Yeah, in 2011 Nintendo will finally see the folly of their profitable ways and copy notes from those who fail to make money...

What puzzles me is why third parties care about the future of a platform that they never make their best games for. 

What's in it for Nintendo to upgrade?  Will there be an FFXIII Special Edition waiting for them?  Will there new games that use the Wiimote to it's fullest potential?  Will being the market leader actually mean something this generation after it meant something every generation preceding?

And what happened to the market segregation?  I though it was 360/PS3 over here and Wii over there with all those unwashed casual gamers.  Why does Nintendo matter to those pre-invested and integrated into high-priced, DLC, full-priced demo machinations that came with the "shift" to HD?

I can't wait for the Wii port of Dissidia Final Fantasy.

...or at least their most expensive games.  Nothing they've published on PS3/Xbox 360 has wowed me recently.  I didn't really enjoy Final Fantasy XII on PS2; from what I've seen of XIII, I don't think I'd really be into that one either.  The Shiva bike kind of killed it for me.

I've enjoyed their DS offerings a lot more, but I'm kind of an old-school rpg guy, anyway.  Still looking forward to seeing what DQ X will look like on the Wii, though.  It would be nice to hear something soon.

I could see hearing rumblings about a system upgrade of some sort in 2011, but any new console is a little further out, I think.  It doesn't seem like any company is too eager to get a new system out the door.  The HD twins are still trying to make their current hardware profitable. 

Thing is, they (third parties in general) are going to have to offer more than platitudes and spinoffs to get Nintendo to bend.  If they offer real, tangible, high-caliber, A-Team, First string, support locked in for launch or launch Window... I could See Nintendo curbing their Wii-run short for their concerns about graphics and such.

But as long as it remains an "unfunded" or "unsupported" mandate, then Nintendo would be in their right to tell them to "piss off," or rather just politely ignore them.  Maybe if they spent the last few years trying to make good games instead of dumping garbage on the system and laughing at its users, they'd have more clout.

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.

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.

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.

And the port of Crisis Core, and the port of Soul Calibur PSP, and Tekken 6 PSP... :p

You also know that it's guaranteed that the WiiHD/Wii2/SuperWii will be 120% backwards compatible with the current Wii. So I wouldn't be surprised to see the regular Wii still on the charts (@ $99) years after the new Wii is on market like the PS2 is to the PS3.

They better be prepared to have to work to get good sales.  Would you buy another hamburger from a guy who handed you a dead rat in a hotdog bun last time, no matter how good it looked or how he says he's learned his lesson and that this time, he'll really, truly, cross-my-heart won't sell you another bad meal again?

I could tell the game is important to them.  That's why he mentioned it by name in the article.  And why they've chosen the best possible release dates in both regions for the game.

Famicom to Super Famicom was longer than that AFAIK and Nintendo only made the SFC reluctantly, wouldn't surprise me if they tried to go FC with the Wii and keep it around for as long as possible (especially since developers haven't even come close to utilizing the motion controls to their limit).

Nintendo has been spending bucket-loads of cash on R&D for something, so I would assume that they would want to get it to market in working order as soon as possible after the competition reveals their plans for next-gen.

"Nintendo has been spending bucket-loads of cash on R&D for something,"

Constructing a bigger money vault to swim in.

This isn't any big surprise.  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.  It also isn't a big surprise hearing this from Square-Enix, who (given their love for tech) love having the latest toys to work with.  The Wii HD is the system the 3rd parties actually want to work on, so it's not surprising to see them try to goad Nintendo into announcing it.

I'm pretty sure Nintendo will not make their next move until they have to, which will either be once the Sony/MS announce their next-gen platforms with release dates or sales slow to a crawl.

The possibility of a stop-gap WiiHD to push the sales of the existing Wii well into the life of the Wii2/SuperWii just seems rather unlikely, but possible. If it were to happen though, I wouldn't expect it no later than Xmas 2010.

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?

I'm glad you asked that question.....
Official Wii Rumor Thread

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 from late 2009 to early 2010 to late 2010 to sometime in 2011. I can throw darts a board of things that will eventually happen too.

The guys at the CAGcast brought up a good point when they talked about this, they joked that Pachter keeps saying a Wii HD is coming with the hopes that Nintendo will do it and prove him right.

At least Square Enix has been giving good support to Wii. If this was THQ (who AFAIK have not done anything significant for the Wii), I would be wondering why they care.

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?

THQ sent Deadly Creatures out to die (new IP, insignificant advertising, not even to kids and creepy-crawly lovers).

That was a shame too because Deadly Creatures looked good and was getting decent reviews. It's not good enough to make a good game if you are not gonna bother supporting it at all or try to really advertise it.

I predict I might download pr0grams later today.  I'm under pressure from the 3rd parties and the market to do so.  It's also assured that I might download HD pr0grams this holiday season, to ensure I maintain my momentum.

PS2 didn't lose money... not even close. I can see Nintendo putting out a new Wii in 2011, not to lose money but because they can sell it at profit (just like they did with Wii) and make even more money. And since Wii is the market leader, third-parties can continue to release games for the older platform just as they did for PS2 years after PS3 launched.

Anyone who thinks Nintendo doesn't want to sell new hardware should look at their portable strategy.

I thought it was universally agreed upon that the console market =/= portable market.
Therefore strategies from one may not get the same desired results in the other.

If they do it i'm going to be slightly annoyed. Have i maximised value out of my Wii? No. Absolutely not.

I don't think anyone claimed the PS2 lost money.  However, I'm pretty sure Sony started losing money once they released the PS3.

Bigger, better and faster doesn't necessarily translate to more money in the manufacturer's pocket.

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.

Nobody is forcing me to, yes i know, but nobody is forcing them to either. I'm sure Ian and GP would agree that more games wouldn't mean more value, but more games that fill my (i'm allowed to be a selfish consumer) palate.

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.

That surprises me.  It's certainly not the impression I've gotten of him from his numerous appearances on Gametrailers' Bonus Round video panel discussions.

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?

It seems to me that a lot of analysts predicted that Sony would be the market leader based on the sheer fact that PS and PS2 were the market leaders of their respective generations.  They didn't look at the market conditions, consumer wants or what each console manufacturer's offering so see how they lined up.

"Analysts aren't fortune tellers: they make their predictions based on current market conditions"

And that's the fundamental foul-up; making an assessment based on such a short trend, ignoring history (when did these rock star media blogger-analysts start appearing?  After Grand Theft Auto 3 came out?), and totally missing the mark on who your customers can be and how important they are.  I don't think Pachter's tune changed even after Wii's literally shocking response at E3 2006 (people didn't run because a boulder with "$599" painted on it was rolling after them to kill them).  How did he factor an industry even like that into his assessment?

He didn't, cuz analyzing means he'd have to do good-faith-reasonable-effort work; he hates Nintendo and Wii cuz it's making him do SOME work

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.

This doesn't explain the 35 million or so Wii owners who DON'T own Wii Fit.  "Entirely new market" isn't the whole story, but it is the one analysts will use to explain why they got things wrong, because it removes the locus of control from them and onto random chance.

Of course, this is a catch-22, because if they aren't wrong because everything was random, then their jobs are useless because who can "analyze" random chance?

Face it, Pachter is a moron.  All of his analyses have been wrong since 2004, yeah he continues to speak as if his words have any impact.

Third parties seem to regard the Wii as something different and thus they give it different games than what the other consoles get.  But they might not like it to be that way.  In Square Enix's case they've invested a lot of time and money in Final Fantasy XIII and they're going to release it on the PS3 and Xbox 360.  But that effectively limits FF13's potential sales.  Ideally they would want to release it on all three platforms for maximum potential sales.  But they can't release it on the Wii without investing even more money into downgrading the visuals to work on Wii hardware.  And even if they did that they might fear that the downgraded visuals and the stigma of being a scaled down port may hurt the game's marketability with its target market.

The Wii quite clearly has a technical hurdle in that it's severly underpowered compared to the other two consoles.  When Capcom released Dead Rising on the Wii I think they legitimately wanted to just port the game over but found out that they couldn't.

If the Wii was an Xbox 360 with the remote as the controller I really doubt it be missing out on all these games that both of the other consoles get.  Why wouldn't they release these games on all three consoles if they could and thus make their game available to the widest potential customer base?  Now they probably could or just should make the Wii their target platform but they're not and that's a different topic.

If the Wii 2 was comparable to the other consoles in hardware then third parties could release anything they wanted to on it.  All their casual focused shovelware could still be on there, too.  It provides them with no restrictions.  They want all three consoles to be as similar as possible so that they can make whatever game they want on whatever console they want.

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).  But they very much live in the present and since this is not causing them any obvious problems now I don't expect them to feel it's any priority until it becomes so.  So they probably SHOULD release a new Wii by 2011 but they probably won't until they're forced to.  In other words it's only after they start losing market share to the competition that they'll get off their butts.  But they almost certainly have some sort of next-gen console in the design phases so it's not likely they would be completely caught with their dick in their hands.

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.

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...

Now when will Nintendo give us Wii2?  When WiiFit/Mario Kart Wii stop selling (semi-serious).  Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to see it in Fall 2011, but not earlier.

The PS3's poor sales are the result of a perfect storm of screw-ups, from Sony's constant mismanagement and utter PR arrogance to the falling economy.  I think we're seeing now the kind of sales the PS3 might have had at launch provided Sony hadn't gone the route they did, particularly with the price point.

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, we'll see what the NPD numbers show over the next few months.  So far, it's been looking good for the PS3 but we'll see.

EDIT: By the way, Ian: I think you meant "Dead Rising" (which was made by Capcom), not "Dead Space" (which was made by EA).

Totally. When I read this I was like woa, they're gonna release a new conosle on the same 5-year cycle that's been playing out for 20 years?

My pillars of reality have been pushed away.

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.  The other two consoles have enjoyed fine 3rd party support with quality games.  Just because they don't see fit to waste their time trying to shoehorn them into something the Wii can handle, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

It's not like the Wii's a bit player here.  Wii is the market leader, period.  For some segments, like Japan, Wii IS the "market in general." 

When making games for this market, 3rd parties either take the time to expertly create a press release saying how their horrible game "fits the Wii demographic," with zero followup when the game fails, or they take an opportunity to troll the Wii and its owners with some of the worst games they have EVER MADE, like Konami's Target Terror, an armpit of an arcade game that they purchased from Midway's corpse.  What they've told the majority of gamers this generation is "We think you are a bunch of morons that will buy anything we put out."  And when the surprisingly savvy Wii audience balks at buying Monkey Mischief: Party Time, they have the sand to blame Wii owners for being "Nintendo fanboys."

Is it any wonder Wii owners are pretty much loyal to Nintendo only after getting that sort of treatment for 3 years?  Is it any wonder that most are pretty suspicious of any Non-Nintendo game on the Wii, and some have developed hostility towards third parties?

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 long

I 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.

The only third party supporter getting praise is Sega. Hell, we've gotten the first 3-D Sonic game thats GOOD.

No they can't force third parties to do anything but it is still in their best interest to have good third party support.  I think releasing a new console at the normal five year interval with comparable specs to the competition will naturally improve the quality of third party releases because at they very least they'll make their big releases on the other consoles multiplatform.

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) and the PS3 and Xbox 360 will remain as is but with the extra motion controller BS that Sony and MS are each working on.  I'm sure one of the three will do something stupid (Sony upping the hardware again when the PS3 only just finally became affordable) but that's probably what each of them should do.

MS would likely be the one to force Sony's hand.
MS will release the Xbox720 making Sony release the PS4 to combat it.
MS is already "profitable" with the 360 and next year is MS's 5th year with the 360.

It's not in 3rd parties' best interests to support the Market Leader.

Yay?

But it's still really difficult to make a profit on the games since they cost so much to make.

And you can say "as a gamer I don't care about a company's profitability" all you want, but when every game looks the same because they all use the same damn Unreal 3 engine it's a problem that affects you.

Are they always going to be unaffordable to make?  I would assume that as time goes by a developers get more familiar with the hardware that the development time will shrink.  Sony and MS aren't going to downgrade their consoles.  So Nintendo can either catch up or be forever behind.  Do you think the Wii hardware is suitable enough to last for ten years?  I figure the HDTV issue alone is reason to upgrade.  Anything that does not support HDTVs is going to very soon come across as archaic.  And the third party support is not going to improve until they match the hardware and I don't think Nintendo can keep the top spot past 2011 if the quality of the library doesn't improve.  They can't afford to coast and if they don't release a Wii 2 that's what they'll be doing.

Shrink somewhat but the difference isn't going away, ever. The problem is that while the costs go up (factor 2.5 from what I heard) the customerbase is constant or even shrinking. That's the reason behind all that 60$/70€ price, DLC, anti-used-sales, tons of special editions, digital distribution, DRM, etc bullshit, a desperate attempt to get revenue growth when the number of customers is not increasing. The HD games are hardly sustainable, the successes are pretty shallow and require wringing money out of the few customers there are while the failures are devastating. That's more of a philosophical difference than an actual hardware issue though, the industry has fallen into a blockbuster mentality that is completely out of touch with what people really want (do HD graphics really increase our enjoyment of the game 2.5 fold?).

Development costs for HD games probably won't drop much, you still have to design the visuals and the details that go into them, that takes a lot of work hours.

Seems like I read somewhere that 70% of a HD game's budget was dedicated to creating art assets.

I would argue that they do in any game that relies heavily on atmosphere or an especially unique look.  Dead Space; Bioshock; Prince of Persia; and Valkyria Chronicles just wouldn't be the same to me without that level of HD polish.

Yar, technology boosts don't eliminate art labor.

Game Informer did an article about Oblivion years back, detailing all the steps went through just to make a rock wall.

They created the polygon wall
Then they created a hi-res rock texture
Then they added lighting
Then they did bump mapping
Then they add bloom
Then they softened the bloom and lighting
Then they added a grimy filter
Then they added a clear coat varnish
Then they added one of those fancy sandwich toothpicks with the frilly stuff on top.

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.

Not quite.  Yes, it gets increasingly more expensive to do CGI movies with increasingly-better CGI.  However, it does get less expensive over time to put out the same quality of CGI as our hardware and software grow increasingly more advanced.  Just look at the CGI used in TV shows like Battlestar Galactica (which IMO easily rival many feature films) or Terminator: the Sarah Conner Chronicles.  5-10 years ago, that would have been theatrical quality animation but we can now produce it on a TV show budget.  Computer Graphics that looked outstanding on TV just 10 years ago is now commonplace in college computer animation classes through programs like Maya.  The cost of doing HD graphics as we know them now will decrease over time just as anything technology-related will.  It's just a matter of if companies will be satisfied with the level of detail we have now or if they want to keep pushing it further into costlier territory.

If the Wii 2 had comparable hardware to the Xbox 360 is there anything preventing Nintendo from continuing to make games that look like Dreamcast launch titles?  No.  Nintendo can continue to make games within whatever budget they see fit.  If the market is willing to accept something like the Wii series, which visually wouldn't stand out on last gen consoles, when these HD games exist with clearly superior visuals then what's the problem?  Something like Mario can only look so detailed because of the cartoony style involved anyway.  And games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band, which are not on the cutting edge of visual presentation, are on the HD consoles and are very successful on them.  You don't have to push the visuals as far as they go to be accepted by the general public.

But the real difference would be IF a developer chose to make some super-expensive blockbuster HD game then there would no roadblock to prevent it from being released on Nintendo's console.  Right now there is.  Nintendo's only cost involved is to manufacture the hardware itself and we have now reached a point where that hardware can be sold at an affordable price point.

Many MANY good third party games are not being released on the Wii.  To continue to allow this is to give the competition an edge.  For Nintendo to assume that they can continue to be number one as the Wii's library is full of shovelware, while the competition's libraries get better and better is stupidly arrogant.  They can't "fake it" forever.  If they don't have the best library of games then their market share is largely phony and it's only a matter of time before the bubble bursts.  They have to address that issue and a Wii 2 in 2011 is the only way to do it.

Plus to reject HD completely is going to become like rejecting colour TV back in the day.  The general public doesn't care how much money you save by filming in black & white.  Once something becomes expected you have to support it and by 2011 a videogame console that doesn't support HD is going to come across like a fossil.

"If they don't have the best library of games then their market share is largely phony"

Good luck supporting that statement.

It's not phony in the sense that the raw numbers aren't there.  But ideally the market leader should provide the best product.  With a videogame console it's all about the games and I would consider the Wii to easily have the weakest library.  The sheer amount of junk that third parties make for it ensures that.

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.

The phoniness is that one would at a glance look at the numbers and think "well Nintendo is number one so they should be fine".  But I don't think that's the case.  The Wii's success is deceiving since it relied so much on catching a target market largely ignorant of videogames off guard.  You can only do that once.  To assume that everything will remain fine is foolish because I'm looking at the products here and I see the competition improving while the market leader gets worse.

With Mr. Sane's comment concluded, I am now opening to floor to responses.

Yes, You in the back, go ahead...

"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?

Kind of like the PS2, DS, GBA, GB, NES.

Very strong opening responses thus far.  Let's invite a few more responses to ensure Mr. Sane responds with BLAWK TEXT after we return from recess.

All right, You with the Chihuahua in your purse manpurse?, let us hear it...

Well I'm a longtime fan of Nintendo and it had some games I really wanted to play.

Don't forget the original PlayStation as well.

What about the Atari or Game And Watch? Didn't they do that too?

As we all know, TP turned out to be OOT 2.0 and Metroid Prime 3 was full of stupid purple lunchbox waggle rehash. You were caught off guard and duped, out of videogame ignorance, $250. You ignorantly thought Nintendo would change and actually listen to the non-ignorant fans such as yourself and make more games you were interested in.

In summary: Casual gamers are retards. That's the assumption that third parties go into this with and produce their shitty party games for, then they wonder why the retards won't lap them up. Maybe the retards aren't so retarded? Maybe they're picky but the things they pick are completely invisible to the ignorant you?

Bullseye.

Seriously, for someone who acts like he's too smart to fall for the bullshit that game companies try to pull, Ian seems to think the very same way as these companies who have no respect for their customers.

Ian and the Game Industry are on the same wavelength.

I'm depressed now.

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?

Hyperbole, much?  I think you forgot to mention how Nintendo also created the Earth in only 5 days because the almighty was being too slow.  :rolleyes:

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, instead of using tech that everyone else was using and letting the developers decide how they wanted to use it.

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?

What's your point here?

Erm, newsflash.  Everybody's getting into motion controls now.  Obviously they are becoming standard.  Nintendo's ahead of the curve, just not the one everybody bet on in 2005.  HD has turned out to have very finite appeal, much like any other inevitable and incremental technological upgrade, with graphics becoming a commodity in the near future.

The whole thing parallels some real life event happening right now.
With Nintendo being a special person with lots of likability and good faith from the regular people,
the Wii being a new proposal to do things a little differently going forward
and 3rd parties being the other side, trying to kill this new proposal since it doesn't fit their line of thinking.

There is no reason that Nintendo needs to play it out like it's parallel has and alter their proposal{(Wii) to cater to the other side(3rd parties) especially when we already know that it doesn't matter what Nintendo does, the other side still isn't gonna want to use it.

I really think Nintendo should just continue to do what they do best and stay on the planned path they have  already set. If that includes a WiiHD before they release a full Wii2 then so be it, if it's New system roughly every 5 years well then I'm on board with that too. Obviously whatever they've been doing is working, the majority of the people love it, the inner circle loves it and plenty of money is being made all around to all those who are "with the program" and not still just dumping idea off the scraps table

I think I get your reference, BnM.  I think we can come to some sort of understanding about it.  Yes... we can.

I've had a particularly devilish idea in which Nintendo headhunts third parties' top talent or buys them out entirely.  Some might question these moves as some of the more hateful third parties will just drain their talent and leave Nintendo with a turkey.  But two things would definitely happen:

1) Nintendo would gain a wealth of IP and talent from these third parties that will be useful for future Smash Brothers-type games, as well as future iterations of IPs made by a close-knit group of headhunted talent, should they stay.
2) This spinoff, knockoff, party game, demographics, bad-games-on-purpose abuse will finally cease.

And even if all the talent leaves, they'll be forced to start from square one, so they won't be a threat for at least two generations, as evidenced by companies like Platinum Games and those guys behind Spyborgs.

Some might view this as anti-gaming, but what's really anti-gaming is dumping crap on the majority of gamers and laughing at them.  Some might view it as monopolistic, but nobody has a problem with MS just buying things.  Nintendo's got the money to be really competitive on the third party front.  If money's what it takes, then they should just spend it and try to sell more hardware with the games.

Ah, the "Wii Hate HD" threads...always a favorite around here.

Nintendo isn't going after a market that gives a crap about the Wii's library.  Only game nerds like ourselves care about, or argue over, the overall quality of a console's library, and we make up probably 20% of the overall market if not less.  Most people buy a console to play one or two games, and might pick up something later.  I have friends that don't give a crap about video games, but they've bought a PS3 because they want to play Tekken 6 and play Blu-Ray discs.  I also have non-gamer friends that have bought a Wii so they can give their 4-year-old kid something to do, and if they find something cool on the console then so be it.  These people FAR outweigh the hardcore like us, and they're the ones that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo covet.  It just so happens that with the economy in the tank and family expenditures at a bare minimum, families that wanted a console went with the safe bet - Nintendo.  Their console is cheap, and consumers know that they will have games that both parents and kids can enjoy (separately and together).

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.  It's not rocket science as to why Nintendo has sold so many consoles this generation.  They've made the barrier to entry for their console virtually non-existent.

This isn't an HD hate thread.  It's really a "why do third parties give a damn about a system they never make their best games for?" thread.  "HD" gets mentioned like it's a "nuff said" issue, but that doesn't explain the industry's history when it comes to just that issue.

The N64 was "HD" before its time with something called "High Rez" which meant a higher resolution (!) of 640x480. Nobody really cared then.  The GC and Xbox dangled "Progressive scan" over the PS2 to zero effect.  Suddenly HD is like the buzzword of the generation, being thrown around more than blast processing.  Suddenly graphical output means a whole lot to third parties who didn't care at all last generation, and this includes the developers of series like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear, who previously resided on the least capable systems.

And just mentioning the fact that HD, itself, hasn't grown the userbase of anything isn't to "hate" it, it's just to state a fact.  It really hasn't.  And nobody really hates "HD" as a concept.  They just don't think it's worth the tradeoff of higher prices, longer dev times, and desperation attempts by the developers for more revenue, like Abusive DLC, Full priced demo disks, and product-less DRM schemes known as digital distribution. 

As an example, I love chocolate cakes.  They are delicious, but they are very expensive and bad for me.  I feel the same way about HD.  It is an inevitable occurrence that future consoles will be HD, so much that everybody won't care who did it first, but driving costs up for devs who then research the worst methods of capitalism, driving game prices up $10 minimum,  driving console prices past $400, and other such tactics in the process of economizing HD have really brought destruction to our fair hobby.  It's more complex than simply "Love/Hate"

I'd agree with this if third parties went about making games for the Wii like TV production companies go about making shows for cable.  Because currently regular cable has better shows than HBO/Showtime, because HBO/Showtime usually just rips off an old cable show and inserts more swear words into the script.

That's not the case with Wii.  Nintendo still makes alright games, but third parties have somehow lost their minds and decided the best way to make a good impression on the largest userbase is to make some of the worst games they have ever made.

And finally, I don't think the Wii userbase, or regular customers/gamers in general are as nondiscriminatory as you think.  That's why all those surefire "Wii demographic" "party games" failed miserably. Of course in response to this, most will say something like "Hmmf, lousy casual Wii owners and their hardcore Nintendo fanboyism." (Gee, wonder why?)  Then they'll cut support, even as the Wii userbase grows to 50 million faster than the PS2.  It's never that they make horrible games.  It's the economy!  It's the Nintendo fans!  It's the magical casual market that's there for Wii Sports Resort but not there for Mega Pasture Party: Cowsill Clambake!

I just wish they'd make better games and stop trying to be Kanye West to Taylor Swift.  They bet on the wrong horse, but that never stopped them from picking the right one soon after.  I wish they'd stop treating Wii owners like schmucks, because it is really damaging to their reputations.

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.  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.

I didn't say "save"  I said "fight the decay."  You can laugh all you want, but it's true.    Without the Wii, total console ownership would have fallen massively.  This is proven by sales numbers.  Go look them up.

Where did I say they were sacrificing?  Man you seem to read posts and find different things other than what the words actually say.  And please enlighten me.  What did Nintendo do that was different from "the industry" with the DS?  It's not as simple as "Rest of industry vs. Nintendo" because considering the size of the DS and Wii userbases, it's everybody else who is violating "the industry" as in what the majority of the customers are demanding.  And this post was in the context of third parties making demands of a company they mostly insult over and over with bad games and sarcastic press releases.  The meat of the question has still not been answered, which is why should Nintendo listen to them when they offer nothing?

MS and Sony have still both lost billions of dollars on their respective consoles and Nintendo's profit margin for Wii's is about $8 per unit.  what is "ridiculous" here?  And if they loaded an extremely expensive graphics card from 2005  onto the console and drove the price past $400, I can safely say Nintendo would be dead last.

Yeah, all 5 of them.

3rd parties never went that extra step last generation, to make games in high resolution progressive scan.  They just made games on the market leader, period.  Suddenly Nintendo's #1 and all these labels and demographics start flying around.  It's not hard to see what's going on.  They made a bad bet and they're angry at the successful guy.

Wii is still capable of every type of game on the 360 and PS3, referring to genres.  They won't look as nice, but there is no real limitation.  If anything Nintendo's given them an economic development platform with a sensation of a control scheme, that a lot of developers suddenly "love" now that SM and Sony are doing them.

You make it sound like they are excused.  Nintendo make fine games on the Wii.  What's stopping third parties from doing the same?  3rd parties have made better games on the DS!  Explain quality in those limitations, sir, because the DS has currently got the best lineup of games this whole generation.

Your grasp of what was financially reasonable and feasible in 2005 is very loose.

Wow...You are so off base here that it's almost not funny; almost.

First off, those motion controls you take for granted was a huge sacrifice. Being the first is always hard, and the risk was huge.

Secondly, they didn't fuck 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.

I think what's also weird is how Nintendo gets pitted against "the rest of the industry" as if they are bit players with niche markets.  When Nintendo has the #1 and #2 userbases, being the DS and the Wii respectively, Nintendo IS the industry as far as those users are concerned.  Maybe third parties should be the ones who bend to the majority of the customers' wants and needs instead of trying to peddle influence.

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.  The Wii can't do what the other two consoles are capable of, so 3rd parties can't port to Wii.  They have to make a specialized version just for Wii, which by the way Wii owners don't buy.  Sometimes it's because it's extremely watered-down from the original concept (Dead Rising), often because it was crap (see also: Dead Rising), and sometimes because I think we've just become predisposed over the years as 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.

If you think this is an issue that pisses me off, you're somewhat off-base yourself.  I said it was an issue that "irritates" me.  I stopped being "pissed off" about it when I stopped holding out hope for better quality in my Wii games and bought a PS2/PS3, and now it's just something that reeks to me of a sad and missed opportunity as someone who prior to this generation had only purchased Nintendo products.  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.

As for the DS vs. PSP, I'd have to hazzard a guess that developers took the PSP's power for granted in those early years and assumed that with specs close to that of a PS2 that they could simply put PS2-type games on the platform.  They didn't take into account that handheld and console games are very different beasts, something the DS developers had no problem understanding.  The DS gained in popularity and diversity, and the PSP continued to shuffle around with no apparent direction.  Nintendo also had the considerable advantage of pretty much being the name in handheld gaming.  Sony's continual bungling of the PSP certainly hasn't helped either, something that continues to this very day.

Please clarify this, because I don't it has actually "diversified."  And Console exclusivity is working wonders for Nintendo, and the have the extra burden of having to fabricate hardware and take huge risks on control methods.

They "have to?"  Nintendo is forcing them to make bad games?  And Wii owners don't buy insultingly late ports?  I'm glad they appear to have more taste than they seem to get credit for.

and whose fault is that?

Amusingly, third parties haven't been very profitable this generation.  In fact, some have even died or been swallowed by bigger devs.  So they're basically stuck in between their awful games reputations not being profitable on Wii due to their bad reputations and/or horrible games/sabotage and their actual efforts not being profitable on the others systems.  Well, sucks to be them, they've had their chances.

So, when third parties do what is most profitable to them, that's good.  But when Nintendo does the same... that's bad?  MS is still in the tank for billions on just the 360, not to mention their losses on the original Xbox.  Sony has squandered their ENTIRE PS2 Profits and almost all of their PS1 profits on just the PS3, something to the tune of $5 billion.  This is why that "firepower" was unfeasible to Nintendo in 2005, as well as most other companies run by people with multiple brain cells.  That could have just as easily been Nintendo hemorrhaging money like Sony if they tried to develop "future proof" processors and technologies.

I was going to say something, but Deguello summed it up quite nicely.

I don't know why people hate on Nintendo so much. First it was "teh k1dd13", which made third parties "think" they couldn't sell mature games on a Nintendo system because it was too PC or some bullshit like that. But whatever, last generation the GC was dead last so I saw those excuses as just meaningless babble to side-step support.

But now, now it's all about HD and the two companies that are fighting for a select few of the markets dollars are the talk of the town, while Nintendo, rightly so, idly watches as if waiting for one of the stupid cocks to peck the other's eyes out. It's a shame really; a damn shame. Nintendo's making more money than it has ever had and it's damn near begging for third parties to jump on; anyone, everyone! But no, if Microsoft and Sony were to lose any support they'd be even deader in the water. So they toss out free money to companies willing to cash-in. But despite the free money, third parties are still dieing. Again, a damn shame.

If third parties want to make money and prosper, all they'd have to do is make a fun game and put it on the Wii. It's really that simple. It can be gruesome, cheerful, scary, rewarding, addictive; what the fuck ever. Just take it seriously.

Meh...but whatever. When I did have a Wii, I had plenty of games that kept me happy and there's even more to come. 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.

I'm irritated with the situation because my Wii has practically been a $250 paperweight gathering dust since summer of last year, and many of the games I have been playing on my PS3 (Bioshock, Prince of Persia, Dead Space, etc.) are games that would have been great on the Wii (and probably would have been on the system) if the system could have handled them.  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.  Hence the irritation.

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.

Perhaps, but we'll never know.  At one point, I'd have thought you were crazy if you'd told me that people would willingly pay $120+ for a single music game and $90 for a bathroom scale, but we've certainly seen that haven't we?

I think Nintendo could have put beefier processors into the Wii without a real price increase, it wouldn't be up to the 360's level though (remember that thing went up to 400$, sold at a loss AND doesn't have any of the motion tech the Wii uses, hell, doesn't even include WiFi) and would lose the Gamecube backwards compatibility.

Malstrom once pointed out what kind of advanced tech the Wii does have, stuff like a slot loading drive that can accept mini DVDs (AFAIK all existing slot loaded drives would break if you gave them anything other than a full size disc), a really low power processor system, an advanced controller, proper WiFi and Bluetooth support, an SSD, a size that's significantly smaller than the competition... All that "Gamecube 1.5" comparisons focus on is the processing power but a console isn't just a bunch of processors.

Lets keep in mind too a couple things about the Wii Hardware as well. The architecture of the memory system that is in place is actually a really good combination and configuration for their textures and other compliments.  The system is also has the ability to incorperate new techniques implemented years down the road to keep it going. 

  Dont get me wrong though, more memory is always beneficial, but for what the system is doing, its one of the best configured units on the market.  I am not sure where I saw this, but I did see someones idea on how nintendo could cater to bigger and badder markets in the next generation.

  It was something like, when it comes time to release a newer hardware, Nintendo could use a dual support system for the hardwares.  First was of course to make a new system that is backward compatible and had improved motion mechanics.  (lets face it, the controller works and so it most liekly will change just a little) while keeping the Wii going strong supporting the new markets they had created with it.  So as the "Core" Jump onto a newer system, Nintendo would keep that Wii going strong.  Then as the "Core" reach a more saturated point, it will begin to shift over users from one system to the next.  That way Nintendo would be able to keep multiple strong markets in the Console areana. Something that hasn't been done yet but came real close with the PS2. If the PS3 became as successful as Sony may of wanted, then this would of been a completly differnt race.  Now, its Nintendos turn to take a shot at it and lets not forget, Nintendo does like to sit back, watch the comptetition and then improve on what they are doing. 

So, we will see.

Can I expect Trace Memory Wii by 2011?

D=

That is about as likely as Epic Games making a Wii 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.

Sony Sports Stadium

Microsoft Fitness Simulator

You're going to LOVE what brings in the cash in the future.

The problem is that all the games they use as sales metrics are games that never had a chance anyway, just too niche or just bad.

Why don't they just stfu and look at the charts for SMB3 VC?

That game has more quality then any HD game.

3rd parties can't compete with SMB3, so they don't bother trying.

So Nintendo = SMB3
3rd Excuse Makers = Clu clu Land?

Alturd Beast Genesis is the bar they've set for themselves.

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.

The problem is that although we know the casuals won't buy every piece of garbage on the market, we know they will buy garbage (Wii Play, Wii Music, Carnival Games, the Ubisoft -z games, etc.).  The 3rd parties know that as well, and the cost of making those garbage games is probably so low they figure they can just spin the wheel with every release and the law of averages will dictate somewhere along the line they'll make money.  This is also known as "Ubisoft's Wii Strategy".  It's things like this that make me think sometimes that Nintendo made a mistake putting out a system so cheap to make games on.  It's a double-edged sword.

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?

I haven't seen any sales/revenue data supporting the notion they eventually make money.  We DO know the 3rd Party Garbage Lightning doesn't strike twice (sequels to original Garbage titles ended up dead in the water).

Do they, the 3rd parties, all make money?  Or is there a "Shovelware King" that captures most of the shovelware revenue while the rest just bleed?  Is Nintendo the "Shovelware King" and all the 3rd parties just bleed, period?  With the Sports/Fit/Kart brands doing so strongly, I only see an increasing gap where even the shovelware isn't bringing in the cash if a certain majority threshhold of customers automatically flock to Nintendo's publicized, reliable, predictable-quality products.  If the shovelware isn't bringing in the revenuez, what's a 3rd parties remaining option?  Continue the path of higher-budget games, sneak in some DLC, reduce the overall number of projects, reduce products that hit retail, reduce overall number of customers, reduce overall revenuez, then merge/die.

I think the conspiracy theories exist because the reality of the situation is unpleasant.  If third parties are not off their rocker and aren't supporting the Wii because its the super casual console, aimed at non-gamers and with an audience that is not interested in, well, good games, then Nintendo sold out.  A common complaint is that Nintendo's primary focus is non-gamers and they hung their longtime fans out to dry to go after the huge non-gamer pie.

This is obviously not a popular opinion to have and a big part of that would be because that scenario would suck.  No one WANTS that scenario to be in place.  We want Nintendo to continue to focus on us.  We're not non-gamers.  Even if we enjoy titles like Wii Music they are not designed for us and never were.  We want games made for us.  We want Nintendo's attention.

The problem is if we're a small blurb in the Wii userbase, if the third parties are all right in that the Wii userbase is so predominantly full of casuals that their good games are not worth being released on the Wii, then even if Nintendo isn't intentionally losing interest in us things are such that they could forget about us entirely and continue to be successful.  If they're aren't treating us an afterthought now, they likely will in the future.

For them to pay attention we need to be significant.  We're likely not at all but we don't really want to think that, and I'm including myself in saying that my hope for core gamers to be significant to Nintendo makes me overestimate how important we really are.  So we assume that third parties are stupid or crazy or have some grudge against Nintendo because we want that to be the case.  We don't want the Wii to be what third parties regard it as.  We don't want Nintendo to completely ride off into the non-gamer sunset and leave us all behind.

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.

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.

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.

Well said.  8)  And by the way, that line would look great as a Scientology bumper sticker.

But how many of the games sold well?

Dunno.  Still, I can't imagine many people needing to buy...say...Ninjabread Man for that game to earn a profit.  These games don't have to sell well, just enough to overcome their development costs.  That companies keep putting these games out is enough proof for me to see that it's true.  If they weren't making a profit somehow, they wouldn't be putting the games out to begin with.

True. And I do agree that the market is flooded with too many games.
What I'm not sure I agree with is if this landslide of games is all complete garbage. Using the three examples you posted, Wii Play is a fun high-score game that's worth $10, Wii Music is great for people who want to create music without putting in effort to learn about it (like me!), and Carnival Games delivers what it promises: carnival games, and the controls actually do work. And I'm not some "gullible non-gamer" either, I knew what these games were and bought them because I wanted them and like them (well, my friend bought Carnival Games but whatever).

As far as Ninjabread Man and all of the others you might be referring to, have you played any of them? Do they appeal to you? If you answered "no" to one or both questions, are you really qualified to say they're all garbage?

So, although I do agree with you that third-parties release too many games and not enough of them are high-quality, I don't agree with you that they're all garbage and people are ignorant when they buy them.

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.  Oh, so neglected.  This game is easily in my Game Of the Decade running.  I'm in love with it.  Just ingest some ####, crank the sound, and you'll be in heaven.

Geometry Wars wouldn't sell any better on the 360 than it does on the Wii if it were a $20 retail disc.

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.

And I believe it retailed for $40 on Wii. Might have been part of the problem.

Regardless of the price, it's an addictive hardcore fun to look at shooter. Everyone should play it. At 20 it's a steal.

How did this thread go so wrong?

I'm hearing two things:

Though the Wii is the market leader, it is a shit console to own.

And

Though the Wii is flooded with shit games, there are alot of fun games to own.

Both of these statements are opinion, not fact, and thus will never change.

/thread

You're comparing a retail game with a downloadable title and you're basing it on the shelfkeepers you're seeing. The standards for success in those two areas differ completely. Downloadable games are a much smaller pond and Geometry Wars was a mid-sized fish in that pond, in the much bigger retail pond it gets lost.

Anyway, I find it funny how Ninjabread Man keeps getting brought up as an example of Wii shovelware since it's a port of a PS2 game. Sure, shit like that only has to sell like five copies to break even (especially since DDI shoves those games out with the exact same engine and everything, just the four or so levels changed a bit and a different main character) but if Nintendo had made the Wii HD capable do you really thing this shovelware wouldn't get released? This crap doesn't even get close to utilizing the Wii's power so why would it suddenly do that on an HD Wii?

And the reason we keep calling the third parties fucking retards is precisely because they believe the Wii is only bought by braindead casual gamers and any attempts at making games on the system are at best half-assed and stand no chance against the great games any platform offers.

The only console Nintendo ever released that was shit was the Virtual Boy.

The 3rd Excuse Makers must be Virtual Boys reincarnated.

Geo Wars was not half &&8ed. If there really is a huge market for hardcore titles on Wii it would have faired much better. It failed b/c the audience just wasn't there. It's just that simple. No cospiracy theories, no third party plots, just boring ol supply and demand via the invisible hand.

Geometry Wars is just one casuality out of many 80+ Metacritic gems that passed away long ago only to be buried 6 feet under in the bargin bin.  Just as family members must move on after death, so to have third  parties in respect to making new hardcore titles for the Wii. 

Metacritic is no replacement for a marketing campaign that can get the attention of the uninformed.  A group of games may have similar high ratings, but more often than not the marketing is NOT equal.  "NO MARKETING" is actually the norm on 3rd party Wii titles, despite the critical attention and GoNintendo coverage provide to the *NICHE* that follows along, and naturally the result is "NO SALES."

I *happened* to be aware of a puzzler called Mercury Meltdown Revolution, a tilt-sensor puzzle game that I eventually bought for $10 close to its release.  Looked way more attractive than a $40 vector shooter.  Way to be competitive, niche vector shooter.

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!

I think Geometry Wars somewhat suffered from that fact that it was released on the Wii a significant time after it was already released on the Xbox 360.  So there may be many Wii owners that like the game a lot but own an Xbox 360 and already bought the game for that console, so they would never buy it for a Wii.

I don't disagree with you but I don't think that's an ideal example.

I'd say the fact that it's a huge game as opposed to one level make it more than worthwhile. But I can see how some would get that impression. However, still no excuse for the anemic third party sales of Zack n Wikki, Okami, MLB Power Pros and many others with the millions and millions of Wii owners out there.

Umm, no.  3rd Parties, including any component they're responsible for (which simply comes back to... 3RD PARTIES), are primarily to blame. You need to follow the cycle backwards chronologically to figure out there was a "starting line" for the cycle in the first place, otherwise your logic train will continue to miss the station.

3rd parties are responsible for 1) Greenlighting game projects; 2) dedicating resources to develop the products; and 3) marketing these products to retailers/consumers.  This is a barebones critical path to earning the customers.

Look at Wii's first year on the market (make Holidays 2007 the cutoff point):  Only a handful of 3rd party releases garnered reasonable success despite being `EXPERIMENTAL` first-year titles, such that they've managed to yield sequels that are perceivably improved products (Trauma Center, Red Steel, Rabbids, Kororinpa, REUC, etc.), at the very least, that's a good thing, and shows the 1-2-3 process somehow worked that first time (doesn't say anything about how they're doing the second time...).  However, it should be noted that NONE of these are the Hollywood-blockbuster-level epics (big budget, big scope, big deal; not genre-specific) "people" continue to demand today that the Wii continues to apparently lack.  Those "risks" were handled solely by Nintendo in the form of Mario/Metroid/Zelda that year.  Did 3rd parties step up to the plate in the first year?  2nd?  No, a big fat NO.

The remainder of the landscape was a buffet of fail, a continuous soft-serve ass-cream dispensor of the 1-2-3 process.  1) terrible projects were greenlit; 2) less than stellar care and resources went into games; 3) rushed to retail shelves at full price in hopes of grabbing a quick buck by boxart alone (maybe they assumed some people read IGN 8.1 review score and hoped word of mouth would help, some; but we all know non-casual well-informed internet-reading gamers don't play with other live people, and word of mouth only works when the product delivers something worthy of those mouths).  THUS, THE GAMES BOMBED right out the gates.    The rest of the games were single missteps, combinations of missteps, or (most often) a complete failure of 1-2-3.  Nintendo isn't responsible for THEIR 1-2-3 process (moneyhats?  laffable, 3rd parties should learn to rely on themselves, this isn't the PS2 era anymore), and saying "our titles can't compete with Nintendo's epic games" is just admitting their 1-2-3 process is a failure.

The first year was a flop, and the 2nd year was a flop, how was our 3rd year supposed to look?  Bright?  Lukewarm?  If some significant projects were supposed to show up, they would've been decided a couple years ago or earlier; they had to have ALREADY been in the making.  So maybe a few interesting non-casual products came up the past 1.5 years, solid products, well received critically.  Did potential customers know about it?  No.  Did it sell?  No -- BAM!  3rd party just messed up on step #3: marketing.  Gotta support that product, gotta let consumers know the product is available, gotta effectively communicate to them the product is doing a job they might want; gotta show they give a damn about it; otherwise these games are sent out to die, as usual.  If all these under-performering titles had healthy, equal marketing leading up to and after their releases, this situation would be much easier to analyze (oh my, that A-word, lol).  But no, these products are sent into battle with no support.  The "Wii" line of games wouldn't have blazed their paths at the pace they did without their MASSIVE TV campaign to spark initial awareness; even the "ill-received" Wii Music managed to find over a million customers by the end of the season... Save for Plastic Music Games, why aren't 3rd parties caring about their Wii games even a fraction of what Nintendo does?

So, 3rd parties decide to make crap games, casual and non-casual, and they don't sell.  No surprise.  But suddenly an OK non-casual 3rd party game comes around (it's not a Rocker Hero III: Legends of Rocking Rock game either), its marketing is non-existant, and it doesn't sell.  NO SURPRISE.  And say that OK game came out more than 2 years after the Wii launched: that means we're looking at the stuff the came the end of 2008 and the first half of 2009.  Chances are, those were the FIRST "serious" "non-casual" efforts by their respective 3rd parties; gamer-games that FINALLY came out -- but the rest of 2009 is a drought.  What happened?  IT'S OBVIOUS!  Those were the only "serious" games they had in their pipelines!  The last batch of "experiments"!  They're not going to have anything else ready in 2009! (and probably WORSE output in 2010 based on the 'success" of the "experiments"!)

So who's to blame for that?  3rd parties.  They determine what gets made, when they're made, and how consumers are informed.  The less Good-Faith-Reasonable-Effort they put into their projects (from Conception to Customer), the more excuses they make once the numbers are tallied.


** I'm not trying to say the whole 3rd party sphere is crap, just that they make most of the mistakes by themselves.  2nd(or more)-generation Wii products like Monster Hunter Tri, Red Steel 2, Tales of Graces, and maybe COD Modern Warfare show some companies have learned, re-thought and improved their approach to the platform.  I also don't mean to be too harsh on very small publishers like Marvelous and Acquire, who barely afforded to make some decent first-try Wii games, who don't have the funds to make a big deal out of their projects (big $$$ marketing) to the extent that pubs like Capcom, EA, or Activision can.  BUT, it's still on them to deliver the goods from Concept to Customer.

GWG tends to overstay its welcome and I can imagine that people got tired of Geometry Wars much earlier.

Okami wasn't a big seller on the PS2 either and you can't tell me there were no gamers who owned that thing. It's just a plain fact that gamers don't buy everything that's high quality, it has to have content they actually care about. I wouldn't buy the world's best pony game and it seems to me that most people would rather shoot at identifiable things. Even Space Invaders had more identifiable bad guys than Geometry Wars.

^ Yeah, customers can only do so much.  Are they interested in the content?  Can they afford the purchase?  3rd excuse makers have MUCH to do, including providing content that is of any interest.

I like how you didn't take this to its logical conclusion and see if Wii owners also bought stuff that scored 60 or lower by third parties.  They apparently didn't buy what "the vast majority" of Wii owners are "into," if I get you implication right. And LOL Metacritic used as a metric.  One thing this generation has brought to the forefront is internet groupthink, apparently.

The "conspiracy theory" stuff is merely whittling down possible reasons that third parties still haven't embraced the de facto market leader.  Some of them even planned to make these awful casual games and then use that "easy" money to offset losses on other games.  This isn't even a theory UBISoft said as much in a press release.  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.  And of things like genres, SSBB is the best selling fighting game of all time, so that means that the Wii has a lot of fighting game fans that are just being piddled away for nothing.

So what's the deal?  If it makes business sense to support the Wii, and it does, and third parties are struggling, and they are, what is the only explanation left?  What can explain making ridiculous spinoffs nobody wanted, cynical "Wii demographic" games that failed (thus disproving "Wii demographic,") putting out insultingly horrible games nobody would enjoy, and then having the gall to blame the userbase?
What else can explain this?  If it's apparently possible that Wii owners somehow have collective paranoid personality disorder, like Ian suggests, then can't something more plausible and less ludicrous like third parties hating the Wii (which Ian has said in other posts) also be possible?

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.

Setting the bar rather low, don't you think?  The Japanese are famously-fanatical about the Dragon Quest series, regardless of mediocrity.  I'd be shocked if any Final Fantasy game not named 7 managed to out-sell a numbered DQ game.

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?

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!

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.

Actually, in Japan that's entirely correct.  I was just listening over the past few days to the TGS episodes of 1up's ListenUp podcast, and their Japanese correspondents pretty much stated as such: in Japan, the "hardcore" play FPS games and the "casuals" play RPGs.

I'm loving this game of "guess what the video game market is really like."

I'll take Casual for Casuals for $500, Alex.

Sarcasm fail.  And House of the Dead is an old IP.  It was old when they put out 2+3 together for $30 and then expected $50 for a new title that basically is the same-old thing.  And it's interesting that you bring Sega up, because, they've sold more Wii games than anything this generation, and some of the "hardcore" failures like the Conduit and MadWorld, have actually outsold some of the games they've put out for the 360 and PS3, like The Club and their ill-fated Golden Axe revamp.  So where does that all fit in?  Should they cancel 360 and Ps3 games?

LOL Every wiseguy keeps pulling Carnival Games out of their face as if it means something.  For a $30 game release in August 2007, it did well in the early days, like most titles usually do in the launch year.  But considering the "sequel" Carnival Games MiniGolf sold 1/6th, I'd say Wii owners are pretty tired of that "series."  Ad they seem to be tired of most mini-game collections these days.  But it's never wise to let facts get in the way of a good argument.

This is a tired canard, but if you can prove what minigame collections released this year(other than the quality Wii Sports Resort) have outsold Punch-Out or The Conduit, or hell even Mario Kart, then go for it.  And Okami?  A PS2 port from a defunct studio?  This is major equivalent support?  Whatever floats your boat dude.

I'd really appreciate it if you stopped making every reply of yours in my direction some kind of smart-alecky, hipster-emo, ironic personal trolling of me.  It really torpedoes whatever thread you do it in and this was a pretty good discussion until now.

He spent the post adding nothing to the discussion (simply reiteration of others' points in a prickly package), just his same old same old, so I'm not going to bring attention to it.

oh wait

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.

Yeah sure.  Call me names and don't address my points.  Whatever.

3rd parties got what they put into it.  If they could reliably this market, they would.  And the facts remain that 1) they largely have not put their full-faith effort into their "gamer" projects; and 2) they continuously misunderstand the so-called "casual" market they try to bait.  Why they keep up this two-pronged approach is questionable, and how you continue to dismiss this is beyond me.

But how do you account for 3rd parties that SUFFERED because of expensive 360/PS3 development?  And when 3rd parties fail on 360 and P33, why do they try again, even if they sunk a shitlaod of money into it?  And call me crazy tell me something i don't know, it seems like there's far less games produced by the major publishers this gen compared to last gen -- they don't need to make as many cuz they're profiting more per game, right?

If shiny same old same old is the key to success among the companies and its customers, well you must be proud of this industry.

Take your trollerskates elsewhere.  It ruins the forum; people used to not get away with so much.

The brute fact is this, third party games are selling more on the 2 consoles with far less owners.  On the Wii, you have one 3rd party game in the top ten, on the other two consoles that are getting "killed" by the Wii this gen in sales, well, the figures speak for themselves.  Its no mystery why 3rd parties have some what given up on the Wii and were tempted to leave Sony a while ago.  The pubs are well aware of your conspiracy theories, but at the end of the day and halfway through this console cycle, the number speak for themselves.  The 360 is where they are making all the cash this gen.  Why invest in another Conduit or Zack, Zack and Wiki, or brand new IP for the Wii when you can just hack out another shooter.  If its solid, it will sell.  This is a tangible and easy to target, just requires a lot of hard work and highly skilled execution.  While the titles on the Wii that sell well are hit and miss, more of a mystery, right place at the right time kind of deal.

*3rd parties bolded for effect

The top 10 selling Wii games.

Wii Sports (47.62 million)
Wii Play (22.98 million)
Wii Fit (21.82 million)
Mario Kart Wii (17.39 million)
Super Smash Bros. Brawl (8.43 million)
Super Mario Galaxy (8.02 million)
Mario Party 8 (6.72 million)
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (4.52 million)
Link's Crossbow Training (3.76 million)
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (3.4 million)


The top selling Xbox 360 games.

Halo 3 (10.17 million)
Gears of War (5 million, may include PC version)
Gears of War 2 (5 million)
Grand Theft Auto IV (4.074 million approximately: 3.29 million in US, 750,000 in UK, 34,000 in Japan)
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (3.772 million approximately: 3.04 million in US, 78,000 in Canada, 54,742 in Japan, 600,000 in UK)
Call of Duty: World at War (3.35 million approximately: 2.75 million in US, 600,000 in UK)
Forza Motorsport 2 (2.674 million approximately: 2.23 million in US, 31,255 and 100,500 Platinum Collection, 12,600 in Canada, 300,000 in UK)
Fable II (2.6 million)
Assassin's Creed (2.285 million approximately: 1.87 million in US, 60,000 in Canada, 55,041 in Japan, 300,000 in UK)
Halo 3: ODST (2.2 million as of Week 1)
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (2.08 million in US)

The top selling PS3 games.

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue (3.94 million)
MotorStorm (3.31 million)
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (3 million shipped)
Grand Theft Auto IV (2.659 million approximately: 1.89 million in US, 169,000 in Japan, 600,000 in UK)
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (2.6 million)
Resistance: Fall of Man (2.5 million)
Resident Evil 5 (1.21 million approximately: 585,000 in US, 472,261 in Japan, 100,000 in UK, 62,040 in France)
Heavenly Sword (1 million)
Killzone 2 (1 million)
MotorStorm: Pacific Rift (1 million)
Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction (1 million)

Now why don't you show a list of AAA 3rd party games for Wii vs AAA 3rd party games for PS360 and stop wasting everyones screen space with post full of you not getting it.

Where is GoW Wii? GTA IV Wii? RE5 Wii?
CoD4:MW Wii? .... Oh 2 years late
MGS4 Wii? Assassins Creed Wii? Dead Space Wii?

They don't exist.
What do we get instead?

Deweys Adventure, Family Party Adventure, Dogz and Happy Go Lucky Fun Time With The Family 3.
Where are the big budget A team games designed for the Wii? Some say they are on the way..... well it's about time.

"Why invest in another Conduit or Zack, Zack and Wiki, or brand new IP for the Wii when you can just hack out another shooter."

That is the problem. We get an unknown game with relatively little marketing that doesn't sell upto expectations and the Wii gets written off because they were just looking for an excuse. And I don't have #'s infront of me, but I'm sure that Wii is outselling either 360 or PS3 individually in the 3rd party area and I think it was actually very close combined. The problem was that the Wii would get a low budget game that would sell enough to make big profits and then they turn around and use those same profits finance BIG BUDGET HD games that more than likely didin't make their budget back or didn't make enough profit to really make the venture worth it.
Which is why lots of 3rd parties had to shut doors this generation.

All the Developer/IP clout with all the Marketing muscle and Big $$$ Budgets were being focused on PS360 while all the money was being made with low budget, low marketed but high return games on Wii.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." is the saying that 3rd parties didn't think would come into play when they started releasing crappy uninspired sequels to the crappy me-too games that sold by the truck load the first time around to the unsuspecting casuals.

Even when the 3rd parties pretend to try, they still don't give us what we want. We want the same games the other systems are getting, but we want them to play to the strengths of the system. They make RE5, we want RE5, they give us RE:UC & RE:DC. They make Dead Space, we want Dead Space, they give us DS:E.

So once again, if you want to compare 3rd party sales on all systems, then why don't you list all the 3rd party games that are up for sale(& what system they are on) so we know what we are comparing.

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.

You screwed up bolding those 3rd party games, sir.

Gears of War is published by Microsoft, as is Heavenly Sword by Sony.  That makes them First party games.  Metal Gear Solid 4 is also published by Konami, making it a third party game.  It's really hard to argue with somebody full of insults, but won't even use Google to make sure what they are saying is true.

And BlacknMild's right, you just don't get it.  You're doing the same thing the third parties are, trying to use the failure of their half-hearted efforts as some sort of equivalency to their actual efforts on other consoles.

This is a nice insulated proof requirement that almost can't be met.  I would basically have to hypothesize a game that would "thrive" on the Wii, because they haven't ever really tried.  But, proof does exist, and it comes from Japan.  What's the current #1 third party console game there?  Monster Hunter 3.  Wii game.  Core game.  Might even be the first third party million seller there this generation (Until maybe FFXIII.)  Explain this, please.  How come, when a 3rd party brings over (or is moneyhatted over) a favorite franchise and makes a quality game, they thrive on the Wii, even besting every other third party game on ever other system?  This was Capcom giving a care, and they currently hold the crown for third party games, period.  There's your proof.

No they don't.  Even if they were labeled correctly, you have, again, missed the point.  This is basically the whole point of this entire thread.  Why does Square Enix or any typical third party, for that matter, care about Nintendo's future or the Wii when they never grace those consoles with their best efforts?  This question still really hasn't been answered.  You posting sales numbers doesn't help, because that doesn't say anything.  All you've proven is that where third parties put the most effort is where they' usually get the most sales, and THIS is proven by looking at third party sales vs. Nintendo sales, thus treating Nintendo as if they were a competing third party.  Their games have outsold everyone's.  And they always dedicate all their resources to making Wii games, thus, they get the most sales out of anybody on any platform.  It's the same with the DS, really.  Nintendo dominates there too, but that doesn't mean a third party can't also thrive if they try, as evidenced by Dragon Quest IX.  Now, yeah sure that is a wildly popular series...  But that's kind of the point.  Most third parties don't give the Wii any sort of popular franchise, and if they do it's either hilariously late or a braindead spinoff.  It's always some untested IP that they don't seem to want to push through marketing or, heck even Q&A sometimes.

And I wouldn't put the idea of third parties hating the Wii, or not liking or favoring the Wii in the realm of conspiracy.  Part of the reason that the PS1 achieved victory was because of third parties wanting to break away from Nintendo, some of whom had a deep personal dislike of Yamauchi.  So if that can be a reason to explain market shift, why can't it be a reason to explain why third parties dump crap on the Wii?

To simplify this thread, here are the unanswered question regarding this whole issue:

1.  Why do third parties care about Nintendo, their future consoles, or their future in general when they never make their best stuff for the Wii?
2. Why do most third party games on the Wii fail?  Quality is an issue, sure, but what explains the games that have been focus-tested for the "Wii demographic" failing?
3. Exactly what is the "Wii demographic" and why do most of the games aimed for it fail?
4. If, in general, third parties can't make money on Wii and this is the reason for their abuse of the the platform and its owners, how does that reconcile their inability to make money anywhere this generation, as evidenced by falling profits, deep losses, and hard layoffs?
5.  Why are third parties content with Nintendo making something like 85% of all the profit this generation, while they all have to split the remaining 15%?  This won't bode well for the future for them.

And you cannot be serious in thinking third parties having given the Wii a real effort, right?  Why don't you use Metacritic or Gamerankings or whatever groupthink aggregator you like and compare quality of third party games on the Wii to other consoles.  Lower quality, right?  Thus, lower sales.  Simple.

D_Average: Do away with the personal insults and namecalling, or the banhammer will be coming your way.  Thanks.

Third-party efforts are one thing which Nintendo World Report staff should discuss in one of those round-tables. It'd be interesting to hear their take on the situation.

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.

Why don't you start by providing data that actually makes a point. How does showing that Nintendo is a beast when it comes to sales compared to 3d parties on the Wii prove that 3rd party games aren't selling?

Why don't you click back over a VGChartz and pull up a list of Top 10 3rd party games on each console.
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.

So while you are over at VGCz pulling up these numbers, maybe it will finally dawn on you that 3rd parties are not giving the Wii the same sort of effort and support that they give PS360 and that your arguments are asinine by nature because you just don't seem to get it.

D_Average
Seriously, he's a bad student
Barely scored above an F Average
passed on effort, not merit
http://i37.tinypic.com/2i0buis.jpg

Where did I do that?  ...  You mean here?

This is an argumentative device.  In this case, backed up by a fact which negates the insult, because nobody can possibly believe the phrase preceding the pejorative.  Furthermore it was a general statement not directed specifically at you, like most of the times this device is used.  I cannot possibly see how this was an insult directed at you.

And BTW, "Dug" cannot possibly be a typo.  "U" is four keys to the right of "E."  My screenname is to the left of every post I make, and you have spelled my name correctly before in this thread.  This is probably the most juvenile thing I've seen in a long time.  You don't look cool doing it.  You aren't "pwning" anybody.  Seriously, stop.

http://ucsdgames.pabit.org/marioproject/marioproject/images/mario_futurama.jpg

"Mama Mia! The cruel meatball of war has rolled onto our laps and ruined our white pants of peace!"

Blessed are the peacemakers, Kashogi.

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. 

Wii + DS - 163 million systems
PS3 + PSP - 76 million systems
360 - 32 million systems

The vast majority of this "industry" is Nintendo at this point.  And their strategy is to make games for Nintendo systems.  The data you provide actually proves this point more than it does whatever point you were trying to make.  And it's not really a "fringe theory."  It's simply the only possible explanation left.

So it gets hard to argue with people who won't roll over to you insulting them, so you decide to call everyone fanboys, declare victory, and depart the field?  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

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. Are you never wrong or well, no reason to go there.

In society, people debate all the time and change their minds. On fansites, such human behavior has never been documented. 

If you are not gonna take on the discussion but instead side step it, then just don't engage in it.

Your "facts" don't prove your "point".
When asked to provide actual facts that will prove your point, you decide to gloss over it and side step the entire conversation. So to help you out just do one thing.
Provide a list of the Top 10 3rd party games on all 3 consoles.

If what you are saying is true, that 3rd parties have been delivering the same quality games across all 3 platforms and they just don't sell on Wii, then I will gladly apologize and start a thread worshiping your infinite wisdom.

Did you actually define "game industry?"  Since "industry" is basically economic activity and production of goods, Nintendo's had the most economic activity and produced the most goods and sold the most goods, they are the largest part and the majority of the industry currently, even though they are but one company.  Much like Microsoft is the computer software industry, as well.

What's this got to do with anything?  And what would this prove?  And thanks for another shot at name-calling.

Actually debate doesn't work that way.  Debate is where two sides who do not change argue before an audience and a panel of judges who then discern who presented their case better, who made the stronger arguments.  Typically, when one side resorts to childish name-calling, that side loses almost automatically.  So throwing around "fanboy," "Ninty Loyalist," "Juggalo," "Juggy," or "Dug," actually hurts your debates more than any position.  But it's cute that you felt so confident typing that.

And why does it have to be anybody here who changes position?  Why not you?  Who the hell said you won?

I respectfully disagree.  The Geometry Wars games are some of the most addictive games I've played in the past 5 years.  The game is a year old, and I still find myself going in there and trying to get higher on my friends list leaderboard.  I've been gunning for Jonny Metts' score in Pacificsm for MONTHS (and someday I'm going to get that score, you just wait). 

So no, I don't think that the success of the Geometry Wars games on the 360 has anything to do with the rest of the console's library - it's just that the game happens to be very very fun (and very pretty as well).

I didn't buy the Wii version because to me it didn't seem like a game that needed expanding on.  At least not to the tune of $40.  Plus, it's a game that fits well with the idea of "pick up and play" that you get with a downloadable title.  Having to put in a disc for a 90 second craving doesn't quite work for me.  If there was a WiiWare version of GeoWars, and if it had good implementation of online leaderboards, I would download it in a heartbeat.

I did pick up the DS game, but found it hard to play and sold it shortly thereafter. 

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.

On the PS3 side, Infamous sold pretty well though not as well as Prototype.  Prototype sold well across both 360 and PS3.

Since he decided to leave the topic once he got embarrassed and threw a tantrum, I'll honor BnM's request.

Wii
1. Mario and Sonic @ Olympics - 7 million
2. Guitar Hero III - 4.5 million
3. Carnival Games- 3,5 million
4. Guitar Hero: World Tour 3.5 million
5. LEGO Star Wars - 3 million
6. Game Party - 2 million
7. Sonic and the Secret Rings. - 2 million
8. Deca Sports - 2 million
9. EA Active - 2 million
10. Rayman Raving Rabbids 2 - 1.5 million

360
1. CoD 4 - 8 million
2. GTA IV - 7 million
3. CoD: Waw-  6 million
4. Assassin's Creed - 4.5 million
5. Guitar Hero III - 4.5 million
6. Lego Indiana Jones - 3.5 million
7. Kung Fu Panda (WTF) - 3 million
8. Elder Scrolls 4 - 3 million
9. Fallout 3 - 2.5 million
10. Guitar Hero II - 2.5 million

PS3
1. GTA IV - 5.5 million
2. CoD 4 - 4.5 million
3. MGS4 - 4 million
4. CoD: WaW - 3.5 million
5. Assassin's Creed - 3.5 million
6. Resident Evil 5 - 2.5 million
7. FIFA Soccer 09 - 2.3 million
8. Pro Evolution Soccer 09 - 2 million
9. Guitar Hero III - 2 million
10. Pro Evolution Soccer 08 - 1.5 million

As you can clearly see, Wii gets the short end of the budget, effort, and marketing pool.  Most of the top third party Wii games are discounted mini game collections released in mid to late 2007.  When you combine this list with the Wii's top sellers, it's no wonder 3rd parties' crappy games can't sell on the Wii, and why people get upset that Wii owners are stereotyped as "casuals."  They totally read the Wii's audience wrong and thought they'd like repeated minigame collections or knockoffs of games that either come free with the Wii or Nintendo obviously does better like Wii Fit.  And even with all this awful budget crap, somehow these games sales are at least somewhat competitive with the other system's numbers and combined with Nintendo's games numbers, Wii owners have actually bought more games.  It's simply mindboggling that they keep abusing the Wii.

And notice, not one of the Wii's top games (Nintendo included) is anything third parties ostensibly aimed at "Wii's Demographic."  So no, third parties haven't really given the Wii a fair shake.  So what's the explanation for their continued reliance on completely disproven stereotypes and theories?  Does it make business sense to made an awful low-budget game for the Wii when they don't sell anymore and never really sold in the first place?  No.  Are Wii owners the most casual of casuals?  No, not according to their recorded buying habits, the only "casual" games that do well are ones that apparently come with hardware, and they haven't bought much of any of the third party knockoffs, at least none more than games like Smash Brothers, Mario, or Zelda.  What other theory is left?

The funny part is third party hatred of platform companies isn't anything new.  Electronic Arts was notorious for their complete hatred of Sega in the later Saturn and early DreamCast years.  Victor Ireland of the defunct Working Designs said the DS was like a "stillborn."  Since it does exist, why is the notion that third parties have largely taken a set against the Wii a "fringe theory?"  It doesn't have to be a rational behavior for it to be the truth.  And it's not an explanation I reached first, but there's no other apparent explanation other than total stupidity.

Nice pun. I'd quote it in my sig if I hadn't just changed it.

Don't worry, I'll add it.  8)

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.  So Deca Sports only sold 500k less than Fallout 3, does anyone really care?  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.  Don't believe me, just comapare the thread length of The Conduit to the thread for Deca Sports.  In terms of 3rd parties its the cheap casual games that rule the Wii, while the titles we really want sit on the bench.  This list only reinforces this.  You want to make a hardcore title, put it on the 360/PS3.  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.

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.

Der gott this never-ending argument was kind of funny early on, but now it's just annoying.  I think there's a very simple way (though research-intensive) to determine whether the hypothesis that "3rd party developers don't release quality 3rd party titles on Wii because they don't sell' is true or not.  I note this hypothesis because that seems to be the crux of the argument: why 3rd parties don't put their best efforts on Wii.  Those numbers posted above proved something, though at the moment I'm not quite sure if it actually proved an argument.  Let's assume for a moment the conceit that Metacritic is actually a reliable source for aggregate reviews (and that game reviewers rate all games fairly according to their merit), because honestly what other measurable source is there on that matter?  Ditto for VGChartz or whatever the hell you call that site.  I propose we take the top 10 highest-rated 3rd party software on Wii and then grab their sales figures and compare.  Remove ports or remakes if you please for more "pure" results.  If those 10 games show high sales, then 3rd party developers just don't care on Wii and there is a bias.  If those 10 games show low sales, then 3rd party developers don't see a reason to put high-quality games on Wii because they don't sell.  Is that a satisfactory way to settle this matter, everyone?  Hell, I'll even do the research myself if it'll settle this for the time being.

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)

As you wish.  Just watching the way D_Average debates irritates me.

No, you got argued into a corner and started calling everybody names.  Now you're trying to save face, somehow to the people you say you have no interest in speaking with.  I have had disagreements with several people here, like broodwars and Ian Sane, but they've never resorted to rearranging my screenname into boorish attempts at insults like a 4th grader.  Actually I have to give the 4th grade children of today a lot more credit.  Most of the people I found during my Practicum for Psychology that still do this are emotionally stunted manchildren in their 20's, still reveling in the last days of their seemingly endless adolescence.

I think you just proved my point, because if you actually RESEARCHED these games, you'd see most were released in mid to late 2007, and for budget prices.  If you look at Wii's top sellers as a whole, you'll see Nintendo's list of high quality titles (or at least in WiiPlay's case, high value titles.)  This includes a fighting game, a platformer, and a swordity adventure games, as well as an online competitive racer.  Nintendo applied themselves, made high quality games, and marketed them heavily and proudly.  Thus, they reap the rewards, something in the range of billions of dollars while most third parties struggle.

And how many people aren't dying to play Carnival Games, you say?  50 million, because that's how many Wii owners DIDN'T buy carnival games.  94%.  But apparently only 91% of 360 owners didn't buy Kung Fu Panda.

Yeah, like KDR says.  Citation needed.  Up to this point it's been research.  Now we have stereotypical conjecture.  And bringing up MadWorld, Conduit, and Zack and Wiki don't prove anything you want.  Madworld and Conduit were published by Sega, and maybe did about 300,000 each, according to VGC, whose accuracy is debatable but it's a good ballark figure for both.  Two other games Sega released in the same time frame, Daisy Fuentes and Let's Tap, an exercise game and a minigame collection, apparently what Wii owners all crave, flopped hard, selling less than 100,000 combined.  So among Sega's games, the more more regular and traditional of their games did better than their focus-tested, "Wii demographic," "surefire" titles.

Zack and Wiki even proves this point further, selling 370,000, less than 1.3 million than Resident Evil 4, and less than 1 million than the retarded Resident Evil rail shooter.  What was the point you are trying to prove again?  Wii owners like cartoony adventure games less than M-Rated Zombie games?  Qu'est-ce que c'est?

But that's just it, they shouldn't still make "teh casual" games, because they don't sell on the Wii now, and they never really did THEN, either.  So there's no real financial incentive except to make easy money on duping an ever-shrinking base of Wii owners gullible enough to buy their shoestring budget garbage.  But even this easy money isn't attractive enough put next to Nintendo's profits.  Why are they not emulating Nintendo, at the very least in effort?

Right, in terms of third parties.  In terms of Nintendo, Zelda, Mario, Smash Brothers, and Mario Kart rule the roost of games, period and that includes titles on other platforms.  Third parties are believing a false stereotype they created.  But that doesn't mean it's the truth no matter how many times it is repeated.

Again, I see Smash Brothers, Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy, and Zelda in the top ten Wii games with Carnival games nowhere in sight.  Apparently even Wii owners don't drop down $200 for minigames at all.  And the same was true for the DS when that stereotype was running around them too.

Nobody ever said it was a "conspiracy."  If I had to classify it, it would be a confederation of some third parties who dislike the Wii and some stupid third parties who will struggle financially by either consciously or unconsciously avoiding the market leader and believing false stereotypes.

Not really. It's actually quite irritating to hear that some third parties hate the Wii and that some would rather risk financial ruin than make games for the market leader.

Nobody really cared the first 29387 times you pouted and left.  Who should start now?

You and me both, brother.  Just imagine reading his next post where he'll be like:

While everybody scratches their heads in bewildering confusion.

ChoadWars?? *claps* yay!

KurCobainWars? BOOoooos!

That aside, good post Deg.

you counter argument is the point, isn't it?

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?

I thought someone might have mentioned that but I didn't feel like looking through the previous pages to find out.

Mario Galaxy had more face value then anything released by third parties this year and last.

I've played more of that game then MadWorld, and that is saying a lot.