Goriginal Content

EoD - Smash Wii U!

Shantae review!

Fantasy Life review

EoD - Instagram fun

Xeodrifter diary #12

GN Podcast #479
 

GoNintendo 'End of Day' thought - Will the Wii U suffer the same fate as Wii?



Exciting thing coming up. Think I can talk about it next week. MOST exciting thing I've ever done. Can't wait to share! See you in a few, short hours, my friends.


The Wii was a runaway success for Nintendo. It was even a bigger success than Nintendo predicted it would be. I don't know that we'll ever see a Nintendo console success again like the Wii was. I sure hope the Wii U turns out the same way, but it's far too early to judge that.

Of course, the future of the Wii U is going to depend on the software support that comes its way. The Wii sold itself on being a new way to play, and that idea sold to both newcomers and long-time gamers. Unfortunately, those long-time gamers became quite fed up with the Wii, due to its lack of quality third party releases. Things only got worse as the system got long in the tooth.

In comes the Wii U, which Nintendo says fixes all the problems devs had with the Wii. It has a more robust online shop, it offers HD graphics and has a controller that features buttons to support the most robust control schemes out there. From Reggie to Iwata, all of Nintendo seems to think that there's no way third parties can turn the Wii U down.

If you were with us earlier today, you may have noticed an article that detailed just how many of early 2013's big 3rd-party titles are heading to Wii U. Out of a double digit list, there were only 2 confirmed Wii U outings. That's not to say there won't be other Wii U third party games, but this list of heavy-hitters didn't offer much hope for Wii U owners looking to get the same content that hits 360/PS3.

Is this once again an indication of third party support? Will the Wii U suffer early on for what happened with the Wii later in the game? Are the ideas of the Wii extending to Wii U only going to hurt it? Is it too early for devs to shuffle over their projects? What do you see as the fate of the Wii U?

Also check out:
Discussion Preview
84 total comments (View all)
No Avatar
13 Dec 2012 20:23

KoopaStomper27 wrote:But we just can't be making predictions and just count the Wii U out of the game so soon. Are we all trying to be like Michael Pachter!?!?!? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

I'm not counting the Wii U out. I'm counting 3rd parties out.

Since Sony entered the market it's been all about how much developers can get from the console manufacturers. And whoever is willing to pony up the most gets the most support. From FFVII onward it was easy to see. Or do people really consider it a coincidence that Sony signed Square to a 3 film deal at the same time the game was announced for the PS? Even if the N64 had been CD based it never would have been released for it.

Nintendo cannot, and in my opinion, SHOULD NOT even attempt to emulate the way Sony and MS do business. For one, it would kill them. For two it leads to a stagnated industry focused on a few large properties because those are the types of games that developers have received the most income from Sony and MS for. And it breeds disaster as most games begin to copy those few big sellers simply because developers are looking for that big payout, until the market completely collapses on itself.

I don't blame Nintendo for the lack of support. I'm calling out 3rd parties for their idiotic business strategies. Unless they learn to stand on their own feet again, once Sony and/or MS leave the industry they're going to find themselves in a whole world of hurt (the way things are going this could be the last generation for both of them). No sugar daddy to prop them up and a Nintendo market completely locked into buying games only from Nintendo and their close developers because everyone else refused to cater to them or simply threw out shovelware.

It's a bleak future and it's one of their own making. But it doesn't have to be.

However, I doubt may 3rd parties are forward thinking enough to realize the corner they've painted themselves into.
User avatar
13 Dec 2012 21:46

So what should we do beg indie companies to make great Wii U games?
User avatar
14 Dec 2012 05:57

VinceFox wrote:So what should we do beg indie companies to make great Wii U games?

Thats one option, as long Ouya doesnt become popular.
User avatar
14 Dec 2012 08:13

Let's face it. Too many comments above state the same thing. "I buy Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games, I don't care about third parties."

When third party companies read that on the internet over and over again, why would they bother with a Wii U version? So many closest Nintendo gamers that are afraid to try new things. I own 63 Wii games - more than half of those are 3rd party. There are plenty of good third party Wii games, you just have to give them a chance.

But people won't, and third parties know this. So don't expect a lot of support. Thank goodness I have a gaming PC to get those games that aren't on Wii U. And thanks to Steam, I'll only pay $5 for them.
No Avatar
14 Dec 2012 13:48

XCWarrior wrote:Let's face it. Too many comments above state the same thing. "I buy Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games, I don't care about third parties."

When third party companies read that on the internet over and over again, why would they bother with a Wii U version? So many closest Nintendo gamers that are afraid to try new things. I own 63 Wii games - more than half of those are 3rd party. There are plenty of good third party Wii games, you just have to give them a chance.

But people won't, and third parties know this. So don't expect a lot of support. Thank goodness I have a gaming PC to get those games that aren't on Wii U. And thanks to Steam, I'll only pay $5 for them.

Exhibit A: Castlevania Judgement
Exhibit B: Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles/Darkside Chronicles
Exhibit C: Soul Calibur legends
Exhibit D: Dead Space Extraction

When you can explain why the Wii only received these games and never received a real installment of these franchises as they've always existed and still continue to exist on other consoles (and no, RE4 doesn't count), you'll have your answer as to why 3rd parties have so much trouble selling on Nintendo systems.

*HINT!* - It has to do with the fact that most 3rd parties don't take Nintendo customers seriously. And if you expect me to buy terribad spin-offs in hopes of getting real support then both you and 3rd parties are severely diluted.

I'm all for experimentation but, come on. Even you have to admit that the Wii was treated like a second class citizen by most developers. And you're not going to engender much support when you treat your customers like trash.

But wait, who brought all their real games to the Wii? Why Nintendo did. They brought real Mario. They brought real Zelda. They brought real Metroid. They didn't just release weird spin-offs that would have tanked on any system and then decided that there was no future market for any of their games.

Yet that's exactly what most 3rd parties did. And you're actually defending them...

That's just sad.
User avatar
14 Dec 2012 15:53

sigrah0x7ba wrote:It has to do with the fact that most 3rd parties don't take Nintendo customers seriously.


"It has to do with the fact that most 3rd parties don't take Nintendo customers seriously."

Yes, when Nintendo releases a system targeted exclusively toward children, senior citizens, and people who are only interested in Nintendo flagship titles, then the people who buy that system are not going to be taken seriously.

I like how some people act so shocked that the Wii missed out on getting games aimed at the traditional gamer demographic, games built around traditional controls, games built around non-terrible online infrastructure, and games whose main draw was being a showcase for cutting-edge technology.

Gee, what on earth was going through third-parties' minds when they skipped out on the system that was not remotely well-suited for those games?

"But wait, who brought all their real games to the Wii?"

The same company that showed that if you released cheap poorly-made motion-controlled mini-game fests and fitness games on the system, then the install base would eat it up. Also, the same company that basically abandoned the system after 2010.

This is known as 'setting the bar'.
No Avatar
14 Dec 2012 18:06

Hamr wrote:stuff

You're obvious bias that has nothing to do with this conversation is showing.

You might want to cover that up.
User avatar
14 Dec 2012 19:00

sigrah0x7ba wrote:
Hamr wrote:truth

You're obvious bias

Your.

You're obvious bias that has nothing to do with this conversation is showing.

You might want to cover that up.

Hey, you are the one complaining about those third-parties being big meanies and not having any respect for you as a consumer. I am just telling you why.

If you want to act offended and stick your head in the sand, I am not going to stop you.
No Avatar
14 Dec 2012 19:38

Hamr wrote:more stuff.

I know... Isn't it sad that the PS360 only sell to bro-cores and that all they buy are FPSs?

(waits for hypocritical response)

And I'm not saying 3rd parties are being mean, I'm saying their being incredibly stupid and short sighted. There (HAH!) cutting off their noses to spite their faces. You don't leave a massive market like the Wii out for the wolves because you don't want to make games for it or because it doesn't sate your desire to inflate your ego. You make games for it in order to make more money so you can continue to make more games. I don't care how weak the hardware is or who the demographics are that buy it. Anything else is bad business. Period.

And you sure as hell don't treat your customers like guinea pigs or as if they were all idiots. At least you're not supposed to be so obvious about it as 3rd parties were with the Wii.

The fact that 3rd parties have completely forgotten this or are too busy selling their souls in order to get on the Sony and MS money train tells me that this industry is in a whole hell of a lot of trouble than most people want to admit.
User avatar
14 Dec 2012 20:38

sigrah0x7ba wrote:I know... Isn't it sad that the PS360 only sell to bro-cores and that all they buy are FPSs?


Hey, you are the one who appears unhappy over not getting those 'real games' (whatever that means), not me.

But yes, that is basically how third-parties work with those systems. Sony and Microsoft market their systems toward people interested in shooters. As first-parties, they release shooters. Their first-party shooters sell truckloads. Third-parties look at those sales, say 'Hey, we can get some of that', and as a consequence, the systems are awash in third-party shooters.

Nintendo chose to go after non-gamers (Iwata's term, not mine). At launch, they pushed mini-game collections, fitness games, even a lightgun shooter, and last generation ports. And the install base bought them overwhelmingly. Third-parties followed suit. Many of them made good money off of this.

"You don't leave a massive market like the Wii out for the wolves because you don't want to make games for it or because it doesn't sate your desire to inflate your ego."

The 'Wii market' is only massive if you assume that everyone who owns a Wii is interested in the same types of games. This is quite obviously untrue. Different genres see different success. Take the fitness genre versus, say, the third-person shooter.

How many people purchased 'Wii Fit'?

Now how many people bought Battalion Wars 2?

Exactly.

"You make games for it in order to make more money so you can continue to make more games."

Er, not all games are created equal. If you make a game that no one on the system wants to buy, then you are not going to make money.

"I don't care how weak the hardware is or who the demographics are that buy it."

If the demographics that buy it are not interested in certain genres of games, then there is clearly no point in producing those genres for the system.

"Anything else is bad business. Period."

You make games according to what sells. If you make a game that does not sell because no one in a 100-million-strong install base is actually interested, then that is bad business.

'What sells' on the system is largely determined and demonstrated by first-parties. If I am a third-party, why should I produce a violent close-quarters action game for a system where the platform holder has demonstrated that it is viable to sell a quadrillion units of a motion-controlled tech demo? Why shouldn't I produce a happy dance game instead?
No Avatar
14 Dec 2012 21:32

Hamr wrote:
sigrah0x7ba wrote:I know... Isn't it sad that the PS360 only sell to bro-cores and that all they buy are FPSs?


Hey, you are the one who appears unhappy over not getting those 'real games' (whatever that means), not me.

But yes, that is basically how third-parties work with those systems. Sony and Microsoft market their systems toward people interested in shooters. As first-parties, they release shooters. Their first-party shooters sell truckloads. Third-parties look at those sales, say 'Hey, we can get some of that', and as a consequence, the systems are awash in third-party shooters.

It's not really the games that I'm upset about. It's the specialization. As more and more 3rd parties specialize more and more games become more and more homogenized, the industry becomes weaker, and any sort of little trouble can have broad, sweeping consequences. Look at how many devs closed up shop because of the PS360. That would never have happened in a health industry.

Nintendo chose to go after non-gamers (Iwata's term, not mine). At launch, they pushed mini-game collections, fitness games, even a lightgun shooter, and last generation ports. And the install base bought them overwhelmingly. Third-parties followed suit. Many of them made good money off of this.

But nothing was stopping 3rd parties from expanding their offerings, just as Nintendo did. You mentioned setting the bar before and if you want to use Nintendo as the bar for the Wii then everyone else was so far below it it's not even funny. Yes, Nintendo made mini games collections and other new sorts of interactive games but they still made plenty of the same games that they've always made. 3rd parties chose to ignore those games and pretend like all Nintendo made for the Wii was Wii Sports and Wii Fit. There's no excuse for that other than willful ignorance.

"You don't leave a massive market like the Wii out for the wolves because you don't want to make games for it or because it doesn't sate your desire to inflate your ego."

The 'Wii market' is only massive if you assume that everyone who owns a Wii is interested in the same types of games. This is quite obviously untrue. Different genres see different success. Take the fitness genre versus, say, the third-person shooter.

How many people purchased 'Wii Fit'?

Now how many people bought Battalion Wars 2?

Exactly.

So Battalion Wars 2 is completely indicative of what games would sell on the Wii? I'm glad we finally have an artificially contrived standard to work from! Point is, RE4 sold more than a million units, WAY above Capcom's expectations. RE:UC sold more than a million units as well. It wasn't until RE:DC that an RE game showed a less than stellar sales throughput on the Wii. And yet it only took that one game to see RE vanish from the Wii. I haven't been seeing any 3rd parties pull back support from the PS360 when one of their games flop on those systems (and RE:DC wasn't even a flop, it just sold below Capcom's expectations). Even when it was an expensive title instead of a budget one like almost all of their Wii titles.

"You make games for it in order to make more money so you can continue to make more games."

Er, not all games are created equal. If you make a game that no one on the system wants to buy, then you are not going to make money.

Not all systems are created equal either. And there's no way to determine what a market will or will not buy unless you make your products available for it. Most 3rd parties did not make their products available for the Wii market, other than through strange experimental off-shoot titles. How could they ever be able to determine that their games wouldn't sell if they never made them available in the first place?

"I don't care how weak the hardware is or who the demographics are that buy it."

If the demographics that buy it are not interested in certain genres of games, then there is clearly no point in producing those genres for the system.

Prove what the demographics of the Wii were. All you've done so far is spout propaganda and inuendo. Show me a breakdown, scientifically developed, which actually and factually shows that certain 3rd party games or genres wouldn't sell on the Wii. And you can't use failed experimental games that would have flopped on any system or garbage ports like Dead Rising as any sort of evidence.

Show me how RE5 failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me how Dead Space failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me how Soul Calibur failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me how Castlevania failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.

That's right. None of them failed because none of them were ever on the Wii to begin with. All of their experimental games would have sold badly if not out right flopped on the PS360. At least they would have actually put some effort into them if they had been on those systems though. Dead Space Extraction, when it was ported to the PS360, ended up being bundled in with Dead Space 2 and GIVEN AWAY! They charged $50 for it on the Wii. Yeah, sure sounds like they expected it to be a big hit on the other systems. This is one of the games that people like to bring up as an excuse to say that Wii gamers wouldn't buy 3rd party titles. If you have to give your game away on the PS360, you never intended it to sell in the first place. Yet the Wii market was supposed to buy it en mass.

NO.

"Anything else is bad business. Period."

You make games according to what sells. If you make a game that does not sell because no one in a 100-million-strong install base is actually interested, then that is bad business.

'What sells' on the system is largely determined and demonstrated by first-parties. If I am a third-party, why should I produce a violent close-quarters action game for a system where the platform holder has demonstrated that it is viable to sell a quadrillion units of a motion-controlled tech demo? Why shouldn't I produce a happy dance game instead?

You're again minimizing the situation to try and prove an invalid point. Sure, Wii sports sold huge as did Wii Fit. But so did NSMBWii and so did Mario Kart Wii and so did Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 and pretty much all of Nintendo's games whether they were core or casual focused. 3rd parties, much like your broken comparisons, decided to run with the mini games and whatnot because they thought of the Wii audience as being nothing but stupid Nintendo gamers and casual idiots.

And when high selling 3rd party core games are bought up (RE4, RE:UC, MHTri, and all of the WAY late ports of CoD) they're swiftly brushed aside as aberrations.

Why?

Why aren't these high selling games held up as an example that 3rd party games COULD sell on the Wii? Even the all mighty CoD, a year late and completely gutted, still managed to sell more than a million units whenever it managed to make it to the system. Is it because the sales weren't as high as on the other platforms? Well, if the developers had put in the same time, effort, and maybe threw in some advertising, they might have seen the same level of sales.

But we'll never know because they never did and, just like you, bought into worthless stereotypes and myths.

What's even funnier is when you look at the generation before you can already see this illusory "only certain games will sell on Nintendo systems" crap getting started. And 3rd parties buying into it. RE4 sold about the same amount on the GC as it did on the PS2, with less than 1/5th of the market share. You would have thought RE5 would be a no-brainer for the Wii. Soul Calibur 2 sold more on the GC than the PS2 and XBox combined, and yet SC3 was a PS2 exclusive. Now how do you think that managed to happen?

In the end, it all comes down to money. Nintendo could do nothing but release FPSs and violence filled blood soaked games and they would still get hosed on 3rd party support. Why? Because they can't afford to buy it like Sony and MS do.
User avatar
15 Dec 2012 08:10

@sigrah0x7ba

"But nothing was stopping 3rd parties from expanding their offerings, just as Nintendo did."

The performance of Nintendo's expanded offerings relative to Nintendo's casual offerings is what stopped them.

Given a choice between a cheaply made game in a genre that sells tens of millions copies on a system, and a more expensive game that at best sells maybe two million copies, which one do you think is going to make more money?

"You mentioned setting the bar before and if you want to use Nintendo as the bar for the Wii then everyone else was so far below it it's not even funny. Yes, Nintendo made mini games collections and other new sorts of interactive games but they still made plenty of the same games that they've always made."

What are these games you are talking about?

"3rd parties chose to ignore those games and pretend like all Nintendo made for the Wii was Wii Sports and Wii Fit."

No, third-parties looked at the 20+ million units that something like Wii fit sold, and then looked at other game genres having an upper-bound ceiling at maybe one-tenth of that, and then went where the obvious success was.

"So Battalion Wars 2 is completely indicative of what games would sell on the Wii?"

I mentioned that game because that was the entirety of what Nintendo offered in terms of third-person shooters for however many years. (I suppose I could have mentioned Sin and Punishment 2 instead?) But if you want to argue that it bombed because Nintendo released a poor product, then I guess you can, but that kind of proves my point re: Nintendo failing to set a good example for third-parties to follow.

"RE4 sold more than a million units"

My favorite part about this is how you say that like a million (hell, let us be charitable and say two million) units is supposed to be impressive. Impressive compared to what, exactly?

Compared to the Wii install base? No, that stands at about 100 million right now.

Compared to party games on the system? No, Wii Party managed about eight million.

Compared to other Resident Evil games? No, Resident Evil 1-3 on the original Playstation managed 2.75 mill, 4.96 mill, and 3.5 mill. RE5 on the HD twins got 5.9 mill.

“WAY above Capcom's expectations”

Way above the expectations for a last generation port. Fitting in with what I am saying, third-parties made a ton of those for the Wii.

Way below the expectations for something built from the ground-up for the system, which I believe is what you are arguing they should have made.

“RE:UC sold more than a million units as well.”

Which is quite successful for a non-Nintendo lightgun shooter (Link’s Crossbow Training sold five million). And what a surprise, the system was literally swimming in third-party railshooters.

“And yet it only took that one game to see RE vanish from the Wii.”

I think the hilarious failure of the two Archives games had more to do with Resident Evil going away on the Wii than Darkside Chronicles slightly missing its low 800K railshooter target.

(Or are we pretending that RE4 is the only traditional third-person Resident Evil Capcom released on the system?)

“And there's no way to determine what a market will or will not buy unless you make your products available for it.”

Sure, there is. As I explained, a first-party owner can demonstrate what will or will not sell on its system by releasing certain types of games for that system. If Metroid Prime Corruption had been the game to sell twenty-million units, then third-parties would have fallen over themselves to release shooters on the system.

But it was not.

“Prove what the demographics of the Wii were.”

You want me to do Nintendo’s job?

Well, let us see, out of a hundred million Wii owners, we can confidently saying that a large proportion of them were interested in party games (~30% of the install base purchased Mario Kart, 10% Brawl, 8% Wii Party, 8% Mario Party), poorly-made motion controlled mini-game fests (~30% purchased Wii Sports Resort, ~30% Wii Play, 7% Mario and Sonic), 2D platformers (26% bought New Super Mario Bros Wii, 5% DKCR), Fitness games (20% purchased Wii Fit, same with Wii Fit Plus), 3D platformers (11% purchased Galaxy, 6% Galaxy 2), rhythm games (5% Just Dance 2, 4% Just Dance), and whatever the hell Zelda is (6% purchased Twilight Princess, 5% purchased Crossbow Training, 3.5% Skyward Sword).

I also feel pretty okay with saying that 2% of them max were interested in non-rails shooters (shooters that broke that ceiling include, uh, none of them).

“Show me a breakdown, scientifically developed, which actually and factually shows that certain 3rd party games or genres wouldn't sell on the Wii.”

Er, scientifically-developed studies do not work that way because they are not built to prove negatives. The burden of proof is not on me to build a conclusive case that mermaids and dragons do not exist; the burden is on whoever believes in them to prove that they do, (e.g., by producing one).

Now, is it possible to prove that if a third-party released a shooter on the Wii tomorrow that it would *not* sell 80 million units? No.

Nonetheless, we can still quite easily infer based on evidence such as how similar such games have historically sold that that is not a reasonably-likely scenario.

“Show me how RE5 failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me how Dead Space failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me how Soul Calibur failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me how Castlevania failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.”

Show me a RE5-type game Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me a Dead Space-type game that Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me a Soul Calibur-type game that Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me a Castlevania-type game that Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.

Here is an idea for a game that we can play: I will name a Sony (or Microsoft, if you prefer) published title that belongs to one of the same genres as the above four games and sold more than two million units on that system. Then you name a Wii game, first or third-party, belonging to one of those same genres as the above four games and sold more than two million units on the Wii. First one of us to run out of titles to name loses.

I will go first: Gears of Wars

(Or if you want Sony: God of War 3)

Your turn!

“All of their experimental games would have sold badly if not out right flopped on the PS360.”

They did not need to put out experimental games because Sony and Microsoft did that for them, and to great success.

When they wanted to release a game built around a specific strength, like online multiplayer, they did not need to do an experiment where they built their own servers – they just looked at an online-focused first-party game, saw how well it sold, and felt confident to release their game. Past-success was a proven entity.

“They charged $50 for it on the Wii. Yeah, sure sounds like they expected it to be a big hit on the other systems.”

If you want to take issue with charging full-price for a lightgun shooters on the Wii, you should take it up with all those Wii owners who bought lightgun shooters at full price. :lol:

“This is one of the games that people like to bring up as an excuse to say that Wii gamers wouldn't buy 3rd party titles”

Maybe if you lump all third-party games ever together, but its failure to me seemed more of representative of railshooters hitting a saturation point on the system.

“You're again minimizing the situation to try and prove an invalid point”

What situation am I ‘minimizing’?

“But so did NSMBWii and so did Mario Kart Wii and so did Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2”

Mario Kart Wii is a motion-controlled party game. I am not certain why you are lumping it together with the other Mario games.

As for the others, are you seriously trying to pretend that the Wii was wanting for third-party platformers 2D or 3D? Really?

A Boy and His Blob, De Blob, De Blob 2, Fluidity, Klonoa, La-Mulana, Lost Winds, Lost Winds 2, Max and the Magic Marker, Nyxquest, Skylanders Spyro, Skylanders Giants, Sonic Colors, Sonic the Hedgehog 4, Rayman Origins… That many well-reviewed platformers (the number is larger if we include stuff like Sonic and the Secret Rings, Epic Mickey, Epic Mickey 2, Ivy the Kiwi, Lost in Shadow, and Dewey’s Adventure) seems like a fair amount of effort put into pushing the genre on the system.

“3rd parties, much like your broken comparisons”

I suspect by ‘broken’ you mean that my comparisons do not reflect well on Nintendo. I am okay with this.

“3rd parties, much like your broken comparisons, decided to run with the mini games and whatnot because they thought of the Wii audience as being nothing but stupid Nintendo gamers and casual idiots.”

No, they decided to run with what sold well.

“And when high selling 3rd party core games are bought up (RE4, RE:UC, MHTri, and all of the WAY late ports of CoD) they're swiftly brushed aside as aberrations.”

I do not really need to rush those games aside as aberrations, given that they are not actually high-selling. How many of those games broke 2 million again? Oh, yes. None.

And just to drive the nail in, I already addressed how Resident Evil 4 underperformed relative to the rest of the series and was followed by other traditional Resident Evil ports that absolutely no one bought, and I already addressed how the system was swimming in lightgun shooters. That just leaves Monster Hunter Tri’s doing 1.9 million in sales on the Wii compared to Monster Hunter Freedom 2’s 2.5 million, Freedom Unite’s 3.3 million and Freedom 3’s 4.7 million on the PSP.

http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/busi ... llion.html

Aaaand

“and all of the WAY late ports of CoD”

World at War launched on the Wii same time as the HD twins.

Black Ops launched on the Wii same time as the HD twins.

Modern Warfare 3 launched on the Wii same time as the HD twins.

Now, out of the 11 million WAW did, the 25 million that Blops did, and the however many million that Modern Warfare 3 did, how many units of each were sold for the Wii? One, maybe two? And companies that do not have half the name recognition as Call of Duty were supposed to pin their hopes on a puny market like that? Yeah, no.

“RE4 sold about the same amount on the GC as it did on the PS2, with less than 1/5th of the market share.”

Er, I guess 2.3 million on the PS2 is about the same as 1.6 million on the Gamecube in the sense that you can technically round both of them to 2 million, so I will let you have that one.

“You would have thought RE5 would be a no-brainer for the Wii.”

Yes, if they hired another studio, gimped the graphics, and chop till you drop’d the enemy count, they could have really possibly enjoyed that maybe a million or two maximum sales bump while totally not doing as badly as Nintendo’s attempts at third-person shooters on the system. What a loss, there.

“Soul Calibur 2 sold more on the GC than the PS2 and XBox combined, and yet SC3 was a PS2 exclusive.”

As PS2 exclusive as something that is later ported as an arcade game gets, I guess.

“Now how do you think that managed to happen?”

Arcade games 1 and 2 get ported to various consoles, then to make game three, Bamco uses the most popular console as a testing ground before releasing the superior version in the arcades where it belongs.

Then arcades go bye bye and multiplayer arcade games go to systems with actual online infrastructure.

“In the end, it all comes down to money. Nintendo could do nothing but release FPSs and violence filled blood soaked games and they would still get hosed on 3rd party support. Why?”

Because no one would buy them because their systems are designed to aim at people with the polar opposite tastes and dispositions to the type of people who enjoy those games.

“In the end, it all comes down to money. Nintendo could do nothing but release FPSs and violence filled blood soaked games and they would still get hosed on 3rd party support. Why?

A. If by ‘buying it’, you mean ‘demonstrating that there is a viable market on the system for those types of games’, then sure they can, assuming that there actually is such a market on their system. No offense, but the idea that third-parties would ignore a Nintendo-published action game doing Halo numbers is about as absurd and paranoid as it gets.

B. If by ‘buying it’, you mean literally paying third-parties in second-party publishing deals, then sure they can.

Just take a minor, less-than-one-percent fraction of that money that they have sitting in the bank that is not actually being used for development of hard/software or anything other than drawing interest, and produce a couple of games. Child's play.
User avatar
15 Dec 2012 13:31

@Hamr

"Show me a RE5-type game Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me a Dead Space-type game that Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me a Soul Calibur-type game that Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me a Castlevania-type game that Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait."

I don't get what is your point here... Nintendo never released these games on Wii, but there were similar titles to their past consoles.

Plus, why does Nintendo have to make it in order for 3rd-parties to support the system? If anything, consumer will buy the 1st-party game, ignore 3rd-party, and then 3rd party will say that is impossible to compete with Nintendo.

There are a number of 2D platformers on PSN, but none have seen success of Little Big Planet. I mean, sure, LBP has had a hundred re-release and sequels, but still. Point is, Sony platform is not known for platformer (except arguably Ratchet & Clank), but LBP still sold over 3mil (worldwide, incl. all editions).

First-party will always sell more because there is assured quality. Vanquish didn't sell as much as Gears and Bayonetta didn't sell as much as GoW.
No Avatar
15 Dec 2012 16:01

Hamr wrote:@sigrah0x7ba

"But nothing was stopping 3rd parties from expanding their offerings, just as Nintendo did."

The performance of Nintendo's expanded offerings relative to Nintendo's casual offerings is what stopped them.

Given a choice between a cheaply made game in a genre that sells tens of millions copies on a system, and a more expensive game that at best sells maybe two million copies, which one do you think is going to make more money?

Which explains why the only games made for the PS360 are GTA and CoD clones... OH WAIT! No they're not. 3rd parties had no trouble still developing different types of games on THOSE systems. But on a Nintendo system it's always the easy way out. Even when the games flopped, and flopped hard, developers continued to push into the HD market. Show me how any 3rd party attempted to take the Wii market even a fraction as seriously.

"You mentioned setting the bar before and if you want to use Nintendo as the bar for the Wii then everyone else was so far below it it's not even funny. Yes, Nintendo made mini games collections and other new sorts of interactive games but they still made plenty of the same games that they've always made."

What are these games you are talking about?

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Nintendo's games are plainly visible. Go look up their output for the Wii. It's not like it's some kind of secret what they made. Mario (both 2D and 3D), Zelda, Metroid, Donky Kong, etc., etc., etc. All saw traditional installments. Or are you trying to say that all Nintendo games are now casual?

"3rd parties chose to ignore those games and preend like all Nintendo made for the Wii was Wii Sports and Wii Fit."

No, third-parties looked at the 20+ million units that something like Wii fit sold, and then looked at other game genres having an upper-bound ceiling at maybe one-tenth of that, and then went where the obvious success was.

Which again explains why EVERYTHING on the PS360 is CoD clones. OH WAIT!!!!! Could you get a new argument please? It's beyond broken.

"So Battalion Wars 2 is completely indicative of what games would sell on the Wii?"

I mentioned that game because that was the entirety of what Nintendo offered in terms of third-person shooters for however many years. (I suppose I could have mentioned Sin and Punishment 2 instead?) But if you want to argue that it bombed because Nintendo released a poor product, then I guess you can, but that kind of proves my point re: Nintendo failing to set a good example for third-parties to follow.

EVERY developer has bad games. Even Nintendo. To try and hold one up as some sort of absolute litmus test is incredibly disingenuous and you know it. A LOT of Sony and even MS's internally developed games have done very poorly and yet you don't see that scaring 3rd parties away from making games in the same genre. Sony's Smash clone is pretty much flopping. Do you think developers are going to stop making fighting games for Sony systems now? In fact, it doesn't seem to effect 3rd parties at all in regards to whatever Sony or MS release or don't release for their systems. Again, that's a Nintendo specific problem.

"RE4 sold more than a million units"

My favorite part about this is how you say that like a million (hell, let us be charitable and say two million) units is supposed to be impressive. Impressive compared to what, exactly?

Compared to the Wii install base? No, that stands at about 100 million right now.

Compared to party games on the system? No, Wii Party managed about eight million.

Compared to other Resident Evil games? No, Resident Evil 1-3 on the original Playstation managed 2.75 mill, 4.96 mill, and 3.5 mill. RE5 on the HD twins got 5.9 mill.

Compared to a 4th release (if you count PC) for the game on a platform that 3rd parties INSIST their games don't sell on, was a quick and dirty port, and wasn't even supported by the developer, it's DAMN impressive. The entirety of your comparisons are broken and manipulated in order to try and make it look like the game did worse than it did. You want to compare it to RE5? Then we can do that. It made MORE money for Capcom, COMPARATIVELY (since you like making baseless comparisons), than RE5 did. ZERO budget and ZERO advertising. Just how much did they spend on RE5? I'm sure it was way, WAY more than 6x. Probably more than 50x. So essentially, every copy of RE4 sold on the Wii made Capcom more money than every copy of RE5 sold on the PS360.

Or am I not allowed to manipulate the situation to support my points?

“WAY above Capcom's expectations”

Way above the expectations for a last generation port. Fitting in with what I am saying, third-parties made a ton of those for the Wii.

Way below the expectations for something built from the ground-up for the system, which I believe is what you are arguing they should have made.

And if last gen ports sold so well, just imagine how much better a title actually built for the hardware and supported by the developer would have done. But they never made an RE for the Wii so we'll never know. But as people are ALREADY trying to use as a weapon against the Wii U, aren't the sale of last gen ports supposed to be a viable guage as to whether the market WILL buy original titles developed for the hardware? Wii passed that test, and yet the original titles never came.

“RE:UC sold more than a million units as well.”

Which is quite successful for a non-Nintendo lightgun shooter (Link’s Crossbow Training sold five million). And what a surprise, the system was literally swimming in third-party railshooters.

Even after the market told them ENOUGH! RE:DC sold around half of RE:UC. The market said no more. But then along came DS:E and flopped, as the MARKET told them it would. Yet the market was blamed for a developers stupid ideas.

“And yet it only took that one game to see RE vanish from the Wii.”

I think the hilarious failure of the two Archives games had more to do with Resident Evil going away on the Wii than Darkside Chronicles slightly missing its low 800K railshooter target.

(Or are we pretending that RE4 is the only traditional third-person Resident Evil Capcom released on the system?)

Hilarious failures... Either you don't know what a failure is or you're still pretending like developers had the right to expect HD level sales with zero effort on their part. Even at 800,000 (last I heard I thought it was closer to 500,000 but whatever) you know they still made a LOT of money off of it what with it's non-existent budget and miniscule marketing. You get back what you put in. Had Capcom supported the game or *GASP!* made an RE game in the vein of RE4 for the Wii, they may have actually seen better success. But they didn't, so they didn't.

And yes, it was the ONLY traditional RE made for the system (Japan only released ports might as well not exist), are you kidding me? What's traditional about the fact that the other games baring the RE name on the Wii played nothing like any previous games in the franchise? Or are we talking about Dead Aim here because if we are you're going to get one HELL of an earful from people about that. Most people like to pretend that they never existed let alone that they bore the RE name in the first place.

*EDIT*

I read back over what you said and I realized what you were talking about. Those ports of the RE GC remake and... what else? I don't remember. I didn't even know they came OUT, let alone that they were released outside of Japan and I follow Nintendo news very closely. You would think I would have heard something but... If you want to use them as black marks against the Wii then go ahead but when a game is so stealth launched that someone like me, who really follows gaming, doesn't even know about it then I'd say that speaks far more badly of Capcom than of the Wii market.

And RE:0 too? Holy CRAP did Capcom screw up with these releases! I had no idea this even existed!

“And there's no way to determine what a market will or will not buy unless you make your products available for it.”

Sure, there is. As I explained, a first-party owner can demonstrate what will or will not sell on its system by releasing certain types of games for that system. If Metroid Prime Corruption had been the game to sell twenty-million units, then third-parties would have fallen over themselves to release shooters on the system.

But it was not.

I can guarantee you that Corruption made more money than most shooters have on the PS360 though, even with it's smaller sales base. Specifically because it didn't cost tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to make. And sure the sales were less than the BIG shooters on the PS360 but Metriod isn't the strongest Nintendo property to begin with, and you know it. Metroid always seems to sell 1-2 million. It's not a blockbuster franchise but it made Nintendo money. How many 3rd parties can say the same about their HD titles?

“Prove what the demographics of the Wii were.”

You want me to do Nintendo’s job?

Well, let us see, out of a hundred million Wii owners, we can confidently saying that a large proportion of them were interested in party games (~30% of the install base purchased Mario Kart, 10% Brawl, 8% Wii Party, 8% Mario Party), poorly-made motion controlled mini-game fests (~30% purchased Wii Sports Resort, ~30% Wii Play, 7% Mario and Sonic), 2D platformers (26% bought New Super Mario Bros Wii, 5% DKCR), Fitness games (20% purchased Wii Fit, same with Wii Fit Plus), 3D platformers (11% purchased Galaxy, 6% Galaxy 2), rhythm games (5% Just Dance 2, 4% Just Dance), and whatever the hell Zelda is (6% purchased Twilight Princess, 5% purchased Crossbow Training, 3.5% Skyward Sword).

I also feel pretty okay with saying that 2% of them max were interested in non-rails shooters (shooters that broke that ceiling include, uh, none of them).

I don't want you to do Nintendo's job, you've been pretty good at saying you've already done a better job at it than they ever could.

“Show me a breakdown, scientifically developed, which actually and factually shows that certain 3rd party games or genres wouldn't sell on the Wii.”

Er, scientifically-developed studies do not work that way because they are not built to prove negatives. The burden of proof is not on me to build a conclusive case that mermaids and dragons do not exist; the burden is on whoever believes in them to prove that they do, (e.g., by producing one).

Now, is it possible to prove that if a third-party released a shooter on the Wii tomorrow that it would *not* sell 80 million units? No.

Nonetheless, we can still quite easily infer based on evidence such as how similar such games have historically sold that that is not a reasonably-likely scenario.

Except your evidence is circumstantial at best and completely suspect at worst. 3rd parties never released the types of games that you would need in order to build up any sort of conclusive case in the first place. If RE5 fails to sell a single copy on the Wii because it was never released on the system to begin with, is that the Wii's fault, or the developer? For some reason you and most of the industry want to blame the Wii when it's the developer/publisher who are at fault.

You said that you cannot prove a negative and yet you're doing just that.

I'm saying there's no way of knowing since there's no conclusive evidence either way. But SOMEONE, besides Nintendo, should have at least tried instead of taking idiotic baseless rumors as absolute fact.

“Show me how RE5 failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me how Dead Space failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me how Soul Calibur failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me how Castlevania failed to sell on the Wii... oh wait.”

Show me a RE5-type game Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me a Dead Space-type game that Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me a Soul Calibur-type game that Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.
Show me a Castlevania-type game that Nintendo released on the Wii... oh wait.

Here is an idea for a game that we can play: I will name a Sony (or Microsoft, if you prefer) published title that belongs to one of the same genres as the above four games and sold more than two million units on that system. Then you name a Wii game, first or third-party, belonging to one of those same genres as the above four games and sold more than two million units on the Wii. First one of us to run out of titles to name loses.

I will go first: Gears of Wars

(Or if you want Sony: God of War 3)

Your turn!

And yet again, you're playing a loosing game. If Nintendo has to release a successful game in every genre for a 3rd party to be interested in releasing THEIR games on the Wii then almost no games would be on ANY platform. Sony and MS don't release games in every genre either but developers have no problem releasing games in genres that Sony and MS don't dabble in on their systems. Neither Sony nor MS, until recently, made fighting games and yet 3rd parties have had no issue making and selling fighters for their systems. Smash Brothers is THE MOST SUCCESSFUL fighting game franchise in the industry and it is made by Nintendo. Do you see developers falling all over themselves to get their fighting games on Nintendo platforms?

“All of their experimental games would have sold badly if not out right flopped on the PS360.”

They did not need to put out experimental games because Sony and Microsoft did that for them, and to great success.

When they wanted to release a game built around a specific strength, like online multiplayer, they did not need to do an experiment where they built their own servers – they just looked at an online-focused first-party game, saw how well it sold, and felt confident to release their game. Past-success was a proven entity.

??? What are you talking about? Built their own servers? What does that have to do with a Castlevania game that's a fighter or a Soul Calibur game that's an adventure? Somehow Capcom forgot that RE was a survival horror game and couldn't remember what it was unless Nintendo released a survival horror for them first?

“They charged $50 for it on the Wii. Yeah, sure sounds like they expected it to be a big hit on the other systems.”

If you want to take issue with charging full-price for a lightgun shooters on the Wii, you should take it up with all those Wii owners who bought lightgun shooters at full price. :lol:

It shows that 3rd parties never tried to understand the Wii audience. And DS:E bombed hard on the Wii. They should have known that something was up what with other on-rails shooters selling below expectations well before the game came out. And yet instead of thinking "maybe we shouldn't make this" they continued with their charade. And when it flopped, as the market TOLD them it would, who did they blame? And then, knowing it wouldn't sell at all on the PS360 even as a downloadable title, they just gave it away with DS2. However, they still went through the effort to port it to the PS360... I wonder why?

“This is one of the games that people like to bring up as an excuse to say that Wii gamers wouldn't buy 3rd party titles”

Maybe if you lump all third-party games ever together, but its failure to me seemed more of representative of railshooters hitting a saturation point on the system.

Completely, but most people don't see it that way. Including the numerous developers who used it as a test. As well as MadWorld and numerous other games that would have tanked on the PS360 just as hard, if not harder.

“You're again minimizing the situation to try and prove an invalid point”

What situation am I ‘minimizing’?

You want to reduce the issue to "Nintendo didn't make this or that game so 3rd parties didn't feel their games could sell on the Wii". Which completely explains why that even when Nintendo DID make very successful games in certain genres that 3rd party's still ignored the system or pulled out the go-to excuse of "only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems". Kind of hard not to when they're the only ones who take the market seriously to begin with.

Remember Eternal Darkness on the GC? Remember it being critically acclaimed and even selling very well? remember all the excuses that followed about how "only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems" in order to minimize the success of the game?

“But so did NSMBWii and so did Mario Kart Wii and so did Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2”

Mario Kart Wii is a motion-controlled party game. I am not certain why you are lumping it together with the other Mario games.

Mario Kart can be played with motion controls or with a traditional controller. I don't understand why you don't understand that. Unless we're going to start disqualifying any games that use a different control scheme because RE5 then goes out the window as a "motion-controlled party game" since a Move compatible version was eventually released. So too goes any other game that supported the Move controller or the Kinect (including voice recognition). I'm certain that's not what you intended to do but when you try and make distinctions like that, that's what you end up with.

As for the others, are you seriously trying to pretend that the Wii was wanting for third-party platformers 2D or 3D? Really?

A Boy and His Blob, De Blob, De Blob 2, Fluidity, Klonoa, La-Mulana, Lost Winds, Lost Winds 2, Max and the Magic Marker, Nyxquest, Skylanders Spyro, Skylanders Giants, Sonic Colors, Sonic the Hedgehog 4, Rayman Origins… That many well-reviewed platformers (the number is larger if we include stuff like Sonic and the Secret Rings, Epic Mickey, Epic Mickey 2, Ivy the Kiwi, Lost in Shadow, and Dewey’s Adventure) seems like a fair amount of effort put into pushing the genre on the system.

One genre. Nintendo doesn't make one genre but apparently you and 3rd parties seem to think they do.

“3rd parties, much like your broken comparisons”

I suspect by ‘broken’ you mean that my comparisons do not reflect well on Nintendo. I am okay with this.

Broken meaning the comparisons don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

“3rd parties, much like your broken comparisons, decided to run with the mini games and whatnot because they thought of the Wii audience as being nothing but stupid Nintendo gamers and casual idiots.”

No, they decided to run with what sold well.

Which AGAIN explains why every game on the PS360 is a shooter or GTA clone... OOOOHHHH WAAAAAAIIIITTTTT...

And Nintendo makes plenty of other very successful games in numerous genres. 3rd parties never seemed to care about any of those games though, now did they?

“And when high selling 3rd party core games are bought up (RE4, RE:UC, MHTri, and all of the WAY late ports of CoD) they're swiftly brushed aside as aberrations.”

I do not really need to rush those games aside as aberrations, given that they are not actually high-selling. How many of those games broke 2 million again? Oh, yes. None.

For previous gen titles that were released to die they're rather high selling. Besides, which ones even NEEDED to break 2 million in order to make a profit? Selling 20 million copies means nothing if you don't turn a profit. You would think making money would be the most important factor here. Which ones also had the full support of their developers/publishers the way PS360 games did? You get out what you put in. 3rd parties put in 3rd rate effort and they got 3rd rate sales. What's so hard for you to understand about that?

Do you think Capcom would have been upset if RE5 had only sold a million units if they gave it the same budget, development team and advertising as RE:UC? I would think not as they would have known well ahead of time that they were releasing a budget title and would have kept their expectations in check. But that's not what happened.They put the full force of their entire company behind it and expected huge sales because of that. There is no comparison to be made here.

And just to drive the nail in, I already addressed how Resident Evil 4 underperformed relative to the rest of the series and was followed by other traditional Resident Evil ports that absolutely no one bought, and I already addressed how the system was swimming in lightgun shooters. That just leaves Monster Hunter Tri’s doing 1.9 million in sales on the Wii compared to Monster Hunter Freedom 2’s 2.5 million, Freedom Unite’s 3.3 million and Freedom 3’s 4.7 million on the PSP.

http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/busi ... llion.html

And yet you still don't understand how your RE comparisons are broken. A port of a several years old game that's been released on multiple platforms compared with a new game in the series releasing with a huge marketing push. No, Capcom should have expected it to sell 10 MILLION UNITS!! That makes sense. I wonder how well RE4 is doing on the HD systems? I'm sure we'll never get those numbers.

And then you compare console sales of a title that's traditionally done far better on handhelds, and in fact was pretty much the only thing keeping the PSP afloat in Japan for most of it's life.

You do know that Monster Hunter Tri WAY outsold all of the PS2 Monster Hunter games, right? And with a smaller user base made up of nothing but "casual grannies" and "soccer moms" as you love pointing out, right? One of the most hardcore Japanese console titles released on the Wii and it outsold the same franchise on the mighty PS2... Yeah, there's NO market on the Wii for games like that at all.

Aaaand

“and all of the WAY late ports of CoD”

World at War launched on the Wii same time as the HD twins.

Black Ops launched on the Wii same time as the HD twins.

Modern Warfare 3 launched on the Wii same time as the HD twins.

Now, out of the 11 million WAW did, the 25 million that Blops did, and the however many million that Modern Warfare 3 did, how many units of each were sold for the Wii? One, maybe two? And companies that do not have half the name recognition as Call of Duty were supposed to pin their hopes on a puny market like that? Yeah, no.

Name recognition only works when people even KNOW the game EXISTS in the first place. How many of those games had any sort of marketing for the Wii version? Is none your answer? At the end of the commercials where they show all the systems the games are coming out for, did they have a Wii logo? No, you say? How many of those games even had Wii footage or screen shots available before the game was even released? Most of the time the developers actively hid the existence of the games as if they were afraid it would be seen as an affront to their "real" market.

It's not that they didn't just not advertise the games, they actively tried to hide their existence from the world! In that regard, 1-2 million is a miracle.

“RE4 sold about the same amount on the GC as it did on the PS2, with less than 1/5th of the market share.”

Er, I guess 2.3 million on the PS2 is about the same as 1.6 million on the Gamecube in the sense that you can technically round both of them to 2 million, so I will let you have that one.

Hmm... The last numbers I saw put them within a hundred or so thousand units. I looked up the numbers on Capcom's website and yes, you are correct. However, that still doesn't change the fact that with more than 5x the user base the game should have sold FAR more on the PS2 than it did on the GC.

“You would have thought RE5 would be a no-brainer for the Wii.”

Yes, if they hired another studio, gimped the graphics, and chop till you drop’d the enemy count, they could have really possibly enjoyed that maybe a million or two maximum sales bump while totally not doing as badly as Nintendo’s attempts at third-person shooters on the system. What a loss, there.

Or, you know, they could have built a game from the ground up and given it a subtitle or whatever. It still hasn't stopped developers from making completely different games for say the DS/3DS/PSP/Vita and giving them the exact same title. Somehow that wouldn't work for the Wii though. It had to be the exact same game or it wouldn't have worked. Considering most developers saw the Wii as a completely different market to begin with I wonder why that possibility never even crossed their minds.

“Soul Calibur 2 sold more on the GC than the PS2 and XBox combined, and yet SC3 was a PS2 exclusive.”

As PS2 exclusive as something that is later ported as an arcade game gets, I guess.

Still makes no sense. SC2 on the GC WAY outsold the PS2 version and yet the next game was console exclusive (happy?) to the PS2. According to your logic, the next game should have been exclusive to the GC. Glad to see you have an excuse for every time your rules don't hold up.

“Now how do you think that managed to happen?”

Arcade games 1 and 2 get ported to various consoles, then to make game three, Bamco uses the most popular console as a testing ground before releasing the superior version in the arcades where it belongs.

Then arcades go bye bye and multiplayer arcade games go to systems with actual online infrastructure.

SC2 proved that the market for SC was on the GC, online or not. Yet for some reason Namco decided that smaller sales were preferable because of online on the PS2? Again, broken rules mean nothing to you, do they?

“In the end, it all comes down to money. Nintendo could do nothing but release FPSs and violence filled blood soaked games and they would still get hosed on 3rd party support. Why?”

Because no one would buy them because their systems are designed to aim at people with the polar opposite tastes and dispositions to the type of people who enjoy those games.

And here you are making a supposition, but you're going to try and say that it's up to me to prove you wrong... You have no evidence beyond rumor and gossip that this is true.

“In the end, it all comes down to money. Nintendo could do nothing but release FPSs and violence filled blood soaked games and they would still get hosed on 3rd party support. Why?

A. If by ‘buying it’, you mean ‘demonstrating that there is a viable market on the system for those types of games’, then sure they can, assuming that there actually is such a market on their system. No offense, but the idea that third-parties would ignore a Nintendo-published action game doing Halo numbers is about as absurd and paranoid as it gets.

B. If by ‘buying it’, you mean literally paying third-parties in second-party publishing deals, then sure they can.

Just take a minor, less-than-one-percent fraction of that money that they have sitting in the bank that is not actually being used for development of hard/software or anything other than drawing interest, and produce a couple of games. Child's play.


So Sony proved there was a viable market on the PS for FFVII by... what? Signing them to a 3 movie deal? MS proved there was a viable market for FPS games on their consoles by BUYING Halo. Outside of outright buying support Nintendo can do nothing against Sony and MS when it comes to 3rd parties.

As you can see, I mean outright just paying developers for games, exclusives or not. And yes, Nintendo enters into 2nd party deals and deals for exclusives but they're known about fairly well. How's that MS "loan" to Rockstar of $50 million settling with you? And what did they get out of it? Timed exclusive DLC that flopped. You think Sony wasn't pushing money towards Rockstar as well? You're a fool if you don't. Could Nintendo do the same? Sure they could. But Sony and MS would always be able to outbid them. And in the end they would still end up with the worst version of whatever games they are able to money-hat, unless their exclusives.

And just how much do you think Nintendo would have had to money-hat devs to get their big name titles on the Wii as it was? They would have had to have paid FAR more than Sony and MS currently do. They pretty much would have had to pay for the games themselves. Why? Because devs would have complained about how they couldn't just port. And blah, blah, blah. It would get them nowhere. Unless their system was on par power wise with the PS360 but that introduces a whole host of other problems. Like a Wii that costs around $600-700 unless Nintendo subsidizes it and eats hundreds of dollars on each system sold. Add in the cost of still having to pay off devs and you can see where things would be going.

To put it bluntly, if Nintendo had followed Sony and MS into the HD era with the Wii, we wouldn't even be here discussing this situation right now as they would have gone under. But that's really something that Sony and MS want anyway so they can stop having to push gaming in order to get their boxes into everyone's living rooms but whatever...
No Avatar
16 Dec 2012 05:20

I read most of that, Hamr is my new favorite person on Gonintendo.
User avatar
17 Dec 2012 15:32

sigrah0x7ba wrote:
GameGod wrote:
sigrah0x7ba wrote:
And there's little Nintendo can do about it short of going bankrupt.


The voice of an ignorant or a blatant liar, you pick... :lol:

Do tell...

Exactly how long would Nintendo be around if they had followed MS and Sony's business practices this generation? Remember, they weren't making a massive profit off of the Wii when it was released. Apparently they were breaking even. MS lost billions on the 360. Add those to the billions they lost on the original XBox and they're most likely never going to actually make a penny directly from gaming, ever. Sony lost something akin to 12 billion dollars on the PS3. Supposedly that's everything they made on the PS and PS2.

Yet both of them are releasing new systems. Not because they're making money on gaming but because they're using it as a Trojan Horse in order to get to their true objective. Why else would two huge companies be willing to loose so much money with no signs of ever recouping it?

Nintendo, on the other hand, their ends are gaming. Simple. They have no other market and no ulterior motive in why they make games or consoles. And because of that they have to make money on everything that they do.

If the Wii had been on par with the PS3 and/or the 360 it would have sold just as badly as the GC, or even worse, except this time it would have cost $600+ or they would have had to take a loss of several hundred dollars on each system sold, just as Sony and MS do. 3rd parties would have still shunned it. Again, as they did the GC.

Sony and MS changed the dynamic of the market by paying developers for support. Not even exclusive support. It's pretty much expected by any big 3rd party that both companies will give them something for their games no matter how many systems they appear on.

Nintendo simply cannot get a large portion of 3rd party support because they can't afford to buy it. Why is that so hard to understand?

This is not all necessarily true... there is SOME truth to it however, I agree completely that Nintendo had to do something drastically different and they took a gamble and it paid off... But could you imagine had they made it even just a TINY bit more powerful how much MORE sucessful it would have been? ... (Given that they had new Motion controls AND had at least a 720p HD system) The best of both worlds? ... Crazy new awesome ways to play a game AND fantastic HD visuals?... no one would have bought a PS3 and hardly anyone would have got an xbox 360... Devs may have supported the freaking thing too since it wouldn't have been "behind the Times" in terms of power... so You'dd get 1. New Ways of playing a game
2. HD Visuals AND
3. Great 3rd Party Support... there would have been no need for the other consoles... (for most gamers)
Plus their reputation wouldn't have been so tarnished as it was with the Wii... cause actual multiplatform games would have been made for it...

I also believe that Nintendo WAS in fact making a profit... close to $100 per console as there were reports of it being only $150 to manufacture... THATS MASSSIVE PROFIT compared to EATING $300 like sony and however much microsoft lost per console... so... yeah... I don't particularly agree with all you said.. but I do think they made the right choice with the Wii ... At least at first...
User avatar
18 Dec 2012 02:51

@MegaShock100

"Nintendo never released these games on Wii, but there were similar titles to their past consoles.

Out of curiosity, I was tempted to respond to this question by asking the follow-ups ‘Such as?’ and ‘How many units did they sell?’ However, the actual answers are really neither here nor there, unless you are operating under the assumption that everybody who owned a SNES automatically bought an N64 bought a Gamecube bought a Wii. Markets change across consoles.

“Plus, why does Nintendo have to make it in order for 3rd-parties to support the system?”

Because they have the most vested interest in proving the health of the market on their system.

Because, as the creator of the system, what they produce largely sends a message about the types of gamers they are trying to attract to their system and what they want the shape of their install base to look like. This is a concept known as market-building.

And because, as a first-party, releasing a game in a heretofore untested market is inherently less of risk for them to produce than it is for a third-party.

“If anything, consumer will buy the 1st-party game, ignore 3rd-party, and then 3rd party will say that is impossible to compete with Nintendo.”

Sure, we can say now that that is indeed how the Wii market turned out. But do 360 owners only buy Microsoft games while ignoring third-parties? Do PS3 owners only buy Sony products?

No, so it seems rather silly to assert that we should just automatically assume before the fact that Nintendo gamers on *any* console are somehow uniquely abnormal in that they will not buy anything without the Big N label.

As I said before, Yes or No: Do you honestly believe that third-parties would ignore a Nintendo-published shooter that did even half as well as their exercise games?

“There are a number of 2D platformers on PSN, but none have seen success of Little Big Planet.”

Call it trying to win the lottery. There are a number of 2D platformers on PSN because of the success of Little Big Planet. That is what a successful first-party game does: it leads by example.

“Point is, Sony platform is not known for platformer (except arguably Ratchet & Clank), but LBP still sold over 3mil (worldwide, incl. all editions).”

And because it sold over 3 mill, third-parties are going to keep trying to replicate it and see if they can approach that height. That is how powerful the message is when something produced by a first-party does gangbusters.

We see that operate in reverse when something produced by a first-party flops.

“First-party will always sell more because there is assured quality.”

Indeed, first-parties have built-in advantages which, as I said, militate against the risk of producing them. In a similar vein, they are in most cases likely to sell more than third-party games. We can therefore consider how a first-party game sells to be an upper-bound ceiling on the performance of an analogous third-party game.

“Vanquish didn't sell as much as Gears and Bayonetta didn't sell as much as GoW.”

Of course not. The latter games represent the full sales potential on those genres on those systems. Take a best case scenario and remove certain advantages (such as marketing, technical optimization, first-party branding, paying off reviewers, being designed to be accessible to the lowest common denominator, franchise history, bundling, etc) and you are not going to meet the best case scenario sales.

But ask yourself, if you are a third-party, which market is your game more likely to do well in? The market with the bigger ceiling, or the market with the much lower ceiling?

Put another way, if a Nintendo-game like Metroid Prime 3 can only sell 1.33 million units, then what kind of numbers do you expect something like Syndicate to pull?


@sigrah0x7ba

"Which explains why the only games made for the PS360 are GTA and CoD clones... OH WAIT! No they're not. 3rd parties had no trouble still developing different types of games on THOSE systems."

What are these other games types you are referring to? The games you chose to outline the Wii missing predominantly belonged to the shooter genre, with the one mention of a straight-up God of War clone and one mention of a fighting game (where I pointed out there that having a non-terrible online infrastructure is kind of important for that sort of thing).

It also warrants mention that Sony and Microsoft do not just publish GTA and CoD clones. <.<

“'I am not sure what you're asking for here.”

It was a pretty simple question, lol. I do not like to operate in the realm of vague generalities. So what are the specifics of the games you are talking about? What are their genres, and how many units did they sell?

“Mario (both 2D and 3D), Zelda, Metroid, Donky Kong, etc., etc., etc.”

So basically: Mario platformers, Twilight Princess, Link’s Cossbow Shooter, Skyward Sword, Corruption, Metroid Prime Trilogy, Other M, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, and Donkey Kong Country Returns, etc. etc. etc.

So basically Nintendo produced a bunch of platformers, a last-generation Zelda port, a Zelda lightgun game, Skyward Sword, an FPS that did mediocre, a double last-generation FPS port attached to the previous game that did worse than mediocre, a third-person shooter/platformer that did even worse than even the last game did, another last-generation port, another platformer, and… whatever the hell etc etc etc is.

What are these game genres that third-party failed to follow the example on? Platformers? No, they made a bunch of those. Last generation ports? No, they made a bunch of those, too. Lightgun games? Ha. The first and third-person shooters with the mixed sales? They had mixed sales. Skyward Sword? Hey, finally, a successful non-port adventure game… and it only took five years to come out on the system. That is some great leadership right there.

“All saw traditional installments. Or are you trying to say that all Nintendo games are now casual?”

Many of the above games were certainly more casual than iterations of those same franchises on older consoles, but that is neither here nor there in regards to my point -- which is that when Nintendo released a successful game, third-parties rushed to copy them with entries belonging to those same genres; when Nintendo released a tepid game (or in the case of many genres, no game at all), third-parties left that type of game untouched on the system.

“Which again explains why EVERYTHING on the PS360 is CoD clones.”

Actually, my argument explains the exact opposite of that, lol. Microsoft and Sony produce more than CoD clones, and they sell lots and lots of units, so the PS360 get more than CoD clones.

They also produce FPSes, to great success, so they get those too.

“OH WAIT!!!!! Could you get a new argument please? It's beyond broken.”

Nope.

“EVERY developer has bad games”

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Good grief. By that logic, we cannot hold *any* developers accountable for releasing terrible games.

“A LOT of Sony and even MS's internally developed games have done very poorly and yet you don't see that scaring 3rd parties away from making games in the same genre”

It does not scare third-parties away because they have success stories in those same genres. Nintendo has no such success stories for third-person shooters. They only have failures. That is why third-parties avoid those genres like the plague.

“Sony's Smash clone is pretty much flopping.”

Yeah, and I doubt developers are going to be in much of a hurry to produce anymore party games for the system.

“Do you think developers are going to stop making fighting games for Sony systems now?”

Sony All Stars or wtfever they call it is a not a fighting game, and even if it were, it would not matter because, and this is important, I can name successful fighting games on the PS3.

“In fact, it doesn't seem to effect”

Affect.

“In fact, it doesn't seem to effect 3rd parties at all in regards to whatever Sony or MS release or don't release for their systems.”

Sure, if you ignore the tremendous and overwhelming weight of observable evidence in regards to what Sony and MS release for their systems.

On the other hand, you seem to labor under the incorrect assumption that they only release ‘bro-core’ shooters on their systems. Man, that Sackboy is just suuuuch a bloodthirsty shoot-bang badass.

(Incidentally, is this is a good place to mention that Viva Pinata on the 360 sold better than Metroid Prime 3?)

“Compared to a 4th release (if you count PC) for the game on a platform that 3rd parties INSIST their games don't sell on, was a quick and dirty port, and wasn't even supported by the developer, it's DAMN impressive.”

So your argument is that if you apply several different kinds of handicaps and completely lower your standards for what a good game sells, *then* they are impressive. In other words, the videogame equivalent of placing first in the special Olympics.

“The entirety of your comparisons are broken and manipulated in order to try and make it look like the game did worse than it did.”

No joke, I absolutely love how you think comparisons to things that are actually impressive are broken and only comparisons to things that are usually complete failures are valid and un-manipulated.

“You want to compare it to RE5? Then we can do that. It made MORE money for Capcom, COMPARATIVELY (since you like making baseless comparisons), than RE5 did. ZERO budget and ZERO advertising.”

A. [citation needed] on that whole ‘zero budget’ thing. Saying that Capcom managed to port the Gamecube version of the game, add the PS2 content, and add in CC and Wii remote support without spending a single solitary cent is the sort of incredible claim that I am going to need to see from a reliable source to believe.

B. ‘RE4 made money because it was a quick and dirty last generation port that cost nothing to make; that is why you should release and heavily advertise ground-up games that cost a lot to make on the system’ might be the most nonsensical thing you have said yet.

“Just how much did they spend on RE5? I'm sure it was way, WAY more than 6x. Probably more than 50x.”

Um, 50x zero is still zero, so is that an admission that you were resorting to ridiculous hyperbole with the ‘zero budget’ thing?

Also, ‘probably more than 50x’? So you do not actually know how much RE4 cost? So your argument boils down to not knowing how much it costs to produce a game and then making up specific-sounding numbers? That is pretty wild.

Lastly, newsflash: any lower dev costs are counter-balanced by the fact that Resident Evil 4 Wii edition was sold for half the price of Resident Evil 5.

“And if last gen ports sold so well”

Port. RE4 was the only one to ever do that. Then Capcom released the Archives games and… oh yeah.

“And if last gen ports sold so well, just imagine how much better a title actually built for the hardware and supported by the developer would have done.”

This logic would hold if and only if that last generation port was not the most successful such game you have point to.

New Play Control Resident Evil? Failure. New Play Control Resident Evil Zero? Failure. Godfather Black Hand edition? Failure. Rogue Trooper: Quartz Zone Massacre? Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop? Failure. Battalion Wars 2? Failure. Sin and Punishment 2? Failure.

Metroid *anything*? Topped out with Corruption at 1.33 million. Goldeneye Wii? Nowhere close to RE4’s numbers. Call of Duty 3? Nope. Modern Warfare? Nope. World at War? No. Black Ops? No. Modern Warfare 3? No. Conduit? No. Conduit 2? No. Far Cry? No. Red Steel? No. Red Steel 2? Failure.

Look at that range: Third-party, first-party. Third-person, first-person. Full-price, half-price. Well-reviewed, terribly-reviewed. Good game, crap game. Major franchise, non-existent franchise. Old port, new port, non-port. And always the same maximum commercial reception from Wii owners.

Dozens of games of every stripe, flop after flop after flop, and not a single one of them matched RE4’s numbers on the Wii -- much less RE5’s on either of the HD twins --, and you honestly cling to this absurd notion that there was this imaginary several-millions strong market for games like that. Despite no evidence for and all evidence to the contrary.

“But they never made an RE for the Wii so we'll never know.”

You can make any sort of silly prediction by that logic: Maybe if they made an RE for the Wii, it would have sold 50 million units, cured cancer, ended world hunger, and brought about world peace, but they did not, so we will never know! :lol:

No, not all hypotheticals are equal in term of likeliness. Based on the overwhelming weight of evidence and basic common sense, we can say with 99.99% confidence those things would not happen.

“But as people are ALREADY trying to use as a weapon against the Wii U, aren't the sale of last gen ports supposed to be a viable guage as to whether the market WILL buy original titles developed for the hardware? Wii passed that test, and yet the original titles never came.”

What, you want me to repeat the cavalcade of last-generation ports that bombed?

You want me to repeat the original games, the ground-up games (that according to your hilarious made-up numbers must have cost about 50x as much as it cost to make the RE4 port), developed and supported by Nintendo themselves, that did even worse in sales than RE4 did?

Let us end this persistent urban myth that RE4’s sales potential was hurt by being a (the definitive) version of a previous gen game (hailed by many as one of, if not the best ever made) sold at a dirt-cheap budget price. That was the most 100 million Wii owners could ever do for a traditional shooter because that was the most they ever did. For anything from anybody.

Sorry, the Wii failed that (those) test(s) with flying colors.

“Even after the market told them ENOUGH! RE:DC sold around half of RE:UC. The market said no more. But then along came DS:E and flopped, as the MARKET told them it would.”

First: Dead Space Extraction came out before Darkside Chronicles.

Second: Er, you do realize that those two games came out one month apart, right? Both of games were basically done before either had released, let alone before sales data came in.

“Hilarious failures... Either you don't know what a failure is or you're still pretending like developers had the right to expect HD level sales with zero effort on their part.”

Um, they very obviously did not expect HD level sales, because no non-lightgun shooter ever reached HD level sales on the Wii with any level of effort of anyone’s part.

“I read back over what you said and I realized what you were talking about. Those ports of the RE GC remake and... what else?”

Resident Evil: Archives and Resident Evil: Archives Zero.

“I didn't even know they came OUT, let alone that they were released outside of Japan and I follow Nintendo news very closely.”

Right, even the people who follow Nintendo news very closely cannot be bothered to learn about what games have released on the system, even when users consider them the superior versions of those games.

“You would think I would have heard something but...”

No offense, but considering that you thought that Extraction released a long time after Darkside Chronicles, I would most certainly not think that.

“I'd say that speaks far more badly of Capcom than of the Wii market I'd say that speaks far more badly of Capcom than of the Wii market”

Golly, how on earth were poorWii owners supposed to know?

If only there was some sort of website where this information got posted…

“I can guarantee you that Corruption made more money than most shooters have on the PS360 though, even with it's smaller sales base.”

No, you really cannot, because Corruption did not just sell less than HD shooters, it sold a ton less. At a lower price. By definition, that means it brought in not only less revenue, but *way* less revenue.

“it's smaller sales base”

Its.

Not to mention, did I just get you to admit that the market for FPSes on the Wii is smaller than on the HD Twins? Victory.

“Specifically because it didn't cost tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to make.”

[citation needed]

“And sure the sales were less than the BIG shooters on the PS360 but Metriod isn't the strongest Nintendo property to begin with, and you know it.”

Translation: ‘Guys, it is just a coincidence that the Nintendo franchise based on shooters just happens to be one of their weaker franchises. And it is just a coincidence that their other shooter franchises do worse than that and totally bomb.’

By all means: Name me a better selling ‘real’ Wii FPS to come from Nintendo. You will not, though, because you cannot, because that was the high-water mark for the genre on the system.

“Metroid always seems to sell 1-2 million”

The Wii install base is five times as large as the Gamecube’s, and Corruption sold significantly less than the original Metroid Prime. What is the point of selling the system to 80 million more people if basically none of them are remotely interested in that kind of game?

“It's not a blockbuster franchise but it made Nintendo money.”

Given that Nintendo responded to Corruption’s sales by releasing a last-gen port and a title with completely different gameplay, it clearly did not make enough money to justify another ‘real’ FPS from them.

Meanwhile, Retro was sent to work on DKCR. A platformer. A genre whose market was actually proven on the Wii. And which sold five million units, three times as many as Corruption. Surprised, I am not.

“How many 3rd parties can say the same about their HD titles?”

Most of the ones you are complaining about, based on the fact that they are still in business and making sequels to most of the games you think the Wii missed out on.

“I don't want you to do Nintendo's job, you've been pretty good at saying you've already done a better job at it than they ever could.”

Um, what? Their job is to prove that the market for FPSes on their system is as big as that on either of the HD twins. I do not recall ever saying I did that job, considering if anything all the evidence I have provided indicates the exact opposite to be true.

“Except your evidence is circumstantial at best and completely suspect at worst.”

That is untrue, but even if it were, evidence period will always and forever beat no evidence at all, which is what you have provided.

You say over and over that a market exists, but you have not, cannot, and will not ever provide me an example of a shooter of any kind on the Wii that comes anywhere *close* to matching success of the HD twins. Not from third-parties, and more importantly, not from Nintendo.

“If RE5 fails to sell a single copy on the Wii because it was never released on the system to begin with, is that the Wii's fault, or the developer?”

If Nintendo wanted violent third-person shooters built around online co-op, then they should have released such a game themselves. Instead, they never did. Capcom only followed Nintendo’s example.

“For some reason you and most of the industry want to blame the Wii when it's the developer/publisher who are at fault.”

Who is to blame for Metroid’s pathetic sales on the system? The Wii, or the developer/publisher (Nintendo)?

“You said that you cannot prove a negative and yet you're doing just that.”

Er, no I am not. I am inferring a negative. Do you seriously need me to explain what an inference is?

“I'm saying there's no way of knowing since there's no conclusive evidence either way”

There is no ‘conclusive’ evidence either way that unicorns and aliens and dragons and elves and magical purple elephants exist or not. Yet, no one above the age of 7 legitimately argues that they do. Why not? Because no one in recorded history has ever seen any and we can safely assume they do not until proven otherwise.

Yes or no: Do you believe in unicorns?

“But SOMEONE, besides Nintendo, should have at least tried instead of taking idiotic baseless rumors as absolute fact.”

Besides’ Nintendo? What successful third-person shooters did Nintendo release on the Wii, again? Oh, right. They released none.

Why on earth should third-parties have done what Nintendo refused to do? What possible reason is there that releasing an RE5-type game on a Nintendo system is the responsibility of everyone except Nintendo?

Microsoft and Sony are perfectly fine with testing the waters and releasing content that they want third-party releases to emulate. They do, generally to great success.

Why is it that Nintendo alone is the only first-party in existence that gets to say ‘You guys are on your own!’ to people it allegedly wants content from?

Here is an idea for a game that we can play: I will name a Sony (or Microsoft, if you prefer) published title that belongs to one of the same genres as the above four games and sold more than two million units on that system. Then you name a Wii game, first or third-party, belonging to one of those same genres as the above four games and sold more than two million units on the Wii. First one of us to run out of titles to name loses.

I will go first: Gears of Wars


“And yet again, you're playing a loosing game”

Not really, I was rather clear with the rules of the game. First one of us to run out of titles to name loses. That is the only possible way to lose, in fact. I even gave you a head start and named mine first. You responded…by not naming any titles.

Because you cannot.

Not even one.

“loosing game”

Losing.

“If Nintendo has to release a successful game in every genre for a 3rd party to be interested in releasing THEIR games on the Wii then almost no games would be on ANY platform.”

Er, yes there would. Monkey see; monkey do.

Sony and Microsoft release successful first party first- and third-person shooters. Third-parties produce first- and third-person shooters for them. Sony and Microsoft release successful first-party hack and slash games. Third-parties produce similar games for them. Microsoft produces casual Kinect garbage that sells a bunch. Third-parties rush to produce similar titles. Sony publishes a successful platformer. So do third-parties. Sony and Microsoft publish and sell tons of games for their systems built around online-multiplayer. So do third-parties.

Nintendo release a bunch of hugely successful mini-game fests, exercise games, last-generation ports, party games, and platformers. And that is exactly what they get from third-parties.

They release next to no shooters that perform mediocre at best and abysmally at worst. And that is exactly what they get from third-parties.

It is a marvel that anyone could possibly be surprised by how that turned out.

“Sony and MS don't release games in every genre either but developers have no problem releasing games in genres that Sony and MS don't dabble in on their systems.”

Like what?

“Neither Sony nor MS, until recently, made fighting games and yet 3rd parties have had no issue making and selling fighters for their systems”

Because fighting games have an inordinate focus on online-multiplayer, and Sony and Microsoft run massively successful online services and produced massively successful games with online-multiplayer.

“Smash Brothers is THE MOST SUCCESSFUL fighting game franchise in the industry”

:lol: :lol: Smash Bros. is not a fighting game franchise. Those are not even *my* words; those are Sakurai’s. You know, the guy who *created* it?

It is intended as a party game, and it shows. It has terrible balance for competitive play. Brawl was such a clusterf*** at EVO 2008 that they got rid of it the next year. And importantly, the online mode is a miserable failure that even people who love the game barely defend or use.

“Do you see developers falling all over themselves to get their fighting games on Nintendo platforms?”

Why would third-parties release a major fighting game for the Wii? Nintendo sure did not.

Crummy local multiplayer party games, on the other hand, are in abundance on the system. Heck, you can even play a direct Smash Bros clone with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

And what a surprise, something like Deca Sports outsold every traditional shooter on the system. Two million units.

(RIP Hudson (._.) )

“??? What are you talking about? Built their own servers? What does that have to do with a Castlevania game that's a fighter”

They released a Castlevania fighter, sure, but they also released a 2D platformer Castlevania, which is about as traditional a Castlevania game as you get with Castlevania Adventure. How did that sell again?

“a Soul Calibur game that's an adventure?”

The Wii has a terrible online, and if you want to make a game with online multiplayer that is not a glitch, laggy, slow-loading, friend-code-ridden morass, you have to basically build your own servers from scratch, as Capcom did. A. That is not exactly cheap. B. That is not a cost they have deal with the on the other consoles with the extremely-popular online systems. Maybe it would be worth putting those costs in if it had proven that actual fighting games could sell on the Wii but C. Nintendo never released a fighting game for the system, anyway, so the market for the genre completely untested.

“Somehow Capcom forgot that RE was a survival horror game and couldn't remember what it was unless Nintendo released a survival horror for them first?”

First off, ‘Survival horror’ is not a genre.

Second, even if it were, most people argue that RE4, 5, and 6 were straight action games. Either way, mainline Resident Evils are shooters (specifically, third-person).

Now, how well did the Nintendo third-person shooters do? Not well.

How well did the lone Nintendo first-person shooter do? Not well.

And how well did the Nintendo lightgun shooter do? 4.8 million well.

Fun fact: Umbrella Chronicles was originally going to be a third person shooter, but then the idea occurred to Capcom that a railshooter would be more popular.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/784/784627p1.html

Gee, I wonder where they got that inspiration.

“It shows that 3rd parties never tried to understand the Wii audience.”

No, it shows that the Wii audience gave them direct evidence that lightgun shooters could sell well.

“And DS:E bombed hard on the Wii. They should have known that something was up what with other on-rails shooters selling below expectations well before the game came out

What are these other lightgun games that sold below expectations before Extraction? Darkside Chronicles? As I pointed out above, contrary to what you are saying, a two-second search shows DC came out *after* DS: E.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Space_Extraction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_E ... Chronicles

“And yet instead of thinking "maybe we shouldn't make this" they continued with their charade.”

The opposite happened, actually. Extraction bombed, DC slightly missed its target, and lightgun shooters basically dried up on the system.

“And when it flopped, as the market TOLD them it would, who did they blame?”

Market saturation, most likely.

“And then, knowing it wouldn't sell at all on the PS360 even as a downloadable title, they just gave it away with DS2.”

Except EA *did* sell it as a standalone release on the PSN, and the bundled version was not really ‘given away’ because it was only available in the $80 limited edition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Space ... _3_version

http://www.kokeytechnology.com/video-ga ... -xbox-360/

“However, they still went through the effort to port it to the PS360... I wonder why?”

Heh, I thought you were the one arguing that ports take no effort and are inherently not worth buying. If it suddenly takes a bunch of effort to port a game to a superior console, then by definition all those PS2-to-Wii ports mean developers put a ton of effort into the system.

“You want to reduce the issue to "Nintendo didn't make this or that game so 3rd parties didn't feel their games could sell on the Wii".

No, I want to reduce the issue to “Nintendo didn’t make this or that genre, and many of the ones they did could not even sell to 2% of the user base, so third-parties didn’t feel those genres could sell on the Wii’.

“Which completely explains why that even when Nintendo DID make very successful games in certain genres that 3rd party's still ignored the system or pulled out the go-to excuse of "only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems".

What are these ‘very successful games in certain genres’ that Nintendo produced? You have not named a single one, because they do not exist.

There is no very successful Nintendo third-person shooter on the Wii. There is no very successful Nintendo first-person shooter on the Wii. There is no very successful Nintendo cinematic action game on the Wii. There is no very successful Nintendo fighter on the Wii. There is no very successful Nintendo RPG on the Wii. There is no very successful Nintendo ‘survival horror’ game, whatever the hell that means, on the Wii. There is no very successful Nintendo game built around functional online on the Wii. There are no very successful M-Rated Nintendo games of any sort on the Wii.

So the Wii never got those games.

“Kind of hard not to when they're the only ones who take the market seriously to begin with.”

That is why Nintendo had that E3 where literally the only things they showed were Wii Music and Animal Crossing.

Because they took the market seriously.

“Mario Kart can be played with motion controls or with a traditional controller.”

What was the game advertised with, again? What was it bundled with? A Gamecube controller? Classic controller? No, no… that was not it…

Oh. Right. A tacky plastic wheel.

“I don't understand why you don't understand that.”

What? Please understand. I am not saying that Mario Galaxy is nothing like Mario Kart because of motion controls (they both use motion controls). I am saying that because the games are absolutely nothing alike.

One is a kart-racer party game and the other is a platformer.

One you drive a car. One you jump.

One is considered the worst entry in its franchise. One is considered one of the best in its respective franchise.

“Unless we're going to start disqualifying any games that use a different control scheme because RE5 then goes out the window as a "motion-controlled party game" since a Move compatible version was eventually released”

RE5 on the Move is still a third-person shooter. Chris and Wesker are not settling their score by riding go-karts with hilariously-unbalanced items.

“I'm certain that's not what you intended to do but when you try and make distinctions like that, that's what you end up with.”

Wait, you think the only difference between Mario Kart and New Super Mario Bros Wii is motion controls?

You are saying that you literally need me to explain the distinction between the games.

In detail.

Because the differences are not obvious to you.

Jesus.

“One genre. Nintendo doesn't make one genre but apparently you and 3rd parties seem to think they do.”

Er, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. My entire point is that every successful genre that Nintendo produced on the Wii was replicated by third-party entries in those same genres.

Nintendo made massively successful mini-game collections and casual party games. So did third parties.

Nintendo made massively successful fitness games. So did third-parties.

Nintendo made massively successful platformers. Third-parties therefore also released platformers.

I have no idea how you mistake ‘Platformers were one of the only genres that Nintendo made hugely successful games for’ to mean ‘Nintendo only makes platformers’.

“Broken meaning the comparisons don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.”

Nah, they hold up just fine.

“Which AGAIN explains why every game on the PS360 is a shooter or GTA clone... OOOOHHHH WAAAAAAIIIITTTTT...”

Er, I already addressed that point above. You seem to think that if you just keep repeating yourself like a broken record, it will suddenly be true.

“And Nintendo makes plenty of other very successful games in numerous genres.”

No, they do not. You do realize that your complete and utter inability to name even one example supports my argument more than it supports your own, right?

“3rd parties never seemed to care about any of those games though, now did they?”

Yes, because no one cares about games that only exist in your mind.

“For previous gen titles that were released to die they're rather high selling”

Yes, which justifies releasing other previous gen titles. Which you got many of.

“You would think making money would be the most important factor here.”

It is. The games did not sell well by anyone’s standards except your own, and if they made money, it was only because they were dirt cheap ports. A game with an actual budget doing those same numbers would be a failure.

You basically want a AAA+ budget blockbuster game when you only have a last-generation port D- sized market. That is known as wanting to have your cake and eat it.

And I am going to stress this again, the Wii games that were *not* ports sold even worse.

“Which ones also had the full support of their developers/publishers the way PS360 games did?”

Did any of Nintendo’s shooters have their full support? If yes, then clearly you are overrating the impact of developer/publisher support, since stuff like Sin and Punishment 2 still bombed and Nintendo pushed that hard. If no, then what reason did third-parties have to support their games when even Nintendo could not be bothered to supports its games.

“You get out what you put in.”

Right, and for all those genres you are complaining about, Nintendo put in and/or got out nothing.

“3rd parties put in 3rd rate effort and they got 3rd rate sales.”

If RE4 was a third rate effort that got third rate sales, then what were the Nintendo shooters that sold even worse than that? First rate efforts that got third rate sales?

What was Wii Fit? A third-rate effort that got first-rate sales?

“What's so hard for you to understand about that?”

The part where third-parties are supposed to put effort into games that that do not sell and only ever make money when no effort is put into them.

“Do you think Capcom would have been upset if RE5 had only sold a million units if they gave it the same budget, development team and advertising as RE:UC?”

Nonsense question, seeing as Capcom could never have released such a title. An RE5 with the Umbrella Chronicles budget and development would not be even remotely recognizable as RE5.

What you wanted was for Capcom to release and massively advertise an RE5 with a much, much larger budget than Umbrella Chronicles built from scratch that could stand toe-to-toe with the HD version. And yes, Capcom would have been massively disappointed to sell only a million units of that.

“And yet you still don't understand how your RE comparisons are broken. A port of a several years old game that's been released on multiple platforms compared with a new game in the series releasing with a huge marketing push.”

Actually, your insistence that the game was hindered by being a last-gen port is what is broken, and that is something I can prove. How? By pointing out the simple fact that the games that were not last generation ports sold even fewer copies than RE4 did. You can scream ‘It was several years old!’ until you are blue in the face… but none of that matters, because the new, built-from-the-ground-up games were the ones that could not even reach the only-good-for-a-last-gen-port sales of RE4.

If your logic were correct, they would have easily beaten the game in sales. But they failed.

Every.

Single.

Time.

“No, Capcom should have expected it to sell 10 MILLION UNITS!!”

No, Capcom should have expected it to sell 2 million units maximum. Which is exactly what it did. And no third-person shooter ever did better.

“And then you compare console sales of a title that's traditionally done far better on handhelds, and in fact was pretty much the only thing keeping the PSP afloat in Japan for most of it's life.”

What a surprise, you think that comparing Monster Hunter on the Wii’s sale to the sales of Monster Hunter games on a console that has an actual market for those kinds of games is invalid. Especially when that console has a much lower install base than the Wii and is itself widely regarded as a failure as a handheld.

“You do know that Monster Hunter Tri WAY outsold all of the PS2 Monster Hunter games, right?”

And? The Wii has a larger market for Monster Hunter than the PS2, which itself had practically no market. Another first-place in the Special Olympics.

“One of the most hardcore Japanese console titles released on the Wii and it outsold the same franchise on the mighty PS2... Yeah, there's NO market on the Wii for games like that at all.”

Who said there was no market for Monster Hunter on the Wii? I said the market on the Wii is smaller than the market on the PSP, and it is. That there is no market on the PS2 is irrelevant, since the takeaway from my statement was never ‘They should make Monster Hunter on the PS2’.

For the record, I personally do not think a market for Monster Hunter exists on the HD twins either, but I guess you would argue that we can never know that because Capcom never tried, so clearly Capcom should have released Tri G on them.

“Name recognition only works when people even KNOW the game EXISTS in the first place. How many of those games had any sort of marketing for the Wii version?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9d_f0pHDAs

What is the point of advertising these games when people such as yourself clearly do not pay any attention to them and cannot even be bothered to look these things up before claiming they never happened?

“At the end of the commercials where they show all the systems the games are coming out for, did they have a Wii logo?”

Uh, yeah. And a Wii remote in an official Nintendo peripheral and everything.

“How many of those games even had Wii footage or screen shots available before the game was even released?”

I just linked you to Wii footage for World at War pre-release. Which played on the television commercials.

“It's not that they didn't just not advertise the games”

They advertised it, as I just proved. They even advertised the Wii version specifically. (That is more than they did for the PC version; there were never any commercials showing someone controlling the game with a mouse like they did with the Zapper.)

And unsurprisingly, World at War sold about the same as every other Wii Call of Duty game (and Metroid, and Red Steel) because you are outlining and blaming an issue that it turns out has nothing to do with anything in the real world.

“In that regard, 1-2 million is a miracle.”

In that completely untrue regard?

Counting that bit where you erroneously claimed they were all released late (when in reality there was only the one game that released late, and it sold exactly the same number of units as all the others), this is now the second excuse you have made for Call of Duty Wii massively and repeatedly underperforming its HD counter-parts that turned out to be factually wrong and ultimately irrelevant to sales. What is your next excuse going to be?

“Hmm... The last numbers I saw put them within a hundred or so thousand units. I looked up the numbers on Capcom's website and yes, you are correct. However, that still doesn't change the fact that with more than 5x the user base the game should have sold FAR more on the PS2 than it did on the GC.”

Sure. Just like it does not change that fact that with a much bigger user base, most games should be selling far more on the Wii than on competing systems, instead of far less.

“Or, you know, they could have built a game from the ground up and given it a subtitle or whatever.”

Which would have cost even more to make and probably not sold substantially more than the port option.

The Wii had plenty of ground-up versions of games. Dead Rising: Crop Till You Shop was a ground-up creation. So was the Ghostbusters game. And Medal of Honor: Heroes 2. And most of the Madden games. And both Star Wars: The Force unleashed games. And most of those licensed games like Spider-man 3, or Iron Man, or Transformers, GI Joe, or Avatar.

I learned pretty early on to avoid versions marketed as ‘exclusive from-the-ground up Wii versions designed by a separate studio’ of multiplatform games because outside of the Call of Duty games, it basically never ended well.

“SC2 on the GC WAY outsold the PS2 version and yet the next game was console exclusive (happy?) to the PS2. According to your logic, the next game should have been exclusive to the GC.”

No, according to my logic, the console versions are entirely incidental throwaway creations, so the console they were temporarily ‘exclusive’ to was meaningless.

“SC2 proved that the market for SC was on the GC, online or not. Yet for some reason Namco decided that smaller sales were preferable because of online on the PS2? Again, broken rules mean nothing to you, do they?”

Um, you seem to have missed my point, which was not ‘The PS2 had good online and the GC did not’ because they both had horrendous online. The point was, ‘Whether the PS2 or the GC got the game was immaterial because the arcade version was always going to be the version that actually mattered.’

“And here you are making a supposition, but you're going to try and say that it's up to me to prove you wrong... You have no evidence beyond rumor and gossip that this is true.”

No, I am not making a supposition there, I am stating facts. The majority of the Wii marketing campaign was aimed at non-traditional gamers. The Wii controller was designed to appeal to people scared by buttons. Shallow games like Wii Sports were designed to appeal to people who were not skilled at games. Non-games like Wii Fit were designed to appeal to people who were turned off by most games. The console was under-powered and cheap, built to sell not to tech-heads and audio-visual nerds but to people looking for some cheap fun. Nintendo actually released a product as terrible as Wii Music.

And now I am going to make a generalization: These are not the demographics that traditionally buy something like God of War or Ninja Gaiden.

“So Sony proved there was a viable market on the PS for FFVII by... what?”

I thought conventional wisdom held that FFVII went to PS because of the whole cartridge snafu.

“MS proved there was a viable market for FPS games on their consoles by BUYING Halo.”

By RELEASING Halo. If one of Microsoft’s internal studios at the time had developed the game, it still would have revolutionized the FPS and become the monolith it was today. The purchase of Bungie had no bearing on the market for the game.

“Outside of outright buying support Nintendo can do nothing against Sony and MS when it comes to 3rd parties”

Sure, it can. Unlike circa Y2K-era Microsoft, Nintendo already owns tons of studios, and these studios house some of the best talent in the entire industry. They just need to let those developers make actual games again.

Or engage in more second-party collaborations. Sooo hyped for Bayonetta 2. :-)

“Could Nintendo do the same? Sure they could. But Sony and MS would always be able to outbid them.”

Dunno about Microsoft, but as I said above, Nintendo has 10.5 billion in liquid assets (that is pure cash just sitting the bank). Sony, and I mean the entirety of Sony, not just the gaming division, had 9 billion back in 2006 (before the PS3/PSP Go/Vita disasters).

http://www.highdefforum.com/archive/t-28985.html

So at the very least, Nintendo could outbid Sony fairly easily. Not that they need to, because a proven market for certain types of games is worth far more than straight up bribery.

“Unless their system was on par power wise with the PS360 but that introduces a whole host of other problems. Like a Wii that costs around $600-700 unless Nintendo subsidizes it and eats hundreds of dollars on each system sold.”

Who says Nintendo had to either produce the Wii or produce a PS3? The Wii only cost Nintendo about 160 dollars a unit to produce back in 2006 because they used outdated materials and technology to build it. At a $250 price tag, they could have easily built a much more robust system without changing the price tag or eating a loss. Not to mention, demand for Wiis was high enough for years and years that they could have easily charged $300 for it and released something even stronger and faster that still sold out everywhere.

“To put it bluntly, if Nintendo had followed Sony and MS into the HD era with the Wii, we wouldn't even be here discussing this situation right now as they would have gone under.”

This is going to blow your mind, but I really do not care even a little bit that Nintendo did not follow Sony and MS into the HD era. I care about the games we get as a consequence of their business strategies.

HD was only ever one part of that problem, which is why simply releasing an HD console is not going to be the be-all end-all solution.

@donzaloog

"I want you guys to read this. http://pietriots.com/2012/06/16/nintend ... o-shut-up/"

“Nintendo is a s****y business, they exist because they make incredible games.”

oh my god

They can read my mind

O:

@chris_the_wing

"I read most of that, Hamr is my new favorite person on Gonintendo."

Glad to be of service!
No Avatar
18 Dec 2012 22:37

Hamr wrote:“Smash Brothers is THE MOST SUCCESSFUL fighting game franchise in the industry”

:lol: :lol: Smash Bros. is not a fighting game franchise. Those are not even *my* words; those are Sakurai’s. You know, the guy who *created* it?

It is intended as a party game, and it shows. It has terrible balance for competitive play. Brawl was such a clusterf*** at EVO 2008 that they got rid of it the next year. And importantly, the online mode is a miserable failure that even people who love the game barely defend or use.

I'm responding to this only because it's so insane that I thought it warranted it.

Is this is a troll account? If so, well done.

If not, you're crazy. You don't get to decide what's a fighter and what's not. Developers all the time say their game isn't what it is. It's always "special" or "different" or "new" and those statements are never taken as anything more than what they are: Marketing Speak. Smash Brothers is a fighter. Period. The most successful fighter in the industry as well.

“Do you see developers falling all over themselves to get their fighting games on Nintendo platforms?”

Why would third-parties release a major fighting game for the Wii? Nintendo sure did not.

Why would third-parties release a major fighting game for the PS3? Sony sure did not.
Why would third-parties release a major fighting game for the 360? MS sure did not.

You're logic either works equally in all cases or it doesn't work at all.

Trying to apply these artificial standards to Nintendo only shows your true colors, which means I am out.

*EDIT*

“Vanquish didn't sell as much as Gears and Bayonetta didn't sell as much as GoW.”

Of course not. The latter games represent the full sales potential on those genres on those systems. Take a best case scenario and remove certain advantages (such as marketing, technical optimization, first-party branding, paying off reviewers, being designed to be accessible to the lowest common denominator, franchise history, bundling, etc) and you are not going to meet the best case scenario sales.

And yet you expected RE4 to meet or even exceed these "best case scenario sales" on the Wii.

I was right. You are insane.
User avatar
18 Dec 2012 23:37

@sigrah0x7ba

I dunno if he's serious about calling classifying SSB as a "party" game, but when you say that it's the most successful "fighting" game, you should put "fighting" between quotes. In broader terms, yeah it's the most successful "ftg", but you're insane if you think it's in the class of games as Street Fighter or Tekken. It was never intended to be a serious fighter, it was always intended to be a "party" game, as evidenced by the simplified inputs. I mean, yeah, the games can arguably be played competitively, but all 3 entries have terrible balancing and Sakurai mostly focused on the party/fanservice aspect. This even more obvious in Brawl with all the stages that are gimmicky to the point where people turn them off even for casual LOLHAHA party fun. Or why no one likes the guy who uses Meta Knight. Or why some items are so pointless and stupid (gold hammer).

So while SSB succeeded in being the most successful "fighting" game, it was by no means-- not even remotely!-- a hint that people would be interested in more traditional fighting games. You're insane if you think that the success of Smash should have prompted devs to start porting the KoFs and vs.Capcoms to Nintendo platforms. Just look at the sales of TvC.

"Why would third-parties release a major fighting game for the PS3? Sony sure did not.
Why would third-parties release a major fighting game for the 360? MS sure did not."

Dunno if this is the right answer, but I'll take a guess: niche genre that originate in arcades. When arcades died in the West, devs for whatever reason ported all their games to Playstation, and that's where the community for these games went. It's a relatively niche genre, so you can pretty much bet that regardless of platform, people will go where the games/community are.

Not only that, but as I said, and as Hamr mentioned earlier regarding SC, these are all arcade ports, meaning they will be ported to platforms that is compatible with the arcade hardware. Most arcades have better tech than Wii, and some of them actually use the *same* specs as 360 (iirc, there is one Taito board that was developed my Microsoft JPN using the 360 hardware).

@Hamr

Crushing... wall... of text...
User avatar
18 Dec 2012 23:37

sigrah0x7ba wrote:If not, you're crazy. You don't get to decide what's a fighter and what's not.


I am not the one who decided that Smash Bros is not a fighter, Sakurai was. You are the one saying that he does not get to decide what his own game is.

"Developers all the time say their game isn't what it is."

No, they do not.

"and those statements are never taken as anything more than what they are: Marketing Speak."

He is not the person marketing the game, he is the person who produces and develops the games.

(I agree though that Smash Bros is not a game marketed to fighting game fans -- because it is not a fighting game. It is a game marketed to people who do not want fighting games.)

"Smash Brothers is a fighter. Period"

I always love when people claim to know more about games series than the people who make them and then act like everyone *else* is crazy.

Hmm, who should I believe is telling the truth, some silly person on the internet who has not managed to write a single post without some factual error in it, or the man who created the series?

Sorry, call me crazy all you want, but I am going to side with Sakurai on this one.

"Why would third-parties release a major fighting game for the PS3? Sony sure did not."

Fighting games are centered around online-multiplayer. Sony certainly released games with successful online-multiplayer.

"Why would third-parties release a major fighting game for the 360? MS sure did not."

Microsoft certainly released games with successful online-multiplayer.

"You're logic"

Your.

"You're logic either works equally in all cases or it doesn't work at all."

My logic works fine. However, I am beginning to see that the problem is that you, like most Wii owners, have very limited knowledge about and experience with fighters. This is why you are one of the only people in the world to labor under the bizarre impression that Smash Bros should be regarded as one, and this is why you need me to explain painfully obvious facts like that online is a central part of fighting game design.

"And yet you expected RE4 to meet or even exceed these "best case scenario sales" on the Wii"

Er, you clearly did not read the part of my post where I said that I expected all the non-RE4 games to meet or exceed (or even do one tenth) of the PS360 best case scenarios. They failed, doing even worse than RE4.

The fact of the matter is RE4's pathetic sales were all that was possible in the Wii's best case scenario. That was the absolute most the install base was capable of. And no, no one expected that.

"Trying to apply these artificial standards to Nintendo only shows your true colors, which means I am out."

:lol:

edit:

MegaShock wrote:Crushing... wall... of text...


Sorry about that. A couple years back, I was one of the people who created most of the untrue arguments that Sig is peddling as fact. Consequently, I now feel I bear responsibility for ending them.
No Avatar
19 Dec 2012 07:14

MegaShock100 wrote:I dunno if he's serious about calling classifying SSB as a "party" game, but when you say that it's the most successful "fighting" game, you should put "fighting" between quotes. In broader terms, yeah it's the most successful "ftg", but you're insane if you think it's in the class of games as Street Fighter or Tekken. It was never intended to be a serious fighter, it was always intended to be a "party" game, as evidenced by the simplified inputs. I mean, yeah, the games can arguably be played competitively, but all 3 entries have terrible balancing and Sakurai mostly focused on the party/fanservice aspect. This even more obvious in Brawl with all the stages that are gimmicky to the point where people turn them off even for casual LOLHAHA party fun. Or why no one likes the guy who uses Meta Knight. Or why some items are so pointless and stupid (gold hammer).

So while SSB succeeded in being the most successful "fighting" game, it was by no means-- not even remotely!-- a hint that people would be interested in more traditional fighting games. You're insane if you think that the success of Smash should have prompted devs to start porting the KoFs and vs.Capcoms to Nintendo platforms. Just look at the sales of TvC.

Wikipedia wrote:The editors of Japanese game magazine Famitsu, who awarded it a perfect score, praised the variety and depth of the single-player content, the unpredictability of Final Smashes, and the dynamic fighting styles of the characters.[88][103] Chris Slate of Nintendo Power awarded Brawl a perfect score in the March 2008 issue, calling it "one of the very best games that Nintendo has ever produced".[90] GameSpot editor Lark Anderson noted that Brawl's "simple controls and gameplay make it remarkably accessible to beginners, yet still appealing to veterans", while GameTrailers mentioned the amount of content that gives the game "staying power that few other games possess".[89][104] Eurogamer praised the game's ability to stay fun in both single-player and multiplayer modes, while "fulfilling its usual role of dominating a willing crowd's evening into the early hours, and now allowing you to sustain that after everyone's gone home".[87] Game Revolution hailed Brawl's soundtrack as "spectacular ... spanning a generous swath of gaming history".[13] Game Informer highlighted Brawl's "finely tuned balance, core fighting mechanics, and local multiplayer modes".[105] Edge concluded that, while the Smash Bros. games have often been "derided as button-mashing", Brawl features "one of the most enduringly innovative and deep systems of any fighter".[106]

The fact that anyone would be willing to try and reclassify Smash Brothers as anything other than a fighter in order to artificially win an argument built around absurd requirements, which only seem to affect Nintendo, is very, very sad...

There is no talking to people who are so ingrained in their own lies that they've come to actually believe them.

I think I'm pretty much done on this site all together.

...

So, so sad.
User avatar
19 Dec 2012 11:27

@sigrah0x7ba

Why don't you try responding directly to my arguments instead of using some random source as an appeal to authority? And then you're on some high-horse talking down to people for "lying" and making up shovel when you're doing exactly that and more.

"The fact that anyone would be willing to try and reclassify Smash Brothers as anything other than a fighter in order to artificially win an argument"

Kind of like how people like want to group Smash in the same pool of games as SF, KoF, Tekken, MvC, etc. in order to win an argument-- OH WAIT!

"There is no talking to people who are so ingrained in their own lies that they've come to actually believe them."

That should be my line.

Quoting Famitsu who gave figgen Nintendogs a perfect score is hilarious. Apart from the fact that mainstream game media know jack shovel about the fighting genre, the parts you quoted don't actually prove anything. I never said Smash wasn't a fighting game, I said it was NOT THE SAME KIND OF GAME AS STREET FIGHTER. And yes, you're insane if you honestly think it is and if you believe that devs should've started porting traditional ftgs to N64/GC/Wii because of Smash Bros.' success.

Not only that, but the quoted parts are laughable for someone who plays these games competitively. Brawl has "finally tuned balance"? Lmao sureee. xD

Oh and this quote: "Brawl's "simple controls and gameplay make it remarkably accessible to beginners"

Thanks for proving my point!

And I like how you completely ignore my point about TvC's sales, lol. The genre is pretty niche, so just take a look at message boards. You're in denial if you think that the 8-10 mil people who bought SSB are interested in mastering even something as braindead as MvC3. Just look at forums where people say the only ftg they play is Smash becaues they suck at traditional fighting games. Oh and, SCII was only popular on GC because it had Link in it.
User avatar
19 Dec 2012 16:19

sigrah0x7ba wrote:[Bunch of silly stuff from Gamespot, Famitsu, etc.]


My favorite part of this is how you apparently believe that Sakurai is just a lying marketing stooge who should not be trusted about his own game, but those websites and magazines, who literally receive money to advertise games, are the true authority on Smash Bros's design -- anything to avoid confronting those inconvenient truths about Nintendo's business strategy and the direct impact it has on what third-parties feel comfortable producing.
User avatar
19 Dec 2012 17:42

I'm really loving the discourse on this thread.

View the full discussion!

Quickie Search

"Advanced" Search

Anti-social Tendencies

Advertisements

RSS feed trough

News Feed
Top Stories
Console News
Portables News
Podcast Feed
GoNintendo Radio Feed
Twitter Feed

Affiliates + Friends

Destructoid
Gamersyde
Modojo
TheBitBlock
Anime Your Way