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

Forums - Nintendo - Ubisoft, EA discuss their early mistakes in approaching the Wii

Arius Dion on 06 May 2009
LordTheNightKnight said:
kylohk said:
I see you have to wait 3 years for the "2nd development cycle" to bear fruit. At least Shaun White etc. were decent efforts.

 

They were caught with their pants down. Note that the really great third party NES/Famicom games were about from 1987 onward, when the Famicom launched in 1984.

 

 Very good point.



Bet between Slimbeast and Arius Dion about Wii sales 2009:


If the Wii sells less than 20 million in 2009 (as defined by VGC sales between week ending 3d Jan 2009 to week ending 4th Jan 2010) Slimebeast wins and get to control Arius Dion's sig for 1 month.

If the Wii sells more than 20 million in 2009 (as defined above) Arius Dion wins and gets to control Slimebeast's sig for 1 month.

Around the Network
rgame1 on 06 May 2009

finally



MontanaHatchet on 06 May 2009
Arius Dion said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
kylohk said:
I see you have to wait 3 years for the "2nd development cycle" to bear fruit. At least Shaun White etc. were decent efforts.

 

They were caught with their pants down. Note that the really great third party NES/Famicom games were about from 1987 onward, when the Famicom launched in 1984.

 

 Very good point.

Or, more realistically, video gaming was practically dead until the NES and most third parties were pretty wary about the idea of developing games.

 



 

 

LordTheNightKnight on 06 May 2009
MontanaHatchet said:
Arius Dion said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
kylohk said:
I see you have to wait 3 years for the "2nd development cycle" to bear fruit. At least Shaun White etc. were decent efforts.

 

They were caught with their pants down. Note that the really great third party NES/Famicom games were about from 1987 onward, when the Famicom launched in 1984.

 

 Very good point.

Or, more realistically, video gaming was practically dead until the NES and most third parties were pretty wary about the idea of developing games.

 

 

Not the case. In Japan, gaming was still alive, and in the US, developers were trying to move to PC gaming, which had not crashed (at least not as bad as consoles and arcades).



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

woopah on 06 May 2009

@Pk9394

did you read the whole feature? thats the exact opposite of what they are saying!



 nintendo fanboy, but the good kind

proud soldier of nintopia

 

Around the Network
MontanaHatchet on 06 May 2009
LordTheNightKnight said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Arius Dion said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
kylohk said:
I see you have to wait 3 years for the "2nd development cycle" to bear fruit. At least Shaun White etc. were decent efforts.

 

They were caught with their pants down. Note that the really great third party NES/Famicom games were about from 1987 onward, when the Famicom launched in 1984.

 

 Very good point.

Or, more realistically, video gaming was practically dead until the NES and most third parties were pretty wary about the idea of developing games.

 

 

Not the case. In Japan, gaming was still alive, and in the US, developers were trying to move to PC gaming, which had not crashed (at least not as bad as consoles and arcades).

Gamign was still alive...how? Even if it was still living, how many numbers did the Atari 2600 or the Colecovision have to brag about (I'm speaking of Japan)? And obviously PC gaming was doing decently, but the idea of developing for consoles was not appealing at the time, and the NES actually had to show it was successful for developers to make games for it. The NES took a long time to get third party efforts because it had to prove that console gaming was a good option, whereas the Wii had to prove that the change it gave was an appealing option.

 



 

 

LordTheNightKnight on 06 May 2009

The crash was US only. That's why it was still alive in Japan.

And of course the NES had to prove itself. That's kind of what I meant by the previous comments.



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

MontanaHatchet on 06 May 2009
LordTheNightKnight said:
The crash was US only. That's why it was still alive in Japan.

And of course the NES had to prove itself. That's kind of what I meant by the previous comments.

Well thanks for not reading anything I just said.

 



 

 

LordTheNightKnight on 06 May 2009
MontanaHatchet said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
The crash was US only. That's why it was still alive in Japan.

And of course the NES had to prove itself. That's kind of what I meant by the previous comments.

Well thanks for not reading anything I just said.

 

 

How is commenting on two specific things indicating I didn't read your reply? It only means I commented on two specific things.

But the first part of your comment was the question that I answered in the first sentence, and the second comment was pointing out that I had basically stated already... or at least thought I did. I'd say that was more a case of forgetting what I wrote than not reading what you wrote.

The point is that developers didn't flock to the NES at first either, even if the reasons and circumstances were different. Developers came to the system eventually, and that is what is happening with the Wii.



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

MontanaHatchet on 06 May 2009
LordTheNightKnight said:
MontanaHatchet said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
The crash was US only. That's why it was still alive in Japan.

And of course the NES had to prove itself. That's kind of what I meant by the previous comments.

Well thanks for not reading anything I just said.

 

 

How is commenting on two specific things indicating I didn't read your reply? It only means I commented on two specific things.

But the first part of your comment was the question that I answered in the first sentence, and the second comment was pointing out that I had basically stated already... or at least thought I did. I'd say that was more a case of forgetting what I wrote than not reading what you wrote.

The point is that developers didn't flock to the NES at first either, even if the reasons and circumstances were different. Developers came to the system eventually, and that is what is happening with the Wii.

You originally said that developers were caught with their pants down, implying that they didn't expect the success of either the NES or the Wii. The main difference though is that developers didn't expect the success of the Wii for very different reasons than the NES, which I explained. It's significant and shouldn't just be tossed out the window for the sake of an analogy. Before the Wii, videogaming was still thriving, but the Wii helped to expand the audience. This is different from the NES, which practically made a revival of gaming.

A better analogy for the Wii would be the PS1, and the amount of time it took for third parties to support that platform. It actually came into success under similar circumstances.