They need to make a sequel on 360 or ps3 then it won't sell well and SEGA will learn a lessonHawkEye1997Platinum Games said that they're interested in making a sequel for the Wii. Now, they should make it much longer, add challenge modes, perhaps some online play etc.
Sega Blames Wii Audience for Madworlds Sales!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I thought the game was solid and I enjoyed it for what it was. It's funny how some people say the game wasnt that great, yet they're Wiititles that were really terrbile that sold like hotcakes. Im not going pull the "niche" card as to why sales were so low. Perhaps if 3rd parties supported the Wii like this back in 2007, things would be different, and Wii owners wouldnt be afraid to take risks and purchase games that didnt have Mario on the cover.
[QUOTE="kenakuma"]Yeah pretty much, do you think every open world game sales like GTA? every FPS sells like COD? every fighting game sales like SF? Of course not. Games can be as good or better than those games but they don't have the muscle at market as those games. Quality of the software is becoming less important than the quality of the name or the parts of the game these days. The only way to compete is to go to that level, if you don't, then your not going to see those games sales numbers. Madworld was a good game, but it certainly lacked any marketing muscle. And on your second post, would Bayonetta if it were on the Wii do better than it did on the HD consoles, probably not because many multi console owners would have gotten it on the HD consoles, namely the 360 because that is the one Platinum actually developed. But Bayonetta Wii would have been done better than Madworld because it had better marketing potential. Its pretty simple AAA games will do AAA numbers, non AAA games will not.So a 3rd party game has to be Zelda caliber to sell :roll:
Mad World wasn't a bad game by a long shoot! For what it was it didn't get anywhere near the sales it deserved!
Sepewrath
It really isnt. Especially if we're talkling about the Wii.
[QUOTE="kenakuma"]Yeah pretty much, do you think every open world game sales like GTA? every FPS sells like COD? every fighting game sales like SF? Of course not. Games can be as good or better than those games but they don't have the muscle at market as those games. Quality of the software is becoming less important than the quality of the name or the parts of the game these days. The only way to compete is to go to that level, if you don't, then your not going to see those games sales numbers. Madworld was a good game, but it certainly lacked any marketing muscle. And on your second post, would Bayonetta if it were on the Wii do better than it did on the HD consoles, probably not because many multi console owners would have gotten it on the HD consoles, namely the 360 because that is the one Platinum actually developed. But Bayonetta Wii would have been done better than Madworld because it had better marketing potential. Its pretty simple AAA games will do AAA numbers, non AAA games will not.So a 3rd party game has to be Zelda caliber to sell :roll:
Mad World wasn't a bad game by a long shoot! For what it was it didn't get anywhere near the sales it deserved!
Sepewrath
Thats not exactly what I was saying before.
What I meant was would bayonetta have made the same 360/PS3 sales if it was on the wii platform EXCLUSIVELY as it was exclusive to the 360/PS3 platform.
When they have to make a 3rd party game like bayonetta they are faced with the option of what platform, make it for the 360/PS3 or make it for the Wii, and then the biggest factor in making that decision is asking which platform will it sell better on! Rarely can they do both platforms as their so different and if they do it usually turns out bad for one end.
Apparently many, MANY 3rd party developers think their games will sell much much better on the 360/PS3 and thats where they end up pouring their big budget titles and so far I think their quite happy and comfortable with their returns on the 360/PS3 platform...
I'll I'm saying is mad world was a decent game, did it deserve AAA sales, no, but did it get the sales it deserved? Apparently Sega thinks not and that ain't a good thing for the Wii :(
[QUOTE="Sepewrath"][QUOTE="kenakuma"]
So a 3rd party game has to be Zelda caliber to sell :roll:
Mad World wasn't a bad game by a long shoot! For what it was it didn't get anywhere near the sales it deserved!
Yeah pretty much, do you think every open world game sales like GTA? every FPS sells like COD? every fighting game sales like SF? Of course not. Games can be as good or better than those games but they don't have the muscle at market as those games. Quality of the software is becoming less important than the quality of the name or the parts of the game these days. The only way to compete is to go to that level, if you don't, then your not going to see those games sales numbers. Madworld was a good game, but it certainly lacked any marketing muscle. And on your second post, would Bayonetta if it were on the Wii do better than it did on the HD consoles, probably not because many multi console owners would have gotten it on the HD consoles, namely the 360 because that is the one Platinum actually developed. But Bayonetta Wii would have been done better than Madworld because it had better marketing potential. Its pretty simple AAA games will do AAA numbers, non AAA games will not.Thats not exactly what I was saying before.
What I meant was would bayonetta have made the same 360/PS3 sales if it was on the wii platform EXCLUSIVELY as it was exclusive to the 360/PS3 platform.
When they have to make a 3rd party game like bayonetta they are faced with the option of what platform, make it for the 360/PS3 or make it for the Wii, and then the biggest factor in making that decision is asking which platform will it sell better on! Rarely can they do both platforms as their so different and if they do it usually turns out bad for one end.
Apparently many, MANY 3rd party developers think their games will sell much much better on the 360/PS3 and thats where they end up pouring their big budget titles and so far I think their quite happy and comfortable with their returns on the 360/PS3 platform...
I'll I'm saying is mad world was a decent game, did it deserve AAA sales, no, but did it get the sales it deserved? Apparently Sega thinks not and that ain't a good thing for the Wii :(
Well, they should have the made the game longer and some other stuff.I thought the game was solid and I enjoyed it for what it was. It's funny how some people say the game wasnt that great, yet they're Wiititles that were really terrbile that sold like hotcakes. Im not going pull the "niche" card as to why sales were so low. Perhaps if 3rd parties supported the Wii like this back in 2007, things would be different, and Wii owners wouldnt be afraid to take risks and purchase games that didnt have Mario on the cover.
InfinityMugen
What? WiiWare games are $15 at the most; Madworld launched at $50. Furthermore, the expectations of a WiiWare game and a retail title in terms of sales are very different, since it doesn't take nearly as many sales to be successful on WiiWare than it does to be successful at retail. Very bad comparison there. :P
Truth be told, I don't think you can put a time frame on a game like Madworld that would actually benefit it significantly. Even if third parties had been more supportive of the Wii from the start, it doesn't change that fact that the game itself presents a very different look from the average action game, let alone the average Wii game. It just wasn't an easy sale, and it probably wouldn't have been from any angle.
[QUOTE="Sepewrath"]Its pretty simple AAA games will do AAA numbers, non AAA games will not.InfinityMugen
It really isn't. Especially if we're talking about the Wii.
Care to mention any AAA games that didn't sale great to prove your point? Out of the top of my head, I can't think of anything that would disprove of Sepewrath's theory.
[QUOTE="kenakuma"]Well, they should have the made the game longer and some other stuff.I'll I'm saying is mad world was a decent game, did it deserve AAA sales, no, but did it get the sales it deserved? Apparently Sega thinks not and that ain't a good thing for the Wii :(
LastRambo341
So your saying in your eyes the game didn't deserve higher sales?
Thats great and all that you have your own little opinion as to how it should have sold but unfortunatly on this matter SEGA's opinion >>>>>>> than yours :(
[QUOTE="LastRambo341"][QUOTE="kenakuma"]
I'll I'm saying is mad world was a decent game, did it deserve AAA sales, no, but did it get the sales it deserved? Apparently Sega thinks not and that ain't a good thing for the Wii :(
Well, they should have the made the game longer and some other stuff.So your saying in your eyes the game didn't deserve higher sales?
Thats great and all that you have your own little opinion as to how it should have sold but unfortunatly on this matter SEGA's opinion >>>>>>> than yours :(
Hey, don't look at me, I loved the game. I've heard many hardcore wii fans saying, "oh its just a mindless beat em up" or "its short with little replay value" As seeing that I agree with the 2nd point, I wouldnt be surprised if the game does not sell well.Hey, don't look at me, I loved the game. I've heard many hardcore wii fans saying, "oh its just a mindless beat em up" or "its short with little replay value" As seeing that I agree with the 2nd point, I wouldnt be surprised if the game does not sell well.LastRambo341
Well I'm looking at you cause you kinda quoted me :P
All I'm saying is wether or not SEGA is right or wrong in saying the game didn't sell well enough it doesn't really matter.
Just the fact they think that (wether right or wrong) isn't good news for the Wii :(
I personally also agree that it was waaay to short with not enough bonus stuff to add replay value, glad I could get it cheap!
So a 3rd party game has to be Zelda caliber to sell :roll:
Mad World wasn't a bad game by a long shoot! For what it was it didn't get anywhere near the sales it deserved!
kenakuma
Think about what exactly Madworld was for a good moment. It was a game with a very bold and over-the-top atmosphere that was aimed at a pretty narrow demographic in the Wii owner looking for a very bloody, gore-filled affair. I doubt the game would have had a ton of potential consumers even if it was a AAA game, but the fact that it wasn't such didn't help. Very little about Madworld would be considered something of mainstream appeal, and it didn't have the quality to put itself in a must-have status to counterbalance its lack of mainstream draw.
For what it was, it got precisely the sales it deserved. If Sega doesn't believe so or is discouraged by the sales numbers, that's one thing. However, you don't have to be a marketing expert to guess that a crude, violent game in black-and-white is probably not going to fly on a system where colorful, non-violent games are the highlight titles. Furthermore, the game doesn't hold its own to the likes of Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, or Resident Evil 4 from a quality perspective, so it's not getting the benefit of the doubt from that angle, either. It's really hard to make a case for a game deserving to sell better by simply saying "it wasn't a bad game," as there are plenty of those that have sold just as bad, if not worse. If a game doesn't have something appealing about it to draw consumers, chances are that it's not going to do so.
Although a nice touch, a lot of people were turned off by the black and white visuals. I like the black and white visuals or this game only, but many others don't and I can understand why. It's a niche title. Also, the game was short with no replay value and the local multi-player had no depth.
Its pretty simple AAA games will do AAA numbers, non AAA games will not. InfinityMugen
It really isnt. Especially if we're talkling about the Wii.
No it really is that simple, it has always been that simple. Would a RE game on the level of RE4 had sold better than Darkside Chronicles? Without a doubt. Would a true Dead Space game had done better than Extraction? No question. Could Ubisoft sell something on the level of Assassins Creed on the Wii? Yes they could. They simply don't, they try selling games that in no way stacks up to Nintendo games, and unfortunately for them, Nintendo games have long tails. So its not like you just have to avoid releasing the same month as Mario and you'll be fine, Because 4 months later that AAA title is still at the top of the NPD list and a non AAA new release still does not stack up. And in case your confused, AAA does not refer to a games rating, the term AAA refers to a game marketing potential.Well first off that is two platforms vs one, so you would have to take one platform and put it against the Wii. Its not like Bayonetta did huge numbers on either console, it did moderately well on both consoles which equaled a million seller total. Not to mention the bulk of those sales came from Japan, it did not do that well in N America. Madworld probably wasn't even released in Japan. So yes I think if they had released Bayonetta solely on the Wii, I think it would have done the 450k that it did on each console worldwide. Sega clearly didn't believe that Bayonetta would do that well on one console, that is why they did the PS3 port. 3rd parties are more willing to take a chance on two consoles than one. Look at Bayonetta, if it were a 360 exclusive like the original plan, it would have done like sub 500k. Probably the same as it would have done on the Wii, so they went with two shots vs one. Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, Dragon Age, Prince of Persia, Devil May Cry, all games that took that approach and still were not all success'. Like I said before go look at that Pachattack video on GT and see what Sega thought the sales were going to be. A game without a worldwide release, a game Sega had to intention to sell, it got about what it deserved, no reason to complain now.Thats not exactly what I was saying before.
What I meant was would bayonetta have made the same 360/PS3 sales if it was on the wii platform EXCLUSIVELY as it was exclusive to the 360/PS3 platform.
When they have to make a 3rd party game like bayonetta they are faced with the option of what platform, make it for the 360/PS3 or make it for the Wii, and then the biggest factor in making that decision is asking which platform will it sell better on! Rarely can they do both platforms as their so different and if they do it usually turns out bad for one end.
Apparently many, MANY 3rd party developers think their games will sell much much better on the 360/PS3 and thats where they end up pouring their big budget titles and so far I think their quite happy and comfortable with their returns on the 360/PS3 platform...
I'll I'm saying is mad world was a decent game, did it deserve AAA sales, no, but did it get the sales it deserved? Apparently Sega thinks not and that ain't a good thing for the Wii :(
kenakuma
[QUOTE="InfinityMugen"]No it really is that simple, it has always been that simple. Would a RE game on the level of RE4 had sold better than Darkside Chronicles? Without a doubt. Would a true Dead Space game had done better than Extraction? No question. Could Ubisoft sell something on the level of Assassins Creed on the Wii? Yes they could. They simply don't, they try selling games that in no way stacks up to Nintendo games, and unfortunately for them, Nintendo games have long tails. So its not like you just have to avoid releasing the same month as Mario and you'll be fine, Because 4 months later that AAA title is still at the top of the NPD list and a non AAA new release still does not stack up. And in case your confused, AAA does not refer to a games rating, the term AAA refers to a game marketing potential.It really isnt. Especially if we're talkling about the Wii.
Sepewrath
Well first off that is two platforms vs one, so you would have to take one platform and put it against the Wii. Its not like Bayonetta did huge numbers on either console, it did moderately well on both consoles which equaled a million seller total. Not to mention the bulk of those sales came from Japan, it did not do that well in N America. Madworld probably wasn't even released in Japan. So yes I think if they had released Bayonetta solely on the Wii, I think it would have done the 450k that it did on each console worldwide. Sega clearly didn't believe that Bayonetta would do that well on one console, that is why they did the PS3 port. 3rd parties are more willing to take a chance on two consoles than one. Look at Bayonetta, if it were a 360 exclusive like the original plan, it would have done like sub 500k. Probably the same as it would have done on the Wii, so they went with two shots vs one. Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, Dragon Age, Prince of Persia, Devil May Cry, all games that took that approach and still were not all success'. Like I said before go look at that Pachattack video on GT and see what Sega thought the sales were going to be. A game without a worldwide release, a game Sega had to intention to sell, it got about what it deserved, no reason to complain now.Thats not exactly what I was saying before.
What I meant was would bayonetta have made the same 360/PS3 sales if it was on the wii platform EXCLUSIVELY as it was exclusive to the 360/PS3 platform.
When they have to make a 3rd party game like bayonetta they are faced with the option of what platform, make it for the 360/PS3 or make it for the Wii, and then the biggest factor in making that decision is asking which platform will it sell better on! Rarely can they do both platforms as their so different and if they do it usually turns out bad for one end.
Apparently many, MANY 3rd party developers think their games will sell much much better on the 360/PS3 and thats where they end up pouring their big budget titles and so far I think their quite happy and comfortable with their returns on the 360/PS3 platform...
I'll I'm saying is mad world was a decent game, did it deserve AAA sales, no, but did it get the sales it deserved? Apparently Sega thinks not and that ain't a good thing for the Wii :(
kenakuma
If I remember correctly, Madworld was released in Japan. Just so you know
[QUOTE="kenakuma"]
So a 3rd party game has to be Zelda caliber to sell :roll:
Mad World wasn't a bad game by a long shoot! For what it was it didn't get anywhere near the sales it deserved!
Madmangamer364
Think about what exactly Madworld was for a good moment. It was a game with a very bold and over-the-top atmosphere that was aimed at a pretty narrow demographic in the Wii owner looking for a very bloody, gore-filled affair. I doubt the game would have had a ton of potential consumers even if it was a AAA game, but the fact that it wasn't such didn't help. Very little about Madworld would be considered something of mainstream appeal, and it didn't have the quality to put itself in a must-have status to counterbalance its lack of mainstream draw.
For what it was, it got precisely the sales it deserved. If Sega doesn't believe so or is discouraged by the sales numbers, that's one thing. However, you don't have to be a marketing expert to guess that a crude, violent game in black-and-white is probably not going to fly on a system where colorful, non-violent games are the highlight titles. Furthermore, the game doesn't hold its own to the likes of Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, or Resident Evil 4 from a quality perspective, so it's not getting the benefit of the doubt from that angle, either. It's really hard to make a case for a game deserving to sell better by simply saying "it wasn't a bad game," as there are plenty of those that have sold just as bad, if not worse. If a game doesn't have something appealing about it to draw consumers, chances are that it's not going to do so.
"For what it was, it got precisely the sales it deserved."
^But see thats just your opinion :?Sure you have some good arguments to back it up but I'm sure if sega wanted to get more in detail they could list some great arguments as well as to why it should have sold more, and like I said earlier, in the end only Sega's opinion matters to Sega as to what happened and what their gonna do now :|
The big question that it comes down to is are their more obstacles sales wise for certain games on the Wii than on the other platform? You listed some good ones!
Obviously most 3rd parties have already come to a decision on this topic and have gone the other way and apparently now sega has also come to that conclusion and will be joining them with certain titles unfortunatly...
Well first off that is two platforms vs one, so you would have to take one platform and put it against the Wii. Its not like Bayonetta did huge numbers on either console, it did moderately well on both consoles which equaled a million seller total. Not to mention the bulk of those sales came from Japan, it did not do that well in N America. Madworld probably wasn't even released in Japan. So yes I think if they had released Bayonetta solely on the Wii, I think it would have done the 450k that it did on each console worldwide. Sega clearly didn't believe that Bayonetta would do that well on one console, that is why they did the PS3 port. 3rd parties are more willing to take a chance on two consoles than one. Look at Bayonetta, if it were a 360 exclusive like the original plan, it would have done like sub 500k. Probably the same as it would have done on the Wii, so they went with two shots vs one. Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, Dragon Age, Prince of Persia, Devil May Cry, all games that took that approach and still were not all success'. Like I said before go look at that Pachattack video on GT and see what Sega thought the sales were going to be. A game without a worldwide release, a game Sega had to intention to sell, it got about what it deserved, no reason to complain now. Sepewrath
Well for the most part to developers the 360/PS3 are considered the same platform as they can very easily make a game from the ground up on both those systems at the same time due to very similar tech, hence many 3rd party titles on one of those systems are available on the other with little difference!
When the Wii is added into the equation its very different developing wise so really they are left with those 2 options, make it for just the Wii or make it for the 360/PS3.
A game like bayonetta on the Wii would need to be able to sell better than both the 360/PS3 combined for it to be more worth it to make on the wii than the other guys in the developers eyes and obviously most developers don't think it can...
"I think it would have done the 450k that it did on each console worldwide."
Which isn't that good at all considering the Wii has sold almost as much as both those systems combined :( Making it a much better decision to go 360/PS3 platform than just Wii in this situation!
[QUOTE="Madmangamer364"]
[QUOTE="kenakuma"]
So a 3rd party game has to be Zelda caliber to sell :roll:
Mad World wasn't a bad game by a long shoot! For what it was it didn't get anywhere near the sales it deserved!
kenakuma
Think about what exactly Madworld was for a good moment. It was a game with a very bold and over-the-top atmosphere that was aimed at a pretty narrow demographic in the Wii owner looking for a very bloody, gore-filled affair. I doubt the game would have had a ton of potential consumers even if it was a AAA game, but the fact that it wasn't such didn't help. Very little about Madworld would be considered something of mainstream appeal, and it didn't have the quality to put itself in a must-have status to counterbalance its lack of mainstream draw.
For what it was, it got precisely the sales it deserved. If Sega doesn't believe so or is discouraged by the sales numbers, that's one thing. However, you don't have to be a marketing expert to guess that a crude, violent game in black-and-white is probably not going to fly on a system where colorful, non-violent games are the highlight titles. Furthermore, the game doesn't hold its own to the likes of Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, or Resident Evil 4 from a quality perspective, so it's not getting the benefit of the doubt from that angle, either. It's really hard to make a case for a game deserving to sell better by simply saying "it wasn't a bad game," as there are plenty of those that have sold just as bad, if not worse. If a game doesn't have something appealing about it to draw consumers, chances are that it's not going to do so.
"For what it was, it got precisely the sales it deserved."
^But see thats just your opinion :?Sure you have some good arguments to back it up but I'm sure if sega wanted to get more in detail they could list some great arguments as well as to why it should have sold more, and like I said earlier, in the end only Sega's opinion matters to Sega as to what happened and what their gonna do now :|
The big question that it comes down to is are their more obstacles sales wise for certain games on the Wii than on the other platform? You listed some good ones!
Obviously most 3rd parties have already come to a decision on this topic and have gone the other way and apparently now sega has also come to that conclusion and will be joining them with certain titles unfortunatly...
No, it's not just my opinion; it's the opinion of millions of Wii owners that displayed no interest in the game. Otherwise, it would have been a more successful product. Sales are reflective of only one thing: widespread consumer interest in the product. In the case of Madworld or any other product, the interests and opinions of the consumers, not just one consumer, is greater than that of the creator of the product, since it's the consumer who determines how that product will sell. How Sega wishes to move forward from this point as a creator is up to them, but they're not the ones that get to say how Madworld deserved to sell. That much was made loud and clear by the number of copies that weren't moved at retail on the part of Wii owners.
There are obstacles on each and every system/platform out there, so the idea should be to create products that minimizes these obstacles and take advantage of the system's (or systems') strengths. As far as the Wii is concerned, this is a situation that hasn't been assessed with the greatest of care, and games like Madworld are a clear example of such. Heck, if anything, Madworld's a greater example of how you can compound an already seemingly daunting task, such as trying to sell a Mature game on the Wii, with even more challenges, like making a game so stylistic, violent, and obscene, that even the average fan of Mature games would have reservations about giving it a shot, depending on their tastes. A game with a much tamer design wouldn't have presented as many unnecessary obstacles and would have been a much better gauge for what Sega was looking for. Instead, they're looking at an unorthadox design and using it to determine their future endeavors on the system. Not the smartest thing you can do.
If this was just a fault on Sega on the part of Madworld, things might not be as bad, but Sega's mistake has been repeated by the likes of other major third-party publishers, like EA and Capcom, as well. This cycle isn't something that's going to change through experimental, semi-budget games, but for the large part of three years, that's all the Wii has pretty much been getting from these guys. As Sepewrath put it best before in the past, you don't use ants to do the work of giants, and for what these third party publishers have been looking to get out of the Wii, they've needed their giants to see if they could draw attention. Unfortunately, they've been using ants, and as such, they've seen their ants get squashed by the expectatations of a truly elite Wii title, similar to the likes of Nintendo's best and most successful games.
Madworld was a good game, but it was limited. It is also one of the most violent games ever made. It is also black and white which is a hard sell. It is also really short and has no replay value.
Besides inherently being a good game, Madworld has nothing going for it in terms of marketing strength and spreading by word of mouth.
If this was just a fault on Sega on the part of Madworld, things might not be as bad, but Sega's mistake has been repeated by the likes of other major third-party publishers, like EA and Capcom, as well. This cycle isn't something that's going to change through experimental, semi-budget games, but for the large part of three years, that's all the Wii has pretty much been getting from these guys. As Sepewrath put it best before in the past, you don't use ants to do the work of giants, and for what these third party publishers have been looking to get out of the Wii, they've needed their giants to see if they could draw attention. Unfortunately, they've been using ants, and as such, they've seen their ants get squashed by the expectatations of a truly elite Wii title, similar to the likes of Nintendo's best and most successful games.
Madmangamer364
Well thats the thing, when it comes to launching a huge 3rd party title, a "giant" as you call it, they have 2 options, HD platform or Wii platform.
Now with the HD platform its much less of a risk as these traditional games have proven over and over again to sell well here on the more traditional platform so its a much more friendly and an overall comfortable market for the developers to deal with.
With the Wii, eh, not so much in regards to developers and how they view the climate, and your probably right that its partly the fault of the developers for creating this enviorment for 3rd parties on it due to all their "experimenting" and "low-budget" games. Still it is the way it is.
Why would a developer choose the wii platform at this point for a huge title when the HD platform has already proven and established itself as a very viable market? Whats the benefeit of taking that risk when they already have a great market for their block buster titles?
[QUOTE="Madmangamer364"]
If this was just a fault on Sega on the part of Madworld, things might not be as bad, but Sega's mistake has been repeated by the likes of other major third-party publishers, like EA and Capcom, as well. This cycle isn't something that's going to change through experimental, semi-budget games, but for the large part of three years, that's all the Wii has pretty much been getting from these guys. As Sepewrath put it best before in the past, you don't use ants to do the work of giants, and for what these third party publishers have been looking to get out of the Wii, they've needed their giants to see if they could draw attention. Unfortunately, they've been using ants, and as such, they've seen their ants get squashed by the expectatations of a truly elite Wii title, similar to the likes of Nintendo's best and most successful games.
kenakuma
Well thats the thing, when it comes to launching a huge 3rd party title, a "giant" as you call it, they have 2 options, HD platform or Wii platform.
Now with the HD platform its much less of a risk as these traditional games have proven over and over again to sell well here on the more traditional platform so its a much more friendly and an overall comfortable market for the developers to deal with.
With the Wii, eh, not so much in regards to developers and how they view the climate, and your probably right that its partly the fault of the developers for creating this enviorment for 3rd parties on it due to all their "experimenting" and "low-budget" games. Still it is the way it is.
Why would a developer choose the wii platform at this point for a huge title when the HD platform has already proven and established itself as a very viable market? Whats the benefeit of taking that risk when they already have a great market for their block buster titles?
I won't say too much about this, since it's a road that has been traveled down too many times before, and I'm not sure we'll ever see eye-to-eye on the matter. Still, I will say this:
Given the hindsight that they have now with the games that have been made, do you think third party publishers should have gone about Wii development more seriously if they knew that the likes of these "experimental" games weren't going to work out?
Let's face it; chances are that third parties aren't going to develop a major title on the Wii AT THIS POINT, as they've already invested on the platform with less-than-ideal projects and have gotten little to nothing in return. However, what do you think the case would be now if developers had used the time spent on these lesser projects and put more effort into creating legitimate AAA games for the Wii? The problem at hand here didn't come to be because of looking into the future, but rather because of what was done (or wasn't done) in the past. Therefore, I think it's important to look at what SHOULD HAVE been done as much as, if not more than, what WILL BE done in regards to games like Madworld and other so-called "big" Wii games from third parties.
Well for the most part to developers the 360/PS3 are considered the same platform as they can very easily make a game from the ground up on both those systems at the same time due to very similar tech, hence many 3rd party titles on one of those systems are available on the other with little difference!
When the Wii is added into the equation its very different developing wise so really they are left with those 2 options, make it for just the Wii or make it for the 360/PS3.
A game like bayonetta on the Wii would need to be able to sell better than both the 360/PS3 combined for it to be more worth it to make on the wii than the other guys in the developers eyes and obviously most developers don't think it can...
"I think it would have done the 450k that it did on each console worldwide."
Which isn't that good at all considering the Wii has sold almost as much as both those systems combined :( Making it a much better decision to go 360/PS3 platform than just Wii in this situation!
kenakuma
Well you asked me whether or not the Wii could equal the numbers, not what was the best option. But even that could be argued, N America didn't show much interest in Bayonetta. Japan showed more, but of course the PS3 version which would be the Japanese choice version since they don't really do 360's there was an inferior port by Sega. Like I said, Japan has no interest in the 360, the game would have been better recieved as a PS2 game, so the version actually developed by Platinum didn't see the kind of numbers it could have.
For the Wii which owns Japan that wouldn't have been a problem and on the Wii it wouldn't have been competing directly against western action games in N America. So its possible that making it a Wii game might have been a better option, of course also tossing in the fact that a Wii game would be cheaper and require less sales. 1 million sales may not have turned much of a profit for Sega, but Japan did bail them out from auto failure. What your talking about is basically the maze of circular logic that has been going on for years and leads nowhere.
What your saying is this "We cant put big budget games on the Wii that will garner big sales, because their not going to sale" whiles gamers say "We buy big market games, like the one's Nintendo make, if you don't make those, your games will be ignored" both want the same thing, nothing happens. 3rd parties as well as you seem to not realize that this is not rocket science; you put Uncharted 2 vs Modern Warfare 2 and there is an option there. You put Madworld vs Smash Brothers and there is no option there. Sony=Us will work; Nintendo>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Us will not.
And LastRambo yeah I checked and Madworld finally came out in Japan like 6 weeks ago and as expected it is doing rather poorly. Who would have thought that a game solely about rugged ultra violence wouldn't go over well in Japan?
I won't say too much about this, since it's a road that has been traveled down too many times before, and I'm not sure we'll ever see eye-to-eye on the matter. Still, I will say this:
Given the hindsight that they have now with the games that have been made, do you think third party publishers should have gone about Wii development more seriously if they knew that the likes of these "experimental" games weren't going to work out?
Let's face it; chances are that third parties aren't going to develop a major title on the Wii AT THIS POINT, as they've already invested on the platform with less-than-ideal projects and have gotten little to nothing in return. However, what do you think the case would be now if developers had used the time spent on these lesser projects and put more effort into creating legitimate AAA games for the Wii? The problem at hand here didn't come to be because of looking into the future, but rather because of what was done (or wasn't done) in the past. Therefore, I think it's important to look at what SHOULD HAVE been done as much as, if not more than, what WILL BE done in regards to games like Madworld and other so-called "big" Wii games from third parties.
Madmangamer364
"Given the hindsight that they have now with the games that have been made, do you think third party publishers should have gone about Wii development more seriously if they knew that the likes of these "experimental" games weren't going to work out?"
I think they saw the wii as to much of a experimental console period from the start and thats pretty much all they focused on. They must not have noticed the wii also supports the classic/GC controller and that it still could support your traditional video games. They also underestimated just how many wii owners wanted traditional style video games even though their wii owners.
Its no suprise that (which imo) the first real 3rd party blockbuster game coming to the wii (MH3) completely abandons that experimental "wii" approach and from the start sets out to be a traditional video game even coming packed with a classic controller pro to further that point.
"However, what do you think the case would be now if developers had used the time spent on these lesser projects and put more effort into creating legitimate AAA games for the Wii? "
Those AAA titles would have sold a butt load and the wii would have a respective, healthy climate for 3rd party development. But like its been said, the wii was seen as a complete experimental console rather than a traditional console experimenting and as a result it failed to capture those core/traditional titles from 3rd parties.
Is the wii's current climate with 3rd parties reversable at this point? imo no :(
Hopefully the next console will be given a fresh start and a clean rep as its probably the best bet at getting over this problem imo.
Well you asked me whether or not the Wii could equal the numbers, not what was the best option. But even that could be argued, N America didn't show much interest in Bayonetta. Japan showed more, but of course the PS3 version which would be the Japanese choice version since they don't really do 360's there was an inferior port by Sega. Like I said, Japan has no interest in the 360, the game would have been better recieved as a PS2 game, so the version actually developed by Platinum didn't see the kind of numbers it could have.
For the Wii which owns Japan that wouldn't have been a problem and on the Wii it wouldn't have been competing directly against western action games in N America. So its possible that making it a Wii game might have been a better option, of course also tossing in the fact that a Wii game would be cheaper and require less sales. 1 million sales may not have turned much of a profit for Sega, but Japan did bail them out from auto failure. What your talking about is basically the maze of circular logic that has been going on for years and leads nowhere.
What your saying is this "We cant put big budget games on the Wii that will garner big sales, because their not going to sale" whiles gamers say "We buy big market games, like the one's Nintendo make, if you don't make those, your games will be ignored" both want the same thing, nothing happens. 3rd parties as well as you seem to not realize that this is not rocket science; you put Uncharted 2 vs Modern Warfare 2 and there is an option there. You put Madworld vs Smash Brothers and there is no option there. Sony=Us will work; Nintendo>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Us will not.
Sepewrath
Well, I'm not gonna read to much into what could have been done with bayonetta as it was just an example but the fact it went 360/PS3 instead of wii even with your great logic for a wii release reinforces my next point.
Basically what it comes down to is that 3rd parties are more comfortable and established with the 360/PS3 platform for many different reasons that I was talking about with madmangamer.
The wii market is seen as more risky and unproven for these types of big games and thats why they end up going 360/PS3! No doubt 3rd parties helped create this risky/unproven enviorment by not releasing big blockbusters on the wii from the start :roll:
[QUOTE="Madmangamer364"]
I won't say too much about this, since it's a road that has been traveled down too many times before, and I'm not sure we'll ever see eye-to-eye on the matter. Still, I will say this:
Given the hindsight that they have now with the games that have been made, do you think third party publishers should have gone about Wii development more seriously if they knew that the likes of these "experimental" games weren't going to work out?
Let's face it; chances are that third parties aren't going to develop a major title on the Wii AT THIS POINT, as they've already invested on the platform with less-than-ideal projects and have gotten little to nothing in return. However, what do you think the case would be now if developers had used the time spent on these lesser projects and put more effort into creating legitimate AAA games for the Wii? The problem at hand here didn't come to be because of looking into the future, but rather because of what was done (or wasn't done) in the past. Therefore, I think it's important to look at what SHOULD HAVE been done as much as, if not more than, what WILL BE done in regards to games like Madworld and other so-called "big" Wii games from third parties.
kenakuma
"Given the hindsight that they have now with the games that have been made, do you think third party publishers should have gone about Wii development more seriously if they knew that the likes of these "experimental" games weren't going to work out?"
I think they saw the wii as to much of a experimental console period from the start and thats pretty much all they focused on. They must not have noticed the wii also supports the classic/GC controller and that it still could support your traditional video games. They also underestimated just how many wii owners wanted traditional style video games even though their wii owners.
Its no suprise that (which imo) the first real 3rd party blockbuster game coming to the wii (MH3) completely abandons that experimental "wii" approach and from the start sets out to be a traditional video game even coming packed with a classic controller pro to further that point.
"However, what do you think the case would be now if developers had used the time spent on these lesser projects and put more effort into creating legitimate AAA games for the Wii? "
Those AAA titles would have sold a butt load and the wii would have a respective, healthy climate for 3rd party development. But like its been said, the wii was seen as a complete experimental console rather than a traditional console experimenting and as a result it failed to capture those core/traditional titles from 3rd parties.
Is the wii's current climate with 3rd parties reversable at this point? imo no :(
Hopefully the next console will be given a fresh start and a clean rep as its probably the best bet at getting over this problem imo.
I'm aware of what third parties viewed and continues the Wii as. The question I asked is whether or not third parties would have viewed the Wii differently if they knew that their "experiments" weren't going to work beforehand. If the likes of Sega and EA knew that niche concepts and rail-shooters trying to be full-on shooters weren't going to fly with the Wii userbase, would they have decided to focus the time spent on these games on more established and proven projects for the Wii instead? At this point, it's really all opinion, but I'd like to think that if third parties REALLY wanted to be successful on the Wii, there would have been at least one publisher that would have at least tried to offer a legit game of "must-have" status, as opposed to being half-hearted about the way it views the Wii userbase and the games it made to cater to them.
To be honest, all it takes is one significant third party game in this regard to disprove the theories about the Wii not being a suitable platform for certain games, but given the attitude most major third parties have towards developing games for the system at the moment, the chances of seeing the game(s) with the qualifications to do so are slim. Even if we wish to look ahead to next gen, this is still something that's going to have to be resolved. The chances of Nintendo following up on the successful elements of the Wii are pretty high, and that possibly includes creating a system that isn't trying to be a carbon copy of Sony and Microsoft's consoles in regards to hardware and infrastructure. A fresh start will mean nothing if most third party publishers go into next gen with a similar mindset of treating Nintendo's next system as the gaming guinea pig, so somewhere along the way, there has to be the birth of a new mentality when it comes to making games on a Nintendo system.
If you ask me, I think if there's still a chance to establish a brand on the Wii, a third party publisher should go for it and allow it to carry their portfolio into next gen on a good note. There's also the possible benefit of doing it on a system already established and at a smaller cost than it would take to make the game on the next system Nintendo whips out. Of course, this is more or less wishful thinking on my part. :P
I'm aware of what third parties viewed and continues the Wii as. The question I asked is whether or not third parties would have viewed the Wii differently if they knew that their "experiments" weren't going to work beforehand. If the likes of Sega and EA knew that niche concepts and rail-shooters trying to be full-on shooters weren't going to fly with the Wii userbase, would they have decided to focus the time spent on these games on more established and proven projects for the Wii instead? At this point, it's really all opinion, but I'd like to think that if third parties REALLY wanted to be successful on the Wii, there would have been at least one publisher that would have at least tried to offer a legit game of "must-have" status, as opposed to being half-hearted about the way it views the Wii userbase and the games it made to cater to them.
Madmangamer364
Well yeah, I thought I made that clear with my MH3 example of how their switching gears (or at least some are/trying) and going traditional versus experimental in regards to a serious wii project.
I'm sure they have learned their lesson and if they could go back in time they would re-think/re-work how they approached the wii.
Unfourtunatly time travel doesnt exist so imo the best way for them to get that type of fresh start would be on a new console!
Now, who do they blame for even worse sales for Bayonetta on PS3?
such over the top games won't sell on any console.
Actually the audience is pretty proven, the Wii shares the same audience as that of the HD console's. But someone isn't going to go from buying MW2 to buying The Conduit. Obviously Nintendo's blockbusters sell through the roof and even old blockbusters like the HOTD pack and RE4 did well. The games that are not big market games, no matter how good they are if you look at the Wii or any other console this gen or any other gen, do not do big numbers. that's it. You do smaller games, you get smaller sales success. You do a bigger game, you get bigger numbers unless the game turns out horrible and even then it may sell. Companies are incredibly greedy with the Wii, they don't want to do AAA games, but they want AAA sales. I could understand them saying "WTH" if they were releasing big budget projects on the console and getting nothing in return, but you release what is a throwaway game at market and expect to challenge MW2. I don't know what color the sky is in their world, but they need to come back to this one.Well, I'm not gonna read to much into what could have been done with bayonetta as it was just an example but the fact it went 360/PS3 instead of wii even with your great logic for a wii release reinforces my next point.
Basically what it comes down to is that 3rd parties are more comfortable and established with the 360/PS3 platform for many different reasons that I was talking about with madmangamer.
The wii market is seen as more risky and unproven for these types of big games and thats why they end up going 360/PS3! No doubt 3rd parties helped create this risky/unproven enviorment by not releasing big blockbusters on the wii from the start :roll:
kenakuma
Actually the audience is pretty proven, the Wii shares the same audience as that of the HD console's. But someone isn't going to go from buying MW2 to buying The Conduit. Obviously Nintendo's blockbusters sell through the roof and even old blockbusters like the HOTD pack and RE4 did well. The games that are not big market games, no matter how good they are if you look at the Wii or any other console this gen or any other gen, do not do big numbers. that's it. You do smaller games, you get smaller sales success. You do a bigger game, you get bigger numbers unless the game turns out horrible and even then it may sell. Companies are incredibly greedy with the Wii, they don't want to do AAA games, but they want AAA sales. I could understand them saying "WTH" if they were releasing big budget projects on the console and getting nothing in return, but you release what is a throwaway game at market and expect to challenge MW2. I don't know what color the sky is in their world, but they need to come back to this one. Sepewrath
Well were gonna have to agree to disagree their...
Imo the wii's market for big 3rd party games just isn't nearly as proven compared to the 360/PS3 where a ton of big new 3rd party ip's have been introduced and sold really well!
Wether or not mario sells well doesnt really prove anything as were talking 3rd parties and same goes with resident evil, as you know the stereotype for the wii's market were dealing with here, "if it ain't 1st party nintendo or a huge already established 3rd party game like resident evil, than it ain't sellin!" So if anything the examples you listed reinforce that stereotype as were talkin new blockbuster 3rd party ip's (bayoneta, dead space, bio shock, mirrors edge, ect) which the wii just really doesnt have any of :?
Now I'm not sayin those games wouldn't sell on the wii I'm just sayin no ones really tried and as a result the market isn't as proven and 3rd parties aren't gonna take the risk when they already have a comfortable market with the 360/PS3 where they know they can get these games to sell.
Its a bit of a rut the wii is in here :| 3rd parties seem to be to afraid to touch it and invest something big and new into it and at that same time that neglect is feeding their fears and shutting them off from the wii's market even more...
Sepewrath wrote:
No it really is that simple, it has always been that simple. Would a RE game on the level of RE4 had sold better than Darkside Chronicles? Without a doubt. Would a true Dead Space game had done better than Extraction? No question. Could Ubisoft sell something on the level of Assassins Creed on the Wii? Yes they could. They simply don't, they try selling games that in no way stacks up to Nintendo games, and unfortunately for them, Nintendo games have long tails. So its not like you just have to avoid releasing the same month as Mario and you'll be fine, Because 4 months later that AAA title is still at the top of the NPD list and a non AAA new release still does not stack up. And in case your confused, AAA does not refer to a games rating, the term AAA refers to a game marketing potential.
Response:
I suppose we can conclude that a game like Just Dance is an example of an AAA title. Im aware of the laziness of 3rd parties that develop on the Wii. But every time we get a good 3rd party title that bombs, Im tired of developers and the Wii owners scapegoating each other. It's been nearly 4 years and doing this isnt going to get us anywhere.
@Madmangamer364
That very "bad comparison" you interpreted from my post is because I didnt space out "Wii titles."
Its dishearting to see games like Deca Sports and Game Party outnumber genuine efforts such as Little Kings Story. That is why I dont think the flawed mantra "AAA Titles do AAA numbers"can strictly be applied in this situation.
[QUOTE="Sepewrath"]Actually the audience is pretty proven, the Wii shares the same audience as that of the HD console's. But someone isn't going to go from buying MW2 to buying The Conduit. Obviously Nintendo's blockbusters sell through the roof and even old blockbusters like the HOTD pack and RE4 did well. The games that are not big market games, no matter how good they are if you look at the Wii or any other console this gen or any other gen, do not do big numbers. that's it. You do smaller games, you get smaller sales success. You do a bigger game, you get bigger numbers unless the game turns out horrible and even then it may sell. Companies are incredibly greedy with the Wii, they don't want to do AAA games, but they want AAA sales. I could understand them saying "WTH" if they were releasing big budget projects on the console and getting nothing in return, but you release what is a throwaway game at market and expect to challenge MW2. I don't know what color the sky is in their world, but they need to come back to this one. kenakuma
Well were gonna have to agree to disagree their...
Imo the wii's market for big 3rd party games just isn't nearly as proven compared to the 360/PS3 where a ton of big new 3rd party ip's have been introduced and sold really well!
Wether or not mario sells well doesnt really prove anything as were talking 3rd parties and same goes with resident evil, as you know the stereotype for the wii's market were dealing with here, "if it ain't 1st party nintendo or a huge already established 3rd party game like resident evil, than it ain't sellin!" So if anything the examples you listed reinforce that stereotype as were talkin new blockbuster 3rd party ip's (bayoneta, dead space, bio shock, mirrors edge, ect) which the wii just really doesnt have any of :?
Now I'm not sayin those games wouldn't sell on the wii I'm just sayin no ones really tried and as a result the market isn't as proven and 3rd parties aren't gonna take the risk when they already have a comfortable market with the 360/PS3 where they know they can get these games to sell.
Its a bit of a rut the wii is in here :| 3rd parties seem to be to afraid to touch it and invest something big and new into it and at that same time that neglect is feeding their fears and shutting them off from the wii's market even more...
It's practically a self fulfilling prophecy. Until 3rd party developers truly make an effort at a Wii title that actually sells, then this will always be the case.saying the replay value is limited and the gameplay a little repetitive are valid points however...it's $20 NEW!! It's a helluva lotta fun especially only for 20 smackers. Just shut up and buy it already!
@Madmangamer364
That very "bad comparison" you interpreted from my post is because I didnt space out "Wii titles."
Its dishearting to see games like Deca Sports and Game Party outnumber genuine efforts such as Little Kings Story. That is why I dont think the flawed mantra "AAA Titles do AAA numbers"can strictly be applied in this situation.
InfinityMugen
Gah! I'm not sure how I managed to see "WiiWare" there. My mistake and apologies on that part. :P
Anyways, I wouldn't look at a game like Little King's Story as a good example. Sure, there may have been games with questionable quality that outsold it significantly, but that's less the fault of the likes of Deca Sports and Game Party, and more because Little King's Story didn't have much to work with from a commercial standpoint. Seriously, it was an RTS with a kid-friendly image, which didn't give its intended audience an identity to cling to, and it also didn't help that the game got next to no marketing while it was rotting at retail. As Sepewrath previously mentioned, being a AAA game isn't entirely about being a quality game, but also having the some kind of marketing push behind it that would draw interest. LKS was a solid game, but that alone wasn't going to guarntee success at retail.
The truth is that the likes of these minigame compilations do a much better job at reaching to the average Wii consumer than most of the so-called "good" games on the system, with the exception of Nintendo's biggest games. A lot of people tend to scratch their heads as to why the likes of Deca Sports do so well, but the one thing they do is make their presence known and make an effort at appealing to Wii owners in some way, shape, or form, even if the gameplay itself isn't top-notch. Just take a look back at Just Dance for a second; the game has probably become Ubisoft's most successful game on the Wii, and it's only fitting that the game was also probably the most promoted Wii game Ubisoft has ever released. Meanwhile, No More Heroes gets a handful of online ads, and that's it. It's not rocket science to see why some games do well and some don't, even if critical response would suggest otherwise in some cases.
Still, all of this said, the one thing true AAA games do is DEMAND attention from everyone. The publisher promotes it because it knows it would be foolish not to, and the gamer keeps an eye on it because they know it's going to be a great game. The likes of Little King's Story are games that HOPE to sale; a AAA game EXPECTS to sale, and everyone knows it. At this point in time, you can't really say that AAA games won't do AAA numbers, as we haven't really seen any of them from third parties to argue against it.
No Infinity I would call Just Dance a lucky break for Ubisoft, sometimes things just catch on. They didn't even market the game until it started selling, so its not a AAA title. Like I said before, the consumer and the publishers are trapped in a maze of circular logic. Yes Madworld was a good game, so was Muramasa and De Blob, but their not games that are going to sell a million copies in a week. There is no way around that.
Take some HD examples; Heavenly Sword, Blazblue and Dead Space, all great games but none of those games sold. DS didn't touch RE5's numbers, Blazblue not a tenth of SFIV's sales, Heavenly Sword, people called it "Goddess of War" an excellent game, but Kratos definitely saw better days than Nariko ever did. The best games don't get the best sales, you have also have great marketing, a ton of hype, the media pushing it or it will do poor to OK. The Just Dance thing is like catching lightning in a bottle, that isn't the first dancing game like that, that break it caught at market is what every publisher has been aiming for. a low to mid budget project moving well beyond its necessary numbers. Unfortunately for them, that's not going to happen very often.
Well were gonna have to agree to disagree their...
Imo the wii's market for big 3rd party games just isn't nearly as proven compared to the 360/PS3 where a ton of big new 3rd party ip's have been introduced and sold really well!
Wether or not mario sells well doesnt really prove anything as were talking 3rd parties and same goes with resident evil, as you know the stereotype for the wii's market were dealing with here, "if it ain't 1st party nintendo or a huge already established 3rd party game like resident evil, than it ain't sellin!" So if anything the examples you listed reinforce that stereotype as were talkin new blockbuster 3rd party ip's (bayoneta, dead space, bio shock, mirrors edge, ect) which the wii just really doesnt have any of :?kenakuma
That's just it, the biggest release this generation all have numbers at the end of their titles. The big first party game and the big established ip works on any console, always has and always will. It hasn't been that many new ip that really took off on the HD consoles, Assassins Creed is like the only one that did really well for itself. Like I said before, don't be fooled by a game selling a million on two and sometimes 3 platforms with the PC and thinking its a big success, because a huge blockbuster needs more than a million units sold. Look at Dead Space, it sold 1.5 and EA was disappointed, so much so that their turning the sequel into Halo to get more sales. The same basic tactics that have always worked and always will work, a big idea, with a lot of money and a lot hype behind it.
Its not like the Wii is the only console where new ip struggle, look at the one's I mentioned above then Bioshock 2, there was an article about how its sales were down from the first, Mirror's Edge, an absolute bomb, Bayonetta, bombed in NA, the only reason no one makes a big deal out of it is because they have things like GTA IV, MW2. SFIV, RE5 assured huge success's but those are big numbers at the end. How many new ip on the Wii have you seen get the treatment that Red Dead Redemption is getting or that Assassins Creed got? If you don't commit to your own product, no one else will.
MadWorld is awesome!
Wii owners that didn't buy MadWorld.............................. not so much.
MadWorld is truly one of the best games on the Wii. Along with No More Heroes and House of the Dead: Overkill.
The problem is if it's not made by Nintendo then Wii owners don't give a **** Same thing happened with the Game Cube and it started with the N64. It's a real shame to see the lack of support for third party games on a Nintendo system.
But you guys will buy the next Mario and Zelda game right? Despite it being repetitive and focused on the same plot with a minor new twist:wink: It's like buying the next edition of your favorite movie for the past 20 years because the new version has interviews, improved sound, and a gag reel. It's a shame that Sin and Punishment 2 wont sell worth a damn when it's released either.
It was 6 hoursAnd I blame Sega for no Ads and making us pay 50 bucks for a 12 hour game! Sega is so smart.
Sonicplys
That's just it, the biggest release this generation all have numbers at the end of their titles. The big first party game and the big established ip works on any console, always has and always will. It hasn't been that many new ip that really took off on the HD consoles, Assassins Creed is like the only one that did really well for itself. Like I said before, don't be fooled by a game selling a million on two and sometimes 3 platforms with the PC and thinking its a big success, because a huge blockbuster needs more than a million units sold. Look at Dead Space, it sold 1.5 and EA was disappointed, so much so that their turning the sequel into Halo to get more sales. The same basic tactics that have always worked and always will work, a big idea, with a lot of money and a lot hype behind it.
Its not like the Wii is the only console where new ip struggle, look at the one's I mentioned above then Bioshock 2, there was an article about how its sales were down from the first, Mirror's Edge, an absolute bomb, Bayonetta, bombed in NA, the only reason no one makes a big deal out of it is because they have things like GTA IV, MW2. SFIV, RE5 assured huge success's but those are big numbers at the end. How many new ip on the Wii have you seen get the treatment that Red Dead Redemption is getting or that Assassins Creed got? If you don't commit to your own product, no one else will.
Sepewrath
All I'm saying is those new ip 3rd party titles are pretty important for most gamers as they keep a steady flow of quality games between the big titles like RE and SF.
Right now the wii doesn't have those and wether or not their doing that much better on the 360/PS3 platform or not 3rd party's are obviously alot more comfortable releasing them on that platform rather than on the wii :?
We like to make it sound like we have it all figured out and 3rd party's are just being stupid on this issue but I've gotta believe they have their own logical reasons for shunning the wii that we just don't understand/know them, after all I'm sure they have put a whoooole lot more time, money and research into this issue than we have being the ones who actually have to make this decision and make a profit off of it!
Obviously they are going to blame the wii audiance. What they said is right, Wii owners are generally less interested in M games. Why do people always make a big deal about this? I saw something like this somewhere when Suda said the same thing about No More Heroes. They don't sell as well on Wii because most Wii owners aren't as interested, it's true, what's the big deal??
COD3, MWR, WaW, RE4 and RE UC are rated M and they sold wellObviously they are going to blame the wii audiance. What they said is right, Wii owners are generally less interested in M games. Why do people always make a big deal about this? I saw something like this somewhere when Suda said the same thing about No More Heroes. They don't sell as well on Wii because most Wii owners aren't as interested, it's true, what's the big deal??
lazyathew
Sega doesn't "make" gameshas sega made anything good for wii yet? I guess if you count the gc pso, lol.
dovberg
COD3, MWR, WaW, RE4 and RE UC are rated M and they sold welllLastRamboo341Yeah, some sell well, but wii does have the least amount of those games, and if they make an all-new Brutal game for the Wii, it's less likely to to sell well then if they put it on PS3 or 360.
[QUOTE="dovberg"]Sega doesn't "make" games Yes they do.... They were the creators of Sonic the hedgehog, used to be Nintendos biggest rival, till they lost and stopped making systems. Now they are a third party puplisher.has sega made anything good for wii yet? I guess if you count the gc pso, lol.
LastRambo341
[QUOTE="lLastRamboo341"]Yeah, some sell well, but wii does have the least amount of those games, and if they make an all-new Brutal game for the Wii, it's less likely to to sell well then if they put it on PS3 or 360.
[QUOTE="LastRambo341"][QUOTE="dovberg"]
has sega made anything good for wii yet? I guess if you count the gc pso, lol.
Sega doesn't "make" games Yes they do.... They were the creators of Sonic the hedgehog, used to be Nintendos biggest rival, till they lost and stopped making systems. Now they are a third party puplisher. * If they advertise that game and adds some quality into it, then people will buy it * Lol, you think I don't know Sega. SEGA PUBLISHES Sonic games, SONIC TEAM DEVELOPS Sonic games[QUOTE="lazyathew"]Yes they do.... They were the creators of Sonic the hedgehog, used to be Nintendos biggest rival, till they lost and stopped making systems. Now they are a third party puplisher. * If they advertise that game and adds some quality into it, then people will buy it * Lol, you think I don't know Sega. SEGA PUBLISHES Sonic games, SONIC TEAM DEVELOPS Sonic gamesSonic team is part of Sega...[QUOTE="lLastRamboo341"] Sega doesn't "make" gamesLastRambo341
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment