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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Reggie: Third parties don't "get" the Wii, more

No More Heroes was a mainstream failure, but it either reached or surpassed the break-even point of the cost of making it. It would be hard to justify releasing a sequel to it otherwise.

Break-even points are what decide if products are commercially successful; whether a product approaches mainstream successful or not is unimportant if your break-even point is low enough.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

Around the Network
Sky Render said:

No More Heroes was a mainstream failure, but it either reached or surpassed the break-even point of the cost of making it. It would be hard to justify releasing a sequel to it otherwise.

Break-even points are what decide if products are commercially successful; whether a product approaches mainstream successful or not is unimportant if your break-even point is low enough.

 

I mean look at most RPGs. You got tons of them on the PS1, PS2, and DS, but very few of them sell a million. Then why make them? They still make money.

And if NMH flopped, when its his most successful game, then why didn't Killer 7 ruin him and Grasshopper? That game had to have cost about as much by the logic given here.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Suda51 likely either has a small but skilled team assembled (and if memory serves from Contact's credits, this is very true of his pre-NMH games) and can thus afford to make games for very little due to few expenses, or he has some special ties to the big-shots above him that lets him keep Grasshopper Manufacture alive even when his products never make the break-even point.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

@Sky Render: The reason for Suda to use cel shading was because you can make games look comparatively impressive with low costs.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Esa-Petteri said:
Hard data..

Average development cost for a game on a single platform is just bs. If one platform has quality game / shovelware much higher than another, average dev costs are lower! That does not make quality games any cheaper to make on that platform.

There's plenty of data that says you're full of it, but I'll start out with this peice.

Here, we see that the same developer, who consistently puts out quality titles (Lair and Rebel Strike excluded) nonetheless sees their budgets going up, up, up with time. And the curve seems to be rather steep towards the end, no? Or, to repeat myself, what makes you think that "[a]verage development costs just magically skyrocketed when the HD systems came out. Developers suddenly decided that they would all spend a bunch of money to make me, the gamer, happy, their bottom line be damned"?

Oh, and the chart only tells half the story. The entire lecture at that convention revolved around how to live with the rising cost of making HD games. You should read it. It rather destroys this silly argument some here are making.

Games like nhm,boom blox or little king's story would not cost any more to develop on ps3/360 than on wii. A game like red steel costs 13 million $ to make.

http://www.n-sider.com/contentview.php?contentid=2781[/quote]

Two points. First, you're wrong about those games not costing any more on HD systems. Allow the developers to speak for themselves.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18247

"In terms of being very art-driven, it’s surprising to choose the Wii.

...And also budget comes into play. When you’re a new studio and you’re asking someone for four million, that’s a lot easier sell than asking them for twelve. It just comes down to numbers and risk assessment. So that’s the reason we chose that console.

Is that how much the game cost?

DB: I won’t tell you the cost of the games, I’m just giving you ballpark numbers. Wii development is easily one fourth, one fifth, even one sixth of some 360, PS3 projects, and those projects are easier to sell to developers, and they’re also a shorter timeframe to get the game out. I mean, our development on Mushroom Men is eighteen months."

 

Considering that the rest of the interview is devoted to talk about pushing the hardware, I'd say this interview rather cuts against your argument. Developers and publishers are all acting like Wii development is orders cheaper than HD development, with no reference to effort. They cite things like the need for bigger teams, more time, greater expertise, and the need for better programmers to make games for the HD twins. Against this, you bring only an unsupported hypothesis...

Second, and this is important, I want you to think about what the Red Steel thing means. It's the most expensive non-Nintendo game on the system. And it's still cheaper than the average HD game. That rather cuts against the grain of your argument, I think.

I could not bother to find a lot of sources for this "wii games are cheaper to develop"-stuff. Just found one from 2006:

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/cost-of-development-greatly-favors-wii-say-publishers/69714/?biz=1

Few quotes:



"This is clearly where Nintendo's Wii has an advantage, however. According to THQ Chief Executive Brian Farrell, while an investment in an Xbox 360 or PS3 game might be in the range of $12 million to $20 million on average, the money required for developing a title on the Wii can be as little as half that (or less), with an investment generally ranging from $5 million to $8 million. "It's that order of magnitude lower," Farrell explained to Reuters."



Then you can take a look what THQ has produced on wii:

http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?&results=50&name=&console=Wii&keyword=&publisher=339&genre=&order=Sales&boxart=Both&showdeleted=&region=All&alphasort=

on 360:

http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?&results=50&name=&console=X360&keyword=&publisher=339&genre=&order=Sales&boxart=Both&showdeleted=&region=All&alphasort=

on ps3:

http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?&results=50&name=&console=PS3&keyword=&publisher=339&genre=&order=Sales&boxart=Both&showdeleted=&region=All&alphasort=

Pay special attention on the amount of shovelware per platform. You might see why it is on average cheaper to develop on wii.

I'm confused. You've given me three lists of games, all three of which are composed primarily of the same shovelware. The only exceptions are WWE vs. Raw (which is on all three platforms), Saint's Row (good game) and de Blob (good game). The HD list is full of crap for adults, and the Wii list is full of crap primarily targeted at kids. But they're both still full of crap. And yet the HD crap is still much more expensive, on average, than the Wii crap. Or are you going to argue that THQ is a quality developer on the HD consoles?

It seems to me, again, that you're doing a great job of helping my side.

"Another third-party supporter of the Wii is Midway, which will also have four games at launch: The Ant Bully, The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy, Happy Feet, and Rampage: Total Destruction. Part of the reason game development on the Wii is so much cheaper is that the hardware is quite similar to Nintendo's last console, even though it is a bit more powerful than the GameCube.

"When you talk about the PS3 and the Xbox 360, ramp-up costs are significant. You don't have the same ramp-up costs on the Wii because you have the tools already," Midway CEO David Zucker told Reuters. "

You can do the same for midway games, I'll just list midway's wii titles:

http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?&results=50&name=&console=Wii&keyword=&publisher=225&genre=&order=Sales&boxart=Both&showdeleted=&region=All&alphasort=[/quote]

You, er, may want to list Midway's HD titles too.

http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=X360&region=All&developer=&publisher=225&genre=&keyword=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Sales

http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=PS3&region=All&developer=&publisher=225&genre=&keyword=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Sales

Look at how high in quality their HD stuff is! How could I not have seen this obvious truth before?!...

...

...

Yeah. Stop supporting my case for me. It takes the fun out of it.


Oh and not to mention, since that comment is from 2006. Is that still the same, don't you have "the tools already" on ps3/360? Yes you do = it is cheaper to develop on ps3/360 now.

And yet the price of Wii development is somehow still in stasis? Or are you trying to claim that HD development prices have dropped by a third in the past two years? And if third-parties have "the tools already," why are even the most anti-middleware companies turning to it this generation? Why is it that Square-Enix, who famously insisted on making individual engines for their games in order to get the most polish out of them, is now being forced to re-use the same engine for multiple titles and systems? And why haven't they done this in past generations?

Could it be that this is their response to the absurd HD costs? That they're clinging to these tools because that's the only way they can survive financially? And is it possible that despite have "the tools already," most companies are now bleeding money because of rising development costs?

The answer, my friend, is a sadly resounding "yes." I see what you're trying to say. And in fairness, that may play a role in the disparity. But you're deluded if you think that a lack of effort is primarily the reason why Wii games are several times cheaper to develop. When everyone keeps saying, again and again, that the HD games cost much more than the Wii and older systems because the HD twins demand more time and team members, most of us are willing to accept their explanation.

You're also deluded if you think that HD costs have somehow shrunk that dramatically in the past two years. I can't recall a single generation when development costs were halved over the course of six years, let alone were reduced to a third in just two. Again though, if you can bring forth some hard data that proves otherwise, I will concede.

I await your triumphant return.

 



Around the Network

@noname2000

So your point was that AAA-titles cost something like 17-20 million for Ps3/360? How much does AAA-title cost for wii. I remember reading that SMG cost 16 million. I don't know where did I read that. But if that is the budget, there is no big difference?

edit: Actually, if Red steel costs 13 million and that game is not that great those 17-20 million does not sound too much.

I see that your link was something about "mushroom men" developed by "Red fly studio". I mentioned following games:

NMH
Boom blox
Little king's story

Which of them is developed by "Red Fly Studio"? If your answer is none, you did not have any point.


From THQ:

360 list shows 16 titles with sales, 3 or 4 of them is shovelware.
Wii list shows 18 titles, at least 10 of them is shovelware.

Midway? Are you serious?

Every single one wii game with sales listed is shovelware. Do you consider unreal tournament, stranglehold or blacksite: are 51 to be shovelware? If so, I would like to hear your definition of shovelware.

Keep in mind that I was talking about average dev costs. Shovelware/quality title ratio affect that alot, don't you think?


Now for your last "point".

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/cost-of-development-greatly-favors-wii-say-publishers/69714/?biz=1

"When you talk about the PS3 and the Xbox 360, ramp-up costs are significant. You don't have the same ramp-up costs on the Wii because you have the tools already,"

How do wii development costs become cheaper if they already had the tools for it? Magically?

For Ps3/360, if they did not have "teh tools" then but now they do. How that does not make developing cheaper?

For the part about middleware, doesn't that also make developing cheaper? You just have to pay royalties (i think) to those middleware companies. Less risk, I guess?

http://www.edge-online.com/features/edges-top-20-publishers-2008

Actually, if you use that chart as evidence that the most companies are bleeding money you should take a look. 11 companies listed are making profits and 9 of them are losing money. That is not the most! Of course, you COULD also see that microsoft and sony are listed there. I bet those figures include losses of the hardwar too. For 360, wasn't 07 the year when they paid 1 billion dollars for the extended warranty? Oh, I think that few months after that Take 2 had a little different figures. Due to one expensive hd-game.

Does any of those companies develop who made losses develop for wii too? If so, I guess you proved that it is not profitable to develop for wii?








Twisting words. The 17-20 million was on the moderate high end of HD games. SMG was probably the most expensive Wii game, or one of.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight said:
Twisting words. The 17-20 million was on the moderate high end of HD games. SMG was probably the most expensive Wii game, or one of.

 

http://xs228.xs.to/xs228/08262/factor5costera142.jpg

 

What does it say? "moderate high end" or "actual AAA"?



"What does it say? "moderate high end" or "actual AAA"?"

What made you think I was just using that chart? In case you forgot, there are loads of HD games that dwarf the 17-20 mllion budget, like MGS4, Too Human, and GTA IV.

And since SMG is one of the highest cost Wii game, and just barely meets the level of the moderately high HD games, that still supports my point.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight said:
"What does it say? "moderate high end" or "actual AAA"?"

What made you think I was just using that chart? In case you forgot, there are loads of HD games that dwarf the 17-20 mllion budget, like MGS4, Too Human, and GTA IV.

And since SMG is one of the highest cost Wii game, and just barely meets the level of the moderately high HD games, that still supports my point.

No, it barely meets the level of "actual AAA" title. ;) Or do you have any other sources to show me?

 

Oh and I would really like to see those figures for too human. How much did it cost?  If I remember correctly, it was developed for ps2(1?) at first. Do you include those costs for 360 dev costs?

Haven't seen any information for GTA IV or mgs4 costs either, but I do know they are high cost games. Both of them have made profit too, at least I think so.