Topic: Report Suggests Wii Development Lagging Behind

[Stogi]

No offense, but that logic is retarded.

As the company owner, I would first see the massive potential in making games for the Wii. After the initial research for potential market gaps for my games, I would take a month to two months delay transitioning my star developers. I would buy the dev kits, licenses and also popular games on the console. Each day I would ask them to show me something new they've learned, and have them log any potential ideas they might have. By the end of the month-two months, I would compile those ideas and start production on my first Wii game. But I know I don't need the first game to be a smashing success. It merely need to make it to turn a profit so I can sustain myself and pay for the last two months. The game after that though, I shoot for the moon.

All I'm saying is, I would rather have my team goof around learning the Wii hardware then spend millions of dollars making a game for a system that has literally 1/4 of the potential customers. Even if my game is bought by everyone on that system, I could still have made more money (factoring developing costs) if only 1 out of every 2 people bought it on the Wii.

[Ian Sane]

No offense, but that logic is retarded.

So is not supporting the market leader.  But that's the reality so I'm trying to figure out a reason for it other than "EVERYONE HATES NINTENDO!"
 
If Nintendo had not made the Wii hardware so vastly different than the competition do you think these same third parties would ignore it?  Even if it's done largely innocently or was necessary for the Wii's success, Nintendo is somewhat responsible for the problem because of their design choices.  If they were more conventional the problem would likely not exist at all.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

No offense, but that logic is retarded.

As the company owner, I would first see the massive potential in making games for the Wii. After the initial research for potential market gaps for my games, I would take a month to two months delay transitioning my star developers. I would buy the dev kits, licenses and also popular games on the console. Each day I would ask them to show me something new they've learned, and have them log any potential ideas they might have. By the end of the month-two months, I would compile those ideas and start production on my first Wii game. But I know I don't need the first game to be a smashing success. It merely need to make it to turn a profit so I can sustain myself and pay for the last two months. The game after that though, I shoot for the moon.

All I'm saying is, I would rather have my team goof around learning the Wii hardware then spend millions of dollars making a game for a system that has literally 1/4 of the potential customers. Even if my game is bought by everyone on that system, I could still have made more money (factoring developing costs) if only 1 out of every 2 people bought it on the Wii.

Your first game shall be Petz Vetz Horsez.  Good luck on your follow-up project!

[Stogi]

My first game would probably be something like Trauma Center. Something that can only be played on the Wii.

No offense, but that logic is retarded.

So is not supporting the market leader.  But that's the reality so I'm trying to figure out a reason for it other than "EVERYONE HATES NINTENDO!"
 
If Nintendo had not made the Wii hardware so vastly different than the competition do you think these same third parties would ignore it?  Even if it's done largely innocently or was necessary for the Wii's success, Nintendo is somewhat responsible for the problem because of their design choices.  If they were more conventional the problem would likely not exist at all.

I honestly doubt these third parties would support Nintendo if only the Wii were HD capable. That is your argument, right?

[Stratos]

Ian is not just talking about HD but the architecture of the entire system. Programming for 360 is like programming for a PC with a dedicated and universal control pad. So most any PC game can go straight to the 360 without a hitch.

Motion controls are too different for most devs.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Just watch the amount of effort that goes into Arc & Natal though.

[D_Average]

Just watch the amount of effort that goes into Arc & Natal though.

I highly doubt it. It'll be the same crap, just prettier, yet still crap.

[BlackNMild2k1]

But they are gonna put more effort into that crap, and there will likely be lots of it from everyone that matters.

[Stogi]

Ian is not just talking about HD but the architecture of the entire system. Programming for 360 is like programming for a PC with a dedicated and universal control pad. So most any PC game can go straight to the 360 without a hitch.

Motion controls are too different for most devs.

Yeah but his argument included the PS3, which is by far the hardest platform to develop on (and I assume, with the highest costs). Making games for the PS2 doesn't help you either since it's completely different.

[Deguello]

If The Wii is so much poison for third parties, how come Nintendo's pulling down record profits and most of the third parties are otherwise struggling, even with their minimal to nonexistent development focus for Wii?  Nintendo's making more profit and selling more games than basically all game companies combined.

Since Nintendo makes the best games on the Wii, and their games sell the most, isn't this more of an issue of third parties not making good enough games overall?  Like if they took Wii development more seriously from day one instead of shovelwaring the whole place and fouling up their reputation.

If code-porting is key, why even make DS games at all?  How come they still do?

[Urkel]

If The Wii is so much poison for third parties, how come Nintendo's pulling down record profits and most of the third parties are otherwise struggling, even with their minimal to nonexistent development focus for Wii?  Nintendo's making more profit and selling more games than basically all game companies combined.

Why, it's because there are only two audiences on Wii: Nintendo fanboys who only buy Nintendo games, and soccer moms and grandmas who only buy Nintendo games.
 
Of course, in order to believe that to be true you would have to assume that there are more Nintendo fans that bought a Wii yet didn't buy a Gamecube, seeing as how Mario Kart Wii OUTSOLD THE GAMECUBE.
 
Also, you would have to believe that Nintendo's marketing is so slick that those clueless soccer moms always make sure they buy Nintendo brand games. Somehow... I don't think that's the case.

[Deguello]

Hey the third parties have been running a very effective advertising campaign too.  And it speaks louder than any TV, print, or web campaign.  Here's a sample:



Effective, yes.  Just not in the way they thought.

[SixthAngel]

I really like your post Ian, your insight as a programmer is interesting.  I see that as a justification that many 3rd parties use even though I think it is definitely the wrong decision.  This approach already shows how these developers hold graphics in such high regard and are completely thrown off by the Wii.

An honest question I have is that since the GC didn't have so many people developing for it shouldn't they be in huge demand right now, pulling in big salaries?  There weren't that many of them and suddenly they become the people with the most insight into the best selling console ever.  They should be, or should  have been in the Wii's first years, the most sought after poeple in the industry.  They had the experience that every big developer needed if they actually cared about making good Wii games.  Did this happen or did developers who moved to more expensive, smaller userbase, HD efforts get paid more money?

[Chozo Ghost]

Hey the third parties have been running a very effective advertising campaign too.  And it speaks louder than any TV, print, or web campaign.  Here's a sample:



Effective, yes.  Just not in the way they thought.

Now just slap on an image of a Zebra on a dance floor and you're good to go!

[Ian Sane]

I honestly doubt these third parties would support Nintendo if only the Wii were HD capable. That is your argument, right?

You look at all these games that are on the Xbox 360 and the PS3.  I doubt that if porting to the Wii was easy that this scenario would exist.  Why would Rockstar not port Grand Theft Auto IV to the market leading console if they could? Or Capcom port Resident Evil 5?  Or Namco port Soul Calibur IV?  Or 2K Games port Bioshock?  This isn't the last place Gamecube where the decision was sometimes made to not bother.  This is the market leading console.
 
And Namco did give the Wii some sort of Soul Calibur product.  Why would they make TWO different games if they could just make ONE game for all THREE?  Why would Capcom change Dead Rising around if they could have just brought the Xbox 360 game over?
 
Often the third parties do release SOMETHING associated with an IP from the other consoles.  I look at these lousy spin-offs and it suggests to me that what they REALLY want to do is bring this HD game to the Wii as well but they know the huge hurdle that comes with attempting it so they go with something less.  That sucks and they're jerking us around but I don't think they would bother giving us a Dead Rising on-rails shooter if they just could have made Dead Rising for all three consoles at the same time.  Wouldn't that be cheaper and easier anyway?
 

 Since Nintendo makes the best games on the Wii, and their games sell the most, isn't this more of an issue of third parties not making good enough games overall?  Like if they took Wii development more seriously from day one instead of shovelwaring the whole place and fouling up their reputation.

I think the initial shovelware came about from the suprise success of the Wii.  So they started off with rushed crap and couldn't just take their top guys off of a big HD project and now they've established the Wii as being the casual shovelware console and can't break from it.  And they probably don't want to take the risk to go for broke on it now because they assume the userbase hates them or is all casuals.
 
Now that I own a PS3 I don't really pay attention to Wii third party games at all.  Third parties might be thinking the same way; they fucked up the Wii so much that the target market for their good games largely owns one of the other consoles anyway.  They're not sure who the Wii audience is anymore since they polluted the lineup.  If it really is just casuals and Nintendo nuts then they figure they won't succeed.  But with the PS360 they KNOW the audience.  It's very obvious who owns those consoles and what types of games they are interested in.  I'm not even really sure who the Wii audience is.  Most of the people I know who own one are either casuals or Nintendo fans.
 
I think both Nintendo and the third parties contributed to this problem.  Nintendo's was more innocent while third parties handled their own inaccurate judgement (which I think was justified; who would assume the Wii would be successful?) by shitting in their own bed.

[ejamer]

It's not easy to sell games on Wii.
 
The market is crowded, and mostly with junk developed by 3rd parties.  Trying to make your game pop and be something people want to buy takes real effort and effective advertising.  It also requires that development studios be creative, making sure people can clearly understand the concept and goals of the game.
 
Wii owners are not a predictable and easily identifiable demographic.  You can't just take an existing game or genre, combine violence with some T&A action for young males, polish the graphics until they shine, and instantly release a top seller on Wii.  (However, Bayonetta seems to be doing fine on PS3/360.)
 
There is serious competition from first-party titles.  Nintendo releases quite a few games, and most of them are proven keepers.  People know Nintendo games are good, make a point of buying them, and keep/play them longer than the average PS3/360 gamer does first-party titles on those consoles.  Nintendo is playing for keeps and big money, so if you aren't ready to bring the A-game then it might be better to stay home.
 
Controls and programming are unique, and may require more tweaking depending on what type of game you are creating.  I have heard rumors that Nintendo's system documentation isn't as good as it should be, which might explain why some developers have issues here (or when using other system-specific features).

 
So with all those factors in mind, do I have sympathy for developers who aren't turning a quick profit on Wii?  Enh... a little bit.  Sometimes.  Mostly they've created their own problems though, and retail failures can often be directly attributed to developer (or publisher) decisions.

[Urkel]

And Namco did give the Wii some sort of Soul Calibur product.  Why would they make TWO different games if they could just make ONE game for all THREE?

Namco ported SC4 to the PSP.
 
The PSP.
 
 
 
 
 
The PSP.
 
 
The industry has something against Nintendo. The sooner everybody accepts this the sooner we can move on from these kinds of discussions.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

In the meantime, we fight the good fight.

[broodwars]

And Namco did give the Wii some sort of Soul Calibur product.  Why would they make TWO different games if they could just make ONE game for all THREE?

Namco ported SC4 to the PSP.
 
The PSP.
 
 
 
 
 
The PSP.
 
 
The industry has something against Nintendo. The sooner everybody accepts this the sooner we can move on from these kinds of discussions.

I would interpret that more an an indication of Japan's increasing (and disappointing) fascination with the handheld market than a hatred of Nintendo, really.

[BlackNMild2k1]

the only game that sells on the PSP is MH.
SC4 is not MH and therefore it would have made sense to release it on Wii instead.

[Ian Sane]

I had no idea Namco ported Soul Calibur IV to the PSP.  They're probably using the logic that since Soul Calibur Legends wasn't successful on the Wii that there was no market for it (which is annoying).  And maybe there isn't since those that really wanted Soul Calibur IV probably already own it on one of the other two consoles.  A portable version however provides something different enough that someone who already owns SCIV on a home console may buy it again for the ability to play it on the go, and obvious the DS wasn't a consideration for such a conversion.

For years I complained about the third party support and was told to buy a second console.  This was seen as some sort of requirement for a core gamer.  Because I bought a PS3 now my Wii is really more like just my Nintendo machine, and that's similar to the sales data.  People who own Wiis buy Nintendo games more than anything else.  Is this a reflection of the Wii userbase?  Do most core gamers who own Wiis only own it for Nintendo games and have one of the other consoles as their "main" console?  Or even if this isn't the case is this what third parties think?

Let's face it we're talking about core games here.  If you're interested in casual stuff then the Wii third party support isn't even an issue to you.  You've got your Carnival Games and Wii Fit and you're content.  We're core gamers.  If you're on the internet talking about videogames, I don't care what you choose to identify yourself as, you are a core gamer.  No one on this forum is a dad asking about Hannah Montana games for his kids.  If you're here you play videogames and you've got some knowledge about what's out there and what's coming out.  And concern about third party games on the Wii is related to the amount of quality of core games being released on the system and it has been inadequate.

Third parties are going to release core games on a platform in which they figure core gamers will buy it.  The PS3 and Xbox 360 are safe consoles to release a core game.  You know the audience is there.  And we know that the consoles are different enough that you can make a PC/PS3/X360 game or a Wii game, but usually not both.  So on the Wii you're looking at the amount of core gamers that own a Wii.  You have to take a guess at that number.  And what REALLY matters is the amount of core gamers that ONLY own a Wii.  If the Wii core gamers own one of the other platforms well then you might as well stick to what your developers know and what will cover three platforms.  You'll still get those Wii core gamers because if they want your game they'll buy it on the other platform they own.  Since a Wii game pretty much has to be an exclusive, you're cutting out core gamers who don't own a Wii.  So the Wii core gamers that only own a Wii become the key number.  Are they a large enough group to justify making an exclusive versus a multiplatform game?  And there's also the Nintendo fan factor as they would be core gamers as well but to attract their attention you have to compete very directly with Nintendo themselves, particularly if a major Nintendo title is being released in that time frame.  Sony and Microsoft don't have quite as devout of a fanbase.

Your Wii market then becomes core gamers who ONLY own a Wii and are not so loyal to Nintendo that one can compete directly against a Nintendo first party title.  This unclear number versus the numbers for the PS360 which you can guess as being probably a good 90% core gamers or more.  Third parties don't know who the Wii audience is.  They talk about the "Wii audience" all the time.  They don't know and we don't really know either.  We just kind of hope that the numbers are favourable for us but we don't know.  I'm sure everyone here knows someone who owns Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Play, Mario Kart and nothing else.  That kind of Wii owner isn't the target demo for any sort of decent core games.  And they make it very unclear who exactly owns Wiis.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"That kind of Wii owner"

That's the kind of Wii owner 3rd Parties allowed Nintendo to create.  The 3rd Party "pursuit" of "non-gamers" is their own journey in becoming non-competitors.

[Chozo Ghost]

There are lots of reasons why third parties **** on the Wii platform, and we can all argue over which of those reasons is the MAIN reason, but the fact of the matter is that all of the reasons are applicable in explaining the current third party support situation.

No matter what position we have taken in this argument I think we can all agree that despite the lousy turd-party support Nintendo has been extremely successful and is raking in more profit now than they have in at least 15 years (if not the most profit ever). And this guarantees Nintendo will be here to stay for the foreseeable future. They could probably last another 20 years of Gamecube-esque failure with the cash reserves they've pulled in this generation.

At this point it is probably too late for Nintendo to bring in quality 3rd party support for this generation. Its just too far into this cycle to change things much at this point, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be out busting ass and making deals and whatnot to get that support in place for their next console. Nintendo will endure with or without third parties, but they won't be the market leader forever without their support.

[Stogi]

I think if Red Steel and No Heroes do well, scratch that, BETTER then their predecessors then my point will be proven.

[Peachylala]

No More Heroes I can see doing well since the game has a fanbase in the Nintendo side of things. Red Steel 2, however, is what will make or break Ubi's rep with the same fanbase. If the game sucks, Ubi can kiss Nintendo's support and their fanbase support good bye.

Fool me once, won't fool me again.