Quantcast
Is It True That 3rd Party Games Can't Sell on the Wii? Figures say No.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is It True That 3rd Party Games Can't Sell on the Wii? Figures say No.

Well then you think Rock Band and Lego Indiana projs are as reliable as say RE 4 or GH III projs? Why don't you just make all the unreleased games.



"Why isn't samus in a mario kart game?"

Around the Network

Honestly I'm just getting sick and tired of that argument - 3rd parties don't give support which then leads into - "Well when they do give support the sell like ass" and it's always the examples of Zack and Wiki and No More Heroes with complete neglect for the ones that did sell, regardless of acknowledging at the friggin least that the ones that did sell did so because people knew that they even existed hell theres more to it than just the sales numbers, Suda didn't jump around happy because he broke even - he cracked open the cheapest bottle of wine cola because he made money.

For now Nintendo makes the most money because guess what they bet on Nintendo's Wii... jeez I wonder why.

R&D takes a while give it some time and we can see great games on all 3 platforms.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Sorry guys, never said I was a statistician. Whatever imperfections in my methodology, I still think that there is enough solid data to refute the sweeping statement that NO 3rd party game can succeed on the Wii. Guitar Hero III alone proves that the right game can do very well, and Resident Evil proves that it doesn't have to be a kiddy game.



Grampy said:
noname2200 said:
So yes, Grampy, I would say you are correct about your assertion. Although I do have one question for you: why did you use projected numbers to prove your point about current third party successes, especially when we're on a sales site?

Excellent post. noname2200

Thank you. In answer to your question on using projected figures my rationale was this.

1) Because many good Wii 3rd party games have been released recently and have not had the time to show where they are going, I thought projections were useful as long as they came from a reputable site which tracks the games and adjusts according to actual performance.

2) In the time I've been on this site people seem more often to deal in sales numbers, not revenue

3) I thought numbers were simpler than dealing with relative costs, but you have done a masterful job.

4) I was responding to the constant refrain that NO 3rd party software can do well on the Wii so I mainly wanted to disprove this assumption, not necessarily to do competitive comparisons

5) Probably most important, I'm new and in my naiveté may simply have made the wrong choice. My bad.

 


 Ah, sorry. Reading back on what I wrote, it sounds more aggressive than I meant it to be. But your reasons are pretty strong, and I'd add another: this site is great for many things, but it can still be off for some games (often by omitting a region entirely). On an unrelated note, thanks for posting all those development cost links in the other thread: they're a bit outdated, but they're also still useful for comparative purposes.

@squillam: I'm not entirely convinced that your comparison is as apple-to-apple as it first seems. In fact, it may be precisely the opposite. HappySqurriel tangentially explained why; each and every one of the new IPs on the 360 and PS3 is a big-budget affair, spearheaded by their respective developers' top talent, with the marketing muscle to support it. By contrast, many of the Wii's third party new IP's are (hitherto) relatively low-budget games, often made by developers' smaller and newer studios. Miyamoto himself has pointed this out in the past.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13373

“If there's only one piece of advice that I could give to the managers of third party companies, it would be that a lot of times it seems that when they're putting games out on Nintendo hardware, those games are being developed by their third-string team or their fourth-string team", said Miyamoto.

The same, obviously, cannot be said of games like Assassin's Creed, or Bioshock, or Mass Effect, or any of the other new IPs the 360 and PS3 currently have. I'd also like to point out that by taking the top ten IPs of the 360 AND the PS3, you're essentially stacking the deck even further; now you're putting the Wii's best against the HD consoles' combined best. I don't think I need to point out the flaw in that argument. 

Finally, I direct your attention to SuperLloyd's post, especially the part about what it takes to make a game successful. We know for a fact that games on the 360 and PS3 must sell more than their Wii counterparts simply to break even. Ubisoft, for instance, spends two or three times more on their HD games than on their Wii games, and they're more the rule than the exception.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18389

Simply put, most third parties would be perfectly happy if their games sold less than they do on the HD consoles, because even with lower sales, they'll still have higher profits. Sega essentially said just that not too long ago.

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/05/13/afx5000811.html

"As rebuilding our consumer video game business is crucial, we now need to review our game title strategy more flexibly to adapt ourselves to changes in the trend of the market" Ueda said, referring to Sega's release of more game titles than competitors to the PS3, which lagged sharply behind (the) Wii in terms of sales.

This effect can be seen even more dramatically in EA. I posted EA's revenue shares earlier in this thread. Note how high their HD sales are. Note also the information that we know about the difference between the Wii's and the HD consoles' development costs. And then finally, read this article.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/24602976

"The company reported a $94 million loss for the quarter, or 34 cents per share, compared to a $25 million loss, or 8 cents per share, a year ago. Net revenue, however, was up 84 percent to $1.13 billion...Analysts had expected the company to break even on revenue of $834.8 million. Though sales increased at a brisk pace, the larger year-over-year loss indicate that the company has yet to truly firm up its bottom line."

Essentially, what we see here is that even when revenues are rising, profits are diminishing because of the insanely high development costs on the HD consoles. And of course it's profit, not revenue, that a company needs simply to survive. So if the HD consoles' development costs are starting to hurt the behemoth that is EA, what do you think it's doing to all the smaller fry? Actually, I can answer that.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6189861.html?sid=6189861

"Since January, a host of development studios have closed their doors, suspended operations, or otherwise stopped making games...During that same period of time, the industry has racked up phenomenal sales. NPD's retail software-sales data for the US has been up by double-digit percentages for each of the first three months of the year, with growth of 47 percent and 63 percent in February and March, respectively."

They're being priced out, simple as that. But the same doesn't appear to be true of Wii developers, for whom the lower development costs mean they can actually make their games, and realize strong profits...

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18144

http://ir.majescoentertainment.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=286976

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18247

There are more examples out there, if you care to look for them. And, as has been pointed out many times, including several times in this thread, even the original third party IPs on the Wii that are supposed to be embematic of the Wii's failure, No More Heroes and Zak and Wiki, have actually gone on to make their developers money, so much so that Suda 51 wants to make a sequel for his game, and Capcom is rumored to have greenlighted Zak and Wiki 2. I bet Factor 5 wishes they could say that, even if they sold more copies of their game than Grasshopper and Capcom...

So in conclusion, I would actually argue that even if the situation is as lopsided as you think it is (and I don't believe that for a nano-second), third parties appear to be doing better on the Wii than they are on the HD consoles. Their sales and revenue may be slightly lower, but their profits appear to be much, much higher. And at the end of the day, it's profit, not revenue, that keeps a developer afloat. 



Grampy said:
Squilliam said:
I did a comparison of New IP's non 1st party on both HD consoles (Mainly the Xbox360) and the Wii.

HD consoles - $160,000,000 revenue at the shops
Wii - $40,000,000 revenue.

Thats an average of the top 10 new IP non 1st party games on either system. Thats as apples to apples and the most relevant I could make the comparison.

Until I can see otherwise im going to have to assume that a completely new IP will struggle on the Wii in comparison to a 360/PS3 multiplatform.

Until then, its either ports of established properties or Nintendo 1st party games.


There are a few things that perhaps need to be mentioned. First, you are factoring in super blockbuster like Halo 3 and GTA IV, and COD4, and I will readily admit that the Wii does not have anything in the way of such huge 3rd party games. OK. My argument was against the mantra I hear over and over that NO 3rd party games can succeed on the Wii not that there is a GTA IV on the Wii -yet.Also your raw revenue numbers do not take into account the difference in development cost which can be as low as 25% on the Wii compared to PS360 development. This makes it particularly attractive to smaller, and often more innovative publishers that simply don’t have the budget to go HD. As economic conditions worsen, this reduced development cost may become a larger player.

 


I said I factored them out! "Completely new intelectual property third party games". My belief is that the large development houses will stay where they are for their AAA teams. I remember loving Commander Keen. That development house made Doom 3 and Quake wars. I remember really liking Jill of the Jungle - That software house made Gears of War. Their are a lot of small - Flash/Wiiware developers, a lot a medium sized PC/Console developers that can't compete with the size of the big publishing houses. The Wii is the "shovelware" machine because it is where people try out new ideas. Most new ideas suck! But until these developers can start making money and ideas are tested and thrown out or kept the Wii will remain a third party graveyard. The problem I see, is that none of the new ideas have stuck yet. I want the Wii to be a place where new and innovative ideas can flourish, not just the same rehashed IP's. 

heres my New IP list. Ok - 3 and 4 may not be new IP lol I was hurried. 
  1. Assassins creed. 3.71 + 2.61 =6.32
  2. gears of war 5.17
  3. marvel ultimate alliance 2.42
  4. Rainbow 6 vegas 2.12
  5. Mass effect 1.84
  6. Bioshock 1.76
  7. Saints row 1.76
  8. lost planer 1.47 .28 =1.73
  9. Rock band 1.40 0.57 =1.97
  10. Kane and lynch dead men. 1.04 0.67 =1.71
 

Total third party = 26.8 million. Top ten third party 1st generation titles.

Average revenue @ $60 per game = $160,000,000

Wii

 
  1. Carnival games = 1.78
  2. my sims = 1.06
  3. red steel = 1.05
  4. cooking mama cookoff = 0.81
  5. high school musical – singit. 0.81

7       excite truck = 0.61

8       smarty pants = 0.6

9       game party 0.56

10    trauma centre = 0.53

 

Total Wii third party new IP = 7.83 average sales = 873000, average revenue = $44,000,000

 



Tease.

Around the Network
Squilliam,
An apples to apples comparison would be Guitar Hero 2 on the XBox 360 to Guitar Hero 3 on the Wii because they have very similar factors going for and against them.
A direct comparison of sales between games that cost (on average) $5 Million or less to develop, have average review scores in the 60s and 70s, and had very low marketing budgets to games that cost $20 to $40 Million to develop, have average review scores in the 80s and 90s, and had massive marketing budgets is by no means a fair comparison.
Red Steel more directly compares to Call of Juarez, Timeshift, and Blacksite: Area 51 which all sold dramatically less than Red Steel even though they cost far more to develop.
Basically, all of your posts in this thread are "Let me cherry pick information in order to support my world view"


All I can say is 3rd party games do sell on the Wii, if they are good *cough* not JAWA *cough*. People who say they don't might not have the proof.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

Squilliam said:
Grampy said:
Squilliam said:



I said I factored them out! "Completely new intelectual property third party games". My belief is that the large development houses will stay where they are for their AAA teams. I remember loving Commander Keen. That development house made Doom 3 and Quake wars. I remember really liking Jill of the Jungle - That software house made Gears of War. Their are a lot of small - Flash/Wiiware developers, a lot a medium sized PC/Console developers that can't compete with the size of the big publishing houses. The Wii is the "shovelware" machine because it is where people try out new ideas. Most new ideas suck! But until these developers can start making money and ideas are tested and thrown out or kept the Wii will remain a third party graveyard. The problem I see, is that none of the new ideas have stuck yet. I want the Wii to be a place where new and innovative ideas can flourish, not just the same rehashed IP's.

heres my New IP list. Ok - 3 and 4 may not be new IP lol I was hurried.
  1. Assassins creed. 3.71 + 2.61 =6.32
  2. gears of war 5.17
  3. marvel ultimate alliance 2.42
  4. Rainbow 6 vegas 2.12
  5. Mass effect 1.84
  6. Bioshock 1.76
  7. Saints row 1.76
  8. lost planer 1.47 .28 =1.73
  9. Rock band 1.40 0.57 =1.97
  10. Kane and lynch dead men. 1.04 0.67 =1.71

Total third party = 26.8 million. Top ten third party 1st generation titles.

Average revenue @ $60 per game = $160,000,000

Wii

  1. Carnival games = 1.78
  2. my sims = 1.06
  3. red steel = 1.05
  4. cooking mama cookoff = 0.81
  5. high school musical – singit. 0.81

7 excite truck = 0.61

8 smarty pants = 0.6

9 game party 0.56

10 trauma centre = 0.53

Total Wii third party new IP = 7.83 average sales = 873000, average revenue = $44,000,000

 


I've already written why I think your list is flawed, so I won't repeat those arguments (although I can understand if you were writing this while I posted, as I take a long time to write). I am, however, interested in hearing your take on it.

That said, I'd like to point out some further flaws, this time limited to this specific post. To nitpick: Rainbow 6 is not an original IP, but instead the latest in a rather long series. Gears of Wars is published by Microsoft, and is thus a first rather than third party game. You should also take off Excite Truck, as it's a Nintendo game. Finally, you're assuming that each of the games you've listed sold at the same price. Seeing as how I can find a new copy of most of those games for less than their original retail price, and that a healthy amount of sales are received after such price drops, the revenue stream isn't as high as you think it is. That, of course, applies both ways, although the higher you are, the farther you can drop.

Furthermore, remember that only a fraction of this revenue will actually reach the publisher, let alone the developer. The first parties all expect their tithe, there are costs to manufacture the product and packaging, there's an extra cost to ship, there are sometimes duties to pay, there are the different currency rates to consider, there's the cost of advertising, the retailers' cut...in other words, even if the game itself somehow generated the average amount of revenue you posted, only a peice of that is going to trickle down to the folks who made the game. That's important, because suddenly that $100 million you got in revenue may not actually cover the $50 million it cost to create the game, and you're worst off than if you had simply remained idle! 



Grampy said:
Sorry guys, never said I was a statistician. Whatever imperfections in my methodology, I still think that there is enough solid data to refute the sweeping statement that NO 3rd party game can succeed on the Wii. Guitar Hero III alone proves that the right game can do very well, and Resident Evil proves that it doesn't have to be a kiddy game.

Trying to prove the argument "No third party games sell on the Wii" is trying to argue with an idiot. It isn't an arguement you even need to bother with. What you need to prove is if there is a healthy environment for third parties to succeed on the Wii in comparison to a multiplatform 360 and PS3 title. Most of the people saying no third party games sell on Wii are usually just making sweeping generalizations and don't really mean absolutely none can sell, just that most don't. Here's all the proof you need:

1. When a developer puts an A effort forward in a profitable looking game, most times it becomes a profitable game.
    Ex. RE4 and Guitar Hero III 

2. When a developer puts an A effort forward in a non profitable and/or niche oriented game, most times it performs on par with what it would have done on the PS2, a very healthy comparable environment for third parties to make money.
     Ex. Okami Wii vs. Okami PS2, No More Heroes vs. Killer 7, Zack & Wiki vs. Escape From Monkey Island

3. The development of minigame and "Touch Generation"esque projects doing well is a result of the opening market and will not directly affect the sales performance of more "core" oriented titles. They in many ways cater to different audiences and sometimes meet in the middle, but not always.
    Ex. No More Heroes was probably not affected at all by Carnival Games, because the respective audiences for each           are so vastly different. Carnival Games just has a wider appeal.

Now i've said my peace. 

 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Squilliam said:
 

 

heres my New IP list. Ok - 3 and 4 may not be new IP lol I was hurried. 
  1. Assassins creed. 3.71 + 2.61 =6.32
  2. gears of war 5.17- 1st party
  3. marvel ultimate alliance 2.42
  4. Rainbow 6 vegas 2.12- sequel
  5. Mass effect 1.84
  6. Bioshock 1.76
  7. Saints row 1.76
  8. lost planer 1.47 .28 =1.73
  9. Rock band 1.40 0.57 =1.97
  10. Kane and lynch dead men. 1.04 0.67 =1.71
 

Total third party = 26.8 million. Top ten third party 1st generation titles.

Average revenue @ $60 per game = $160,000,000

Wii

 
  1. Carnival games = 1.78
  2. my sims = 1.06
  3. red steel = 1.05
  4. cooking mama cookoff = 0.81
  5. high school musical – singit. 0.81

7       excite truck = 0.61 - 1st party

8       smarty pants = 0.6

9       game party 0.56

10    trauma centre = 0.53

 

Total Wii third party new IP = 7.83 average sales = 873000, average revenue = $44,000,000

 

Bold - my addendums. 

Why did you leave off Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games?  That's a 3rd party original IP.   Rayman raving Rabbids is alos a 3rd party unique IP.   Both use characters form other Ips but are in themselves unique IP's.  RE:UC isn't a sequel either but granteed it too is branched from another IP.  The Simpsons game is missing.

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised