Are third parties morons or are their actions deliberate?

[Squilliam]

RolStoppable said:

Squilliam said:

RolStoppable said:

You'll make tons of money by keeping the HD path? That didn't really happen though. But, of course, this is what third parties hoped as to how things would play out. This win-win scenario happened to be more of a lose-lose scenario in the end.

Can you really prove that they would have lost any less money had they focused more heavily on the Wii and released twice the number of games? The issue really has always been too many developers and not enough software revenue. It doesn't matter how much each project costs to develop and I doubt it makes much difference if they release 3 Wii games for every one DX9 console game not made because its unlikely that overall industry software revenues would have increased much to compensate for increased development focus on the Wii.

At least by focusing on the DX9 consoles they developed software which will remain relevant for longer and invested in relevant technology which they would have needed to do anyway. Development on the Wii first and foremost would only really post-pone or defer the required investment to a later date.

Why should I even attempt to prove this, if my point is simply that (most) third parties made the wrong decisions which is based on them losing money?

But I want to say something on this three vs. one game thing. Having three games rather than just one gives you greater flexibility. There's a higher probability that you have a hit on your hands, because you have three chances to hit it big. The individual development cost of a game is lower, meaning you can scrap it in a later stage of development and still lose less money. Or you can lay off less talented staff altogether more easily. In the end it's better for risk management, because you are less likely to have put all your eggs into the same basket. That of course doesn't guarantee success, but it lowers the probability of failure.

It's also not just about technology in terms of graphics, because games are more than that. With gaming exploring new control methods you could end up having a game with the best possible graphics that not many people want to play because the controls feel antiquated. Third parties have been doing themselves a disservice by developing for the HD consoles first and foremost as it won't be easy to make games with new control methods. This isn't going to be that big of problem for the biggest franchises, but everything that isn't based on an already popular IP is likely to run into trouble sooner or later.

But actually, that last paragraph isn't really important. Too often we look at this as an "either or" thing when it comes to good third party support. Wouldn't it be for the best for most third parties if they would split their resources on all relevant gaming systems to reduce the risk of being on the wrong side of a trend? The question shouldn't be "Wii or HD?", rather it should be "Why not both?".

Why should you attempt to prove this? Well you did make this thread...

Talent isn't always divisible. If you split one of the big successful developers into multiple component parts it doesn't mean that all the components will have equal chances of making successful games or that the games would likely add up to more in overall sales than a single game created by the whole company. Most of the successful game developers already prototype several different game concepts before they decide on the one concept to move forward with. It doesn't make much difference except that with three developers they would move forward on the top 3 game concepts rather than the single best one. The large supporting cast of developers around the core talent for the DX9 games on consoles are there to maximise the value of the core talent which are the people whom really are the true money makers.

Maybe its not the developers fault in regards to core games on the Wii. Perhaps the Wii simply isn't suitable for a wide range of game styles because gestures perhaps aren't adequate replacements for buttons. Maybe instead its the control scheme itself which needs to catch up to what the core game developers and the audience need for their games. The Wii is a unique platform with problems unique to it as a first place console when compared to other first place platforms. It follows logically that some of the unique issues related to the Wii are problems which exist with present Wii design, including the controller.

The publishers are supporting both but in general they have suffered major losses and have seemed to have pared back their development efforts for both the DX9 consoles and the Wii. It doesn't seem that from their behaviour or their balance sheets that they are having any more luck developing games on the Wii as compared to on the DX9 consoles in that development resources haven't shifted significantly in either direction since the start of the present generation. Theres nothing which has happened in the Wii market which has given any real encouragement for publishers. Possibly the reason for the lack of core support is that developers have tried and failed so spectacularly that the games haven't even been able to limp to the market so whilst they may have tried you would have seen no sign of it.