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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Third Party Devs have made up their minds about the Wii.

AHHHHhhhhhh!!!!! 2010 is 2012 for the Wii!!! AAAAAAHHHHHhhhhh!!!



Around the Network
jammy2211 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"Why some people always claim that HD Consoles generate the loss for 3rd party developers. Why are they focusing on the HD consoles if its such a bad buisness.

It seems like a myth not reality. has someone actually NUMBERS or anything else to support this claim ? Numbers which show that its HD console development which is the reason for this."

Developers are reporting losses. Those are their own numbers, not ours. Take Two is losing money. EA is losing money. Ubisoft has recently been reporting losses. Capcom and S_E haven't been loosing money, but have had reduced profits.

As for thinking people wouldn't stick with a bad business, you should study human nature.

That hardly proves HD investment is unprofitable though, does it? Even after profits made, companies are sinking money into lots of other things, paying execs 'above' the developers, spending on rnd on non-game related matters, market research, cancelled projects etc.

 The San Diego story that came out from Joystiq I think shows where alot of companies are sinking their moeny - mismanagement causes them to sinks a stupid amount of money into something and make it unprofitable. That's no the HD consoles fault, and it could happen on any games developement. It seems to happen less in the east, where I think the publishers have a better lid on their studios.

 It's foolish to assume going to the Wii will reap better profits for a company though, it depends entirely on circumstances. The western publishers are getting a pathetic amount out of the Wii userbase and it does need to step up, but at the same time non of them can afford to take risks in trying to sell on a market few have had success on. When I put myself in these companies shoes I think alot of them are in a really tight spot at the moment, and after most of them made their name in the Ps1 and Ps2 days they're not used to have two completely split markets.

 

 Also on the MW2 note, it has sold $1 billion at retail. As far as Activision are concerned, they make ~$30 per copy sold, so they're sitting at something like $600 million of that revenue once you factor in the extra money made from prestige editions etc. Mw2 will sell all year though, and the DLC will probably generate them an extra $100 million, plus whatever Microsoft paid for exclusivity...

Then I'll give it's not the HD itself, but the attitude that makes them support HD despite the higher costs and lower sales goes hand in hand with the bad business of these companies overall.



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

Johann said:
Demotruk said:

Oh, and my point about break out hits being the vast bulk of Wii sales is true. Of the 1500 or so Wii games, and the total 436.84 million Wii software sales, 302.72 million belong to the roughly 50 million sellers.

Sorry, I missed that post.

2 things:

1) - How many of those are 3rd party? Because Nintendo's software must count for a lot of that.

2) - Compare that to the HD consoles and if it's ridiculously out of proportion, I'll admit that I was wrong and you win the argument.

 

1) Roughly the top 80 third party (those that hit 500K, easier to calculate) games out of ~1,450 third party Wii games make up 129.22 Million sales of the 170 million total sales of Wii third party games. So it is similarly top heavy.

2) I'm not sure I understand why, as I don't agree with your judgment of "support", but here goes (360 only because I don't want to spend too much time counting):

I'm not sure how many X360 third party games there are, but we'll go with 800. I know it's much less than Wii as a raw number. Out of 277Mill sales for third party 360 games, 217Mill are made by the top 152 games that reach 500K. If you reduce that to the top 80, it should be around 165Mill (rough calculation). Whatever way you look at it, you get a much higher proportion of games for 360 that have enough effort put into them to reach a benchmark like 500K.



A game I'm developing with some friends:

www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm

It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.

Netyaroze said:
No I want some reasons not just a foggy statement. Tell me why show me some examples and explain me why those games cant break even make an calculation this is just not an argument this is nothing. I am willing to believe you but you have to deliever something.

1- Development costs are increasing much faster than revenues.

2- Development costs are increasing due to HD graphics, Wii development costs are basically the same as last gen.

Ta da.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Demotruk said:
Johann said:
Demotruk said:

Oh, and my point about break out hits being the vast bulk of Wii sales is true. Of the 1500 or so Wii games, and the total 436.84 million Wii software sales, 302.72 million belong to the roughly 50 million sellers.

Sorry, I missed that post.

2 things:

1) - How many of those are 3rd party? Because Nintendo's software must count for a lot of that.

2) - Compare that to the HD consoles and if it's ridiculously out of proportion, I'll admit that I was wrong and you win the argument.

 

1) Roughly the top 80 third party (those that hit 500K, easier to calculate) games out of ~1,450 third party Wii games make up 129.22 Million sales of the 170 million total sales of Wii third party games. So it is similarly top heavy.

2) I'm not sure I understand why, as I don't agree with your judgment of "support", but here goes (360 only because I don't want to spend too much time counting):

I'm not sure how many X360 third party games there are, but we'll go with 800. I know it's much less than Wii as a raw number. Out of 277Mill sales for third party 360 games, 217Mill are made by the top 152 games that reach 500K. If you reduce that to the top 80, it should be around 165Mill (rough calculation). Whatever way you look at it, you get a much higher proportion of games for 360 that have enough effort put into them to reach a benchmark like 500K.

HD graphics alone require an exponentially larger amount of man-hours to design the art, which creates exponentially larger development costs.  And all of a sudden, 500K sales isn't even profitable.  EA wasn't even happy with Dead Space, which broke a million sales and had its own cartoon.



Around the Network
morenoingrato said:
wait!! project neddlemouse isn't for wii!!!!!!????

Sega never mentioned what platforms that it's for. But since sonic has sold best on Wii they would be stupid not to make a Wii version.

Or... They will not make it on a Nintendo system to keep the retro spirit hmmm.....



I LOVE ICELAND!

The "because of HD graphics" is pretty vague statement. Gears 2 cost $10M to develop. Lots of people claim it has some of the X360's best graphics.

Almost every Wii game in existance probably derived from a pre-existing GameCube engine, since the architectures are next to identical, outside of clock -- so how did Gears 2 get so cheap, when its not HD?

Which HD games were on their first HD engine architecture iteration, when you choose to quote their costs?



 

Procrastinato said:
The "because of HD graphics" is pretty vague statement. Gears 2 cost $10M to develop. Lots of people claim it has some of the X360's best graphics.

Almost every Wii game in existance probably derived from a pre-existing GameCube engine, since the architectures are next to identical, outside of clock -- so how did Gears 2 get so cheap?

I'm not calling your honesty into question here, but could you source that? I'm really curious, now.



Khuutra said:
Procrastinato said:
The "because of HD graphics" is pretty vague statement. Gears 2 cost $10M to develop. Lots of people claim it has some of the X360's best graphics.

Almost every Wii game in existance probably derived from a pre-existing GameCube engine, since the architectures are next to identical, outside of clock -- so how did Gears 2 get so cheap?

I'm not calling your honesty into question here, but could you source that? I'm really curious, now.

It's pretty easy to find.  Here's the first thing I came up with in Google:

link 

My point was to illustrate that 3rd parties were comparing re-used engines (GameCube engines, which are basically Wii engines) to brand new PS3/360 engines, when those "1/4th to 1/3rd" quotes were made.  That's no longer the case.



 

Gears was reported to cost that much AFTER the engine development was deducted. Plus Epic has been known to spend a lot smarter, since they are a smaller company.



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