Quantcast
Locked: THQ - Wii is a nightmare for third parties, it's a Monopoly box in the clos

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - THQ - Wii is a nightmare for third parties, it's a Monopoly box in the clos

"Flaws in exectution? Not every game is perfect."

If people think think those flaws are not worth their time, they won't buy them.

"you can't say they weren't heavily advertised"

Wrong. I can, and they weren't.



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
BMaker11 said:
burgerstein said:
BMaker11 said:

And the only two reasons why a game fails are if it sucks or it's the consumer's fault. If it sucks, well then it sucks and no one buys it (although that then makes me confused as to why Carnival Games sold so much). But then, if it's a good game, and nobody buys it, it's definitely the consumer's fault. You can't blame a developer for making a good game that doesn't sell well. I'd blame the people who don't buy it. Don't just try and lump it all into "well, maybe if you made a better game, it would sell". Okami and Valkyria Chronicles are fine examples of why that sentiment is wrong


Are you SERIOUSLY blaming the consumers for not buying games? Seriously? Really? Games don't sell because they're not appealing. How can you possibly blame the consumer? Seriously? I thought people of that opinion were just something Malstrom made up to mess with people. You honestly believe that? Video games are a business, you can't blame your customers for not buying your product. It's incredibly childish. And one more time, seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Yes, yes I am serious. In the world of video games, the customer is not ALWAYS right. Everytime a game doesn't sell, you guys fall back on "well if your game didn't suck, people would buy it".

What did Capcom do wrong with Okami? What did Sega do wrong with Valkyria Chronicles? What did EA do wrong with Mirror's Edge and Dead Space? What did Ubisoft do with wrong with Prince of Persia? What did Epic/Midway do wrong with Unreal Tournament 3?

Under the sentiment of "make better games, and people will buy them", how do you explain the low sales of the above games? The developer lived up to their end of the bargain, and since you believe that if they make better games, people will consequentially buy them...yet they don't sell very well, who's, then, to blame?

Are you SERIOUSLY going to say "I blame the developer for making a good game."? Or I guess all those games aren't "appealing" and 3rd parties should all make Wii Fit-esque games so they all sell 20M+

Edit: At the end of the day, YOU can't blame the developer for putting out great games. YOU want them to produce great games, and when they do, YOU can't blame THEM for YOU not purchasing the game. "Make better games and they will sell". When they put it out good games, it is then YOUR duty to buy them. YOU can't say it's the developer's fault that YOU didn't buy their GREAT game. Or should I blame Capcom for YOU not buying Okami? I heard Okami was a great game, maybe even one of the best on the PS2. I blame myself for not buying it, because well...I didn't buy a great game. Or should I say "curse you Capcom for putting out quality! I won't buy this!"?

Communications, expression. It doesn't have to be a consumers a fault or consumers are always right. I don't know where you got that from, but they are not mutual concepts. Sometimes times it's not about a good game or marketing, but getting across what the game is and who it's for. If I make Max Payne and try to sell it to my daughter it doesn't work. Though I wouldn't be so foolish to do so nor did Sega. While that is extreme an FPS fan of Halo does not mean that they will be interested in Mass Effect, though often the advertising will be aimed at the same group. Though they shouldnt there is overlap. Also you can't sometimes there is nothing inherently wrong with the game design, but it's apeal. Okami is proof of this. It didn't sell on the PS2 wich had the biggest *sigh* core and casual, but it is apparently selling better on the Wii. Why doesn't Okami a very good designed game sell well. Because it's an upperend artistic game for conesuirs. The developer develivered a good game, but a game for a small market, but didn't realize the market was smaller. It could have done a ton of advertising to increase exposure. This means that the developer failed to communicate.

So no the consumer is not always right, but that doesn't mean it's there fault to buy a game that doesn't appeal to them.



Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.

Think of it this way:

Haze has outsold Valkyria Chronicles, by a decent amount. Do you blame Ubisoft/Free Radical and Sega, respectively, for putting out those games, each of the respective caliber (or lack thereof in the case of Haze) or do you blame the schmo that went to the game store and decided "Instead of buying this gem known as Valkyria Chronicles, I'll buy this utter shit Haze"? Tough question, I know



As long as hardcore non Nintendo published games won't sell on the Wii, he's perfectly right to say that. Why bother spending millions of dollar on a hardcore Wii game when you can just make something casual for half the price that will most likely double the sale of the harcore game ?



BMaker11 said:
Think of it this way:

Haze has outsold Valkyria Chronicles, by a decent amount. Do you blame Ubisoft/Free Radical and Sega, respectively, for putting out those games, each of the respective caliber (or lack thereof in the case of Haze) or do you blame the schmo that went to the game store and decided "Instead of buying this gem known as Valkyria Chronicles, I'll buy this utter shit Haze"? Tough question, I know

You act like the answer is obvious, whe you can't tell the difference between a vendor and the customer?



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
BxN said:
As long as hardcore non Nintendo published games won't sell on the Wii, he's perfectly right to say that. Why bother spending millions of dollar on a hardcore Wii game when you can just make something casual for half the price that will most likely double the sale of the harcore game ?

How many of these teams have actually done that yet?

 

You can name every single 3rd Wii game released that falls into this "hardcore" category and I can tell you the exact reasons why it underperformed.

 

Try me.



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."

It's the other way around... THQ games are a nightmare for the wii. I don't think anyone would care if they gave up their support for the wii. Please do and go bankrupt at the same time.



It is funny to see this thread reactivated. I would love to see someone explain how the Wii is a "nightmare" for third parties (@Ari_Gold, you supported this position).

Looking at the company's Wii portfolio, only deBlob and Deadly Creatures appeal to non-casual or non-child gamers. The former was good, the latter was niche. Mostly, they have licensed properties. And the only thing they have coming out that is appealing is "Drawn to Life."

Ironically, its portfolios for the PS3 (22 games) and Xbox 360 (30 games) is smaller than that for the Wii (39 games) -- and essentially very similar except for a few "core" releases.

Mike from Morgantown



      


I am Mario.


I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble.

Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492

NNID: Mike_INTV

Stop complaining, and make a game people will buy.



BMaker11 said:
burgerstein said:
BMaker11 said:

And the only two reasons why a game fails are if it sucks or it's the consumer's fault. If it sucks, well then it sucks and no one buys it (although that then makes me confused as to why Carnival Games sold so much). But then, if it's a good game, and nobody buys it, it's definitely the consumer's fault. You can't blame a developer for making a good game that doesn't sell well. I'd blame the people who don't buy it. Don't just try and lump it all into "well, maybe if you made a better game, it would sell". Okami and Valkyria Chronicles are fine examples of why that sentiment is wrong


Are you SERIOUSLY blaming the consumers for not buying games? Seriously? Really? Games don't sell because they're not appealing. How can you possibly blame the consumer? Seriously? I thought people of that opinion were just something Malstrom made up to mess with people. You honestly believe that? Video games are a business, you can't blame your customers for not buying your product. It's incredibly childish. And one more time, seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Yes, yes I am serious. In the world of video games, the customer is not ALWAYS right. Everytime a game doesn't sell, you guys fall back on "well if your game didn't suck, people would buy it".

What did Capcom do wrong with Okami? What did Sega do wrong with Valkyria Chronicles? What did EA do wrong with Mirror's Edge and Dead Space? What did Ubisoft do with wrong with Prince of Persia? What did Epic/Midway do wrong with Unreal Tournament 3?

Under the sentiment of "make better games, and people will buy them", how do you explain the low sales of the above games? The developer lived up to their end of the bargain, and since you believe that if they make better games, people will consequentially buy them...yet they don't sell very well, who's, then, to blame?

Are you SERIOUSLY going to say "I blame the developer for making a good game."? Or I guess all those games aren't "appealing" and 3rd parties should all make Wii Fit-esque games so they all sell 20M+

Edit: At the end of the day, YOU can't blame the developer for putting out great games. YOU want them to produce great games, and when they do, YOU can't blame THEM for YOU not purchasing the game. "Make better games and they will sell". When they put it out good games, it is then YOUR duty to buy them. YOU can't say it's the developer's fault that YOU didn't buy their GREAT game. Or should I blame Capcom for YOU not buying Okami? I heard Okami was a great game, maybe even one of the best on the PS2. I blame myself for not buying it, because well...I didn't buy a great game. Or should I say "curse you Capcom for putting out quality! I won't buy this!"?

They did few wrong things, basically creating highly artistic and not very appealing game like Okami Capcom should never expect blockbuster type of sales. Same with titles like Prince of Perisa , Mirror's Edge both Ubisoft and EA shoul'dve anticipated that they did not suit the stereotyping game on PS360 that sells , they werent big blockbusters filled with explosions , they were games trying to offer something different and publishers shouldve expected different kind of sales. But no they simply overinvested in resources and time.

What THQ argues is irrational, games like Deadly Creatures  and Madworld might be good but they will only cater to a small group of gamers, and they wouldnt sell better on any console.


Big Games on the Wii sell likee the big Games on PS3 and 360, big games that appeal to both casual market and the gamers (Mario, Halo, Gears, MGS etc. etc.)