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

Forums - Nintendo - Wii Dosent make 3rd parties money?

jammy2211 on 19 January 2009
noname2200 said:
psrock said:

where on this site can i find that Zack and Wiki made 20 million dollars for its publishers.  LINK?

Why is it so hard for wii fans to admit a game failed ?

Zak and Wiki failed? That's a bummer.

Hey psrock, can you please tell Capcom that it was a disappointment? Because halfway through last year they went and cited it as a success, so they're obviously not privy to this secret, and I don't feel like being the one to break their hearts.

Edit: And I see Boom Blox isn't doing so well after all, contrary to what EA's president said in interviews. Let them know too, so they can cancel the sequel before they make a big mistake.

 

I'll agree with your assertion that many Wii titles undersell, and that some folks on this site can't admit to that. But you'll need to pick better examples.

At least you didnt' say No More Heroes, though.

 You're right, the EA rep was gonna come out and say that their huge money marketied game was a flop and didn't live up to expectations. The shareholders will love that.

 Making a sequel and putting it on the market is going to cost them next to nothing, after the marketing blitz of the first one they're not going to give up on it. I didn't say it was a flop just that EA had much higher hopes for the game, and I hold to that statement. We don't have the figures or anything to go by though so we'll just have to disagree. The only slight piece of evidence I see is the huge retail price cuts for the game in the UK - maybe it faired better in America?

 I think Boom Blox is a great example, but we don't have the facts to prove or disprove what I believe. So er, agree to disagree or something.

 



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 19 January 2009
psrock said:
HappySqurriel said:
Aj_habfan said:
Derixs said:
Here is another thing to think about. If Mario and sonic sold 6.69 million coppies at 49.99 each then thet made just shy of 335million dollars off that one game.

25. Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Sega) 6.69m (335 Million Dollars)

Crazy...

It doesn't work that way.

Lots of 3rd party games do make money, but really, Nintendo fans will never admit that any games failed.

A game can sell like .05m copies, and they will say, "Well, we don't have updated Europe data, which was probably more then America, and the budget was really low, so they probably made some money." Seriously, you will find stuff like that on every poorly sold Wii game. They can not accept a failure.

 

 

People will admit that games failed, but most people's claims of games failing are pretty moronic ...

Consider that people were calling Zack and Wiki (500,000+ sales) and Boom Blox (700,000+ sales) failures when these games obviously cost less than the $10 to $20 Million in revenue they generated for their publishers.

Where are you pulling these numbers from.

The games failed, admit it. Btw HAZE is on its way to a million, still a failure.

Assuming a game that took more than a year to sell 500k is making 20 million is crazy. Plus, i bet you 80% of the sale happened when the game was dirt cheap. Less revenue, right.

 

I was estimating revenue based on a publisher receiving $20 to $30 per game



Groucho on 19 January 2009
NJ5 said:
Groucho said:
NJ5 said:

@Groucho: So I have to provide data about every single title in order to conclude what the average is?

I think that quote from Yamauchi proves that added graphical detail comes at significant cost. PS3/360 games have significantly more graphical detail than Wii games, therefore they are more expensive.

Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

PS: On another note, do explain how so many developers are seeing record revenues with the same or lower profits (not to say losses).

 

Yep.  Its from just one guy, and in my own experience, it is very far from typical.  Art doesn't take longer to make -- it takes a long time to REmake, as the engine changes.  If GT5 has been re-engineered several times over, said artist would need to rework a model again and again, such that the shaders fit the new rendering pipeline, the textures work well as new features are added to the engine, the verts may need to be optimized to fit after the engine proves that the first model performs poorly according to a fresh standard, the car may need to be reduced due to memory issues the game doesn't encounter from the beginning, etc.

The same engineering problems can and will occur with a Wii dev team.  GT5 may have completely re-organized their dev team, and Sony may be paying them to optimize the crap out of GT5, relative to previous GTs.  Art teams are also usually cheaper, compared to engineering teams.  The supposed cost savings between Wii and PS360 development just aren't there in quantity, even if this comment weren't grossly inflated, which, honestly, I believe it is.

 

 

I will have to ask for a link supporting your claims about GT5, the same way you asked for them.

I am also still wondering why PS3 and 360 games are more expensive than last-gen and Wii games, and why publishers are seeing higher revenues and lower profits (meaning higher expenses).

But hey, as if all the stuff I said is not enough, let's see a few more links saying the same thing:

Capcom - http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163572

THQ - http://www.gamespot.com/wii/driving/cars/news.html?sid=6149154

I'm tired of googling for links. Really, I think the burden of proof is on you now.

 

Okay, so are you claiming that, since Wii games cost so much less to make than PS360 games, that your statement above (in italics) only applies to PS360 developers, and that, in fact, 3rd party Wii developers are doing great despite the NPD study data demonstrating that they sell so few copies relative to 1st party Nintendo titles?

That's okay since they were so cheap to make, much cheaper "on average" than the typical PS360 title, and thus even this data doesn't stand up against the awesome profit potential of the Wii?  I mean, despite your comment, which I italicized above for you to reference conveniently, because that's only PS360 developers, right?  Not really a substantial majority, given the sheer number of awesomely profitable Wii titles released last year, right?

Kinda sounds like the publishers are doing exactly what they need to do, to make the big $ on the Wii.  And, of course, it shows in their profits.

 



NJ5 on 19 January 2009

@Groucho: Until you provide some tangible information contradicting the claims of Capcom, THQ, Factor 5 and Polyphony Digital I think I'll go with those.

Your simple contradiction of my statements without any supporting links is getting tiring.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

HappySqurriel on 19 January 2009
Groucho said:
NJ5 said:
Groucho said:
NJ5 said:

@Groucho: So I have to provide data about every single title in order to conclude what the average is?

I think that quote from Yamauchi proves that added graphical detail comes at significant cost. PS3/360 games have significantly more graphical detail than Wii games, therefore they are more expensive.

Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

PS: On another note, do explain how so many developers are seeing record revenues with the same or lower profits (not to say losses).

 

Yep. Its from just one guy, and in my own experience, it is very far from typical. Art doesn't take longer to make -- it takes a long time to REmake, as the engine changes. If GT5 has been re-engineered several times over, said artist would need to rework a model again and again, such that the shaders fit the new rendering pipeline, the textures work well as new features are added to the engine, the verts may need to be optimized to fit after the engine proves that the first model performs poorly according to a fresh standard, the car may need to be reduced due to memory issues the game doesn't encounter from the beginning, etc.

The same engineering problems can and will occur with a Wii dev team. GT5 may have completely re-organized their dev team, and Sony may be paying them to optimize the crap out of GT5, relative to previous GTs. Art teams are also usually cheaper, compared to engineering teams. The supposed cost savings between Wii and PS360 development just aren't there in quantity, even if this comment weren't grossly inflated, which, honestly, I believe it is.

 

 

I will have to ask for a link supporting your claims about GT5, the same way you asked for them.

I am also still wondering why PS3 and 360 games are more expensive than last-gen and Wii games, and why publishers are seeing higher revenues and lower profits (meaning higher expenses).

But hey, as if all the stuff I said is not enough, let's see a few more links saying the same thing:

Capcom - http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163572

THQ - http://www.gamespot.com/wii/driving/cars/news.html?sid=6149154

I'm tired of googling for links. Really, I think the burden of proof is on you now.

 

Okay, so are you claiming that, since Wii games cost so much less to make than PS360 games, that your statement above (in italics) only applies to PS360 developers, and that, in fact, 3rd party Wii developers are doing great despite the NPD study data demonstrating that they sell so few copies relative to 1st party Nintendo titles?

That's okay since they were so cheap to make, much cheaper "on average" than the typical PS360 title, and thus even this data doesn't stand up against the awesome profit potential of the Wii? I mean, despite your comment, which I italicized above for you to reference conveniently, because that's only PS360 developers, right? Not really a substantial majority, given the sheer number of awesomely profitable Wii titles released last year, right?

Kinda sounds like the publishers are doing exactly what they need to do, to make the big $ on the Wii. And, of course, it shows in their profits.

 

 

Why do people care about relative performance?

Do people really believe companies think "Man, even though we sold over 1 Million copies of Shawn White Snowboarding on the Wii and it was our best selling version of the game it sucks because Nintendo sold so much more software!"

Seriously, if you can spend $5 Million developing a game for the Wii and still sell 1,000,000 units you are (as far as a return on investment) doing better than Rockstar was doing by spending more than $100,000,000 on GTA4 when they only sold 15 Million units.



Around the Network
Lolcislaw on 19 January 2009
psrock said:
noname2200 said:
psrock said:

where on this site can i find that Zack and Wiki made 20 million dollars for its publishers.  LINK?

Why is it so hard for wii fans to admit a game failed ?

Zak and Wiki failed? That's a bummer.

Hey psrock, can you please tell Capcom that it was a disappointment? Because halfway through last year they went and cited it as a success, so they're obviously not privy to this secret, and I don't feel like being the one to break their hearts.

Edit: And I see Boom Blox isn't doing so well after all, contrary to what EA's president said in interviews. Let them know too, so they can cancel the sequel before they make a big mistake.

 

I'll agree with your assertion that many Wii titles undersell, and that some folks on this site can't admit to that. But you'll need to pick better examples.

At least you didnt' say No More Heroes, though.

i dont really care, but it bugs me that each time a game fail to sell, you guys bring up the profit excuse. sadly, this is a sales site and Haze probably as huge a failure as it is still sold more or in the same ball park than zak and wiki. They both failed, one failed harder.

 

Dude, how is that? Haze; developed by Free Radical (known for making good FPS's), with great amount of time and money invested in it (there was so much talk about graphics), a PS3 exclusive shooter (something big for PS3 users) hyped immensly before its release by devs, websites and users. Bombed hard, very hard considering expectations and financial input

Z&W, niche adventure game, with no hype behind it, no marketing, in not so popular genre, with characters that might not appeal to "HARDCORE", sold above any sort of expectation, made a very nice profit. 

 

Agreed Haze have failed but Z&W is a success

 

ps. Your previous avatars were better man...



jammy2211 on 19 January 2009
HappySqurriel said:
Groucho said:
NJ5 said:
Groucho said:
NJ5 said:

@Groucho: So I have to provide data about every single title in order to conclude what the average is?

I think that quote from Yamauchi proves that added graphical detail comes at significant cost. PS3/360 games have significantly more graphical detail than Wii games, therefore they are more expensive.

Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

PS: On another note, do explain how so many developers are seeing record revenues with the same or lower profits (not to say losses).

 

Yep. Its from just one guy, and in my own experience, it is very far from typical. Art doesn't take longer to make -- it takes a long time to REmake, as the engine changes. If GT5 has been re-engineered several times over, said artist would need to rework a model again and again, such that the shaders fit the new rendering pipeline, the textures work well as new features are added to the engine, the verts may need to be optimized to fit after the engine proves that the first model performs poorly according to a fresh standard, the car may need to be reduced due to memory issues the game doesn't encounter from the beginning, etc.

The same engineering problems can and will occur with a Wii dev team. GT5 may have completely re-organized their dev team, and Sony may be paying them to optimize the crap out of GT5, relative to previous GTs. Art teams are also usually cheaper, compared to engineering teams. The supposed cost savings between Wii and PS360 development just aren't there in quantity, even if this comment weren't grossly inflated, which, honestly, I believe it is.

 

 

I will have to ask for a link supporting your claims about GT5, the same way you asked for them.

I am also still wondering why PS3 and 360 games are more expensive than last-gen and Wii games, and why publishers are seeing higher revenues and lower profits (meaning higher expenses).

But hey, as if all the stuff I said is not enough, let's see a few more links saying the same thing:

Capcom - http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163572

THQ - http://www.gamespot.com/wii/driving/cars/news.html?sid=6149154

I'm tired of googling for links. Really, I think the burden of proof is on you now.

 

Okay, so are you claiming that, since Wii games cost so much less to make than PS360 games, that your statement above (in italics) only applies to PS360 developers, and that, in fact, 3rd party Wii developers are doing great despite the NPD study data demonstrating that they sell so few copies relative to 1st party Nintendo titles?

That's okay since they were so cheap to make, much cheaper "on average" than the typical PS360 title, and thus even this data doesn't stand up against the awesome profit potential of the Wii? I mean, despite your comment, which I italicized above for you to reference conveniently, because that's only PS360 developers, right? Not really a substantial majority, given the sheer number of awesomely profitable Wii titles released last year, right?

Kinda sounds like the publishers are doing exactly what they need to do, to make the big $ on the Wii. And, of course, it shows in their profits.

 

 

Why do people care about relative performance?

Do people really believe companies think "Man, even though we sold over 1 Million copies of Shawn White Snowboarding on the Wii and it was our best selling version of the game it sucks because Nintendo sold so much more software!"

Seriously, if you can spend $5 Million developing a game for the Wii and still sell 1,000,000 units you are (as far as a return on investment) doing better than Rockstar was doing by spending more than $100,000,000 on GTA4 when they only sold 15 Million units.

 I believe that $100 million was just spin, whether it was the 'budget' and they spent alot less, just to WOW the media, or if it included marketing or what I dunno but no way in hell does a game cost that much to make.

Andddddddddddd, it generated revenue of $710 million so er, in short, no they're not.

 



HappySqurriel on 19 January 2009
jammy2211 said:

I believe that $100 million was just spin, whether it was the 'budget' and they spent alot less, just to WOW the media, or if it included marketing or what I dunno but no way in hell does a game cost that much to make.

Andddddddddddd, it generated revenue of $710 million so er, in short, no they're not.

 


I'll give GTA4 the benefit of the doubt, and we will assume that development and marketing costs were $100,000,000 in total, and that it generated $700,000,000 million in revenue before retailers and console manufacturers take their cut ... That works ot to (roughly) $7 per dollar invested.

In contrast the "Bomb" Boom Blox was probably developed for $2.5 Million (or less) and generated more than $28 Million in revenue before retailers and console manufacturers take their cut ... That works out to (roughly) $11 per dollar invested.

 



jammy2211 on 19 January 2009
HappySqurriel said:
jammy2211 said:

I believe that $100 million was just spin, whether it was the 'budget' and they spent alot less, just to WOW the media, or if it included marketing or what I dunno but no way in hell does a game cost that much to make.

Andddddddddddd, it generated revenue of $710 million so er, in short, no they're not.

 


I'll give GTA4 the benefit of the doubt, and we will assume that development and marketing costs were $100,000,000 in total, and that it generated $700,000,000 million in revenue before retailers and console manufacturers take their cut ... That works ot to (roughly) $7 per dollar invested.

In contrast the "Bomb" Boom Blox was probably developed for $2.5 Million (or less) and generated more than $28 Million in revenue before retailers and console manufacturers take their cut ... That works out to (roughly) $11 per dollar invested.

 

 And the "Bomb" Boom Blox had what? 0 markting? Despite it's TV marketing campaign and Spielberg endorsement? Marketing costs escalate quickly, especially when you're doing it in 6 different territories.

 The $710 million is definitely after retailers take their cut, as that's where the revenue comes from, what the retailers pay. I'd imagine it has the royalties for Microsoft and Sony in there, but if we're honest, after giving Microsoft Exlucisve DLC and being Sony's bigger release of last gen I'm sure they'd have 'negotiated' those expenses.

 Where you pulled $28 million from I don't know either, but hey I'm sure you do. I still see GTA making a good $500 million profit though. Why the hell you decided to compare something like Boom Blox to GTA I've not a clue, it sort of goes completely against my whole point of looking at every game within it's context.



HappySqurriel on 19 January 2009
jammy2211 said:
HappySqurriel said:
jammy2211 said:

I believe that $100 million was just spin, whether it was the 'budget' and they spent alot less, just to WOW the media, or if it included marketing or what I dunno but no way in hell does a game cost that much to make.

Andddddddddddd, it generated revenue of $710 million so er, in short, no they're not.

 


I'll give GTA4 the benefit of the doubt, and we will assume that development and marketing costs were $100,000,000 in total, and that it generated $700,000,000 million in revenue before retailers and console manufacturers take their cut ... That works ot to (roughly) $7 per dollar invested.

In contrast the "Bomb" Boom Blox was probably developed for $2.5 Million (or less) and generated more than $28 Million in revenue before retailers and console manufacturers take their cut ... That works out to (roughly) $11 per dollar invested.

 

And the "Bomb" Boom Blox had what? 0 markting? Despite it's TV marketing campaign and Spielberg endorsement? Marketing costs escalate quickly, especially when you're doing it in 6 different territories.

The $710 million is definitely after retailers take their cut, as that's where the revenue comes from, what the retailers pay. I'd imagine it has the royalties for Microsoft and Sony in there, but if we're honest, after giving Microsoft Exlucisve DLC and being Sony's bigger release of last gen I'm sure they'd have 'negotiated' those expenses.

Where you pulled $28 million from I don't know either, but hey I'm sure you do. I still see GTA making a good $500 million profit though. Why the hell you decided to compare something like Boom Blox to GTA I've not a clue, it sort of goes completely against my whole point of looking at every game within it's context.

 

So, this site has (roughly) 12 Million copies of Grand Theft Auto 4 being sold on consoles at (roughly) $60 per copy for a grand total of $720 Million in revenue ... Now, it would be a safe estimate to presume that between $20 and $25 per copy of those games goes to the retailer and console manufacturer which means that between (about) $420 and $480 Million was generated from console sales. Now, where would this additional $300,000,000 in revenue come from? Did the PC sell more copies of GTA4 than were sold on the XBox 360?

Edit: ... And the Boom Blox revenue comes from multiplying 700,000 by $40