|
|
Post by Nester the Lark on Feb 22, 2010 14:03:55 GMT -5
And yet that didn't kill off the Playstation 2 or the Nintendo DS. While I think what you're saying is true, it's also avoidable with some careful marketing and content selection. Perhaps Nintendo made too much of a deal over the Wii being a low-powered system Well, the PlayStation 2 and Nintendo DS were successors to wildly successful platforms. The Wii was not. In fact, the GameCube was also a victim of "weaker console = crappy games", except that the "crappy games" part came first, leading to the belief that it was actually less capable than the PS2. Even now, there seems to be an undertone that the Wii is barely as powerful as the Dreamcast. I can't recall where I heard these figures at (it might've been an episode of Bonus Round over at GameTrailers), but the percentage of first-party sales on the 360/PS3 is about 10-15%, with the rest belonging to third parties. On the Wii, Nintendo owns about 60%. Hardcore games struggle on the Wii, but Nintendo, by far, seems to have more success than third parties. But is this because Wii owners favor first party software, or is it because Nintendo's heavy market share leads to better chances at success? A better question: given how shrewd Nintendo is, how willing are they to give up their own market share in favor of helping third parties succeed on their platform? |
|
|
|
Post by Shrikeswind on Feb 22, 2010 14:54:19 GMT -5
Better question: If a banana floats in water, what does an alligator eat?
Seriously, though. Nintendo's followers favor first-party software, hands down. There's a strange bias against third party games, which leads to Nintendo games selling better than third party games. On the other hand, Microsoft and Sony followers have less of a stigma against third-party software, and since the greater percentage of games are third-party to any console than first-party to any console, the sales on Microsoft and Sony reflect this most cleanly. Multi-platform games, of course, sell best on the console most people have, i.e., if a game is released between the 360 and the PS3, the 360 is going to have the higher sales for the game. The one exception to this rule is Nintendo, and that's because multi-platform games are ALWAYS third-party. But on the Wii, when a game is released multi-platform, it tends play weird, because many times, the question of multi-platform really applies only to the 360 and PS3 due to the fact that the Wii's so out of it. You have to revamp the game to make it work on the Wii, which isn't worth it in many eyes, so while the 360 and PS3 get multi-platform games, the Wii has an unrelated equivalent. Sometimes this doesn't apply and we get a related unequivalent because the developer decided the risk was worth the reward or decided not to encorporate the Wii's more odd-ball stuff and therefore allowing an easier transition for a lowered risk, i.e., not using motion control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Feb 22, 2010 17:10:03 GMT -5
But is this really the case? The fact is, third parties perform better at launch, and the best time to release new franchises is in the first 6 months of a home console's release. This seems to have been true for at least all 3D generations of consoles.
The majority of big successes when it comes to new franchises have been launch-period titles, whether first- or third-party. New ideas die out quickly without extremely expensive and savvy marketing with a very high profile.
I mean, we're getting a sequel to Red Steel. Who saw THAT coming?!
Remember, many third parties migrated their popular franchises to other systems years ago, during the Gamecube or even the N64 era. Nintendo franchises had to keep the N64 going because there wasn't actually much else to choose from worth playing. Nintendo franchises had to keep the Gamecube going, although surprisingly the situation improved somewhat (though the quality of first-party titles would often, unfairly, be brought into question instead). At least it got a load of cross-platform titles.
The Wii suffers from being incapable of running cross-platform series, being weird enough that most developers missed that successful launch window, and now quality titles are buried beneath mountains of shovelware thanks to the success of casual gaming.
What would Nintendo themselves have to do to fix this? They could either court developers, as they did with the N64 and Gamecube with no success, they could promote third party games, as they tried with the Gamecube with no success, or they could step back and not release many of their own titles, which we've been moaning about them doing for the last few years... with no success.
Perhaps there's more they could do. Court developers earlier now they have a proven success, promote third party even more than they do, guarantee that they will only release experimental titles until the end of the Wii's life (oh wait, didn't that kill the Gamecube?)
But that's not going to save the Wii today. It might save its successor (the Puu *chortle*) and it might make a slight dent today... but they're fighting against gamers who only want Mario, Zelda, F-Zero, Star Fox, Smash Bros... and that'll do, once a year, forever...
|
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Feb 27, 2010 21:30:28 GMT -5
But let me go back to Mr. Molecule's original post. If I may be so bold as to suggest that his "death of a fanboy" isn't necessarily the result of something Nintendo did wrong. Rather, I think he opened his eyes and finally saw Nintendo for what it always was, and compared to the glorious image he saw through fanboy eyes, the reality was a little disappointing. But I would encourage him not to let the comparison with an unrealistic ideal cloud his view of the Wii as it really is. Yeah, I wasn't really mad at the way Nintendo handled the Wii as it was a breakdown of an ideal. I was genuinely convinced that the Wii was the comeback console to bring Nintendo back to the SNES glory days. But... on the Wii, when a game is released multi-platform, it tends play weird, because many times, the question of multi-platform really applies only to the 360 and PS3 due to the fact that the Wii's so out of it. You have to revamp the game to make it work on the Wii, which isn't worth it in many eyes, so while the 360 and PS3 get multi-platform games, the Wii has an unrelated equivalent. Sometimes this doesn't apply and we get a related unequivalent because the developer decided the risk was worth the reward or decided not to incorporate the Wii's more odd-ball stuff and therefore allowing an easier transition for a lowered risk, i.e., not using motion control. So my hopes about major games coming to the Wii, a real Final Fantasy, a real Katamari Damacy, or real GTA were all dashed when the Wii's control scheme was radically different than the others. Really, practically every console except the Wii (and this is historic, too) has a "pick up and play" type atmosphere. To play a game on the Wii, I have to sit through the screens about using the wrist strap. And don't get me started on setting it up for Guitar Hero. What is being caused is a nasty cycle...the casual games overwhelm the market, the hardcore games attempt to get in, poor sales occur because of an assumption of casual games, and developers crank out more casual games even more. I think that Nintendo (and gamers) would profit by having localizing games beyond Japan. Europe has been particularly abused by Nintendo's ways, completely missing scads of (well-selling) games. Disaster: Day of Crisis suffers a different problem: it stars a former U.S. Marine. And they never released it in the U.S.! A while back, someone mentioned (I think it was Fry) that for the GameCube, Nintendo swallowed their pride and let the crappy third party games in. This resulted in more games for the GCN, but it screwed over the GCN and are ruining the Wii. Question: what gave the PlayStation the upper hand over the N64? |
|
|
|
Post by Da Robot on Feb 28, 2010 21:13:30 GMT -5
What is being caused is a nasty cycle...the casual games overwhelm the market, the hardcore games attempt to get in, poor sales occur because of an assumption of casual games, and developers crank out more casual games even more. I think that Nintendo (and gamers) would profit by having localizing games beyond Japan. Europe has been particularly abused by Nintendo's ways, completely missing scads of (well-selling) games. Disaster: Day of Crisis suffers a different problem: it stars a former U.S. Marine. And they never released it in the U.S.! As probably one of the few people here who have played D:DoC, the US Marine background part of the main character isn't really stated in the game much from what I remember (I had to check D:DoC wikipedia article to see if you were even right about it). I believe the only reason the game the developers did that was to give a logical reason as to why he can operate all the firearms/weaponry in the game. A while back, someone mentioned (I think it was Fry) that for the GameCube, Nintendo swallowed their pride and let the crappy third party games in. This resulted in more games for the GCN, but it screwed over the GCN and are ruining the Wii. Question: what gave the PlayStation the upper hand over the N64? CD vs cartridges may have been the major contender. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrikeswind on Feb 28, 2010 21:39:16 GMT -5
Which is really kinda stupid when you think about it. You don't need to take as much care of a cartridge as you do a disc. When was the last time a scratch ruined a cartridge? You need to beat the fuck out of the shell just to cause significant visible damage TO THE SHELL. Dust cleans easy, and nowadays, data's stored digitally, so the actual storage doesn't even need exposure. Today, you could legitimately have a system with a cartridge that looks like a flash drive, and you could further have this cartridge capable of downloading an entire game. And there'd be many significant advantages over discs, not the least of which being portability. I can carry in one jeans pocket more flash drives than I can carry discs in case in my backpack accounting for my Wii, my controllers, and the cords. I could actually have a problem picking 3 games to bring because I have enough room for more, if cartridges were still in use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Mar 1, 2010 7:11:13 GMT -5
Kinda twisting my words there. Due to being whipped senseless by the PS1 and with the Xbox on the horizon taking a cue from Sony, Nintendo revised their "Seal of Approval" process and how they handle third parties. They improved the support network, essentially, but also put less into approving the games. Not that it mattered. The NES, SNES and N64 all had crap "approved" games on them as well.
Third party games didn't kill the GameCube... A lack of them killed the GameCube. Third party games didn't kill the Wii... Because the Wii is the biggest selling home console of all time.
Several factors. The most popular is that Nintendo had the most powerful console, but they had opted for cartridges, which were unable to take advantage of all the things the next generation of games were going to take advantage of (FMV, CD quality music, etc.) They lost a lot of third parties due to this choice. And for the most powerful console at the time, the sound and graphics were horribly compressed and often looked worse than those on the weaker competing consoles.
But the real reason is Sony entered the market with a fresh approach. They realised people who played the Atari and NES were now in college, and they marketed the console to that age group. Games have been aiming for more mature content from the earliest days. Nintendo was the market leader, but was very strict over mature content, while Sega was only a little less strict (despite their "extreme" image). Sony walked in and gave developers free reign to develop for over-18s.
More mature games equals more mature audience. More mature audience means an untapped opportunity to develop more mature games. More opportunity means more developers. More developers means more games. The cycle goes on and on like that.
The Nintendo 64 did not have many great games, and those that were great were often viewed as childish. Only Nintendo fanboys really stuck with them through those times. The GameCube hit, the format changed, but the damage had been done... It was a console for kids and fanboys.
The Wii had to change that, and it did. We fanboys don't like change, but we're no longer a lucrative source of revenue, and we make Nintendo look bad. We moan and whine and don't actually buy games. Even Twilight Princess and Mario Galaxy didn't meet Nintendo's sales expectations, and they are two of the biggest games of the past 5 years on the most popular system of all time!
So... There are many reasons the PS1 thrashed the N64, and the PS2 and Xbox thrashed the GameCube. There are also many reasons why the Wii is thrashing the PS3, and they're largely the same reasons reversed.
|
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Mar 1, 2010 9:13:22 GMT -5
Yeah, but mostly it was Squaresoft. After they realized how much they they put into CD's, they developed a TON of games for Playstation. And the N64 had pretty much zero RPG's. The only ones I can think of at the top of my head are Quest 64 (sucked) and Harvest Moon (not much of an RPG, really). Playstation also gave us an introduction to Insomniac, Naughty Dog, and plenty of Namco and Capcom games. N64 survived on mostly first party Nintendo games. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Mar 1, 2010 9:39:51 GMT -5
Yeah, but mostly it was Squaresoft. After they realized how much they they put into CD's, they developed a TON of games for Playstation. And the N64 had pretty much zero RPG's. The only ones I can think of at the top of my head are Quest 64 (sucked) and Harvest Moon (not much of an RPG, really). Playstation also gave us an introduction to Insomniac, Naughty Dog, and plenty of Namco and Capcom games. N64 survived on mostly first party Nintendo games. People put a lot of stock in Squaresoft, and FF7 in particular, as being one of the reasons the PS1 overtook the N64. Retrospectively it seems obvious, and probably did help, but I wouldn't say it explains the success of the system. At the time there was no precedent. There had been some popular RPGs on the SNES, but it was a niche genre outside of Japan (and even then, Enix's Dragon Quest was way ahead in popularity). Even the big-name RPGs weren't huge sellers. FF7 changed the fortunes of the RPG market in a big way that was unprecedented. Even if Square had stayed with Nintendo and FF7 had hit the N64 (as was originally planned), I strongly suspect that the RPG market would not have been impacted as heavily, and while the N64 might have had some success from it in Japan, the limitations would have made it less of a big deal, and the US market would probably still not care about RPGs that much. |
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Mar 2, 2010 18:01:41 GMT -5
The GameCube hit, the format changed, but the damage had been done... It was a console for kids and fanboys. So the Wii added senior citizens and "casual" gamers. Looks like they've got a full house. [/sarcasm] I felt (in 2006) that the Wii would attract EVERYBODY besides the grandmas, casual gamers, kids, and fanboys. It would attract the hardcore gamers back, the teenagers, and most importantly, converts from PS3 and Xbox. So in reality, it's not like I wanted Nintendo to make hardcore games (I wouldn't have been able to afford them anyway, really) I wanted Nintendo to succeed because they (a) had the opportunity, at least AN opportunity, and (b) I was a fanboy. When it became painfully clear that Nintendo was more for the money than the hardcore, I was disappointed. But I moved on: brand loyalty to Nintendo just wasn't that big on me anymore. My brother got a PS3. I've been experimenting with emulators again (my current computer has decided to ruin anything with graphics because the motherboard's messed up) which is fine with me. I play games, and to me, it doesn't really matter who makes them currently or how old it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Mar 3, 2010 4:28:31 GMT -5
So the Wii added senior citizens and "casual" gamers. Looks like they've got a full house. [/sarcasm] I felt (in 2006) that the Wii would attract EVERYBODY besides the grandmas, casual gamers, kids, and fanboys. It would attract the hardcore gamers back, the teenagers, and most importantly, converts from PS3 and Xbox. Well, the Wii did what Sony did with the PS1 - they went after a market that nobody was going after by promoting the system as a lifestyle choice. The Wii is for those with a busy family life, who care about their health and wellbeing. In short, in order to break into this new market, they had to make it look like the Wii wasn't for gamers. Even a sniff of that, and a lot of people would have been put off. Marketing to gamers is always ridiculous though. We're hooked on games, we watch the internet for new releases, we buy the magazines, we read the reviews, and we should know that there are plenty of experiences for gamers on the system. At worst, we'll just spend all our money on the Virtual Console. New Super Mario Bros. Wii is being marketed as a game you can play together with the family, but as gamers we're more likely to go out and buy the game because it has Koopa Kids in it. You can't market to a people obsessed over such irrelevant minutae. I play games, and to me, it doesn't really matter who makes them currently or how old it is. You know, that's actually a good thing, and I hope more people have this awakening. I can only apologise that Nintendo's letting you down has led you to support the wider videogame industry and experience a much wider range of games than Nintendo would ever provide...  |
|
|
|
Post by Shrikeswind on Mar 6, 2010 14:08:51 GMT -5
Though, and I maintain a level of fanboyism, Nintendo does still produce. Remember, attention is key. It's been what, 14 years since the N64? 2010 minus 1996? That's longer than the gap between the NES/Atari and the PS1. The audience that was so interested in the PS1 has grown up even more, so now, while they'll still watch Terminator and Indiana Jones, unless they're basement dwellers, the audience from the PS1 has other things to worry about. They're not in that 17-24 age bracket anymore (the mature audience group.) The audience the PS1 appealed to has fully passed the 30 year mark, and in 2 years, they'll begin to tap the 40 year mark. Yeah, it's fun to pop in Terminator, but they have families to worry about. They have mortgages, they have car payments, etc. So gamers do come to the Wii from the PS1 days. They just aren't the same people anymore. They're not going for frag grenades and machine guns as often, they're going to want to keep their families going. My father is a fairly prime example of this, he used to be a bit of a gamer back in the SNES days. He's gonna be 55 this year. Newest game he owns is DKC, I believe he got it back in '94, when he was 38-39. Back when the NES was coming out? He was late 20's-early 30's. The market grows older, grows out of gaming. The Wii isn't just bringing new gamers in, the grammas and little kids and whatnot, it's also bringing back gamers (admittedly, I'm the only one who buys games in my house anymore, but then, the Wii's in my room. I HAVE THE POWER!)
|
|
