Arius Dion said:
Procrastinato said:
Arius Dion said:
Procrastinato: The only way one can say Wii doesn't sell "M" games is to magnify the games that didn't sell well (which is generally more than the game just being rated M) And ignore the M games that did sell well (which again is generally more about the game itself moreso than the ESRB rating)
Also from looking at Wii's game collection and seeing the games that sell, I'm noticing a lot of "fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me" So many of the "mini game" "petz and deca sports and even Shaun White, boom blox etc (I could go on lol) Wii owners like something fresh and aren't into the whole annual purchase of the same game with minor tweaks sort of thing.
I remember a quote from Miyamoto early on in Wii's life making reference to if third parties want success on the platform, they need to designate their A teams to the Wii instead of the C teams being asked to make a Wii game. This hasn't happened. 3 yrs in and there hasn't been a AAA third party effort yet. Save for MH3 which proves the opposite of what many third parties (and forum dwellers) are saying. |
MH3 hasn't shipped outside of Japan yet, but given prior MH sales outside of Japan, I doubt that it'll sell a significant amount more than it has. It's not a landmark yet. It's sold a million in the franchise's historically most significant and clear target market. That's nice, but its not a landslide. FF 13 has already demolished its sales #s, and on a platform which is vastly outnumbered by the Wii.
On top of that, I don't think you have any data on how MH3 was made, to use it as an example. Did it re-use/upgrade art resources from the PSP and PS2 MH games? Did it re-use single-threaded engine technology -- the Wii is, in a sense, a super version of the PSP, from an architectural and code API standpoint. How much did it cost to make? Do you know, or are you just assuming the best, based on Western publishers' comments on their average Wii dev costs?
|
Ok. I don't know how much dev cost for MH3. You got me. But let's see, a game sells over a Million and has P2P online in ONE region. No other third party game had achieved this feat in Japan until FFXIII (Which I wonder how much THAT game needs to sell in order to secure profit, do you know the dev costs for that one?) Capcom came out and credited MH3 for their rosy financials for the quarter. So I fail to see your point. Where the point I was trying to make clear that a game that was supposed to go to PS3 changed platforms due to dev costs and sold very well. I'm secure in believing DQX will sell very well. But these are games that will sell well regardless of platform. RE5 wouldn't have sold on Wii?
|
My point was that, as long as you don't understand the details as to *why* a game profited well (ports, for example, are extremely profitable, because their dev costs are *very* low. CoD Wii is undoubtably very profitable), you can't apply it as an example of how other games should be developed.
MH3 isn't a huge leap forward from other MH games, which were already beautiful. Yes, its the most beautiful, as the latest iteration in a franchise often is, but it doesn't actually seem as though the engine is much different than previous MH games. Improved, yes, but pretty derivative/iterative in nature. That's kinda self-explanatory, to me.
I would put MH3's improvements over its predecessors on the same level as the recent God of War re-releases on the PS3 over their predecessors. The games didn't actually change hardly at all, outside of have some restraints removed, due to the extra horsepower of the PS3 over the PS2 -- yet its much nicer looking. And it was dirt cheap.
