"As a sidenote; anyone who sees WaW sales at 1 million on a 46-47 million userbase anywhere near as good as 5 million on 28-29 million userbase needs a reality check"

No, anyone who ignores the fact that the breakthrough game that gained the audience was NOT on the former systems to GET those higher sales needs a reality check.

When neither the PS3 nor the Wii had a previous CoD game, 3 sold about the same. Wii skipped a year, the other systems had CoD4. Refusing to include that as a factor in why WaW is selling less on the Wii is just spin to make the Wii look bad.

Activistion credited the Wii version with helping their great profits. They acknowledge it sold well. They want another on the Wii.

haxxiy said: Because the Wii simply can't handle them.

 

Graphically speaking, this is the truth.

Remember that today, we are seeing the tail end of games whose development was started before Wii had proven itself. I mean, solid sales for 3rd party Wii games didn't start appearing until late 2007, before that there were few reasons to believe the Wii was a viable platform for 3rd party games. Now you're starting to see the turnaround

LordTheNightKnight said: "As a sidenote; anyone who sees WaW sales at 1 million on a 46-47 million userbase anywhere near as good as 5 million on 28-29 million userbase needs a reality check" No, anyone who ignores the fact that the breakthrough game that gained the audience was NOT on the former systems to GET those higher sales needs a reality check. When neither the PS3 nor the Wii had a previous CoD game, 3 sold about the same. Wii skipped a year, the other systems had CoD4. Refusing to include that as a factor in why WaW is selling less on the Wii is just spin to make the Wii look bad. Activistion credited the Wii version with helping their great profits. They acknowledge it sold well. They want another on the Wii.

 

By your decree then, Gran Turismo (even the first Mario) and The Sims should have very low sales, in the case of Gran Turismo and Mario there wasn't even a previous gen of hardware, let alone a previous installment of the games/franchises.

Of course it helped the profits for Activision but it was far from being the major party in it (with cross platform development the cost of the game per platform greatly reduces, further underlining the fact that the PS360 and the PC versions were actually more lucrative by having higher sales, it is rather basic in the end). 1 million is well, not great, like 5 million. It could also be interesting to check the DS Call of Duty WaW sales, which are roughly at 180k now, despite the last CoD title being there to build support on the platform (CoD 4 sold roughly 500k so it seems your theory is backwards in this case).

So, what we have determined (it seems) is that

A: The success of Gran Turismo, Mario Bros. and The Sims is impossible, and

B: "Helping with great profits" is a good term to describe a games success on a platform despite sounding rather vague

I'm not trying to make the Wii seem bad, I'm trying to reason around why things are as they are (I've been proven wrong and even outright shot down before on this site but that is by posters with more solid replies than this, it is all rather vague and somewhat illogical to me). Why is it that everyone who speaks out against the hind view of Nintendo's otherwise great strategy by default harbour some dark agenda for discrediting and trashtalking the product itself? All bussiness strategies have consequenses, good and bad, Nintendo are not exempt from the rules of market and audience just because they're awesome (which they are) at making games or because someone wants them to be.

Want this gen's bottom line for my part?

1: Nintendo's choices hardly secured tremendous 3rd party enthusiasm

2: Microsoft's choices hardly secured a quality product

3: Sony's choices hardly secured anything save for the longest fall in the industry in the recollection of man

"By your decree then, Gran Turismo (even the first Mario) and The Sims should have very low sales"

No, that's just you ignoring that those were breakthrough games themselves. They're more comparable to CoD4 than 3 or WaW.

IThe_vagabond7 said: If the conduit doesn't manage to sell as well as Gears or Killzone, then you'll have your answer. I take that back, you don't have to wait that long. COD WAW is sold on wii with twice the user base of either system and gets a tiny fraction of the sales. On 360 it's almost at 5 mil, PS3 almost 3 mil. Wii, almost 1 mil, with a vastly larger user base. You can speculate all you want as to why that is, but there is your reason. And with WaW it's not a quality issue. It's as faithful a port as a PS360 to wii conversion can be.

 

It is. The 360/PS3 versions are better. Better graphics + better multiplayer > wii controls.

If the Wii version of multiplat titles is as good as the PS3/360 versions, then it will sell.

im_sneaky said: IThe_vagabond7 said: If the conduit doesn't manage to sell as well as Gears or Killzone, then you'll have your answer. I take that back, you don't have to wait that long. COD WAW is sold on wii with twice the user base of either system and gets a tiny fraction of the sales. On 360 it's almost at 5 mil, PS3 almost 3 mil. Wii, almost 1 mil, with a vastly larger user base. You can speculate all you want as to why that is, but there is your reason. And with WaW it's not a quality issue. It's as faithful a port as a PS360 to wii conversion can be.   It is. The 360/PS3 versions are better. Better graphics + better multiplayer > wii controls. If the Wii version of multiplat titles is as good as the PS3/360 versions, then it will sell.

The thing is the wii version can't have what the others have. The wii version couldn't have 32 person online, or the same fidelity of graphics, sound ect ect. All the points as to "why the wii doesn't" are completely valid, but I will just say what the people defending want to hear and be on my way. The reason the wii doesn't have the same games as the PS360 is because all developers except Nintendo are stupid, hate money, and are total ass hats. There is no other conceivable reason that these highly paid highly educated business people could possibly not make a legitimate dead space on wii or have a RE5 wii release along side the others. Soon they will all be as financially bankrupt as they are morally bankrupt and Nintendo will buy them all. And when that happens Sony and Microsoft will shut their doors and unemployment will skyrocket around the world, that is until Nintendo uses it's trillions to open a theme park the size of Canada where everyone will live in the ideal socialist paradise. Is there anything else I need to add in before I go?

I really wonder where all of these people trying to dismiss the 1 million+ sales of CoD on the Wii were when the Xbox was pumping sales of FPS games that were on par, if not better than the PS2. I don't remember anyone claiming that PS2 shouldn't get multiplats because it wasn't destroying its competition despite having 100 million more consoles sold than other platforms.

The_vagabond7 said: im_sneaky said: IThe_vagabond7 said: If the conduit doesn't manage to sell as well as Gears or Killzone, then you'll have your answer. I take that back, you don't have to wait that long. COD WAW is sold on wii with twice the user base of either system and gets a tiny fraction of the sales. On 360 it's almost at 5 mil, PS3 almost 3 mil. Wii, almost 1 mil, with a vastly larger user base. You can speculate all you want as to why that is, but there is your reason. And with WaW it's not a quality issue. It's as faithful a port as a PS360 to wii conversion can be.   It is. The 360/PS3 versions are better. Better graphics + better multiplayer > wii controls. If the Wii version of multiplat titles is as good as the PS3/360 versions, then it will sell.   The thing is the wii version can't have what the others have. The wii version couldn't have 32 person online, or the same fidelity of graphics, sound ect ect. All the points as to "why the wii doesn't" are completely valid, but I will just say what the people defending want to hear and be on my way. The reason the wii doesn't have the same games as the PS360 is because all developers except Nintendo are stupid, hate money, and are total ass hats. There is no other conceivable reason that these highly paid highly educated business people could possibly not make a legitimate dead space on wii or have a RE5 wii release along side the others. Soon they will all be as financially bankrupt as they are morally bankrupt and Nintendo will buy them all. And when that happens Sony and Microsoft will shut their doors and unemployment will skyrocket around the world, that is until Nintendo uses it's trillions to open a theme park the size of Canada where everyone will live in the ideal socialist paradise. Is there anything else I need to add in before I go?

Why? If I remember correctly there are PC games that run on PCs that can run much less than the Wii can that support up to 32 person online.

 

vonboy said: i think the problem is that you have to basically rebuild the game from scratch to make it work on wii (not just graphically, but controls as well.). most companies have their big macho dev teams making big macho 360/ps3 games, and they usually either make some crap second rate dev make the wii version, or they don't bother at all. i guess they just don't want to invest in a second good dev team to make a quality wii version of the game, even though they could make a lot of money doing that.

 

agreed