Onyxmeth said:  My point with the mentioned third parties is that they still have many projects for the other two consoles into 2009. When does the Wii finally get some of those developers' time? 2009? 2010? If you want to say 2008, you can, but it would be hard to back up at that point with any releases scheduled so far. Just because the Wii is getting slightly better with third party support does not mean it's getting or will be getting what it deserves. The winning console has always had the most shovelware AND the most quality titles. I can see how the Wii will have the most shovelware, but what proof does anyone have at this point that it will also have the most quality titles?

 

The reason why you're being flamed so hard is because you're blaming Nintendo for the actions of other companies, actions which in no way emulate Nintendo's business practices and result in failure due to laziness.

Don't you remember this quote from Miyamoto?

"If there's only one piece of advice that I could give to the managers of third party companies, it would be that a lot of times it seems that when they're putting games out on Nintendo hardware, those games are being developed by their third-string team or their fourth-string team. Maybe that's because they see those products as being unique projects or somewhat smaller-scale projects. But when Nintendo puts out a title that is designed to really support and sell its hardware, that title is always developed by one of our number one teams. And so I think that when it comes to the question of trying to compete with our software, I would really like to see the parties try to do that with their number one teams rather than with the third- or fourth-string teams."

What more do you want? All Nintendo can do is make suggestions. Since you don't seem to have a strong grasp on how the gaming industry works (no offense, but if you're complaining about a phenomenon which has been with the gaming industry since the Atari era, I can draw no other conclusion), let me point out that forcing devs to do things a certain way is an excellent way to send them running to other consoles.

Do us all a favor and edit your thread title to be "Did 3rd Parties Screw Us?" Your current title is both misleading and trollish.

Onyxmeth said: tastyshovelware said: ^^ If it makes you feel any better, I don't feel your posts are anti-nintendo or counter productive. I think you've raised some good points but the one thing everyone can agree on is the wii is selling huge numbers. If the system continues to seem like it will break 60, 80, 100 million, then better games will continue to come. Cause, if the trend continues, companies will have a better understanding that they're not just dealing with the casual market. Then you will see the metal gear/CoD4 quality games. Also, I think someone else commented on my ps2 post. I was saying that if you showed someone the best 600 ps2 games (which average 70%+) and told them to pick there favorite 10, 30, 50, whatever games, I doubt they would complain. Well thanks for understanding that I'm not trying to step on everyone's hopes and dreams here. Nor do I hate the Wii. I like it a lot and hope for it to succeed with quality gaming. I'm just trying to bring up that the Wii is in a unique situation of having the success without the games and what that might mean for the minds of third party developers. I can't prove my points without a shadow of a doubt, but I feel like most of the responses against my topic are merely speculative. There's no true ground yet that the Wii will have this great third party gaming lineup in the future. Think of every game known to be in development for the Wii from third parties, and tell me how many you expect to exceed the 91% that Resident Evil 4 got? Okami, probably. It's the only one. Also notice they're both ports of previous Capcom successes.  When will we get even one "from the ground up" Wii game from a third party that can hit the 90% mark? I hope E3 has answers, because no one in this topic has given any yet. By the time the third parties step it up, will it already be too far into the console's lifecycle? 2009? 2010? That seems like a long time to wait for quality(not counting first party). There's also the original point that this may be partly Nintendo's fault. They opened the market up and defied logic by pulling off this miracle of a success. However I feel devs are taking this "beginning gamers" approach of Nintendo's too true to heart. So many third party titles are catering to "easy to get into" experiences, which is fine as long as you can support those that want something a bit more involving. I'm just asking if anyone believes Nintendo may have scared developers away from putting in an effort by going too far away from the beaten path?

I would actually say that most third party publishers are less than 1 year behind where they should have been on the Wii; Guitar Hero III, Zack and Wiki, No More Heroes, Geometry Wars: Galaxies, Mercury Meltdown Revolution, Trauma Center: New Blood, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, and Medal of Honor Heroes 2 are all fairly good games that were released in the past 6 months. In the comming months we will (likely) hear of many games that are as good or better than these games which will be released in 2008.

Onyxmeth: Okami will have a 90%, but Spore will also be great, the Star Wars game could easily rock, Fragile looks very promising, Fatal Frame and Alone in the Dark could please the RE4 crowd, Boom Blox could be a very good "casual" game for the whole family, De Blob and Mushroom Men are quite original and could be huge surprises, the new Tales of Symphonia should be a great RPG, and even Monster Hunter 3 could be a smash hit as well as an excellent title...

You're too pessimistic, really...

And the good thing is, there are also many games we still know nothing about, so the next E3 should give some answers to your questions...

But really, i think there are already many great games comin'... will they all have 90% in Metacritic? Maybe not... but more than 75%, i really think so...

All games can't be masterpieces, but the most important thing is to have many good games that may appeal to many different tastes, and all the kinds of Wii gamers out there... and i really think that with Wii's actual success, that wide variety of good games will be here soon... how could it not happen?

I need a link on the Miyamoto quote.

Oh and don't worry, I'm getting flamed for MUCH MORE than just blaming Nintendo. Re-read the topic and you'll see.

Also, if I asked the question "Did 3rd parties screw us?" it wouldn't have been a discussion more than a resounding "YES! But just you wait..."

Outside of the PS1, which was a start-up console, what other major console, successful or not, had this bad third party support? Even Sega had better support with the Dreamcast, which was destined for failure. Third parties do not traditionally ignore major consoles unless they have a reason. The last time they had a reason was because of Nintendo and their blunder of decisions that resulted in the N64. 

Final-Fan said: 1. Are you conceding that the "weakest points" people have picked apart were in fact wrong, and you now want to concentrate on what you still think you got right? 2. As for the lineup: Nice. I think that the Wii's is not as far behind it as you think, even with your "third party" requirement. More importantly, though, you ignore the point many have made, most recently RolStoppable: If 3rd parties would have believed in the Wii, we would have already seen several big budget 3rd party games released by now. The 3rd party games so far have had either a small or a medium budget with the exception of Red Steel (although lack of development time meant that the money was wasted). Given that the Wii success only became apparent to 3rd parties several months after launch and that quality games usually take 18-24 months of development time, we can expect to see the first bunch of bigger efforts of 3rd parties in fall 2008. The PS2 was widely expected to take the console generation by storm, and it DID. This incentive to developers was exaggerated by the fact that at the time, aside from the Dreamcast which was largely ignored, the PS2 was the only "next gen" system in town, the other two following a year later. The Wii was exactly the opposite: launching a year after the frontrunner and with analysts predicting it to be in third place just like the Gamecube, if not worse because of Microsoft's growing lead and experience. (Note: we knew that analysts are stupid and wrong, but they all have jobs so obviously companies listen to them.) 3. Developers are not feeling the incentive to pull together huge teams to make Wii games. They see that they need them to be successful on 360 and PS3. They don't have endless amounts of spare cash and manpower. Your argument works against you. If developers have only limited resources to spend on game development, why on earth wouldn't they want to spend it making games on a system that's much easier and cheaper to develop for, AND has much less competition by your own statement, AND is going to have an audience at least as large as the other two systems combined without the extra expense of making a port? In fact, counterpoint 3 was a last-minute addition to this response, and it grew into what I consider the strongest counterargument of all. Hmm, that sounds familiar somehow...

Perhaps you simply missed this one, as many people have posted since your last post.  But you ALSO do not address RolStoppable's rebuttal, nor indeed most of the rebuttals.  You have answered some counterpoints but not nearly enough for me to think you are taking this debate as seriously as you should if you yourself want to be taken seriously. 

You dismiss the responses as "speculative", but most of them do back up what they say with some evidence; your own posts are also based on speculation based on evidence, and even if their responses are speculative, your own OP does not anchor itself too deeply in actual data and I think the quality of the responses means they deserve a better answer than "speculation LOL". 

One major difference with the PS2 and the wii, is that developers both expected the PS2 to win, and wanted it to win, and then made it win. Nintendo by itself couldn't conker a mountain of 3rd party developers.

That's changed now. The public has spoken and the wii is the winner. Nintendo can hold it's mountain by itself practically now. Third parties for one reason or another refuse to back the new winner. Odds are it's just business, and higher ups in the company with their heads up their asses. Gamers go where the games are, if wii was getting left 4 dead, white knight story, what have you, that would attract even more gamers. Instead they put those games on the losing systems, and spend a fortune doing it. They create self fulfilling prophecies by creating crappy games and claiming no one will buy their product on the wii, and then keeping the userbase of core gamers away from the wii, while making it appeal to the non gamer to make sure no one ever will buy their decent products on the wii.

From all appearances it looks like they are trying to force anybody but Nintendo to be the winner, and failing miserably at it. And Nintendo doesn't seem to care too much. They are kicking everybody's ass combined financially, and in the public's eye. And it won't be Sony or Microsoft's loss, it will be the third parties loss. Having a clear industry leader benefits third parties greatly, and they insist on keeping it divided.

I don't see them making huge efforts on the wii for the duration of it's life, and I really don't care. Personally I hate the direction 3rd parties have taken gaming on the other two systems where just about every game announced involves a man with guns. I'm more than happy to take some Japanese RPGs, quirky oddball gems, and Nintendo's first party efforts. What the wii is doing resembles what gaming was like back in the day where imagination was actually used in the creation process. So I'm going to go buy Opoona, Fragile, Boom Blocks, De Blob, Pikmin, Starfox and whatever other games nintendo wants to make, and let third parties go screw themself....I will get left 4 dead on PC though.

Onyxmeth said: I need a link on the Miyamoto quote. Oh and don't worry, I'm getting flamed for MUCH MORE than just blaming Nintendo. Re-read the topic and you'll see. Also, if I asked the question "Did 3rd parties screw us?" it wouldn't have been a discussion more than a resounding "YES! But just you wait..." Outside of the PS1, which was a start-up console, what other major console, successful or not, had this bad third party support? Even Sega had better support with the Dreamcast, which was destined for failure. Third parties do not traditionally ignore major consoles unless they have a reason. The last time they had a reason was because of Nintendo and their blunder of decisions that resulted in the N64.

Which Dreamcast are you talking about?

The Dreamcast had less games released in 2 years than the Wii did in 1, and many major publishers (including EA) refused to release any game for the Dreamcast.

Onyxmeth said: I need a link on the Miyamoto quote. Oh and don't worry, I'm getting flamed for MUCH MORE than just blaming Nintendo. Re-read the topic and you'll see. Also, if I asked the question "Did 3rd parties screw us?" it wouldn't have been a discussion more than a resounding "YES! But just you wait..." Outside of the PS1, which was a start-up console, what other major console, successful or not, had this bad third party support? Even Sega had better support with the Dreamcast, which was destined for failure. Third parties do not traditionally ignore major consoles unless they have a reason. The last time they had a reason was because of Nintendo and their blunder of decisions that resulted in the N64.

The Miyamoto quote is well-known. Also, 10 seconds' worth of Google turned up the quote and the fact that it's from a Newsweek interview. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3158427

You have not been flamed much if at all. Criticism (non-worship) of your arguments =/= flaming.  (Well, I suppose it depends on how one defines "flaming".  Some of the critiques are very harsh, but almost none deteriorate into namecalling and suchlike.)

So you deliberately made a misleading title to get attention? I think that's the definition of "troll". Or is it "flamebait"?

Final-Fan said: Onyxmeth: You have raised some decent points. But I think the biggest problem people are having with you is that you continually fail to answer most of their counterarguments. For instance, my response to your previous post: Final-Fan said: 1. Are you conceding that the "weakest points" people have picked apart were in fact wrong, and you now want to concentrate on what you still think you got right? 2. As for the lineup: Nice. I think that the Wii's is not as far behind it as you think, even with your "third party" requirement. More importantly, though, you ignore the point many have made, most recently RolStoppable: If 3rd parties would have believed in the Wii, we would have already seen several big budget 3rd party games released by now. The 3rd party games so far have had either a small or a medium budget with the exception of Red Steel (although lack of development time meant that the money was wasted). Given that the Wii success only became apparent to 3rd parties several months after launch and that quality games usually take 18-24 months of development time, we can expect to see the first bunch of bigger efforts of 3rd parties in fall 2008. The PS2 was widely expected to take the console generation by storm, and it DID. This incentive to developers was exaggerated by the fact that at the time, aside from the Dreamcast which was largely ignored, the PS2 was the only "next gen" system in town, the other two following a year later. The Wii was exactly the opposite: launching a year after the frontrunner and with analysts predicting it to be in third place just like the Gamecube, if not worse because of Microsoft's growing lead and experience. (Note: we knew that analysts are stupid and wrong, but they all have jobs so obviously companies listen to them.) 3. Developers are not feeling the incentive to pull together huge teams to make Wii games. They see that they need them to be successful on 360 and PS3. They don't have endless amounts of spare cash and manpower. Your argument works against you. If developers have only limited resources to spend on game development, why on earth wouldn't they want to spend it making games on a system that's much easier and cheaper to develop for, AND has much less competition by your own statement, AND is going to have an audience at least as large as the other two systems combined without the extra expense of making a port? In fact, counterpoint 3 was a last-minute addition to this response, and it grew into what I consider the strongest counterargument of all. Hmm, that sounds familiar somehow... Perhaps you simply missed this one, as many people have posted since your last post. But you ALSO do not address RolStoppable's rebuttal, nor indeed most of the rebuttals. You have answered some counterpoints but not nearly enough for me to think you are taking this debate as seriously as you should if you yourself want to be taken seriously. You dismiss the responses as "speculative", but most of them do back up what they say with some evidence; your own posts are also based on speculation based on evidence, and even if their responses are speculative, your own OP does not anchor itself too deeply in actual data and I think the quality of the responses means they deserve a better answer than "speculation LOL".

I would if I could. Unfortunately, it's a lot being thrown at one time, and I can't answer every point brought up by 20 different members. I'll go back and look at some things I may have missed to answer them though. It's basically one vs. one hundred(figuratively) and I don't have an unlimited amount of time.

 

I think Apple is screwing me with all these crappy songs being released for my Ipod. Where the hell is their quality control?