We store cookies, you can get more info from our privacy policy.

Report Suggests Wii Development Lagging Behind

by Andy Goergen - February 5, 2010, 10:16 am EST
Total comments: 106 Source: Gamasutra

iPhone development is on the rise as Nintendo fights for developer attention.

In the past year, only 30 percent of console developers have been actively working on Wii games, down from 42 percent in 2008, according to a recent survey conducted by Game Developer Research.

The survey consisted of 55 questions, and was submitted to 814 developers via Game Developer Magazine, Gamasutra, and the Game Developer's Conference. The results were compiled into a 100-page report that featured many statistics about game developers, including the following:

  • Of all game developers, more than 70 percent were working on a PC, Mac, or Browser based game. 41 percent reported working on a console game.
  • 69 percent of console developers were working on an Xbox 360 game, compared to 61 percent on Playstation 3 and 40 percent on Wii.
  • 25 percent of developers were working on games for mobile platforms.
  • Of the mobile developers, almost 75 percent were working on games for iPhone OS. Less than half of this percentage was working on either a Nintendo DS or Sony PSP game.
  • Developers working for smaller teams of 50 employees or fewer grew by 7 percent in the past year. Likewise, the number of developers working for large teams of 500 or more fell by 2 percent.

According to the survey, "ease of development" and "market penetration" were the leading factors in choosing which platform to develop for, along with the skill sets of their team, the ability to easily port to multiple platforms, and the cost of development materials.

The full report is available for purchase from Game Developer Research for $2495. More data from the survey will be revealed in the next issue of Game Developers Magazine.

Talkback

Ian SaneFebruary 05, 2010

I hope Nintendo is aware of this and recognizes it as a problem.  When you're the market leading console and third party support is DROPPING there is something wrong and it's foolish to think you can continue to find success in the next generation if no games are being made.

The Wii has obviously been very successful for Nintendo.  But they said that part of the reason why the used such inferior hardware was to keep development costs down and that that would be a benefit to developers.  While they have kept their own costs down this attempt to lure third parties (if it ever even was an attempt, I think Nintendo was only thinking of cutting costs for themselves) has utterly and completely failed.  If you're losing third party support as the market leader then your plans for attracting third party support failed.  So next gen, if Nintendo doesn't want this to be a problem, they have to do something different.  And this IS their problem.  No one will buy a Wii 2 if Nintendo is the only company making games for it.

BlackNMild2k1February 05, 2010

Why not? according to most, Nintendo games are all people buy on a Nintendo platform anyway, so why would no games from 3rd parties (that people aren't buying anyway) prevent them from buying a Wii2?

King of TwitchFebruary 05, 2010

A part of me would like to see them make Wii 2 development as complicated and expensive as possible, just to see what would happen

StogiFebruary 05, 2010

I'm telling you. They already have a beta system in place to put pressure on big third parties. It's called WiiWare. As that matures, so will Nintendo's 3rd party support.

Ian SaneFebruary 05, 2010

Quote:

Why not? according to most, Nintendo games are all people buy on a Nintendo platform anyway, so why would no games from 3rd parties (that people aren't buying anyway) prevent them from buying a Wii2?


Nintendo could never support a console by themselves because the absense of games would result in such small shelf space.  If you went into Best Buy and saw one tiny shelf of literally ten games what would you think?  Would you not assume this product is not well supported and thus not a safe buy?  At least now with all the junk the Wii has quantity so it's in-store presence makes it look like a well supported product.  Nintendo found success with the Wii with mainstream appeal.  A lack of support makes a console look niche.  If Nintendo wants to be the everybody console they need all third parties on board.  "Everybody" includes gamers knowledgable enough to know that their third party support sucks.

Wow, $2,495 for a report? That seems hard to swallow.

I'm sure there's supposed to be a dot in there, maybe between the 4 and the 9?

vuduFebruary 05, 2010

814 developers?  I think there are maybe 100 of those that matter--tops.  The rest create shovelware, cell phone games, small PC games, etc.  If we lose some of the developers who made this junk no one's going to mind.  Unless we know exactly what developers are shifting focus away from Wii there's nothing we can accurately extract from this report.

vudu, your criticism of the sample size fails to recognize the significant relative difference between how many of them develop for the various consoles.

In any case, this bodes poorly for the future of Nintendo's third-party support, which appears to be falling over time.

vuduFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: Jonnyboy117

vudu, your criticism of the sample size fails to recognize the significant relative difference between how many of them develop for the various consoles.

If 814 developers were surveyed and 69% of them are developing games for Xbox 360 that means 562 developers are working on Xbox 360 titles.  To date, there are 736 retail Xbox 360 titles.  The numbers are even closer for PS3--497 developers and 558 retail releases.  Those numbers don't sit well with me, as I know there are quite a few developers who have several 360/PS3 titles available. 

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the percentages given in the report summary include small indie developers who exclusively work on Live Arcade and PSN games.  And to be frank, these developers simply don't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things.  As crazy as you might be about 'Splosion Man, 90% of the gaming population doesn't even know the title exists.

They don't matter?  They could be working on WiiWare or Wii games, but they have CHOSEN not to.  Of course they matter!

Furthermore, if the sample size was, say, 50 developers, the first criticism we'd hear is, "Oh, the sample size is so small, there are plenty of smaller developers out there who are supporting Wii."

vuduFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: NWR_Lindy

Furthermore, if the sample size was, say, 50 developers, the first criticism we'd hear is, "Oh, the sample size is so small, there are plenty of smaller developers out there who are supporting Wii."

Okay, let's say we have 100 "big-name" developers and another 200 indies.  That's 300.  Where the heck did these other 500 come from?  It just seems like an astoundingly large number. 

EDIT:  Hey, look what I found!  List of Xbox 360 developers.

Click on a random letter and then every developer within that category to see all there games.  The vast majority of these games--and by extension, their developers--simply don't matter to you or me.

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusFebruary 05, 2010

Quote:

According to the survey, "ease of development" and "market penetration" were the leading factors in choosing which platform to develop for

So then why don't they make more Wii games?

I'm with vudu.  This survey's gonna be pretty bogus if they are counting the massive hordes of people who make cheap crap nobody cares about on the iPhone.  And Majortiy working on PC and Mac games?  The PC market is dead!  Are they counting those stupid little ad-supported flash games, too?

Am I sad that Nintendo just can't seem to attract third parties despite being the market leader?  Yeah, but not for Nintendo.  They're pulling down billions and their financial survival is basically secure, which is more than could be said about a few developers (and publishers.). No, what I'm sad that the third parties' reaction to the Wii userbase not buying their crappy shovelware is to insult them and pack it up.  It's absolutely mindboggling that third parties just want to leave billions on the table for Nintendo to get all for themselves.  If I were a shareholder, I'd think those guys went batshit insane.

Quote from: vudu

If 814 developers were surveyed and 69% of them are developing games for Xbox 360 that means 562 developers are working on Xbox 360 titles.  To date, there are 736 retail Xbox 360 titles.  The numbers are even closer for PS3--497 developers and 558 retail releases.  Those numbers don't sit well with me, as I know there are quite a few developers who have several 360/PS3 titles available. 

69% of CONSOLE developers, which is only 41 percent of all developers polled.
That's 69% of 334 developers, which is 230 developers out of 814 were working on Xbox 360 games, not 562.  Likewise, 133 on Wii.

Quote from: Jonnyboy117

In any case, this bodes poorly for the future of Nintendo's third-party support, which appears to be falling over time.

Well, one would like to think that the current amount of Nintendo console development is STILL heads and shoulders above GC support.

Either way, it looks like Third-Party support will not go away as a point of concern and interest for Nintendo and its fans. In my opinion, Nintendo's made significant strides in addressing this concern, but well... *sigh* The saga continues.

Shorty McNostrilFebruary 05, 2010

This pretty much confirms to me that a Wii HD/2 will never work.  3rd parties have shown what they think of it.  It would be stupid to do the same thing again next gen and hope it works.  Next gen they will have a bigger disadvantage because the "casual" gamer does not buy every generation of console.  That's the whole point of it. 

Like I said in the Wii Rumor thread, I think Nintendo need to go all out for their next system.  Spend some money (they have enough of it) and give produce something that will make Sony and Microsoft quake in fear.  Go back to proper controller and keep everyone happy.  Don't fix what isn't broken.  If third parties are prefer to spend risk millions making something for an HD console rather than its cheaper counterpart then lets give them something they want to develop for. 

Nintendo already have the spotlight to be noticed now.  I think this arrogance thing that led to the downfall of the N64 era onwards is starting to creep in again.  They need to do something about it while they are in the best position to do it, (read ASAP).  If they leave it too long they will have lost the media and public attention and releasing another gimick system won't get it back again.  The devs and the core crowd have shown what they want, why not give it to them. 

Ian SaneFebruary 05, 2010

Quote:

814 developers?  I think there are maybe 100 of those that matter--tops.  The rest create shovelware, cell phone games, small PC games, etc.


The thing is the developers that matter already don't give the Wii much support.  When I think of devs that matter, that make console games and aren't exclusive to one console, I think of Capcom, Konami, Square Enix, Namco, Rockstar North, Bioware, Ubisoft Montreal.  These guys have NEVER treated the Wii like anything important.  The shovelware devs?  They're the ones who were always there.  And now the amount of devs supporting the Wii is getting smaller?

And does it really matter who they are?  The second and third place consoles have more devs on board than the market leading console.  The market leading console is ALWAYS supposed to have the most because they attract all the best and all the worst.  Third party developers do not consider the market leading console to be the best choice to make money on.  That's insane.

vuduFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: NWR_DrewMG

69% of CONSOLE developers, which is only 41 percent of all developers polled.
That's 69% of 334 developers, which is 230 developers out of 814 were working on Xbox 360 games, not 562.  Likewise, 133 on Wii.

I missed that part.  Thank you for pointing it out.  These new numbers jive a lot more with what I expected to see.

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: Ian

The second and third place consoles have more devs on board than the market leading console.  The market leading console is ALWAYS supposed to have the most because they attract all the best and all the worst.  Third party developers do not consider the market leading console to be the best choice to make money on.  They're insane.

Fixed.  I read another report similar in topic that had developers closing their doors and going bankrupt more quickly than ever before.  I wonder if that study and this study are somehow related.

KDR_11kFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: NWR_DrewMG

According to the survey, "ease of development" and "market penetration" were the leading factors in choosing which platform to develop for

I think we can conclude that these devs are either liars or imbeciles.

Quote from: Ian

Third party developers do not consider the market leading console to be the best choice to make money on.  That's insane.

Well, it could be argued that the Market Leading console in this case requires skills and competencies that third-party developers don't seem to be bringing to the table.

NinGurl69 *hugglesFebruary 05, 2010

They're free to close up shop.

Ian SaneFebruary 05, 2010

Quote:

Fixed.  I read another report similar in topic that had developers closing their doors and going bankrupt more quickly than ever before.  I wonder if that study and this study are somehow related.


I agree with you in that it makes no sense.  But the sheer numbers suggests to me that there's more to this than meets the eye.  Every company cannot be stupid.  The sheer odds of that are impossible.  It just seems like there must be some factor that we can't truly see from the outside.

Is it possible that the videogame market in general is just not that viable anymore?  Maybe it's just too hard to make money on all three consoles.  The PS360 requires the extra manhours to pour over the visuals and the little details.  The Wii requires one to program motion control which might just be WAY out of most dev's league.  Remember that Nintendo isn't some small dev.  They're a huge company.  They had the resources to design the remote in the first place so they have qualified individuals to make it work with their games.  Other devs don't have that.  The HD visuals may be expensive but at least it's something a dev may already know how to do.  The Wii is still very complex, just in a different way.

I wonder if Nintendo's support and documentation for the remote is any good.  That would easily explain why Nintendo, who has full knowledge of the device, can make Wii magic and everyone else shits the bed.  My company needs to make a new game and I can either fuck around with the remote and bug Nintendo for info that they may or may not provide to me or I can make something for the other consoles where at the very least I'm confident my team knows what they're doing.  It's easier to work with something familiar.

Is it possible that HD games and remote games are both huge financial risks?

So the important factors in choosing a platform are:

1) ease of development
2) market penetration
3) team members’ existing skill sets
4) portability of code to a given platform
5) acquisition costs of development kits and materials

I'd say that Nintendo has 1, 2, and 5, but probably turns a lot of third-party developers off due to 3 and especially 4.  Most of the Vudu-approved "developers that matter" have skillsets suited to developing PC-style games, which makes them (and their companies) perfectly comfortable with developing for PC/360/PS3.  They're good at that, so why do something different like a Wii game, that might completely tank in the marketplace?  It makes sense - business sense - to play to your strengths.

Developing games for Wii also shackles a developer to only being able to use that code for future Wii games.  In other words, it's not like 360 code that can be ported to PC and PS3 in a reasonable amount of time to make some extra cash. Take The Grinder for instance...HVS had to license a game engine for the HD platform work, since (apparently) none of the work they did on the Wii engine could be used elsewhere.  It must be tough for third-parties to hitch their wagon exclusively to the Wii, when there's no guarantee that their non-Mario/Zelda/Kart/Metroid/Sports/Fit game will even sell.

Besides, it's not like Nintendo cares about these third-parties anyways, really.  Unlike Microsoft and Sony, who need third-party royalties to mitigate the losses they take on their hardware, Nintendo doesn't need to cater to third-parties because it makes money on its own software AND hardware.  Third-party sales are gravy to them, so it's very easy for them to sit back and shake their heads, telling third-party developers that they just don't "get it".

I guess third-parties are taking that to heart, and aren't trying to "get it" any more.

Guitar SmasherFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: Shorty

Like I said in the Wii Rumor thread, I think Nintendo need to go all out for their next system.  Spend some money (they have enough of it) and give produce something that will make Sony and Microsoft quake in fear.  Go back to proper controller and keep everyone happy.  Don't fix what isn't broken.  If third parties are prefer to spend risk millions making something for an HD console rather than its cheaper counterpart then lets give them something they want to develop for. 

So basically, you want Nintendo to make the next PS3?

Am I trolling if I call you crazy?

NinGurl69 *hugglesFebruary 05, 2010

"I wonder if Nintendo's support and documentation for the remote is any good."

I've played niche games from niche devs that have surpassed Nintendo's own motion efforts, so Nintendo's Wii Remote Cookbook is just fine.  The decision making that allows the WALL OF SHAME to exist is not fine.

NWR_pap64Pedro Hernandez, Contributing WriterFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: Ian

Quote:

Fixed.  I read another report similar in topic that had developers closing their doors and going bankrupt more quickly than ever before.  I wonder if that study and this study are somehow related.


I agree with you in that it makes no sense.  But the sheer numbers suggests to me that there's more to this than meets the eye.  Every company cannot be stupid.  The sheer odds of that are impossible.  It just seems like there must be some factor that we can't truly see from the outside.

Is it possible that the videogame market in general is just not that viable anymore?  Maybe it's just too hard to make money on all three consoles.  The PS360 requires the extra manhours to pour over the visuals and the little details.  The Wii requires one to program motion control which might just be WAY out of most dev's league.  Remember that Nintendo isn't some small dev.  They're a huge company.  They had the resources to design the remote in the first place so they have qualified individuals to make it work with their games.  Other devs don't have that.  The HD visuals may be expensive but at least it's something a dev may already know how to do.  The Wii is still very complex, just in a different way.

I wonder if Nintendo's support and documentation for the remote is any good.  That would easily explain why Nintendo, who has full knowledge of the device, can make Wii magic and everyone else ****s the bed.  My company needs to make a new game and I can either **** around with the remote and bug Nintendo for info that they may or may not provide to me or I can make something for the other consoles where at the very least I'm confident my team knows what they're doing.  It's easier to work with something familiar.

Is it possible that HD games and remote games are both huge financial risks?

I agree with you completely Ian. The truth is that developers are seeing failure across all three consoles. Fans are quick to say "Oh, the developers suck", "they need to take the system more seriously", "they need to make Nintendo like games" and quick to kill them and burn their remains on a bonfire. But the truth is that there's more to the gaming industry than just making a game and releasing it. Developers are now facing a problem. The HD consoles may be more popular with the gaming crowd, but they require a lot more money and effort. The Wii has a much, much bigger fanbase but it doesn't guarantee that the game will be successful. So what to do? None of the systems guarantee success and profitability and both require a lot of money behind a project.

It's no surprise that developers are feeling attracted towards downloadable/APP development. It's likely cheaper to make and the platform allows for more widespread appeal.

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusFebruary 05, 2010

Quote:

It must be tough for third-parties to hitch their wagon exclusively to the Wii, when there's no guarantee that their non-Mario/Zelda/Kart/Metroid/Sports/Fit game will even sell.

Wow!  Third parties are GUARANTEED sales on the PC/360/PS3?  Holy mackerel!  No wonder Nintendo can't attract them.

Quote:

Third-party sales are gravy to them, so it's very easy for them to sit back and shake their heads, telling third-party developers that they just don't "get it".

But Nintendo isn't sitting back.  They are also the best game makers on the Wii and going by units-sold and dollars generated this generation, the best developer, period.  And third parties don't "get it."  They flooded the Wii with Shovelware and now everybody wants to basically buy only Nintendo games because they have a great reputation and third parties do not.  So sorry that they make awful games, but Nintendo did not point a gun to their head and tell them to make garbage.

Quote:

I guess third-parties are taking that to heart, and aren't trying to "get it" any more.

That will be incredibly short-sighted of them, considering Microsoft and Sony will be pushing motion controllers too.  So they'll have to learn it one way or another.  Motion controls aren't going anywhere, and they are missing out on, at the very least, practice for Natal and the Sony Wand.  And after they practice they can make a press release where they ditch the Wii and blame it for poor sales of Pigpen Casino: 23 Games.  That will be disturbing, but expected.

NinGurl69 *hugglesFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: NWR_pap64

I agree with you completely Ian. The truth is that developers are seeing failure across all three consoles. Fans are quick to say "Oh, the developers suck", "they need to take the system more seriously", "they need to make Nintendo like games" and quick to kill them and burn their remains on a bonfire. But the truth is that there's more to the gaming industry than just making a game and releasing it. Developers are now facing a problem. The HD consoles may be more popular with the gaming crowd, but they require a lot more money and effort. The Wii has a much, much bigger fanbase but it doesn't guarantee that the game will be successful. So what to do? None of the systems guarantee success and profitability and both require a lot of money behind a project.

Say that again while staring at this:

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=30478.0

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusFebruary 05, 2010

Quote:

Fans are quick to say "Oh, the developers suck", "they need to take the system more seriously", "they need to make Nintendo like games" and quick to kill them and burn their remains on a bonfire.

Nobody is saying that for the reason of fanboyism or sour-grapes disappointment when a favored game underperforms.  They actually do not take the system seriously, and the games they've made are, in fact, the worst they've ever made for any system.  Go see Pro's Wall of Shame. (oh heh he linked to it)  IF they had made better games, and made them more consistently, and marketed them like Nintendo does, they would see success.  Instead, they made mostly shovelware, were inconsistent with any real effort, and gave most of their games stealth launches, hoping the word-of-mouth would sell the game, despite the word-of-mouth already being established that they suck.

This is exactly the way it should be, as we've been told for years.  The developer with the best games wins on Wii.  And that developer is Nintendo.  Maybe it could have changed if third parties actually gave a damn.  Maybe Nintendo would be #1 anyway due to their fans.  But since 3rd parties decided to not even bother and flood the market, we'll never know.

UrkelFebruary 05, 2010

Quote:

Besides, it's not like Nintendo cares about these third-parties anyways, really.


Nintendo doesn't care about black people.

Quote:


Third-party sales are gravy to them, so it's very easy for them to sit back and shake their heads, telling third-party developers that they just don't "get it".


Do you think third parties really do "get it"?

NinGurl69 *hugglesFebruary 05, 2010

Remember, Remember, the Fifth of February.

TIS THE TIME FOR REVOLUTION

TIME FOR GROCERY SHOPPING, WOOOOOOOOOOO

UrkelFebruary 05, 2010

You know, ever since the beginning of this generation I've been asking the same question of why these reasons of not supporting the Wii don't also apply to the DS and I never get an answer.

Don't third parties have to compete with Nintendo on the DS?

Doesn't Nintendo make a crapload of money on DS just from their first party games? NSMB DS and MK DS are STILL selling tons.

Doesn't Sony "need" 3rd party support on PSP more than Nintendo does with DS?

Does Nintendo go way out of their way to get 3rd party games on the DS (i.e. moneyhatting)?

So why does this stuff suddenly matter on the Wii? Excuses. That's all they are.

PeachylalaFebruary 05, 2010

Nintendo consoles have to be scapegoats for third excuse error making. DS was kind of this in the first year or so in it's life, but somehow (and how!) they learned the errors of their ways, dropped the sinking PSP ship.

Wii, not so much. Yes, it's underpowered. Guess what though? IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. Super Mario Galaxy is easily better then anything considered Grade A material on PS360 according the 'gaming' 'media'. Make a Galaxy quality game, advertise it, and it will sell.

Don't do that? Sucks to be you.

Quote from: Deguello

Wow!  Third parties are GUARANTEED sales on the PC/360/PS3?  Holy mackerel!  No wonder Nintendo can't attract them.

I never said that.  I was simply stating that the "developers that matter" see making games for Wii as riskier than making PC-style games, which is something they're already good at.

Quote from: Deguello

But Nintendo isn't sitting back.  They are also the best game makers on the Wii and going by units-sold and dollars generated this generation, the best developer, period.  And third parties don't "get it."  They flooded the Wii with Shovelware and now everybody wants to basically buy only Nintendo games because they have a great reputation and third parties do not.  So sorry that they make awful games, but Nintendo did not point a gun to their head and tell them to make garbage.

Again, I never said Nintendo was "sitting back" when it comes to THEIR OWN own titles.  My point was that they don't need third-parties when it comes right down to it, so they don't give two shits about catering to them.  And yet people complain when third-parties treat Nintendo in the same flippant manner.  Have you ever heard Microsoft or Sony say ANYTHING negative about third-parties, EVER?  Hell, even when Activision publicly threatened to pull PS3 support, Sony didn't say anything bad about them!  That's because they need to stay on good terms with third parties, because they need that third-party dough coming in.  Nintendo is good either way.

Do you think Nintendo had third-parties in mind when they developed their convoluted Friend Code system?  Bwahahahahaha.  That was Nintendo looking out for Nintendo.  Which is 100% what they should be doing, but don't complain when third parties give them the cold shoulder.

Quote from: Deguello

That will be incredibly short-sighted of them, considering Microsoft and Sony will be pushing motion controllers too.  So they'll have to learn it one way or another.  Motion controls aren't going anywhere, and they are missing out on, at the very least, practice for Natal and the Sony Wand.  And after they practice they can make a press release where they ditch the Wii and blame it for poor sales of Pigpen Casino: 23 Games.  That will be disturbing, but expected.

They already have PS3 and 360 dev environments set up, so they can tool around as much as they want.  How much "practice" do they need?  If they're happy making PC/360/PS3 games, why would they commit several years to making a Wii game - which probably wouldn't sell anyways, unless there's a mega-franchise like Monster Hunter or Dragon Quest or Resident Evil attached to it, or it's dance game - just to get "practice" with motion control?  That sounds like a really expensive way to practice to me.  You might as well learn it on the hardware you're already developing on.

Wii is where original IPs go to die, yet everybody continues to kid themselves that it's some huge opportunity just because it has a large userbase (that doesn't play much else other than Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Mario Kart).

UrkelFebruary 05, 2010

Quote:

And yet people complain when third-parties treat Nintendo in the same flippant manner.


No, people complain when they treat their customers in a flippant manner.

"You'll buy this rail-shooter spinoff and you'll like it!"

Quote:


Have you ever heard Microsoft or Sony say ANYTHING negative about third-parties, EVER?


The hell? When has Nintendo ever said anything negative about third parties, other than Miyamoto warning them to not put their fifth string development teams on the Wii? Which they continue to do.

Quote:


Wii is where original IPs go to die


The Wii is where niche concepts that have no chance on any platform go to die. If publishers really believed games like Deadly Creatures and Zack and Wiki have such tremendous potential to be huge sellers, then they would make future entries on the HD platforms. But they don't because they know perfectly well what limited appeal games like these have.

ArbokFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: NWR_Lindy

Have you ever heard Microsoft or Sony say ANYTHING negative about third-parties, EVER?  Hell, even when Activision publicly threatened to pull PS3 support, Sony didn't say anything bad about them!  That's because they need to stay on good terms with third parties, because they need that third-party dough coming in.

This is a odd point to make... has Nintendo said negative things about a third party?

EDIT: Damn, I was too slow on making this point.

Quote from: NWR_Lindy

Wii is where original IPs go to die, yet everybody continues to kid themselves that it's some huge opportunity just because it has a large userbase (that doesn't play much else other than Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Mario Kart).

Doesn't the Wii have a pretty large number of million sellers at this point, and from third parties no less? I was under the impression that they did from looking at the Sales Data thread on these forums. That alone tells me that it is a good opportunity for third party developers.

EDIT: To borrow from Salesbot:

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/100129/img/slide/48l.jpg

Reggie says third-parties don't get it...Miyamoto saying that "the best teams" should be on the Wii...I mean, if they had healthy third-party relations, they shouldn't even be SAYING stuff like that.  Even when 360/PS3 games tank and developers go under, you don't even hear a peep about Microsoft and Sony in a negative light.

I'm sure if you looked at those million sellers you'd see a lot of franchise games (Call of Duty, Resident Evil, etc.) and activity/dance/fitness games.  Nothing too original, nothing too out of the ordinary, aside from Nintendo's stuff, which is excellent.

SixthAngelFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: Ian

Is it possible that the videogame market in general is just not that viable anymore?  Maybe it's just too hard to make money on all three consoles.

The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles,  business wise.

Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even.  They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.

Consumers never pay the true cost for these systems because they are willing to take giant losses with no real hope of making them up distorting the console market in favor of high end graphics that the market would most likely not have supported at the time they were released.

MoronSonOfBoronGarnet Red, Contributing WriterFebruary 05, 2010

Quote from: SixthAngel

Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even.  They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.

Consumers never pay the true cost for these systems because they are willing to take giant losses with no real hope of making them up distorting the console market in favor of high end graphics that the market would most likely not have supported at the time they were released.

If that's the truth, the industry is headed the way of the American real estate market. And knowing the two HD companies, they would probably try to make the consumers pay for it. Isn't it great we don't have to mortgage our games?

Quote from: SixthAngel

The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles,  business wise.

Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even.  They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.

Never break even?  Is that really true?

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/20346/Xbox-Division-Records-Second-Profitable-Year-in-a-Row/

BlackNMild2k1February 06, 2010

Quote from: NWR_DrewMG

Quote from: SixthAngel

The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles,  business wise.

Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even.  They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.

Never break even?  Is that really true?

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/20346/Xbox-Division-Records-Second-Profitable-Year-in-a-Row/

Yes. It is, and they are so far from breaking even that I will just have to show you.

Quote from: SalesBot

Quarterly Financial Comparison
Sony / Nintendo / Micosoft (Operating Income)

      Sony          Nintendo        Microsoft          Total
Y/E 1998    $902,811,090  $1,023,333,867                      $1,926,144,957
Y/E 1999  $1,102,563,557  $1,301,350,000                      $2,403,913,557
Y/E 2000    $722,738,949  $1,368,207,547                      $2,090,946,497
Y/E 2001    -$449,776,290    $677,576,000                        $227,799,710
Y/E 2002    $629,101,056    $895,872,180  -$1,135,000,000      $389,973,237
Y/E 2003    $935,569,253    $834,333,333  -$1,191,000,000      $578,902,586
Y/E 2004    $627,195,212    $993,161,303  -$1,337,000,000      $283,356,515
Y/E 2005    $419,888,799  $1,056,056,202    -$539,000,000      $936,945,001
Y/E 2006      $69,129,058    $774,478,055  -$1,339,000,000    -$495,392,887
Y/E 2007  -$1,970,923,859  $1,914,666,388  -$1,969,000,000  -$2,025,257,471
Y/E 2008  -$1,079,994,103  $4,322,637,887      $426,000,000    $3,668,643,783
Y/E 2009    -$664,313,787  $5,691,428,301      $169,000,000    $5,196,114,515

Y/E 10Q1    -$413,541,667    $420,843,750      $312,000,000      $319,302,083
Y/E 10Q2    -$653,333,333    $710,655,556      $375,000,000      $432,011,111
Y/E 10Q3    $210,629,750  $2,087,904,452              N/A              N/A

Total           
        $387,078,407  $24,072,504,822  -$6,157,000,000  $16,004,049,028
           
Full Year Average
        $103,665,745  $1,737,758,422  -$1,001,857,143      $914,270,499

Profitable Years           
        8      12        2          10
           
Non Profitable Years           
        4      0        6          2
           
Average in Loss Year           
    -$1,041,252,010              N/A  -$1,251,666,667  -$1,260,325,179
           
Average in Profit Year           
        $676,124,622  $1,737,758,422      $333,000,000    $1,389,625,094

Sony 3rd Quarter 2010 FY earningsNintendo 3rd Quarter 2010 FY earningsMicrosoft 2nd Quarter 2010 FY earnings

And that doesn't even factor in the $Billion they set aside for RRoD repairs before they shifted around their departments so that the $Billion loss was subsidized into a different department.

Even Sony's overall profits over the last 11 years are down to less than Nintendo's least profitable year.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/20/xbox-division-has-1-9-billion-loss-blame-red-rings/

This article suggests that Microsoft essentially took the loss for the RRoD repairs in 2007 to the tune of 1.2 billion.  How does that indicate "shifting departments"?  If they took the loss out from the 2007 earnings, how does that mean that 2008 and 2009 weren't profitable?  Can you provide some sort of data to show that RRoD repairs drove 2008 and 2009 into the red? 

BlackNMild2k1February 06, 2010

I don't remember the article, but they restructured their departments from something like Xbox division to Entertainment division and they set aside that $billion just before doing it and swallowed it in a much more profitable division so that it wouldn't show on 2008/2009 financial sheet when looking at the Entertainment division. At least that's how I remember it.

as far as MS's profits, even with a $426M & $169M in 08/09, they are still $6.1B* in the hole for the entire Xbox project. $2.6B* of that is for the X360 alone

*(not including the RRoD $B)

I should note that it does seem pretty likely that neither the PS3 nor the Xbox 360 will break even over the course of their lifetime.  However, on a year by year basis, the Xbox 360 definitely seems headed in the right direction.  Should be very interesting to see how Natal affects their profits this year.

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

I don't remember the article, but they restructured their departments from something like Xbox division to Entertainment division and they set aside that $billion just before doing it and swallowed it in a much more profitable division so that it wouldn't show on 2008/2009 financial sheet when looking at the Entertainment division. At least that's how I remember it.

as far as MS's profits, even with a $426M & $169M in 08/09, they are still $6.1B* in the hole for the entire Xbox project. $2.6B* of that is for the X360 alone

*(not including the RRoD $B)

According to that Joystiq article I linked, the 1.9 billion loss in 2007 you show from Salesbot's figures includes the 1.2 billion set aside to fix the RRoD systems.  I fail to see how this is somehow "hiding" the loss. 

BlackNMild2k1February 06, 2010

I didn't read the article you linked. I thought the point you were trying to convey was in the link name itself.

I might remember the shuffling wrong(it was nearly 3 years ago), but even still, a $600M profit in 2 years is far from breaking even for just the 360 much less the entire Xbox brand.

I also heard that the $1.2B they set aside for RRoD is pretty much spent and the problem still exist(only reason I still don't own a 360).

No argument there, but they've had their two best years in the entire franchise history in 2008 and 2009.  Are they industry leading profits?  No, far from it.  However, in two years running now, they've managed to turn the ship around, even if just a little bit.  On top of that, they've managed to establish significant mindshare in the gaming industry, and that will continue to pay off over time.

I realize it's pretty entertaining for Nintendo fans to throw rocks at the titanic, but I'm not one for sweeping generalizations or dramatic overstatement. 

Like was said on LOST at the end of last season, "It only ends once.  Everything that happens before that is merely progress."  This has always been a marathon for Microsoft, not a sprint.  We'll see how it continues to play out.

BlackNMild2k1February 06, 2010

Your're right. 10-15 years from now, maybe non of these losses matter as MS has a machine in every living room like they have Windows on damn near every computer.

We all know that MS' losses today are to set up something BIG for them in the future, but SixthAngel's point still stands.

Quote from: SixthAngel

The ps3 and 360 have never been viable consoles,  business wise.

Neither one should really even exist because the have never made any money and almost certainly will never break even.  They distort the market by selling their high end consoles at a loss at first, never break even, and than do it even further by subsidising developers who make hd games that are frankly too expensive to exist beyond the biggest games.

Consumers never pay the true cost for these systems because they are willing to take giant losses with no real hope of making them up distorting the console market in favor of high end graphics that the market would most likely not have supported at the time they were released.

Guitar SmasherFebruary 06, 2010

It'll be interesting to see if RROD affects Xbox's public perception next gen, and how this may translate into lost sales.

King of TwitchFebruary 06, 2010

If BSOD couldn't do it, nothing will

BlackNMild2k1February 06, 2010

BSoD was a whole different situation though.

Windows practically came with every computer for free and every software was made with Windows support in mind. You had almost no choice in the matter.

Xbox 360 and the RRoD is an option I chose to avoid even though I was really tempted to buy one many times over the last 3-4 years. I know for sure I won't be an early adopter next cycle either with all the problems they had this time around.

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusFebruary 06, 2010

Quote:

I never said that.  I was simply stating that the "developers that matter" see making games for Wii as riskier than making PC-style games, which is something they're already good at.

The way you phrased it made it sound like Wii games needed a guarantee of sales while PC/360/PS3 development doesn't even though it's true that 3rd parties have made games that so far have failed across all platforms possible.  Then you listed a bunch of Nintendo franchises as if making them was not risky.  I remember the heady days of late 2007, when Wii Fit was not ridiculed and was pre-ordained to have success, and making it was in no way risky for Nintendo.

Quote:

Again, I never said Nintendo was "sitting back" when it comes to THEIR OWN own titles.  My point was that they don't need third-parties when it comes right down to it, so they don't give two ****s about catering to them.

Facts not in evidence.  Just because they don't need third parties to be successful doesn't mean they hate third parties.  If anything, considering Nintendo has actually sent resources from their own developers and in more than one instance, actually developed a game for a developer, they actually care a great deal.  They've done plenty, even designing the Wii to be easy to develop for, possibly because it was the number #1 issue for third parties.  Then they get kicked in the face for it when third parties march into the room, drop trou, defecate, and then complain about the smell and ask why everyone's leaving.

Quote:

Do you think Nintendo had third-parties in mind when they developed their convoluted Friend Code system?  Bwahahahahaha.  That was Nintendo looking out for Nintendo.  Which is 100% what they should be doing, but don't complain when third parties give them the cold shoulder.

They didn't seem to mind on the DS.  And what if they aren't making a game with online multiplayer?  Third parties also didn't mind the Ps2 having basically zero online capabilities last generation.

Quote:

They already have PS3 and 360 dev environments set up, so they can tool around as much as they want.  How much "practice" do they need?

They've been making Wii games for 3 years and still have no idea what they are doing.  Their Natal games will be an absolute disaster if they make them at their current skillsets.  They might need more practice if they want to make decent Natal games, or games for the Sony Arc/Sphere/Whatever.

Quote:

Wii is where original IPs go to die, yet everybody continues to kid themselves that it's some huge opportunity just because it has a large userbase (that doesn't play much else other than Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Mario Kart).

I'm not sure what your point is.  So third parties can make high selling Wii games only if they attach a big name franchise to it?  Why do you list three games in the "Wii ____" series like they are not a new IP?  Why do you suddenly skip over games like Zelda, Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. (This game has sold 10 million units) when you previously listed them before?  Why this need to make the Wii look like a "Casual McCasual" system, when third party casual games flop by the hundreds, and third parties themselves have said casual games don't sell on the Wii, and retailers stopped ordering them for this specific reason?

And the Wii WAS an opportunity for third parties.  But they screwed it up with their shovelware and spinoff antics.  How can Nintendo possibly be to blame when they let third parties do whatever they wanted and they CHOSE to make bad games?  How is asking third parties very kindly and gently to "please do not piss on the Wii" being negative to them?

How can people possibly defend third parties or blame Nintendo for all this?  Nintendo makes the best games on Wii, they get the best sales and prosper (More than all other developers and publishers combined, regardless of platform.)  Third parties developers mostly make shovelware, ports, or garbage video games, they fail and die.  Isn't this the way we would have it?  Were we all supposed to buy the bad videogames?

King of TwitchFebruary 06, 2010

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

BSoD was a whole different situation though.

Windows practically came with every computer for free and every software was made with Windows support in mind. You had almost no choice in the matter.

Xbox 360 and the RRoD is an option I chose to avoid even though I was really tempted to buy one many times over the last 3-4 years. I know for sure I won't be an early adopter next cycle either with all the problems they had this time around.

I meant, the BSOD didn't stop people from getting a Xbox

"Why would you trust Microsoft with videogames when their OS constantly crashes, they rip off ideas from other companies, and are simply buying their way to monopolization of the living room"

-Halo looks awesome, it has vehicles and LAN-

And thus a new generation of Groundhog Day Hardware was born

KDR_11kFebruary 06, 2010

Crashing software is one thing, failing hardware another.

NinGurl69 *hugglesFebruary 06, 2010

Quote from: KDR_11k

Crashing software is one thing, failing hardware another.

And Microsoft achieves both--

--oh dear, my comment might come across as negative!

King of TwitchFebruary 06, 2010

At this hour you should either be asleep or working on the Wall.

Get..go on now

KDR_11kFebruary 06, 2010

Quote from: NinGurl69

Quote from: KDR_11k

Crashing software is one thing, failing hardware another.

And Microsoft achieves both--

--oh dear, my comment might come across as negative!

Yeah, the point was that just because their software crashes doesn't mean we should have known that their hardware breaks.

BranDonk KongFebruary 06, 2010

Games Suggest Wii Development Lagging Behind

That should be the title of this thread.

Chozo GhostFebruary 06, 2010

The only way Microsoft could make a console that doesn't suck is if it came with a vacuum cleaner peripheral.

BlackNMild2k1February 06, 2010

But then it would suck for not sucking.

or it would suck for not being a console(or being a console that is also a vacuum) and it would suck as a vacuum for not actually sucking anything up.
it would actually double suck.

D_AverageFebruary 06, 2010

"Of the mobile developers, almost 75 percent were working on games for iPhone OS.  Less than half of this percentage was working on either a Nintendo DS or Sony PSP game."

Definitely shows that the iPhone is capable of biting at least some chunk out of the ds/psp market.  Should be interesting to see just how many in the heard migrate over to the new source of games, and how many consume both options.

NinGurl69 *hugglesFebruary 06, 2010

Funny that people are defining "the market" based on the production/development side (so prestigious, aren't they) rather than the customers/dollars those developers may (or MAY NOT) attract.

Sounds very prosperous to develop for NOBODY, huh

ShyGuyFebruary 07, 2010

Facebook is the next killer platform. Farmville doesn't require skill, just time! Perfect!

We need a new genre to reinvigorate the industry. Somebody invent the text adventure.

KDR_11kFebruary 07, 2010

Quote from: D_Average

"Of the mobile developers, almost 75 percent were working on games for iPhone OS.  Less than half of this percentage was working on either a Nintendo DS or Sony PSP game."

Definitely shows that the iPhone is capable of biting at least some chunk out of the ds/psp market.  Should be interesting to see just how many in the heard migrate over to the new source of games, and how many consume both options.

Considering how low the barrier of entry to the iPhone is you have to wonder how many of those developers ever worked on a console.

Quote from: ShyGuy²

Facebook is the next killer platform. Farmville doesn't require skill, just time! Perfect!

We need a new genre to reinvigorate the industry. Somebody invent the text adventure.

You mean the TXT adventure.

PeachylalaFebruary 07, 2010

Homestar Runner beat them ages ago with TXT adventures.

KDR_11kFebruary 07, 2010

Considering how much games love advertising themselves as the first to do X (notable cases of X: Mixing FPS and RTS, shooting with full 3D movement) lately that wouldn't stop 'em.

Ian SaneFebruary 08, 2010

Quote:

They've done plenty, even designing the Wii to be easy to develop for, possibly because it was the number #1 issue for third parties.


This gets brought up a lot and I remember Nintendo emphasizing this as a key point about the Wii hardware so it makes sense it does.  But I really question how easy the Wii is to develop for.  The Wii is an extension of the Gamecube hardware.  Sounds good in theory except the Gamecube wasn't a very successful console.  The idea is to provide something similar to what developers are already familiar with but since the Cube didn't have that great of third party support many developers would not have been familiar with it.  This removes the ease of development.  It might as well be something brand new for a dev that just made PS2 games last gen.

They also made the Wii vastly different than the other consoles.  So there is no familiarity for most devs.  Anyone currently working on one of the HD platforms can probably learn the other fairly easily, plus the connection with PC development.  The Wii being completely unique requires specific skillsets to work with.  It doesn't matter how easy it is to use, you still have to learn how to use it and learning it is only useful for making Wii games and NOTHING else.

Who it's easy for is Nintendo themselves as they would have familiarity with the Gamecube hardware and are a Wii-exclusive developer.  The criticism is that Nintendo only thinks of themselves, maybe not necessarily for selfish reasons, but just that they don't think beyond their own little world.  The Wii is only developer friendly if you focused on making Gamecube games last gen and make Wii exclusives this gen.  It's the design of a company infamous for having tunnel vision.

I think that third parties are mostly to blame but Nintendo made no real effort to be
accommodating.  If the hardware wasn't so different and so specific to a Nintendo-only mindset this problem wouldn't exist.  No one would refuse to release their big PS360 games on the market leading Wii if the conversion was simple.

Hell Nintendo only introduced the nunchuk due to feedback from Retro.  They were honestly thinking of just using the remote.  How could that be seen as even remotely developer friendly?  That would have been typical tunnel vision Nintendo, who is so oblivious that they were originally going to go with something one of their own devs would have found inflexible (and an American dev no less, so it's no surprise NCL would have not taken their needs into account ahead of time).

BlackNMild2k1February 08, 2010

I understand your point, but regardless of whether or not the 3rd parties used it a lot, the GC was made with ease of use in mind. The PS2 was purposely difficult to develop for as was the PS3, but the GC and the Xbox was made so that you get good results with minimal efforts and great results with real effort.

Unfortunately, most 3rd party developers are still giving the Wii "GC level" efforts and not trying to push the Wii to see what the Wii is capable of.

StogiFebruary 08, 2010

There is plenty of software that the 3rd parties can license that'll make developing for the Wii even easier.

NinGurl69 *hugglesFebruary 08, 2010

But that would mean putting in extra effort to find those tools, but if it means M&Ms Kart Racer would be easier to make, it could be beneficial.

Ian SaneFebruary 08, 2010

Quote:

But that would mean putting in extra effort to find those tools, but if it means M&Ms Kart Racer would be easier to make, it could be beneficial.


I know this is sort of a joke answer but it brings up a point I want to make. :)

Yeah the hardware is easy to use if I take the time to put in the extra effort.  But how is asking someone to put in effort user-friendly?  "If you'll just take the time to learn this..." sounds like an excuse.  We get on third parties for making excuses.  Nintendo expecting third parties to have an easy time IF they're willing to do such-and-such isn't TRULY being user-friendly.  It comes across more like Nintendo making it easy for themselves and then telling YOU to bridge the gap and make the effort and the whole "it's easy if you try" stuff sounds like a lame excuse for not wanting to compromise.

I play guitar.  Let's say for the purpose of this example that playing piano is considered easier to play than guitar.  Nintendo, Sony and MS want me to play songs for them.  Nintendo insists I play piano and the others let me play guitar.  Nintendo uses the excuse that it's not that hard for me to learn piano and it's an easier instrument to play anyway.  I don't care.  Yes guitar is harder but *I* already know how to play it so for me learning the "easier" instrument is actually harder than just playing the "difficult" instrument I already know.

Cube and PS2 owners made fun of the Xbox being a PC-in-a-box but that was in retrospect a REALLY smart move on Microsoft's part because no architecture is more familiar to developers.  Yes it's a sucky, inefficient design and the Cube/Wii design is probably superior.  But developers use it and know it.  I work as a programmer and we've had clients ask us why we don't code in such-and-such because it's better and more flexible.  The reason is that all our devs already know the "inferior" tools we're already using.  We know the workarounds and it still suits our purpose so it wouldn't be financially worthwhile to switch to something "better" and have to retrain the entire staff.  If you're a videogame dev and you honestly think you could make money sticking with what you're familiar with, even if the Wii is the market leader, why would you?  If you feel you can make money (and a whole bunch of them are probably making the wrong assumption there) why would you risk switching?

Nintendo sabotaged the Wii's third party support potential by being too different.  They turned it into a either-or situation and the format supported by THREE other platforms won out.

BlackNMild2k1February 08, 2010

Once again, I understand your point. But it doesn't change the fact that the Wii/GC was designed to be easy to program for.

A more correct analogy for your situation would be that you know how to play the piano(keyboard), but you LOVE to play your guitar. Developing of the PS360 allows you to shred on your guitar for hours and hours a day and get paid for it. Developing for Wii is like trying to play the same song on the piano. It's not as fun for you and it doesn't sound nearly as good.

King of TwitchFebruary 08, 2010

"If you're a videogame dev and you honestly think you could make money sticking with what you're familiar with, even if the Wii is the market leader, why would you?"

What developer was familiar with making money off Grey's Anatomy totally spies ice cream pajama party games?

I think I know who the real inferior tools are

Ian SaneFebruary 08, 2010

Quote:

Once again, I understand your point. But it doesn't change the fact that the Wii/GC was designed to be easy to program for.


But there's always a learning curve.  I'm a programmer.  I know that you can't just be given something different and just know it.  Regardless of how "easy" it may be to use until you take the time and effort to learn it any intentional "easy design" doesn't matter.

This isn't like making a web page here.  This is making a game (I would have no clue where to even start) and we're talking about MOTION CONTROLS which for all intents and purposes didn't even EXIST until the Wii came about.  We don't know what "easy" means in this case.

One point that used to get brought up a lot is that most third parties bet on the wrong horse.  They assumed the Wii would be a flop so the picked the other format assuming it would win out.  The idea was that in time those developers would move to the Wii.  It hasn't happened and I think the transition from one format to the other is too intimidating.  Launch games are usually not so hot as the devs don't have the experience with the new hardware yet.  Over time however they're able to get into the groove and release classic games.

You're a third party.  You bet on the wrong horse.  Now the Wii's on top and you want in on the Wii but your top guys know the other format, having already made games for it, and they're now at the point where they can make GOTY candidates for the other consoles.  If you put the top guys on the Wii then they're starting over and pretty much releasing launch titles again.  Keep them on the HD path and they can bust out something amazing that will, in theory, be a huge hit, while no matter what your first Wii title is it's going to be an average effort as you need to get the kinks out.  So you assign the junior guys to work on the first Wii titles and you want something out right away so you rush it.  So your first titles don't sell because they're not that great.  Meanwhile Team A is still working on their HD game, since they take time, so Team B continues to work on the Wii, but they're Team B for a reason so they don't release that good of stuff.

Now your HD game has been released and let's say it did well.  But you're a few years in and your top guys don't know the Wii, but it's too late to get away with glorified launch titles anymore.  The only team that knows the Wii is the inferior Team B.  Because you bet on the wrong horse you can't just jump right in and release a classic Wii game.  So what do you do?  Maybe you just focus on the HD consoles since your top guys know that format and can release games on it with potential for success.  Meanwhile the Wii userbase already thinks less of you because of your previous Team B games so it's an uphill battle to win them over anyway.  And you won't be able to win them over right away because your top guys don't know the console and by the time they do the Wii might be on it's way out anyway.  There was a window of time to get your top guys familiar with the Wii and it's passed because you bet on the wrong horse.  And EVERYONE bet on the wrong horse.  Your competition is Nintendo and they had a huge head start.

Though one advantage with this scenario is next gen Nintendo will be the favourite so maybe then the third parties will go for them from the get-go.

StogiFebruary 08, 2010

No offense, but that logic is retarded.

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

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

Ian SaneFebruary 08, 2010

Quote:

No offense, but that logic is retarded.


So is not supporting the market leader.  But that's the reality so I'm trying to figure out a reason for it other than "EVERYONE HATES NINTENDO!"

If Nintendo had not made the Wii hardware so vastly different than the competition do you think these same third parties would ignore it?  Even if it's done largely innocently or was necessary for the Wii's success, Nintendo is somewhat responsible for the problem because of their design choices.  If they were more conventional the problem would likely not exist at all.

NinGurl69 *hugglesFebruary 08, 2010

Quote from: Kashogi

No offense, but that logic is retarded.

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

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

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

StogiFebruary 08, 2010

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

Quote from: Ian

Quote:

No offense, but that logic is retarded.


So is not supporting the market leader.  But that's the reality so I'm trying to figure out a reason for it other than "EVERYONE HATES NINTENDO!"

If Nintendo had not made the Wii hardware so vastly different than the competition do you think these same third parties would ignore it?  Even if it's done largely innocently or was necessary for the Wii's success, Nintendo is somewhat responsible for the problem because of their design choices.  If they were more conventional the problem would likely not exist at all.

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

StratosFebruary 08, 2010

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

Motion controls are too different for most devs.

BlackNMild2k1February 08, 2010

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

D_AverageFebruary 08, 2010

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

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

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

BlackNMild2k1February 08, 2010

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

StogiFebruary 09, 2010

Quote from: Stratos

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

Motion controls are too different for most devs.

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

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusFebruary 09, 2010

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

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

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

UrkelFebruary 09, 2010

Quote from: Deguello

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


Why, it's because there are only two audiences on Wii: Nintendo fanboys who only buy Nintendo games, and soccer moms and grandmas who only buy Nintendo games.

Of course, in order to believe that to be true you would have to assume that there are more Nintendo fans that bought a Wii yet didn't buy a Gamecube, seeing as how Mario Kart Wii OUTSOLD THE GAMECUBE.

Also, you would have to believe that Nintendo's marketing is so slick that those clueless soccer moms always make sure they buy Nintendo brand games. Somehow... I don't think that's the case.

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusFebruary 09, 2010

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Deguello/3rd-Party-Wii-Game-2.gif

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

SixthAngelFebruary 09, 2010

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

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

Chozo GhostFebruary 09, 2010

Quote from: Deguello

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Deguello/3rd-Party-Wii-Game-2.gif

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

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

Ian SaneFebruary 09, 2010

Quote:

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


You look at all these games that are on the Xbox 360 and the PS3.  I doubt that if porting to the Wii was easy that this scenario would exist.  Why would Rockstar not port Grand Theft Auto IV to the market leading console if they could? Or Capcom port Resident Evil 5?  Or Namco port Soul Calibur IV?  Or 2K Games port Bioshock?  This isn't the last place Gamecube where the decision was sometimes made to not bother.  This is the market leading console.

And Namco did give the Wii some sort of Soul Calibur product.  Why would they make TWO different games if they could just make ONE game for all THREE?  Why would Capcom change Dead Rising around if they could have just brought the Xbox 360 game over?

Often the third parties do release SOMETHING associated with an IP from the other consoles.  I look at these lousy spin-offs and it suggests to me that what they REALLY want to do is bring this HD game to the Wii as well but they know the huge hurdle that comes with attempting it so they go with something less.  That sucks and they're jerking us around but I don't think they would bother giving us a Dead Rising on-rails shooter if they just could have made Dead Rising for all three consoles at the same time.  Wouldn't that be cheaper and easier anyway?

Quote:


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


I think the initial shovelware came about from the suprise success of the Wii.  So they started off with rushed crap and couldn't just take their top guys off of a big HD project and now they've established the Wii as being the casual shovelware console and can't break from it.  And they probably don't want to take the risk to go for broke on it now because they assume the userbase hates them or is all casuals.

Now that I own a PS3 I don't really pay attention to Wii third party games at all.  Third parties might be thinking the same way; they fucked up the Wii so much that the target market for their good games largely owns one of the other consoles anyway.  They're not sure who the Wii audience is anymore since they polluted the lineup.  If it really is just casuals and Nintendo nuts then they figure they won't succeed.  But with the PS360 they KNOW the audience.  It's very obvious who owns those consoles and what types of games they are interested in.  I'm not even really sure who the Wii audience is.  Most of the people I know who own one are either casuals or Nintendo fans.

I think both Nintendo and the third parties contributed to this problem.  Nintendo's was more innocent while third parties handled their own inaccurate judgement (which I think was justified; who would assume the Wii would be successful?) by shitting in their own bed.

ejamerFebruary 09, 2010

It's not easy to sell games on Wii.

The market is crowded, and mostly with junk developed by 3rd parties.  Trying to make your game pop and be something people want to buy takes real effort and effective advertising.  It also requires that development studios be creative, making sure people can clearly understand the concept and goals of the game.

Wii owners are not a predictable and easily identifiable demographic.  You can't just take an existing game or genre, combine violence with some T&A action for young males, polish the graphics until they shine, and instantly release a top seller on Wii.  (However, Bayonetta seems to be doing fine on PS3/360.)

There is serious competition from first-party titles.  Nintendo releases quite a few games, and most of them are proven keepers.  People know Nintendo games are good, make a point of buying them, and keep/play them longer than the average PS3/360 gamer does first-party titles on those consoles.  Nintendo is playing for keeps and big money, so if you aren't ready to bring the A-game then it might be better to stay home.

Controls and programming are unique, and may require more tweaking depending on what type of game you are creating.  I have heard rumors that Nintendo's system documentation isn't as good as it should be, which might explain why some developers have issues here (or when using other system-specific features).


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

UrkelFebruary 09, 2010

Quote from: Ian

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


Namco ported SC4 to the PSP.

The PSP.





The PSP.


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

NinGurl69 *hugglesFebruary 09, 2010

In the meantime, we fight the good fight.

broodwarsFebruary 09, 2010

Quote from: Urkel

Quote from: Ian

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


Namco ported SC4 to the PSP.

The PSP.





The PSP.


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

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

BlackNMild2k1February 09, 2010

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

Ian SaneFebruary 09, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

NinGurl69 *hugglesFebruary 09, 2010

"That kind of Wii owner"

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

Chozo GhostFebruary 09, 2010

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

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

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

StogiFebruary 09, 2010

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

PeachylalaFebruary 10, 2010

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

Fool me once, won't fool me again.

StogiFebruary 10, 2010

I guess what I meant to say, if they are GOOD GAMES that sell better than their predecessors, then my point will be proven.

Quote from: Ian

For years I complained about the third party support and was told to buy a second console.  This was seen as some sort of requirement for a core gamer.

Honestly, I've ALWAYS considered multiconsole ownership a requirement for the full hardcore gamer experience, even as far back the the 32/64-bit generation.

...which is ironic since I'm such a one-console sorta guy. But hey, that's what happens when your best friend has an XBox and PS2 as well as a GC. You quickly have to re-evaluate hypocritical internet hyperbole.

PeachylalaFebruary 10, 2010

Quote from: Kashogi

I guess what I meant to say, if they are GOOD GAMES that sell better than their predecessors, then my point will be proven.

Could Nintendo be relevent since their Wii entries of their franchises outsold their Gamecube entries, and in some extreme cases the total Gamecube sales?

StogiFebruary 10, 2010

no no no, simply third parties only. There is no need to discuss how awesome Nintendo is. Unless you really want to :)

PeachylalaFebruary 10, 2010

Did NSMBWii outsell Modern Warfare 2 yet?

Quote:


no no no, simply third parties only.

RE4 Wii AND Umbrella Chronicles outsold Bionic Commando PS3/360. Has Dark Void flopped yet?

Mop it upFebruary 10, 2010

Quote from: Kairon

Honestly, I've ALWAYS considered multiconsole ownership a requirement for the full hardcore gamer experience, even as far back the the 32/64-bit generation.

I've considered it a requirement ever since gaming first began. Each system has its own lineup of exclusive games that you're just not going to find anywhere else. There is not and has never been a system with a fully diverse library of games, each system lacked in at least one type or genre that another system excelled. To play all the best games, you've always needed more than a single system.

vuduFebruary 11, 2010

Oh yeah?  Well I've considered multiple console ownership a requirement since the days of Tennis For Two and Spacewar.  I'm the more foresightful one here.

Foresightful.  It's a word.  It means full of foresight.  :Q

Got a news tip? Send it in!
Advertisement
Advertisement