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

[QUOTE="Iga_Bobovic"]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.UpInFlames

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.

The point of my post was to disprove an incorrect statement, not to prove or disprove the point of the thread.

[QUOTE="argianas"]

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.

Iga_Bobovic

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

The percentages are the January 2009 stats from the fastcompany.com site that you indirectly linked to through Kotaku. The sales estimates are the NA LTD sales according to vgchartz (yes I know the accuracy issues but it's a general number). Divide percentages by sales to see what the percentage is gained per each million consoles sold. The numbers I got last night, from what I recall, is that both the PS3 and 360 got 1.07% for each million consoles, and the Wii got 0.91%. And these numbers are the most in the Wii's favor - January 2009 was the only month of the 14 months of data that the Wii usage actually beat the 360 usage. Using the November 2008 percentages, each 360 was played almost twice as much (1.92 times plus/minus the vgchartz margin of error and guessing what the actual percentage is from looking at a line chart). The article mentioned that the Wii dropped back below the 360 in February 2009. So even in best case scenarios, 360 usage is still notably higher per console than the Wii.

As for the attach rates that Skylock mentioned, perhaps so. That article is more current than the ones I previously saw, with the bulk of them being right around the holiday rush. It's likely that the holidays could have fueled sales more than previously, especially when you factor in WiiMusic's and Animal Crossing's releases and the continued strong sales of WiiFit, WiiPlay, and MK Wii (notice a pattern?). Also the releases of GH and RB undoubtedly helped, as those are the two third party games that seem very suited for the supposed Wii demographic - GH I believe actually sold better on the Wii than on either the 360 or PS3, which is a very rare occurence.

But as stated before, the point is less that people aren't buying games on the Wii, it's that people aren't buying non-GH/RB third party games on the Wii. People not buying games or people only buying Nintendo games, both problems are pretty much the same to the standard third party publisher in the end. I mean, it says something that the best-selling non-GH third party game for the Wii is a minigame collection that stars Mario.

One thing I forgot to mention last night is EA's announcement that half of their development will be for the Wii. What may skew this is that Peter Moore is recently on record saying that porting games to the Wii won't cut it, you need to build a separate game from the ground up. So while one team is making Madden for the PS3/360/PC/whatever, another is making one for the Wii. Ditto for every other sports franchise at least (since that's the division the guy heads). So the percentage of Wii-exclusive games being made by EA is probably lower than that statement suggests.

Anyway, I'm done with the argument as this is one that traditionally gets nowhere. People defend Nintendo, people bash Nintendo, people say that Nintendo just cares about money, so on and so forth. In the end, the opinions that people have going out of the thread are the same as they were coming in.

Anyway, I'm done with the argument as this is one that traditionally gets nowhere. People defend Nintendo, people bash Nintendo, people say that Nintendo just cares about money, so on and so forth. In the end, the opinions that people have going out of the thread are the same as they were coming in.

argianas

Perhaps, but you did do your homework better the second time around. So at least there some good has come of it. I predict the next Wii discussion/bash/defend/analyse thread people will forget the facts and the discussion will start from zero once again. It's like an eternal cycle of ignorance.

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.

UpInFlames

The PS3 and Wii are getting strong third party support from Japanese developers but that seems to have dropped off for the 360 as of late.

[QUOTE="Iga_Bobovic"]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.UpInFlames

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.

Highest software and hardware sales are not important to SERIOUS developers? What is a serious developer(I guess EA is not serious)? One that wants to go out o f business? They don't trade creativity on the stock Marget....... Guitar Hero is not the only game that made money on the Wii for a third party, but you already know that\. especially considering how cheap it is to develop compare top other systems.Moridin18

Did you read the interview with id's Todd Hollenshead that I posted? It's all right there. The Wii's success is irrelevant for most developers because nobody except Nintendo is getting in on it. The only ones that do are Guitar Hero, Rock Band and Sonic. Serious developers wouldn't be interested in developing watered-down spin-offs of great 360/PS3/PC games (which is all EA and Capcom are doing).

So the Wii...highest software sales, biggest userbase, smallest development costs - all irrelevant for most developers. Why? Because they'd have to build a game from the ground up for the Wii specifically. Because their creativity is shackled due to outdated hardware. Because they won't see any sales. On the other hand, they can make games for PC/360/PS3 with no fuss which offer a much larger userbase that actually wants to buy their games and sell millions in the process. You have to look at the bigger picture.

[QUOTE="argianas"]

Anyway, I'm done with the argument as this is one that traditionally gets nowhere. People defend Nintendo, people bash Nintendo, people say that Nintendo just cares about money, so on and so forth. In the end, the opinions that people have going out of the thread are the same as they were coming in.

Iga_Bobovic

Perhaps, but you did do your homework better the second time around. So at least there some good has come of it. I predict the next Wii discussion/bash/defend/analyse thread people will forget the facts and the discussion will start from zero once again. It's like an eternal cycle of ignorance.

One guy makes an honest mistake and now you are whimpering about a 'cycle of ignorance' :lol:.

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.

JGonspy

See, the problem with your argument is that it would come into conflict with Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy, which is to lure new gamers into the fold. If you can't get these people to expand their interests into other genres, then how will you be able to grow the market? If you're just going to be content with creating more and more games like Wii Fit and less games like Super Smash Brawl or Zelda TP, then not only is that going to oversaturate the market, but that it will only further cause a discrepancy between the hardcore and casual. As a result, you'll have one group dissatisfied with the upsurge of Wii Fit clones, while on the other hand, you'll have another group turned off by the overwhelming amount of traditional games that are flooding the market. If you can't satisfy either one of their demands on an adequate basis, then what's going to happen? They're just going to pack up their bags and leave. And if traditional-based developers can't create the types of games they want because consumers want games like Wii Fit, then that's going to repel them from developing for the console, much like what is happening right now.

Lastly, I don't think it would be accurate to consider these individuals who enjoy WiiFit (again, I'm referring to the nongaming persuasion) as gamers in the same way that I wouldn't consider one who watches Star Trek (and only Star Trek) to be a sci-fi fan. Their interests can't be genuine if they're not actively pursuing other things that pertain to gaming, or if they're not checking out reviews or exploring other types of genres that normally wouldn't interest them.

[QUOTE="Iga_Bobovic"]

[QUOTE="argianas"]

One guy makes an honest mistake and now you are whimpering about a 'cycle of ignorance' :lol:.

CarnageHeart

[QUOTE="Moridin18"]Highest software and hardware sales are not important to SERIOUS developers? What is a serious developer(I guess EA is not serious)? One that wants to go out o f business? They don't trade creativity on the stock Marget....... Guitar Hero is not the only game that made money on the Wii for a third party, but you already know that\. especially considering how cheap it is to develop compare top other systems.UpInFlames

Did you read the interview with id's Todd Hollenshead that I posted? It's all right there. The Wii's success is irrelevant for most developers because nobody except Nintendo is getting in on it. The only ones that do are Guitar Hero, Rock Band and Sonic. Serious developers wouldn't be interested in developing watered-down spin-offs of great 360/PS3/PC games (which is all EA and Capcom are doing).

So the Wii...highest software sales, biggest userbase, smallest development costs - all irrelevant for most developers. Why? Because they'd have to build a game from the ground up for the Wii specifically. Because their creativity is shackled due to outdated hardware. Because they won't see any sales. On the other hand, they can make games for PC/360/PS3 with no fuss which offer a much larger userbase that actually wants to buy their games and sell millions in the process. You have to look at the bigger picture.

They're serious publishers, but developers vary from team to team. The more talented teams at said companies tend to stick to the HD consoles, while the less reknown ones are the ones that tend to make the Wii games. There's a big difference between, say, Kojima Productions and your standard unnamed Konami team in terms of talent level, budgets, whatever. Ditto for Infinity Ward and a random Activision team.

Capcom and EA are not serious developers?Moridin18

Try to put things into context. In regards to the Wii, EA and Capcom aren't being serious, they're using the system as a garbage dump for lame-o minigames and rail shooters. Developers like Valve, Rockstar or whatever could never do that, that's why they're not putting anything on the system. If they ever decide to make a Wii game, it's going to be up to snuff. EA and Capcom are making Wii games just for the sake of making Wii games. That's what I mean by "serious", although I have no idea why are you clinging onto that tidbit so much. Perhaps because you have no real counter-arguments so the only thing that's left is irrelevant semantics.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Iga_Bobovic"]

Perhaps, but you did do your homework better the second time around. So at least there some good has come of it. I predict the next Wii discussion/bash/defend/analyse thread people will forget the facts and the discussion will start from zero once again. It's like an eternal cycle of ignorance.

Moridin18

One guy makes an honest mistake and now you are whimpering about a 'cycle of ignorance' :lol:.

One guy (a smart guy, not a fool) made an honest mistake (it wasn't a lie spun out of whole cloth, it was a misunderstanding based on an erroneousarticle from a reputable source which was later retracted) and now you and Iga develop a persecution complex.

I didn't see the correction, nor did I see the most recent sales stats (the most recent ones I saw a few months ago they definitely weren't in first). Oh well, I didn't read every single press release, my bad I guess! Also it depends on the people in the discussion. Debate is fun, but it gets less fun when, for example, you have someone insinuating that people are smearing Nintendo's good name and are manufacturing numbers to back their incorrect claim. When that happens, it's obvious that everything is just a waste of breath. I like discussing stuff with open-minded people, but when you have people claiming that you have an agenda to back up their own agenda, then it's just time to leave.

I have a Wii, and I'd be really interested in seeing what some of the top talent could do with some of the hardware's unique specifications. However, I'm also a realist and realize that the chances of top third party teams (especially Western developers) don't really want any part of it, and those that do are just looking to cash in quickly. Oh well, no biggie for me, I have all the current hardware so as long as the games get made, it doesn't matter where they land, I'll get what interests me.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[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.

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.

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

The issue is that you compared the PS2 to the Wii, which is ridiculous given the PS2's output of quality games. Casual crap will always be with us but the difference between the Wii and the PS2 is that the crap never overwhelmed the library; there was always something top notch coming or some quirky title being released.

And while you may not care about the proliferation of crap and the piss poor support, I do. Especially when people make silly little apologies and excuses for a console that is largely a failure just because it has Nintendo stamped across it.

This fire needs more fuel.

*grabs gas can*

IGN is reporting that WiiWare devs only get paid if their game crosses a certain number of games sold.

April 14, 2009 - At this year's Game Developers Conference a talk called Independent Game Sales revealed that Nintendo has a minimum download threshold for WiiWare games that must be met before the developer is paid. The speaker, Gamasutra publisher and Independent Game Festival chairman Simon Carless, said this number is somewhere in the mid-quadruple digits for America and low quadruples for other territories. Unless a game passes over this number of downloads, the developer doesn't get paid at all. Sources in the WiiWare development community have confirmed this information to IGN.

Carless estimated that multiple independent WiiWare games will not pass the threshold and not return any of the developer's investment. He also guessed that this threshold is in place to deter developers from tossing loads of shovelware onto the service. One developer, speaking anonymously, recently told IGN that this deterrent makes the threshold a good thing.

There have been two primary barriers for little-known games on WiiWare. Until recently, storage has been an issue on the Wii. This is now fixed as of last month, but another hurdle remains: WiiWare games don't offer any sort of trial, so gamers can't check them out first to see if they like them as they can on Xbox Live Arcade.

As of this writing, Nintendo could not be reached for comment. The company has not released any official information about the sales of WiiWare games. Carless has heard that Nintendo might be changing this minimum threshold policy so that developers can eventually cash a paycheck from WiiWare.

IGN

Yikes.

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.

Bigboi500

The only reason I am satisfied with the Wii's output is that it doesn't really matter; I own all three consoles and the Wii rarely gets played unless something like Madworld, No More Heroes, or Mario Galaxy gets released. Last year I bought around 50 games and I think only 3 or 4 of them were on the Wii and two of those were mediocre. This year has been better with House of the Dead, Deadly Creatures and Mad World but I fully expect all three of those games to sellpoorly, at least in comparison to the casual sludge that dominates the Wii's chart.

That said, I keep reading about all of these quality titles on the Wii and I'd personally love to know what you consider worthy of purchase, especially when you call out games like Dead Space as overrated?

This fire needs more fuel.

*grabs gas can*

IGN is reporting that WiiWare devs only get paid if their game crosses a certain number of games sold.

[QUOTE="IGN"]

April 14, 2009 - At this year's Game Developers Conference a talk called Independent Game Sales revealed that Nintendo has a minimum download threshold for WiiWare games that must be met before the developer is paid. The speaker, Gamasutra publisher and Independent Game Festival chairman Simon Carless, said this number is somewhere in the mid-quadruple digits for America and low quadruples for other territories. Unless a game passes over this number of downloads, the developer doesn't get paid at all. Sources in the WiiWare development community have confirmed this information to IGN.

Carless estimated that multiple independent WiiWare games will not pass the threshold and not return any of the developer's investment. He also guessed that this threshold is in place to deter developers from tossing loads of shovelware onto the service. One developer, speaking anonymously, recently told IGN that this deterrent makes the threshold a good thing.

There have been two primary barriers for little-known games on WiiWare. Until recently, storage has been an issue on the Wii. This is now fixed as of last month, but another hurdle remains: WiiWare games don't offer any sort of trial, so gamers can't check them out first to see if they like them as they can on Xbox Live Arcade.

As of this writing, Nintendo could not be reached for comment. The company has not released any official information about the sales of WiiWare games. Carless has heard that Nintendo might be changing this minimum threshold policy so that developers can eventually cash a paycheck from WiiWare.

rragnaar

Yikes.

You know, history has shown that Nintendo really is one of the biggest whores of all time.

Then again, why are these developers agreeing to this? Why not just release games on XBL and PSN?

You know, history has shown that Nintendo really is one of the biggest whores of all time.

Then again, why are these developers agreeing to this? Why not just release games on XBL and PSN?

Grammaton-Cleric

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]

This fire needs more fuel.

*grabs gas can*

IGN is reporting that WiiWare devs only get paid if their game crosses a certain number of games sold.

[QUOTE="IGN"]

April 14, 2009 - At this year's Game Developers Conference a talk called Independent Game Sales revealed that Nintendo has a minimum download threshold for WiiWare games that must be met before the developer is paid. The speaker, Gamasutra publisher and Independent Game Festival chairman Simon Carless, said this number is somewhere in the mid-quadruple digits for America and low quadruples for other territories. Unless a game passes over this number of downloads, the developer doesn't get paid at all. Sources in the WiiWare development community have confirmed this information to IGN.

Carless estimated that multiple independent WiiWare games will not pass the threshold and not return any of the developer's investment. He also guessed that this threshold is in place to deter developers from tossing loads of shovelware onto the service. One developer, speaking anonymously, recently told IGN that this deterrent makes the threshold a good thing.

There have been two primary barriers for little-known games on WiiWare. Until recently, storage has been an issue on the Wii. This is now fixed as of last month, but another hurdle remains: WiiWare games don't offer any sort of trial, so gamers can't check them out first to see if they like them as they can on Xbox Live Arcade.

As of this writing, Nintendo could not be reached for comment. The company has not released any official information about the sales of WiiWare games. Carless has heard that Nintendo might be changing this minimum threshold policy so that developers can eventually cash a paycheck from WiiWare.

Grammaton-Cleric

Yikes.

You know, history has shown that Nintendo really is one of the biggest whores of all time.

Then again, why are these developers agreeing to this? Why not just release games on XBL and PSN?

Five to seven years ago when I was a blind Nintendo fanboy, I would've backed Nintendo up. But now I totally agree with you.

Their commitment to casual gamers over their own core fans prove this.

This fire needs more fuel.

*grabs gas can*

IGN is reporting that WiiWare devs only get paid if their game crosses a certain number of games sold.

Yikes.

rragnaar

I didn't see the correction, nor did I see the most recent sales stats (the most recent ones I saw a few months ago they definitely weren't in first). Oh well, I didn't read every single press release, my bad I guess! Also it depends on the people in the discussion. Debate is fun, but it gets less fun when, for example, you have someone insinuating that people are smearing Nintendo's good name and are manufacturing numbers to back their incorrect claim. When that happens, it's obvious that everything is just a waste of breath. I like discussing stuff with open-minded people, but when you have people claiming that you have an agenda to back up their own agenda, then it's just time to leave.

I have a Wii, and I'd be really interested in seeing what some of the top talent could do with some of the hardware's unique specifications. However, I'm also a realist and realize that the chances of top third party teams (especially Western developers) don't really want any part of it, and those that do are just looking to cash in quickly. Oh well, no biggie for me, I have all the current hardware so as long as the games get made, it doesn't matter where they land, I'll get what interests me.

argianas

What's funny is that the only time someone is speaking the truth is if they're bubbling with praise. On the other hand, if you're lambasting them then that must mean you carry some sort of agenda.

*shrugs* Some people can be so narrrow-minded. Thinking in black and whites rather looking at the grey area.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]

This fire needs more fuel.

*grabs gas can*

IGN is reporting that WiiWare devs only get paid if their game crosses a certain number of games sold.

Yikes.

Teufelhuhn

Actually, the new Sony program that was let out at GDC seems interesting. Sony will match your development costs and guarantee you royalties (and I presume publish it for you) plus they'll even let you keep the IP if you agree to make the game PSN-exclusive. Burn Zombie Burn is the first game released under this program.

As for the Nintendo thing, I have mixed feelings. Discouraging shovelware getting dumped on the service and making it impossible to find anything is good. But as we all know, some good games can get buried or go unnoticed... and not even getting a penny of revenue if this happens is just harsh. Plus there's the fact that I don't think Nintendo even gives the option to release demos, so you'd have to have faith that the game is good. The one good thing about the other two services (other than the potential for demos) is that you have a central location to speak to the regular gamers in the PS Blog and Major Nelson. The Nintendo Channel is a good and much-needed start, but they don't seem to be too concerned about building a loyal community or helping their partners advertise their games.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

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-Cleric

The only reason I am satisfied with the Wii's output is that it doesn't really matter; I own all three consoles and the Wii rarely gets played unless something like Madworld, No More Heroes, or Mario Galaxy gets released. Last year I bought around 50 games and I think only 3 or 4 of them were on the Wii and two of those were mediocre. This year has been better with House of the Dead, Deadly Creatures and Mad World but I fully expect all three of those games to sellpoorly, at least in comparison to the casual sludge that dominates the Wii's chart.

That said, I keep reading about all of these quality titles on the Wii and I'd personally love to know what you consider worthy of purchase, especially when you call out games like Dead Space as overrated?

I'm more of a JRPG and SRPG fan mostly. Games on Wii that I thought got too much hate are games like ToS 2, Zack & Wiki, Harvest Moon, Rune Factory Frontier, FFF: Chocobo Tales, and especially Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn. That game is in my top four games of this gen along with Fallout 3, Tales of Vesperia, and Super Mario Galaxy.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

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.

Bigboi500

The only reason I am satisfied with the Wii's output is that it doesn't really matter; I own all three consoles and the Wii rarely gets played unless something like Madworld, No More Heroes, or Mario Galaxy gets released. Last year I bought around 50 games and I think only 3 or 4 of them were on the Wii and two of those were mediocre. This year has been better with House of the Dead, Deadly Creatures and Mad World but I fully expect all three of those games to sellpoorly, at least in comparison to the casual sludge that dominates the Wii's chart.

That said, I keep reading about all of these quality titles on the Wii and I'd personally love to know what you consider worthy of purchase, especially when you call out games like Dead Space as overrated?

Indeed, I really liked tales of Symphonia 2, definetely not as much as he first one, but I still thought it was a solid sequel. Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn was okay; I wasn't a huge fan of it.

And I definetely think Fallout 3, Tales of Vesperia, and Super Mario Galaxy were all terrific games! :D

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

P.S Nintendo deserves all the crap it gets from the industry, the developers and us gamers.

Skylock00

EDIT: I do have some theories and thoughts as to why the Wii hasn't really been striking a strong chord with developers, namely western ones, that has to with reasons outside of Nintendo's own games, or even the hardware restriction, that I've figured through my contacts in the professional game audio departments of the industry.

@Shylock00

I agree with you on this one. Both Sony and Microsoft have things to be sorry for in regards to the production, marketing and warranties towards consoles. An example is the RRoD. Microsoft now deal with this instantaneously and you can usually go back to your 360 within two weeks, whilst if you get the YLOD (Yellow light of death lol on PS3), it takes Sony over a month to get your PS3 back. Obviously, all three companies must improve.

And also, awesome name. Just finished reading "The Merchant Of Venice" Myself :D

I agree with you on this one. Both Sony and Microsoft have things to be sorry for in regards to the production, marketing and warranties towards consoles. An example is the RRoD. Microsoft now deal with this instantaneously and you can usually go back to your 360 within two weeks, whilst if you get the YLOD (Yellow light of death lol on PS3), it takes Sony over a month to get your PS3 back.

joelgargan

My PS3 suffered the YLOD in February and the turnaround time was about 10 days.

Yes, its true that the Wii's installed base is probably fool's gold for non-casual type game developers.

It appears that the Wii owners who post on this board love their Wiis, don't enjoy casual games, hate shovel ware, and did not buy the Wii because it was the fad thing to do. Which is great for them. But it is clear (based on actual games sales figures) that the Wii owners who post on this board are not representative of the majority of Wii owners in the US.

The majority of the Wii's installed base wants what they are getting = casual party games. This is not news. IMO it's not even necessarily a bad thing. I don't have a problem with casual games. As long as they are fun and well made, I consider them quality games.

Shovelware, on the other hand, is a big problem. It is something that can drive all the new Wii owners right out of the market. (Think Atari 2600 - at one time almost everyone owned one, and it was king for many years, but eventually people got burned by too much shovelware and lost interest in the Atari and with it their interest in gaming - thus ending the Atari fad and almost destroying the entire gaming market in the US).

Does the Wii need the non-casual game developers to save it from shovelware poisoning? Not really. The Wii just needs quality, fun games. If those quality games happen to be casual party games, I really don't think the majority of its install base will mind. That is what they bought the Wii for afterall. And that is what will keep them coming back for more.

The only ones who will complain are those Wii owners who bought the Wii because they expected it to cater to the hardcore gaming crowd. They believe that for the Wii to be a success it needs non-casual games. And they think non-casual developers are fool's for ignoring the "huge" Wii install base. Actual sales figures say differently.

Can non casual game developers cash into the huge casual install base? I wouldn't say it was impossible, but sales figures indicate that it won't be easy. There is no evidence that casual gamers naturally evolve into non-casual gamers over time or through simple exposure to quality non-casual games. I'm not saying it never happens. Some people will crave deeper gaming experiences (most likely younger gamers as they age), on the other hand, some people will be happy with what they got (those who bought the Wii for light entertainment purposes).

The Wii does have a huge install base, but it is an install base that likes casual games. The Wii install base that is demanding non-causal games is much smaller. Based on sales figures of games, it appears that that segment of the Wii install base is actually smaller than the 360/PS3 install base so it is foolish for developers to switch from those systems to the Wii simply because the Wii hasa larger overall install base. That's all the OP is saying. I don't see the controversy here.

It would be interesting to compare the sales figures of games like NMH and Madworld to those of similar games that were sold on the Gamecube. That might indicate if the Wii has added to Nintendo'snon-causal market share and how much it has done so. Has anyone done that math?

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

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.

Bigboi500

The only reason I am satisfied with the Wii's output is that it doesn't really matter; I own all three consoles and the Wii rarely gets played unless something like Madworld, No More Heroes, or Mario Galaxy gets released. Last year I bought around 50 games and I think only 3 or 4 of them were on the Wii and two of those were mediocre. This year has been better with House of the Dead, Deadly Creatures and Mad World but I fully expect all three of those games to sellpoorly, at least in comparison to the casual sludge that dominates the Wii's chart.

That said, I keep reading about all of these quality titles on the Wii and I'd personally love to know what you consider worthy of purchase, especially when you call out games like Dead Space as overrated?

I'm more of a JRPG and SRPG fan mostly. Games on Wii that I thought got too much hate are games like ToS 2, Zack & Wiki, Harvest Moon, Rune Factory Frontier, FFF: Chocobo Tales, and especially Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn. That game is in my top four games of this gen along with Fallout 3, Tales of Vesperia, and Super Mario Galaxy.

That's a fair list of quality games, though I wasn't aware that Wii detractors were slamming any of those titles. In my mind, the games being called out as casual crap would be something like Wiplay or even Wifit because the games you list are certainly of a more hardcore nature. The Wii definitely has some hardcore offerings, including Blast Works, No More Heroes, Mad World, House of the Dead and othersbut for me the issue is about consistent output versus the occasional gem among the coal. Recent games like Mad World illustrate the potential of the Wii (visually it may be the best looking game on the console) but I'm simply not convinced that Nintendo cares enough to get the third parties to really commit to the platform.

[QUOTE="Moridin18"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

One guy makes an honest mistake and now you are whimpering about a 'cycle of ignorance' :lol:.

CarnageHeart

One guy (a smart guy, not a fool) made an honest mistake (it wasn't a lie spun out of whole cloth, it was a misunderstanding based on an erroneousarticle from a reputable source which was later retracted) and now you and Iga develop a persecution complex.

persecution complex?:?

So pointing out that the number crunching argianas did and the reports I posted will not matter in the grand scheme of things, because they will be forgotten the next thread or perhaps the next page, is called persecution complex?

Basically I am saying, it does not matter what we do, the end result will be the same. I believe that is called fatalism!

If you are going to call me something the next time, please use the correct terms.

The only ones who will complain are those Wii owners who bought the Wii because they expected it to cater to the hardcore gaming crowd. They believe that for the Wii to be a success it needs non-casual games. And they think non-casual developers are fool's for ignoring the "huge" Wii install base. Actual sales figures say differently.Solori

Nicely written write-up. I pretty much agree with everything you said there.

And yeah, considering that only 7 non-Nintendo games have ever broke a million out of 486, I'd say those 'fool's were fiscally savvy as far as not giving in to the allures of the Wii's install base.

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?'.

CarnageHeart

Well, third parties were releasing ports well before Nintendo, right around launch I believe, so I don't think they're quite leading the charge on that one.

But aside from that, I do agree that a first party publisher can set the tone of the types of games released on their console, however it is still possible for a third party to make an impact. For example, Final Fantasy VII was a huge part of creating a market for RPG's on the PS1 and making it one of the best systems for the genre. While I don't know what type of game could pull off something like that on the Wii, there is some precendence for third parties making a market for quality software. Also, the lack of Mario and Zelda clones might also point to third parties not even following Nintendo in that respect. It would be nice if Nintendo tried a new direction that wasn't so alien to its core consumers, but there's no reason third parties can't. Also, Nintendo has shown there to be a market for a quality platformer like Mario Galaxy, but I have yet to see a third party offer anything similar.

Part of the problem with older Nintendo consoles were the closed minds of Nintendo fans who dominated the consumer base, but with all these new consumers, isn't this an opportunity for a third party to stake out a nice piece of realty on a Nintendo platform? Of course, it would likely have to deviate from the traditional gameplay experiences offered on the 360, but that doesn't mean it has to be a bad game. I know a lot of quality developers specialize in those types of games, but surely there must be someone willing to step up and make a move.

That's not the point. Of course PCs aren't designed solely for the purpose of gaming, what I'm trying to say is that there is a common ground between non-gaming folks (non-gamers) who play on their PCs and the nongaming folks who play on their Wiis, and that common ground is they both possess little to no interest towards games outside of the casual fare.

See, the problem with your argument is that it would come into conflict with Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy, which is to lure new gamers into the fold. If you can't get these people to expand their interests into other genres, then how will you be able to grow the market? If you're just going to be content with creating more and more games like Wii Fit and less games like Super Smash Brawl or Zelda TP, then not only is that going to oversaturate the market, but that it will only further cause a discrepancy between the hardcore and casual. As a result, you'll have one group dissatisfied with the upsurge of Wii Fit clones, while on the other hand, you'll have another group turned off by the overwhelming amount of traditional games that are flooding the market. If you can't satisfy either one of their demands on an adequate basis, then what's going to happen? They're just going to pack up their bags and leave. And if traditional-based developers can't create the types of games they want because consumers want games like Wii Fit, then that's going to repel them from developing for the console, much like what is happening right now.

Lastly, I don't think it would be accurate to consider these individuals who enjoy WiiFit (again, I'm referring to the nongaming persuasion) as gamers in the same way that I wouldn't consider one who watches Star Trek (and only Star Trek) to be a sci-fi fan. Their interests can't be genuine if they're not actively pursuing other things that pertain to gaming, or if they're not checking out reviews or exploring other types of genres that normally wouldn't interest them.

BladesOfAthena

OK, let's drop the PC analogy conversation then because it isn't going anywhere. Your second one irks me in a similar way, but I don't want to get bogged down in gramatical discrepencies.

I don't quite follow Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy, and it sounds a bit absurd if it's meant to turn these new customers into the type of gamers we are. On one hand, there is data to suggest that Wii owners are buying more than Wii Fit and branching out into other genres. Last month's NPD's including life time sales of various multiplatform games and Wii versions of titles like Tiger Woods Golf, Shaun White Snowboarding, and The Force Unleashed were all quite impressive. While these games didn't appear on any top ten charts, that may have something to do with Wii owners being less savy of release dates and purchasing titles at consistent rates over long periods of time. On the other hand, sports titles and popular franchises have always been friendly to more casual gamers, so its hardly the Wii having some sort of transformative power.

With those numbers in mind, I do consider these new customers gamers. It's easy to assume that these people are only buying Wii Fit or Wii Play as these are the games that dominate the charts every week, but life time sales point to a more diverse range of games being purchased. Of course, most of those games obviously cater towards a more casual audience. However, that doesn't mean that they are neccessarily shovelware, and it does show that third parties can find some success on the Wii when the commit to a quality product directed towards that audience.

But the third parties who specialize in traditional games (which don't represent or excuse the games of all others) would likely have to alter the games being produced to find success. And having just written that, I think we may have just gone in a large circle where the crux of the argument is one we agree? But I won't assume to speak for you. This has all been quite amusing though.

with all these new consumers, isn't this an opportunity for a third party to stake out a nice piece of realty on a Nintendo platform? Of course, it would likely have to deviate from the traditional gameplay experiences offered on the 360, but that doesn't mean it has to be a bad game. I know a lot of quality developers specialize in those types of games, but surely there must be someone willing to step up and make a move.

JGonspy

There are actually games already like this on the Wii, including No More Heroes, Mad World, and Deadly Creatures. The problem is when a developer actually invests some serious resources and talent into a game, they are often rewarded with soft sales while insipid crap like WiiPlay stays at the top of the charts. The predominate demographic on the Wii doesn't appear to be interested in substance and are more prone to nab games that come with a free controller or offer an alternative to yoga videos.

This problem is further compounded by Nintendo's apathy towards third party developers, whose games they don't seem overtly eager to promote to their consumers. It's almost as if Nintendo's ego won't allow them to fully embrace third parties because doing so takes the spotlight off Nintendo's own offerings which, lately, have been paltry and mostly uninspired. Games like the above-mentioned titles really do offer something different than what can be found on the rival consoles, yet it is infinitely frustrating and depressing to see these games languish at retail. (Though apparently No More Heroes sold enough for a sequel to be made.)

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

That's not the point. Of course PCs aren't designed solely for the purpose of gaming, what I'm trying to say is that there is a common ground between non-gaming folks (non-gamers) who play on their PCs and the nongaming folks who play on their Wiis, and that common ground is they both possess little to no interest towards games outside of the casual fare.

See, the problem with your argument is that it would come into conflict with Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy, which is to lure new gamers into the fold. If you can't get these people to expand their interests into other genres, then how will you be able to grow the market? If you're just going to be content with creating more and more games like Wii Fit and less games like Super Smash Brawl or Zelda TP, then not only is that going to oversaturate the market, but that it will only further cause a discrepancy between the hardcore and casual. As a result, you'll have one group dissatisfied with the upsurge of Wii Fit clones, while on the other hand, you'll have another group turned off by the overwhelming amount of traditional games that are flooding the market. If you can't satisfy either one of their demands on an adequate basis, then what's going to happen? They're just going to pack up their bags and leave. And if traditional-based developers can't create the types of games they want because consumers want games like Wii Fit, then that's going to repel them from developing for the console, much like what is happening right now.

Lastly, I don't think it would be accurate to consider these individuals who enjoy WiiFit (again, I'm referring to the nongaming persuasion) as gamers in the same way that I wouldn't consider one who watches Star Trek (and only Star Trek) to be a sci-fi fan. Their interests can't be genuine if they're not actively pursuing other things that pertain to gaming, or if they're not checking out reviews or exploring other types of genres that normally wouldn't interest them.

JGonspy

OK, let's drop the PC analogy conversation then because it isn't going anywhere. Your second one irks me in a similar way, but I don't want to get bogged down in gramatical discrepencies.

I don't quite follow Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy, and it sounds a bit absurd if it's meant to turn these new customers into the type of gamers we are. On one hand, there is data to suggest that Wii owners are buying more than Wii Fit and branching out into other genres. Last month's NPD's including life time sales of various multiplatform games and Wii versions of titles like Tiger Woods Golf, Shaun White Snowboarding, and The Force Unleashed were all quite impressive. While these games didn't appear on any top ten charts, that may have something to do with Wii owners being less savy of release dates and purchasing titles at consistent rates over long periods of time. On the other hand, sports titles and popular franchises have always been friendly to more casual gamers, so its hardly the Wii having some sort of transformative power.

With those numbers in mind, I do consider these new customers gamers. It's easy to assume that these people are only buying Wii Fit or Wii Play as these are the games that dominate the charts every week, but life time sales point to a more diverse range of games being purchased. Of course, most of those games obviously cater towards a more casual audience. However, that doesn't mean that they are neccessarily shovelware, and it does show that third parties can find some success on the Wii when the commit to a quality product directed towards that audience.

But the third parties who specialize in traditional games (which don't represent or excuse the games of all others) would likely have to alter the games being produced to find success. And having just written that, I think we may have just gone in a large circle where the crux of the argument is one we agree? But I won't assume to speak for you. This has all been quite amusing though.

Why would it be absurd for these consumers to take our hobby as seriously as we do? I don't know about you, but I would certainly love for my mom to come join me for a game of Soul Calibur or take part in a Halo multiplayer tournament match. If people such as my mom can't take our hobby seriously, then that's pretty sad cuz there's absolutely no reason for the gaming industry in not realizing its full potential as the dominant mainstream force superceding some of the other more traditional forms of entertainment (movies, books, and music). Your data seems to be more of a case of consumers basing their purchases off on brand recognition and box art moreso than branching out into other genres. It doesn't even provide solid evidence that these consumers are the same ones buying titles like Wii Fit. It could also be just as likely that other factors may also be at play here - that the sales data may represent either parents buying for their kids, teens, hardcore gamers, and what not. So you can't just simply look at the data and come to the conclusion that these purchases are being made by these newcomers. You say that third parties can find success on the Wii, but the problem is most can't, and that is what's hindering them from developing for the platform in the first place. It doesn't matter on whether or not there is a glimmer of hope; there is still the underlying notion that most Wii owners are indiscriminate towards shovelware, and in order for that stigma to fade, Nintendo needs to alter their strategy, since they are after all the market leader, and that its the leader who is supposed to take the initiative. So with all that said, it would still be a misnomer to refer to these individuals as "gamers," simply because of the fact that they're not well-informed and that they don't share the same amount of passion as we do in our hobby. If they were truly gamers, then they wouldn't let games like Zack & Wiki, Deadly Creatures, and No More Heroes fade off into obscurity. If they were gamers, then they would pay more attention to what they buy rather than making knee jerk reactions on boxart and brand labels.BladesOfAthena

The new gamers Nintendo are attracting are coming to gaming for different reasons than traditional gamers (they are interested in exercise programs and easy to pick up games which can be played with friends, not single player campaigns or competitive online play against strangers) but they are still gamers.

Also, I don't think they are indifferent to the efforts of third parties (as others have pointed out Carnival Games and Guitar Hero both put up huge numbers) provided third parties are offering the type of game they want to play (which isn't the type of game most developers want to make). It should also be kept in mind that new gamers always slip before they find their feet.

And while I agree with you that Nintendo's strategy discourages the release of hardcore games on the Wii, why do you think Nintendo needs to alter its strategy? Its making tons of money and hardcore games cost more to develop than casual games. On the flipside, the continued strong performance of hardcore games on the PS3 and X360 means that hardcore developers/gamers don't need Nintendo (third parties haven't focused on a Nintendo platform since the SNES).

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

Why would it be absurd for these consumers to take our hobby as seriously as we do? I don't know about you, but I would certainly love for my mom to come join me for a game of Soul Calibur or take part in a Halo multiplayer tournament match. If people such as my mom can't take our hobby seriously, then that's pretty sad cuz there's absolutely no reason for the gaming industry in not realizing its full potential as the dominant mainstream force superceding some of the other more traditional forms of entertainment (movies, books, and music). Your data seems to be more of a case of consumers basing their purchases off on brand recognition and box art moreso than branching out into other genres. It doesn't even provide solid evidence that these consumers are the same ones buying titles like Wii Fit. It could also be just as likely that other factors may also be at play here - that the sales data may represent either parents buying for their kids, teens, hardcore gamers, and what not. So you can't just simply look at the data and come to the conclusion that these purchases are being made by these newcomers. You say that third parties can find success on the Wii, but the problem is most can't, and that is what's hindering them from developing for the platform in the first place. It doesn't matter on whether or not there is a glimmer of hope; there is still the underlying notion that most Wii owners are indiscriminate towards shovelware, and in order for that stigma to fade, Nintendo needs to alter their strategy, since they are after all the market leader, and that its the leader who is supposed to take the initiative. So with all that said, it would still be a misnomer to refer to these individuals as "gamers," simply because of the fact that they're not well-informed and that they don't share the same amount of passion as we do in our hobby. If they were truly gamers, then they wouldn't let games like Zack & Wiki, Deadly Creatures, and No More Heroes fade off into obscurity. If they were gamers, then they would pay more attention to what they buy rather than making knee jerk reactions on boxart and brand labels.CarnageHeart

The new gamers Nintendo are attracting are coming to gaming for different reasons than traditional gamers (they are interested in exercise programs and easy to pick up games which can be played with friends, not single player campaigns or competitive online play against strangers) but they are still gamers.

Also, I don't think they are indifferent to the efforts of third parties (as others have pointed out Carnival Games and Guitar Hero both put up huge numbers) provided third parties are offering the type of game they want to play (which isn't the type of game most developers want to make). It should also be kept in mind that new gamers always slip before they find their feet.

And while I agree with you that Nintendo's strategy discourages the release of hardcore games on the Wii, why do you think Nintendo needs to alter its strategy? Its making tons of money and hardcore games cost more to develop than casual games. On the flipside, the continued strong performance of hardcore games on the PS3 and X360 means that hardcore developers/gamers don't need Nintendo (third parties haven't focused on a Nintendo platform since the SNES).

I think we're spreading the word a bit too thin here. You can't just call anyone a gamer just because of the fact that they own a system and use it sparingly. I own a small collection of comic books too, but I don't consider myself a comic book fan. Why? Because I don't have the desire to go around and see what other comic books may pique my interest. Same principle applies here. I'm not saying they're indifferent to the efforts of third parties. Yes, there are third party games that do sell, I even pointed that out in an earlier post. Even so, its often very discouraging for a third party developer to put forth the effort in an environment where quality is often disregarded. That's why most triple AAA content tend be the ones found on both the PS3/X360. Given the attitude of most Western developers have towards the Wii, I think that Nintendo needs to alter their strategy in a way that can encourage more quality content onto their system. Heck, even Shigeru admitted that the system was plagued with shovelware and he wanted developers to put forth a little more effort into their games.BladesOfAthena

I agree that the casual gamers who make up the majority of Wii owners aren't interested in hardcore games, regardless of their quality. The problem is that many game developers can't give casual gamers what they want because they aren't on the same wavelength.I don't think they are intentionally trying to release subpar games, but they (like me, admittedly) are incapable of recognizing the difference inbetween a quality minigame collection and a garbage one.

Also, we have to keep in mind that reviews shouldn't be confused with quality, and that most game reviewers are hardcore gamers who are about as qualified to judge casual games as I am to judgePashto poetry (as I stated in the prior paragraph, most of the casual games third parties release are probably worthless, but game reviewers aren't in a position to separate the grain from the dross).

Once again, I don't see why you want Nintendo to focus more on hardcore games,since nobody is being harmed by its decision aside from hardcore gamers whose only system is the Wii (both Nintendo and the hardcore gaming industry are doing fine).

Last but not least, I doubt that Nintendo cares much about the lack of quality of the library since as we've both stated repeatedly in this thread, they aren't doing anything to change things and actions speak louder than words.

[QUOTE="JGonspy"]

with all these new consumers, isn't this an opportunity for a third party to stake out a nice piece of realty on a Nintendo platform? Of course, it would likely have to deviate from the traditional gameplay experiences offered on the 360, but that doesn't mean it has to be a bad game. I know a lot of quality developers specialize in those types of games, but surely there must be someone willing to step up and make a move.

There are actually games already like this on the Wii, including No More Heroes, Mad World, and Deadly Creatures. The problem is when a developer actually invests some serious resources and talent into a game, they are often rewarded with soft sales while insipid crap like WiiPlay stays at the top of the charts. The predominate demographic on the Wii doesn't appear to be interested in substance and are more prone to nab games that come with a free controller or offer an alternative to yoga videos.

This problem is further compounded by Nintendo's apathy towards third party developers, whose games they don't seem overtly eager to promote to their consumers. It's almost as if Nintendo's ego won't allow them to fully embrace third parties because doing so takes the spotlight off Nintendo's own offerings which, lately, have been paltry and mostly uninspired. Games like the above-mentioned titles really do offer something different than what can be found on the rival consoles, yet it is infinitely frustrating and depressing to see these games languish at retail. (Though apparently No More Heroes sold enough for a sequel to be made.)

All I know is that I'm enjoying the more fully-fledged titles on the 360, as much as I enjoyed some of classy games on the Wii during the 1st/2nd year it just isn't holding my interest as much as the 360 is at the moment, and as a sidenote I'm getting more bang for my buck investing in Live for a year than I ever would on a single Wii game worth just as much.

I also expect this thread won't end well.

I also expect this thread won't end well.Mantorok

It's been going fine for 15 pages now.

[QUOTE="Mantorok"]I also expect this thread won't end well.UpInFlames

It's been going fine for 15 pages now.

Pfft... real men view GS at 50 posts per page. My GS settings>>>>>>>>>>Your GS settings. Noob.:P

Sorry for the week-old bump, but a news post today sheds some light on the Wii attach rate.

Link

The stat linked to earlier in this thread suggested that the Wii had the highest attach rate for 2008, which is possible. However, the NPD data shows that the Wii lost ground in overall attach rate - the PS3 overtook it, putting the Wii in last. Granted the differences aren't major, unless you start to argue over what games are and aren't included (games bundled with consoles aren't, games bundled with accessories are, online sales of retail games don't count, etc.) What is interesting was that the 360 attach rate experienced no growth for about 5 months recently while the others still gained.

Sorry for the week-old bump, but a news post today sheds some light on the Wii attach rate.

Link

The stat linked to earlier in this thread suggested that the Wii had the highest attach rate for 2008, which is possible. However, the NPD data shows that the Wii lost ground in overall attach rate - the PS3 overtook it, putting the Wii in last. Granted the differences aren't major, unless you start to argue over what games are and aren't included (games bundled with consoles aren't, games bundled with accessories are, online sales of retail games don't count, etc.) What is interesting was that the 360 attach rate experienced no growth for about 5 months recently while the others still gained.

argianas

Thanks for the info. Its pretty wild that the PS3 and Wii have the same attach ratio of 6.0 (yes, I know both audiences are buying different types of games, but still...). The X360's tie-in ratio of 8.0 is really impressive (IIRC the PS2's attach ratio topped out at 11.0).

The attach ratio for the PS3 and X360 would be higher if they hadn't made the stupid decision to increase the price of greatest hits by 50%.

The attach ratio for the PS3 and X360 would be higher if they hadn't made the stupid decision to increase the price of greatest hits by 50%.CarnageHeart

The platinum/cIassics pricing scheme remained the same in Europe, but that's probably the only thing we got going on that's better in comparison to you guys.