Analyst: Wii is 'fool's gold' for developers

Why yes Skylock, because it hurts my feelings just as it hurts your feelings whenever people take potshots against Ninty. :P

BladesOfAthena

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

Why yes Skylock, because it hurts my feelings just as it hurts your feelings whenever people take potshots against Ninty. :P

Skylock00

Awww Skitch...I wasn't trying to offend you, I was only kidding. At any rate, I apologize if you interpreted it as such. No hard feelings, ok? :)

That is what I think is a notable issue in this case, personally, though there is probably more I could add to the analysis if you guys want.Skylock00

This issue only ties in nicely with the bigger issue - Nintendo doesn't really care about developers. They never have and they probably never will. Microsoft stands out in this area which makes sense considering their main business (Windows) basically revolves around catering to software developers and providing them with much-needed support. Sony is fumbling around in the support area (they're a hardware company and can't really be expected to have Microsoft's expertise with dev tools and such), but they have realized the great importance of third-party developers right off the bat back in 1995 and they've gone to great lenghts to get developers onboard. And then there's Nintendo...who just doesn't give a crap. And it's so obvious they don't give a crap, it's hilarious. Forget support, Nintendo has actually been known to go out of its way to incommodate developers.

This issue only ties in nicely with the bigger issue - Nintendo doesn't really care about developers.

UpInFlames

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]That is what I think is a notable issue in this case, personally, though there is probably more I could add to the analysis if you guys want.UpInFlames

This issue only ties in nicely with the bigger issue - Nintendo doesn't really care about developers. They never have and they probably never will. Microsoft stands out in this area which makes sense considering their main business (Windows) basically revolves around catering to software developers and providing them with much-needed support. Sony is fumbling around in the support area (they're a hardware company and can't really be expected to have Microsoft's expertise with dev tools and such), but they have realized the great importance of third-party developers right off the bat back in 1995 and they've gone to great lenghts to get developers onboard. And then there's Nintendo...who just doesn't give a crap. And it's so obvious they don't give a crap, it's hilarious. Forget support, Nintendo has actually been known to go out of its way to incommodate developers.

I think that if they want to encourage more developers (especially from the Western side) to support their platform, then they can start by cutting down the number of upcoming Nintendo franchises, so that it doesn't stifle competition quite as much. Its really no contest as to which game is going to sell more - Super Duper Smash Brawl: Part Deux or [insert generic 3rd party title here]. :lol:

I think that if they want to encourage more developers (especially from the Western side) to support their platform, then they can start by cutting down the number of upcoming Nintendo franchises, so that it doesn't stifle competition quite as much. Its really no contest as to which game is going to sell more - Super Duper Smash Brawl: Part Deux or [insert generic 3rd party title here]. :lol:

BladesOfAthena

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

I think that if they want to encourage more developers (especially from the Western side) to support their platform, then they can start by cutting down the number of upcoming Nintendo franchises, so that it doesn't stifle competition quite as much. Its really no contest as to which game is going to sell more - Super Duper Smash Brawl: Part Deux or [insert generic 3rd party title here]. :lol:

Skylock00

Which is why I hate you.:evil:

I think that's an overtly harsh way to look at it regarding the matter. I think it's more of the matter that Nintendo has a lack of understanding of how to operate as a company to draw in Western developers, since those are the ones that seem to be the most resistant to working on the Wii from the looks of complaints and such. Nintendo of Japan under Iwata has been operating differently than Nintendo of Japan under Yamauchi from the looks of things, and yes, I'm aware of how Nintendo has operated pretty much up through the 90's, so I don't need to have that really be brought up.

The way I kinda view it is that Nintendo's approach to devs seems more grounded in them still being Japanese centric regarding how they do things, which doesn't involve developing/providing really strong toolsets for developers themselves, which might be fine for developers in Japan, but obviously it's not how one does really effective business on the NA/EU side.

It still paints them as incompetent to a degree, but it's emphasizing the point that they have had inroads and successes with developers on the Japanese side of things, as opposed to making it seem like they haven't had any success with any developers, period.Skylock00

I didn't mention the fact that they indeed have gone out of their way to inconvenience developers to lecture you, but simply to back up my reasoning. And considering that Nintendo has been known to do such things, I don't think I'm being harsh enough. Nintendo isn't the same company that it was in the 90's, but let's not pretend like they're completely different either.

It's not just the tools, that's a minor issue (which Sony is having problems with as well for years now and hasn't even addressed it until the PS3 came out). Nintendo is still treating Europe like second rate scum and they still can't get any meaningful developer support. Iwata and Reggie talked up a big game back in 2005 about changing their ways and stuff, but after their newfound success with the DS and Wii I see Nintendo once again slipping back to the arrogant Yamauchi days.

So much jealousy and hate towards Nintendo this gen from fanboys all the way to developers (who are also fanboys) that are still bitter about Nintendos corruption during the Yamayauchi era. The Wii is the fastest selling console of all time. It would be stupidnot to support it accordingly. People just need to accept Nintendo's dominance anddeal with it :)

Nintendo is still treating Europe like second rate scum and they still can't get any meaningful developer support. Iwata and Reggie talked up a big game back in 2005 about changing their ways and stuff, but after their newfound success with the DS and Wii I see Nintendo once again slipping back to the arrogant Yamauchi days.

UpInFlames

Several reports like this have already shown up. The fact is that casual gamers just don't buy as many games as hardcore gamers do. Many of them just buy the console with Wii Sports + Wii Fit and maybe Wii Play for the extra controller, and then go on to buy nothing/forget about the Wii. As this thread says, if they do buy anything, it'll be a big nintendo title. Of course, you'll never get that on an internet board...since the majority of the Wii owners who don't buy games are definitely not going to be posting or even reading an internet board for video games.Paladin_King

Which is precisely the reason why I doubt that Nintendo has done much to expand the market at all. The millions of people buying into the Wii Sports/Wii Fit hype is no different than the millions who use their computers just to play solitaire while turning a blind eye to the types of games that hardcore gamers enjoy. Who gives a damn about finetuning the content of your software when the average non-gamer won't be able to tell the difference between what's quality and what's trash. When you look at the NPD charts and see nothing but the same old same old usual Nintendo fare like Wii Play or Wii Fit keeping afloat while games like Madworld or No More Heroes get pushed aside, its like, what's the point?

To skip 3 pages and summarise the quotations in the first post. "You can either make some random turd for the Wii, in which you didn't invest any time or money so the game features tagged on waggling and pointing, which enevitably wont sell as well as you'd hoped for. Or you can continue to spurt out unimagintive Sci-fi shoot 'em ups and fantasy Role Players on the other two consoles and please a fanbase that fears change. At least you'll have a million seller on your hands."

Ok it would be a pretty unfair to suggest 360 and PS3 owners are boring and all playing the same sorts of games. I for one am not. However it's a fair point considering the majority of games that are released these days. I think developers are lazy and just looking to squeeze as much money as they can from a market growing desperate for something a little more daring and refreshing. Something the Wii at least tried to encourage...

Feel free to ignore this post!

Which is precisely the reason why I doubt that Nintendo has done much to expand the market at all. The millions of people buying into the Wii Sports/Wii Fit hype is no different than the millions who use their computers just to play solitaire while turning a blind eye to the types of games that hardcore gamers enjoy. Who gives a damn about finetuning the content of your software when the average non-gamer won't be able to tell the difference between what's quality and what's trash. When you look at the NPD charts and see nothing but the same old same old usual Nintendo fare like Wii Play or Wii Fit keeping afloat while games like Madworld or No More Heroes get pushed aside, its like, what's the point?

BladesOfAthena

I don't quite understand that analogy. Unlike a computer, anyone buying a Wii is doing so specifically for gaming.

Regardless of the games being puchased, they are still turning on a wider audience on to gaming, and I don't really see how more users can be a bad thing. This generation seems to be proving that there's room enough for all types of gamers when you see the dearth of quality out there. While there may be more casual gamers out there, the old crowd is still around and buying the same types of games they always have. I don't believe a game like Wii Fit is neccessarily trash so much that it caters to an audience that we can't identify with. But so long as those games don't dominate the market, I'm not terribly bothered by those being the more popular choices for one of the consoles I own.

As for games that are more focused towards the enthusiast crowd, at the very least, those can survive as a niche on the Wii. No More Heroes sold well enough for a sequel, and I don't believe Madworld has had any data released so I won't comment on that. It appears to me that even though it may not be a majority, there's still an audience that does appreciate quality on the Wii. The real reason you don't see many quality third party titles up near the top is that they just aren't out there. As sales of the Wii continue, I think it's fair to assume that the niche market for those titles can only expand and quality titles will slowly follow, though my optimism may be influencing that prediction.

Regardless of the games being puchased, they are still turning on a wider audience on to gaming, and I don't really see how more users can be a bad thing.JGonspy

It's a bad thing because the Wii completely destroyed the entire idea that you need to have the best games to have the best selling system. You can have the worst overall library in terms of quality, and still sell a cubic ton of hardware and crappy software and make a profit. Quality in games taking a back seat = bad thing. Please don't fool yourselves into thinking Sony and MS have any intention of continuing down the path they've been taking. We're looking into a terrible abyss that is three flavors of Wii next generation. The death of quality games, because why take the time and money to make great games when the majority of people who own the systems couldn't tell a bad game from a good game if their life depended on it?

Hell, I'd make the cheap crappy game that an ocean of trendy boneheads will buy regardless and rake in a profit too, can't blame them. Stupid people were put on this planet to be taken advantage of afterall.

[QUOTE="JGonspy"]Regardless of the games being puchased, they are still turning on a wider audience on to gaming, and I don't really see how more users can be a bad thing.RandolphScott

It's a bad thing because the Wii completely destroyed the entire idea that you need to have the best games to have the best selling system. You can have the worst overall library in terms of quality, and still sell a cubic ton of hardware and crappy software and make a profit. Quality in games taking a back seat = bad thing. Please don't fool yourselves into thinking Sony and MS have any intention of continuing down the path they've been taking. We're looking into a terrible abyss that is three flavors of Wii next generation. The death of quality games, because why take the time and money to make great games when the majority of people who own the systems couldn't tell a bad game from a good game if their life depended on it?

Hell, I'd make the cheap crappy game that an ocean of trendy boneheads will buy regardless and rake in a profit too, can't blame them. Stupid people were put on this planet to be taken advantage of afterall.

[QUOTE="RandolphScott"]

[QUOTE="JGonspy"]Regardless of the games being puchased, they are still turning on a wider audience on to gaming, and I don't really see how more users can be a bad thing.Bigboi500

It's a bad thing because the Wii completely destroyed the entire idea that you need to have the best games to have the best selling system. You can have the worst overall library in terms of quality, and still sell a cubic ton of hardware and crappy software and make a profit. Quality in games taking a back seat = bad thing. Please don't fool yourselves into thinking Sony and MS have any intention of continuing down the path they've been taking. We're looking into a terrible abyss that is three flavors of Wii next generation. The death of quality games, because why take the time and money to make great games when the majority of people who own the systems couldn't tell a bad game from a good game if their life depended on it?

Hell, I'd make the cheap crappy game that an ocean of trendy boneheads will buy regardless and rake in a profit too, can't blame them. Stupid people were put on this planet to be taken advantage of afterall.

Aligning system power to quality? Are you serious?

Why don't you do a comparison of the current software available for all three systems and then get back to us. The Wii has one of the worst libraries I've ever seen and it's certainly the first console I can recall that was the market leader despite having the weakest software. The PS2 had the best overall selection of software, the PS1 had the best overall selection, the SNES and Genesis had an almost even share because both consoles were swimming with quality games, etc.

Do you see a pattern here?

The Wii is a fad, a gimmick and the weak software supports this reality. I own all three consoles and frankly, with a very few exceptions, the Wii can't even begin to touch what the PS3 and the XB360 offer. Granted, you caninterject the whole "opinion is subjective" argument but at some point I would hope common sense allows us to collectively recognize some sort of standard of quality. Consider that Fast and Furious made in one weekend more than The Wrestler has made in its entire theatrical run. Does that mean Fast and the Furious is the superior film?

The bottom line is that, as a consumer and a gamer, the only thing that really matters to meis software. Yes, there are some very good games on the Wii but they have been few and far between because, as this analyst has suggested, the payoff for quality just isn't there for developers considering a significant portion of the Wii demographic will lap up anything placed in their dish.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="RandolphScott"]

It's a bad thing because the Wii completely destroyed the entire idea that you need to have the best games to have the best selling system. You can have the worst overall library in terms of quality, and still sell a cubic ton of hardware and crappy software and make a profit. Quality in games taking a back seat = bad thing. Please don't fool yourselves into thinking Sony and MS have any intention of continuing down the path they've been taking. We're looking into a terrible abyss that is three flavors of Wii next generation. The death of quality games, because why take the time and money to make great games when the majority of people who own the systems couldn't tell a bad game from a good game if their life depended on it?

Hell, I'd make the cheap crappy game that an ocean of trendy boneheads will buy regardless and rake in a profit too, can't blame them. Stupid people were put on this planet to be taken advantage of afterall.

Grammaton-Cleric

Aligning system power to quality? Are you serious?

Why don't you do a comparison of the current software available for all three systems and then get back to us. The Wii has one of the worst libraries I've ever seen and it's certainly the first console I can recall that was the market leader despite having the weakest software. The PS2 had the best overall selection of software, the PS1 had the best overall selection, the SNES and Genesis had an almost even share because both consoles were swimming with quality games, etc.

Do you see a pattern here?

The Wii is a fad, a gimmick and the weak software supports this reality. I own all three consoles and frankly, with a very few exceptions, the Wii can't even begin to touch what the PS3 and the XB360 offer. Granted, you caninterject the whole "opinion is subjective" argument but at some point I would hope common sense allows us to collectively recognize some sort of standard of quality. Consider that Fast and Furious made in one weekend more than The Wrestler has made in its entire theatrical run. Does that mean Fast and the Furious is the superior film?

The bottom line is that, as a consumer and a gamer, the only thing that really matters to meis software. Yes, there are some very good games on the Wii but they have been few and far between because, as this analyst has suggested, the payoff for quality just isn't there for developers considering a significant portion of the Wii demographic will lap up anything placed in their dish.

Look past brands and you can see junk invading the industry from all sides, not just the Wii's huge amounts of shovelware.

[QUOTE="JGonspy"]Regardless of the games being puchased, they are still turning on a wider audience on to gaming, and I don't really see how more users can be a bad thing.RandolphScott

It's a bad thing because the Wii completely destroyed the entire idea that you need to have the best games to have the best selling system. You can have the worst overall library in terms of quality, and still sell a cubic ton of hardware and crappy software and make a profit. Quality in games taking a back seat = bad thing. Please don't fool yourselves into thinking Sony and MS have any intention of continuing down the path they've been taking. We're looking into a terrible abyss that is three flavors of Wii next generation. The death of quality games, because why take the time and money to make great games when the majority of people who own the systems couldn't tell a bad game from a good game if their life depended on it?

Hell, I'd make the cheap crappy game that an ocean of trendy boneheads will buy regardless and rake in a profit too, can't blame them. Stupid people were put on this planet to be taken advantage of afterall.

Randolph, I don't think developers are that cynical. I suspect most of them are hardcore gamers, and that they are trying to make the type of games that they enjoy. I believe that as long as gamers make hardcore games profitable, such developers will continue to make them. Its like singers of rock n' roll. When rap passed it in popularity (for a time) they didn't flip to rap because many rock n' roll singers didn't know or care much about rap, and they could still make a living making the type of music they had always made. Publishers supported them because they didn't want to leave money on the table (they had rap music divisions alongside their rock music divisions).

Also, we don't have much respect for casual games, but there must be an art to making them. Nintendo has been making profitably minigame collections for years (long before the massive influx of casuals into the market) whereas most publisher's minigames have failed commercially.

Of course, if I am wrong, I will become a retrogamer next gen, but I don't think Media Molecule, Cliffy B and Kojima will start cranking outminigames in a frantic (and probably useless) attempt to chase casuals.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="RandolphScott"]

It's a bad thing because the Wii completely destroyed the entire idea that you need to have the best games to have the best selling system. You can have the worst overall library in terms of quality, and still sell a cubic ton of hardware and crappy software and make a profit. Quality in games taking a back seat = bad thing. Please don't fool yourselves into thinking Sony and MS have any intention of continuing down the path they've been taking. We're looking into a terrible abyss that is three flavors of Wii next generation. The death of quality games, because why take the time and money to make great games when the majority of people who own the systems couldn't tell a bad game from a good game if their life depended on it?

Hell, I'd make the cheap crappy game that an ocean of trendy boneheads will buy regardless and rake in a profit too, can't blame them. Stupid people were put on this planet to be taken advantage of afterall.

Grammaton-Cleric

Aligning system power to quality? Are you serious?

Why don't you do a comparison of the current software available for all three systems and then get back to us. The Wii has one of the worst libraries I've ever seen and it's certainly the first console I can recall that was the market leader despite having the weakest software. The PS2 had the best overall selection of software, the PS1 had the best overall selection, the SNES and Genesis had an almost even share because both consoles were swimming with quality games, etc.

Do you see a pattern here?

The Wii is a fad, a gimmick and the weak software supports this reality. I own all three consoles and frankly, with a very few exceptions, the Wii can't even begin to touch what the PS3 and the XB360 offer. Granted, you caninterject the whole "opinion is subjective" argument but at some point I would hope common sense allows us to collectively recognize some sort of standard of quality. Consider that Fast and Furious made in one weekend more than The Wrestler has made in its entire theatrical run. Does that mean Fast and the Furious is the superior film?

The bottom line is that, as a consumer and a gamer, the only thing that really matters to meis software. Yes, there are some very good games on the Wii but they have been few and far between because, as this analyst has suggested, the payoff for quality just isn't there for developers considering a significant portion of the Wii demographic will lap up anything placed in their dish.

It would be nice if the Wii is a gimmick, but I suspect casuals are here to stay. WiiPlay has earned a place alongside Bingo in nursing homes, and I know a lot of non-traditional (people who have never before been interested in videogames) who either own a Wii or plan on buying one.

But like I said in a prior post, so long as hardcore gamers continue to buy games in numbers, we can expect the same quantity and quality of games we have always enjoyed (or better).

Um, people earlier in this thread have already indicated that NoE's actually treating things better than NoA, and in fact, Europe has gotten more ports of Nintendo Published games than America has, so this looks to not be as clear cut as you're making it out to be.Skylock00

Porting over Fatal Frame somehow doesn't really excuse the fact that a lot of Wii games are released months after their North American releases and the European VC travesty (unoptimized garbage that actually runs slower than original NES/SNES/N64 games).

The death of quality games, because why take the time and money to make great games when the majority of people who own the systems couldn't tell a bad game from a good game if their life depended on it?

Hell, I'd make the cheap crappy game that an ocean of trendy boneheads will buy regardless and rake in a profit too, can't blame them. Stupid people were put on this planet to be taken advantage of afterall.RandolphScott

Like Carnage said, you can't keep creative developers down no matter the money. Do you really think that creative talent--dare I say visionaries--such as Sid Meier, Dan Houser, Peter Molyneux, Gabe Newell, etc. could ever be satisfied making party games? No, as long as there is creative talent in this industry and an audience for those types of games, they won't be going anywhere. Let's not even mention the fact that games by those developers are selling millions upon millions of copies.

[QUOTE="RandolphScott"]

[QUOTE="JGonspy"]Regardless of the games being puchased, they are still turning on a wider audience on to gaming, and I don't really see how more users can be a bad thing.CarnageHeart

It's a bad thing because the Wii completely destroyed the entire idea that you need to have the best games to have the best selling system. You can have the worst overall library in terms of quality, and still sell a cubic ton of hardware and crappy software and make a profit. Quality in games taking a back seat = bad thing. Please don't fool yourselves into thinking Sony and MS have any intention of continuing down the path they've been taking. We're looking into a terrible abyss that is three flavors of Wii next generation. The death of quality games, because why take the time and money to make great games when the majority of people who own the systems couldn't tell a bad game from a good game if their life depended on it?

Hell, I'd make the cheap crappy game that an ocean of trendy boneheads will buy regardless and rake in a profit too, can't blame them. Stupid people were put on this planet to be taken advantage of afterall.

Randolph, I don't think developers are that cynical. I suspect most of them are hardcore gamers, and that they are trying to make the type of games that they enjoy. I believe that as long as gamers make hardcore games profitable, such developers will continue to make them. Its like singers of rock n' roll. When rap passed it in popularity (for a time) they didn't flip to rap because many rock n' roll singers didn't know or care much about rap, and they could still make a living making the type of music they had always made. Publishers supported them because they didn't want to leave money on the table (they had rap music divisions alongside their rock music divisions).

Also, we don't have much respect for casual games, but there must be an art to making them. Nintendo has been making profitably minigame collections for years (long before the massive influx of casuals into the market) whereas most publisher's minigames have failed commercially.

Of course, if I am wrong, I will become a retrogamer next gen, but I don't think Media Molecule, Cliffy B and Kojima will start cranking outminigames in a frantic (and probably useless) attempt to chase casuals.

Is it really up to the developers to decide which games they want to make? EA just announced that they will be shifting half of their resources to the Wii. Now I'm sure they would still be making those Sports game rehashes they love to churn out every year. So that means half of their workforce, hardcore gamers or not, are stuck making games for the Wii and not the games they want to make. (Assuming ofcourse that they want to make next gen/current gen games.)

The Publishers usually have control over their studios. Even if they allow guys like Kojima, CliffyB, Moleyneux to make the games they want to make, I'm dead sure the Publisher's main focus would be to make more money. It could very well be that more Publishers follow EA's route. Sure we will still be getting masterpieces from Kojima, Gabe Newell and others, but I doubt every young programmer, game designer working for big firms like Ubisoft, EA, Take Two would be allowed the same freedom. I'm with Randolph here. It might not look that bad right now with amazing hardcore games coming out virtually every month, but if everyone follows EA then it could get a lot worse really fast.

Is it really up to the developers to decide which games they want to make? EA just announced that they will be shifting half of their resources to the Wii. Now I'm sure they would still be making those Sports game rehashes they love to churn out every year. So that means half of their workforce, hardcore gamers or not, are stuck making games for the Wii and not the games they want to make. (Assuming ofcourse that they want to make next gen/current gen games.)

The Publishers usually have control over their studios. Even if they allow guys like Kojima, CliffyB, Moleyneux to make the games they want to make, I'm dead sure the Publisher's main focus would be to make more money. It could very well be that more Publishers follow EA's route. Sure we will still be getting masterpieces from Kojima, Gabe Newell and others, but I doubt every young programmer, game designer working for big firms like Ubisoft, EA, Take Two would be allowed the same freedom. I'm with Randolph here. It might not look that bad right now with amazing hardcore games coming out virtually every month, but if everyone follows EA then it could get a lot worse really fast.S0lidSnake

The power rests in developers' hands, they are the creative force and they're the ones making the money for the suits. They still need to fight for it and convince the suits that their idea is great (as they always have), but no one is shackled to any one company. Dissatisfied developers will leave to persue other ventures be it in a different company of even starting up their own. Nobody is in the business of driving away their creative talent. As for EA's Wii announcement, I wouldn't make too much of it. I really don't think we'll be seeing Digital Illusions, BioWare or Pandemic suddenly cranking out Wii games.

Indeed there are alot of casual games on the Wii, yes, but that isn;t really a problem, since you can just IGNORE the casual games if you don't want them and focus on getting the games you want. That's what I have been doing, and I have a very good collecton of Wii games, most of which would be considered "hardcore".

And also, the system that is selling the most and has the highest sales always has a bunch of casual games in it's library. just look at the PS2, it was riddled with a load of casual games. It shouldn;t be that big of a surprise the Wii is geting so many casual games as well, and again, this doesn't bother me, because I managed to find plenty of games on the Wii I like.

Indeed there are alot of casual games on the Wii, yes, but that isn;t really a problem, since you can just IGNORE the casual games if you don't want them and focus on getting the games you want. That's what I have been doing, and I have a very good collecton of Wii games, most of which would be considered "hardcore".

And also, the system that is selling the most and has the highest sales always has a bunch of casual games in it's library. just look at the PS2, it was riddled with a load of casual games. It shouldn;t be that big of a surprise the Wii is geting so many casual games as well, and again, this doesn't bother me, because I managed to find plenty of games on the Wii I like.

DJ-Lafleur

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]I find that analogy pretty offensive and opinionated yet spoken as if it was fact. Who decides what quality is...you? Are you aligning system power to quality? If so then you would be one of the people you claim to be better than if you believe that and blindly follow gamesite and magazine reviews.

Bigboi500

Aligning system power to quality? Are you serious?

Why don't you do a comparison of the current software available for all three systems and then get back to us. The Wii has one of the worst libraries I've ever seen and it's certainly the first console I can recall that was the market leader despite having the weakest software. The PS2 had the best overall selection of software, the PS1 had the best overall selection, the SNES and Genesis had an almost even share because both consoles were swimming with quality games, etc.

Do you see a pattern here?

The Wii is a fad, a gimmick and the weak software supports this reality. I own all three consoles and frankly, with a very few exceptions, the Wii can't even begin to touch what the PS3 and the XB360 offer. Granted, you caninterject the whole "opinion is subjective" argument but at some point I would hope common sense allows us to collectively recognize some sort of standard of quality. Consider that Fast and Furious made in one weekend more than The Wrestler has made in its entire theatrical run. Does that mean Fast and the Furious is the superior film?

The bottom line is that, as a consumer and a gamer, the only thing that really matters to meis software. Yes, there are some very good games on the Wii but they have been few and far between because, as this analyst has suggested, the payoff for quality just isn't there for developers considering a significant portion of the Wii demographic will lap up anything placed in their dish.

Look past brands and you can see junk invading the industry from all sides, not just the Wii's huge amounts of shovelware.

See, now you're just grasping at straws. You really want to pull in quality games like Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2, or Dead Space into this discussion as proof of junk on the HD consoles? Regardless of how those games appeal to you personally, they are solid, well-made titles where by contrast the Wii literally is buried under shovelware. Hell, the Wii doesn't even have comparable games to put up against those titles you mention.

All consoles have their share of flops and shames but are you really going to sit their and with a straight face tell me the output of quality software on the Wii is on par with the XB360 and the PS3? Do you even consider that a viable argument?

And truth be told, this generation is seeing one of the highest ratios of quality output on every console but the Wii. Even Nintendo's own output, which used to the highpoint of their consoles, is starting to slip. Mediocrity like Wii Music and casual lameness like WiFit comprised most of their lineup for 2008, save the stale retreads of Smash Bros. and Mario Kart. The reason I call the Wii a fad is because thee is no substance to its success; people have bought the system in droves for the uniqueness of the input device and the casual-friendly nature of the software. When an original, quality titles does show up on the platform, like Deadly Creatures or Mad World, it more often than not languishes at retail while insipid offerings like WiiPlay tops the chart.

Also, your lumping of Heavenly Sword in with crap like Lips and Vampire Rain is ridiculous. Maybe you should play some of these games before slamming them. It might give you a bit of perspective when defending the bowel movement that is most of the Wii library.

Indeed there are alot of casual games on the Wii, yes, but that isn;t really a problem, since you can just IGNORE the casual games if you don't want them and focus on getting the games you want. That's what I have been doing, and I have a very good collecton of Wii games, most of which would be considered "hardcore".

And also, the system that is selling the most and has the highest sales always has a bunch of casual games in it's library. just look at the PS2, it was riddled with a load of casual games. It shouldn;t be that big of a surprise the Wii is geting so many casual games as well, and again, this doesn't bother me, because I managed to find plenty of games on the Wii I like.

DJ-Lafleur

The difference is that the PS2 maintained a steady stream of quality games along with the torrent of crap. The Wii is following the same disjointed pattern of the Cube and the N64: long lapses between anything worthwhile and a plethora of junk as filler. If you feel the urge to compare the Wii to the PS2, please understand it is only going to make the Wii look that much worse. The PS2 had strong entries in every genre; the Wii has only a few. Even if you go back to where the PS2 was at this point in it's very long life cycle, it was producing a much more steady flow of quality titles.

I've done my best to support quality offerings on the Wii but there really isn't all that much on the console, especially when compared to the offerings on the PS3 and XB360.

Also, it's hard to ignore the crap when 85-90 percent of the library is excrement.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Aligning system power to quality? Are you serious?

Why don't you do a comparison of the current software available for all three systems and then get back to us. The Wii has one of the worst libraries I've ever seen and it's certainly the first console I can recall that was the market leader despite having the weakest software. The PS2 had the best overall selection of software, the PS1 had the best overall selection, the SNES and Genesis had an almost even share because both consoles were swimming with quality games, etc.

Do you see a pattern here?

The Wii is a fad, a gimmick and the weak software supports this reality. I own all three consoles and frankly, with a very few exceptions, the Wii can't even begin to touch what the PS3 and the XB360 offer. Granted, you caninterject the whole "opinion is subjective" argument but at some point I would hope common sense allows us to collectively recognize some sort of standard of quality. Consider that Fast and Furious made in one weekend more than The Wrestler has made in its entire theatrical run. Does that mean Fast and the Furious is the superior film?

The bottom line is that, as a consumer and a gamer, the only thing that really matters to meis software. Yes, there are some very good games on the Wii but they have been few and far between because, as this analyst has suggested, the payoff for quality just isn't there for developers considering a significant portion of the Wii demographic will lap up anything placed in their dish.

Grammaton-Cleric

Look past brands and you can see junk invading the industry from all sides, not just the Wii's huge amounts of shovelware.

See, now you're just grasping at straws. You really want to pull in quality games like Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2, or Dead Space into this discussion as proof of junk on the HD consoles? Regardless of how those games appeal to you personally, they are solid, well-made titles where by contrast the Wii literally is buried under shovelware. Hell, the Wii doesn't even have comparable games to put up against those titles you mention.

All consoles have their share of flops and shames but are you really going to sit their and with a straight face tell me the output of quality software on the Wii is on par with the XB360 and the PS3? Do you even consider that a viable argument?

And truth be told, this generation is seeing one of the highest ratios of quality output on every console but the Wii. Even Nintendo's own output, which used to the highpoint of their consoles, is starting to slip. Mediocrity like Wii Music and casual lameness like WiFit comprised most of their lineup for 2008, save the stale retreads of Smash Bros. and Mario Kart. The reason I call the Wii a fad is because thee is no substance to its success; people have bought the system in droves for the uniqueness of the input device and the casual-friendly nature of the software. When an original, quality titles does show up on the platform, like Deadly Creatures or Mad World, it more often than not languishes at retail while insipid offerings like WiiPlay tops the chart.

Also, your lumping of Heavenly Sword in with crap like Lips and Vampire Rain is ridiculous. Maybe you should play some of these games before slamming them. It might give you a bit of perspective when defending the bowel movement that is most of the Wii library.

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

Indeed there are alot of casual games on the Wii, yes, but that isn;t really a problem, since you can just IGNORE the casual games if you don't want them and focus on getting the games you want. That's what I have been doing, and I have a very good collecton of Wii games, most of which would be considered "hardcore".

And also, the system that is selling the most and has the highest sales always has a bunch of casual games in it's library. just look at the PS2, it was riddled with a load of casual games. It shouldn;t be that big of a surprise the Wii is geting so many casual games as well, and again, this doesn't bother me, because I managed to find plenty of games on the Wii I like.

Grammaton-Cleric

The difference is that the PS2 maintained a steady stream of quality games along with the torrent of crap. The Wii is following the same disjointed pattern of the Cube and the N64: long lapses between anything worthwhile and a plethora of junk as filler. If you feel the urge to compare the Wii to the PS2, please understand it is only going to make the Wii look that much worse. The PS2 had strong entries in every genre; the Wii has only a few. Even if you go back to where the PS2 was at this point in it's very long life cycle, it was producing a much more steady flow of quality titles.

I've done my best to support quality offerings on the Wii but there really isn't all that much on the console, especially when compared to the offerings on the PS3 and XB360.

Also, it's hard to ignore the crap when 85-90 percent of the library is excrement.

Well, whatever, it's not like I'll be getting 85-90% of any console's game library anyway. When it comes to any console, I always keep my focus on any games that grab my interest, and disregard any other games that don't look enticing, for the most part. I've been doing this with the Wii, and I've done it with any other console I own or have owned. I may not get hundreds of games for a console, but I'll get 10-30 games per console, And they all for the most part are games I really enjoy. Most systems I get end up worth the money I spent, and the Wii is no different. I have 12 very good games on the Wii, and that's not even counting all the Wii virtual console games or WiiWare games I've downloaded. There are more games coming out for the Wii I'lll want, as well.

So I have no problems ignoring the "crap" on the Wii, and am therefore able to really appreciate the Wii. If you can't ignore all the "crap", then whatever, I don't really care. :P

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

Indeed there are alot of casual games on the Wii, yes, but that isn;t really a problem, since you can just IGNORE the casual games if you don't want them and focus on getting the games you want. That's what I have been doing, and I have a very good collecton of Wii games, most of which would be considered "hardcore".

And also, the system that is selling the most and has the highest sales always has a bunch of casual games in it's library. just look at the PS2, it was riddled with a load of casual games. It shouldn;t be that big of a surprise the Wii is geting so many casual games as well, and again, this doesn't bother me, because I managed to find plenty of games on the Wii I like.

Bigboi500

The Wii isn't the focus of most developers because very few types of games have made money on the Wii (which is why there are so many minigame collections and rail shooters).

And for whatever reason, Nintendo hasn't taken up the slack/doesn't seem to be determined to change things. First parties (including Nintendo, in the past) usually try to make up for perceived weaknesses in the libraries of their systems, to convince developers that 'supporting us is a great idea!'. Because the Xbox wasn't viewed as a system for jrpgs, MS spent a lot of money to acquire exclusive jrpgs for the X360. Because the PS2 wasn't viewed as a system for first person shooters, Sony spent a lot of money developing exclusive shooters for the PS3. Because the Gamecube wasn't viewed as a system for M rated games, Nintendo made an alliance with Capcom and picked up Silicon Knights (who developed Eternal Darkness).

But quality hardcore games cost money (maybe less than they do on other systems, but still more than minigame collections do) and trying to prove the existence of an unproven market is a lot riskier than catering to the faithful, so Nintendo's position makes sense for Nintendo. Still it doesn't really leave Wii owners who are interested in a broad range of games in a good spot and its odd to see people speaking out in defense of fewer games from fewer developers, but its not the first time (the N64's Dream Team had its defenders).

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

Indeed there are alot of casual games on the Wii, yes, but that isn;t really a problem, since you can just IGNORE the casual games if you don't want them and focus on getting the games you want. That's what I have been doing, and I have a very good collecton of Wii games, most of which would be considered "hardcore".

And also, the system that is selling the most and has the highest sales always has a bunch of casual games in it's library. just look at the PS2, it was riddled with a load of casual games. It shouldn;t be that big of a surprise the Wii is geting so many casual games as well, and again, this doesn't bother me, because I managed to find plenty of games on the Wii I like.

CarnageHeart

The Wii isn't the focus of most developers because very few types of games have made money on the Wii (which is why there are so many minigame collections and rail shooters).

And for whatever reason, Nintendo hasn't taken up the slack/doesn't seem to be determined to change things. First parties (including Nintendo, in the past) usually try to make up for perceived weaknesses in the libraries of their systems, to convince developers that 'supporting us is a great idea!'. Because the Xbox wasn't viewed as a system for jrpgs, MS spent a lot of money to acquire exclusive jrpgs for the X360. Because the PS2 wasn't viewed as a system for first person shooters, Sony spent a lot of money developing exclusive shooters for the PS3. Because the Gamecube wasn't viewed as a system for M rated games, Nintendo made an alliance with Capcom and picked up Silicon Knights (who developed Eternal Darkness).

But quality hardcore games cost money (maybe less than they do on other systems, but still more than minigame collections do) and trying to prove the existence of an unproven market is a lot riskier than catering to the faithful, so Nintendo's position makes sense for Nintendo. Still it doesn't really leave Wii owners who are interested in a broad range of games in a good spot and its odd to see people speaking out in defense of fewer games from fewer developers, but its not the first time (the N64's Dream Team had its defenders).

I'm different from the garden variety Nintendo fan because I like all three console makers and enjoy a wide variety of games. Actually I came here in the hopes of getting away from the hyperbole and fanboyism of SW but I see that some posters in this thread (not you) won't listen to reason or avoid the name calling and offhanded insults. I get tired of PS3/360 fanboys always going to Wii shovelware in their arguments because it's a bit absurd and knowledgeable fans avoid that stuff like the plague. As others have stated in this thread there are enough good Wii games to keep most people satisfied although it would be nice to get even more I don't think anyone would turn down more quality choices for consoles they own.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="RandolphScott"]

It's a bad thing because the Wii completely destroyed the entire idea that you need to have the best games to have the best selling system. You can have the worst overall library in terms of quality, and still sell a cubic ton of hardware and crappy software and make a profit. Quality in games taking a back seat = bad thing. Please don't fool yourselves into thinking Sony and MS have any intention of continuing down the path they've been taking. We're looking into a terrible abyss that is three flavors of Wii next generation. The death of quality games, because why take the time and money to make great games when the majority of people who own the systems couldn't tell a bad game from a good game if their life depended on it?

Hell, I'd make the cheap crappy game that an ocean of trendy boneheads will buy regardless and rake in a profit too, can't blame them. Stupid people were put on this planet to be taken advantage of afterall.

S0lidSnake

Randolph, I don't think developers are that cynical. I suspect most of them are hardcore gamers, and that they are trying to make the type of games that they enjoy. I believe that as long as gamers make hardcore games profitable, such developers will continue to make them. Its like singers of rock n' roll. When rap passed it in popularity (for a time) they didn't flip to rap because many rock n' roll singers didn't know or care much about rap, and they could still make a living making the type of music they had always made. Publishers supported them because they didn't want to leave money on the table (they had rap music divisions alongside their rock music divisions).

Also, we don't have much respect for casual games, but there must be an art to making them. Nintendo has been making profitably minigame collections for years (long before the massive influx of casuals into the market) whereas most publisher's minigames have failed commercially.

Of course, if I am wrong, I will become a retrogamer next gen, but I don't think Media Molecule, Cliffy B and Kojima will start cranking outminigames in a frantic (and probably useless) attempt to chase casuals.

Is it really up to the developers to decide which games they want to make? EA just announced that they will be shifting half of their resources to the Wii. Now I'm sure they would still be making those Sports game rehashes they love to churn out every year. So that means half of their workforce, hardcore gamers or not, are stuck making games for the Wii and not the games they want to make. (Assuming ofcourse that they want to make next gen/current gen games.)

The Publishers usually have control over their studios. Even if they allow guys like Kojima, CliffyB, Moleyneux to make the games they want to make, I'm dead sure the Publisher's main focus would be to make more money. It could very well be that more Publishers follow EA's route. Sure we will still be getting masterpieces from Kojima, Gabe Newell and others, but I doubt every young programmer, game designer working for big firms like Ubisoft, EA, Take Two would be allowed the same freedom. I'm with Randolph here. It might not look that bad right now with amazing hardcore games coming out virtually every month, but if everyone follows EA then it could get a lot worse really fast.

Its also up to publishers, but like I said, publishers will happily continue to support hardcore gaming as long as we support it. If hardcore games stop being financially viable (which would mean the rest of the world going the way of Japan in terms of consumer tastes), then yes, casual games will be all that is on offer from big publishers. But as long as hardcore games continue to make money (and they are making money everywhere outside of Japan) than we can continue to expect robust support from publishers and developers.

I expect that the support of casual games from most publishers will grow (its low hanging,juicy fruit), but I don't think that it will negatively impact support for hardcore games (its higher up on the tree, but also juicy).

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Well said I very much agree with that assessment of the Wii. I think the Wii gets overlooked and bashed mostly because it doesn't have nearly as many blockbuster mainstream titles. In my humble opinion most of those big named games on other systems are severly over-rated.

Bigboi500

The Wii isn't the focus of most developers because very few types of games have made money on the Wii (which is why there are so many minigame collections and rail shooters).

And for whatever reason, Nintendo hasn't taken up the slack/doesn't seem to be determined to change things. First parties (including Nintendo, in the past) usually try to make up for perceived weaknesses in the libraries of their systems, to convince developers that 'supporting us is a great idea!'. Because the Xbox wasn't viewed as a system for jrpgs, MS spent a lot of money to acquire exclusive jrpgs for the X360. Because the PS2 wasn't viewed as a system for first person shooters, Sony spent a lot of money developing exclusive shooters for the PS3. Because the Gamecube wasn't viewed as a system for M rated games, Nintendo made an alliance with Capcom and picked up Silicon Knights (who developed Eternal Darkness).

But quality hardcore games cost money (maybe less than they do on other systems, but still more than minigame collections do) and trying to prove the existence of an unproven market is a lot riskier than catering to the faithful, so Nintendo's position makes sense for Nintendo. Still it doesn't really leave Wii owners who are interested in a broad range of games in a good spot and its odd to see people speaking out in defense of fewer games from fewer developers, but its not the first time (the N64's Dream Team had its defenders).

I'm different from the garden variety Nintendo fan because I like all three console makers and enjoy a wide variety of games. Actually I came here in the hopes to get away from the hyperbole and fanboyism but I see that some posters in this thread (not you) won't listen to reason or avoid the name calling and offhanded insults. I get tired of PS3/360 fanboys always going to Wii shovelware in their arguments because it's a bit absurd and knowledgable fans avoid that stuff like the plague. As others have stated in this thread there are enough good Wii games to keep most people satisfied although it would be nice to get even more I don't think anyone would turn down more quality choices for consoles they own.

Grammaton's in the same position, he's just a little more frustrated with the Wii's library than you are. I sympathize. I observe from a distance this gen (I don't own a Wii), but last gen I had a GC and felt pretty burned when Nintendo quickly abandoned its committment to broadening its base (I can see why getting rid of SK and Rare made sense, especially for the prices they sold them for, but why not replace them?).

Also, even if you like niche games, don't you find more on the PS3 and the X360 (or more specifically, PSN and XBLA)than on the Wii? I haven't paid much attention to Wiiware games, but one tends to hear about major releases, and aside from World of Goo, I can't recall a Wiiware game garnering the same type of attention that games like Flower, Braid, Fat Princess, Geometry Wars and Pixeljunk Monsters garnered.

On a possibly related note,I recall indie developers complaining that Nintendo just didn't seem interested in their support in the same way Sony and MS are.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2007/03/flow-might-have-come-to-the-wii-but-the-ps3-is-a-better-fit-here-is-why.ars

"That was the hardest decision we ever had to make, choosing between Sony and Nintendo," admitted Santiago. Speaking during the Q & A, Santiago clarified that "they weren't right for us at the time. Sony kind of came to us with the process of incubation... They helped us get our studio started." Nintendo did not approach them; the team actually cornered them about Cloud at a prior Game Developers Conference. FlOw creator Jenova Chen chimed in, saying "in the end, we are game makers and not console makers," expressing his satisfaction working with Nintendo on other projects. That Game Company did not rule out working on the Wii in the future.

I forgot to post this earlier, but here's an interview with id's Todd Hollenshead which explains why developers are giving the Wii the cold shoulder.

I'm not really worried about that, because if you look at the data, the Wii is Nintendo--and then everybody else. And then among everybody else, it's licensed properties--and then stuff that people lose money on. So, for a really original, game-centric IP, if you're a third-party developer, I would say, "Show me what makes such a compelling case for the Wii." I'm not saying that it's not out there, but there hasn't been anything that's been demonstrated to be a really huge success.

So the game-centric game-based properties are successful on 360 and PS3, and PC, especially if you have a combined launch. They're not as successful on the Wii. In fact, if you're already doing those others, then maybe you add the Wii as your fourth platform. But if you look at the numbers, independent Wii-centric development is not really justified yet.

And also, I mean, if you look at the market, the type of games we traditionally make, those games are selling record numbers on non-Wii platforms. But despite the success of the Wii, and the fact that it's the largest-selling console out there, games like we make are still doing bigger numbers than they've ever done before.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

The Wii isn't the focus of most developers because very few types of games have made money on the Wii (which is why there are so many minigame collections and rail shooters).

And for whatever reason, Nintendo hasn't taken up the slack/doesn't seem to be determined to change things. First parties (including Nintendo, in the past) usually try to make up for perceived weaknesses in the libraries of their systems, to convince developers that 'supporting us is a great idea!'. Because the Xbox wasn't viewed as a system for jrpgs, MS spent a lot of money to acquire exclusive jrpgs for the X360. Because the PS2 wasn't viewed as a system for first person shooters, Sony spent a lot of money developing exclusive shooters for the PS3. Because the Gamecube wasn't viewed as a system for M rated games, Nintendo made an alliance with Capcom and picked up Silicon Knights (who developed Eternal Darkness).

But quality hardcore games cost money (maybe less than they do on other systems, but still more than minigame collections do) and trying to prove the existence of an unproven market is a lot riskier than catering to the faithful, so Nintendo's position makes sense for Nintendo. Still it doesn't really leave Wii owners who are interested in a broad range of games in a good spot and its odd to see people speaking out in defense of fewer games from fewer developers, but its not the first time (the N64's Dream Team had its defenders).

CarnageHeart

I'm different from the garden variety Nintendo fan because I like all three console makers and enjoy a wide variety of games. Actually I came here in the hopes to get away from the hyperbole and fanboyism but I see that some posters in this thread (not you) won't listen to reason or avoid the name calling and offhanded insults. I get tired of PS3/360 fanboys always going to Wii shovelware in their arguments because it's a bit absurd and knowledgable fans avoid that stuff like the plague. As others have stated in this thread there are enough good Wii games to keep most people satisfied although it would be nice to get even more I don't think anyone would turn down more quality choices for consoles they own.

Grammaton's in the same position, he's just a little more frustrated with the Wii's library than you are. I sympathize. I observe from a distance this gen (I don't own a Wii), but last gen I had a GC and felt pretty burned when Nintendo quickly abandoned its committment to broadening its base (I can see why getting rid of SK and Rare made sense, especially for the prices they sold them for, but why not replace them?).

Also, even if you like niche games, don't you find more on the PS3 and the X360 (or more specifically, PSN and XBLA)than on the Wii? I haven't paid much attention to Wiiware games, but one tends to hear about major releases, and aside from World of Goo, I can't recall a Wiiware game garnering the same type of attention that games like Flower, Braid, Fat Princess, Geometry Wars and Pixeljunk Monsters garnered.

On a possibly related note,I recall indie developers complaining that Nintendo just didn't seem interested in their support in the same way Sony and MS are.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2007/03/flow-might-have-come-to-the-wii-but-the-ps3-is-a-better-fit-here-is-why.ars

"That was the hardest decision we ever had to make, choosing between Sony and Nintendo," admitted Santiago. Speaking during the Q & A, Santiago clarified that "they weren't right for us at the time. Sony kind of came to us with the process of incubation... They helped us get our studio started." Nintendo did not approach them; the team actually cornered them about Cloud at a prior Game Developers Conference. FlOw creator Jenova Chen chimed in, saying "in the end, we are game makers and not console makers," expressing his satisfaction working with Nintendo on other projects. That Game Company did not rule out working on the Wii in the future.

This theory has been around since launch. The "Wii is just a fad" theory and that it will eventually become a money hole. As far as the facts are concerned, Nintendo is still too busy counting money to care.FishSquared

It took analysts years to figure out something that developers knew on day one. If you really look at it, it's quite clear that developers are ignoring the Wii and the reasons why they are doing so are quite clear as well. Both from a creative and business standpoint, the Wii simply isn't a viable platform for most developers.

UpInFlames

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

Which is precisely the reason why I doubt that Nintendo has done much to expand the market at all. The millions of people buying into the Wii Sports/Wii Fit hype is no different than the millions who use their computers just to play solitaire while turning a blind eye to the types of games that hardcore gamers enjoy. Who gives a damn about finetuning the content of your software when the average non-gamer won't be able to tell the difference between what's quality and what's trash. When you look at the NPD charts and see nothing but the same old same old usual Nintendo fare like Wii Play or Wii Fit keeping afloat while games like Madworld or No More Heroes get pushed aside, its like, what's the point?

JGonspy

I don't quite understand that analogy. Unlike a computer, anyone buying a Wii is doing so specifically for gaming.

Regardless of the games being puchased, they are still turning on a wider audience on to gaming, and I don't really see how more users can be a bad thing. This generation seems to be proving that there's room enough for all types of gamers when you see the dearth of quality out there. While there may be more casual gamers out there, the old crowd is still around and buying the same types of games they always have. I don't believe a game like Wii Fit is neccessarily trash so much that it caters to an audience that we can't identify with. But so long as those games don't dominate the market, I'm not terribly bothered by those being the more popular choices for one of the consoles I own.

As for games that are more focused towards the enthusiast crowd, at the very least, those can survive as a niche on the Wii. No More Heroes sold well enough for a sequel, and I don't believe Madworld has had any data released so I won't comment on that. It appears to me that even though it may not be a majority, there's still an audience that does appreciate quality on the Wii. The real reason you don't see many quality third party titles up near the top is that they just aren't out there. As sales of the Wii continue, I think it's fair to assume that the niche market for those titles can only expand and quality titles will slowly follow, though my optimism may be influencing that prediction.

I also agree that we don't need to worry about losing quality games. The quality dev teams out there won't make games for the Wii if they don't want to. You know what will happen if Activision makes Infinity Ward make a Wii party game? They'd all quit, form a new studio, then they'd have publishers tossing money at them left and right to make whatever they want. When Capcom decided to dissolve Clover Studios and reassign everyone to different internal teams, soon after Platinum formed with the same key members. Same will hold true for Kojima, Rockstar, Valve, and whatever. Even sales won't prevent games from being made, according to Tim Schaffer - it'll only make the creator put more effort into getting it released, but if he wants his idea to get made it eventually will.

The observation that the leading console always had the best library was true, but were they directly related? Maybe it's possible that the winner simply had the most casual titles for it... but these titles jumped on board with whatever console was selling the best based on sales data. This time, they jumped on the Wii from day one due to the controls, and it seems that is what's largely fueling the sales. Maybe it was the casual titles that directly is the cause? Also, while there was always shovelware with the industry leaders before, the quality-to-shovelware ratio was a HECK of a lot better than it is for the Wii. Like was mentioned, shovelware is irrelevant because we don't even consider getting it. However, I had zero problems finding a steady stream of interesting and must-have titles for the PS2. For the Wii? Not so much.

There's also new Neilson data coming out where they try to see how much people play with their consoles, and the hours played, sessions, etc. for the PS3 and 360 are pretty close, and the Wii is lagging way behind, like about half as much. So, the average PS360 owner plays their console twice as much as the average Wii person, which suggests that they're twice as likely to buy games. And since the combined install base is about the same as a Wii, that means that people are just more likely to buy games for them. It's not the raw sales numbers but the actual demographic stats that proves the most interesting in why games aren't selling as well as they should on the Wii. Well that plus many third parties aren't putting in actual effort because they don't think that effort will be rewarded or for other reasons, but whatever.

I think the lack of middleware for the Wii, and Nintendo's reluctance to get good middleware available for all to use, is really killing any serious development in the West. That's a great point actually. Developing proprietary engines is good and all for Japanese mega-publishers since they can just reuse it all generation, but in the Western model where independent studios do much of the actual grunt work, that's just not going to cut it.

[QUOTE="JGonspy"]

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

Which is precisely the reason why I doubt that Nintendo has done much to expand the market at all. The millions of people buying into the Wii Sports/Wii Fit hype is no different than the millions who use their computers just to play solitaire while turning a blind eye to the types of games that hardcore gamers enjoy. Who gives a damn about finetuning the content of your software when the average non-gamer won't be able to tell the difference between what's quality and what's trash. When you look at the NPD charts and see nothing but the same old same old usual Nintendo fare like Wii Play or Wii Fit keeping afloat while games like Madworld or No More Heroes get pushed aside, its like, what's the point?

BladesOfAthena

I don't quite understand that analogy. Unlike a computer, anyone buying a Wii is doing so specifically for gaming.

Regardless of the games being puchased, they are still turning on a wider audience on to gaming, and I don't really see how more users can be a bad thing. This generation seems to be proving that there's room enough for all types of gamers when you see the dearth of quality out there. While there may be more casual gamers out there, the old crowd is still around and buying the same types of games they always have. I don't believe a game like Wii Fit is neccessarily trash so much that it caters to an audience that we can't identify with. But so long as those games don't dominate the market, I'm not terribly bothered by those being the more popular choices for one of the consoles I own.

As for games that are more focused towards the enthusiast crowd, at the very least, those can survive as a niche on the Wii. No More Heroes sold well enough for a sequel, and I don't believe Madworld has had any data released so I won't comment on that. It appears to me that even though it may not be a majority, there's still an audience that does appreciate quality on the Wii. The real reason you don't see many quality third party titles up near the top is that they just aren't out there. As sales of the Wii continue, I think it's fair to assume that the niche market for those titles can only expand and quality titles will slowly follow, though my optimism may be influencing that prediction.

I still don't believe the analogy to be quite apt. You can play games on your PC, but the vast majority of people purchase it for reasons other than that. It would almost be similar to wondering why more people don't surf online with their Wii's. It has the functionality, but it's secondary to the primary reason it would be purchased. When someone chooses to purchase a Wii, it would be for the specific purpose of gaming.

With that in mind, I would argue that I don't believe these new consumers really need to play the same games we enjoy. If they would prefer to play something like WiiFit, then they should have that right without any expectations that they should somehow become fans of other games, and to that end, we shouldn't be surprised that many developers who specialize in traditional games would shy away from the Wii. I believe those individuals who enjoy WiiFit are still gamers and their interest is genuine, just those not quite instep with our tastes.

I do still think there is some room for successful traditional third party games in that Wii market, but until more quality third party games are released, there's no real way of assessing just how successful they might be. The sample we have right now is quite low, especially compared to the other two consoles. However, I don't believe there is any excuse for the shovelware, even if the few quality third party titles that have been released have been unappreciated. If the assumption that Wii owners will buy anything is true, there would be far more diversity amongst the top selling titles and we would see more than the usual suspects amongst the top sellers. If third parties truly wish for success, a quality product should always be the surest route, whatever its intented audience may be. I think this is a clear reason as to why something like Mario Kart outsells Wacky Races, the quality of one title is higher than another.

I realize I've made two contradictory assumptions about the Wii's audience, but this lies in the fact that the machine is becoming something the entirely family can enjoy, and the fact that the userbase has grown so large for it that it can encompass a significant number of both types of gamers for a quality title to find some success.

There's also new Neilson data coming out where they try to see how much people play with their consoles, and the hours played, sessions, etc. for the PS3 and 360 are pretty close, and the Wii is lagging way behind, like about half as much. So, the average PS360 owner plays their console twice as much as the average Wii person, which suggests that they're twice as likely to buy games. And since the combined install base is about the same as a Wii, that means that people are just more likely to buy games for them. It's not the raw sales numbers but the actual demographic stats that proves the most interesting in why games aren't selling as well as they should on the Wii. Well that plus many third parties aren't putting in actual effort because they don't think that effort will be rewarded or for other reasons, but whatever.

argianas

I knew this would happen. Nielsen made a mistake and have corrected the data. You are using a faulty and old data.

Remember that study of video gamer habits Nielsen released earlier this week showing the Wii in third place and the Playstation 3 in seventh, last even after the GameCube and original Xbox? It was wrong.

Fast Company reports that they've been told that the graph was mislabeled. The real graph, which now appears in the official report and in the image above, shows that the Wii is in second place, after the PS2, for console usage and the PS3 is in fifth place, beating out the GameCube and original Xbox.

Whoops. I hope there aren't any other mistakes in the oft-cited, typically trusted data. Reached for comment this morning, a Nielsen representative said the report does not contain any other errors.Nielsen

Link

So according to this report the Wii is only second to the PS2 and the PS3 is below the Xbox1. But wait there is more!

Industry Heads Discuss Growth and the Future of Games
People who know a whole lot more than we do talk about where videogames are going.
by Nate Ahearn

April 9, 2009 - Yesterday at the MI6 Conference held in downtown San Francisco, an annual panel was formed to discuss the future and direction of the videogame industry.

It's called the Gaming 20/20 Panel and this year included Michael Pachter, Managing Director of Research at Wedbush Morgan Securities as moderator; John Pleasants, COO of Electronic Arts; Christoph Hartmann, President of 2K; Kai Huang, Co-Founder of Red Octane; Darrell Rodriguez, President of LucasArts; and JJ Richards, GM Massive.

While nothing truly newsworthy came out of the discussion, I jotted down some of the more interesting exchanges and quips that I heard during the hour and a half talk.

-The software attach rate on Wii was the highest last year of the three major consoles.IGN

Link

So the wii is apparently the most played consoles, with the highest attach rate is 2008. So it seems they sell the most hardware and software.

Heh, figures they'd screw up the report. Still, my point still stands, though not to the same extreme. That's total playing percentage, but there's more Wii's out there than PS3's and 360's. Using very general hardware YTD data from various estimates, the PS3 and 360 ratios come out almost equal, both about 20% higher than the Wii, in minutes per console. Remember, everything is relative. Nintendo technically gets the most third party sales (though this was very skewed by the fact that Mario and Sonic at the Olympics is technically a third party game since Sega published it), but the sales per console ratio is in fact the lowest. Just depends on how you want to interpret the numbers.

...but the sales per console ratio is in fact the lowest..

argianas

I do still think there is some room for successful traditional third party games in that Wii market, but until more quality third party games are released, there's no real way of assessing just how successful they might be. The sample we have right now is quite low, especially compared to the other two consoles. However, I don't believe there is any excuse for the shovelware, even if the few quality third party titles that have been released have been unappreciated. If the assumption that Wii owners will buy anything is true, there would be far more diversity amongst the top selling titles and we would see more than the usual suspects amongst the top sellers. If third parties truly wish for success, a quality product should always be the surest route, whatever its intented audience may be. I think this is a clear reason as to why something like Mario Kart outsells Wacky Races, the quality of one title is higher than another.

I realize I've made two contradictory assumptions about the Wii's audience, but this lies in the fact that the machine is becoming something the entirely family can enjoy, and the fact that the userbase has grown so large for it that it can encompass a significant number of both types of gamers for a quality title to find some success.

JGonspy

Like I said before, first parties traditionally get third parties interested in their hardware in part through demonstrating the presence of a market (you don't think rpgs can sell on our system, look at the sales of the game we made!). There's no law saying that Nintendo can only make Mario and Zelda games. They chose to do so because such games are safe (the Nintendo hardcore who bought Mario and Zelda on the N64 and GC will buy Mario and Zelda on the Wii). On a related note, third parties have a much less happy history with the Nintendo hardcore, whom they view as overly fixated on Nintendo's franchises (that's why despite the fact one couldn't stick a knife between the GC and the Xbox in terms of hardware sales, software wise the Xbox was much, much better supported).

Also, Nintendo is quite happy to release ports on the Wii (nods towards Zelda and Play Control! games like Pikmin and Mario Power Tennis) so it makes sense for third parties to do the same.

To return to a theme, first parties are the trendsetters and the pacemakers. Nobody should beasking 'Why aren't third parties taking chances on the Wii?'. They should be asking 'Why isn't Nintendo taking chances on the Wii?'.

Heh, figures they'd screw up the report. Still, my point still stands, though not to the same extreme. That's total playing percentage, but there's more Wii's out there than PS3's and 360's. Using very general hardware YTD data from various estimates, the PS3 and 360 ratios come out almost equal, both about 20% higher than the Wii, in minutes per console. Remember, everything is relative. Nintendo technically gets the most third party sales (though this was very skewed by the fact that Mario and Sonic at the Olympics is technically a third party game since Sega published it), but the sales per console ratio is in fact the lowest. Just depends on how you want to interpret the numbers.

argianas

Please if you are going to use "facts" post the links.

Heh, figures they'd screw up the report. Still, my point still stands, though not to the same extreme. That's total playing percentage, but there's more Wii's out there than PS3's and 360's. Using very general hardware YTD data from various estimates, the PS3 and 360 ratios come out almost equal, both about 20% higher than the Wii, in minutes per console. Remember, everything is relative. Nintendo technically gets the most third party sales (though this was very skewed by the fact that Mario and Sonic at the Olympics is technically a third party game since Sega published it), but the sales per console ratio is in fact the lowest. Just depends on how you want to interpret the numbers.

argianas

Its pretty clear that third party casual games can succeed on the Wii (nods towards Guitar Hero and Carnival Games, both of which put up huge numbers according to the link provided). The question is 'Can hardcore games without Mario or Zelda in the title succeed?'.

Yeah the Wii is a piece of crap. Glad someone with a job and a degree put some time into researching that fact. I felt like such a dork with that wii remote. It's just a fat kids toy, my arms ache enough from physical work and looking after a stable of horses.

So the wii is apparently the most played consoles, with the highest attach rate is 2008. So it seems they sell the most hardware and software.Iga_Bobovic

Which is meaningless to serious developers when all those sales are comprised of Nintendo games and Guitar Hero. That's the whole point of this thread.