BIBLICAL-LENGTH POST INCOMING
Are you certain that the graphics are the only difference between Dead Space and Dead Space Extraction or The Conduit and CoD4? I distinctly remember Dead Space being an entirely different genre from DSE and The Conduit being a fairly ****ty game while CoD4 was crowned GOTY by many publications. That sounds like a much bigger difference than just the graphical fidelity.
It's not just the graphics. It's the whole package. Many Wii games are simply gimped by comparison to their 360/PS3 brethren in every other area as well. Ironically, while you write off The Conduit as a "shitty game", it actually has one of the best online implementations on the console, as sad as that is. As for Dead Space, I suppose it would depend on what type of game somebody is looking for, but I'd wager that most people just look at the graphics for each and say, "I'll take the 360 version, thanks", without even knowing they're different types of games. CoD4 is likely in the same boat.
"Eternally" apparently meaning "when it fits the argument" because I've never seen any believable claim that the PS2 is more powerful than either of its competitors. Last gen the argument went that Square Enix will eternally only support the market leader.
PS2 vs. Xbox/GameCube is not the same as Wii vs. 360/PS3. The technological disparity in the former is minor, while the same disparity in the latter is major. It's simply not the same comparison.
I'll have to call citation needed on that because I got the impression that the graphics were just icing on the vastly improved gameplay compared to previous Resident Evil games. Just making the assumption that people demand better graphics doesn't make it so, without proper data we cannot say if RE5 wouldn't have sold just as much with less advanced graphics (and better aiming controls).
It certainly would have sold well on Wii (million-plus easily), but I think the ceiling there is lower than on 360/PS3. I don't think that gamers demanding better graphics is "an assumption", either, especially among the gamers looking for titles like RE5. Graphics generally matter to gamers, but they generally don't matter to non-gamers. That's why the Wii has done so well with effectively last-gen graphics, because of its large non-gamer audience that simply doesn't care.
Anyone giving a **** about what developers want is also a new argument just for this generation. I distinctly remember developers wanting to get the **** away from the PS2 (because it was EXTREMELY clunky and had tons of hidden pitfalls) but PS2 game development kept happening while XBox and Gamecube development stagnated. Developers are salaried employees whose job it is to develop the product management deems necessary, they don't get a say in the platform choice unless they're massive celebrities who have a reputation of knowing how to make a profitable game (and even then they tend to get ignored on that aspect). I'm pretty damn certain management would rather not see their employees challenged because that means more man-hours necessary to deliver the product (and possibly a need for more skilled labour, i.e. higher salaries).
Yes, developers are employees. But at higher levels they must also make the choice between making a WiiCube game with 2001 tech, or making a PS3/360 game with current tech. If what the TEAM wants to do is push graphical boundaries, they're going to choose 360/PS3 since that's their only choice.
Jun Takeuchi:
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/24/joystiq-interview-jun-takeuchi-page-2/'
The Wii has taken such a large lead in sales, and Resident Evil 4 did so well on the Wii. It's also cheaper to develop games for the Wii. With that in mind, why is this a PS3 and Xbox 360 exclusive title? Was that a creative decision?Yes. It certainly was a decision from myself and from the development team that we really wanted to push the next part of the series as far as it could be pushed. That included the graphical aspect of the game. So that was the reason that we went with the 360 and the PS3."
Wow, developers are creative, and care about the tools they use? And there's more to a platform choice than simply development costs? Who would have thunk it?
I really suggest you read up on the Blue Ocean Strategy and Disruptive Innovation, the lower graphics investment was a necessary part of the Wii's success and they would have failed had they spent much more on that (overspending on graphics beyond what the customer cares about was the weakness Nintendo exploited to beat the incumbents). If you want to conjecture on Nintendo's intentions at LEAST read up on what their plan is.
How would they have failed? They only would have made less money on hardware. They could have spent more on the graphical hardware and still made money, but they saw the opportunity to make even more money by keeping it 2001-style and took it. Very smart on their part; they saw exactly what they could get away with, and capitalized on it by combining it with some controller gimmickry.
What interests? Making a quick buck with bull****? Resident Evil and Call of Duty aren't the only core market franchises that have a legacy to call upon, I'm pretty damn sure if they made for the Wii what sold on the PS2 they'd have success, just noone really tries that (mot PS2 ports are of games that DIDN'T sell on the PS2) and that's just the laziest possible approach.
Why would they when they can make improved versions of those games on PS3/360. If you've already done a game in a franchise on the PS2, why would you want to make effectively the same game again? The public has already been there, done that...do you think that the same thing all over again would sell better (outside of Madden)? I don't.
They could have made Wii Fit but they had to wait for Nintendo to come around and show them how it's done (and leaving only table scraps for them).
Nintendo creates hardware to serve their own design needs first, everybody else second (this goes all the way back to the creation of N64 controller, which was basically made for Super Mario 64). If devs can do something with Nintendo hardware that's cool, but Nintendo isn't concerned if they can't. There's always that little, I dunno, I guess you could say "conflict of interest" there with Nintendo from way back. Nobody but Nintendo could absorb the risk of Wii Fit and its asinine peripheral, aside from maybe Activison. And they have their own cash-cow peripheral-based franchise.
Couldn't this be mostly automated based on the site's release date list and art archives? All the relevant links and box art could be formatted by a script. You shouldn't have to do anything more than write up a blurb about each game, and even that could be pulled from the game info page if you wanted. It would require someone making sure the release dates and archives are correct, but that should already be a goal.
This is coming. I can't tell you exactly when, but it is coming.
So these low sales make sense. And they don't prove that the Wii userbase doesn't buy this or that. These are games that would be considered a laughable release if their was only one console so they deserve to sell poorly.
But was MadWorld so terrible? Was The Conduit? Was Dead Space Extraction? Sure, those games aren't setting the world on fire, but they aren't Superman 64 either. It's like if a mature game comes out on Wii and doesn't sell, the game is automatically garbage because, well, good games sell right? And it's always the third-party developer's fault right? I don't buy that, at least not entirely.
To me, the only third-party games that will really do big numbers on Wii are the mega-franchises like Dragon Quest and Monster Hunter. I think the bar is set incredibly high for third-parties to get good sales on Wii; no wonder third-parties give half-assed efforts, since people would probably only buy Mario Whatever and Wii Whatsit anyways. Nintendo is your biggest competitor, and since they designed the system to suit their needs, the deck is stacked in their favor.
No wonder developers like WiiWare so much; it's the only part of the Wii platform that isn't dominated by Nintendo's own titles.
Topic: TALKBACK: NWR Round-Table 3: 500 Copies Sold (Read 26771 times)
