Maybe not, sometimes it's better to be concise like you were :P

Nothing to say about the last part though

I agree with everything but #3 on Nintendo hardware.

Look at others this week. Even in a week where the top two spots were taken by Rockstar, they hold overall sales at second place with 361,905 sales. First place goes to Nintendo with a whopping 981,781 in sales.

In a market where we have dozens of big name developers, for Nintendo (a developer to only makes titles for one manufacturers hardware), to eclipse everyone like they do, shows that the primary market for the Wii and DS is filled by Nintendo published games.

Yes, other developers can be successful, but when compared to 1st parts games, it's not even close.

P.S. your OP is a very good read by the way. You make a lot of good points, I only disagree with one of them :)

One point I didn't see mentioned... the Wii will likely gain an even higher percentage of dominant 1st-party titles--over its lifetime--compared to the other two current-gen consoles.

Why? The difference between PS3/360 and Wii is more pronounced when it comes to development, as opposed to comparing development between PS3 and 360 (excluding games that take advantage of the custom hardware in either of those systems). Take a look at how few cross platform titles have come and are coming to Wii. A developer can build an Oblivion or GTA4 and create similar graphics for both. Porting to the Wii requires a downgrade of the graphics or building to the Wii as the lowest common denominator. Some here might say that all it takes is a simple graphic filter to downgrade the graphics, but there is a little more to it than that (I've worked with graphics and done software development for 26 years and that has been my experience). There is also the issue of horsepower... can a game that has a lot of AI, etc. run as well on the Wii as on the 360/PS3 which have more powerful CPUs?

Some companies will be willing to go the extra mile, but for others they will decide not to port to Wii due to the extra cost or the need to reduce the experience. Other companies won't port but will decide that an entirely new game will need to be developed for Wii (The Force Unleashed is an example). And if a company ports to the Wii, they will need to make their port better in novel ways, such as excellent use of the Wiimote, to get multi-current-gen-console owners to buy the Wii version vs the PS3/360 version. In our household we have a Wii and a 360, and unless the Wii has a much better control interface, for example Rabbids, then we buy the 360 version because the graphics will likely be better and we have an HDTV.

Is this a serious issue for Nintendo? It doesn't appear to be right now... they're tearing up the pavement in console sales. I can't honestly say how it will affect future sales, it's just a barrier to porting a number of titles to the Wii. Perhaps the Wii demographic doesn't require those games (because we own both a 360 and a Wii there isn't any angst for us regarding not having FPS games on the Wii, for example).

This post isn't meant as a slam to the Wii or Nintendo... I really like my Wii. I just don't see wide-spread, quality 3rd party support dramatically increasing on the Wii due to the situation I described above, specifically where multi-platform leaning publishers are concerned.

Oh, and your post was a very good read, by the way.

I think there is a problem for the Wii third parties with Nintendos' great success.

62% of all software sales to date have been Nintendo 1st parties. Nearly 2 out of 3 software purchases have been Nintendos own software. It doesn't give much breathing room to the smaller publishers and developers. This is compared to 20% for the Xbox360.

VGcharts.com/forum is not a representative sample of the Wiis' user base especially. The userbase that has a Wii and uses this forum is hardcore by definition. The demographics of the userbase is quite diverse, but they will buy anything it seems, with the words Nintendo franchise written all over it. This is perfectly logical behaviour from these consumers, take the sure bet every time. This does beg the question though, if a large percentage of the user base can't see very far past the first N what percentage of the market can a third party expect to target?

For example - Resident Evil 4 was released to critical acclaim and it was a really good game in the Pre Christmas period. Metacritic 91 - Sales 1.8million. If people are being drawn to the console by Nintendo with their games almost 100% of the time then how does this change the market dynamics? What percentage of the Wiis userbase would buy a non-nintendo game?

Blow this argument away please? I hate to think that there won't be as many non-nintendo AAA games as I'd hoped for.

 I think you both failed. There was not even an argument to be destroyed. All he did use was some cheap rethoric.

BTW, I always sucked at Mario Kart.

A few thoughts

One reason that there is so much of a "bias" toward first-party sales on the Wii is the GC. It didn't sell well and stopped selling early. It was basically abandoned by many gamers.

Given that track record, developers did not put their best foot forward for the Wii. And they -- like almost everyone -- were surprised when Nintendo for the second time created a market that no one thought existed. (The first time was when it resurrected the North American console market in the mid 1980s).

So of course Nintendo has more sales. It also has more recognizable first-party characters because it has been at this longer than Sony and Microsoft -- and has always been a first-party developer (Sony started as a third party developer and MS was more into PCs than consoles, though its technology was used in the DC).

Unfair advantageous are what MS puts in Windows. I don't think that first-party console development is in the same league as those.

The third-party games will come. Give it time. If people buy it, they will come.

Mike from Morgantown

@Squilliam:
Your argument has already been blown away by facts alone, as during the intentional (or fortuitous) drought of Nintendo games last year, that ended in May, and started in February, no 3rd parties released any game on Wii, no game worthy of buying at least.

Now, logic is also blowing away your argument. You say 2 out of 3 software purchases have been Nintendo's own software. Which means there is a HUGE breathing room for the smaller publishers and developers. Especially since Nintendo doesn't tap into all games' types or genres. But you nonsensically conclude that it doesn't give much breathing room to the smaller publishers and developers.
Of course, what people purchase and the breathing room of publishers is completely unrelated anyway.

In Europe, you can't know from a Wii commercial, if a game comes from Nintendo or another publisher, so what you say is pure nonsense. People just buy what is advertised and seems fun and interesting to them, be it on TV or by word of mouth or on ads. Most people don't even know what Nintendo is here.

Basically, there's no problem with Nintendo's success. They did what they had to do. These arguments are so hypocritical, they're bordering on stupidity. How come this argument wasn't ever talked about when people were saying that the Wii didn't have enough games?
Anyway, Nintendo must be doing something right, when they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't:
- People said the Wii didn't have enough games, so Nintendo had to make them. Now people are saying they make too many games?
- 3rd parties didn't want to make (good) games for the Wii, so people bought what was left: Nintendo games. Now, 3rd parties complain that they can't make games because only Nintendo made good games on the Wii? The Wii would be dead if Nintendo didn't make games for it!
- 3rd parties made rushed out, crappy games on purpose on the Wii, supposed to be a cash cow, then went to make good games on other platforms that lost them money. Now, they complain when their crappy games on the Wii didn't sell? I just love seeing them posting higher and higher revenue, but higher and higher losses at the same time. I just wonder how long they will be able to sustain such nonsense.

What is clear to me, after seeing the FY of several of the big publishers/developers, is that those that didn't take the Wii seriously are very well on target to go bankrupt with their strategy.

That's just not true at all.

I have far less than 26 years of software development behind me, and I can already see your BS.

Since when is heavy parallel programming on the PS3 easier to do than downgrading graphics?

Since when is translating a game from Direct X to OpenGL + other API easier than just lowering the engine's output using the same OpenGL + other proprietary API?

And you dare say you worked in graphics and development since 26 years?

So many lies!

Sorry, but if PC developers can make games that go as low as 640x480 with no effects in these kind of games, up to 1920x1200 full of effects everywhere, and this with their engine, someone can do it on consoles.

You're a disgrace to software developers. AI has nothing to do with powerful CPU, this is the last thing you should have talked about related to CPU power. To make the matter worse, AI (excuse me, heuristics) is often what is used to reduce the raw computer power needed in most CPU intensive tasks.

What? Isn't the Force Unleashed on Wii the same game with another engine? Which is the right thing to do, when your engine is so bad that it can't scale properly.

Anyway, it's sad to see you talking about port. Wii gamers are not asking for ports, they're asking for original games.

Ports to the Wii, of games whose only interest is them being HD, makes no sense at all: these games will lose any interest when ported. What's sad, is that you're basically saying that the only interest of Oblivion and GTAIV is the graphics.

Let me get this straight: companies will need to actually work on their Wii ports to make them games and not graphics showcases? They will need to make good games on Wii and work hard on them to actually get money from Wii owners? I'm SHOCKED!

I understand what you're saying. You don't see 3rd parties making quality games on Wii, so of course it's not a slam to the Wii or Nintendo, who ARE putting hard work into their games. At worst, this would be a slam against 3rd parties, which don't put any work into their Wii games and expect them to sell. They got what they deserve.

Since when is heavy parallel programming on the PS3 easier to do than downgrading graphics?

Perhaps you need to read my entire post. I said "excluding custom hardware", i.e. - SPEs, multiple cores, etc. When dealing with single core, simple GPU code you still have available resolutions, available horsepower, etc. to deal with. Nintendo claims that the Wii has about twice the horsepower of the PS2... that's considerably less than the horsepower available in the PS3 and 360.

I have far less than 26 years of software development behind me, and I can already see your BS.

I believe you when you say you have less than 26 years of software development experience.

Sorry, but if PC developers can make games that go as low as 640x480 with no effects in these kind of games, up to 1920x1200 full of effects everywhere, and this with their engine, someone can do it on consoles.

Who says there is no effect? Take, for example, the amount of screen real estate required to display the status bars and other "static/fixed" objects in a game. Fonts can be an issue here as well. I can write a game that renders beautifully at 720p, but which would have completely unreadible fonts at 480p. Most likely, the answer lies in between... the game can probably display at 480i (need to be able to support those PS3/360 gamers who don't have HDTV, after all), but the graphics are likely "tuned" for higher resolution, because that is the core user base of those consoles. The core user base of Wiis probably doesn't have HDTV. And please stop using PC games as an example. Most PCs are connected to computer monitors, not TVs.

You're a disgrace to software developers. AI has nothing to do with powerful CPU, this is the last thing you should have talked about related to CPU power. To make the matter worse, AI (excuse me, heuristics) is often what is used to reduce the raw computer power needed in most CPU intensive tasks.

Sorry, but I'm not sure I can help you here. If you don't understand how AI can be used within a game to control several hundred independent computer-controlled fighters (RTS games being the primary example), then I don't know how to bring you up to speed in a reasonable period of time. Perhaps this can help: imagine you write a program that causes a computer-controlled character to move across a battlefield, avoid your own troops, and then attack against your fortifications. Now imagine that your code needs keep track of and control 125 of these characters. And your code also needs to determine object collisions between those troops, control your troops based on the high-level commands you've issued, determine object collisions between your troops, determine sounds to be issued based on the hundreds of concurrent independent activities, determine clipping regions based on other objects in the environment (such as walls, vehicles, large weapons, trees, etc.), etc, etc. This part of the software isn't controlled by the GPU, but by the CPU. The more concurrent tasks you have, the more horsepower required to keep everything moving smoothly as your code switches between tasks/threads.

What? Isn't the Force Unleashed on Wii the same game with another engine? Which is the right thing to do, when your engine is so bad that it can't scale properly.

No, The Force Unleashed is NOT the same game on the Wii as the 360/PS3. It is radically different in many ways. It was a concession due to the relative inequities in horsepower. I don't know why you seem to have so much angst regarding the Wii having less power than the PS3 or 360. Nintendo has always claimed that they decided to focus more on the playability of games than raw feats of graphical prowess. This was a decision Nintendo made, and you can rant all you want about it. Personally, I think they've done a fine job of using innovative UI to differenciate themselves instead of focusing on raw horsepower. They ARE currently outselling the competition.

Ports to the Wii, of games whose only interest is them being HD, makes no sense at all: these games will lose any interest when ported. What's sad, is that you're basically saying that the only interest of Oblivion and GTAIV is the graphics.

HD, 5.1 surround sound... these are gaming features. Personally, I really like the graphics in games like Mass Effect, Uncharted, Oblivion, etc. But if the gameplay wasn't there, then I wouldn't care how nice the graphics were. On the other hand, if I could have Mass Effect on either platform, I would prefer it on the 360 or PS3. Why? Because I rather look at HD graphics rather than 480p graphics, all else being equal. In other words, I never said that the only interest in Oblivion or GTAIV is related to the graphics. I said the developer was spending the time and effort to have nice, expensively created HD graphics and would have to retune the game to perform it's best at 480p.

Let me get this straight: companies will need to actually work on their Wii ports to make them games and not graphics showcases? They will need to make good games on Wii and work hard on them to actually get money from Wii owners? I'm SHOCKED!

When a company is already spending $30-40 million to make the game run on HD consoles, having to spend money to completely re-engineer the controls to really take advantage of something like the Wiimote might not be an option. To be honest, I think you will see "down-ports" of more games to the Wii as developers get more experience and a larger portfolio of 360/PS3 games in place. Then they can spend resources on the Wii ports without impacting the HD projects as much. If you know anything about software development at all (my title at work is Engineering Manager, by the way), then you must know that you have to be careful not to overextend your engineering resources and end up impacting your base deliverables.

I understand what you're saying. You don't see 3rd parties making quality games on Wii, so of course it's not a slam to the Wii or Nintendo, who ARE putting hard work into their games. At worst, this would be a slam against 3rd parties, which don't put any work into their Wii games and expect them to sell. They got what they deserve.

I wish the rest of your post had been like this... :-/

I'm not sure I agree that it is a simple question of hard work for the Wii port. Sometimes it is, sometimes it has to do with the fact that Nintendo made a conscious decision (and openly defends that decision) to go for innovative user controls and good gameplay and to de-emphasize the focus on raw console horsepower. I think it serves them well, but I continue to believe that this decision sometimes places a barrier on what cross-platform developers can/will produce for the Wii.