GC almost 42,000
CV on PS2/DC about 1.2 million units. GC Unknown.
Sure it was a bad idea to not move this to the Wii? You could have had those 33,000 (at most) that grabbed the entire series.
According to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_evil_4
The GC RE4 sold 1.6m to the PS2 2.0m. Didn't help that they announced the PS2 version before releasing the GC version, but you would have hoped that the GC version being superior would have pushed sales.
They probably figured releasing MvC on the Wii would mean people would buy the $10 MvC and forgo the $50 TvC altogether. They probably also figured Wii owners are less likely to buy a download only title rather than a full retail title.
Thanks for reposting my whole post and giving no new information. Some of the #'s may be outdated, but it's no surprise that the PS2 versions of RE have sold much better than the GC versions.
Thanks for reposting my whole post and giving no new information. Some of the #'s may be outdated, but it's no surprise that the PS2 versions of RE have sold much better than the GC versions.
*psst* Resident Evils 2 and 3 were on the Playstation 1, not Playstation 2.
Thanks for reposting my whole post and giving no new information. Some of the #'s may be outdated, but it's no surprise that the PS2 versions of RE have sold much better than the GC versions.
*psst* Resident Evils 2 and 3 were on the Playstation 1, not Playstation 2.
So there's a typo in my typed (not linked) information. Does that mean they sold on a Nintendo System but not on a Sony System?
Capcom 5.. Resident Evil 5...I should've seen this disaster coming
Capcom 5.. Resident Evil 5...I should've seen this disaster coming
Great SCOTT, another one of your BIBLE CODE Mayan Calendar revelations.
I can't believe we are having an argument from 2004 again.
GC RE4 was technically superior, but 1 month before the release of the highly anticipated game, a game that many PS2 owners were thinking of picking up a $99 Gamecube for, the HYPE was neutered by the announcement of the PS2 version with extra level with Ada Wong. Why would all those PS2 owners that were oh so close to finally pulling the trigger on a GC buy one now that they know the same game with an extra level is coming a little bit later.
Meantime, the GC with it's 25million install base happens to still sell 1.6 mill vs PS2 with their 70 million install base sell 2mill.
That actually sounds more like a victory for the GC to me with a higher percentage of console owners buying the game. Then 1.3 million more rebuy the game with it comes to Wii with improved controls.
But I was never saying that RE5 shouldn't have existed on PS360, I'm just saying that it should have also come to Wii since that is where they were steering the franchises fan base. They left the Nintendo RE fans hanging and to keep us happy, they give us the consolation prize.
I'm glad Pro said it already, but you can't seriously compare the RE games from PS1/2/Dreamcast to the ones that showed up on GC 3 years later at an almost full price.
Did the RE ports fail? They were ports. There was no incentive for anyone involved to buy them, really, unless you just wanted to play a port of a very old game on a new system. Wait, didn't one port succeed? Oh, right, the most recent one, RE4:Wii. The other ports offered nothing new, and no matter what, could be found cheaper on the PS1.
And I've never heard your conspiracy theory about licensing before, but it makes no sense. If the games were to be priced at $20 considering a preferred license, but then Nintendo required the standard license, wouldn't the game have been priced at $30? I don't know how licensing works, but I wouldn't imagine there'd be more than a $10 difference IF your unsourced fantasy licensing numbers are true.http://cube.ign.com/articles/384/384167p1.html
Isn't it possible that Capcom was already developing Resident Evil 5 back when they received the full information on Resident Evil 4's sales? I haven't looked to see when it began development, but I'd imagine Capcom might have been looking at creating RE5 back right around when Dead Rising was a success on the 360! Could this be the case?Not sure I understand your point. I'm sure Capcom knew how much RE4 sold and Dead Rising. I thought we had determined PS3/360 versions were good business decisions. The question was should a Wii RE5 should have been developed as well.