Reggie: Third parties don't "get" the Wii, more

[donathos]

Groucho said:

theRepublic said:

Groucho said:
I'd like to put forward that, until a Wii game requires 500K (or so) to break even, it really won't have the production values and draw of the HD titles that require the same. You get what you pay for, and what you invest in (usually).

The fact that Wii games don't get much budget is the problem. Its not some sort of "boon" to the Wii.

Going back to your original point, I agree that third parties should invest more in development for Wii titles.  It just doesn't take nearly as much as it does for HD games.  Comparing high production values to high production values, HD games are two to four times as expensive as Wii games.  This is largely due to the fact that Wii games only need to look good in SD, while 360 and PS3 games need to look good in HD.

 

I think we mostly agree on this, except that I would differ with the "2-4x as much".  A good Wii game should cost nearly as much as a good HD game.  A HD game should cost 2x as much at the most... in most cases it should be 1.5x as much or less.  It will never be even, however. since HD game designs are, by nature, more ambitious.

The publishers have been putting in the 1/2 to 1/4th that you're suggesting.  I think its pretty clear that its not enough to produce consistantly decent games.

My argument is more toward the "Why should publishers invest, when the PS2 still sells games" arena, though.  I think the reason 3rd party Wii games generally stink is obvious.  I find it curious that Reggie would blame publishers for, basically, wanting to keep pursuing the PS2, and noting that the Wii can handle anything the PS2 might get.

 

Why would publishers want "to keep pursuing the PS2"? It seems to me that, outside of some EA sports franchises and rhythm games, PS2 titles hardly chart anymore. I'm sure they sell something, but I can't imagine those sales would be worth toning down Wii titles that could potentially sell much more...