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

Forums - Nintendo - Reggie demands to know why RE5 and some other Capcom games aren't on Wii

Megadude said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:

@Megadude

The Wii hasn't past 50% of marketshare but I'm fairly certain that the number of households with Wii systems is greater than the number of households that have a PS3 and/or an XBox 360 ...

Beyond that, even if they don't, why would anyone "with 2 braincells" be able to answer why companies are willing to go bankrupt rather than to produce decent games for 49% of the market when the development costs associated with that 49% of the market is 1/3 to 1/4 the development cost of the other 51% of the market?

Edit: As for the comment on Midway ... You don't need a "Hit" to be a profitable well run company. There are quite a few companies (Majesco for example) who have developed a business model where their development costs are low enough that they can survive off of very low sales.

Capcom is nowhere near going bankrupt and actually doing very well financially ( the topic of this thread is about Capcom right ?).

Now if you want more shovelware from company like Midway and Eidos , go for it...

 

For someone who insults other people about their intelligence you're not particularly bright ...

My comment on this thread was about videogame "Journalists" asking third party publishers why they didn't produce "Hardcore" franchises for the Wii rather than write rants about why the Wii didn't have these games. Very few of the large western publishers (EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Take Two, Midway, etc.) are particularly healthy, and yet no one has asked why they choose to ignore the Wii in favour of producing games that (on the whole) do not recover their development costs.

 

 

They should ask these questions as the PS360 version of COD: WaW outsells the Wii version 8 to 1? As Mario and Sonic @ the olympics outsell Zelda wii? As Carnaval games sells more then triple what Okami, No More heros, Dawn of a New World and Madworld sold combined?

 

Why ask questions for which you already know the answer?

 

 

So, since Gears of War has outsold Lost Odessy, Tales of Vesperia, Blue Dragon, Eternal Sonata, Infinite Undescovery, The Last Remnant, Star Ocean, and Enchanted Arms does that mean that Square Enix should abandon Final Fantasy XIII for the XBox 360 and focus their efforts on a third person shooter?



Around the Network
HappySqurriel said:
Megadude said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:

@Megadude

The Wii hasn't past 50% of marketshare but I'm fairly certain that the number of households with Wii systems is greater than the number of households that have a PS3 and/or an XBox 360 ...

Beyond that, even if they don't, why would anyone "with 2 braincells" be able to answer why companies are willing to go bankrupt rather than to produce decent games for 49% of the market when the development costs associated with that 49% of the market is 1/3 to 1/4 the development cost of the other 51% of the market?

Edit: As for the comment on Midway ... You don't need a "Hit" to be a profitable well run company. There are quite a few companies (Majesco for example) who have developed a business model where their development costs are low enough that they can survive off of very low sales.

Capcom is nowhere near going bankrupt and actually doing very well financially ( the topic of this thread is about Capcom right ?).

Now if you want more shovelware from company like Midway and Eidos , go for it...

 

For someone who insults other people about their intelligence you're not particularly bright ...

My comment on this thread was about videogame "Journalists" asking third party publishers why they didn't produce "Hardcore" franchises for the Wii rather than write rants about why the Wii didn't have these games. Very few of the large western publishers (EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Take Two, Midway, etc.) are particularly healthy, and yet no one has asked why they choose to ignore the Wii in favour of producing games that (on the whole) do not recover their development costs.

 

 

They should ask these questions as the PS360 version of COD: WaW outsells the Wii version 8 to 1? As Mario and Sonic @ the olympics outsell Zelda wii? As Carnaval games sells more then triple what Okami, No More heros, Dawn of a New World and Madworld sold combined?

 

Why ask questions for which you already know the answer?

 

 

So, since Gears of War has outsold Lost Odessy, Tales of Vesperia, Blue Dragon, Eternal Sonata, Infinite Undescovery, The Last Remnant, Star Ocean, and Enchanted Arms does that mean that Square Enix should abandon Final Fantasy XIII for the XBox 360 and focus their efforts on a third person shooter?

 

Didn't you get the memo ?

The 360 port of FFXIII is a shooter !



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

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:

@Megadude

The Wii hasn't past 50% of marketshare but I'm fairly certain that the number of households with Wii systems is greater than the number of households that have a PS3 and/or an XBox 360 ...

Beyond that, even if they don't, why would anyone "with 2 braincells" be able to answer why companies are willing to go bankrupt rather than to produce decent games for 49% of the market when the development costs associated with that 49% of the market is 1/3 to 1/4 the development cost of the other 51% of the market?

Edit: As for the comment on Midway ... You don't need a "Hit" to be a profitable well run company. There are quite a few companies (Majesco for example) who have developed a business model where their development costs are low enough that they can survive off of very low sales.

Capcom is nowhere near going bankrupt and actually doing very well financially ( the topic of this thread is about Capcom right ?).

Now if you want more shovelware from company like Midway and Eidos , go for it...

 

For someone who insults other people about their intelligence you're not particularly bright ...

My comment on this thread was about videogame "Journalists" asking third party publishers why they didn't produce "Hardcore" franchises for the Wii rather than write rants about why the Wii didn't have these games. Very few of the large western publishers (EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Take Two, Midway, etc.) are particularly healthy, and yet no one has asked why they choose to ignore the Wii in favour of producing games that (on the whole) do not recover their development costs.

 

 

 

And once again we get in these discussions...

Companies like EA are huge and what companies like Majesco do can not be applied to them...

EA has to generate billion of $ of revenue just to break even due to its size.

And still most people suggest they should focus on very small cost games that are profitable but don't generate huge amount of revenue.

Do you realize how many 500k selling games EA would have to release every year just to break even due to its size ?

Of course they could always fire 80% of their employees and become Indie but I'm pretty confident not even the shareholders want that.

So EA has to release games that sell a huge amount of copies and so far the HD console is the only medium for this....

This is the model of Activision by the way, a company so successfull it could probably absorb a few of the smaller publishers if it felt like it.........

 

 

I wasn't suggesting that EA duplicate Majesco's business model, but they can learn a lot from it (and EA is one of the few publishers that I think truely "Gets it").

For every HD game that you produce you can easily afford to develop a Wii game at a similar scale, a few lower budget Wii games or PSP games, and a handful of DS games or WiiWare games ... By spreading out your development resources across multiple platforms in multiple genres across a year you minimize the risk associated with development and create much more predictable revenues.

What a lot of third party publishers have done is they have created a few projects for HD consoles at very high development costs, marketed them heavily to (try to) ensure sales, and struggled to turn a profit because one or two of their games falls far short of expectations. In contrast, they have only put their third rate teams to develop games for the Wii with tiny budgets in niche genres ...

 

Actually to be honest, none of the huge hyped HD titles at the big publishers this gen have failed to turn a profit( GTA4, MGS4, CoD, Madden, Re5, Assassin Creed). And that part of the strategy seem valid to me.

The title that usually fail to turn a profit are more the middle titles at huge publishers( Midnight Club LA, Mirror Edge,...) or single projects at smaller developers ( Lair, Haze,...)

Publishers with a problem are usually small ones that have banked everything on one HD title, typically trying to create a new franchise at the same time, or publishers that just lack star franchises ( this is the issue of EA which aside from Madden has a lot of medium known titles but no huge megablockbuster).

Heck companies like Capcom and Konami have more blockbusters franchises in their catalog than EA does this gen if you discard Madden...

 

And I don't think EA gets it. Because instead of trying to develop one very powerfull start franchise they are still going to release a battlefield bad company 2, mirror edge 2, deadspace 2 and co this year so basically sequels to titles you know will sell 1 million units accross HD platforms but sure won't sell the 4 million+ units EA really needs from a couple titles...

 

 

I didn't say highly hyped, I said large budget and those middle tier games are much larger in budget than the largest budget games from the previous generation ...

We see endless bashing of a game like No More Heroes that sold 400,000 copies but I never see any comments about Fracture which sold half as many units and (probably) cost 10 times as much to develop (primarily because NMH is a indie-studio game developed on a shoe-string budget).



Adjustment to values are caused by products in demand, when demand shifts it's only because a product was there to be demanded, demand can not and will not exist without a product; people didn't demand the wheel before it was invented.

The most sound conclusion in the Ps360 'core' argument is that the PS360 have proven that the core audience for Shooters IS larger than the core audience for shooters on the Wii. However in return the Wii core audience for shooters is proving itself to still be present as a competitive figure.

Unless you guys can explain the economics behind ignoring nearly 2 million in sales on Wii platform for 8 million in sales on the PS360 then there is no argument here and further conversation is an attempt to run for the real issue presented by "Happy".

If one is even the least bit curious about that 2 million to 8 million concept for ignoring the Wii, then nothing should be said about or to that person.

In the end it comes down to product however, Wii being the hot machine only means that hypothetically, if Gears and DMC and so on were on the Wii platform with the same amount of investment then Wii's current core for those games would be much larger. But Red Steele is really all it has to show for it.

In conclusion, ever green.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

dib8rman said:
Adjustment to values are caused by products in demand, when demand shifts it's only because a product was there to be demanded, demand can not and will not exist without a product; people didn't demand the wheel before it was invented.

The most sound conclusion in the Ps360 'core' argument is that the PS360 have proven that the core audience for Shooters IS larger than the core audience for shooters on the Wii. However in return the Wii core audience for shooters is proving itself to still be present as a competitive figure.

Unless you guys can explain the economics behind ignoring nearly 2 million in sales on Wii platform for 8 million in sales on the PS360 then there is no argument here and further conversation is an attempt to run for the real issue presented by "Happy".

If one is even the least bit curious about that 2 million to 8 million concept for ignoring the Wii, then nothing should be said about or to that person.

In the end it comes down to product however, Wii being the hot machine only means that hypothetically, if Gears and DMC and so on were on the Wii platform with the same amount of investment then Wii's current core for those games would be much larger. But Red Steele is really all it has to show for it.

In conclusion, ever green.

 

 The point is that not only is there not a big enough "core" audiance on the Wii but also that the Wii is so much less powerful then the PS360 that the game would need to be built for the Wii from the ground up. That costs a lot more oney then adjusting a shader for the PS3 version here compress a little file for 360 there.

From the Ground up tha game needs to be made for Wii.

As for "We don't know how a core game will sell on Wii because there aren't any" Madworld says "hello". And at least 10 other titles non first party.



Around the Network

Madworld is core? I thought it was a niche game. Before this generation began, anything remotely like Madworld was classified as such. It seems a lot of definitions have turned upside down since then.



wfz said:
theprof00 said:
because it shitted on you, and that's what hardcore games do. They shit on you if you don't know what you're doing.

 

Even if that's sarcasm, your baseless belittling of me is really getting annoying.

Cmon don't get offended so easily.

How can you say that the qte's are hard to do cleanly? You never answered that.

1) btw, the reason I said "hardcore" is because I've noticed that in "hardcore" games, obstacles really draw on past game experiences. The "weak point" "box smashing" "kill appendages before you kill head". These are all lessons learned in past gaming. Here's another one, don't put down your controller, but then again, I don't think you've played MGS, or other games that mess with you.

I don't think there was one boss that I already knew the weak point for. On top of that, another lesson is that most contemporary games always allow you to kill the boss no matter what. There is always a way. That's how I knew about the flame gun and satellite gun and fire room, because I ran out of ammo each time.

2) It takes one or two levels to figure out how sheva works, it's not something you go out of your way to find out. She uses the lightest gun you give her in most situations, snipes on the snipe areas, and shotties when 4 or 5 are right near you. She just carries your explosives, which I prefer anyway.

I'm not trying to make fun of you more than I'm trying to point out that I indeed think you ARE capable of doing them, meaning that I don't think you even gave it a chance.

 



I don't know why, but I cannot for the life of me perform QTE or quick random button presses on the 360 controller. I would argue that it's because I'm not used to the controller, but I do just fine with a PS2 controller while playing GoW, and I have used a 360 controller just as much as a PS2 one.

I had a hellofa time in Sonic Unleashed, especially on the last level, and I couldn't even comprehend what button(s) RE5 was telling me to press before it was already too late. The QTEs go by SO fast.

That being said, my friend who is a 360 zealot said he couldn't even do them, and he's the one who told me to do it the "cheating" way, since that is what he does. Doing it the cheating way just makes it boring at that point, but it's the only way either of us can pass them.

What other games "mess with you" like MGS? I've played the original MGS by the way, but that doesn't mean I expect RE5 to pull out random QTEs on me. I don't remember MGS doing that, and I never had it in my head that RE5 was supposed to be a "mess with you" kind of game.



I'll try to remember exactly which games did what, but I'm certain that there were more than a few that had me put my controller down only to die a few seconds later because I did.

I'm garbage with the 360 controller too.



Megadude said:
dib8rman said:
Adjustment to values are caused by products in demand, when demand shifts it's only because a product was there to be demanded, demand can not and will not exist without a product; people didn't demand the wheel before it was invented.

The most sound conclusion in the Ps360 'core' argument is that the PS360 have proven that the core audience for Shooters IS larger than the core audience for shooters on the Wii. However in return the Wii core audience for shooters is proving itself to still be present as a competitive figure.

Unless you guys can explain the economics behind ignoring nearly 2 million in sales on Wii platform for 8 million in sales on the PS360 then there is no argument here and further conversation is an attempt to run for the real issue presented by "Happy".

If one is even the least bit curious about that 2 million to 8 million concept for ignoring the Wii, then nothing should be said about or to that person.

In the end it comes down to product however, Wii being the hot machine only means that hypothetically, if Gears and DMC and so on were on the Wii platform with the same amount of investment then Wii's current core for those games would be much larger. But Red Steele is really all it has to show for it.

In conclusion, ever green.

 

 The point is that not only is there not a big enough "core" audiance on the Wii but also that the Wii is so much less powerful then the PS360 that the game would need to be built for the Wii from the ground up. That costs a lot more oney then adjusting a shader for the PS3 version here compress a little file for 360 there.

From the Ground up tha game needs to be made for Wii.

As for "We don't know how a core game will sell on Wii because there aren't any" Madworld says "hello". And at least 10 other titles non first party.

 

I think you fail to understand what sort of game is Madworld, its not a core title like Gears or DMC its a very niche title that only caters to certain group within gaming community, released on 360 the game wouldnt sell much more, because of its artstyle mainly, just look at big cell shaded game which is Prince of Persia (it certainly did not flop, but sales are well disspoiting)

And what other tites? 10 ? Please list 10 big (budget, advertisment, good development team) third party efforts that have failed.

There is a core audience on the Wii, and sales of titles do prove it, i really dont mind some developers not puting their games on the Wii , its their choice and they have to face consequences of the decision, but you cannot justify it by saying that there is no audience on nintendo console. And do you think that gamer who bought Zelda: Twilight Princess will ignore similar big product if ever released on the Wii by 3rd party studio? Games like DMC or RE would sell on the Wii like they sell on HD consoles (just look at RE 4 Wii sales, an old port that have been released on other systems).

Wii does not get many blockbusters from 3rd parties, if it would they would sell as well as on 360 or PS3.