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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Visceral Games:"Shame no one bought DS:Extraction, Wii support reconsidered

outlawauron said:
patjuan32 said:
outlawauron said:
patjuan32 said:
silicon said:
patjuan32 said:
NYANKS said:
This is becoming a running theme on the Wii. The Quality to sales connection on the Wii isn't as strong as on the other systems. If many Wii owners don't read reviews, all they have to go by is their eyes. "Ooh, Sonic and Mario in the SAME game, at the Olympics?! What game can be better than that?!" It's hard to overcome that on the Wii. At least thats the way it seems.

The orginal Dead Space failed to sale on the HD systems  and that game received critical acclaim from game journalist and also had high scores. There were also advertisements and a movie. Yet no one,at EA, complained about the sales. Nor did they threaten to stop supporting the HD system because of this.

Actually combined PS3 and X360 Dead Space sold more than 1.5 million so far and that is really good sales. Dead Space also sld about 370k opening week on X360 and PS3 which is also really good. DS:E only sold 50k so far on Wii.

No actually it is not. That's 1.5 Million on two platforms. While other games have sold a Million or more on each individual platform. Dead Rising for the Xbox 360 sold over a million units and The port of  The House of the Dead 1 & 2 sold over a million units on the Wii.

If all you have to make an argument is to compare a third person shooter to a light gun game then I do not really believe that you actually have an argument. Light gun games rarely sale extremely well while third person shooters routinely do.

In comparison, what Dead Space did on PS360 is fantastic.

Maybe to you but Not according to EA.

In comparison.

I'd think that 9k makes 370k first month look pretty good.

This is a pretty stupid debate DS:E still has a chance if they drop the price to a budget game but its pretty obvious EA is disappointed with both, just one actually sold well but EA stating they still lost money on it is pretty sad, while the Wii game is selling at pathetic levels and if something doesn't change EA looks to lose money on that project as well...

Both of you are arguing which one did worse :P The Wii game still has a chance if they drop the price since 30 dollar on rail games sell pretty well 50 dollar rail shooters don't.  But if the Wii project ends up losing money as well they're both failues put it like that :P



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

Around the Network

Wait. Why do some of you think it was reusing assets? Do you actually think putting HD games on the Wii is cut & paste?

Seriously?

They didn't reuse assets. Those assets had to be remade. You can see from the textures and polygon counts that these are not the same assets. They were just designed to keep the same art direction.



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

Garcian Smith said:
woopah said:
dead space fans were put off my console choice
core wii gamers were put off by genre
lightgun fans put off by price point


who exactly are they selling this game to?

Good question.

A good product is marketed like this: "Hey, look at all of these cool bells and whistles that you'll get if you buy [product]! [Product] is awesome!"

Most of the "test games" for the Wii from third parties have been marketed to core Wii gamers like this: "Buy [product] if you want to see more of [product category]. And we swear that the next [product] will be better than this half-hearted effort! All we need are sales of this one!"

Do you see what's wrong with this picture? Third parties are marketing their core-market "test games" to nobody. The only incentive that they present for buying one of these "test games" is to see other games on the core market. They think that consumers (core-market consumers in particular, but also consumers in general) are stupid enough to throw their money away on a product that has no discernable benefit to them except for a vague promise of something better in the future that you'll have to pay even more money for.

Basically, they're approaching the whole concept wrong. If they had released a game that consumers wanted for its own benefits, they would have succeeded. But this "test game" garbage is nothing more than negative marketing, and time and again the sales numbers have shown that it doesn't work because consumers are too smart to fall for it. And then, each and every time, the developers or publishers of the "test game" wring their hands and state, "Look! There's no market for core games on the Wii!"

In reality, they're just self-fulfilling their own dire prophecies.

I completely agree with these posts and I'll go one step further.

Could you imagine Dead Space Extraction being released at retail on 360/PS3? I can't, because personally I think the user base would balk at the game. No online, and short, shallow gameplay compared to the original. This would be an XBL Arcade or PSN title at best, where it would sell for no more than $15-20. But then, it would have to compete with deeper games like Wipeout HD, Braid, Shadow Complex, and Bionic Commando Rearmed.

As said before, many good 3rd party Wii games are niche titles that wouldn't have sold much better on 360/PS3 such as De Blob, No More Heroes, and Little King Story. On the flipside, look at Call of Duty for Wii, Pro Evo Soccer, Tiger Woods, and Guitar Hero. These were solid, REAL efforts compared to their HD counterparts, and they sold accordingly (notice how they all had online as well). Show us the Wii's Mass Effect, or the Wii's Fallout 3, or the Wii's Halo (no, Conduit doesn't count). Can't find anything? Neither can the gamers.

Having played Dead Space Extraction, I do think it's a good game. However, in no way is it worth $50, especially when you can find superior games on XBL or PSN for 1/5 the price. Considering though that Wii games usually start out slow, with a few price drops I don't think 300-500k lifetime sales is out of the question. It's still early.



MaxwellGT2000 said:
outlawauron said:
patjuan32 said:
outlawauron said:
patjuan32 said:
silicon said:
patjuan32 said:
NYANKS said:
This is becoming a running theme on the Wii. The Quality to sales connection on the Wii isn't as strong as on the other systems. If many Wii owners don't read reviews, all they have to go by is their eyes. "Ooh, Sonic and Mario in the SAME game, at the Olympics?! What game can be better than that?!" It's hard to overcome that on the Wii. At least thats the way it seems.

The orginal Dead Space failed to sale on the HD systems  and that game received critical acclaim from game journalist and also had high scores. There were also advertisements and a movie. Yet no one,at EA, complained about the sales. Nor did they threaten to stop supporting the HD system because of this.

Actually combined PS3 and X360 Dead Space sold more than 1.5 million so far and that is really good sales. Dead Space also sld about 370k opening week on X360 and PS3 which is also really good. DS:E only sold 50k so far on Wii.

No actually it is not. That's 1.5 Million on two platforms. While other games have sold a Million or more on each individual platform. Dead Rising for the Xbox 360 sold over a million units and The port of  The House of the Dead 1 & 2 sold over a million units on the Wii.

If all you have to make an argument is to compare a third person shooter to a light gun game then I do not really believe that you actually have an argument. Light gun games rarely sale extremely well while third person shooters routinely do.

In comparison, what Dead Space did on PS360 is fantastic.

Maybe to you but Not according to EA.

In comparison.

I'd think that 9k makes 370k first month look pretty good.

This is a pretty stupid debate DS:E still has a chance if they drop the price to a budget game but its pretty obvious EA is disappointed with both, just one actually sold well but EA stating they still lost money on it is pretty sad, while the Wii game is selling at pathetic levels and if something doesn't change EA looks to lose money on that project as well...

Both of you are arguing which one did worse :P The Wii game still has a chance if they drop the price since 30 dollar on rail games sell pretty well 50 dollar rail shooters don't.  But if the Wii project ends up losing money as well they're both failues put it like that :P

Well, it seems going that way. I think Gamestop has dropped the price to $40.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Dark Chaos said:
Kenology said:

@ Dark Chaos:

The game really didn't have any advertising though.  You shouldn't mistake Nintendo mentioning it at E3 with it having an actual marketing campaign. I believe it's a good game (I just bought it), but it was already doomed. RE:UC sold because it was a good game and had the "RESIDENT EVIL" name attached. That's the same reason why the sequel will sell too.

I understand that the advertising wasnt there and it would have sold more if theres was a few more ads. I am just annoyed when ppl use excuses as its not a good game or its too short or too many rail shooters as an excuse when the developers make a great hardcore game for the Wii that didn't sell well.


Hi.

Where you see an excuse I see a reason for why they haven't bought it. The length of the game is short and there are other rails games they may have bought. Some people don't realise how good this game is obviously, but to say that third party quality does not sell is not true. Big budget games by third parties have not sold because there hasn't been any.

There are a few trolls bringing up points regarding other trolls and projecting it on to all Wii owners. It's a bit dull. It might be interesting to analyse why this game hasn't sold (yet) without the drab 'Wii does not' or 'lack of effort' arguments. There was effort by the programmers that much is certain, whether EA has marketed it well is a more interesting debate.

Some people say lack of effort because it doesn't match what was done with the other Dead Space. People (on the internet and perhaps beyond) want top-notch expansive 3d adventure games. There has been nothing beyond Okami and Zelda really, though a few other games may qualify.



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

Around the Network
chriscox1121 said:
I could care less about the game and the threats 3rd parties make about the Wii. I buy games that I think will be good according to my taste. I could care less if someone put so much time and effort into a game and it doesn't sell. I buy the ones I want, that's my choice as a consumer. I didn't buy a Wii to play shooters, i bought it because Nintendo knows how to make games, and every once in awhile a 3rd party will make a gem.

Grammar police: I couldn't care less

I could care less means you actually could care less and therefore care in some respect. I see this error so often that I'm going to point it out every time I see it. I am that anal.



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

LordTheNightKnight said:
Wait. Why do some of you think it was reusing assets? Do you actually think putting HD games on the Wii is cut & paste?

Seriously?

They didn't reuse assets. Those assets had to be remade. You can see from the textures and polygon counts that these are not the same assets. They were just designed to keep the same art direction.

Nice strawman.

Here's my strawman retaliation: Do you actually think that it costs just as much to create new monsters, settings and animations as it does to adapt HD art assets to a Wii engine?

For an example of how cheap this can be, Treyarch has ported CoD4 to the Wii with a team of 30 people working for one year, making engine enhancements along the way. Visceral probably had more work to do, since they actually had to make some new content, but you can bet that it saves money to know exactly what the monster will look like, to take the animations that have already been made, and the sounds which were already recorded for necromorphs and the Ishimura.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

LordTheNightKnight said:
kingofwale said:
It's simply unreasonable to expect a third-party game to do well on Wii JUST because it recieved high-review scores.

Didn't work for Zak and Wiki

Didn't work for Mad World

Didn't work for NMH


Just face it, most game buyers (and yes, I mean the people who actually go buy games) don't read reviews.

Fixed, because this applies to all systems. Sure the best selling HD games often get high reviews, but not always, and those reviews often come more from pleasing critics (or some other less ethical methods).

People didn't buy GTA IV because of the reveiws. They bought it because it was another 3D world GTA game.

Demon's Souls say hi.

MLB09 The Show says hi

Uncharted 1 says hi

 



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

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

famousringo said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Wait. Why do some of you think it was reusing assets? Do you actually think putting HD games on the Wii is cut & paste?

Seriously?

They didn't reuse assets. Those assets had to be remade. You can see from the textures and polygon counts that these are not the same assets. They were just designed to keep the same art direction.

Nice strawman.

That isn't a strawman. The term "resuing assets" means you take the assets as they are. Which is a form of cutting and pasting. If you didn't mean that, you used the wrong term. Don't assume I'm making a strawman just because we might now know what the other means.

Here's my strawman retaliation: Do you actually think that it costs just as much to create new monsters, settings and animations as it does to adapt HD art assets to a Wii engine?

It actually can. The main cost reduction is planning, but you still have to remake all the polygons, texturing, mapping, coding, etc., which often does cost about as much as if it was a completely new IP.

For an example of how cheap this can be, Treyarch has ported CoD4 to the Wii with a team of 30 people working for one year, making engine enhancements along the way.

That engine is scaleable, and when did they say that was cheap to do?

Visceral probably had more work to do, since they actually had to make some new content, but you can bet that it saves money to know exactly what the monster will look like, to take the animations that have already been made, and the sounds which were already recorded for necromorphs and the Ishimura.

No, it doesn't. They know how it looks in HD. That's like assuming knowing how a finshed house looks means making another would be cheap. Only game porting and conversions are even more complex than that.

You assume I'm making a strawman, but you are using tenuous factors to make a conclusion, forgetting that there are other factors that make the conclusion false.



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

I don't want any more rail shooters, that's why I didn't buy a copy