By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Is Epic Mickey a lesson to third parties?

milkyjoe said:

Wow... these Wii success stories really bring out the crazy...

Is it so hard to just once say, way to go... Wait, why am I asking. The answer is obviously yes.

Way to go Epic Mickey.

OT: I doubt that many 3rd parties will take much notice, nor do I necessarily care. What I do hope is that Warren and the team at Junction Point see these great (and yes, they're great!) sales and decide to continue the wonderful adventure they started.

That's right folks, I want Epic Mickey 2, or Epic Oswald! Yeah... that would be awesome. ^_^



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Degausser said:
RolStoppable said:

The EA CEO is basically agreeing with me. He says two things:

1) "Development is typically a third to a fourth as much for a Wii game then it is for a PS3 or an Xbox 360 game. That is really a function of the capacity of the hardware, ..."

PS3 and 360 have more processing power than the Wii, so EA can build more detailed game worlds, hence increased costs. Even if you make PS3 and 360 games run at 480p, they will look more detailed than Wii games.

2) "... and the fact that it is not a high-definition gaming box, so we're producing less art than for high-definition games."

EA (like any other publisher) is using high definition graphics to add even more details to their game worlds, increasing costs even more. They can't do the same on Wii games, hence its development costs are lower by default.

And that very same logic applies to DS/PSP vs. Wii. The home console is more powerful AND allows games to be made in higher resolutions than the handhelds.

I'm well aware the spiraling game budgets arn't can't only be attributed to the jump from SD to HD, but graphics / artists are the areas of developement which have seen the biggest rise.

I'm pretty sure the bold agrees with exactly what I've said all along? The costs are cheaper because the resolution is lower - meaning there is less detail needed and less money spent on producing the art!

Graphics for the high-definition games cost about 1 billion yen ($8.6 million) to create, more than double that for Nintendo Co.'s Wii titles, Takasu said in a Tokyo interview Nov. 28.

 Here, a developer has outright stated that the graphics budget of a game more then doubles because it's at a higher resolution. Therefore budget and resolution are clearly related - and by developing on a lower resolution device the budget too will be lower. Thus by developing on the PSP and Wii your developement budget will reflect that of a game at 480i as oppose to a handhelds resolution, which as shown earlier will at least triple the budget.

 Unless of course you're suggesting that it's cheaper to make a Wii game by making a PSP game and porting it to the Wii then just making the Wii game on the Wii, and if that is what you really are suggesting, I'm going to need a link, or citation, or something that can give any sort of credit to that claim as everything I've read thus far is to the contrary. 

No, the bold doesn't agree with what you said, because your claim was that a higher resolution by default drives up costs. It only does if the developer chooses to use the higher resolution to add more detailed art which is what I have been saying all along.

Of course pretty much every developer is going to use the higher resolution to create more detailed graphics, because graphics are a big selling point of games. So while there appears to be a clear correlation between higher resolution and higher development costs, it's perfectly possible to increase the resolution of virtually any game at no additional costs. The result will be a game that has blurry textures and looks ugly in some places. The Wii version of DiRT 2 is a good example of this.

What I am suggesting here is that a Wii game that was built with PSP specs in mind will be cheaper than a Wii game that was built with Wii specs in mind. The former game will be cheaper, but it will of course also look worse. Likewise, you can make a game for one of the HD consoles that costs much less than the average, if you only create Wii-like graphics for it. The output can still be in 1080p, but it won't cost more than a Wii title. And the same applies to any other comparable situation. There is no need for a link, because this is common sense.

That being said, if you make a PSP game, you can port it for little cost to the Wii, because all you have to basically do is to adjust the resolution and the control scheme. The game won't look as pretty as a Super Mario Galaxy, but that's not what third parties aim for anyway.


 Most of that I agree with - the part is take issue is at the end. I don't believe you can just take a PSP game, put it on Wii and upscale the resolution and volia you have a fine working Wii game. I guess my take is that the art assets used on a handheld game simply wouldn't hold up in 480i, and you'd ultimately have raise the by over 3x to get the Wii version running properly. We've seen PSP ports like MoH:H2 take a good 6 months to churn out, with the developers stating that artwork / graphical stuff is being redone.

"This is really the 'Special Edition'," says Backbone producer James Stanley, who tells us that compared to the PSP game, the Wii version will have more polygons, higher-resolution textures, more voice acting, better pacing, splitscreen play for co-op, and an improved user interface designed to make navigation and weapon selection easier, along with tech-friendly features like 480p and Dolby Pro Logic II support

 There's very little online that explains any of this, or why PSP / DS dev cost is significiently cheaper, so we're really just debating your guesswork of what happens in a PSP / Wii port against my guesswork in one. I still believe your last sentence suggests that it is cheaper to make a Wii game by making a PSP game and then porting it to the Wii, rather then just making a Wii game - which common sense dictates can't possibly be true.

 My take on things is while resolution can just be happily scaled from handheld to 1080p, the actual art assets the game has arn't so easy. The higher the resolution, the more you're spending on producing these art assets, the more the budget. You can't take a game built with PSP's art assets and just stick it on Wii, you'll have to do alot of work to make it acceptable (acceptable not being such that is looks like SMG, but such that it actually passes quality control), and that's where the budget discrpencys come in and why average handheld developement is so much cheaper.

 Again any sort of link or citation would be nice, no matter how much common sense you think it is. From what I'm gathering your logic seems to suggest to me it'd be possible to get these $15m games like Dante's Inferno, Army of Two, Split Second etc up and running in an acceptable, realeasable state on the Wii for just $1m-2m. I know Wii games are typically cheaper to make, but we both know that's unrealistic.



huaxiong90 said:
Acevil said:

It is a lesson, a lesson I doubt anyone really even learned. 

This thread has already been won.


Yeah i think it to.



RolStoppable said:
Degausser said:

Most of that I agree with - the part is take issue is at the end. I don't believe you can just take a PSP game, put it on Wii and upscale the resolution and volia you have a fine working Wii game. I guess my take is that the art assets used on a handheld game simply wouldn't hold up in 480i, and you'd ultimately have raise the by over 3x to get the Wii version running properly. We've seen PSP ports like MoH:H2 take a good 6 months to churn out, with the developers stating that artwork / graphical stuff is being redone.

"This is really the 'Special Edition'," says Backbone producer James Stanley, who tells us that compared to the PSP game, the Wii version will have more polygons, higher-resolution textures, more voice acting, better pacing, splitscreen play for co-op, and an improved user interface designed to make navigation and weapon selection easier, along with tech-friendly features like 480p and Dolby Pro Logic II support

 There's very little online that explains any of this, or why PSP / DS dev cost is significiently cheaper, so we're really just debating your guesswork of what happens in a PSP / Wii port against my guesswork in one. I still believe your last sentence suggests that it is cheaper to make a Wii game by making a PSP game and then porting it to the Wii, rather then just making a Wii game - which common sense dictates can't possibly be true.

 My take on things is while resolution can just be happily scaled from handheld to 1080p, the actual art assets the game has arn't so easy. The higher the resolution, the more you're spending on producing these art assets, the more the budget. You can't take a game built with PSP's art assets and just stick it on Wii, you'll have to do alot of work to make it acceptable (acceptable not being such that is looks like SMG, but such that it actually passes quality control), and that's where the budget discrpencys come in and why average handheld developement is so much cheaper.

 Again any sort of link or citation would be nice, no matter how much common sense you think it is. From what I'm gathering your logic seems to suggest to me it'd be possible to get these $15m games like Dante's Inferno, Army of Two, Split Second etc up and running in an acceptable, realeasable state on the Wii for just $1m-2m. I know Wii games are typically cheaper to make, but we both know that's unrealistic.

You can take a PSP game and slap it on the Wii, just look up DiRT 2. The Wii even has added splitscreen multiplayer and both versions were released at the same time. Your MoH:H2 example doesn't counter this point, because it's obvious that they decided to put additional work into the Wii version, but that is not required to make a PSP game run on the Wii.

How can that not be true? Do you think the 360 port of Raving Rabbids costed more than an actual from the ground up built game for the 360? Do you believe that the Wii version of FFCC: Echoes of Time was as costly to develop as an actual Wii game?

Once again, DiRT 2 is just that and it passed the quality control.

Who knows how much exactly the PSP versions of these HD games did cost to make, but we don't need to know the exact figure. A PSP game like those is of acceptable quality to be released on the Wii. Of course they aren't as good as the HD counterparts, but that was never what this debate is about. If you can port a game to the PSP, you might as well make it for the Wii at the same time, because the effort it takes is not more than making a HD game a multiplatform release between the 360 and PS3.

 Dirt 2 also isn't a valid point for the very exact same reason you say MoH:H2 isn't - because they did extra work and put split screen multiplayer in, thus they obviously had to put extra people on the port job. The trend I'm finding with all PSP to Wii ports is that they often take a good 5 or 6 months, and require the developers to do alot of work on updating the graphics, as well as adding other features. 

 Unless theres a link or something detailing the PSP / Wii porting process we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe you can get games like Dante's Inferno / Split second up and running on the Wii for a budget of $1m / $2m, when typical Wii exclusive games costs are much higher. (Red Steel, $12m, Deadly Creatures $4m etc).



dislike said:

I would argue that Just Dance 2/Michael Jackson was a lesson to third parties that you can earn more by making a shovelware/cheap game that is done in 6 months or less, rather than epic mickey which took 3 years to develop and had huge budget for a Wii game, and yet it sold less than Just Dance 2. Epic Mickey sold because of Mickey, not because it was a good game.

There was no suggestion in the OP that this game sold because it was good.



Around the Network
psrock said:

It's the same lesson as Mario and Sonic, Carnival games, Just Dance games: family games is the Wii's bread and butter. And release them baby's during the holiday's. Sony should learn this lesson. 


In what way is Epic Mickey a family game?  It's one player for a start.



KylieDog said:


Mario Kart is not an arcade racer.  Its a racing version of a party game.

Resident Evil 5 is not a horror shooter.  It's a horror shooting version of a party game.



You said it, Epic Mickey's budget was probably close to HD blockbusters. I'm not even sure they're happy with the sales. If you spend a large amount on TV ads and such, you need to sell millions to make up for it. 

On a sidenote, I don't like the game, I think it feels very sloppy and schematic. So to me it's not a good example of a "3rd party title done right". It sells well because it is a big IP, big advertising and an OK game. 



okr said:

I think this would be more approriate for KylieDog:

BTW: I'm pretty sure he meant it seriously.

Touche on both fronts.



Declan said:
psrock said:

It's the same lesson as Mario and Sonic, Carnival games, Just Dance games: family games is the Wii's bread and butter. And release them baby's during the holiday's. Sony should learn this lesson. 


In what way is Epic Mickey a family game?  It's one player for a start.


It's a Mickey Mouse game. 



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)