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

[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.

Grammaton-Cleric

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.)

While I agree with you insofar as there are some quality third party titles, I would also say that these games are a very small minority and it's difficult to establish an audience with such a small offering of quality. It's hard to fault a gamer frustrated with all the shovelware on the Wii opting to sell their console, or ignore until a major release like Super Mario Galaxy, thereby possibly missing smaller titles that don't have the marketting budget to compete . I'd also argue that while those games are quite good, I'm not sure there's any evidence to point towards them selling better on another platofrm. I certainly believe a traditional game would do better on a different platform, but I don't know if the ones you've specifically mentioned would sell to a degree in which they could be viewed as a considerably greater success. Of course, this is just a supposition based on no real data, so take that with a grain of salt. That all being said, your assessment of the Wii's user base seems to fit the majority.

As to your other point, it's hard to disagree. Nintendo could take an effort to promote the few quality third party titles out there, but apparently they aren't interested in doing so. They are showing some effort into changing this by making some effort to promote a title like Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars. This didn't really translate to high initial sales, but they may just mean Nintendo needs to try harder. And of course, that's an example using the DS and not the Wii, so there's even more room for imporvement in that other department.

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

If gaming is to become the dominant form of entertainment, than we need to accept that a vast majority of people who will soon be gaming will likely be playing games that we don't enjoy. If I said that the majority of books or movies or music tends to be of low quality, produced for a mass audience in search of simple entertainment, doesn't this sound more and more like the types of games on the Wii? This isn't an excuse for shovelware, and not even a claim about the quality of other mediums, but rather an example of how this mentality isn't particularly helpful. I would never expect my parents to play most of the games I enjoy, but I think it'd be nice if they played something they would enjoy. I know my dad might really get a kick out of a good fishing title, but why should he play something like No More Heroes? Because I've decided that it's an excellent title and anyone who games should be held up to my same standard? It does seem absurd to me to assume that a new gamer should default to my opinion of what constitutes fun. All that being said, I think my father would most enjoy a fishing title that presents an accurate simulation of real fishing rather than a simplified experience with nuance and three types of fish.

Obviously there isn't any conclusive evidence to be garnered from observing sales figures alone, and by that same token, you undermine your own analysis. I believe it's a fair assumption to say that the majority of Wii owners are the same people purchasing Wii Fit, and by the same logic, would likely constitute a sizeable portion of any game that sells a significant amount. If you don't think that's a fair inference for some reason, you're entitled to believe that, but I'd be more inclined to believe you if you provided some sort of alternative interpretation. Of what you did mention, brand recognition probably plays a huge role in purchasing decisions, and if I forgot to mention that, you'll have to excuse my oversight, that's obviously a method of influencing purchases that operates regardless of the consumer base, but perhaps to a greater effect on those not possessing adequate information on the subject. That being said, I don't think that's a big enough lurking variable to counter my arguement. But if you'd rather discuss this using baseless speculation, I'll have to pass on that.

JGonspy wrote:If gaming is to become the dominant form of entertainment, than we need to accept that a vast majority of people who will soon be gaming will likely be playing games that we don't enjoy.

Easier said than done. Most developers haven't the vaguest clue as to how to create a game that can actually appeal to the casual demographic.

JGonspy wrote: If I said that the majority of books or movies or music tends to be of low quality, produced for a mass audience in search of simple entertainment, doesn't this sound more and more like the types of games on the Wii? This isn't an excuse for shovelware, and not even a claim about the quality of other mediums, but rather an example of how this mentality isn't particularly helpful. I would never expect my parents to play most of the games I enjoy, but I think it'd be nice if they played something they would enjoy. I know my dad might really get a kick out of a good fishing title, but why should he play something like No More Heroes? Because I've decided that it's an excellent title and anyone who games should be held up to my same standard? It does seem absurd to me to assume that a new gamer should default to my opinion of what constitutes fun. All that being said, I think my father would most enjoy a fishing title that presents an accurate simulation of real fishing rather than a simplified experience with nuance and three types of fish.

Well frankly if that's how things are going to be then that's quite a depressing prospect. I doubt the industry will ever reach beyond the mainstream if our tastes continue to be so divided, what with mom and dad only displaying faint-hearted interest in a couple of titles, playing them for no more than an hour, and then leaving them covered in dust after a few months, which is exactly what happened to my father after playing a couple of sessions with Duck Hunt for the NES. At first he was intrigued by the novelty factor of the lightgun, but then after a few sessions, he eventually got tired of it and never touched it again. Same thing with the Wii. The real question is, how would one be able to grab their attention AND have it stay there, rather than just fade?

JGonspy wrote: Obviously there isn't any conclusive evidence to be garnered from observing sales figures alone, and by that same token, you undermine your own analysis.

No, its not just my analysis. Its the analysis of thousands of qualified analysts, journalists, game developers, industry insiders, and the many others who work in this biz. If many high profile titles are still being developed for the HD twins in spite of the Wii's runaway success then that's a strong indicator of how things are turning out. If that's what their mindset is, that too many shovelware games plague the Wii, and that they're avoiding the system because of some preconceived notion, then that should be telling you something right there.

JGonspy wrote: I believe it's a fair assumption to say that the majority of Wii owners are the same people purchasing Wii Fit, and by the same logic, would likely constitute a sizeable portion of any game that sells a significant amount. If you don't think that's a fair inference for some reason, you're entitled to believe that, but I'd be more inclined to believe you if you provided some sort of alternative interpretation. Of what you did mention, brand recognition probably plays a huge role in purchasing decisions, and if I forgot to mention that, you'll have to excuse my oversight, that's obviously a method of influencing purchases that operates regardless of the consumer base, but perhaps to a greater effect on those not possessing adequate information on the subject. That being said, I don't think that's a big enough lurking variable to counter my arguement. But if you'd rather discuss this using baseless speculation, I'll have to pass on that.

If its only an assumption you're using as your point of contention, then that's not what I would consider as credible evidence as far as proving a point is concerned. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that you're right...well then how would you explain the dismal sales of other highly acclaimed titles not made by a first party? If their tastes are so diverse, then why isn't games like Madworld outselling Nintendo content? I'm pretty certain there's been some level of hype going around for this game, and despite that, most people don't seem to acknowledge its existence? Why is that?