No subject change here, just that, because the Wii is marketed casually, and the PS2 wasn't, that argument is irrelevant. 

I was simply debunking your myth of the Wii = PS2 in terms of casual games.

It's quite easy to undertands, i dont see the big problem. Why would i spend 20 million dollars on game for the wii that would sell just above 1 million when i can spend 500k ona party game and sell 5 millions. Third parties cant afford to make these games on HD consoles because no one will buy them, but the wii does, so they create the AAA games with the revenue they made selling the party games from the wii. It's win win situation.

Using the "Blue-Ocean" terms is it my imagination or do many third party publishers require that "Red Ocean" market in order to survive?

The Wii (and Nintendo DS) expanded the possibilities of what could be made as a videogame; including game dynamics and genres which would appeal to the conventional gamer as well as new gamers. Now some companies didn't know what to do with the Wii so they tested the waters with simple (party) games like Rayman Raving Rabbids, Carnivale Games and Mario and Sonic at the Olympics and were successful (in a large part) because of how popular the Wii was and how little the competion was.

Some companies have seen the value of this and have created worthwhile versions of conventional games, or new games in unusual genres; and most of these games have received decent sales for the quality of the title upon release. Some companies (like Ubisoft) lack imagination and seem to require several other publishers to produce popular games in a genre before they're willing to attempt a similar game; this means that they can never be free of the "Red Ocean" because they need to see the blood in the water to know they can swim there ...

If you believe the PS2 wasn't marketed casually, there's not much to discuss here, you're clearly deluded.

Ubisoft has not shown any abilty to make a good game for the Wii. Its only really good effort has been the first Rayman Raving Rabids. And that was multiplatform.

Red Steel was a good try but had control issues.

Cosmic Family is boring to a 5-year-old (my son).

Cranium Kabooki has broken controls (I took it back after thinking it would be a good family game. The IGN review is accurate).

DJM mentions about the Wii being a system for casuals. While it sells to them, it sells to a lot of other gaming people too. And you can't make gamers out of casuals by only giving them poor-quality bad casual games.

Plus, what I really don't get, is why if you are going to take a franchise and make it more accessible, then why not put it on the Wii -- which is the market leader and is the most accessible console. Of course, Ubi will probably mess up BG&E2
too.

Mike from Morgantown

Who can't wait for Sim City and Spore (who ever thought EA would know what it was doing for the Wii).


PS -- If I were Ubisoft, I would disavow what the mod said and make him/her a former mod.

Yeah, EA's quality support has actually been a bit of a surprise but it probably shouldn't have been ...

EA's dominance as a third party publisher comes from having dominated a small segment of the market (sports games), and sell yearly installments of other games, but have difficulty gaining much traction in most genres. They are in a tough position in the HD console market because their games have hit a saturation point so they have difficulty finding new customers, and the increase in development costs are eating away at their profit margins.

EA's problems should have been obvious to them when they started to develop their first XBox 360 titles in 2004/2005; and when Nintendo offered a different path they were (probably) excited (although worried about how popular the Wii would be). With the Wii's popularity, EA is given a chance to define new genres to dominate in; and their yearly installments of First Person Shooters and Racing games can finally gain traction due to lack of competition.

Basically, if I was EA I would think that the Wii being successful was like winning the lottery.

Yup, Ubi Soft should learn that complacency is bad in business.

It's getting more and more obvious that developing a game for all 3 platforms is much more profitable than developing a game for just the PS3 and X360.

Yes, developing a game just for the PS3 and X360 might be higher than developing just for the Wii? But why not add the profits together to make an even large sum?

Do they have common sense these days? And this is Ubi Soft we are talking about.

Is that blue Ocean/red ocean strategy thing religion to some people here? :/

A better statement, is that they expanded in some directions and shrank away from others. The blessing and the curse for the Wii is that they decided to swim in the Pacific instead of the Atlantic Ocean. Isn't that a better analagy? The biggest fish in the biggest pond vs the two smaller fishers sharing a smaller pond.

The Wii is both inclusive and exclusive for the very things it is praised for. Control Scheme, Cheap price, Technology. The good comes with the bad *Shrug*

The "Blue-Ocean" strategy is just an excellent model for the market ... If I was discussing the Oil industry I would use conventional models from ecconomics and discuss perfectly free markets.

Edit: simply consider what would happen if EA, Konami, Take 2, Tecmo,Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all decided to release an NFL football game for the 2009 season ... The sales potential is dramatically limited so they have to take sales away from another game in order to see strong sales. (Red Ocean)

In contrast consider if EA made Madden, Konami makes MGS, Tecmo produces DOA, Sony produces Ratchet and Clank, Nintendo produces Zelda, and Microsoft produces Halo ... All of the games sell well because they appeal to different gamers (and gamers are more willing to buy multiple games). (Blue Ocean)

What this guy is saying would make sense.... if every single wii owner was a little kid who craved party games