NOTE: Sorry if the title seems off. I ran out of words.

This was inspired by the thread about GTA Chinatown Wars, but this is broader than that. This is about the supposed notion that userbase is to blame for a game not selling well.

Those people probably don't mean this, but they are implying that DS and Wii owners are under some sort of obligation to buy more copies of some games just because they are so many, and it doesn't matter if those are games the userbase doesn't really want.

I can see the logic, though, but it's crap logic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logic in the userbase argument seems to be that "The ratio of people who will buy a certain game is constant in any amount of people who own a video game system. Therefore the more people who own a video game system, the more people who will buy a certain game."

If that's not the argument, I'd both like to hear what it really is and why the context of the argument seems more like what I just wrote.

But assuming it is, any statistics class can show you why it's wrong. And it does not have to do with the supposed demographics of who has a system. It has to do with plain, old human diversity.

How this relates to the title, if there are, say, 450,000 Wii owners (so far) that want a brawler game that's all black and white except for the blood, and you expect there to be a lot more people buying the game, then you shouldn't have made a game that only appealed to that number of people. It's not the rest of the Wii owners' fault the game doesn't appeal to their tastes. No, the rating doesn't mean squat, since the Resident Evil games are plenty bloody and they are selling better. Although Platinum games has hinted at a sequel, so that comment is directed more to the gaming press and other people who complain about the sales.

On the same note with GTA CW. If there are only a million DS owners so far who want a top-down GTA game with elements that complicate actions that the series kept simple before, then it's Rockstar's fault for thinking the simplified controls and realistic 3D art direction weren't part of the elements that made the series a smash hit.

And assuming just because it has GTA in the name that it's supposed to sell more, is basically implying DS owners are obligated to be sheep to brand names. You're basically stating it's a bad thing to be savvy about what we buy. Oh wait, because the critics like it, the brand name is okay. How about the critics are sheep to the brand names? But that's another thread.

Anyway, with other franchises it's clear we buy those games when they are worth buying. Call of Duty has yet to have full local multiplayer on the Wii (which is a major common factore in most of the top selling Wii games), and the series is still selling a million copies consistently with plenty of online play with the two installments that have it.

Final Fantasy has been selling well on the DS, with about half the titles selling over a million. The Wii on the other hand hasn't really got an FF game worth selling loads of, and I haven't seen many argue that the Wii FF games should sell more (I own Crystal Bearers, but it's closer to one of those quirky PS1 RPGs that Square made than an FF games, and those never sold huge).

This is a bit of rambling, but I am tired of this blaming 120 million people overlapping with 70 million people for not buying games they don't really want. It's like going "It's not supposed to be good, it's supposed to be bought." We aren't goiing to buy what isn't good to us.

Its funny how Nintendo fans are frequently accused of being "sheep to brand names" (particularily Mario) when all the evidence points to the opposite (Nintendo games of all stripes tend to open lower than those on the HD platforms, and opening day/week are all about brand name and the hype train)

It's called diverting accusation. See those people are guilty of being sheep, but by placing accusation on others they can feel they are not sheep. Yet all that is happening is that they are falling into the stereo type. So yeah I would say most who accuse are just stereo types. Which means they are sheep.

Most of these games (like Crystal Bearers) just are not good enough to even be purchased by millions. Games that are well made or successfully execute a specific function (dancing in Just Dance, 2D platforming in NSMBWii) will reap the rewards.

"It's called diverting accusation. See those people are guilty of being sheep, but by placing accusation on others they can feel they are not sheep. Yet all that is happening is that they are falling into the stereo type. So yeah I would say most who accuse are just stereo types. Which means they are sheep."

Now I don't want to go throwing around label accusations since that only invites argument over discussion.

"Games that are well made or successfully execute a specific function (dancing in Just Dance, 2D platforming in NSMBWii) will reap the rewards."

Of course some refuse to see them as such.

People should know this ever since the PS2 era. The PS2 had a HUGE userbase but only managed to have three 10+ million sellers. Wii has about half the userbase and it has seven.

I think that many Wii owners are smarter than the average gamer -- if not the average bear.

After all, they tend not to buy sequel after sequel.

But the OP is right, a bad game is not going to be a hit just because the market is larger. There might be more sales, but it won't be spectacular.

Mike from Morgantown

Not "bad" as much as "without wide appeal". That seems like nitpicking, but I want my position to be as clear as possible.

People have limited time and limited money and, while videogames are not the most expensive or time-consuming of pursuits, with how much of an investment there is in a videogame people are likely going to be careful with what they buy. What this means is that most people are not going to buy a videogame they know nothing about. Now, whether people are researching games online and reading reviews or getting their information from friends and family a game that is simply not fun will have difficulty getting decent sales.

On top of this, when you have a quality game you need to draw attention to it so that people bother to pay attention to it. The most common ways of doing this is to attach the game to a popular series and to advertise the game heavily. Even if you have a high quality game if no one knows it exists it is unlikely that it will sell well.

i'm going to ignore all the crying and get right you the point.

"This was inspired by the thread about GTA Chinatown Wars, but this is broader than that. This is about the supposed notion that userbase is to blame for a game not selling well."

Wrong, it is the user bases fault. nintendo fans have flooded vgchartz lately with threads crying about third parties not bring the kind of games the market leader deserves. "oh noes, the developers are lazy" you say. "they didn't advertise enough" you say. "they aren't bringing their top tier franchises" you say. well too bad, GTA:CW is an amazing game from a great brand that had great advertising and still it failed. the reason: the nintendo userbase doesn't want the GTAs, the No More Heroes, the Red Steels, the muramasas...

Cry all you want but here is the honest truth of the matter. Nintendo is a great developer, no doubt about it. but nintendo makes a certain type of game: family friendly, cartoony, simplistic, with unique user interfaces. the userbase of the wii and the ds were created on the backs of great nintendo hits like nintendogs, new super mario brothers, mario kart, wii fit, wii sports.

now take particular notice to what those games are not like...they're not at all like GTA. but you know who is making games much more similar to GTA? Sony and Microsoft. consumers aren't stupid, consumers that want simple family friendly fair are going to buy wiis, consumers that what complex violent fair are going to buy 360s or ps3.

in the end, nintendo systems don't deserve games like GTA, dead space, assassins creed, ect any more then the ps3 deserves the port of EA active it's getting. the userbase just isn't there.