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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - ( PCWorld ) Why The Wii Needs an HD Visual Upgrade

I have to say this whole conspiracy theory by third parties to ignore the Wii is quite funny,

This is corporate world guys, if there is a way to make an easy buck, there's 5 compagnies competing to make that buck.
So stop saying all the time that third parties don't give the Wii more support out of an evil plan.
If they don't it's because it's not profitable enough for them...



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

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
Ail said:
I have to say this whole conspiracy theory by third parties to ignore the Wii is quite funny,

This is corporate world guys, if there is a way to make an easy buck, there's 5 compagnies competing to make that buck.
So stop saying all the time that third parties don't give the Wii more support out of an evil plan.
If they don't it's because it's not profitable enough for them...

Doesn't have to be an evil plan, as ringo pointed out, all it takes is a bunch of people who think similarly



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Avinash_Tyagi said:
Ail said:
I have to say this whole conspiracy theory by third parties to ignore the Wii is quite funny,

This is corporate world guys, if there is a way to make an easy buck, there's 5 compagnies competing to make that buck.
So stop saying all the time that third parties don't give the Wii more support out of an evil plan.
If they don't it's because it's not profitable enough for them...

Doesn't have to be an evil plan, as ringo pointed out, all it takes is a bunch of people who think similarly

They can't discredit as easily if it's the latter.



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

Ail said:
I have to say this whole conspiracy theory by third parties to ignore the Wii is quite funny,

This is corporate world guys, if there is a way to make an easy buck, there's 5 compagnies competing to make that buck.
So stop saying all the time that third parties don't give the Wii more support out of an evil plan.
If they don't it's because it's not profitable enough for them...

I agree. The choice for a third party would be design a game on the wii or design a game for X360/PS3/ PC where they can put in more pride into their artwork. Some developers does seem to take pride in their work and want their game look as good as they can be. Also developers have more ram (512mb vs 88mb) to work with to show off their hard work.



That actually is the mentality that is the problem. They just want to show off a bunch of assets before making a compelling game. Or they think the latter is magically taken away by less resources (not less tech, since the Wii still can do loads of detail, unlike if it was a 5th gen system).



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

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight said:
That actually is the mentality that is the problem. They just want to show off a bunch of assets before making a compelling game. Or they think the latter is magically taken away by less resources (not less tech, since the Wii still can do loads of detail, unlike if it was a 5th gen system).

Brad at Stardock tried to make a compelling game before graphics which he admits  was a big mistake. Now he works on the artwork a lot earier in development. Artwork/graphics and ability to make a compelling games goes hand to hand more than most gamers realize or admit.



Smidlee said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
That actually is the mentality that is the problem. They just want to show off a bunch of assets before making a compelling game. Or they think the latter is magically taken away by less resources (not less tech, since the Wii still can do loads of detail, unlike if it was a 5th gen system).

Brad at Stardock tried to make a compelling game before graphics which he admits  was a big mistake. Now he works on the artwork a lot earier in development. Artwork/graphics and ability to make a compelling games goes hand to hand more than most gamers realize or admit.

I didn't mean assets aren't important. I meant the need to have loads of them, thinking that the ammount matters more than the talent to make those assets.

Capcom said outright they could make great assets on the Wii. It just took more resource management, and the game still cost less.



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

Procrastinato said:

Okay, I'll give an example.

Say there are 10 million software units sold on "N"'s platform each year.  N gets $10 licensing fee from each one.  That's $100 million in revenue, with no cost-of-goods, or development costs, to get in the way of making a profit.

Say there are 10 software publishers, each selling 1 million software units, at $30 revenue (cost to retailers).  Removing the $10 licensing fee, and the cost of goods (lets say ~ $7, although I'm actually using an average c-o-g from DS games here.. I don't know what a Wii game is.. it might be a little cheaper), that yields $13 net (maximum) from each unit sold.  That's $13 million net total.  

Now you have to remove the development costs for EACH one of the titles sold in that group that sold 1 million units total.  If it was one game, and the average cost is $5 million to develop, you've got ~$8 million net profit.  If it was 2 games, at $5 million each, now you've got only $3 million profit... see where I'm going with this?

Nintendo has claimed that the Wii was WAY more titles (both in number made and number sold, but the number sold isn't as proportionately great as the number made is) for the Wii each year than the HDs do.. and that's true.  That's great for Nintendo, because that means more licensing money for them, but since the sales for individual titles aren't stellar, that's a horrid statistic for 3rd parties making the games.  

Individual titles do best when targetted at a specific demographic -- which is the crux of the problem with the Wii.  Who cares that a Wii game costs $5 million to develop, compared to a HD cost of $20 million, when the $20 million investment nets you 9 million unit sales on the two HD titles, and the $5 million nets 1.5 million unit sales on the Wii title, and at a lesser revenue per unit, to boot?  Each dollar spent on the HD consoles, in this example, nets 1.5x as much revenue (actually more like 2.0x, because the of the revenue per unit difference).

Every dollar spent on successful, demographically targetted games performs better.  Plain and simple.

EDIT: By the way, the shovelware titles bring the Wii development average way down.  The cost of making games, like the ones Reggie wants, is probably closer to half what the HD version costs.

"Individual titles do best when targetted at a specific demographic -- which is the crux of the problem with the Wii.  Who cares that a Wii game costs $5 million to develop, compared to a HD cost of $20 million, when the $20 million investment nets you 9 million unit sales on the two HD titles, and the $5 million nets 1.5 million unit sales on the Wii title, and at a lesser revenue per unit, to boot?  Each dollar spent on the HD consoles, in this example, nets 1.5x as much revenue (actually more like 2.0x, because the of the revenue per unit difference)."

"Every dollar spent on successful, demographically targetted games performs better.  Plain and simple."

"EDIT: By the way, the shovelware titles bring the Wii development average way down.  The cost of making games, like the ones Reggie wants, is probably closer to half what the HD version costs."

Even if that's true than games that sell close to the amount of Xbox360 titles are not profitable as the 13$ to make games goes to 26$ and Xbox360 games cost only 10$ more to buy. Moreover no thrid parties on the Xbox 360 or PS3 have sold 9 million copies. Only sequels to established franchises are selling on those systems. Exactly the types of games Nintendo wants on Wii systems. In fact Mario and Sonic at the Olympic games has more sales than All 360 games but 3. Guitar Hero sells more copies on the Wii than on HD systems. A lot of the hard core titles that sell alot are made by Activision selling Call of Duty reshashes and Microsoft with Halo and Gears of War.

 

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console=Wii&publisher=&genre=&minSales=0&results=50&sort=Total

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console=X360&publisher=&genre=&minSales=0&results=50&sort=Total



VGuserXX said:

Individual titles do best when targetted at a specific demographic.

Aaaand we're done here.



VGuserXX said:

Individual titles do best when targetted at a specific demographic -- which is the crux of the problem with the Wii.  Who cares that a Wii game costs $5 million to develop, compared to a HD cost of $20 million, when the $20 million investment nets you 9 million unit sales on the two HD titles, and the $5 million nets 1.5 million unit sales on the Wii title, and at a lesser revenue per unit, to boot?  Each dollar spent on the HD consoles, in this example, nets 1.5x as much revenue (actually more like 2.0x, because the of the revenue per unit difference).

"Every dollar spent on successful, demographically targetted games performs better.  Plain and simple."

"EDIT: By the way, the shovelware titles bring the Wii development average way down.  The cost of making games, like the ones Reggie wants, is probably closer to half what the HD version costs."

Even if that's true than games that sell close to the amount of Xbox360 titles are not profitable as the 13$ to make games goes to 26$ and Xbox360 games cost only 10$ more to buy. Moreover no thrid parties on the Xbox 360 or PS3 have sold 9 million copies. Only sequels to established franchises are selling on those systems. Exactly the types of games Nintendo wants on Wii systems. In fact Mario and Sonic at the Olympic games has more sales than All 360 games but 3. Guitar Hero sells more copies on the Wii than on HD systems. A lot of the hard core titles that sell alot are made by Activision selling Call of Duty reshashes and Microsoft with Halo and Gears of War.

 

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console=Wii&publisher=&genre=&minSales=0&results=50&sort=Total

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console=X360&publisher=&genre=&minSales=0&results=50&sort=Total

VGuserXX, it took me a sec to realize you were quoting me (the italics), because you cut-and-pasted, rather than used the quote mechanism. =)

In any case, I think you misread my post.  HD development is the cost to develop on BOTH HD platforms, not just one.  $20 million makes both a PS3 AND a 360 version of a game, because those two platforms are so similar.  Thus, "Wii" is one platform, from the 3rd party perspective, and "HD" (meaning both the others) is the "other" platform.  You have to COMBINE the PS3 and 360 SKU sales of a game to get the relative development cost to revenue.