Slashdot Mirror
Are Game Publishers Late To the (Wii and DS) Game?
simoniker writes "A new 'Analyze This' feature on Gamasutra examines analysts' views on the rise of Nintendo's Wii and DS, and how well game publishers have reacted to it, with Wedbush Morgan's Michael Pachter commenting: 'It's hard to criticize anyone for putting too much faith in the PS3, as most [publishers] haven't created "cutting edge" titles yet for that platform. Most of the PS3 titles so far have been perennial titles, like Madden, Tony Hawk, etc ... I'd say that most failed to capitalize on the DS and Wii opportunity. The exception on the DS side is THQ, which has made every game it can for the platform. On the Wii side, Ubisoft took a big chance by making ten games for the [Wii] launch window, and it has performed very well, so far. I think that the others will catch up no later than early next year.'"
The Wii and to a lesser extent the DS almost require innovative gameplay. The result is that you can't just make a game with slightly bigger levels, more guns, and slightly better graphics and call it "new".
The platform itself is calling for something different, and different takes time.
Thus far I have not seen NCAA nor Nascar for the Wii, despite the fact that both the Xbox 360 and the Wii are pretty much even in total number of consoles in the wild. There may be other games in the works for the Wii, but, considering Nascar's fan base and the fact that there is now a Wii sponsored car in Nascar, a Nascar game would be very welcome, even if it does blow pretty hard on the Xbox 360.
Games which can use the DS as a hybrid controller hehehe, that'd rock.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
That publishers have made in reference to the Wii are most certainly the following:
No Star Wars light sabre-centric game out (or even officially announced, for that matter), no type of Gardening game (think about it...what would sell to grandmas around the country better than a Garden simulator using the Wiimote?)...etc, etc, etc.
Really, the possibilities are VERY large indeed when it comes to the Wii's control sceme, despite its lack of power. I know these things aren't put together overnight, but developers really need to start pushing stuff like that out soon, before the Wii commotion dies down.
Living With a Nerd
The DS has been out almost three years, the Wii for less than a year. I would agree that the first years for both consoles were similar, the best games were first-party titles developed internally by Nintendo. This is for a number of reasons (including that Nintendo developed games are generally very good), but I think the biggest reason is that each of the consoles did something so different, third-parties were playing the wait-and-see game. By now, most companies have seen the potential of both platforms, but the major difference between the DS and the Wii is that the great DS third party games have been out for a while now and they're still coming. The great third-party games for the Wii really haven't arrived.
Look at the DS, some of the great third party games are Trauma Center (six months after release), Phoenix Wright (~year after release though a remake with extra content), and Meteos (~year after release). I can't think of a really great third party game for the DS that was available at release, except maybe Castlevania, but definitely not one that took advantage of the DS's unique capabilities.
It took a while for the DS to catch on for developers, and it's the same sequence for the Wii. This was a mistake for many publishers, besides Ubisoft which took a "gamble" with the Wii and I guess it paid off. The development time for a console game is probably longer than that for a handheld, so we're waiting a little longer for those great third party games. I'm sure they'll come though.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
This question has been asked and answered. Look at the numbers of marquee games out by publishers, by platform, vs. the sales numbers for the Wii and DS. This is not news.
Agreed. Conversely, look at the number of titles that either completely jumped from PS3 to XBox360 or went cross-platform.
Back on topic, this is pretty much the main reason for this generation's drought of games for the Nintendo platform. Everyone thought the PS3 was going to emerge from November the champion and the Wii was gonna be left in the dust. Thus, publishers and developers positioned themselves for the PS3 and put significantly less focus on the Wii. Ubisoft, for some reason, took the contrarian route and have been doing pretty well since then. Everyone else is playing catchup at this point.
Insert Sig Here
I have a Wii but I just can't spend long on the Wii, there's simply nothing on it to keep me playing. Play through Zelda, play through Red Steel, have a bit of a bat about on Wii sports or a play around on Rayman now and then but that's pretty much all there is to the Wii. It does however have a lot of potential, and many publishers have realised this, that's why, whilst the Wii is selling well I personally wouldn't recommend it to people right now unless you live in a house with a bunch of mates or so where you'll daily have a laugh with it's party games. Give it 6months to a year, when all the latecomers like EA who realised it's got a lot of potential have had time to develop their titles and I think there'll be a whole lot more reason to bother with the Wii.
;)
As for the DS, I don't think anyone was really a latecomer to it, by the time I realised it's existence it already had so many games around and now it just has hundreds and hundreds of top quality games. I play my DS a whole lot more simply because there are so many good games out there.
All that said however, I play my 360/PC more than either of them, perhaps because I'm a so-called "hardcore" gamer and don't fit Nintendo's target demographic anymore. Whilst I think my 360 is going to dominate my time in the next 6 to 12 months with the likes of Halo 3, Mass Effect, Blue Dragon and so forth upto Christmas and Fable 2, Alan Wake and so forth after Christmas I can quite easily see from Mid next year onwars the Wii stealing a vastly larger portion of my time as the developers finally catch on. I kinda want a PS3 to play Resistance, and honestly if it was as cheap as the Wii I'd impulse buy it for just that, however, like the 360 it's not a cheap console, the difference being that right now it has the high cost like the 360 and the shortage of good games like the Wii so for me it's hard to justify purchasing it. Perhaps by next Christmas the PS3 will be a decent choice with many more games and a easier to justify price and so I'd imagine around then is when I'll be likely to get one. Well, that's assuming the Wii hasn't filled my previous prediction that the late comers mentioned in this article haven't got me so utterly addicted with their new games by that point
Right now publishers, including the company I'm at, are shoveling out whatever low cost, quick to make crap out the door for the Wii. We want to milk the fad while proceeding right along with our real next gen plans.
Sucks to hear if you are a Wii fan expecting publishers to be jumping entirely on the Wii bandwagon. We have far to much experience dealing with Nintendo over the years and they haven't changed one bit this gen. Nintendo and the Wii are nothing any publisher is going to be insane enough to actually bank the company's next five years on.
Look for a million variations of sports and dancing Wii games that are already out there. We'll keep crapping the clones out as long as the suckers keep buying the crap.
Meanwhile HD TVs are moving into the mass market price range and the real next gen consoles are building up their user bases ready to buy our real games.
Knock yourself out thinking that there is some sort of amazing never seen before gameplay about to hit the Wii to make up for the abysmal cesspool of a library the system has right now. The chances of that happening are as good as Wii owners getting a true 1-1 control Lightsaber game...
Queue, indignant Wii owners...
I'm not sure what this guy is looking at in regards to the DS. Plenty of third-party developers have been coming to it since it became clear that the PSP wasn't going to be a giant killer, which we've known for at least two years now. I can name plenty of big-name third-party titles on the platform, and I don't even own one.
As for the Wii, while it's true that third parties were caught off-guard by it, I'm not sure that they should put too much effort into joining the "Wii game" to begin with. Most people who get the Wii, assuming that they get any games for it at all besides Wii Sports, have been buying and are going to buy Nintendo games and not much else. It was the same with the GameCube, and the same before that with the N64. Waggle doesn't change anything.
Rob
As a student I attended an information session for a game development company. They were looking for new undergrads to join their game development team so I thought I'd check it out.
What I found out is that they were developing their title game exclusively for the PS3. And was slated (IIRC) to be released close to the launch of the PS3 itself. They stated that they had problems with the hardware/drivers and the tools. And even now it's still in development last I heard.
The Wii at this point wasn't out yet, but during the question session I had to ask - why not develop for the Wii (or PC - since the developers admitted they played a lot of games on their PC)? They didn't give a clear answer or even express a direct interest, and I don't think they had one. It seems as though they just simply didn't see the merit in developing for something different and possibly "gimmicky". IIRC they said that they wouldn't rule it out, but now that they're stuck on the PS3 until they get the game shipped.
Of course they're going to be "late" to the Wii. I'm sure there are tons of companies who devoted themselves to either the XBox360 or PS3 betting on their market dominance. But instead found themselves struggling to develop for the platforms they chose (e.g. Silicon Knights). Saying that, I have no idea if the Wii development platform is any better.
To their credit, they were developing a DS game that apparently was coming along much better along with their PS3 title.
But there's no games for the PS3 Either. I think most publishers banked on the 360 because they already had a lot of units in the wild when the other two were released. I think there was a lot of hesitation towards the PS3 because of the high cost, but also because it's hard and expensive to develop for.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Why? Why can't they just port a few games for use w/ the classic controller. The graphics don't suck at all. I would buy a Wii if it had any good fighting games besides the gamecube version of soul caliber 2.
... to take Wii profits and use them to produce better 360 and PS3 games. Or so say the folks over on a PS3 forum I hang out on.
Frankly, I think it'll take the third parties a while to get the hang of the system. There's a widespread belief that third parties can't succeed on Nintendo platforms -- which may have been partially true, but some of that is just that Nintendo polishes games to a mirror-like finish before shipping them, and most companies can't outdo them.
Still, there's plenty of awesome 3rd-party games on the DS, and more to come. I expect that, by the end of this year, we'll be starting to see some better-produced third party games on the Wii, although Cruisin' looks like utter ass still. But the fact that Nintendo's putting out games that look pretty decent suggests that it's possible, and if sales keep being utterly phenomenal, I suspect we'll see an initial flood of "well, sorry, uhm, here's our wii game, we developed it in two months" titles, followed by some serious titles that people put real time into. Just compare things like RE4 Wii (which is pretty good, despite being a mere port) to some of the early shovelware... I think it'll happen.
I'm not surprised that the early games are pretty mediocre. To be honest, if you look at the titles that came out for, say, the PS2, there's a whole mountain of utter crap there, with the good titles buried in the heap. We tend to think of it as getting a lot of great games, and it did, but percentage-wise, it's no better than anything else, and worse than many.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Combine that with the costs of Development. THQ's president that said a Wii game cost between 25% - 50% of a 360 title...
So you can sell to a larger install base AND develop 2-4 games for the same investment? To combat this MS, and Sony need to get their install base much higher, and much quicker (or at least more profitable VIA microtransactions and such) than Nintendo, or the Wii will soon become the PS2 of this generation.
I assume you are completely oblivious to the relative sales of third party(no first party Nintendo or Sony) game sales to make such a comment...
This is what we like to call the "Deer Hunter Fallacy". The Wii is just the latest phase of that old game development low dev cost/high return mirage.
You do realize that if a game costs 25%-50% of another game, those extra savings are coming from somewhere other than a nebulous void right?
Wii games cost less because they don't make the game as big, as long, or as in depth as they would for another console. I'm absolutely sure that the difference in costs between HD graphic development and regular is far less than 50%. They're saving money because they're making simpler games designed for your grandmother or your 5 year old.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Nintendo also took a long time to get dev kits out to 3rd party developers, at least for the Wii. Nintendo probably had at least a one year head start on any 3rd parties.
I suppose that depends on where you put your money. You can have an HD presentation and some of the best facial animations ever seen in a game, and yet end up with a 6 hour game.
Hopefully both. :-) Over Memorial Day weekend 3 generations of my family were playing WiiSports together. This would not have happened with any other system to date.
Every company, including game companies like to bet on what they think is a sure thing. In the console market, the Wii is a disruptive technology. Few mainstream titles bet on disruptive technologies. And the larger the company, the less likely the CEO is going to have some kind of innovative idea or an innovative team that explains to the CEO why this disruptive technology would be good. Every game maker was going by historical numbers based on the gamecube, which weren't good compared to the PS2 or xbox.
Same thing happened with the dot com bust. Everyone was going gung ho, expecting higher sales in 2001, when suddenly, everyone stopped buying and the bottom fell out of everyone's earnings. Customers were buying because of the Y2k scare, but when it never came, they didn't have to buy any more.
The CEOs are praised for having such good earnings before 2001, and then bemoan their luck after 2001 when they say "oh well we didn't see the crash coming." Everyone saw the damn market crash coming EXCEPT these slow CEOs. I'll admit no one knew exactly when it was coming, but it was coming soon enough.
Same with the Wii. They all were geared towards the old consoles, and now they all are getting bitten in the ass because the PS3 is overpriced and buggy, and the xbox is "eh, whatever." But the Wii is something that is getting new customers, and requires new thinking. Big slow corporations don't like to think in new ways until they are forced to.
There are of course exceptions, but the ones that do everything like everyone else don't tend to care that much or get severely penalized. They are average humans after all.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Is when we'll see that the Wii has established a firm grip on #1 this generation. Also I believe the people developing games for the PS3 will finally get the graphics power out of the PS3 that Sony/IBM have been drooling over for years now. Xbox 360 this time next year will have a firm grip on #2 something Microsoft doesn't want. They wanted #1 and nothing less.
Your point is a good one, but your dates are a good deal off, I remember the timeline working a little differently.
11/20/04: DS release
12
01
02
03
04
05
06/13/05: Kirby Canvas Curse
06/28/05: Meteos
07
08/22/05: Advance Wars DS, Nintendogs (same day release)
09
10/04/05: Trauma Center, Castlevania (same day release)
10/12/05: Phoenix Wright
After that came a torrent of games like Mario Kart, Sonic Rush, Animal Crossing, and in the spring Metroid Hunters. It took about 8 months to get the first true* DS game, Kirby. By the time we were at the holiday season a year from release, we were getting superb games left and right. The stuff we had at launch (Mario 64, Feel the Magic, and after a month or so Warioware) pretty much parallels the same stuff we're putting up with on the Wii now. 8 months after release, we're now seeing the fist true* Wii game in Metroid.
In Japan, Brain Training took off early at just 6 months, and rocketed the DS skyward higher than anyone only looking at "good" games could have predicted. Wii Sports is doing the same thing for the Wii, it's not a difficult parallel to see. Not the only parallel to see, either, what with Zelda TP/Mario 64DS, Warioware/Warioware, Brawl/MarioKart DS, and depending how far you twist the inkblot, Forever Blue/Nintendogs.
The Wii, however, is a little different. Third parties, seeing how well the risky DS had done, jumped on the bandwagon much sooner than they did with the DS. That's how we got stuff like Elebits and *cough* Red Steel right off the bat. Unfortunately, the Wii seems to generally be taking way longer to design and develop for than the DS did, so third party support this holiday season is looking a little lighter than the DS's '05 season was. By the time next holiday season comes around, though, we should see an explosion of titles similar to the DS's holiday seasons.
Nintendo seems to be copycatting their own success, and when "copy" means "try something completely different," the industry could use all the Nintendo they can get.
Sony seems to be doing something like that, too, as you can draw many similar parallels between the PSP and PS3. If only their "copy" was bit less like "copy" as well.
*"True," meaning a AAA ground-up designed innovative game, and not a pile of minigames.
Just FYI: Attach rate on the Wii is bigger than on the PS3, and comparable to the 360 at the same time in its lifespan.
As for non-Nintendo games, people will buy them if they are available, see NES, SNES, early Wii sales numbers for Ubisoft.
GAH! Stop with the minigames meme! The Wii has more FPS than minigames. It needs more minigames. In fact, I'd be happy if third-party devs concentrated on making minigames. Of course, they don't, so that dream world thing... Applies to somebody else than you think.
The Wii isn't getting equivalent gameplay. It's getting better gameplay.
Deal with it.
Whether the Wii will catch up with the PS2 in total sales depends mainly on how long Nintendo will milk it. So far, in each generation, the leader was the last to launch the next generation console. It stands to reason that, with Nintendo winning this generation, it would wait for Sony or Microsoft to make a move.
However, Sony could go either way. If the PS3 never catches on, Sony might decide to not throw bad money after good money and launch a new generation early, just like Microsoft did with the 360. On the other hand, with the PS3 being (arguably) the strongest of the current-gen consoles, hardware-wise, Sony might decide to keep it alive as long as possible to gain back as much of its investment as possible.
As of now, Microsoft is in a good position vis-à-vis the PS3, and has no chance of competing with the Wii anyway - the 360 is the hardcore console, and Microsoft can't just change that short-term. I think they'll keep the 360 alive for quite a bit longer than the original Xbox. Should the PS3 catch up with the 360 and beat it by a good margin, I could even see Microsoft exiting the console business for good.
Personally, I think Nintendo won't launch an HD version of the Wii as long as the other two don't make their move. Still, I believe the Wii's lifespan will be considerably shorter than the PS2's (which is still selling rather well). I don't think the Wii will reach 120 million sold consoles.
HAHAHA! Man, your comments are getting better and better as I scroll through the thread. Also, more and more desperate. Wii selling less than Cube! No online games on Wii! Wii Sports would be better on other consoles!
Really, you should listen to yourself. You're not helping your point by making these inane arguments.
Is 70 plus native PS3 games or 2000 plus PS1/2 games good enough. Although why blame the console manufacture when it is the gaming companies that produce the games (yes I know Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony have their own gaming studios).
If you said "There are not enough native PS3 games for the PS3 that I like", I would agree with you but then again I can equally say the same for the Wii and the Xbox360. Todays games IMHO seem almost to be a marginal change from previous games.
As for "the PS3 is hard to develop for" that is an Urban Myth since the basic programming language is C and C++ which have been around for well over 20 years. In addition multi-processor machines have been around that long as well, so programming for them is well understood. I can understand that type of comment coming from a programmer that is in their own comfort zone and is too lazy to get out of it, but not a professional programmer. Anyway most game developers just use a game development system which does not involve low level programming. It is normally left up to the vendor of the development system to optimize their product.
Programming is only one aspect of game development there are many other factors involved and a gaming company has to get it all together otherwise they are going to loose money if their game is bad or is mediocre which in many ways is what we are seeing with many games today. To much of the same types of game results in poor sales which will hurt a gaming company as much as a bad game.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
I don't own a PS3, and don't plan to. But the general consensus from what I hear is that there aren't that many good PS3 games. PS1/2 games can be discounted, because if you want to play those, you can save yourself a few hundred dollars and get a PS2. There maybe be just as many good games for the PS3 as for the Wii or 360, but then why pay so much extra unless the games are signinficantly better? If you get the same amount of fun (assuming you can measure fun) out of a PS3, 360, or Wii, then the Wii makes the most sense to purchase on a fun:cost ratio.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
If you include the Gamecube you should look into the Naruto Gekitou Ninja Taisen/Clash of Ninja games, those are pretty good (independent of the license) but 4 for the GC (the best GC version) isn't getting a release in the west, instead there's a modified version of the Wii sequels and I have no idea if those are any good. Technically there's also Street Fighter on the virtual console (and possibly the Neo Geo games in the future) but that's kind of a stretch to count. I think I did read that a non-crappy version of Guilty Gear Accent Core was coming out for the Wii but I'm not sure.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Let me say that it takes up too much space. I'm afraid to play the 360 due to the scratching, afraid to touch the PS3 because of fingerprint issues, and not playing the Wii at the moment because DS has so many good games. I just want one of them to win but it's not going to happen.
Every geek has some sort of website, programming or computer project. Here's mine: www.youtasteit.com . What's yours?