noname2200 said:
[quote]Oh, I'm afraid you're quite wrong here, Legend11. You see, it's only in your head that Nintendo has this magical fairy-like ability to automatically sell titles, regardless of quality. While I enjoy this fiction that the trolls have created, that Nintendo simply does not count, I have to tell you that Nintendo games are very much so a barometer of what's possible on the system. Oh, I'm afraid you're quite wrong here, noname22 (did I come off sounding as pompous as you did?). Anyways I'm not sure if you live in the Mushroom Kingdom or wherever but I live in the real world where you know there's reality. The reality is that Nintendo games dominate sales on their consoles. No really I'm not making it up you can actually look at sales on VGChartz, give it a try. (Hint: Just because someone says something you don't want to hear, it's not trolling!). See the other console manufacturers have strong brands for their systems but nowhere near the number and whoring that Nintendo does with theirs. Mario & Sonic at the Olympic games for example, do you really think that if it had been just the name Sonic that it would have sold near what it's doing now? Mario Strikers, Mario Tennis, Mario and Cooking Mama's Great Cook Off (don't get too excited, I was kidding about that last one). Oh and just in case you still don't get it and believe I'm just making this stuff up here's something I found after using Google for 1 minute... "Cousens, like other third-party publishers, lamented the fact that Nintendo always dominates software sales on its own platforms. "The global event that's been marked as a surprise for most people is the huge success that Nintendo's achieved in every territory..." - Rod Cousens, chief executive at publisher Codemasters Not really as pompous, but that's partly because you neglected to get my name right. So your argument is that "Nintendo games sell well, therefore they don't count." Alternatively put, "Nintendo games are magical devices that always do gangbusters, and therefore they don't indicate sales potential for anyone but Nintendo. Because, y'know, Nintendo's has this magical fairy-like ability to automatically sell titles, regardless of quality." All you've demonstrated is that Nintendo games sell very well. Head back up and point out for me where I dispute that, because I'm very interested in seeing what lead you to believe I ever said anything even remotely like that. You don't seem to be arguing against anything I'm saying, Legend11, but rather...what you want me to say? I'm not really sure. To break this down for you: Nintendo games, even their traditional ones, sell very well. You've wasted time proving something we quite agree on. Where we don't see eye to eye is that you claim that there's some mysterious force in the universe that makes it so only Nintendo's core titles will sell on its system, so therefore the incredible sales of Galaxy, Brawl, et. al. just don't count when deciding the potential for anyone else's sales. Third-parties, some people reason, will cheerfully believe they can do Nintendo-like numbers on "casual" software like Wii Fit, but they know, instinctively (?), that "only Nintendo can sell core titles on their systems." So Nintendo counts when you want it to, but not when you don't. And you haven't done a lick to prove that that should be the case.
I said it before, in this very thread, and I'll say it again: Nintendo games are very much so indicative of what a quality game can sell. And you're being quite silly if you think third-parties don't believe that. Or was it a mere coincidence, for example, that exercise games started popping up like moles once Wii Fit was successful? Strange how you think third-parties will closely examine Nintendo when it suits your own prejudices, while simultaneously expousing that they will completely ignore Nintendo's example when it doesn't suit you. Strange indeed...
Umm I'm "being quite silly"? Who even talks like that? Are we going to see you giggling like a young school girl next? Anyways of course third-parties look at what Nintendo is doing and how their games are doing. They also look at what is selling on the system. And like it or not it's casual games that are selling the most and are the most lucrative. Do you really find it that difficult to understand that? It's not prejudice on my part, it's reality. Yup, you're still being quite silly indeed. Here, you're yet again doing exactly what I've accused you of. The notion you're implying, that "casual games" are the only real software being moved on the system, is true if and only if you ignore the majority of Nintendo's output on the system. You'd also have to deliberately overlook the numerous third-party examples that contradict your statement (many of which have already been mentioned in this thread...). So while you're admitting here that third-parties do "look at what Nintendo is doing and how their games are doing...(and) what is selling on the system," you conclude that the "casual" stuff is selling and core software isn't worthwhile. Do you really find it that difficult to see why your conclusion can not follow from your thought process? Can you not see how it is essentially a logical non-sequitir? CoD - So I read your reasoning for the poor sales of CoD 5 is because CoD 4 didn't go to the Wii? Wow, games like Resident Evil and Devil May Cry have never been on an Xbox platform but it still was able to hold it's own for those games. The Wii version of Guitar Hero 3 held it's own against the HD versions of the game even though Guitar Hero 2 was never on Wii, umm why is that? If you're going to use the excuse of CoD 4 not being on Wii then why bring any major hardcore franchise to the WIi that has already been on the HD consoles? Ah, you did read my previous posts! Yay! Now to why you're wrong again. The series you referred to were previously released in the last generation: Resident Evil 3 did not come out this generation on the 360, then have explosive growth with Resident Evil 4 (not available on the 360), only to see Resident Evil 5 return to the 360. It's the same story with Devil May Cry. In this generation, the userbase wasn't on any console before those games released. In fact, let me once again point out that when Call of Duty 3 released, the Wii's version was the second best-selling one... Oh so you're moving the goal post. See I seem to remember Resident Evil games being released this generation on the Wii. Is that in my head as well? I mean those games are being held up as the champions of third-party hardcore games on the Wii and you've forgotten about them? So those games brought absolutely none of the RE userbase to the Wii? Why is it that the 360 never even has a game in a series on its console and still can hold its own while the Wii can't? Oh but the Wii can hold its own with Guitar Hero 3 and others, funny how it doesn't matter for casual games but suddenly it's the big excuse for hardcore games. Rest assured that Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition is not just in your head. Your reading of my post, however, most definitely is. "Moving the goal post" requires setting one standard, and then moving the standard when the original one is reached. What we have in my post is called a "response." What we have in yours is what is known in academic circles as a "WTF?" Scholars use that term when a response to a post is not only completely failing to understand the quoted material, but is also ascribing a meaning to the quoted material that would not even occur to a rational individual. Once again, I'll break it down for you: I theorized that World at War "only" sold over a million copies on the Wii because the userbase had largely transferred to the HD consoles, because the breakout CoD game (y'know, the one where the series suddenly more than tripled its sales and became front-page news?) completely skipped the Wii. You responded that RE5 and Devil May Cry did very well for themselves on the 360 despite the fact that RE4 and DMC 3 were not on the 360. I replied that RE4 and DMC 3 weren't on any current-generation console (although the Wii received a port of the former, which did very well, especially considering it was the fourth release of the exact same game). Since the game didn't really establish a userbase on any console, it was nowhere near as challenging to attract the userbase to the 360 when RE5+DMC 4 came out. And then you...wrote what you wrote. I'd reply in more detail, but I have absolutely no idea where it came from, and as appears to be par for the course with you it's charging me with claims I never made, so I must decline your generous invitation. But if you ever feel like responding to what I actually wrote, I'll be happy to resume. As for your rhetorical question at the end, I think having over a million in retail sales is a pretty darn good answer. It's also helpful to developers in other ways. Did you know, for example, that without the Wii version to back up the HD version, World at War was doing worse than Modern Warfare was at the same timeframe? True story!
So you're saying that third-parties should just drop Wii versions of their hardcore games and focus more on the 360/PS3/PC ones since when the Wii is in the mix the games can't keep up in sales with the previous version? If that's what you're trying to say then I really have no comment. You're welcome to avoid comment (in this case, I wish you had!). In fact, in the future I implore you to avoid commenting when you fail to utilize even basic reading comprehension. In other words, I must yet again invite you to read what I actually wrote, and respond to that, rather than responding to what you apparently wish that I wrote. Do this as a favor to me, as I find it much easier to converse with someone that replies to what I actually said. And just in case you still don't get it: that's not at all what I'm trying to say. As anyone over the fifth-grade could have told you, it's in fact the complete opposite... Yeah, I guess it is too bad that the fourth release of a three year old game didn't come out at full retail. I'm just stating that is was a budget game. I'm not saying they should have charged full price for it, just that third-parties likely took its price into consideration when looking at its sales. But they ignore the fact that any and all interested consumer could have already bought this game three times already? Because that seems...rather important. And I don't rightly recall making mention of a Wii version of RE5 doing better than it would on the two HD consoles combined, only that the two games were successful on the Wii. Which, y'know, is what the discussion was about and all. Fortunately, you don't seem to disagree. That makes this entire section a waste of bandwidth, but so it goes, eh?
The two games were successful on the Wii, I'm not arguing that. As I stated RE4 was a budget game, take that to mean what you want. Also a million is fine but when you can have a game selling 4+ million on HD consoles and PC what is so amazing about a million on the Wii? After you get past paying for the development the millions on HD consoles are more lucrative because of the higher price and the fact that sales are front loaded. That means there's likely less price drops, production runs, etc. Glad to hear that you're not arguing that. And I'm stating that RE4:WE was the fourth release of RE4 (over two years after the initial release). Take that to mean what you want that there are at least one and a half million Wii owners who are willing to buy a fairly old Resident Evil game, let alone a new one. You state that RE5 sold better on the HD consoles than it would have as a Wii-exclusive (I think). You may in fact be right. Unfortunately for you, we're I have not once turned this thread into a pissing contest of "who would sell more of X-franchise, the two HD consoles and PC combined, or the Wii alone?" Lest you forget, the original claim was "the Wii can't sell traditional software." I've demonstrated, even to your satisfaction, that it has. Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. "Third-party hardcore franchises" on the Wii have only a handful of success stories, I'll admit. But then "third-party hardcore franchises" themselves are, to steal your phrase, "few and far between" in the first place. And yet, more often than not, those that tried end up succeeding. It's rather similar to the story on the HD console, in fact, with the minor difference that I can't recall any developer going out of business or merging because their Wii game flopped. Succeeding but not to the extent that people would expect. I laugh when people talk about the previous game made by MadWorld's developers. Can anyone with a straight face claim that God Hand got even remotely the amount of attention that MadWorld did? Hell God Hand came out near the end of the PS2's life when things were winding down, MadWorld came out when the Wii is red hot and in its prime. For once, I can say honestly and without qualifications that you're correct on two matters: God Hand didn't get as much attention as Madworld, and the Wii is hotter now than the PS2 was when God Hand came out. Unfortunately we once again part ways after that; where you gleefully stop your analysis there, I opt to finish thinking the matter through. And I have to wonder: is there any 3-hour long beat-em-up that would sell gangbusters nowadays, any indication that it appeals to more people than God Hand did? Just wondering. For what little it's worth, I'm perfectly happy to concede that Madworld was a bomb, although part of my altruism no doubt springs from the fact that there are plenty of Wii games that succeeded where Madworld failed. And that there are some 360 games in the same genre that failed as well... In fact, I rather enjoy tracing how this conversation has gone. It all begins with someone claiming that "hardcore" (ugh, that word...) games don't sell on the Wii, and citing No More Heroes. Confronted with proof that that's demonstrably not the case, and that the publisher is weeping with delight (their words, not mine) with its sales, the discussion shifts to "well yeah, it may have made lots of money, but it's not big enough to convince others to take a chance." (ignoring the fact that it's one that paid off!) Whereupon several titles that are bigger, and have done well enough to do just such convincing, are introduced. And the response to that is "those don't count!"
Look Nintendo first-party games sell well on their system. Third-Parties know that and take that into consideration when looking at game sales. Do you honestly think they would treat them the same way if they were instead hardcore third-party games selling 8-10+ million each on Wii? I can tell you now we wouldn't be having this conversation as the Wii would be seeing a lot more support. So again, Nintendo doesn't count. While third-parties were perfectly happy to emulate Mario/Zelda/Metroid etc. not too long ago (often times quite successfully...) they've become quite gun-shy, except when it comes to the "casual" games. Please tell me you see why that doesn't make sense. You know, I can't really hold this against anyone. At the clinic I work at, I often meet clients who owe large sums of money that they simply can't pay. They all react in different ways, but there's this small block of folks who, confronted with a reality they don't want to deal with, essentially squeeze their eyes shut and pray that if they ignore reality long enough, it will do them the favor of going away. It never does, of course, and the messes that result are often times quite ugly. I'm honestly grateful that, when folks ignore the realities of the Wii's gaming market, the worst that can happen to them is that they look a bit silly, and ultimately end up eating crow when yet another company comes out and says Game X sold quite well, thank you very much.
Do you want a cookie because you work at a clinic? The only one I see with their eyes shut and ignore reality is you. I back up my statements with sales from here, quotes from people in the industry, etc. The next time you claim something is just in my head USE GOOGLE and look it up for yourself. Oh and have fun at the clinic you work for in the Mushroom Kingdom, I'm sure it's fun working with Dr. Mario! I like cookies, but mostly people just bring me more hispanic treats. And while I applaud you for backing up some of your statements with actual facts (here, you can have one of my cookies this time), those are always the ones the statements that don't support your thesis in full. I congratulate you on submitting evidence of the statements where I don't disagree with you about, to wit "Nintendo sells a crapload of software" and "everyone knows Nintendo sells a crapload of software." Well done on mastering the search engine! Unfortunately, "Nintendo sells a crapload of software" isn't your main thesis, it's just part of what you're basing your overall argument on. Again, for the record, what you're trying to say is that it's not worthwhile for third-parties to make core titles on the Wii. On my side are several core titles that have done quite well on the system, both first-and-third party. The support you've offered for your side is "Nintendo core games are magical, and therefore don't indicate anything," and...well, I'm not really sure what else. You wrote a lot, but most of it doesn't seem to be on-point, as you're too often busy talking to someone besides me, even though you quote my post to do so. =^/ |
This could be its own thread
