| RolStoppable said: What makes more financial sense? Building a game (but not a spinoff) from an established IP from the ground up for Wii or doing the same with a new IP? I would say the former and I suppose you would agree with that. We see third parties doing the opposite though. I am not using a mythical AAA label, I am going by its real definition: high production values and marketing campaign, in other words a company's flagship game (or one of several). That is a AAA game. I don't have to bend the truth here, it's you who is putting words in my mouth. Go ahead and make a full list of AAA third party games and analyse their sales. It won't take long, because there hardly are any games that fit the AAA definition. There's one good reason why a third party publisher wouldn't want to make a high profile title for the Wii: It would mean to admit on being wrong on betting the farm on the HD consoles at the beginning of this generation. That could mean getting removed from the company for poor management decisions. But if a Wii game is set up for failure, so that it doesn't sell, then the company's head can say that he made the right decision by fully banking on the 360 and PS3. |
Most people just boil it down to metrics ratings (metacritic, etc.), which doesn't really tell the whole story, but there isn't any objective way to measure high production values and marketing. It's relative. AAA production values, budget and marketing don't guarantee AAA ratings and more importantly (to the publisher and developer) AAA sales.
By that definition, most developers can never make an AAA title simply because they aren't under the umbrella of a larger company like Nintendo or Activision. They simply won't have the money to do "AAA marketing" whatever that means. $20 million? $40 million? $60 million? Or does it scale in proportion to the budget?
Do AAA budget scales appropriately too? No AAA titles for under $20 million? $40 million? $60 million?
You seem to be under the impression that company heads are deliberately making games that undercut projections so they can say "third party games don't sell on the Wii." That's stretching things into a wacky, conspiratorial persecution complex, even for a Nintendo Fan.
If that were the case, developers don't need an excuse to not develop for the Wii (like Valve), they just acknowledge their games aren't suitable for the platform and skip the crappy port and or lame spin off.
