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.
The way you phrased it made it sound like Wii games needed a guarantee of sales while PC/360/PS3 development doesn't even though it's true that 3rd parties have made games that so far have failed across all platforms possible. Then you listed a bunch of Nintendo franchises as if making them was not risky. I remember the heady days of late 2007, when Wii Fit was not ridiculed and was pre-ordained to have success, and making it was in no way risky for Nintendo.
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 ****s about catering to them.
Facts not in evidence. Just because they don't need third parties to be successful doesn't mean they hate third parties. If anything, considering Nintendo has actually sent resources from their own developers and in more than one instance, actually developed a game for a developer, they actually care a great deal. They've done plenty, even designing the Wii to be easy to develop for, possibly because it was the number #1 issue for third parties. Then they get kicked in the face for it when third parties march into the room, drop trou, defecate, and then complain about the smell and ask why everyone's leaving.
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.
They didn't seem to mind on the DS. And what if they aren't making a game with online multiplayer? Third parties also didn't mind the Ps2 having basically zero online capabilities last generation.
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?
They've been making Wii games for 3 years and still have no idea what they are doing. Their Natal games will be an absolute disaster if they make them at their current skillsets. They might need more practice if they want to make decent Natal games, or games for the Sony Arc/Sphere/Whatever.
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).
I'm not sure what your point is. So third parties can make high selling Wii games only if they attach a big name franchise to it? Why do you list three games in the "Wii ____" series like they are not a new IP? Why do you suddenly skip over games like Zelda, Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. (This game has sold 10 million units) when you previously listed them before? Why this need to make the Wii look like a "Casual McCasual" system, when third party casual games flop by the hundreds, and third parties themselves have said casual games don't sell on the Wii, and retailers stopped ordering them for this specific reason?
And the Wii WAS an opportunity for third parties. But they screwed it up with their shovelware and spinoff antics. How can Nintendo possibly be to blame when they let third parties do whatever they wanted and they CHOSE to make bad games? How is asking third parties very kindly and gently to "please do not piss on the Wii" being negative to them?
How can people possibly defend third parties or blame Nintendo for all this? Nintendo makes the best games on Wii, they get the best sales and prosper (More than all other developers and publishers combined, regardless of platform.) Third parties developers mostly make shovelware, ports, or garbage video games, they fail and die. Isn't this the way we would have it? Were we all supposed to buy the bad videogames?
Topic: Report Suggests Wii Development Lagging Behind (Read 22390 times)
