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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - More thoughts on Wii 3rd party sales...

The Ghost of RubangB on 18 June 2008

Oh yeah, there's still quality control on all the systems, and all 3 won't allow any AO-rated games under any circumstances, but they don't have the weirder rules like Nintendo used to have, like "you can only make 5 games per year so they better be fucking good" and "it can't go multiplatform for at least a year." Now we get developers pumping out crappy games by the hour, but if any console turns them down, they're only hurting themselves.

I'd really love to know exactly what would make any of the big 3 turn a game down other than sexual content.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Around the Network
kylohk on 18 June 2008
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Oh yeah, there's still quality control on all the systems, and all 3 won't allow any AO-rated games under any circumstances, but they don't have the weirder rules like Nintendo used to have, like "you can only make 5 games per year so they better be fucking good" and "it can't go multiplatform for at least a year." Now we get developers pumping out crappy games by the hour, but if any console turns them down, they're only hurting themselves.

I'd really love to know exactly what would make any of the big 3 turn a game down other than sexual content.

Well, that's what you get for starting the video game crash in the 80s. So many crap games back then, all consigned to bargain bins etc.

Well, I guess they will turn a game down if it's of Action 52 quality... hehe.



My collection of guides on GameFAQs: Read them here

My latest guide on GameFAQs, for Little King's Story! Read it here 

Ail on 18 June 2008
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Oh yeah, there's still quality control on all the systems, and all 3 won't allow any AO-rated games under any circumstances, but they don't have the weirder rules like Nintendo used to have, like "you can only make 5 games per year so they better be fucking good" and "it can't go multiplatform for at least a year." Now we get developers pumping out crappy games by the hour, but if any console turns them down, they're only hurting themselves.

I'd really love to know exactly what would make any of the big 3 turn a game down other than sexual content.

 

I didn't mean quality control.

The name came back to me last night. It's called concept approval on the HD consoles.( it doesn't exist on Nintendo consoles)

My understanding is that if they see a lot of concepts around around the same idea they turn back some of them to prevent having several games coming out at the same time with the same idea.( which in the end if for the developer's good too).



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

HappySqurriel on 18 June 2008

Lets Look at the 2007 Box office top 20:

  1. Spider Man 3
  2. Shrek the Third
  3. Transformers
  4. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
  5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix
  6. I am Legend
  7. The Bourne Ultimatum
  8. National Treasure: Book of Secrets
  9. Alvin and the Chipmunks
  10. 300
  11. Ratatouille
  12. The Simpsons Movie
  13. Wild Hogs
  14. Knocked Up
  15. Juno
  16. Rush Hour 3
  17. Live Free or Die Hard
  18. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
  19. American Gangster
  20. Enchanted

The only movies on that list that are not well known based on a movie, television show, comic book or novel would be Ratatouille, Wild Hogs, Knocked Up, Juno, American Gangster and Enchanted. If you look at how much "Star Power" was brought to most of these movies based on the studios working on them or the actors involved about the only one that could be considered a break-out success would be Juno ...

Most people favour entertainment that they're familiar with, which means that it is amazingly hard to see a break out success.



noname2200 on 18 June 2008
largedarryl said:
I don't plan on going into any details, but I'm pretty sure I could sum up your entire post and just replace Wii>PS3/360 and replace Nintendo>Sony/Microsoft.

You should really take a look at the games that sell on the other systems this gen too. In fact you should take a look at last gen as well, I think you may start seeing a trend.

First post, and you nailed it. Well done! Essentially, NightDragon83, your analysis is correct, but it applies to all systems everywhere always. If consumers don't know about your game, they probably won't buy it. If you don't advertise your game, consumers won't know about it. Since most third-parties on the Wii don't advertise their games, consumers don't know they exist. And so the cycle continues.

 



Around the Network
largedarryl on 18 June 2008

@noname,

I actually feel I'm a fairly knowledgeable gamer, but every time I go and look at the selection of Wii games, I bet there are about 75% that are completely unrecognizable to me. How is a non-gamer supposed to choose out of these titles.

@Happysquirrel,

You have also pointed out that this isn't something that isn't limited to a video game phenomena, this problem is present in every entertainment medium.



Gamerace on 18 June 2008
The Ghost of RubangB said:
theRepublic said:
Gamerace said:
Yeah, I totally agree with that. It's too hard for Betty the Wii owner to know what is a good game and what's crap so she sticks to what she knows - Mario, Resident Evil, Star Wars, Sims, etc.

A good answer to that is for Nintendo or a 3rd party alliance to make a 'gold seal' of quality where games either pre-judged by Nintendo or better an alliance of 3rd parties and those found of high enough quality get the seal. Alternatively critically acclaimed games get rereleased as part of a 'platinum' or whatever series.

Before someone argues that'd never happen - it could, the wine industry in Ontario got together to do exactly that. An alliance of independant wineries judge each other's wines and those that meet certain standards get the seal. This helped the Ontario Wineries alot because the public now felt confident in what they were getting (either good or cheap).

That sounds an awful lot like the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" that is generally credited with getting third parties pissed off at Nintendo and causing them to bolt for Sony and the original Playstation.  For that reason, I'm not sure that Nintendo or third parties would go for something like that.

Re-releasing critically acclaimed games or million sellers as "player's choice" or "platinum" is a more realistic option in my opinion.  It would probably go over better for all parties if the games had already proved themselves instead of being released with a seal.

 

The old Seal of Quality was a mixed blessing.  It did kinda help to save the industry, since the Atari would allow every piece of crap in the world to be released, and Nintendo's strict quality control cut most of the crap out.  And then they kept their super tight grip of quality control for years until there were finally serious competitors and it was too expensive to make crappy games, so the Seal was irrelevant and it hurt them.  But at first it was a huge benefit.

No console company can afford to ever do that again though.

 

 I'm not talking a minimum standard, just a 'goldstar - seal of excellence' for the best of the best so outstanding games like Boom Blox, Zak and Wiki, Okami and No More Heroes don't get overlooked.  Kidz Backyard crapass Hockey would still be made, it'd just never get a goldstar. 

However, I agree better if an alliance of game developers/publishers assigns the seal than Nintendo.  That way it could be done across all platforms too.  Lord knows the Wii isn't the only system to have great games overlooked (Okami/Pyschonauts come to mind).