What would benefit the 3rd parties if they did that. They would have to port a game that was 3-5 years old to a console that gives those quality games ninty makes!
I could care less if third parties gives a rat ass about nintendo's next hd console... third party belongs to microsoft or sony because they feel its safer (I dont know why though, I think thats how they feel)...

well... at the end... I could care less about third parties that make action girlz racing or make anything at all on the next ninty console! I just want some decent games, and thats why I buy nintendo's console, because I KNOW for a fact that they will release some awsome games! Regardless of how they change their console!

Nick said: BMaker11 said: Nick said: Boneitis said: Nick said: Boneitis said: bdbdbd said: Also, as Avinash said, there's big demand for quality games on Wii, which is proven by the first party sales. Then again, there aren't that many quality titles on the HD systems either. Nintendo has proven their games are in huge demand with every console they've released. If every 3rd party developer could just create what Nintendo does everyone would be rich. If you don't think the HD consoels have many quality titles, than the Wii must be abysmal. That's just an ignorant comment. It seems that you are implying that only games that you or the "hardcore" gamers would like as quality.  ESPECIALLY when you follow it with comments like "Also the userbase seems to be mostly intrigued with genres like party games, edutainment, and anything Mario."  Just because it's not a game designed for a 16-24 year old male doesn't mean it's not a quality title.  There are a ton of quality titles on the Wii that appearantly just don't appeal to YOU.  There are a lot of people out there (56.69M) that they do appeal to.  I'm definitely saying the HD consoles offer superior titles. But if you're a Nintendo fan, 1st party is great on the Wii. Those 56.69M want 1st party games. Even with that large userbase it moves less 3rd party software than the 360. HD consoles offer superior titles TO YOU, but most of the Wii owners don't want those games or they would be purchasing Xbox or PS3.  They're buying the Wii because it offers superior titles TO THEM. Those 56.69M don't want 1st party games, they want quality games.  The Wii isn't 56.69M Ninty fanboys.  That's just another tired excuse that you're repeating.  A very large portion of Wii owners are new gamers that purposefuly purchase what they know will be quality software.  The Wii moves less 3rd party software than the 360 because it doesn't get real attempts by 3rd party developers, hence the whole point of this entire thread. If the games that are already available to Wii owners are already of so much quality TO THEM, then why are you guys complaining, or rather, bringing up the topic of whether or not 3rd parties will support the Wii more? They don't have to, and if the Wii audience already has superior titles...TO THEM, then what's there to worry about? You already have your quality titles, why complain that games that are on other systems don't come to the Wii. That's like saying: "PS3 owners think that the PS3 offers superior titles TO THEM....but they're going to continue to ask why PC developers don't put their games on the console.". Plain and simple, if you're so content with the games that are superior, TO YOU, why do you need the other games so much? Wii is at almost 57M sold, and it did it without Assassin's Creed, GTA, Metal Gear, etc. People buying Wiis didn't say "3rd parties aren't putting Game X on the Wii, so I ain't buying". Week in and week out, the Wii sells gangbusters without those games, so obviously the demographic doesn't really care that these third parties aren't supporting the console in the same way the're supporting HD My issue (and I think a lot of peoples issue) is that 3rd parties churn out crap and then publicly blame Wii customers for not purchasing that crap.  Whether or not they support the Wii more I don't really care.  I'll never catch up and fully own and play all of the games I want for the Wii anyways. This is the point I was making in most of my posts if you read through them.  They don't care because there is a lot of software available that appeals TO THEM.  It's simply incorrect to say that the Wii's software is not quality and inferior to games on XBOX/PS3 simply because it doesn't appeal to that specific userbase.  Statements like that reak of elitism.

But that games that ARE on the Wii appeal to Wii owners, and the third party games that us "elitists" say are superior, as you said, "doesn't appeal to that specific audience".

I'm not saying that Wii's software isn't quality, but as we all know, quality is objective. What's on the Wii apparently appeals to Wii owners, but maybe not HD owners, and vice versa (hence the "TO THEM" statements). If said Xbox/PS3 games simply don't appeal to that specific (Wii) userbase, why put the games on there?

If you're to assume that just because I used that same logic to retort to your post as a means of degredading the Wii's games, that's even more elitist. Because a Wii fan could then do the same thing, and make HD software out to be inferior to Wii software

SuperAdrianK said: What would benefit the 3rd parties if they did that. They would have to port a game that was 3-5 years old to a console that gives those quality games ninty makes! I could care less if third parties gives a rat ass about nintendo's next hd console... third party belongs to microsoft or sony because they feel its safer (I dont know why though, I think thats how they feel)... well... at the end... I could care less about third parties that make action girlz racing or make anything at all on the next ninty console! I just want some decent games, and thats why I buy nintendo's console, because I KNOW for a fact that they will release some awsome games! Regardless of how they change their console!

And that's all you should need. If you know that Nintendo will put out games you're guaranteed to like, why worry about anyone else? If it's really that big a deal, buy the system the games are on. That seems to be the problem with Wii owners. They bought the Wii and assumed that it would get the "big blockbusters" from 3rd parties, and since it hasn't happened, they continually ponder why it hasn't happened yet.

I bought a PS3 first. I knew GoW3 would come out and I would like it. I knew GT5 would come out and I would like it. I knew MGS4 would come out and I would like it (equivalent to you knowing Nintendo would put out it classic, staple games). But when I got the PS3 and realized that the 360 was getting things such as early beta/DLC access, exclusive DLCs, 1-year exclusivities, and various other exclusive things, I didn't say "Why aren't those companies supporting the PS3 the same way as they are the 360" (equivalent to what's going on right now in this thread). I went out and bought a system with the things I wanted (what SHOULD happen with Wii fans if they want these 3rd party games so desperately)*

*except the deal with Valve. I just don't like their outlook on the PS3 lol

"(what SHOULD happen with Wii fans if they want these 3rd party games so desperately)"

You really got it wrong. It's not us having the games. It's the Wii having the games. So stop pretending you've proven anything by twisting out words.

BMaker11 said: Nick said: BMaker11 said: Nick said: Boneitis said: Nick said: Boneitis said: bdbdbd said: Also, as Avinash said, there's big demand for quality games on Wii, which is proven by the first party sales. Then again, there aren't that many quality titles on the HD systems either. Nintendo has proven their games are in huge demand with every console they've released. If every 3rd party developer could just create what Nintendo does everyone would be rich. If you don't think the HD consoels have many quality titles, than the Wii must be abysmal. That's just an ignorant comment. It seems that you are implying that only games that you or the "hardcore" gamers would like as quality.  ESPECIALLY when you follow it with comments like "Also the userbase seems to be mostly intrigued with genres like party games, edutainment, and anything Mario."  Just because it's not a game designed for a 16-24 year old male doesn't mean it's not a quality title.  There are a ton of quality titles on the Wii that appearantly just don't appeal to YOU.  There are a lot of people out there (56.69M) that they do appeal to.  I'm definitely saying the HD consoles offer superior titles. But if you're a Nintendo fan, 1st party is great on the Wii. Those 56.69M want 1st party games. Even with that large userbase it moves less 3rd party software than the 360. HD consoles offer superior titles TO YOU, but most of the Wii owners don't want those games or they would be purchasing Xbox or PS3.  They're buying the Wii because it offers superior titles TO THEM. Those 56.69M don't want 1st party games, they want quality games.  The Wii isn't 56.69M Ninty fanboys.  That's just another tired excuse that you're repeating.  A very large portion of Wii owners are new gamers that purposefuly purchase what they know will be quality software.  The Wii moves less 3rd party software than the 360 because it doesn't get real attempts by 3rd party developers, hence the whole point of this entire thread. If the games that are already available to Wii owners are already of so much quality TO THEM, then why are you guys complaining, or rather, bringing up the topic of whether or not 3rd parties will support the Wii more? They don't have to, and if the Wii audience already has superior titles...TO THEM, then what's there to worry about? You already have your quality titles, why complain that games that are on other systems don't come to the Wii. That's like saying: "PS3 owners think that the PS3 offers superior titles TO THEM....but they're going to continue to ask why PC developers don't put their games on the console.". Plain and simple, if you're so content with the games that are superior, TO YOU, why do you need the other games so much? Wii is at almost 57M sold, and it did it without Assassin's Creed, GTA, Metal Gear, etc. People buying Wiis didn't say "3rd parties aren't putting Game X on the Wii, so I ain't buying". Week in and week out, the Wii sells gangbusters without those games, so obviously the demographic doesn't really care that these third parties aren't supporting the console in the same way the're supporting HD My issue (and I think a lot of peoples issue) is that 3rd parties churn out crap and then publicly blame Wii customers for not purchasing that crap.  Whether or not they support the Wii more I don't really care.  I'll never catch up and fully own and play all of the games I want for the Wii anyways. This is the point I was making in most of my posts if you read through them.  They don't care because there is a lot of software available that appeals TO THEM.  It's simply incorrect to say that the Wii's software is not quality and inferior to games on XBOX/PS3 simply because it doesn't appeal to that specific userbase.  Statements like that reak of elitism.   But that games that ARE on the Wii appeal to Wii owners, and the third party games that us "elitists" say are superior, as you said, "doesn't appeal to that specific audience". I'm not saying that Wii's software isn't quality, but as we all know, quality is objective. What's on the Wii apparently appeals to Wii owners, but maybe not HD owners, and vice versa (hence the "TO THEM" statements). If said Xbox/PS3 games simply don't appeal to that specific (Wii) userbase, why put the games on there? If you're to assume that just because I used that same logic to retort to your post as a means of degredading the Wii's games, that's even more elitist. Because a Wii fan could then do the same thing, and make HD software out to be inferior to Wii software

I agree with you.  We are making the same exact point.  You seem to be trying to explain to me what I said with the "TO THEM" statements and I know exactly what it means.  I don't think you were degrading the Wii's games at all... I think the person I responded to that called it's library inferior degraded the Wii's games as well as most reviewers and the industry as a whole.  I don't think the Wii needs the same games that Xbox/PS3 are receiving, but I do think that 3rd parties should be trying to reach out to this new consumer.  I don't care if it's an exercise game or whatever.... but at least make it a quality exercise game.  Third parties are quick to blame everyone but themselves for their poor performance on the Wii.  Why should they blame Nintendo or the consumer for their own poor performance?  When they decide to offer 57M gamers something of quality that appeals to them they will find the same success that Nintendo does.  Instead they'll continue to rush buggy budgetless games to the market hoping for a quick buck, all the while, teaching millions of new gamers to not buy their product ever again.  It's terrible business.

Boneitis said: Nintendo has proven their games are in huge demand with every console they've released. If every 3rd party developer could just create what Nintendo does everyone would be rich. If you don't think the HD consoels have many quality titles, than the Wii must be abysmal. That's just an ignorant comment.

Ignorant to what? There aren't that many quality titles on HD systems as people claim there to be. There are lots of games that push the visuals, but that isn't equal to quality game.

Yes, Nintendo has proven how they can sell games. This is because of the quality they put into their products. And yes, most of the third parties can't even come close to Nintendo in terms of quality, which is just further pointing out what i said about quality titles.

Boneitis said: LordTheNightKnight said: "If the Wii HD had specs similar to the 360 or PS3, it would definitely receive many of the games we see on the 360 and PS3 and they will be EQUAL QUALITY." We're saying no. The quality wouldn't matter. They would find more reasons to ignore it (we have to adjust the controls, and we won't acknowledge the classic controller). Well I'm saying you're wrong. 3rd party developers ignored the N64 because it didn't sell in Japan and cartridges were too expensive. Gamecube wasn't ignored because it used CDs and it had hardware similar to the other popular consoles. Wii is ignored because the hardware is inferior and HD games can't be ported unless built from the ground up. Also the userbase seems to be mostly intrigued with genres like party games, edutainment, and anything Mario. Control is the least of their problems. Its basically just a mouse pointer with a joystick attached. Is it impossible to believe there could be a logical reason?

There is a logical reason, but i would bet you're unwilling to accept it, because it doesn't fit your naive worldview. It has everything to do with money.

Let me guess, in your worldview, 3rd parties are gooddoers, if not even saints, that make for you, The Consumer, the games you want to play.
They phase out so much money in development to deliver you, The Consumer, the best possible experience.
They spend tens, if not hundreds, of millions in marketing to bring the game to your, The Consumers, knowledge.

This, however, seems to be the complete opposite to what the third parties put on Wii. The third parties don't:
-Make the games Wii owners want to play.
-Invest much money in Wii development.
-Market their games.

The question is: why? Maybe you'd have an answer to it.
Also, why is Wii ignored because it's less powerful? You'd think the HD consoles would be ignored because Wii development is cheaper and it has an installbase that roughly equals the HD console installbase.

Gamecube used DVD:s.

I'm not getting your point with the controller, the controllers on HD consoles are just joysticks without the pointer. As you can see, it's a clear win for Wii for being better featured.

Boneitis said: @ Nick Alright, Nintendo knows what its audience wants. But most developers don't create the kind of games Nintendo does nor could they. That's why Nintendo is unique. Well I'm just showing my opinion is shared by far more people than just me. Clearly you agree. I don't see those party games being advertised either. Yet they seem to move millions. Conduit, Madworld, and No More Heroes were advertised pretty heavily. Yet they still found their way into the bargain bin rather quickly.

If you haven't noticed, the vast majority of HD games end up in the bargain bin rather quickly. In that sense, the games you mentioned aren't any different from HD games.

I don't know how much they advertised the specific games, since i can't recall seeing a single ad for any of the three games anywhere.
But let's look at the games.
NMH, the game is mediocre at best, providing a few good laughs and the bossfights were fun. It's pretty clear that the Jackass/poop -humour isn't that popular and outside the bossfights the game was more like eating small rocks (or the city was). It's a game that you didn't buy if got to try it first.
Madworld, the game looks like it was made at the same time with Pong. Where are all the colours? Even NES games look better. To add to the game looking bad, it was extremely violent, which is turning people off from it, rather than interested.
Conduit, there's nothing wrong with the game when looking from the outside, but considering the reviews the game had, obviously the audience it was targeted at thought the game was bad.

LordTheNightKnight said: "(what SHOULD happen with Wii fans if they want these 3rd party games so desperately)" You really got it wrong. It's not us having the games. It's the Wii having the games. So stop pretending you've proven anything by twisting out words.

But you're a Wii owner, so you having the games and the Wii having the games is kind of mutually exclusive.

This whole thread is about a "what if?" situation. Realistically, you've noticed that the trend for third prties isn't in the favor of the Wii. But the question always arises of when they would start. But in that context, you've really got it wrong. I saved a post from a Kotaku poster from a while ago. I don't remember it specifically, because it's on a different computer, but it went something like this:

"If you're a true gamer, you don't buy a system, and just expect all the games to come it. You see what games are coming to what system, and then buy appropriately"

It shouldn't matter about tech specs, marketshare, etc. If you see that certain games are going to a certain platform, you buy that platform, not buy a different platform, then continually ask if/when the developers will put their games on what you bought.

Now, hypothetically, (and I've stated this above), I think it has absolutely nothing to do with tech specs or marketshare. It has to do with the higher ups at Nintendo. Coming off the SNES, the N64s 3rd party support wasn't that great, even though it was more powerful than the fledgling PS1, and Nintendo had the brand recognition that Sony didn't. Coming into the next gen, Nintendo found some middle ground in terms of power, but still, their 3rd party support paled once again, and even worse, to the even more fledgling company (in terms of video game brand recognition), Microsoft. Now, you have the Wii, which is the weakest of them all, but conversely has the most marketshare, and the outlook is once again the same.

Did you ever stop and think that Nintendo has something to do with it? Maybe 3rd party devs are "afraid of Nintendo's quality". It may seem like just another excuse, but that may be what they're really thinking. When something so obscure as Wii Fit sells over 20M copies, but Need for Speed doesn't even break 400k (sold over a million on PS3 and 360 both....and don't you DARE call that "niche"), nor Marvel Ultimate Alliance (over 2M on the 360....110k on the Wii) it really is telling of the Wii's demographic, whether you choose to believe that or not.

If Wii owners want to buy "Game Party" at a ridiculous rate, but not games in the same style as the above mentioned, do you really think developers will put those kinds of games on the Wii, high tech specs or not?

@BMaker: The Kotaku poster said it well. But i don't think that's what LordTheNightKnight was talking about, since he specically said it not being about Wii owners wanting the games (what the Kotaku poster said), but why the 3rd parties aren't putting the games on Wii. The difference is in the perspective used.

Third party support (or the lack of it) on N64 and GC is easilly explained by small installbase and in N64 case, high dev costs. GC however had been somewhat cheap to port games to, but the option wasn't widely used.

The third party dislike isn't that much about Nintendos quality itself, as it is about Nintendos indepence from third parties. Sony, and especially M$, that have weak first party, depend much more on 3rd parties. Third parties have the least control on Nintendo, that is in the position the third parties would like to be aswell.

bdbdbd said: @BMaker: The Kotaku poster said it well. But i don't think that's what LordTheNightKnight was talking about, since he specically said it not being about Wii owners wanting the games (what the Kotaku poster said), but why the 3rd parties aren't putting the games on Wii. The difference is in the perspective used. Third party support (or the lack of it) on N64 and GC is easilly explained by small installbase and in N64 case, high dev costs. GC however had been somewhat cheap to port games to, but the option wasn't widely used. The third party dislike isn't that much about Nintendos quality itself, as it is about Nintendos indepence from third parties. Sony, and especially M$, that have weak first party, depend much more on 3rd parties. Third parties have the least control on Nintendo, that is in the position the third parties would like to be aswell.

Yeah, they got to play kingmaker the last two gens. Nintendo is denying that this time. You take that kind of power away, it doesn't matter how much money they will lose, they will still resent it.

So we're largely in agreement that there is some sort of non-practical resentment going on here that gets in the way of 3rd party support?