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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Through the Years -- Why Third-Parties (Say) They Don't Develop for the Wii

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Sega 0.60 2.34 3.95 6.89

 

 

Guitar Hero: World Tour   0.00 1.85 0.69 2.54

Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga LucasArts 0.00 1.36 0.83 2.19
Sonic and the Secret Rings Sega 0.04 0.78 1.19 2.01
Game Party Midway Games 0.00 1.15 0.77 1.92
Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition Capcom 0.14 1.01 0.54 1.69
Deca Sporta Hudson 0.27 0.65 0.74 1.66
Rayman Raving Rabbids 2 Ubisoft 0.00 0.74 0.86 1.60
Rayman Raving Rabbids Ubisoft 0.02 0.99 0.48 1.49
MySims Electronic Arts 0.04 0.85 0.52 1.41
High School Musical: Sing It! Disney Interactive Studios 0.00 0.88 0.48 1.36

We Ski Namco 0.14 0.72 0.43 1.29
Rock Band MTV Games 0.00 1.27 0.00 1.27
Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles Capcom 0.28 0.51 0.46 1.25
Rayman Raving Rabbids: TV Party   0.00 0.54 0.70 1.24
Smarty Pants Electronic Arts 0.00 0.41 0.80 1.21
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed LucasArts 0.00 0.68 0.51 1.19
Big Beach Sports   0.00 0.34 0.83 1.17
Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures LucasArts 0.00 0.75 0.36 1.11
Red Steel Ubisoft 0.04 0.51 0.54 1.09
Cooking Mama: Cook Off Majesco 0.05 0.78 0.26 1.09
Shaun White Snowboarding   0.00 0.62 0.41 1.03

 

Seems like a lot of third party games are doing just fine on the Wii...

 



Around the Network
JimmytheT said:
Ail said:
sethnintendo said:
@Lafiel, you are right we can criticize 3rd parties all we want because in all reality almost all 3rd parties are suffering. They made their decisions and their decisions suck. Pretty much all of them are losing money except a few and they aren't banking anywhere Nintendo is. So in all actuality, 3rd parties only wish they could make the games Nintendo makes.

 

Actually if things keep going the way they currently are I woudn't be surprised if within a 2-5 years time frame Activision-Blizzard didn't became a third party that could compete with the like of Nintendo.

ATVI is flushed with cash ( 3 billion $ on the balance sheet, no debts and they even have a 1 billion $ stock buy back program going on ) and have huge positive cash flow( and no matter the success of next year CoD and GH, the cash flow will stay hugely positive thanks to Wow) and it would not be surprising if they picked up some of the better development studios of those publishers that are currently suffering.( If TakeTwo ever dies personally I think Rockstar would be a much better match for ATVI than for EA like it was tried..).

Heck Blizzard has a 11 million captive audience that will consider seriously buying the next Blizzard product and is aware on a regular basis of every ongoing development at Blizzard.( and like it or not, is globally happy with what Blizzard is delivering..)

And Blizzard (or ATVI with GH) doesn't need lessons from anyone on how to attract casual gamers and retain them..

 

I commend Blizzard for being disrupters in their own right with WOW.  However I fail to see where your financial numbers are coming from; which balance sheet and income statement are you looking at?

Balance sheet - http://finance.aol.com/financials/activision-blizzard-inc/atvi/nas/balance-sheet -  Their cash position is 1.25 billion not the 3 billion you seem to be purporting.  I can tell you right now, that cash likely will hold firm given the economy, and the fact that they will need that liquidity to protect their balance sheet going forward.

The do not have long-term debt, however to say they have no liabilities at all is ludicrous as they clearly have over $621 million in current liabilites.  This is further evidence that to maintain good liquidity, that 1.25 billion in cash is not going anywhere, as I am sure they want to maintain a good quick ratio (Cash + A/R :  current liabilities).

According to their income results for their fiscal year 2008, they posted a net loss of $107 million.  Edit: It should also be noted that their net change in cash position is -5.73 million. (http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:ATVI)

Either you are reading their old financials, or you have no idea how to read a financial statement properly.

 

 

 

I was basing myself on the press release they issued at the end of the last quarter that you can find here :

http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=364788

All the balance sheet stuff you listed by the way is prior to the merger as the FY 2008 of old Activision ended before the summer and the merger started to take effect for account purposes in July..

If you check the balance sheet published with their latest quarter you have :

Cash and cash equivalents              $2,958      ( million of dollars of course)    

And lets not get into short term liabilities because if you read that quarter they have a lot but they have a lot of account receivable too, the reason being that they are now delaying recognizing some online revenue, so it appears as a liability but it's not really one as the cash is actually there, just not recognized...( which is why I guess the huge account receivable).

So sorry, but you are the one actually reading old financials...

 

 

 



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Sony and M$ didn't do a better job "enticing" third parties. I don't know what you are talking about. Third parties ASSUMED one of those two consoles would be the market leader (most bet the PS3 would be #1, and guess what..it isn't). It really is as simple as that. Every third party wrote Nintendo and their Wii off this gen, had they known (who really coulda saw this coming?) the Wii was going to be the WW runaway marketleader do you really think third parties wouldn't have supported it with major franchises? EA said it best, they bet on a wrong horse.

Why should Nintendo Pay any third party to put a major franchise on the system? The Installed base is tempting enough, the smaller dev costs is tempting enough, the new input device is tempting enough.

Alot of people blame Nintendo for the shovelware on the Wii today (I'm not accusing u of doing this) But during the 80's and 90's when Nintendo was dominating, Nintendo was very picky with what games got produced on their systems, and were criticised for that. That is not the case today but still the critique goes to Nintendo for third parties not putting their top quality teams to develop for the Wii? I'm sorry I'm just not ready to go that route.

Third parties are their own entity, they will make their own decisions some good some bad, and they will have to deal with the consequences. Dib8terman is correct in that you may be critising the wrong department here.



Bet between Slimbeast and Arius Dion about Wii sales 2009:


If the Wii sells less than 20 million in 2009 (as defined by VGC sales between week ending 3d Jan 2009 to week ending 4th Jan 2010) Slimebeast wins and get to control Arius Dion's sig for 1 month.

If the Wii sells more than 20 million in 2009 (as defined above) Arius Dion wins and gets to control Slimebeast's sig for 1 month.

Nintendo should give me money just to own their console!

And hire housekeepers to take care of cleaning and cooking for me, too. How else do I get the time to play their games that are given to me free?


The problem is that a lot of third parties made the wrong bet, and they know it. They just refuse to admit it and kept going the way they chose from the beginning until they run out of fuel.



What I find amazing when before the Wii launched, we kept reading third party's saying how Nintendo didn't matter, they weren't going to compete nor get the sales to justifies there development.

Now Nintendo have the biggest console ownership base, cheapest to develop for and most are losing money to the point of bankruptcy. Yet most people on this forums (and others) and developers are ENCOURAGING third partys to keep this up. Or blaming Nintendo for there bad financial planning.

Developers, is it really worth losing your job rather than admitting your wrong?

HD fans, is it really worth developers going bankrupt so you can play games at a higher resolution?



Around the Network

We've got lots of role models for that. See all those execs ranking in billions of bonuses while their companies going under?

But I admit, I'd like, too, to have a job that rewards for failure as well as success. I don't even have to try to success at all, since I'd get a huge bonus anyways.



Arius Dion said:
Sony and M$ didn't do a better job "enticing" third parties. I don't know what you are talking about. Third parties ASSUMED one of those two consoles would be the market leader (most bet the PS3 would be #1, and guess what..it isn't). It really is as simple as that. Every third party wrote Nintendo and their Wii off this gen, had they known (who really coulda saw this coming?) the Wii was going to be the WW runaway marketleader do you really think third parties wouldn't have supported it with major franchises? EA said it best, they bet on a wrong horse.

Why should Nintendo Pay any third party to put a major franchise on the system? The Installed base is tempting enough, the smaller dev costs is tempting enough, the new input device is tempting enough.

Alot of people blame Nintendo for the shovelware on the Wii today (I'm not accusing u of doing this) But during the 80's and 90's when Nintendo was dominating, Nintendo was very picky with what games got produced on their systems, and were criticised for that. That is not the case today but still the critique goes to Nintendo for third parties not putting their top quality teams to develop for the Wii? I'm sorry I'm just not ready to go that route.

Third parties are their own entity, they will make their own decisions some good some bad, and they will have to deal with the consequences. Dib8terman is correct in that you may be critising the wrong department here.

 

 

Spot on. The anti-wii brigade will never tire of creating spin. They will read something published on the internet and switch it around to convince themselves that it really means what they want it to mean.

I am still waiting for the "nintendo bought 30million wiis themselves to increase the sales" story.

Who is making more money than nintendo this gen? They must be doing something right.

Sony has all the third party support but look where they are financially.

The wii doesn't have much third party support is a myth.

 

 



justinian said:

I am still waiting for the "nintendo bought 30million wiis themselves to increase the sales" story.

 

Actually, you're wrong. They only need to produce 1 Wii and keep on buying and selling the same unit 30 million times.

How else would they make money selling the other 20 millions?



^^ You are right. That would explain why for so long they were so hard to find in stores. It was because there was only one.

All that time nintendo was fooling us by cleverly buying and selling that one wii and would constantly ship around Japan, Europe and N.America to give the impression that they were millions of wiis taking over the world.

Suddenly I have new found respect for the BIG N.



This is sad third party developers should make more third party games for the Wii and make a lot more money.
Third party developers should change their mindsets considering the huge 50 million install base of Wii and growing exponentially by the day.