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

Forums - Nintendo - Pachter: Core Wii audience only want Nintendo games

Khuutra on 17 August 2009
Onyxmeth said:

Call of Duty: World at War. The game is more or as popular as anything on the 360 and PS3. It's moderately successful on the Wii. It can't be described as niche. Now give me the explanation as to why it couldn't capture the same sales magic without using differences in the demographic that wants the game, since that's my excuse.

Can't really come up with anything else. People who love Call of Duty (by and large) own the HD systems. That audience is really specialized and isn't on the Wii. It won't be on a Nintendo system until next gen at the earliest. Until that point, that definition of "hardcore" will continue to evade the Wii.



Around the Network
Onyxmeth on 17 August 2009
sc94597 said:
Onyxmeth said:
sc94597 said:
 

I believe I specifically said that you were right about Nintendo having a fan base that will buy just about anything from them. I doubt the people who bought Endless Ocean were part of that fanbase though. Oh and YES I do say that Madworld is more niche than Endless Ocean. I remember a few months ago I was playing the game, and my brother said the game would be better if it wasn't in black and white. I told him that one of the main selling points was that it WAS that it was black and white, and he said that it was stupid that they made it that way. Now he is the so called "hardcore" that plays CoD and Halo only, with a little guitar hero on the side, so I don't know if he counts. Also you still didn't answer any of my questions. Would these games do better on the 360 or PS3? Name me some big series 3rd party games on the Wii. The only answer is that these titles are Niche. Why else would other 3rd party games like Resident Evil 4 and Umbrella Chronicles(both part of a big series, and one is a port the other a spinoff) outsell them? Also to be honest, Nintendo has proven themselves to the Wii audiences(other wise they wouldn't own a Nintendo console) 3rd parties haven't. It is quite obvious there would be a bias toward the company players bought the console for. Just look at the bias toward Bungie and Epic games on the 360. What about Kojima, Insomniac or Naughty Dog games on the playstation. It might not be as big as Nintendo made theirs, but it is still there. To be honest, if these publishers were as big as Nintendo, I have no doubt that they would have the same amount of control.

 

@Gansito I am not doubting that the 360 has niche titles, I'm saying it has many more mainstream ones than the Wii. I'm also saying that niche titles, unless they have a big publisher to back them up, don't sell well on any platform.  Let me note this aswell, at least half those games you mentioned  bigger than almost all the Wii's "core" third party games.

Call of Duty: World at War. The game is more or as popular as anything on the 360 and PS3. It's moderately successful on the Wii. It can't be described as niche. Now give me the explanation as to why it couldn't capture the same sales magic without using differences in the demographic that wants the game, since that's my excuse.

It is a multiplatform game that's predecessor wasn't released on the Wii. The predecessor being one of the games that was targetted as the best on PS3 and 360. The Wii only had the extremely mediocre version of Call of Duty 3, which was already outcasted by fans to start with.  Not only that, but it had gimped online modes, and poor advertising at the start. The only thing going for it was controls, and you can get that with the PC version.  It only makes sense that it would sell worst. Not that it sold poorly though, it is one of the best selling third party Wii games, and only is that because it is one of the few Mainstream series.

So what you're saying is that there is backlash because Activision skipped Modern Warfare on Wii, thus condemning the series for life? World At War is a self-contained game with a self-contained story. It's set in a different era than Modern Warfare is. It has all the characteristics of a game that shouldn't fail because the last one didn't show up on a certain console. Regarding Call of Duty 3, it had a lot of negative backlash on the HD consoles also. It's regarded as the main reason why people don't trust Treyarch. So it's not just the Wii. That game got negative backlash all across the board. Regarding advertising, I saw commercials everywhere. I don't know where you were looking for them.

However, hidden within your topic, you've kinda proven me right. You said the game had gimped online, which obviously would never affect the sales of other such blockbusters like New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. This kind of negative thinking and feeling of not getting everything you could have only seems to apply to third party published titles. Then you go to controls and mention it's a benefit for the Wii but is even better for the PC, so they will buy it there. What this adds up to is common knowledge stuff that core buyers know about the Wii, thus they don't buy one, or they don't buy one for those types of games. That was my point.

Here's what I'd like you to tell me. If Modern Warfare released on Wii back in 2007, do you think it would have sold roughly 7 million copies? Do you think there are 7 million potential buyers for something like that on the Wii or not?



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



sc94597 on 17 August 2009

@Onyxmeth I'm saying that the series doesn't have as large of a fanbase on the Wii compared to the 360/PS3 because it is missing games that were present on the 360/PS3. No matter how you put it, both games are part of the Call of Duty series, and if a game gets highly acclaimed in the same series the next game will no doubt sell because of this. The Wii didn't have the highly acclaimed game, nor did it have any 'good' call of duty games. Call of Duty 3 was much worst on Wii than it was on the other platforms. Not only were the controls gimped, but it didn't have any multiplayer. That isn't a good back up for the series. Also I said the online was gimped 'compared' to other versions of the game. It was missing modes that were present on other consoles such as Nazi Zombies. I personally got the game for PC due to this, and it was my younger brother who got the game for Wii. If the game was a only present on the Wii or had the same online as other platforms it would have sold better because some would choose the Wii over other platforms. As for your question, No, I don't think it would sell 7 Million, but It would be much closer to the PS3's sales of 4 million, and would allow World at War to sell much better. This is all assuming it is the same game play and content wise.



sguy78 on 17 August 2009

How often is this guy ever actually right?



Procrastinato on 17 August 2009

From a certain standpoint, Onyxmeth's statement mirrors that of Sean Malstrom's recent article regarding media criticism of Wii titles.

Malstrom basically said critics were too harsh on Wii games, for no good reason. I think Onyx is merely extending that same concept to the fanbase -- the forum fanbase in particular. That criticism may very well seed itself into the community as "if its not Nintendo, it sucks", and have a much greater impact than readily perceived.

The Conduit was well received, critically -- but how many of you actually own it? How many dual- or tri-console owners would choose to by such a game on the Wii, with its cool motion controls, etc.. over a HD shooter without such things? Apparently not very many, or the demographic wasn't there to begin with.

The Wii has plenty of 3rd party hits, and good 3rd party games, as many of you are quick to point out in discussions where the Wii is confronted with a "doesn't sell software" topic. Why this 180' to criticize 3rd parties and 3rd party software happens, when an article shows up stating the obvious (that Nintendo is adored, and that its titles outperform 3rd party titles on the Wii by a stellar margin -- a fact, not an opinion), is a mystery.

If you own a Wii, and enjoy it, surely you enjoy it for a reason. Presumably... that reason is the games. Right? Do you own a significant number of Nintendo games, relative to 3rd party titles? If you don't own much 3rd party software (of which there is a ton, as per Nintendo's statements, over and over again), is it because "it sucks", or because it wasn't made by Nintendo?

Are games like Wii Sports, Wii Play, Animal Crossing, Wii Music, Wii Fit, etc. truly "great games", with great gameplay concepts and presentation, or are they something a little new and different?  Lots of interesting contradictions to work out there.



 

Around the Network
nintendo_fanboy on 18 August 2009
Onyxmeth said:

I think he's right to a degree. There's always a sampling of excuses thrown around this site as to why such and such third party title failed. It's either bad reviews, or little marketing, or limited appeal. For some reason though, this hardly ever affects Nintendo published titles. They don't have to get held up to the light and explain their weaknesses, because they sell regardless. This is not something new, and I don't know why it's such an issue with Nintendo, to the point of denial. Nintendo is a trusted brand, and games can damn well sell some extra copies for having that label on the box.

Look at Super Paper Mario. It's ridiculously niche, it had little advertising, and yet the title has sold nearly 3 million copies. Why? Because there is a built in fanbase that buys Nintendo platforms primarily for Nintendo titles. How about a scuba diving simulator featuring no actual goals selling damn near a million copies? It had like no marketing, bad reviews and if anyone else made it, you'd all have called it the most niche game ever.

It's not just the Wii either. Every complaint I typically see about the Wii's third party efforts isn't reflective of the DS's third party situation. Third parties put big effort into DS titles, bring mainstream franchises to it and get outsold by similar Nintendo titles time and time again.

Now obviously both platforms aren't devoid of customers willing to spend on third party published traditionalist titles. But to deny there isn't a huge advantage for Nintendo's own published titles is just ridiculous. It's the only major console maker in history where third parties were and still are not able to compete with the first party publisher.

What I think it is starts right here on forums. It's the word of mouth we all give out. Nintendo console owners are constently laying down excuses highlighting how imperfect the newest third party title is but giving Nintendo the benefit of the doubt anytime a mistake is made on one of their own games. It's the double standard that starts right here. We have had a Smash Bros. thread going on for ages that is primarily used by people playing online together. The online is absolute shit compared to any other game in existence that is known for it's online multiplayer. If this was any third party Wii game, this would be exactly why such and such new fighting game couldn't sell on Wii, crappy online. We do it all the time here. People defend New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Wii Sports Resort for not having online, and then turn on third party titles for making the same decisions. For some reason, these same problems will never affect a Nintendo published title. Bad graphics? So what. No online? Who cares. Nintendo titles will still sell, and we will tell ourselves bad graphics and no online is why everyday third party title didn't sell very well.

The bottom line is, Pachter is wrong with his way of making this demographic all encompassing as the Wii's "core audience". It's not. However, it exists, and it's a big fucking demgraphic, and third party titles will never be given the same consideration, no matter if they do everything in the world right.

I don't think you are right. While you bring up examples of Nintendo games that sold well despite being just as niche as some third party games (in your opinion) you forget to mention how many Nintendo games there are that didn't meet expectations.

A game like Excitebots for example that even failed to sell over 100k although the first installment was fairly successful and although it is published by Nintendo. Or to have something we can compare with the Conduit, we should take Geist. This game was a shooter published by Nintendo for the Gamecube, and it was fairly ambitious but received mixed reviews, comparable to the Conduit. Now this page lacks the sales numbers of Geist, but I would take any bet it didn't sell more than the Conduit although being published by Nintendo.

The thing is, Only people writing in forums and reading lots of reviews for their games even know who is publishing or developing a game, so I really don't think it makes any difference if a title is Nintendo published or not. Of course the case gets different when Nintendo advertises the games they publish, that can boost sales quite a lot as Professor Layton has proven in Europe.

You have mentioned two examples, one being Endless Ocean and the other one is Super Paper Mario. I can't give you a good explanation why Endless Ocean sold this much, but it definitely helped being released this early in the Wii's livecycle. But sometimes there are games selling more than anyone expects, and Endless Ocean is one of those games. I don't think it has anything to do with being published by Nintendo however.

And you can't really be serious about your other example, can you? It is Mario, and it's an adventurish game. People buy it now matter what. I guess most people who bought it were unaware of the genre of the game. Also, a dumbed down RPG isn't really niche in my books, but something quite popular. So I really can't give you this example.



Currently Playing: Skies of Arcadia Legends (GC), Dragon Quest IV (DS)

Last Game beaten: The Rub Rabbits(DS)

iBlah on 18 August 2009

what's the big deal about this pachter guy anyway



 

Destroyer_of_knights on 18 August 2009
Procrastinato said:

From a certain standpoint, Onyxmeth's statement mirrors that of Sean Malstrom's recent article regarding media criticism of Wii titles.

Malstrom basically said critics were too harsh on Wii games, for no good reason. I think Onyx is merely extending that same concept to the fanbase -- the forum fanbase in particular. That criticism may very well seed itself into the community as "if its not Nintendo, it sucks", and have a much greater impact than readily perceived.

The Conduit was well received, critically -- but how many of you actually own it? How many dual- or tri-console owners would choose to by such a game on the Wii, with its cool motion controls, etc.. over a HD shooter without such things? Apparently not very many, or the demographic wasn't there to begin with.

The Wii has plenty of 3rd party hits, and good 3rd party games, as many of you are quick to point out in discussions where the Wii is confronted with a "doesn't sell software" topic. Why this 180' to criticize 3rd parties and 3rd party software happens, when an article shows up stating the obvious (that Nintendo is adored, and that its titles outperform 3rd party titles on the Wii by a stellar margin -- a fact, not an opinion), is a mystery.

If you own a Wii, and enjoy it, surely you enjoy it for a reason. Presumably... that reason is the games. Right? Do you own a significant number of Nintendo games, relative to 3rd party titles? If you don't own much 3rd party software (of which there is a ton, as per Nintendo's statements, over and over again), is it because "it sucks", or because it wasn't made by Nintendo?

Are games like Wii Sports, Wii Play, Animal Crossing, Wii Music, Wii Fit, etc. truly "great games", with great gameplay concepts and presentation, or are they something a little new and different?  Lots of interesting contradictions to work out there.

You and Onyxmeth make some really good points...but it seems that some times fanboyism out weigh logic even when things are obvious.



efestione on 18 August 2009

Wii has a good selection of third party exclusives, and some of these sold quite well



mike_intellivision on 18 August 2009

In rethinking this issue, I think that Rol hit a key point.

Nintendo has always been expected to generate software sales for its consoles. So its core would be a core of gamers who like its games.

That being said, the article presupposes that most serious gamers own another console besides the Wii -- which is neither necessarily accurate or a flattering portrayal to Wii owners.

Nintendo published Top 10 selling games for Nintendo consoles
NES: 9+ (one game was published in one market by someone other than Nintendo)
SNES: 8
N64: 9+ (one game was published in one market by someone other than Nintendo)
GC: 9
Wii: 8+ (one game was published in one market by someone other than Nintendo)

Compare that to the other current console makers:

Sony
PS1: 6
PS2: 2
PS3: 4

Microsoft
Xbox: 4
X360: 4

But saying that Nintendo audiences buy Nintendo games is quite different than saying that they don't/won't buy third-party games.

So the best way to look at this is the article tells the "selective" truth.

Mike from Morgantown



      


I am Mario.


I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble.

Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492

NNID: Mike_INTV