By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rpruett on 24 March 2009
Edit Thread
Kenny said:
Rpruett said:

Rpruett said:

 

 

Just to keep things in perspective...

For your assertion that the Wii was the safe bet, we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  If you remember the GameCube last generation, Nintendo was on the verge of being rendered totally irrelevant in the console wars.  The number of loyalists who would buy their hardware no matter what had gotten smaller than ever, and by 2005, people never spoke of the GameCube when it came to console gaming.  When you consider that they totally defied everyone's expectations by diverting their focus from graphics to controls, I can think of no bigger risk they could have taken.  The PS3, I hold, was not (meant to be) a risk in the least, because it stayed in famliar territory and took the route of "bigger and better", which was exactly what the gaming media and the market expected.

 

You and I are talking risk to totally different quantities.  I'm talking the Nintendo bottom line (And by bottom line I mean money).  They were taking no risk monetarily (In terms of losses) on the Wii.  Minimal sales probably still would have been enough to form a profit on the system. 

Coming out with a new controller isn't that risky as far as I'm concerned. (Nintendo has released a new controller type every generation thus far) Which is all the Wii has done. 

 

Risky, would be doing something like Microsoft did last generation or similar to what Sony did this generation.

 

 

On the idea that third parties will simply make their games multiplatform, isn't that what they're already doing?  As well, how much more money can third parties demand?  Rockstar got $50 million in assistance for GTA IV, and their parent company recently posted a loss even after selling 13 million copies!  I've been watching the third party financial reports, and I'm seeing that even companies like EA are losing money in the face of record revenues (granted Activision is still making money, but World of Warcraft is an exceptional money-printing case).  Simply put, the reports make me question whether HD game development is fundamentally sustainable given the current methods in use.

 

The costs of HD development will drop.  SD development has forged onward for years, we are just reaching the end of that line. Costs are essentially as low as they can get for SD development.  HD costs are going to do nothing but fall.  Especially as HD adoption rates continue to skyrocket. 

Companies will continue HD development because they have devoted tons of money into it. 

 

 

Here's the point: The overall pool for third party dollars on the Wii clearly exists, and at worst, rivals the XBox 360's same pool.  Over time, that balance is only going to shift in Nintendo's favour, and it will be up to the third parties to haul their buckets over to that pool.  It's not Nintendo's fault if third parties bring leaking coffee mugs instead of buckets.

I think the point I was making was that I mean there is a HUGE difference on Nintendo in terms of sales/software genres.  Just look at the actual software on the 41 millions sellers list.

Mario/Sonic/Pokemon/Rayman/Zelda/Metroid Games /'Wii'/Nintendo made games alone account for 21 of those 41. So I mean essentially 50% of sales of the 41 million sellers on the Wii are purely Nintendo branded.  When you factor in how many of those games are family games for children of all ages.  You have an even greater percentage of those games.  

Then the other bit of information on Wii games.  Is that developers have NO idea what Wii gamers want.  Of the 41 million sellers on the Wii,  21 of those titles sit below (2 million sold).  In otherwords,  51% of the Wii million sellers have not sold over 2 million copies.   Compare that to the million sellers between the 360/PS3.