By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Sega: Madworld on Wii was a “mismatch”

Resident Evil 4 is the only M rated game I own on Wii. Madworld just looked really stupid, unrefined, and shallow. Once (if) these devs get a M rated game on Wii right, I'll buy it.



Around the Network
SnowFlow said:
Resident Evil 4 is the only M rated game I own on Wii. Madworld just looked really stupid, unrefined, and shallow. Once (if) these devs get a M rated game on Wii right, I'll buy it.

Would No More Heroes be to your liking?



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

jarrod said:
theprof00 said:
saicho said:
theprof00 said:

did you read that link I put up earlier? Most promotion is paid for through game sales. Bayonetta sold 13k this week. That's about 50k$ worth of advertising they can use without cutting into profit.

Plus, making a game on the wii isn't cheaper by much. You still have to hire the same people to do artwork, sound, etc, and it's really only the developing that is easier. All the assets cost the same.

while I understand your point, you are seriously misinformed on the cost for assets in SD and in HD. There are numerous discussions on the topic to show that.

yes, you're very right. I stand corrected by saicho and jarrod.

However, even at costing $15M for development, 45% of a game's profit goes to dev costs. For a 1M copy selling game, there's about 25-30M in dev revenue.

Additionally, I have a sneaking suspicion that the dev costs jarrod posted earlier include the purchase of computers, dev kits, and engine building.

I agree, tech is probably a good chunk of it.  This is why engine reuse and licensing is so lucrative this generation.

For example Red Steel's R&D budget was evidently $12m, but a lot of that was spent on just initial R&D work on Wiimote implementation and converting UE2.5 to Wii spec.   On the other hand, Gears of War's R&D budget was just $10m, but that doesn't include any technology costs since it was build alongside UE3 "for free".  It's $10m for just assets, design, audio, script, etc.  

Of course, if you dig around that Develop link, you find some scary high budget figures thrown around.  GT5 is $60m (and still going) for just R&D.  GTA4 was $100m for just R&D.  MW2 was $50m for R&D and a whopping $200m for advertising!  Budgets really have spiraled out of control this gen (and AAA HD games regularly balloon over $40m just for R&D), which is precisely why you so many many studios laying off, being bought out or just shutting down completely.  Not just studios either, but even semi-major publishers like Eidos and Midway.

I saw that gt5 cost and was like "wow! It's a good thing they released gt5p, it's probably already profitable!"

But yeah I agree, the dev costs are sad at this point. It doesn't bode well for the future if you need to sell this many copies to make a profit.



LordTheNightKnight said:
SickleSigh said:
Madworld would have failed on HD consoles anyway, that genre is crowded this year and I heard Madworld was like 5 hours long.

And has no replay value. Many games are even shorter but are worth the price due to that.

The game might have worked better as a WiiWare game.

Another complication in the whole comparison debate is, how would it have been different on the HD systems? Without motion control, would different alternatives have been used? More assets? Variation? It's a difficult question, but even so far as the review system hating the wii, madworld got pretty good scores, hovering at about 81, so while your earlier metaphor about recipes is an interesting thought, it could be that the game was pretty decent and well developed, but flawed in a way that was not conducive to the wii or its demographic. What do you think?

Would the game have been better, and therefore, sold better on the HD systems? Or was it really just garbage that had no place in today's gaming? This comparison applies to wiiware as well because it asks how the game would differ had it been based on a different "platform" (if you will).



"I saw that gt5 cost and was like "wow! It's a good thing they released gt5p, it's probably already profitable!""

At 3.64 million, I would say it's close. The real issue here is the timing. It could have been a great system seller, but it might be too late now.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight said:
"I saw that gt5 cost and was like "wow! It's a good thing they released gt5p, it's probably already profitable!""

At 3.64 million, I would say it's close. The real issue here is the timing. It could have been a great system seller, but it might be too late now.

It's possible that gt5p already sold the consoles that gt5 would have sold. I would actually say that it is a better idea to release it later than sooner, though because that should attract different buyers. We'll have to wait and see, but I think it will still sell quite a few systems, especially when gt usually sells ~10m, there is evidence that consumers weren't convinced that gt5p was the real deal, and therefore not the system seller, comparitively.



theprof00 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"I saw that gt5 cost and was like "wow! It's a good thing they released gt5p, it's probably already profitable!""

At 3.64 million, I would say it's close. The real issue here is the timing. It could have been a great system seller, but it might be too late now.

It's possible that gt5p already sold the consoles that gt5 would have sold. I would actually say that it is a better idea to release it later than sooner, though because that should attract different buyers. We'll have to wait and see, but I think it will still sell quite a few systems, especially when gt usually sells ~10m, there is evidence that consumers weren't convinced that gt5p was the real deal, and therefore not the system seller, comparitively.

It would work that way, but most system sales show that steady hits work better than holding hits back for the right moment or to try to perfect them.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Bamboleo said:
I thought Bayonetta with 480K on X360 and 530K on PS3 was a pure flop.

I remember to see that a game needs to sell more than 1 Million to break even on any of the HD consoles.


It really isnt a golden rule you know



LordTheNightKnight said:
theprof00 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"I saw that gt5 cost and was like "wow! It's a good thing they released gt5p, it's probably already profitable!""

At 3.64 million, I would say it's close. The real issue here is the timing. It could have been a great system seller, but it might be too late now.

It's possible that gt5p already sold the consoles that gt5 would have sold. I would actually say that it is a better idea to release it later than sooner, though because that should attract different buyers. We'll have to wait and see, but I think it will still sell quite a few systems, especially when gt usually sells ~10m, there is evidence that consumers weren't convinced that gt5p was the real deal, and therefore not the system seller, comparitively.

It would work that way, but most system sales show that steady hits work better than holding hits back for the right moment or to try to perfect them.

This is true, but gt5p and gt5 are so similar that they might compete with each other. That's what I meant to convey. I really don't know what will happen though. I think it's important to have gt5 come out this year. the ps3 is kind of lacking at the end of the year



And I think Madworld 2 on HD would sell like crap, not because HD gamers fault, because a black and white game in consoles that have similar and much better games like GOW3, ninja gaiden, DMC, Bayonetta, etc... all in color, would have 0 appeal.

I seriously think they did that game knowing HD standards were higher than what they wanted to do and though it wasnt the same on wii, so they picked wii and realized wii owners arent willing to pay for games like that when they also have better games even if they are not similar.