-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NPD Sales Results for March 2009
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
The problem is that this "crowd" is not NeoGAF. NeoGAF can't be used as barometer of actually any game for that matter (not to mention that according to GAF, every game bombs..even multimillion sellers like GTAIV bombed).bcn-ron said:
Look at the example that the user you quoted provided about WiiFit and how Nintendo promoted it on anything and everything..yet third parties just release games and hope those games sell. this "crowd" was the same one expecting WiiFit to bomb and that if it didn't bombed, it was going to be the end of gaming.
Promotion is not just putting some ad in one magazine and that's it. Many people assume that because they saw one ad on one Game Informer (around the same month of release)and a 15 second clip on MTV (a day or so after the release of the game), that that's promotion. Anyone on advertising knows that a good promotion should start at least 14 days prior the release of it, and for new products..as much as 90 days before.
If anything, the "real crowd" can't buy games that as far as they know, don't exist.
GenericPseudonym
Banned
fernoca said:
Marketing is a four part process. Promotion, Place, Price and Product.
Since the price is largely fixed and the product is what it is, we focus on promotion and place. What you talk about is advertising a long way ahead, but when you talk about the mainstream market they don't have the attention span to see an ad in a gaming magazine and wait to buy it until a few weeks later.
It is far better to have a few ads leading up to the sale, but more important is to blitz when the game is available. Because now that information is actionable. Games are not movies, in that your local theater may only show it in the first two weeks of release. It is really only important for the mainstream to know of your product when it is buyable.
If you are talking about hype-building, it is the "job" of the hardcore to build this hype. Much like the hardcore Harry Potter/Dan Brown contingent build hype for those books, or the comic crowd build hype for comic movies. The actual producers don't need to fuel that with expensive ads.
Omar Ismail
Banned
Alcibiades said:
Out of the games you listed, they already have a very high percentage of "success".
So if you're talking about the AAA-like games on the HD consoles being made available for the Wii, the question is does that really make sense from the publisher's perspective?
HD consoles have already proven they can sell multi-million copies. So going Wii only will net you about the same number, but probably significantly less. And you could argue "development costs" but the absolute numbers here are overshadowed by the sheer revenue coming in.
Then you have to add in the developer's "artistic vision". While Wii-only fans might put interface over GFX, not every developer has that same priority scale. In fact, I'd argue that MOST current developers highly value graphical and physical power to match their creative visions.
So now the only other option is having a Wii-specific port. This is a lot likelier for a number of reasons, and we'll probably start seeing more of these as time goes on. There are still factors that will limit the number of ports to a subset of the AAA HD titles. A matter of speaking many of the game's fundamental vision/design revolve around the visual/physical nature of the game that would require drastic design changes to fit the Wii's limitations, at which point is it even the same game?
And again you run into that developer priority. I'd argue that MOST high-caliber developers want to work on the best hardware to flex their stuff. Meaning, second-rate teams get stuck with the Wii portdowns which fundamentally limits the quality of the game, not only from a technical perspective, but design perspective too. And why would a publisher fund a team to do that when they can just fund another "Party" game for cheaper, and probably get more sales?
In conclusion, there will be more core games made for the Wii, but not THAT much more than current. So let's all accept that and move on.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
I'm not a big FPS guy, but I can take a few a generation. Mostly for local multiplayer, though, which The Conduit apparently lacks. Nobody wants to throw old Goldeneye/TimeSplitters players on Wii a bone? Neither Red Steel nor Quantum of Solace exactly scream "I am worth money."
This is what I was going to ask, but since I was using SCII for reference I wasn't sure if the button use had exploded in the last few entries.DeaconKnowledge said:
speculawyer
Member
Exactly. And you can pick up a 360 arcade or a used/refurbed 360 for pretty damn cheap. Stop asking for games on the 360/PS3 to come to the Wii, just buy a damn 360 or PS3.Mr. Mister said:
speculawyer
Member
If they are not willing to pick up a cheap 360 for a game they really want, then they are not a "core" gamer.Alcibiades said:
SovietStriker
Member
speculawyer said:
Its true, I was wii only but now Wii60 (new 360 owner)
Coolio McAwesome
Member
acidviper said:
Looking solely at the sales of Madworld isn't exacly an accurate way of measuring the amount of hardcore gamers on the Wii. That would be akin to measuring the number of hardcore PS2 owners by solely looking at the sales of God Hand. Madworld is an unknown property in a niche genre with an extremely unique art style. While it's a "hardcore" title, it's not exactly in the same category as a Metal Gear Solid or Resident Evil game. In any case, sales of games like Twilight Princess (which has sold over five million worldwide) suggest that the Wii has a sizable "hardocre" fanbase.
vanguardian1
poor, homeless and tasteless
speculawyer said:
I would rather have taken the $250 I spent on a 360 arcade and buy more games, myself. Of the 8 games I own for 360 (I think they total just over $100 spent, all used), I practically have all of the 360 games that I want.
Getting Dynasty Warrior Gundam 2 next week for 360, since I put 100 hours into the first I decided I didn't want to wait for a price drop on the sequel. I'll wait for a drop for Tales of Vesperia though.
Edit : Btw, although I'm a big Wii supporter (19 retail games), Madworld isn't my cup of tea by a long shot. I would have gotten No More Heroes if it had an option to turn off gore, I can't stomach that stuff. :/
Alcibiades
Member
Changing labels is supposed to help 3rd party games on Wii? It's not about what individual hardcore gamers can do and what labels people apply. The accusation that they aren't "core" gamers is meaningless.speculawyer said:
Call of Duty 3 and World at War were on the system and were bought by some audience whether you call them "core" or "soccer moms" doesn't matter.
Call of Duty 4 wasn't on the system so of course it didn't pick up Wii sales.
Suppose everyone on GAF agrees that these lost souls aren't worthy of the title of "core gamers"... did RE4 and CoD on Wii retroactively become bombs?
What individuals are capable of ("picking up a cheap 360") really doesn't change the fact that there are tons of Wii-only gamers out there willing to pick up these mainline, mainstream blockbuster games if released in a respectable manner on Wii.
So let's all agree that the potential is there for every gamer (from "casual" to "uber-hardcore") to pick up all 5 systems. Now that that is established, the question is still the same -> "how can 3rd parties have good-selling, profitable games on Wii?"
The answer is still the same:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15520181&postcount=2022
To reiterate a second time, I'm not disagreeing that in an ideal world everyone should own every system so they can buy any game out there. It's just that many consumers are going to continue to be single-system owners. As evidenced by World at War on Wii being one of the top-selling 3rd party games this past holiday season, 3rd parties can either put their product out and profit, or leave it out and leave money on the table.
speculawyer
Member
Well, they've found ways of doing it . . . Rock band, Guitar hero, Rayman Rabbids, Fitness games, etc.Alcibiades said:
But doing a decent hardcore FPS game is not way of doing. They've done it . . . at least a couple times but they didn't sell. So if you want those games, but a 360/PS3.
vanguardian1
poor, homeless and tasteless
Alcibiades said:
The problem isn't limited to developers, but publishers as well. I can't find the interview, but when High Voltage were shopping for a publisher for The Conduit, many of the publishers wouldn't even consider supporting it unless it was what GAF qualifies as "shovelware", and actually some of them suggested a budget price "ship-it-as-it-is" scenario (this was sometime last year). I would usually rather have Nintendo not have any deep involvement with 3rd parties (no moneyhats or special deals), but considering the circumstances I think that Nintendo should offer to publish more traditional 3rd party games just to support their platform at this point.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
They have? Taking a browse at GameRankings it seems like most that reviewed over 60% did pretty well.speculawyer said:
speculawyer
Member
Medal of Honor Heroes 2 got decent reviews:JoshuaJSlone said:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/833/833766p1.html
As did Call of Duty as he already mentioned:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/929/929080p1.html
Not a FPS, but action game Bully was decent yet bombed:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/855/855948p1.html
Many like Godfather on the Wii, but EA didn't even bother with Godfather 2 on the Wii.
Publishers have spent a fair amount of money trying . . . and they'll probably continue trying to a limited degree considering how big the installed base is. But I think they'll put a lot more money into kiddie-ware, shovelware, party games, exercise games, rhythm games . . . that's the stuff they've been able to sell. I don't think you are going to see the publishers continuing to put a lot of money in the more violent/core games for the Wii. The upcoming EA Dead Space will be another test . . . if it is decent game yet bombs, I really don't think they'll keep trying.
speculawyer
Member
Vdragoon said:
Yeah . . . I guess it has sold better than I thought. Of course it sold 3x as many copies on the PS3 and 5x on the 360, but I guess it is worth a port at that sales rate.
Eteric Rice
Member
speculawyer said:
Yeah, but the PS3 and 360 had CoD4: MW, where as the Wii did not. It was already established on the HD systems.
Anyone have updated numbers for the Wii version now? Might be nearing one million now.
vanguardian1
poor, homeless and tasteless
speculawyer said:
I'd bet money the Wii version would have sold better if it had some good local multiplayer modes. It's ironic that the Wii is considered the king of local multiplayer games, and developers just ignore that so often with traditional games. :/ I think it's as bad as if the 360 version didn't have online multiplayer. Anyone can do local multiplayer, not everyone can do online gaming.
Alcibiades
Member
It was one of the best-selling 3rd party games on Wii last holiday season... it's absolutely worth a port, just as any AAA Blockbuster mainline franchise game is worth a port... that's the whole point, when a 3rd party really tries, they succeed.speculawyer said:
I agree with you 3rd parties probably aren't going to bring all those major, blockbuster titles to Wii in respectable form, but the ones that do are gonna appreciate the return they get. Wii titles last on shelves for a really long time and by the time it stops selling it wouldn't be a surprise to see World at War on Wii have 700,000+ copies sold in the US alone and over a million worldwide.
If a hardcore FPS can do that on Wii, I see no reason why many other hardcore genres, when given proper development time and budget, could do the same. The key is to try to mimic the 360/PS3 experience and not dumb anything down. One of the things World at War was praised for was keeping the epic, cinematic feel of the 360/PS3 versions and keeping the game as close as possible to those versions, rather than trying to do some Dead Rising-like hackjob for a simple cash-in. With a little improvement (like keeping multiplayer stuff identical) it could have gotten an even better reception and word of mouth, but it's nice to see Activision rewarded for moving in the right direction (hardcore, epic, resource-intensive games on Wii).
JoshuaJSlone
Member
:lol Let's see. Gaining 211K on X360 each month, it will pass it up... July 2012?Parl said:
Madworld was everything a hardcore gamer should ask for so I don't think Wii fans should be allowed to move the goal posts any more. Madworld was a great game, and had great marketing so if it ends up a failure then *cough* something else is to blame.
I really don't think Madworld will be a failure though. It's received its proper price drop and as was noted earlier there is strong evidence of evergreen sales on the Wii and so it'll likely crawl its way to decent sales over its lifetime.
Meanwhile upcoming developers will look to the massive sales of Call of Duty 4 and the Ferrari's in the Epic parking lot and say "I'm going to do that".
(It's human nature I think)
I really don't think Madworld will be a failure though. It's received its proper price drop and as was noted earlier there is strong evidence of evergreen sales on the Wii and so it'll likely crawl its way to decent sales over its lifetime.
Meanwhile upcoming developers will look to the massive sales of Call of Duty 4 and the Ferrari's in the Epic parking lot and say "I'm going to do that".
(It's human nature I think)
Tiktaalik said:
Yeah, let´s ignore the sales for games like Cod5Wii, SW:FU and RE4 and take a extremely niche game like MadWorld (or the even more niche Deadly Creatures) as a barometer, that´s a great idea, for a tool. People have to understand that not every gamer adopted the mentality of a sheep following the next hyped "big" thing aka RTS on a console? Awesome. Mad World is a good piece of software for what it is/tries to be and surely a must have for genre fans (a niche one already proofed by an earlier Clover/Platinum game on PS2 - God Hand, Mad World takes it even further with its black and white style and over the top brutallity). But this doesn´t mean every so called "hardcorgamer" or a gaming enthusiast has to buy this game to validate his imaginary "hardcoregamer" licence or the right to say what is going wrong with publishers. If someone doesn´t like this genre, the style or the gore he won´t buy it regardless of its quality compared to other games in its genre, it´s the same thing with music.
vanguardian1
poor, homeless and tasteless
Tiktaalik said:
No one game is "everything" that any faction of gamers can ask for. You're over-generalizing on a drastic level.
SecretBonusPoint
Banned
The real issue is the moving goal posts the messages here bring from posters. The successes often mentioned as Wii hardcore games are the already established sure-fire sellers. RE4, the best game of last gen, CoD, a behemoth of a franchise and then the Nintendo core gamer titles which help nothing but prove the horrible "only buys Nintendo brand" subset. You have the whining in every single thread for "why isnt this on Wii" and then when these titles do come out you see amazing pickyness from the same people not buying them, only for the cycle to continue on forever.
Things like "no 480i support, no buy" always amazes me, because they're an owner of a system incapable of HD output and 5.1 sound. Sure, apply that fussiness to the HD systems, but when the system we're talking about is clearly not focused on visual fidelity why should the dev spend time providing these half measures for an audience that barely shows up to the party.
The argument that hardcore gamers on Wii dont buy what the next big thing is, should say it all really. Because that mentality does exist on the HD systems, thanks to simple stuff like being able to see what everyone on your friends list is playing at a given time. The x360's attatch rate is famous for that very bandwagoning which Capcom has certainly enjoyed the most success from (new IP's such as Dead Rising and Lost Planet meeting such success is to be celebrated). The more obstacles and theories people put behind Wii games flopping, can you really keep asking why devs aren't lining up behind the system with all guns blazing?
At what point does new 'core' IP attempt after new IP attempt on the Wii meeting failure not suggest to the devs that there simply isnt the audience for them there? You can argue that devs should then bring these HD established franchises such as Devil May Cry or Metal Gear to Wii, but you can often attribute these game's successes to riding the coat tails of their HD counterparts. The HD versions themselves are like a year early advert campaign for the Wii outing. And then at best all you're going to get is a port down of existing assets, and thus Wii fans cry afoul because unsurprisingly the games don't look as good anymore or contain anything close to the same feature set.
Then when devs are having to set up Wii only studios to make these port downs, the question is asked why they are making these core gamer titles which only ever meet mild success as opposed to forming a casual orientated studio which would be destined for a far greater piece of the pie.
By the end of this year, other than Nintendo first party, I think the core gamer scraps 2009 is enjoying will have dried up outside of already promised big titles. If any of these titles had met with success (and maybe one still will) that wouldn't be the case. But how as a dev can you look at disappointing sales of third party core games and think this is a lucrative necessity to get into?
Things like "no 480i support, no buy" always amazes me, because they're an owner of a system incapable of HD output and 5.1 sound. Sure, apply that fussiness to the HD systems, but when the system we're talking about is clearly not focused on visual fidelity why should the dev spend time providing these half measures for an audience that barely shows up to the party.
The argument that hardcore gamers on Wii dont buy what the next big thing is, should say it all really. Because that mentality does exist on the HD systems, thanks to simple stuff like being able to see what everyone on your friends list is playing at a given time. The x360's attatch rate is famous for that very bandwagoning which Capcom has certainly enjoyed the most success from (new IP's such as Dead Rising and Lost Planet meeting such success is to be celebrated). The more obstacles and theories people put behind Wii games flopping, can you really keep asking why devs aren't lining up behind the system with all guns blazing?
At what point does new 'core' IP attempt after new IP attempt on the Wii meeting failure not suggest to the devs that there simply isnt the audience for them there? You can argue that devs should then bring these HD established franchises such as Devil May Cry or Metal Gear to Wii, but you can often attribute these game's successes to riding the coat tails of their HD counterparts. The HD versions themselves are like a year early advert campaign for the Wii outing. And then at best all you're going to get is a port down of existing assets, and thus Wii fans cry afoul because unsurprisingly the games don't look as good anymore or contain anything close to the same feature set.
Then when devs are having to set up Wii only studios to make these port downs, the question is asked why they are making these core gamer titles which only ever meet mild success as opposed to forming a casual orientated studio which would be destined for a far greater piece of the pie.
By the end of this year, other than Nintendo first party, I think the core gamer scraps 2009 is enjoying will have dried up outside of already promised big titles. If any of these titles had met with success (and maybe one still will) that wouldn't be the case. But how as a dev can you look at disappointing sales of third party core games and think this is a lucrative necessity to get into?
speculawyer said:
We don't know anything about the legs of those bad boys. They have sold poorly at launch but it doesn't mean their final sales did not reach PS3 or X360 levels.
I rather think the sales grew so slowly that by the time EA greenlit Godfather II, the Wii version sales were below their exceptations. Who could how it is now ? And yes, I'm serious with this consideration.
Talking about "limited degree", do you mean quality-wise ?
SecretBonusPoint said:
You know why? Because contrary to popular belief not everyone has their Wii connected to a TV. I have my Wii connected to a 21" LCD display. Why the hell can't I play Madworld? I bought the game, but can only play it at a friend's house. What the hell is up with that? This kind of crap makes me wish I didn't give them my money. When all my other games work fine, it sucks that a supposed AAA game doesn't support 480p. It's unfortunate that they have my money already, but I won't be making that same mistake again.
Just because a game is on the Wii doesn't mean they shouldn't put the same effort into the game as they do the HD systems. I'm all for supporting software, but this kind of thing is getting ridiculous.
Alcibiades
Member
that's the idea!!! - (well, niche stuff like MadWorld and God Hand are always appreciated but blockbuster AAA titles are the main issue here)
The whole point is that 3rd parties can find success bringing these sure-fire hits to the Wii. No well-made*, AAA, blockbuster, epic, mainstream title has bombed on Wii yet. RE5, Soul Calibur 4, Assassin's Creed, etc... would probably follow the success of stuff like World at War if done right.
If 3rd parties were to bring these sure-fire successes day-and-date to Wii with versions that carried significant investment you'd find a lot less moaning on the part of 3rd parties about their games not selling on Wii.
Instead of complaining about Petz and Imaginez titles bombing, they'd calculating their profits (as I'm sure Activision is doing).
*so quick-and-dirty ports outsourced to crap developers like Dead Rising don't count
DeaconKnowledge
Member
speculawyer said:
Bully bombed on the 360 too, and Godfather was an up-port launch cash in that happened to have great control. Call of Duty 3 outsold the PS3 version, and CoD:WaW is doing very well (when Activision started paying attention to it, anyway)
This is a pretty flimsy argument.
SecretBonusPoint
Banned
Alcibiades said:
But if people simply want those games, and not new IP's created for the Wii in mind from the very start, then the answer is fucking simple isnt it: buy the other system.
Alcibiades
Member
Yeah, that's great advice, but it doesn't address the issue. The issue is not what advice to give to consumers, the issue is what 3rd parties should do to sell games in Wii.SecretBonusPoint said:
Let's all agree on this statement: In an ideal world everyone would own all consoles so they could play all games that interested them.
Now that we all agree on that statement and with the "buy all the systems" advice, we can move on to the real issue, which is that most people aren't going to own more than one console every 1 or 2 generations and if a game that interests them isn't on the system they own, they either won't buy that game or buy a game of secondary interest.
Nobody here is talking about what individuals should do to get access to mainstream blockbuster "core" games. What people are talking about is what 3rd parties should do to make money on Wii.
Activision seems to have found a method. World at War sold well on Wii because people wanted it, and Activision is willing to accept profits from this move.
EDIT: to reiterate a 3rd time, the answer is "fucking simple" for individual gamers... that's not an answer for 3rd party publishers though (which is what we're actually discussing, although a poster or two seems insistent on talking about what individual gamers should do)
Alcibiades
Member
I think everyone agrees about what individual gamers can do to get access to those games. That's not even an issue anymore: Buy all the systems.Haunted said:
That advice to gamers in the internet isn't conducive to getting 3rd parties to make a profit on the Wii though.
Shake the controller to block.DeaconKnowledge said:
I don't "claim" anything, I just occasionally remind you bunch of something you're all too willing to forget.nincompoop said:
Action games don't expect players to change their grip on the controller in the middle of something. Shoulder buttons+face buttons is fine, but moving your thumb up and down, be it to another stick or to a foolishly placed button is a no-no.
At some point you too will have to concede that the Wiimote would have been a better input device if they just dropped the entire Gamecube face button field onto it instead of the A button. Or maybe realize that it's not called "disruption" because everything works the same as before.
I have a Wii.
Alcibiades said:
Good post. It makes irrevocably sense. The thing is that, acording to the third-parties that are the more susceptible to satisfy hardcore needs, making money on Wii = shovelware.
And their attempts to satisfy the core crowds are side-story games which sacrifice gameplay elements. It's a bad strategy we all agree.
If only someone could come with a cross-plateform engine which could upgrade and downgrade graphics with acceptable losses, it would be a huge gain of time. After that, evrything you have to do as a publisher is make exclusives which take great adavantage of both types of consoles.
Third party core game sales have been an issue on Nintendo consoles long before the Wii even came out.
Nintendo fans rally around exclusive titles that are largely pushed by Nintendo, third party or otherwise, for the most part.
I think the Wii evangelists in this thread just have to face the fact that most third party core games won't sell very well on a Nintendo platform because Nintendo couldn't care less about the state of third party developers.
Nintendo fans rally around exclusive titles that are largely pushed by Nintendo, third party or otherwise, for the most part.
I think the Wii evangelists in this thread just have to face the fact that most third party core games won't sell very well on a Nintendo platform because Nintendo couldn't care less about the state of third party developers.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Yes. But at default position there are four buttons constantly available on wiimote+nunchuk. Never move your fingers from default positions at all and you'll have analog control with thumb 1, C and Z with index finger 1, A with thumb 2, and B with index finger 2.bcn-ron said:
John Dunbar
correct about everything
Balb said:
How would Nintendo "caring about the state of third party developers" help their sales? Does that mean paying for exclusives or paying for their advertisement?
John Dunbar said:
I'm saying that Nintendo does very little (or nothing at all) to help promote third party games. They just leave it to the third party developers to communicate with the core audience, which they obviously have no idea how to do. Nintendo knows their market way more than anybody else which is why just about anything they release themselves becomes a million seller.
Balb said:
This is largely true. As a Nintendo fan myself, I recognize that I expect Nintendo games to satisfy my needs more accurately than third-party software. But I am not closed to the rest, far from it.
The thing is that the new customers coverted to the Wii didn't know much about Nintendo before. Nintendo gained these new customers just like every single actor in the market could have had. And they are responsible for the huge sales of games like Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii, Brain Training and Animal Crossing. And the concept of brand fidelization is something you surely heard before.
Thus, please, don't mix Nintendo hardcore fans and the rest of the Wii crowd. They may share the same taste but their impact on the charts is radically different.
This is also the reason Nintendo doesn't give a damn to us when it comes to releases.
Competing controllers have more. Left thumb on stick and right stick on buttons gives you four face buttons + four shoulder buttons + one clickable stick even. Motions not larger than reaching for the Wiimote d-pad or "minus" button give you another analog stick (which is clickable too) and a d-pad.JoshuaJSlone said:
And FWIW, many games I've played lately find ways to use all of that, among them Dead Space, a popular request for a more direct conversion to the Wii. Games even expect regular use of the clickable sticks (for melee and sprint functions in certain fps franchises), which I find somewhat irritating personally because those aren't good inputs. But apparently developers are happy to map every button they can find.
I think flower, Valkyria Chronicles and a couple twin-stick shooters are the only not-Wii games I've played this year so far that left any buttons unused.
Alcibiades
Member
as little as Nintendo may care (and I agree it's possible they don't care at all about 3rd party developers), that's not going to retroactively make blockbuster "core" titles like RE4 and Call of Duty bombs...Balb said:
no matter how much Nintendo may hate the fact that 3rd party AAA, blockbuster, epic "core" titles have found great sales on Wii, there really is little they can do to take those sales back...
it's going to be very interesting to see whether a major, high-budget, epic "core" title bombs on Wii at some point, because despite Nintendo's caring or non-caring attitude, 3rd parties that do provide those titles are really making money on them...
The formula for success (major franchise, large budget, talented team) is there whether Nintendo cares to point 3rd parties to it or not.
Alcibiades said:
RE4 and CoD WaW are AAA and high budget Wii games? Interesting.
You can attribute RE4 Wii's success to being part of a brand that Capcom built heavily on the GameCube with all the RE games that were released (which Nintendo helped promote back then). The $30 price point helped as well.