RolStoppable said:
gumby_trucker said:
1) Once again, your personal taste can not be used as an argument.
Furthermore, the assumption you keep using that games are either good or garbage is troll-worthy, and you know this. As is the assumption that all bad games are objectively bad and devoid of merit. Experience is at least as important as talent when it comes to making a successful developer, as are funds, time, proper exposure and so on.
Please don't build your argument around Icon Games exclusively, even if they are the originators of the OP they still make some valid general points.
2) Your VC argument is also not something I can take seriously unless you back it up with facts. At the very least show me a recent quote from a developer complaining about how they are competing with Super Mario Bros, and using that as the main reason why their games aren't selling. I'm not talking about the first year of WiiWare when pickings were slim, but rather recently. If you find such a quote, please explain to me why it is any different than games on Steam competing with Half Life 2, or DOOM or Abe's Oddysey/Exodus or competing services like GOG which make it their business to offer classics at a very competitive price.
3) There is no indication AFAIK that the online market isn't big enough to sustain both types of games successfully. Furthermore, if the issue really is as one sided as you present it, why aren't we seeing more classic releases from 3rd parties on VC? Why have Chrono-Trigger and FF6 arrived so late in the service's life? Where is Rogue Squadron for N64? (god knows it's not a rights-management issue with that one!).
4) If anything I'd say VC suffers from pretty much the exact same issues as WW, having no way to gage a game before making a purchase, and offering very little information on it. If Nintendo classics are indeed dominating the service (which they probably are), I think that would be a better explanation as to why. The majority of VC releases might as well be new to most of the Wii's userbase, since they certainly didn't play them way back then, and most likely know very little about them either. That being the case, rushing to buy only Nintendo branded games would be typical consumer behavior that has been shown to happen in the retail sector when there is little to no exposure given.
And even then you don't hear any complaints from publishers about Nintendo releasing Super Mario All Stars or Metroid Prime Trilogy!
5) Regarding the separation of VC and original games, I thought I read somewhere that this was going to be addressed in the 3DS eshop or one of its updates, and that the two categories would be merged. Perhaps I am mistaken, it makes little difference to the main point of this discussion since you are basing your argument on something that the majority of Wii consumers aren't as aware of as you are. If anything I was under the impression that such a merging would be beneficial to VC games since newer gamers are more likely to notice them this way and less likely to think of them as "out-dated, hard-core experiences". But once again, that's just my personal opinion and not a serious discussion point.
6) To be honest, I think you should drop this argument unless you can support it somehow. It seems to be mainly getting in the way of addressing the more relevant issues at hand and feels to me like a distraction at most.
|
1) I don't see this as a good vs. trash thing, I see it as good/indifferent/trash. Most WiiWare games fall into the latter two categories which is why I don't feel sorry for a game like LIT. Same when it comes to retail. Should anybody feel sorry about something like Klonoa? While it isn't a bad game, it isn't especially good either. This has nothing to do with my personal taste and I think you would find it hard yourself to justify that your examples were really good games. Nevermind that Microsoft practically bought console exclusivity for Super Meatboy, that title is not going to come to PSN.
I realize you have very specific and very high standards when it comes to purchasing games (Sonic notwithstanding  ), but as horrifying as it may sound there are also many less critical gamers who appreciate something different to what Nintendo has to offer every once in a while, and are also willing to tolerate an experience that is less than perfect in order to allow room for new ideas to be expressed in the medium. I for one believe that anybody with even the slightest ability to identify with (and appreciate) the creative process can have an open enough mind to enjoy a flawed game, as long as it is clear the developer actually had an interesting vision in mind when creating it and wasn't just trying to cash-in on other people's success.
Incidentally I find that those who tend to over-emphasize the business side of development and heavily criticize such 'flawed experimental games' (such as Sean Malstrom) suffer from a lack of creative imagination and artistic inspiration, so I'm not surprised when such people on occasion miss the forest for the trees when analyzing the market. I can assure you no one side is more important than the other for the gaming industry.
In case of the games I mentioned, I wasn't trying to present them as top of the line games, but rather as mediocre games that can be fun but also have room for improvement (in accordance with my previous statement regarding mediocre games on the service). Personally I would have bought most of them if their issues were addressed or their price reduced.
2) The main reason why WiiWare games don't sell still is that the games themselves suck. VC games only make it harder, because they give consumers more choice. No developers would come out to openly state that they can't compete with 20 year old games, but it's logical that they would be happier, if VC didn't exist. It's right next to WiiWare in the Wii Shop menu, so direct competition.
I agree with you that the quality on WiiWare should be higher, and is currently rather polarized. But this is something Nintendo should have realized when they created such a harsh, rigid publishing environment. WW has never given the impression of being an opportunity for developers to express themselves, it was always going to be a cruel 'sink or swim' type of situation. Games are basically sent out to die with no room for continued support from the publisher/developer, and consumers are given next to no useful information about available games. That being a given, it's hard to tell which came first - developer apathy towards the platform or consumer apathy, and thus Nintendo can be equally blamed for the lackluster output on the service.
In addition, if VC games have seen a higher level of success, it is despite being on such an obtuse platform, and not because of it. Fortunately for the classics, they have already proven themselves, and built up an audience, but this process happened with the aid of lots of time and exposure which newer releases don't have because the service won't allow it!
The reason OoT and Super Mario Kart etc. are big sellers is because these games were already released in the past through multiple channels and were already given tons of exposure. In that sense their ability to sell in no way indicates that Nintendo is doing a competent job distributing games online. Quite the opposite in fact!
If you really want newer games to have an equal opportunity to find an audience, they should be given extra attention to compensate for having no reputation to begin with. The fact this doesn't happen only contributes to polarization on Nintendo's online service, and contributes to developer's resistance to support it.
3) I am not saying otherwise. The market is indeed big enough to sustain both offerings. The problem of WiiWare is that games either flat out suck or fall into the category of indifference. The reason why third party releases have dried up on VC is because third parties don't have such a fantastic catalog of games as Nintendo. Many games haven't aged well and each publisher knows the results of their previous games that were put up and the earlier ones are their less obscure ones. Square-Enix is one of the few with a good catalog and if you paid attention to handheld releases you would know that they sold these games in question as remakes not too long ago. Rogue Squadron is a Star Wars game and as such the license needs to be renewed with each re-release. This means additional costs and it is the main reason why pretty much all old games that were based on movie/TV licenses didn't come to Virtual Console yet.
Are you referring to a license from Lucas-Licensing? I'm pretty sure Lucas-Arts can get those pretty easily, being right next door and all. Other 3rd party Star Wars games were already released on the service, so getting internally developed games from Lucas Arts on there certainly shouldn't pose an issue. But that's really just one small example, and there are plenty of other old games that would be well received. From Lucas Arts, how about Day of the Tentacle? or Maniac Mansion or the Monkey Island games (the first two were recently remade) or Loom etc?
From others, how about Mega Man Legends or FF3-5 or Decent, Doom, Lemmings, Worms, all the cool Namco arcade games that were only released on VC in Japan? I agree with you that many games haven't aged as well as Nintendo classics, but besides some of the games I mentioned receiving remakes/updates, I find it a little bit difficult to believe Nintendo are the only ones who know how to make a good game! They are, however very good at marketing and building hype. But as OoT 3D shows us, even a classic masterpiece that is remade doesn't automatically steal the thunder from other good original games, not to the extent that you suggest anyway.
4) Nintendo is dominating the list indeed, with Sega (Sonic), Hudson (Bomberman) and Square-Enix filling the rest of the top 20 spots that can be viewed at any given time in the Wii Shop channel. The reason why these games dominate is trust. Trust is something that many third parties never built and it's always going to come back to bite them in the ass.
Agreed, but this is beside the point as it has nothing to do with online vs retail distribution and everything to do with exposure and transparency which I have already addressed. If you believe the situation wouldn't have improved with better exposure then we can debate this point.
5) Combined or not, it really doesn't matter. I just pointed out that the two categories still exist separately.
I already conceded the point.
6) The main issue at hand here is that third party games suck for the most part. Nintendo could provide the best service, but it wouldn't matter if nobody bothers to make games worthy of a purchase.
If this continues to be your main argument than the situation is hopeless to begin with and we hit a wall. There is no point in supporting Nintendo, be it in retail or online, if you are incapable of producing a similarly engaging experience. I don't believe the situation is as extreme as you make it out to be as that would imply there are multiple eco-systems of games on platforms like Steam, PlayStation, Xbox, iOS, and even PC that are driven mainly by ignorance! To presume the majority of gamers in the world are playing (and enjoying) inferior games because they haven't visited Nintendo's 'walled garden' is a bit ridiculous, frankly.
Clearly the case is then only of quality on Nintendo systems and not overall. If Nintendo wants to change this situation they have to actually put some effort into it, in order to cause a shift in this trend. Building a gimped distribution service and then stepping back in order for the market to 'take care of itself' is not the kind of responsible, forward thinking move I would expect of an industry leader.
What I would expect - and this goes all the way back to my original comment which started this debate - is for them to present evidence that some games have at least a good enough chance to sell on Nintendo platforms as they do on competing ones. If I were a young developer making games today, and not someone holding on to a foolish grudge since the 8-bit days, this is what I would care about the most.
Regarding your response to Mr Khan:
XBLA and PSN don't have the same amount of juggernaughts as VC, not even close. Look up the sales numbers here on VGC, what XBLA and PSN have is a joke compared to what the VC has. Additionally, PS1 games have aged horribly for the most part and aside from a few exceptions (like Final Fantasy games) really aren't worth playing anymore. XBLA has barely anything in terms of noteworthy classics.
And to reiterate, all third parties combined do not come close to Nintendo of the 8- and 16-bit era. There are so many Nintendo games that have aged like fine wine while many of the back then good third party games are trash today. You won't see more AAA games from third parties, because there are not many more. You really should fire up the VC and catch up on what you've missed out on. There's a reason why Nintendo dominates the topselling games of all time list.
I have addressed your points here in different sections of my feedback above. Regarding building up my gaming library, I thankfully own a machine that can play most (if not all) of Nintendo's games, ever. In other words, I'm working on it 
|
