Topic: Report Suggests Wii Development Lagging Behind

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"I wonder if Nintendo's support and documentation for the remote is any good."

I've played niche games from niche devs that have surpassed Nintendo's own motion efforts, so Nintendo's Wii Remote Cookbook is just fine.  The decision making that allows the WALL OF SHAME to exist is not fine.

[NWR_pap64]

Fixed.  I read another report similar in topic that had developers closing their doors and going bankrupt more quickly than ever before.  I wonder if that study and this study are somehow related.

I agree with you in that it makes no sense.  But the sheer numbers suggests to me that there's more to this than meets the eye.  Every company cannot be stupid.  The sheer odds of that are impossible.  It just seems like there must be some factor that we can't truly see from the outside.
 
Is it possible that the videogame market in general is just not that viable anymore?  Maybe it's just too hard to make money on all three consoles.  The PS360 requires the extra manhours to pour over the visuals and the little details.  The Wii requires one to program motion control which might just be WAY out of most dev's league.  Remember that Nintendo isn't some small dev.  They're a huge company.  They had the resources to design the remote in the first place so they have qualified individuals to make it work with their games.  Other devs don't have that.  The HD visuals may be expensive but at least it's something a dev may already know how to do.  The Wii is still very complex, just in a different way.
 
I wonder if Nintendo's support and documentation for the remote is any good.  That would easily explain why Nintendo, who has full knowledge of the device, can make Wii magic and everyone else ****s the bed.  My company needs to make a new game and I can either **** around with the remote and bug Nintendo for info that they may or may not provide to me or I can make something for the other consoles where at the very least I'm confident my team knows what they're doing.  It's easier to work with something familiar.
 
Is it possible that HD games and remote games are both huge financial risks?

I agree with you completely Ian. The truth is that developers are seeing failure across all three consoles. Fans are quick to say "Oh, the developers suck", "they need to take the system more seriously", "they need to make Nintendo like games" and quick to kill them and burn their remains on a bonfire. But the truth is that there's more to the gaming industry than just making a game and releasing it. Developers are now facing a problem. The HD consoles may be more popular with the gaming crowd, but they require a lot more money and effort. The Wii has a much, much bigger fanbase but it doesn't guarantee that the game will be successful. So what to do? None of the systems guarantee success and profitability and both require a lot of money behind a project.

It's no surprise that developers are feeling attracted towards downloadable/APP development. It's likely cheaper to make and the platform allows for more widespread appeal.

[Deguello]

It must be tough for third-parties to hitch their wagon exclusively to the Wii, when there's no guarantee that their non-Mario/Zelda/Kart/Metroid/Sports/Fit game will even sell.

Wow!  Third parties are GUARANTEED sales on the PC/360/PS3?  Holy mackerel!  No wonder Nintendo can't attract them.

Third-party sales are gravy to them, so it's very easy for them to sit back and shake their heads, telling third-party developers that they just don't "get it".

But Nintendo isn't sitting back.  They are also the best game makers on the Wii and going by units-sold and dollars generated this generation, the best developer, period.  And third parties don't "get it."  They flooded the Wii with Shovelware and now everybody wants to basically buy only Nintendo games because they have a great reputation and third parties do not.  So sorry that they make awful games, but Nintendo did not point a gun to their head and tell them to make garbage.

I guess third-parties are taking that to heart, and aren't trying to "get it" any more.

That will be incredibly short-sighted of them, considering Microsoft and Sony will be pushing motion controllers too.  So they'll have to learn it one way or another.  Motion controls aren't going anywhere, and they are missing out on, at the very least, practice for Natal and the Sony Wand.  And after they practice they can make a press release where they ditch the Wii and blame it for poor sales of Pigpen Casino: 23 Games.  That will be disturbing, but expected.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I agree with you completely Ian. The truth is that developers are seeing failure across all three consoles. Fans are quick to say "Oh, the developers suck", "they need to take the system more seriously", "they need to make Nintendo like games" and quick to kill them and burn their remains on a bonfire. But the truth is that there's more to the gaming industry than just making a game and releasing it. Developers are now facing a problem. The HD consoles may be more popular with the gaming crowd, but they require a lot more money and effort. The Wii has a much, much bigger fanbase but it doesn't guarantee that the game will be successful. So what to do? None of the systems guarantee success and profitability and both require a lot of money behind a project.

Say that again while staring at this:

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=30478.0

[Deguello]

Fans are quick to say "Oh, the developers suck", "they need to take the system more seriously", "they need to make Nintendo like games" and quick to kill them and burn their remains on a bonfire.

Nobody is saying that for the reason of fanboyism or sour-grapes disappointment when a favored game underperforms.  They actually do not take the system seriously, and the games they've made are, in fact, the worst they've ever made for any system.  Go see Pro's Wall of Shame. (oh heh he linked to it)  IF they had made better games, and made them more consistently, and marketed them like Nintendo does, they would see success.  Instead, they made mostly shovelware, were inconsistent with any real effort, and gave most of their games stealth launches, hoping the word-of-mouth would sell the game, despite the word-of-mouth already being established that they suck.

This is exactly the way it should be, as we've been told for years.  The developer with the best games wins on Wii.  And that developer is Nintendo.  Maybe it could have changed if third parties actually gave a damn.  Maybe Nintendo would be #1 anyway due to their fans.  But since 3rd parties decided to not even bother and flood the market, we'll never know.

[Urkel]

Besides, it's not like Nintendo cares about these third-parties anyways, really.

Nintendo doesn't care about black people.
 

 Third-party sales are gravy to them, so it's very easy for them to sit back and shake their heads, telling third-party developers that they just don't "get it".

Do you think third parties really do "get it"?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Remember, Remember, the Fifth of February.

TIS THE TIME FOR REVOLUTION

TIME FOR GROCERY SHOPPING, WOOOOOOOOOOO

[Urkel]

You know, ever since the beginning of this generation I've been asking the same question of why these reasons of not supporting the Wii don't also apply to the DS and I never get an answer.
 
Don't third parties have to compete with Nintendo on the DS?
 
Doesn't Nintendo make a crapload of money on DS just from their first party games? NSMB DS and MK DS are STILL selling tons.
 
Doesn't Sony "need" 3rd party support on PSP more than Nintendo does with DS?
 
Does Nintendo go way out of their way to get 3rd party games on the DS (i.e. moneyhatting)?
 
So why does this stuff suddenly matter on the Wii? Excuses. That's all they are.

[Peachylala]

Nintendo consoles have to be scapegoats for third excuse error making. DS was kind of this in the first year or so in it's life, but somehow (and how!) they learned the errors of their ways, dropped the sinking PSP ship.

Wii, not so much. Yes, it's underpowered. Guess what though? IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. Super Mario Galaxy is easily better then anything considered Grade A material on PS360 according the 'gaming' 'media'. Make a Galaxy quality game, advertise it, and it will sell.

Don't do that? Sucks to be you.

[NWR_Lindy]

Wow!  Third parties are GUARANTEED sales on the PC/360/PS3?  Holy mackerel!  No wonder Nintendo can't attract them.

I never said that.  I was simply stating that the "developers that matter" see making games for Wii as riskier than making PC-style games, which is something they're already good at.

But Nintendo isn't sitting back.  They are also the best game makers on the Wii and going by units-sold and dollars generated this generation, the best developer, period.  And third parties don't "get it."  They flooded the Wii with Shovelware and now everybody wants to basically buy only Nintendo games because they have a great reputation and third parties do not.  So sorry that they make awful games, but Nintendo did not point a gun to their head and tell them to make garbage.

Again, I never said Nintendo was "sitting back" when it comes to THEIR OWN own titles.  My point was that they don't need third-parties when it comes right down to it, so they don't give two shits about catering to them.  And yet people complain when third-parties treat Nintendo in the same flippant manner.  Have you ever heard Microsoft or Sony say ANYTHING negative about third-parties, EVER?  Hell, even when Activision publicly threatened to pull PS3 support, Sony didn't say anything bad about them!  That's because they need to stay on good terms with third parties, because they need that third-party dough coming in.  Nintendo is good either way.

Do you think Nintendo had third-parties in mind when they developed their convoluted Friend Code system?  Bwahahahahaha.  That was Nintendo looking out for Nintendo.  Which is 100% what they should be doing, but don't complain when third parties give them the cold shoulder.

That will be incredibly short-sighted of them, considering Microsoft and Sony will be pushing motion controllers too.  So they'll have to learn it one way or another.  Motion controls aren't going anywhere, and they are missing out on, at the very least, practice for Natal and the Sony Wand.  And after they practice they can make a press release where they ditch the Wii and blame it for poor sales of Pigpen Casino: 23 Games.  That will be disturbing, but expected.

They already have PS3 and 360 dev environments set up, so they can tool around as much as they want.  How much "practice" do they need?  If they're happy making PC/360/PS3 games, why would they commit several years to making a Wii game - which probably wouldn't sell anyways, unless there's a mega-franchise like Monster Hunter or Dragon Quest or Resident Evil attached to it, or it's dance game - just to get "practice" with motion control?  That sounds like a really expensive way to practice to me.  You might as well learn it on the hardware you're already developing on.

Wii is where original IPs go to die, yet everybody continues to kid themselves that it's some huge opportunity just because it has a large userbase (that doesn't play much else other than Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Mario Kart).

[Urkel]

And yet people complain when third-parties treat Nintendo in the same flippant manner.

No, people complain when they treat their customers in a flippant manner.
 
"You'll buy this rail-shooter spinoff and you'll like it!"
 

 Have you ever heard Microsoft or Sony say ANYTHING negative about third-parties, EVER?

The hell? When has Nintendo ever said anything negative about third parties, other than Miyamoto warning them to not put their fifth string development teams on the Wii? Which they continue to do.
 

 Wii is where original IPs go to die

The Wii is where niche concepts that have no chance on any platform go to die. If publishers really believed games like Deadly Creatures and Zack and Wiki have such tremendous potential to be huge sellers, then they would make future entries on the HD platforms. But they don't because they know perfectly well what limited appeal games like these have.

[Arbok]

Have you ever heard Microsoft or Sony say ANYTHING negative about third-parties, EVER?  Hell, even when Activision publicly threatened to pull PS3 support, Sony didn't say anything bad about them!  That's because they need to stay on good terms with third parties, because they need that third-party dough coming in.

This is a odd point to make... has Nintendo said negative things about a third party?

EDIT: Damn, I was too slow on making this point.

Wii is where original IPs go to die, yet everybody continues to kid themselves that it's some huge opportunity just because it has a large userbase (that doesn't play much else other than Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Mario Kart).

Doesn't the Wii have a pretty large number of million sellers at this point, and from third parties no less? I was under the impression that they did from looking at the Sales Data thread on these forums. That alone tells me that it is a good opportunity for third party developers.

EDIT: To borrow from Salesbot:

[NWR_Lindy]

Reggie says third-parties don't get it...Miyamoto saying that "the best teams" should be on the Wii...I mean, if they had healthy third-party relations, they shouldn't even be SAYING stuff like that.  Even when 360/PS3 games tank and developers go under, you don't even hear a peep about Microsoft and Sony in a negative light.

I'm sure if you looked at those million sellers you'd see a lot of franchise games (Call of Duty, Resident Evil, etc.) and activity/dance/fitness games.  Nothing too original, nothing too out of the ordinary, aside from Nintendo's stuff, which is excellent.

[SixthAngel]

Is it possible that the videogame market in general is just not that viable anymore?  Maybe it's just too hard to make money on all three consoles.

The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles,  business wise.

Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even.  They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.

Consumers never pay the true cost for these systems because they are willing to take giant losses with no real hope of making them up distorting the console market in favor of high end graphics that the market would most likely not have supported at the time they were released.

[MoronSonOfBoron]

Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even.  They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.

Consumers never pay the true cost for these systems because they are willing to take giant losses with no real hope of making them up distorting the console market in favor of high end graphics that the market would most likely not have supported at the time they were released.

If that's the truth, the industry is headed the way of the American real estate market. And knowing the two HD companies, they would probably try to make the consumers pay for it. Isn't it great we don't have to mortgage our games?

[NWR_DrewMG]

The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles,  business wise.

Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even.  They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.

Never break even?  Is that really true?

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/20346/Xbox-Division-Records-Second-Profitable-Year-in-a-Row/

[BlackNMild2k1]

The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles,  business wise.

Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even.  They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.

Never break even?  Is that really true?

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/20346/Xbox-Division-Records-Second-Profitable-Year-in-a-Row/

Yes. It is, and they are so far from breaking even that I will just have to show you.

Quarterly Financial Comparison
Sony / Nintendo / Micosoft (Operating Income)

Code: [Select]

      Sony          Nintendo         Microsoft           Total
Y/E 1998     $902,811,090   $1,023,333,867                      $1,926,144,957
Y/E 1999   $1,102,563,557   $1,301,350,000                      $2,403,913,557
Y/E 2000     $722,738,949   $1,368,207,547                      $2,090,946,497
Y/E 2001    -$449,776,290     $677,576,000                        $227,799,710
Y/E 2002     $629,101,056     $895,872,180   -$1,135,000,000      $389,973,237
Y/E 2003     $935,569,253     $834,333,333   -$1,191,000,000      $578,902,586
Y/E 2004     $627,195,212     $993,161,303   -$1,337,000,000      $283,356,515
Y/E 2005     $419,888,799   $1,056,056,202     -$539,000,000      $936,945,001
Y/E 2006      $69,129,058     $774,478,055   -$1,339,000,000     -$495,392,887
Y/E 2007  -$1,970,923,859   $1,914,666,388   -$1,969,000,000   -$2,025,257,471
Y/E 2008  -$1,079,994,103   $4,322,637,887      $426,000,000    $3,668,643,783
Y/E 2009    -$664,313,787   $5,691,428,301      $169,000,000    $5,196,114,515

Y/E 10Q1    -$413,541,667     $420,843,750      $312,000,000      $319,302,083
Y/E 10Q2    -$653,333,333     $710,655,556      $375,000,000      $432,011,111
Y/E 10Q3     $210,629,750   $2,087,904,452               N/A               N/A

Total           
        $387,078,407  $24,072,504,822   -$6,157,000,000   $16,004,049,028
           
Full Year Average
        $103,665,745   $1,737,758,422   -$1,001,857,143      $914,270,499

Profitable Years           
         8      12         2          10
           
Non Profitable Years           
         4       0         6           2
           
Average in Loss Year           
     -$1,041,252,010              N/A   -$1,251,666,667   -$1,260,325,179
           
Average in Profit Year           
        $676,124,622   $1,737,758,422      $333,000,000    $1,389,625,094
Sony 3rd Quarter 2010 FY earnings /  Nintendo 3rd Quarter 2010 FY earnings /  Microsoft 2nd Quarter 2010 FY earnings

And that doesn't even factor in the $Billion they set aside for RRoD repairs before they shifted around their departments so that the $Billion loss was subsidized into a different department.

Even Sony's overall profits over the last 11 years are down to less than Nintendo's least profitable year.

[NWR_DrewMG]

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/20/xbox-division-has-1-9-billion-loss-blame-red-rings/

This article suggests that Microsoft essentially took the loss for the RRoD repairs in 2007 to the tune of 1.2 billion.  How does that indicate "shifting departments"?   If they took the loss out from the 2007 earnings, how does that mean that 2008 and 2009 weren't profitable?  Can you provide some sort of data to show that RRoD repairs drove 2008 and 2009 into the red? 

[BlackNMild2k1]

I don't remember the article, but they restructured their departments from something like Xbox division to Entertainment division and they set aside that $billion just before doing it and swallowed it in a much more profitable division so that it wouldn't show on 2008/2009 financial sheet when looking at the Entertainment division. At least that's how I remember it.

as far as MS's profits, even with a $426M & $169M in 08/09, they are still $6.1B* in the hole for the entire Xbox project. $2.6B* of that is for the X360 alone

*(not including the RRoD $B)

[NWR_DrewMG]

I should note that it does seem pretty likely that neither the PS3 nor the Xbox 360 will break even over the course of their lifetime.  However, on a year by year basis, the Xbox 360 definitely seems headed in the right direction.  Should be very interesting to see how Natal affects their profits this year.

[NWR_DrewMG]

I don't remember the article, but they restructured their departments from something like Xbox division to Entertainment division and they set aside that $billion just before doing it and swallowed it in a much more profitable division so that it wouldn't show on 2008/2009 financial sheet when looking at the Entertainment division. At least that's how I remember it.

as far as MS's profits, even with a $426M & $169M in 08/09, they are still $6.1B* in the hole for the entire Xbox project. $2.6B* of that is for the X360 alone

*(not including the RRoD $B)

According to that Joystiq article I linked, the 1.9 billion loss in 2007 you show from Salesbot's figures includes the 1.2 billion set aside to fix the RRoD systems.  I fail to see how this is somehow "hiding" the loss. 

[BlackNMild2k1]

I didn't read the article you linked. I thought the point you were trying to convey was in the link name itself.

I might remember the shuffling wrong(it was nearly 3 years ago), but even still, a $600M profit in 2 years is far from breaking even for just the 360 much less the entire Xbox brand.

I also heard that the $1.2B they set aside for RRoD is pretty much spent and the problem still exist(only reason I still don't own a 360).

[NWR_DrewMG]

No argument there, but they've had their two best years in the entire franchise history in 2008 and 2009.  Are they industry leading profits?  No, far from it.  However, in two years running now, they've managed to turn the ship around, even if just a little bit.  On top of that, they've managed to establish significant mindshare in the gaming industry, and that will continue to pay off over time.

I realize it's pretty entertaining for Nintendo fans to throw rocks at the titanic, but I'm not one for sweeping generalizations or dramatic overstatement. 

Like was said on LOST at the end of last season, "It only ends once.  Everything that happens before that is merely progress."  This has always been a marathon for Microsoft, not a sprint.  We'll see how it continues to play out.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Your're right. 10-15 years from now, maybe non of these losses matter as MS has a machine in every living room like they have Windows on damn near every computer.

We all know that MS' losses today are to set up something BIG for them in the future, but SixthAngel's point still stands.

The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles,  business wise.

Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even.  They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.

Consumers never pay the true cost for these systems because they are willing to take giant losses with no real hope of making them up distorting the console market in favor of high end graphics that the market would most likely not have supported at the time they were released.

[Guitar Smasher]

It'll be interesting to see if RROD affects Xbox's public perception next gen, and how this may translate into lost sales.