BengaBenga said: mrstickball said: ...So 450,000 and 360,000 units (Z&W then NMH) are considered major 3rd party successes? I was just using 2 of the better-reviewed games that had sub-par sales on the Wii. If both were successes, what about the PS3/X360 games that had similar reviews (80%+) that managed to sell millions like Dead Rising, or Saints Row? Could also go with: Madden 09 (360,000) de Blob (200,000) Fifa 09 (190,000) Geometry Wars: Galaxies (70,000) Trauma Center: New Blood (150,000 + PAL) Just for a few of the higher rated 3rd party games in the Wii library that didn't perform too well for sales.   Dude, you're really overdoing it now. Success is determined by a combination of the cost of the game to develop+publish it and its sales. On average we can say that Wii games are at least 3 times cheaper to produce, so that alone would make Z&W sales compare to a 1.3 million selling HD game in profits. And both Z&W and NMH hardly saw any advertising. Plus these games are niche. I don't have to tell you that advertising can go into the millions for the high budget HD games.

For smaller titles which sell slower, Publishing costs are higher per unit total and they make up a larger percentage of the costs in selling these games. Also unless they are following the Hollywood model of spending twice as much to advertise a movie than they actually spent to make it, its doubtful that any of these games would recieve much of a marketing push or at least not enough for anyone to really notice.

Btw the 3:1 general rule really should be left with the other general rules people make like that the Wii doesn't sell third party games etc because it doesn't consider the use of third party engines, variance in actual development expenditure, tools/library production etc. For example, I doubt that the Mirrors Edge was an exceptionally expensive game to develop. The UE3 charges a royalty rather than a fixed cost so its useful to take some of the risk out of development because if the game doesn't sell it doesn't cost much, the game is set in a city and the ultra clean look means theres a less artistic work and more architectural work as in actually designing the layout rather than texturing the buildings etc.

 

Sadly this is only true for one frigging game. (We all know it don't we) The rest looks pretty much the same on PS360 as on PC. Yes you get higher resolutions, better AA and perhaps really slightly more detailed textures but in general the advantages of the PC are an embarrassment. Considering how much more firepower a high-end PC currently has.

One reason I got a console. The PC support is simply terrible and the current lead in graphics is almost nil. (Unless we talk about the Wii of course)

Kenology said: patjuan32 said: Why are people using Call of Duty: World at War as a barometer for how FPS games will sell on the Wii. It makes no sense. Do you guys think that core Wii gamers are unintelligent and do not know about IGN, 1up, Gamespy, or Gamespot. You are wrong. Core gamers know what games are good and which are not. No core gamer on the Wii wants to buy a gimped version of a game. If Activision wanted Call of Duty: World at War to sell well on the Wii then they would have made sure that it had all the modes that the other games had. But since it did not, I do not feel ashamed that the game did not sell well. It did not deserve to sell well nor should Activision be rewarded for their lack of effort. If Activision uses Call of Duty: World at War sales as a reason to stop developing Call of Duty games for the Wii. That is fine. There efforts have been so poor thus far that they will not be missed. I agree.  I think the Conduit would be a better game to guage the FPS market on Wii - it's built from the ground up on the platform and won't have a superior sku on the HD systems to compete with.  With that said, I expect CoD:WaW Wii to have legs and do well.  At least 300k in the Americas.  That alone would make porting the engine worth it and provide a decent enough return to fund of CoD6 for Wii.  This game is in no way a bomb the same way Resistance 2 is a bomb on the PS3.

AND... THAT... Do everyone here thinks that a one game can change everyting. Even how good HVS a developer what HVS really wants is a name and recognition and its the Wii is their target because of Wii's lack of FPS. Do people thinks that this is a breakthrough game if somehow this game will be on HD consoles? SURE, it will be a awesome game but its worth the wait even there are good FPS comes along like COD WAW? Well it isnt.

Do all really thinks here theres somehow a CTF, Search and Destroy, zombie mode, etc... will be on this game that the COD WAW Wii lacks of? Atleast it have 16 players online right? And it have very good graphics :/

 

While the sales are very dissapointing,I think we should wait to see how it does,although I don't expect much,but Quantum of Solace has been increasing in all of it's weeks that it's been releases in Others,I still haven't seen it Americas sales.

Kyros said: while my PC blows the doors off the graphics of any PS360 game released for it, Sadly this is only true for one frigging game. (We all know it don't we) The rest looks pretty much the same on PS360 as on PC. Yes you get higher resolutions, better AA and perhaps really slightly more detailed textures but in general the advantages of the PC are an embarrassment. Considering how much more firepower a high-end PC currently has. One reason I got a console. The PC support is simply terrible and the current lead in graphics is almost nil. (Unless we talk about the Wii of course)

This really does depend you know. Graphical differences are difficult to see on compressed JPEG images, so you really have to see/experience it for yourself. Often you can only see differences such as AA and a higher resolution in real time on the same TV and its not something which is easier to pick up on a static low quality image. You could say the differences are like Blu Ray vs DVD which is kinda what I thought when I got a new graphics card and bumbed Fable from 720p with No AA to 1080P with 4x MSAA on the same TV.

I found a similar difference with other games as well. Though most of the time its easier to just buy the console version as I can't be assed dealing with PC issues all the time.

 

I think we're just too paranoid here, do we really expect that the PS2 port without online could sold more(380,000 in NA alone) than this game? , thats BS. We all knew that Wii games relies on legs. And not most Wii owners dont own a PS3 and a 360 either, if they are then the sales was just only slight wider on the Wii but thats not the case here.

Is in 6th place for wii software last week. How that can be a flop?

Not all games have to score 1M the first week ya know?

Well when people complain that the Wii is not getting any hardcore games. They even play a video of Call of duty on E3; then I would think it would get 1m or really close to it. People complain about not getting hardcore games on the wii, but when time comes no one buys them. So I do not get the logic there

pimpcoop said: Well when people complain that the Wii is not getting any hardcore games. They even play a video of Call of duty on E3; then I would think it would get 1m or really close to it. People complain about not getting hardcore games on the wii, but when time comes no one buys them. So I do not get the logic there

That's not true.  Plenty of hardcore games sell on Wii.  You can't fault Wii owners for not picking the game up on PS360 as opposed to Wii - it being gimped and all.

I mean, yeah, the game is awesome on Wii, but it's still better on the HD consoles.

 

I will give you that. But higher resolutions and better post-filters alone simply are not enough incentive to make me buy a gaming PC. While 480p is atrocious (who would play in 640*480 on PC?) , 720p is pretty nice and when I play PC games I normally set the resolution to 1024*768 and max. everything else for a subjective best result. But I also know people who would rather max. their resolution. Texturing, lighting and effects are not that different in most games though (currently).