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

Forums - Nintendo - Why didn't Nintendo make more realistic, violent games for the Wii just to prove 3rd parties wrong?

 

Because....

Nintendo is stupid. 40 17.47%
 
The game would have been bad. 8 3.49%
 
The game would have flopp... 27 11.79%
 
Third parties still wouldn't care. 81 35.37%
 
It would damage the Nintendo name. 26 11.35%
 
Other 47 20.52%
 
Total:229
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Nintendo is a family oriented gaming company. If anyone is going to make a violent game its going to be third parties. I'll say it before and I'll say it again Nintendo is the Disney of gaming. 



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"

Around the Network

The biggest fallacy of this thread is the assertion that a "core" game is synonymous with a "violent" game.



Nintendo doesn't often make games like the ones you described, because they don't have that specialization. But they haven't had any issue publishing mature games that were developed by third parties.



Aielyn said:
Gamerace said:
I'm not sure people got bored of motion (except poorly implimented motion), but they did get bored of the lack of 'violent' games on Wii. Or having to play a SD, inferior version of said games (CoD) due to Wii's limited horsepower. So, yes, people ending up buying a 360/PS3 and let their Wii's 'collect dust'.

If we could revert time and if 3rd parties had any clue how big Wii would be in 2005/6 when those big, generation defining games started development, it would be interesting to see what would have happened.

Couple of problems, here - first, the SD-ness of CoD didn't at all cause problems. It was that CoD 4, which what the title that turned the series into a blockbuster, wasn't released on Wii until two years late (and simultaneous with MW2 on PS3/360). They'd already bought the game for 360/PS3, and this continued with future entries in the series.

While I'm in obvious agreement about the impact of not having CoD4, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that CoD:WaW sold very well - almost 2m copies.  However while each yearly edition of CoD continued to see sales increases on HD systems, each yearly edition on Wii sold roughly half of the previous entry.  Even last years outstanding CoD:MW3 which was as identical to it's HD counterparts as Wii's tech will allow, sold pitifully, whereas it's sold huge amounts on HD systems.   By your logic, sales of the CoD franchise should have increased with each edition (which were progressively better on all accounts) on Wii too.  This is simply not the case.   

Same holds true for other 3rd party series on Wii (and even 1st party).  Sequels always sold progressively less, not more as they typically do on HD consoles.  See Tiger Woods, No More Heroes, Super Mario Galaxy, Madden, or any series on Wii.

And the whole "Wiis collecting dust" stuff was just internet gamers being idiots - any real gamer played any great game that came to any great console, and the Wii got just as many great games as the other systems... it's just that most of them were first-party.

I'd say Wii got a ton of great 3rd party games, but mostly more niche, quirkly titles (No More Heroes, Little King Story, Sakura Wars, Zack & Wiki, Etc., etc.) than the HD's mainstream offerings.  Not mostly 1st party at all.

And if it was about knowledge of how big the Wii would be, then games that released in early 2009 should have showed up on the Wii. Resident Evil 5 is the perfect demonstration of this - released in early 2009, there was plenty of time for them to have the game on the Wii, and Resident Evil 4 did very well on Wii. Wii's success was obvious from early 2007, and didn't even start to let up until late 2008, so it can't be blamed on anything other than Capcom just not bothering to try.

I agree with this.  Clearly, as I stated, Capcom felt 'core' gamers would migrate from Wii to HD systems and so didn't bother putting RE5 on Wii.    This was very disappointing, however, I also felt RE5 was also very un-RE and therefore not a big loss.    In fact all titles on HD were (IMHO) bastardized by FPS/TPS elements - RE, Silent Hill, Dragon's Age, Mass Effect, the new Tomb Raider and many others.   I'm glad FPS elements were mostly kept out of Wii games.

Gamerace said:
Nintendo made a hard decision to not compete with MS/Sony in power/online/graphics. In the short term it served them very VERY well. In the long term, it's bitten them in the arse, HARD.

On the contrary, it served Nintendo very well in the long term, too. Wii getting stronger third-party support at the expense of stronger overall sales and overall industry growth would have left Nintendo in a situation in which they would have died by 2013. On the other hand, that the Wii had such lacklustre third-party support means that it's a MUCH bigger deal that the Wii U has games like Mass Effect 3 and Assassin's Creed 3, and ZombiU, than it otherwise would have been if Nintendo hadn't already died.

I disagree.  Wii was so popular it could have sold for $400 at launch.  Sure demand wouldn't have been as high, but Nintendo couldn't support the demand for the first two years.  Having less of it, until the price slowly dropped would have been better.   They could have made it HD at launch, sold very strongly still, and had ALL the 3rd party games as well as Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart, etc.    This would have made Wii the PS2 of this generation.  It'd still be selling strongly today if this was the case and Nintendo would not be losing money (or as much, the Yen is killing them) now.  Wii probably would have finished with 80% market share instead of 45%.

So really, it looks like Nintendo's choices will been much better in overall hindsight. It was only the medium term that it seemed to cause issues, and even then, Wii is still selling (per week) better than Gamecube did for a large proportion of its life. In 2003, the Jul-Sept quarter saw just 810,000 consoles sold, according to Nintendo themselves. That's a worldwide weekly average of 62,000 consoles, which is right about where the Wii is now. And that was just two years after the Gamecube launched, and in a more active sales time of the year than we're currently in. Note that that period in the Gamecube's life saw the release of Mario Golf, F-Zero GX, Wario World, and other titles - indeed, 2003 was the year that the Gamecube saw the largest number of titles released. So it's not like it was a game drought (as opposed to the Wii, which has... what, maybe 10 games listed for release in the next 3 months?)





 

WiiBox3 said:
Nintendo doesn't often make games like the ones you described, because they don't have that specialization. But they haven't had any issue publishing mature games that were developed by third parties.


Nintendo could make a violent game any day, they just dont want to. It has nothing to do with specialization but rather the fact that thats not the image they are trying to send as a gaming compay.



Around the Network
lilbroex said:
AndrewWK said:
You can say whatever you want and deny it however you want, but games like Bioshock Dead Space Bayonetta or The Witcher don´t sell on the Wii.


Resident Evil 4 2.09m

Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles 1.48m

Resident Evil: Darkside Chronicles .97m

Red Steel .64m

Red Steel 2 .53m

The Conduit .53m

World at War 1.85m

Manhunt 2 .51m(best selling version)

Madworld .69m

Black Ops 1.19m

Modern Warfare Reflex 1.45m

No More Heroes .52m(best selling version)

No More Heroes 2 .34m (best selling version)

House of the Dead Overkill .79m(best selling version)

House of the Dead 2 & 3 Return 1.39m

Obsure the Aftermath .11m(best selling version)

Overlord Dark Legend .32m(second best selling in the series)

 

Lets not forget the fact that making a Wii games cost 1/3 what makin ga 360 or PS3 cost yielding much higher pfoit margins. So, game that only sold half as much on the Wii generations more profit than on the 360/PS3.

Good games sold well on the Wii. Only half arsed games bombed in the end.

I don´t understand what you want to proove with that list? It just confirmins what I wrote. Except of Call of Duty and Resident evil none of those game surpassed the 1mill mark. And pulling some random games out of somewhere doesn´t proove anything. I never heard of half of those games, even if it was the second best selling or best seliing version of a franchise it still sold like shit.



S.T.A.G.E. said:
WiiBox3 said:
Nintendo doesn't often make games like the ones you described, because they don't have that specialization. But they haven't had any issue publishing mature games that were developed by third parties.


Nintendo could make a violent game any day, they just dont want to. It has nothing to do with specialization but rather the fact that thats not the image they are trying to send as a gaming compay.


Not sure it has anything to do with image. Because when the publish an M rated game it's their name that is plastered on the front of the box.



WiiBox3 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
WiiBox3 said:
Nintendo doesn't often make games like the ones you described, because they don't have that specialization. But they haven't had any issue publishing mature games that were developed by third parties.


Nintendo could make a violent game any day, they just dont want to. It has nothing to do with specialization but rather the fact that thats not the image they are trying to send as a gaming compay.


Not sure it has anything to do with image. Because when the publish an M rated game it's their name that is plastered on the front of the box.


What mature games has Nintendo made for the Wii? Nintendo consoles in my experience were the only consoles my mother never had an issue with me having unless it interfered with my school work when I was younger. The most violent she ever saw on the SNES was Splatterhouse, Killer Instinct, Mortal Kombat and those weren't even Nintendo made games. Nintendo published Killer Instinct though so yeah.



I think 3rd parties have made mature games on the Wii and they failed. Nintendo will not make mature games because it would destroy their image. The majority of Wii owners are not interested in mature games and is used more for a family orientated reasons.

The reason Wii as sold so much is because they have tapped into the casual crowd, mums, dads and children. Do you think that all the Gamecube owners from last gen suddenly multiplied and moved onto Wii? No. There is a hardcore following that want mature games but not enough to make they 3rd party publishers want to make them.



S.T.A.G.E. said:
WiiBox3 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
WiiBox3 said:
Nintendo doesn't often make games like the ones you described, because they don't have that specialization. But they haven't had any issue publishing mature games that were developed by third parties.


Nintendo could make a violent game any day, they just dont want to. It has nothing to do with specialization but rather the fact that thats not the image they are trying to send as a gaming compay.


Not sure it has anything to do with image. Because when the publish an M rated game it's their name that is plastered on the front of the box.


What mature games has Nintendo made for the Wii? 

Not made, published. Though they have not published a M rated game in the US since the Game Cube. Here are some mature games published by Nintendo:

Wii:

Fatal Frame IV (Japan only)

Disaster: Day of Crisis (Europe, Japan, Australia)

Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (Australia only)

Gamecube:

Geist

Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem

 

NOA doesn't like to Publish M rated games, because Nintendo published M rated games haven't sold enough in the US in the past.