Support NeoGAF

[Ricker]

Really surprised by the sales of UFC,when did this "sport" become so popular hehe(not really a big fan obviously)but I heard it's very well done so it's all good I guess...a little sad that Sacred 2 isn't in there though.

 

[Majmun]

Wii is dropping like a rock.

Let's see if Resort will pump up those sales.

 

[Chris Remo]

I understand that, but in this case I don't think it should be seen as such a risk. I'm not suggesting they try to make new games that are completely unique (although that's nice, too). I'm simply suggesting there's an exploitable market of firmly established genres that's missing on the Wii. So they can go ahead and copy GTA and Halo, just do it on the Wii.

Why?

The gamers who want GTA and Halo already buy Xbox 360s and PlayStation 3s. A bunch of them also have Wiis, but very few of them are likely to only have Wiis, so why not just make those games on the systems for which it is much easier to provide those experiences? The entire success of the Wii is that it has had such success with people who aren't interested in GTA and Halo.

You say "firmly established" but those games clearly aren't firmly established amongst the mainstream Wii audience. They are indeed firmly established amongst the people who are much more likely to buy an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3.

Nintendo obviously is extremely successful at selling its own more traditional properties on the Wii, but that is to a considerable extent because they literally will of course never appear on a competing system.

For what it's worth, there's also something to be said for Nintendo's extreme familiarity with its own architecture. Third parties take shit all the time for not living up to Nintendo's first-party "effort" (and then every once in a while a couple scattered third parties will show up with technically-accomplished games to bolster that thin argument), but Nintendo had the entire GameCube era--on which very few third parties saw any success and thus had little incentive to learn the hardware in and out--to get familiar with this architecture. Nintendo also doesn't have to worry about building tools and pipelines that will allow for development on multiple home console platforms. It's one thing to say "copy GTA and Halo," but that's a big investment of time and money for an endeavor that really has no reasonable existing evidence of success.

 

[Alcibiades]

It's one thing to say "copy GTA and Halo," but that's a big investment of time and money for an endeavor that really has no reasonable existing evidence of success.

RE:4, CoD3, Guitar Hero, Force Unleashed, Rock Band, etc...

Anytime a 3rd party has put their "AAA, flagship" titles on Wii they've been a sales success.

 

[Chris Remo]

RE:4, CoD3, Guitar Hero, Force Unleashed, Rock Band, etc...

Anytime a 3rd party has put their "AAA, flagship" titles on Wii they've been a sales success.

The Guitar Hero and Rock Band games are not part of the same category as "GTA and Halo," they themselves reach an audience that is more diverse regardless of console. There's a lot of overlap obviously but they're a completely different category of game.

As far as the others, have any of those on Wii sold remotely on the level of Halo and GTA? With the amount of money required to make a credible "copy" of those games -- I mean, just look how much the originals cost to make -- is there any indication they would be really worthwhile?

 

[Kuroyume]

Not only that but there's a difference between having sequels to those games and copying Halo or GTA and somehow expecting clones to do just as well.

Btw, wow at GRIN... It's unbelievable how they did fantastic BC:R and then followed it up with three crap games.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

So to toss a SYSTEM WARZ morsel out there, I just noticed that Wii's 2009 January-May is slightly greater than PS3's 2007 January-December.

The entire success of the Wii is that it has had such success with people who aren't interested in GTA and Halo.

Well, it's true those franchises have managed to sell 0 units.

As far as the others, have any of those on Wii sold remotely on the level of Halo and GTA? With the amount of money required to make a credible "copy" of those games -- I mean, just look how much the originals cost to make -- is there any indication they would be really worthwhile?

It's got to be at least comparably worthwhile to PSP versions?

 

[Alcibiades]

The Guitar Hero and Rock Band games are not part of the same category as "GTA and Halo," they themselves reach an audience that is more diverse regardless of console. There's a lot of overlap obviously but they're a completely different category of game.

Yet there is no evidence that a sizable audience for GTA4 isn't present on the Wii right now. Guitar Hero 3 was released without the benefit of any GH or GH2 sales data on the system.

As far as the others, have any of those on Wii sold remotely on the level of Halo and GTA?

They sold on a level enough to turn a good profit, and we have proof that initially many of these franchises did better on Wii than PS3.

With the amount of money required to make a credible "copy" of those games -- I mean, just look how much the originals cost to make -- is there any indication they would be really worthwhile?

We won't have an indication about whether a 3rd party spending PS3/360-level resources on a Wii title is worth it until someone does. Nintendo has done big budget stuff like Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and Smash Brothers and has yet to have it backfire.

 

[Rolf NB]

You're still assuming that any HD console game must automatically cost more to produce than any Wii game. Please don't do that.

 

[Sleeker]

You're still assuming that any HD console game must automatically cost more to produce than any Wii game. Please don't do that.

why not

 

[Masklinn]

You're still assuming that any HD console game must automatically cost more to produce than any Wii game.

They do. They have to, at equivalent game you need more detailed models and textures, and those don't come for free. And much of the extra power on the HD consoles will be needed because of the bigger world/models/whatever, so it's not like you'll be able to get away with much less optimization time to make up for that.

 

[Rolf NB]

They do. They have to, at equivalent game you need more detailed models and textures, and those don't come for free. And much of the extra power on the HD consoles will be needed because of the bigger world/models/whatever, so it's not like you'll be able to get away with much less optimization time to make up for that.

Have you seen Mini Ninjas? Disgaea 3? Dynasty Warriors?

 

[Neo C.]

If Nintendo wants to boost the shit out of its sales this holiday, how about a $250 bundle that includes Wii Sports AND Resort (including M+)?

It would cause a holiday rush, again. No doubt.

Though I believe Nintendo doesn't care about boosting the sales just for the sake of sales record. They are satisfied with the current marketshare and aren't interested in pushing the competition out of the market (which would force the competition in releasing their next gen consoles).

 

[d[-_-]b]

Have you seen Mini Ninjas? Disgaea 3? Dynasty Warriors?

Compare games of the same type, have you seen Ninja Reflex, Phantom Brave: We Meet Again, Samurai Warriors Katana?
You can pick the outliers all you want, there will always be a lower budget game on the Wii.

 

[dammitmattt]

Fixed. Crackdown had just a little more going for it than simply being a good game with a new IP.

And inFamous didn't come with the Uncharted 2 beta? That actually was up almost day and date?

Don't forget that the Halo 3 beta wasn't active for a few months after Crackdown's launch, so there was no reason for people to rush out and buy it if they JUST wanted it for the Halo 3 beta. The Halo 3 beta might have raised the profile of Crackdown, but it sold because it was a damn good game.

This revisionist history is stupid. Remember that the Crackdown 2 announcement was more positively viewed by GAF press conference followers than almost anything else in all three conferences. People LOVE Crackdown.

 

[Masklinn]

Have you seen Mini Ninjas? Disgaea 3? Dynasty Warriors?

Operative word (which you apparently haven't seen): equivalent.

 

[Rolf NB]

Compare games of the same type, have you seen Ninja Reflex, Phantom Brave: We Meet Again, Samurai Warriors Katana?
You can pick the outliers all you want, there will always be a lower budget game on the Wii.

Mini Ninjas is actually multiplatform (across Wii and the HD twins and probably beyond, I forgot) and KOEI very happily shares assets across their numerous DW games, no matter the platform.

I'm pretty sure neither of these games cost even half the money to produce as a "serious effort" (*shudders*) on the Wii did, like Twilight Princess.

That's the dilemma here: if you claim small budgets to be the main attraction on the Wii, you can't really ask for bigger budget games in the same breath. You're contradicting yourself (not you directly but Alcibiades).

Not every aspect of production scales with screen resolution. Designing and modeling a huge world and a variety of enemies is expensive, regardless of how detailed your textures are. Finding the optimal low-poly model to use may involve building a high-poly model first. Voice and sound work doesn't scale at all.

 

[Rolf NB]

Operative word (which you apparently haven't seen): equivalent.

Operative word: multiplatform. Smh.

 

[Opiate]

Why?

The gamers who want GTA and Halo already buy Xbox 360s and PlayStation 3s. A bunch of them also have Wiis, but very few of them are likely to only have Wiis, so why not just make those games on the systems for which it is much easier to provide those experiences? The entire success of the Wii is that it has had such success with people who aren't interested in GTA and Halo.

You say "firmly established" but those games clearly aren't firmly established amongst the mainstream Wii audience. They are indeed firmly established amongst the people who are much more likely to buy an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3.

Nintendo obviously is extremely successful at selling its own more traditional properties on the Wii, but that is to a considerable extent because they literally will of course never appear on a competing system.

I absolutely agree that this is true now, but would it have been true if third parties had shown the Wii more support? For example, when the Wii was new, Red Steel did quite well and RE4:Wii did very well. People generally felt that RE4:Wii showed extreme promise for shooter controls.

But since that time, very little has been released on the system of note in these genres, while the PS3/360 have gotten CoD4, GTA4, RE5, Fallout 3, Left 4 Dead, and Bioshock, among many smaller but still relevant titles like The Darkness, Riddick, and Red Faction. After that sort of support, it would be difficult to argue that the PS3/360 aren't the place for shooters. But that's primarily because, well.... that's where all the shooters went in the first place.

Of course, as you note, providing more support for the Wii didn't happen, and at this point I think the effect is irreversible. Too late. Too bad for Nintendo. It's a self fulfilling cycle, and it shows how difficult it is to break out of a third party rut (i.e. once third parties have decided you're bad news, convincing them to the contrary is nearly impossible because no one will try something new which means sales continue to be poor which means people are even less willing to try something new, and so on).

 

[Son of Godzilla]

We won't have an indication about whether a 3rd party spending PS3/360-level resources on a Wii title is worth it until someone does. Nintendo has done big budget stuff like Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and Smash Brothers and has yet to have it backfire.

Huh? What would a third party spend PS3/360-level resources on? You can't argue that 360/PS3 games magically cost more to create AND that those extra resources aren't spent on the stuff that makes 360/PS3 different from the Wii.

 

[Masklinn]

Operative word: multiplatform. Smh.

So you make an HD game cheaper than a Wii game by... making it a wii game?

Wow, I'm super impressed.

 

[justchris]

And MySims Racing. I figure EA created one engine and used it for both games.

Yeah, I saw that on the upcoming releases thread. EA is nothing if not dedicated to getting their finger into every conceivable pie. Which, to a certain extent, is a fundamentally sound business strategy.

That's also what Iwata said and I think he's right. Actually, it is almost impossible for wii sports resort to fail, since its predecessor is now the best selling game ever.

Failure is never impossible. But I agree its pretty unlikely. A lot of people who bought a Wii for Wii Sports and haven't found anything to their liking will pick it up on name recognition alone.

The gamers who want GTA and Halo already buy Xbox 360s and PlayStation 3s. A bunch of them also have Wiis, but very few of them are likely to only have Wiis, so why not just make those games on the systems for which it is much easier to provide those experiences? The entire success of the Wii is that it has had such success with people who aren't interested in GTA and Halo.

When you say "easier" do you mean in the sense that it only cost $20 - $40 million, or "easier" in the sense they could just reuse assets and tools from the PS2 for about half that or less? Cause from what I've heard, HD development is anything but "easy"

 

[vandalvideo]

Have you seen Mini Ninjas? Disgaea 3? Dynasty Warriors?

Isn't Disgaea 3 more along the lines of a PS2 port game? I don't think it is a ground up HD console game.

 

[Rolf NB]

So you make an HD game cheaper than a Wii game by... making it a wii game?

Wow, I'm super impressed.

You could make your posts smarter by letting someone else write them.

 

[Rolf NB]

Isn't Disgaea 3 more along the lines of a PS2 port game? I don't think it is a ground up HD console game.

"Ground up" is a new goal post. It's not automatically more expensive to make any game on an HD platform than it is on a Wii. Just throw the same assets on there, run mostly the same code except for graphics API stuff (Cell and Xenon can even execute PPC G4 binaries) run at higher res, higher framerate automatically, done. So much to prove that an "equivalent game" on an HD console isn't inherently more expensive to make.

If you want to get into an argument about whether the audience on the HD consoles demands more in terms of art assets than you find in your average Wii game, yeah, of course that's worth considering.

 

[dammitmattt]

You realise you've just described the main problem with this entire generation without even noticing it, right?

Which is that a game which is pretty much agreed upon by everyone to be mid-tier at best, cost 20 million dollars to develop. Compared to an apparent top-tier game on the Wii, which, at most, would have cost half that.

You don't see the problem here? This is the problem with huge development costs on limited userbases. It's pretty much go big, or go home. And it sucks.

You're acting like this is a unique problem to the video game industry. It also exists in movies, TV, and many other forms of entertainment. For various reasons, content has just gotten more expensive to produce.

It's no one's fault but Capcom that they produced a $20 million game with so many problems. They were actually pretty close to making a great game, but they made a number of mistakes that added up to a mediocre product in the end. If you're investing this much money, you HAVE to follow through with a great game and great marketing. Otherwise, spend 1/4 as much and rush it out the door. The failure of Bionic Commando is not something endemic to HD development. It was just poor execution by Capcom.

 

[Rocket Punch]

You could make your posts smarter by letting someone else write them.

Your argument was never logical to begin with.... Wii games cost less to make than HD games. How is this a controversial argument?

It is fact.

 

[gtj1092]

I absolutely agree that this is true now, but would it have been true if third parties had shown the Wii more support? For example, when the Wii was new, Red Steel did quite well and RE4:Wii did very well. People generally felt that RE4:Wii showed extreme promise for shooter controls.

But since that time, very little has been released on the system of note in these genres, while the PS3/360 have gotten CoD4, GTA4, RE5, Fallout 3, Left 4 Dead, and Bioshock, among many smaller but still relevant titles like The Darkness, Riddick, and Red Faction. After that sort of support, it would be difficult to argue that the PS3/360 aren't the place for shooters. But that's primarily because, well.... that's where all the shooters went in the first place.

Of course, as you note, providing more support for the Wii didn't happen, and at this point I think the effect is irreversible. Too late. Too bad for Nintendo. It's a self fulfilling cycle, and it shows how difficult it is to break out of a third party rut (i.e. once third parties have decided you're bad news, convincing them to the contrary is nearly impossible because no one will try something new which means sales continue to be poor which means people are even less willing to try something new, and so on).

The thing about this argument is that why would the people that are into these games buy a wii to play them. And if they are multiplatform why buy the wii version? Some will but I doubt the majority would. It almost assumes the PS360 don't exists.

The most annoying part of these arguments(not referencing you) was that when the Wii was selling out all we heard about is how the hardcore era is dead and niche fetishist and hardly core and how gaming is becoming mature and so on and so on. Now these same people are clamoring for the games they said were immature and hardlycore. And I feel not because they actually want to play them but merely to boost the ego they've attached to their Wii/nintendo which grows in porportion to sales of the console.

 

[dammitmattt]

Your argument was never logical to begin with.... Wii games cost less to make than HD games. How is this a controversial argument?

It is fact.

That's not always true. I can assure you that games like Twilight Princess. Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Red Steel, and many other high-budget, high-effort core-focused games cost more than a lot of HD games. It just depends on the scope, scale, and effort of the project.

 

[Opiate]

The thing about this argument is that why would the people that are into these games buy a wii to play them. Some will but I doubt the majority would. It almost assumes the PS360 don't exists.

But we already know these games sold well. At least at first. Like I said, Red Steel did well, and RE4:Wii did something like 3x as well as Capcom expected, eventually selling better than the original Gamecube version. At some point, this audience did indeed exist.

And the obvious reason for "why?" would be controls. I never play shooters on PS3/360, and personally I can't imagine why people would. The controls are mediocre and the games are drowning in auto aim (although I was pleasantly surprised to see KZ2 went light on AA). Of course, my solution to that isn't Wii, but the PC. You still get the point.

The most annoying part of these arguments(not referencing you) was that when the Wii was selling out all we heard about is how the hardcore era is dead and niche fetishist and hardly core and how gaming is becoming mature and so on and so on. Now these same people are clamoring for the games they said were immature and hardlycore. And I feel not because they actually want to play them but merely to boost the ego they've attached to their Wii/nintendo which grows in porportion to sales of the console.

This I agree with. Without naming names, it does seem fairly clear that some people want the Wii to be the PS3/360. The reasonable explanation of this would be, "I like Ninetndo first party," but it does seem to go above and beyond at times. I hope that doesn't seem like a conspiracy theory; it's just what I've suspected. I could be wrong.

 

[Scrubking]

The gamers who want GTA and Halo already buy Xbox 360s and PlayStation 3s. A bunch of them also have Wiis, but very few of them are likely to only have Wiis, so why not just make those games on the systems for which it is much easier to provide those experiences? The entire success of the Wii is that it has had such success with people who aren't interested in GTA and Halo.

What's easy about making uber expensive PS360 games that could bankrupt your company with one failure? And who cares if the gamers who buy GTA already have a PS3 how about expandaning your ever shrinking market and trying to find more people to like your game and make more money?

Oh and the ENTIRE success of the Wii is soccer moms and old people right? Real gamers don't buy Wii. LOLOL You post reeks of fanboyism.

There are plenty of good reasons for every company to put their games on Wii. This risk shit is really getting out of control. If a company is willing to risk 60 million on a 360 game then they sure as hell can risk 10 million on a quality Wii game/port. Seriously, this risk shit is old and tired already. Success can easily be found on the Wii all people need to do is fucking try.

 

[Barrett2]

Nice to see X-Men do well on both platforms. Maybe debs will realize that not every movie licensed game needs to be PG, family friendly garbage; i.e.: Iron Man.

I find the massive dropoff from UFC PS3 to inFamous as sort of odd; guess that's just the way it is.

 

[Chumly]

Holy crap at UFC!! That should be able to keep THQ afloat for a while.

Did we get any numbers for anything outside the top 20?

 

[dammitmattt]

And the obvious reason for "why?" would be controls. I never play shooters on PS3/360, and personally I think people are crazy for doing so. The controls are mediocre and the games are drowning in auto aim (although I was pleasantly surprised to see KZ2 went light on AA). Of course, my solution to that isn't Wii, but the PC. You still get the point.

Just because YOU can't do something well doesn't mean that other people can't. Everyone is playing with the same rules, so it's all a matter of skill. It's not like you're taking a controller against a guy with mouse/keyboard. It's much more fun for me to sit back on my couch and play shooters on my 55" TV with my friends who also all play console games. You're acting like the fun in games solely revolves around the precision of the controls when that's just one small part.

And Killzone 2 was the most frustrating FPS I've played online on a console because of the controls. A small about of sticky aiming is NOT a bad thing. Guerrilla has even taken the step of improving the controls not once, but twice due to user feedback because of the mistakes they made.

This I agree with. Without naming names, it does seem fairly clear that some people want the Wii to be the PS3/360. The reasonable explanation of this would be, "I like Ninetndo first party," but it does seem to go above and beyond at times. I hope that doesn't seem like a conspiracy theory; it's just what I've suspected. I could be wrong.

Completely agree with this. The same people who are so quick to tout the sales and wide appeal of the Wii are generally the same people who bitch endlessly that there are not enough core-focused games for the Wii. I say enjoy the unique experiences you get on the Wii, and if you want the other core games so, so badly, just buy a 360 or a PS3. You can get started for as low as $200. It's not that big of a deal.

 

[justchris]

"Ground up" is a new goal post. It's not automatically more expensive to make any game on an HD platform than it is on a Wii. Just throw the same assets on there, run mostly the same code except for graphics API stuff (Cell and Xenon can even execute PPC G4 binaries) run at higher res, higher framerate automatically, done. So much to prove that an "equivalent game" on an HD console isn't inherently more expensive to make.

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't matter that HD development could be as inexpensive as Wii development. The problem is that HD development is more expensive than Wii development. Key indicators here would be Factor 5 (Lair), Silicon Knights (Too Human) and Free Radical Design (Haze). Here are 3 companies that: A) Had experience programming on Gamecube, B) Had existing assets & tools that could have scaled to the Wii very well and, C) all fell into ruin after a single bomb on an HD console.

Am I saying their games wouldn't have bombed if they had stuck to Wii development? No. Am I saying that they'd probably still be around if they had stuck to Wii development? Yes. They had existing tools and assets they could have reused, reducing the costs of each of their games by millions of dollars, and while a bomb of the magnitude those games were would still have hurt the companies, the fall would have been much shorter, with a little cushioning.

Its not like EA reinvented the wheel for Madden Wii. They took existing Gamecube assets and touched them up. Its probably the cheapest version of Madden they produce. By the same token, there's no way GTA:SA or GTA:VC cost as much as GTA3 did. Rockstar could have made a GTA sequel/sidestory that would have been less expensive to make than GTA4, and probably at least reasonably successful. Of course, now that GTA4 exists, and they have assets and an engine in place, an HD sequel would probably run them about the same amount as a Wii sequel, so there's no longer any point in bothering with the Wii, but that is entirely a result of their own actions, and not an inherent property of the Wii.

The thing about this argument is that why would the people that are into these games buy a wii to play them. And if they are multiplatform why buy the wii version? Some will but I doubt the majority would. It almost assumes the PS360 don't exists.

You do realize that there are 10s of millions of people who own a Wii and don't own a PS3 or 360? Automatically assuming they won't play a particular genre implies a level of insight that borders on prescience. And clearly Nintendo disagrees with this approach, they understand that once you get someone gaming, you can get them to play just about anything, as long as you ease them into it. Its only the hardcore gamers, the ones who have become used to whats out there and made their decisions, that its impossible to sell a concept to. Which is to say, it would be 1000x easier to sell a Racing Sim to my mom, dad, grandparents and great-grandparents than it is to me, because I already know, from years of experience, that I just don't like Racing Sims that much. My mom has no clue, so she could potentially be convinced to try it at least once, with the right marketing.

 

[Chumly]

That's not always true. I can assure you that games like Twilight Princess. Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Red Steel, and many other high-budget, high-effort core-focused games cost more than a lot of HD games. It just depends on the scope, scale, and effort of the project.

Red steel cost 12 Million to make I believe and as far as we know its the most expensive third party title released on the Wii. Thats a fucking shit ton less than pretty much everything on the 360/PS3.

 

[Opiate]

Just because YOU can't do something well doesn't mean that other people can't. Everyone is playing with the same rules, so it's all a matter of skill.

No, I can do it well, it's just a poor control method.

If you'd like to play volleyball where everyone has one hand tied behind their back, that's "fair." It's also silly, and it would be much more compelling, to me, if everyone just played with both their hands.

This is an absurd justification of a poor control method, Matt. Why not make controllers with just one button then? Literally nothing else. Just one button. You could move via a series of morse code signals, e.g. Dash-Dot-Dash could mean "move forward," while Dash-Dot-Dot could mean "fire." That's fair as long as everyone is forced to use it, right? So why not?

And Killzone 2 was the most frustrating FPS I've played online on a console because of the controls. A small about of sticky aiming is NOT a bad thing.

To you it may not be a big deal. If you are playing for skill, it matters. Any way to make the learning curve steeper and the skill set more complex is a good thing for me, but again, that's because I play for skill. That doesn't have to be your personal preference: you may play to mess around with friends, or simply to relax.

 

[dammitmattt]

What's easy about making uber expensive PS360 games that could bankrupt your company with one failure? And who cares if the gamers who buy GTA already have a PS3 how about expandaning your ever shrinking market and trying to find more people to like your game and make more money?

The last I saw the HD market was growing at about the same pace as the Wii. Can you explain to me what is shrinking exactly?

There are plenty of good reasons for every company to put their games on Wii. This risk shit is really getting out of control. If a company is willing to risk 60 million on a 360 game then they sure as hell can risk 10 million a quality Wii game/port. Seriously, this risk shit is old and tired already. Success can easily be found on the Wii all people need to do is fucking try.

Some developers only care about making games that they want to play. They don't owe you anything. If they want to make a high definition, online-centric game, then that's their choice. And I don't know if you play many HD games or not, but this trend towards bigger, more open worlds has resulted in many games that just can't be ported. You know what you're getting and what you're not getting with the Wii. If you want a certain type of game so badly, why not just get the system that has the games that you want?

Red steel cost 12 Million to make I believe and as far as we know its the most expensive third party title released on the Wii. Thats a fucking shit ton less than pretty much everything on the 360/PS3.

Yeah, it's less than the AAA games. But not all games are AAA.

 

[Opiate]

Red steel cost 12 Million to make I believe and as far as we know its the most expensive third party title released on the Wii. Thats a fucking shit ton less than pretty much everything on the 360/PS3.

But not literally everything. There are some retail games that likely cost less than this. I would suspect Crash of the Titans would be an example.

So what you mean is games of commensurate quality, e.g. well funded, highly publicized game on Wii vs. the same on 360/PS3, or shovelware Wii vs. shovelware 360/PS3. If that's your point, I agree. But it's technically possible to make a game on the Wii that's clearly more expensive than the cheaper fair on the 360.

 

[gtj1092]

You do realize that there are 10s of millions of people who own a Wii and don't own a PS3 or 360? Automatically assuming they won't play a particular genre implies a level of insight that borders on prescience. And clearly Nintendo disagrees with this approach, they understand that once you get someone gaming, you can get them to play just about anything, as long as you ease them into it. Its only the hardcore gamers, the ones who have become used to whats out there and made their decisions, that its impossible to sell a concept to. Which is to say, it would be 1000x easier to sell a Racing Sim to my mom, dad, grandparents and great-grandparents than it is to me, because I already know, from years of experience, that I just don't like Racing Sims that much. My mom has no clue, so she could potentially be convinced to try it at least once, with the right marketing.

And these millions of people go out and make the Wii the number one seller of third party games every month. I think its just people on the message boards that have a problem with the games releasing on Wii. These people clearly know what they want. People make all types of claims on why core games don't sell but taking a look at the top 20 you will see that a golds gym exercise game made the top 20(never even heard of it, no advertising).

 

[pakkit]

Oh and the ENTIRE success of the Wii is soccer moms and old people right? Real gamers don't buy Wii. LOLOL You post reaks of fanboyism.

His post is really quite level-headed. The success of Wii is definitely because of its ability to tap untouched parts of the market.

There are plenty of good reasons for every company to put their games on Wii. This risk shit is really getting out of control. If a company is willing to risk 60 million on a 360 game then they sure as hell can risk 10 million a quality Wii game/port. Seriously, this risk shit is old and tired already. Success can easily be found on the Wii all people need to do is fucking try.

You keep saying that, but the key difference is that the 360/PS3 market has been proven multiple times over, whereas Wii is still a relatively unproven market for these product. Publishers still don't know whether to rest on their loins and release namebrands that sell well (RE:UC) or if it's the genre of these games that are capturing gamers (Dead Space: Extraction). Wii has changed the market, but, given Nintendo's aversion for mature products, HVS is the only studio that has stepped up and said "Whatever, we're going to dive into the the violent/mature market even though it's got its fair share of failures and successes." However, given HVS's pedigree and funding, it might not push that many units, which would, yet again, be seen as a failure for the mature Wii space.

Also, all this talk about whether a game is cheaper to make on Wii or not. The dev units are definitely cheaper, and the resolution is lower so those are cheaper, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily cheap to make. Every rags on Dead Space: Extraction, but you cannot prove that just because it's viewpoint is slightly more limiting that it's by virtue a much cheaper product. It looks absolutely amazing visually, has full voice acting, unique effects and Hollywood-aspirations. And, nobody is taking advertising into account, which eats up a huge amount of money. Wii gamers often blame a games failure on its marketing, and it's true that, since this is a new market, I think a lot more publishers should be willing to push their products through vehicles that reach the masses. But it's absolutely not cheap, and would very quickly close the gap between the HD and Wii market.

 

[dammitmattt]

No, I can do it well, it's just a poor control method.

If you'd like to play volleyball where everyone has one hand tied behind their back, that's "fair." It's also silly, and it would be much more compelling, to me, if everyone just played with both their hands.

This is an absurd justification of a poor control method, Matt. Why not make controllers with just one button then? Literally nothing else. Just one button. You could move via a series of morse code signals, e.g. Dash-Dot-Dash could mean "move forward," while Dash-Dot-Dot could mean "fire." That's fair as long as everyone is forced to use it, right? So why not?

But it's not a poor control input method. With this move towards third-person shooters, an analog stick is actually much better for moving your character around than the WASD keys. You definitely lose some precision with your aiming, but every other aspect of play is better with a controller. All of your buttons are right at your finger tips so there's no reaching across a keyboard. I'm used to the control method (I've been using it since Turok) and I can mostly do what I want to do, when I want to do it (except when my old man hands get in the way).

To you it may not be a big deal. If you are playing for skill, it matters. Any way to make the learning curve steeper and the skill set more complex is a good thing for me, but again, that's because I play for skill. That doesn't have to be your personal preference: you may play to mess around with friends, or simply to relax.

You don't think there's skill in using a controller? Come on now. There's a ton of skill involved, especially when it comes to things like headshots.

 

[Opiate]

His post is really quite level-headed. The success of Wii is definitely because of its ability to tap untouched parts of the market.



You keep saying that, but the key difference is that the 360/PS3 market has been proven multiple times over, whereas Wii is still a relatively unproven market for these product. Publishers still don't know whether to rest on their loins and release namebrands that sell well (RE:UC) or if it's the genre of these games that are capturing gamers (Dead Space: Extraction). Wii has changed the market, but, given Nintendo's aversion for mature products, HVS is the only studio that has stepped up and said "Whatever, we're going to dive into the the violent/mature market even though it's got its fair share of failures and successes." However, given HVS's pedigree and funding, it might not push that many units, which would, yet again, be seen as a failure for the mature Wii space.

Also, all this talk about whether a game is cheaper to make on Wii or not. The dev units are definitely cheaper, and the resolution is lower so those are cheaper, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily cheap to make. Every rags on Dead Space: Extraction, but you cannot prove that just because it's viewpoint is slightly more limiting that it's by virtue a much cheaper product. It looks absolutely amazing visually, has full voice acting, unique effects and Hollywood-aspirations. And, nobody is taking advertising into account, which eats up a huge amount of money. Wii gamers often blame a games failure on its marketing, and it's true that, since this is a new market, I think a lot more publishers should be willing to push their products through vehicles that reach the masses. But it's absolutely not cheap, and would very quickly close the gap between the HD and Wii market.

I almost entirely agree with this.

The argument I would accept is "at the beginning of this generation, third parties should have invested more heavily in mature games on the Wii." Based on the early data (i.e. the few shooters that did come out in the first 6 months or so) and the explosive popularity of the system since that point, I think that would be a reasonable argument.

But that time has passed. The lack of substantive support in the graphic violence/shooter for the Wii -- and the extremely strong support for the PS3/360 in this arena -- has surely had a significant effect. It's possible that third parties should have developed from the Wii from the get go. But they didn't do that. They developed very heavily for the PS3/360, and that's where they've built the market for these games. It's too late. Too bad for Nintendo. The end.

 

[justchris]

Just because YOU can't do something well doesn't mean that other people can't. Everyone is playing with the same rules, so it's all a matter of skill. It's not like you're taking a controller against a guy with mouse/keyboard. It's much more fun for me to sit back on my couch and play shooters on my 55" TV with my friends who also all play console games. You're acting like the fun in games solely revolves around the precision of the controls when that's just one small part.

It's not a matter of can or can't, it's a matter of responsiveness. If I want to do something in a game and can't because the controls are poor, this causes frustration. There is a reason I don't play many console FPS, and that is because it is frustrating and inaccurate. Which is fine, there are limitations to games. When a control method comes along that does not have this flaw, my ability to forgive wears thin extremely quickly.

FFXI is an excellent example. I am a fan of RPGs, and I like the FF series, and I started playing FFXI as soon as it was released, and discovered that it was entirely built around using a control pad rather than a keyboard and mouse, and that the controls were shitty and there was no way whatsoever to change them to something not shitty. I didn't even play FFXI for a month, because I'd played MMOs before without shitty control schemes. From every report, they fixed this a few patches in where you could customize your controls more and make them not shitty, but by then it was far too late, they'd already lost me.

If there is no other option, a shitty control scheme is frustrating, but acceptable. When there is another option, a shitty control scheme is untenable and not worth my time or money.

That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, but your enjoyment of the game doesn't make the controls any less shitty. They are shitty not because they don't work, but because there is a limit to what they are able to do, and there are at least two controls schemes that don't have those limits. By the same token, I refuse to use the Wiimote + Nunchuk controls for SSBB, because they are shitty and bad, and I don't have the time to waste on shitty controls.

 

[Masklinn]

That's not always true. I can assure you that games like Twilight Princess. Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Red Steel, and many other high-budget, high-effort core-focused games cost more than a lot of HD games.

Price comparisons are between equivalent games in term of efford/output. Yes "HD" shovelware will cost less than AAA Wii title, how's that of any interest? I'm sure you could even find HD shovelware at a lower cost than AAA DS games if you looked hard enough...

edit: oh, you're an HD troll, of course you're not going to make any sense.

 

[damisa]

There can only be 3 reasons (that I can think of) for the wii 3rd party current state:
1. There's some financial reasons to do things the way they are now
2. 3rd parties secretly hate nintendo
3. 3rd parties are stupid

I highly doubt it's reason 2,3. Some reasons why #1 might be true:
1. "Putting cheap shovelware" strategy on wii is highly successful (wii 3rd party sales > 360 3rd party sales)
2. Due to the "we think PS3 will win" early gen assumptions, most 3rd party developers already have their expensive HD assets/engines built. This means HD games are now much cheaper than earlier in the generation.
3. High profile core games require a lot of advertising:
-advertising is expensive
-advertising isn't any cheaper on wii
4. Sony/MS seem to have a better relationship with 3rd parties
5. A lot of developers (especially western/PC type devs) want to work with more advanced hardware.

 

[Chumly]

But not literally everything. There are some retail games that likely cost less than this. I would suspect Crash of the Titans would be an example.

So what you mean is games of commensurate quality, e.g. well funded, highly publicized game on Wii vs. the same on 360/PS3, or shovelware Wii vs. shovelware 360/PS3. If that's your point, I agree. But it's technically possible to make a game on the Wii that's clearly more expensive than the cheaper fair on the 360.

uhhhh duh???

Of course Wii games can be more expensive if your going to compare 360/PS3 shovelware to the highest funded third party Wii title to date.

 

[Opiate]

But it's not a poor control input method. With this move towards third-person shooters, an analog stick is actually much better for moving your character around than the WASD keys. You definitely lose some precision with your aiming, but every other aspect of play is better with a controller. All of your buttons are right at your finger tips so there's no reaching across a keyboard. I'm used to the control method (I've been using it since Turok) and I can mostly do what I want to do, when I want to do it (except when my old man hands get in the way).

Now you're switching the argument, Matt. First, you argued that it's fair as long as everyone uses the same control method; now, you're arguing that maybe controllers are as effective as KB/M after all.

Regarding your new argument, there is no measurement to point to; nothing concrete that "proves" one control method better than another. For example, how would I "prove" that one handed volleyball is less effective and precise than two handed volleyball? There is no measurement of "effectiveness." All we can use is common sense. Obviously, common sense dictates that using two hands is more effective.

Thus, I think it's sufficient to say that I don't agree that controllers are as effective as KB/M -- after significant time with both control methods -- and it seems like the majority of those who try both don't agree, either. In addition, the fact that most shooters on consoles have ample auto aim while PC shooters do not is strong evidence of my position.

I do agree that analog sticks are better for movement, but that hardly makes up for the lack of a mouse. Again, that's the general opinion. Although interestingly, what you're suggesting (pointer control + analog movement) seems dangerously close to suggesting that the true control champion is the Wii, since that is the precise set up it has.

You don't think there's skill in using a controller? Come on now. There's a ton of skill involved, especially when it comes to things like headshots.

First, I was talking about auto aim requiring less skill, since the post you quoted dealt with Killzone 2 AA. Yes, a game with significant auto aim takes less skill. Games with significant auto aim include: Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, Call of Duty 5, and virtually all of the major shooters on the PS3/360. Second, it's less skill, not no skill. As a person primarily concerned with the skill curve, this matters a lot to me. Would anyone really deny that auto aim reduces the skill quotient of a game? I wouldn't think so, but I'm willing to listen.

 

[dammitmattt]

Price comparisons are between equivalent games in term of efford/output. Yes "HD" shovelware will cost less than AAA Wii title, how's that of any interest? I'm sure you could even find HD shovelware at a lower cost than AAA DS games if you looked hard enough...

edit: oh, you're an HD troll, of course you're not going to make any sense.

Give me a break. I waited in line overnight for a Wii. I own a dozen retail games (including Wii Fit). I'm about to go get Tiger Woods this weekend. I shouldn't have to prove my Wii credentials just because YOU disagree with me and attempt to label me a troll.

 

[SuperBonk]

First, I was talking about auto aim requiring less skill, since the post you quoted dealt with Killzone 2 AA. Yes, a game with significant auto aim takes less skill. Games with significant auto aim include: Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, Call of Duty 5, and virtually all of the major shooters on the PS3/360. Second, it's less skill, not no skill. As a person primarily concerned with the skill curve, this matters a lot to me. Would anyone really deny that auto aim reduces the skill quotient of a game? I wouldn't think so, but I'm willing to listen.

Only if you're talking about single player. In multiplayer, everyone is using the same system. The competitiveness remains the same.