-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Media Create Sales: Sep 7-13, 2009
- Thread starter donny2112
- Start date
charlequin
Banned
Deku said:
So your position is that platform-holders politely wait to discuss co-marketing arrangements until games are in the can and ready for release, and that they don't initiate commitments of co-marketing schemes of various sizes at early stages as part of platform negotiations? (Ignoring your oddly narrow definition of what is constituted by "co-marketing" here for the moment.)
I do like to keep arguing, but the reason I'm still arguing with you rather than someone else is that you keep saying things that seem extremely questionable to me.
charlequin
Banned
liuelson said:
That's probably reasonable. I have pretty consistently argued against positions that aim to lump all culpability for the current situation on one side exclusively, though I do think the consequences for 3PPs (i.e. potentially huge losses and unsustainable business models) are more severe than those for Nintendo by a significant margin.
I think Nintendo should have a very clear picture of what kind of third-party support they want when Wii+ launches; it should cover significant areas that they can't or won't cover themselves. They should consult with major publishers about this early on in the development process, and make sure that certain components of their system support what 3PPs need -- there's no reason Nintendo shouldn't aim to fully satisfy Western pubs on how they define their network architecture for next gen, for example. I think it's worthwhile for them to find some way to ensure that games that Nintendo would never develop, but which are desirable and can be successful, show up on the system early on. That might be through moneyhats, or "co-publishing," or IP swaps, but I think it's worth spending a chunk of money on this right away. To ward off the "pubs will get dependent" angle, put together some kind of specially-named launch window group that have clearly delineated access to special benefits in exchange for throwing in such early support. (Honestly, I think a lot of what Nintendo tried to do on the Gamecube early on in terms of publisher courting was great, they just had a completely terrible system to do it on.)
For publishers, I think the trick is really going to be just to put together speculative teams with big budgets to create new IPs for the thing. I know Capcom and EA, at very minimum, have aspects of this process down -- take whatever process they used to produce successful and quality new IPs like Dead Rising/Lost Planet or Mirror's Edge/Dead Space and apply it to Wii+ titles. (Reviving older series or porting currently active franchises is fine too, if the team has a good approach for how to do it.) I'm not sure how much more there even is to it on this end -- just seriously commit to the possibility of success with new or altered IPs.
I don't have much time to post but there is some interesting stuff in this podcast about trends in the Japanese market and some of the top selling games.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=374887
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=374887
I doubt 5th Cell are developing on consoles for "respect". Are you prepared to call their move "idiotic"? I'd wait to see software until we make that judgement. I've already dismissed the "real development" language, so I'm not debating the validity of those comments. Perhaps it is equally as silly to expect successful developers to restrict themselves to one platform, or not to not grow in scope. While it's true that innovative and enjoyable software can be created by small teams on restrictive hardware, it is also true that more powerful hardware has a greater scope. More horsepower doesn't only mean better graphics, and better graphics doesn't mean abandoning substance.charlequin said:
The latter would be easier, but the former would be possible with good management. Blizzard started by three guys doing Battle Chess ports. Infinity Ward started with Call of Duty. Both are wildly successful. I doubt there is a one size fits all road to success for developers.charlequin said:
charlequin said:
Well that isn't my position exactly nor did I imply there is an absolute separation, but the document which kicked off this discussion certainly doesn't support it!
That said this is a bit of a sideshow to the main course, which is whether co-marketing is really the root cause of Nintendo's problems. I think for some developers, it may be the case. But I don't think developers like Ubi, EA or Sega and Squeenix will have trouble getting help bundling, advertising, or getting little (bowing Wii) logos attached to their ad campaigns for extra moolah if they decided to put out for co-marketing.
The content people generally whine about they want to see on Wii will not come just on co-marketing alone, certainly not at least as described in the document stumpy was trying to use to generalize into a major theory. There are major strategic issues that needs to be addressed to make those titles appear. And I guess there's the root of the problem.
Your definition of co-marketing appears to bend to whatever you want it to be, even exceeding the parameters of what kicked off the discussion initially. So it's probably best to leave it alone.
As I noted above, there is a disagreement on what you see as the scope of the argument and I really have no interest into arguing the sea and sky with you based on a flimsy piece of paper from Sega that doesn't even cover most of the topics on the table.
And if you are going to cross the line of civil discussion into accusing me of saying things that seem 'extremely questionable', please provide examples and context.
DangerousDave
Member
spwolf said:
spwolf
If this poster agrees with you, you're doing something very wrong.
(Today, 12:29 AM)
That means that I'm right?
Seriously, when more than half of the games in your console are first party, and nearly all the people buys your console mainly for the first party games... ¿why do you need to support third party devs?
Without third parties, Sony should stopped manufacturing PS3 long ago, and 360 should have the numbers of the original XBOX. Without third parties... Nintendo should be a little less rich, without the royalties of GH Wii and MH3, but they'll still be in first place in consoles sold. All the Wii Sports crowd, all the Wii Fit crowd, all the Mario Kart crowd would still buy the Wii even without third parties.
Obviously, more third party support are more sells and more benefits. But Nintendo don't need them. Which third party wii exclusive made a significative wii hardware bump?
BishopLamont
Banned
The position that Nintendo "doesn't need third parties" is silly. Sure they haven't needed them since the Wii launched, but that's because of their stellar lineup. They've fumbled the past year and it shows in hardware sales, so they'll need any support they can get, be it first party or third party.
Fredescu said:
i think we can sum up reasons for someone doing any work as:
a. to make money so they can feed their families
b. to have fun, create something good, positive, that many people will like, that is enjoyment to do and that brings joy and satuisfaction to both them and their customers.
So while respect part is definitely in the game, they certainly would not do it if they didnt think they would be even more successful by going to consoles. We all have to pay bills and feed the kids at the end of the day.
i completly agree with you also on the fact that moving to consoles, opens up completly new world when it comes to new gameplay possibilities which was probably big factor.
i see it from position of software developer as if someone was movingng from developing really good phone apps to really good windows apps. It is certainly part of "growing up" and there is sense of pride in it. In fact I think someone who has been successful in portable gaming has a lot bigger chance to be successful in console gaming than some new studio, because fun gameplay is part of any kind of game, big or small. But again, at the end of the day, they would not do it unless it also makes them more profitable.
DangerousDave
Member
spwolf said:
The key word is NEED. As I said in the previous post, more third parties (and more games) means more money. But Nintendo dont NEED to have good relationship with third parties. Nintendo only have to let them make games for his console, without having to moneyhat them, make agreements or event meeting them.
Sega people won't stop making exclusive games for Wii/DS, even if Nintendo spits in their face. But Sony need to meet them, share information and make agreements if they want Sega to keep making some games for PS3.
And if Sega, for example, decides to avoid making games for Wii, Reggie will make the notmyproblem face, and he'll continue counting the money of WiiFit Plus.
BishopLamont said:
It's all relative. In fumbling they will make more profit than both of their competitors (games divisions) combined. Do they need support? Stock holders probably want profitability back up to astronomical proportions and as a gamer I want them to have more support, but need is a strong word.
DangerousDave said:
being nice to your business partners is not that hard task or something you should be running away from.
You have this crazy idea that reggie goes around 3rd parties chuck norris style :lol
Thats really not how business works.
I am not that old at all, but you are being very childish. There is nothing bad with trying really hard to work with your business partners, in this case 3rd parties. There is no pride to be lost, it is business, everyone makes money, everyone is happy. They dont even compete really.
besides, nintendo managment is under obligation to make as much money as possible, it is never enough. Profits down by 61% is big deal. Their shareholders dont care if Sony is losing billions, all they care about is their profits and their share value - which again is measured against their profits.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nintendo-profit-catapults-2009-7
Which console can most easily handle a lack of significant third-party efforts? Wii, obviously.
Does that mean that Nintendo doesn't need third-party support? Of course not.
Just because Japanese third-parties have let the console landscape go to crap by not supporting Wii doesn't mean the same applies everywhere. Even though most of it is not significant, third-parties have sold something like half or more of all software in the U.S. on the Wii. Does anyone think the Wii would've sold as well as it has with only Nintendo supporting it? Just because Nintendo doesn't need third-parties as much as Sony/Microsoft (the latter of which has mostly gutted their internal studios) doesn't mean that they don't need third-parties.
Nintendo doesn't make games in a lot of genres, and if someone buys a Wii for Nintendo games, there's a great chance that they might also pick up a third-party game, too. It's not like consumers typically look on the box to see who the developer is before buying, after all. If a third-party can ride the coattails of a first-party hit (e.g. EA Sports Active), that's good for them, too.
Nintendo needs third-parties to maintain stability and consistent software support for their systems.
Does that mean that Nintendo doesn't need third-party support? Of course not.
Just because Japanese third-parties have let the console landscape go to crap by not supporting Wii doesn't mean the same applies everywhere. Even though most of it is not significant, third-parties have sold something like half or more of all software in the U.S. on the Wii. Does anyone think the Wii would've sold as well as it has with only Nintendo supporting it? Just because Nintendo doesn't need third-parties as much as Sony/Microsoft (the latter of which has mostly gutted their internal studios) doesn't mean that they don't need third-parties.
Nintendo doesn't make games in a lot of genres, and if someone buys a Wii for Nintendo games, there's a great chance that they might also pick up a third-party game, too. It's not like consumers typically look on the box to see who the developer is before buying, after all. If a third-party can ride the coattails of a first-party hit (e.g. EA Sports Active), that's good for them, too.
Nintendo needs third-parties to maintain stability and consistent software support for their systems.
DangerousDave said:
It's not just exclusives, but also 3rd party support with multi-platform games. Where would Nintendo's marketshare be if there were no Guitar Hero, no Tiger Woods, no movie-licensed games, etc. for Wii, but those were all available on PS3 and/or X360? All hardware manufacturers need some support from 3rd parties - it's really just a matter of degree.
DangerousDave said:
Need is a relative term. If profitability is Nintendo's only concern, then no, Nintendo does not need 3rd parties.
However, that is not Nintendo's only concern. Nintendo is also concerned about the viability of the gaming market in the future. Profit for the Wii's lifespan is great, but what about the 6th Nintendo system, the 7th, the 8th, the 9th, even the 10th? Nintendo has no intention of quitting the gaming business, but it is unabashedly clear that they cannot support the entire industry themselves for the next 30 years. Therefore, Nintendo does need 3rd parties, to provide variety and incentive, and to both keep gaming, as a business, profitable, and increase its saturation of the market going forward.
If you're stuck thinking in terms of this generation, you will be hard pressed understanding anything Nintendo does. Making money tomorrow is just as important as making money today.
BishopLamont
Banned
Well they do need it for a number of reasons, for profitability now and into the future, for shareholder targets, and for long term relationships that well extend beyond this generation. So yes imo they do need third parties. Personally if third parties continue to ignore the Wii, I'll have second thoughts on buying Wii2 on launch day because as much as I love Nintendo, I don't want to be a multi console owner forever.jay said:
Yeah it's really only Japan that needs the support in the near future, worldwide the Wii is still selling good, both in hardware and software. Nintendo's own software still sell by the boatload and "shovelware" sell decently in the west, something that doesn't and isn't happening in Japan. I'm in the same boat as you in being sorely dissapointed with Iwata thus far, I can't believe his just let third parties ignore the Wii up to this point. Although I understand there's much more happening behind the scenes that could be holding back Wii development like Japan's push towards portability, creative difficulty with motion controllers, and the general love and investment already made with HD development. We're three years in and the only upcoming game I consider decent from the west is Red Steel 2. The Wii is basically GC2 when it comes to western support, and that's pretty hard to swallow.donny2112 said:
slaughterking
Member
Impatient as ever. D:
mentalfloss
Banned
BishopLamont said:
I think it's important to note that the ratio of first party sales to third party sales for Wii is vastly different than the same ratio for PS3/360.
Furthermore, first party total sales for Sony in Japan is paltry in compared to Nintendo's first party sales so they NEED third party sales to make up for it.
Nintendo makes good games and people buy the system for those games. You can't fault them for that. Why would they have to entice many third parties to come on board? They have no financial need - it's not economically feasible for them.
It is economically feasible for Sony/MS because they can't secure the same level of first party sales that Nintendo can. It's up to third parties to be intelligent enough to create new software that Nintendo hasn't thought of in order to penetrate the market.
As a side note for software sales - third parties may not need million sellers on Wii like they do for 360/PS3 in order to make a profit. The Wii library is already much more varied than the Gamecube ever was, so, everything really is how it should be.
The only thing Nintendo really needs to do is drop the price to spur hardware sales.
mentalfloss said:
You're debating the degree of need. Nintendo still needs third-parties on their system, just not as much as Sony/Microsoft.
schuelma said:
Famitsu.com hasn't put up a Top 10, yet. If tonight's MC data is delayed much, too, I probably won't be able to do the thread this week. Hopefully tomorrow morning ("Japan Time") will still be on time meaning that tonight's MC data will go up as usual.
Silver Week. :lol
Nintendo is good at a having huge profit at a small staff size. They probably don't have enough staff to aggressively offer help and support to potential 3rd parties, and increasing the staff just for that may be expensive. But they apparently have enough staff to help and support those 3rd parties which dare to ask for it, so they just leave it at that.
I'm pretty sure internally they are more struggling about coming up with a successful follow up to the Wii, rather than worry about status quo. They can't cop out DSi style upgrade again since the Wii already allows for personalization, and Iwata stated at the beginning of the generation already that Nintendo will need to find something new for the next generation as "waggle" will be commonplace on all systems then.
I'm pretty sure internally they are more struggling about coming up with a successful follow up to the Wii, rather than worry about status quo. They can't cop out DSi style upgrade again since the Wii already allows for personalization, and Iwata stated at the beginning of the generation already that Nintendo will need to find something new for the next generation as "waggle" will be commonplace on all systems then.
ITA84 said:
Yeah, it requires the autumnal equinox to Fall on Wednesday and the third Monday of September ("Respect for the Aged Day" which is where "Silver" Week comes from) to be on the 21st. That makes the day between them a default holiday. With the weekend, it's a full 5-day holiday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Week
BishopLamont
Banned
I'm not faulting Nintendo for making quality titles, I already acknowledged that they had an exceptional lineup early in the Wii's life. How is it not economically feasible for Nintendo to secure some big budget western titles when they're still making money hand over fist? Sure Wii titles don't need as much sales as 360/PS3 to make a profit, which should make Wii development even more ideal, but where's the big support? The vast majority of third party titles are low budget or mid tier titles that lack effort, budget or creativity.mentalfloss said:
In the end Nintendo makes a ton of cash on third party titles, but to the traditional gamer these titles are just shovelware. The Wii does have a more varied and quality library than the GC as a whole, but I'm talking specifically traditional third party titles here, it's still abysmal for a market leading console. Courting third party support is something every console manufacturer should be actively doing whether they're on top or at the bottom. It's not just a financial or market share concern, it's a combination of both and other reasons too. Forget exclusivity, even a Wii with just many of the top selling HD multiplatform games would be killing the competition even more.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
But what effect does it have on fizzbin?donny2112 said:
Cosmonaut X
Member
JoshuaJSlone said:
Pretty much the same as it does on Mornington Crescent?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't really get how fizzbin was considered all that confusing. People must be really stupid in the future.
charlequin
Banned
Fredescu said:
I'm pretty sure I called it "ill-advised" when they announced it, so, actually, yeah, I guess I am? Given their success on the DS so far, I don't see much reason to unconditionally abandon the platform forevermore other than the general sickness that's too common in Western developers: the idea that only console (and moreso, HD console) games are truly "legitimate."
(Note: I'm specifically not questioning the decision to develop console games, but rather the statement that they were done forever with the DS.)
But... why are you arguing with me then, when my initial statement was that the one-size-fits-all belief that every developer needs to move inexorably towards console, and especially HD console, retail games in order to be doing "real development" was dumb?
Deku said:
My perception is that you are attempting to maintain a separation and duality between "co-marketing" and "moneyhats" here, to support a contention that there's good "co-marketing" (which everybody does so it's not even worth talking about) and then there's bad "moneyhats" (which are straight cash dumps of millions of dollars and Nintendo doesn't do because they're a bad idea/they ruin the industry/insert reason here.) I disagree that these are anything but elements on a shared continuum.
So let's use a different word: I'll choose "sensuous massages." There's a huge range of sensuous massages, starting from relatively minor exchanges of back-scratching in discussion of the marketing of completed products right before release, through various long-term placement campaigns and developer support throughout the process, and up to huge grants like completely covering the totality of a game's marketing budget far in advance in order to influence its platform. From the perspective of a platform-holder, these different sensuous massages aren't all separate, siloed-off activities; they are all part of a single process of third-party relations and they all feed off of and support one another.
This leak was originally cited essentially to establish one thing: that there's a constant stream of little quid pro quos and agreements going on between platform-holders and third-parties, and that this is already an established and inevitable part of the business. The idea was never to prove that Nintendo "isn't" doing anything like this; almost exactly the opposite -- that they already are doing things like this, that there is no qualitative difference between giving people spots at E3 and boxshots in ads and the other, more elaborate forms of publisher support, and so the debate is really regarding how aggressive Nintendo should be in this area, not whether they should do it (because they already do).
Anyway, no offense was intended and I do apologize if I suggested a personal attack there rather than a factual disagreement.
Cygnus X-1
Member
No numbers? Very disappointing.
GameplayWhore
Member
Stumpokapow said:
Obviously a lack of Nintendo releasing Fizzbin Training.
Fortunately, they eventually make Wii 3D Chess, securing its popularity in rec rooms for centuries to come.
test_account
XP-39C²
No numbers yet? :\ Are Famitsu busy with preparing for Tokyo Game Show that they forgot to post this weeks numbers?
Or are Microsoft and Sony asking developers to take advantage of Natal and/or Sony Wand and use it in "normal games" (or what i shall say) and trying to make Natal and Sony Wand much used in games in general? In most cases it would probably most likely be an optional control scheme at least, since Natal and Sony Wand are not standard controllers for the Xbox 360 and for the PS3. Is it easy to use 2 control schemes in one game, one control scheme with a more traditional controller and one control scheme with motion controls? Does any Wii games use 2 control schemes where both control schemes works pretty good for the game? I wonder how many Xbox 360 and/or PS3 games that will have some support for Natal and/or Sony Wand.
But ye, i do agree that Natal and Sony Wand probably wont be that popular, at least not in Japan, and at least if we compare it to the popularity of the Wii. I think that one of the reasons why is because that Natal and Sony Wand are controllers that needs to be bought seperately, so the software support for them might be somewhat limited, at least to begin with. But who knows, i think it shall be interesting to see how many developers that will support Natal and/or Sony Wand and how many games that will be made for Natal and Sony Wand
But as DeaconKnowledge mentioned earlier in this thread, you cant drink if there is no water. The PS3 has seen more bigger 3rd party titles/games compared to the PS3 this year, so it might not be so strange why the 3rd party sales have been better compared to the 3rd party sales on the Wii this year.
I am sorry for the late replies to these quotes :\
EDIT: I added some text.
Arent Natal and Sony Wand set to be more as separate "platforms" (or what i shall say)? Kind of like how are Eye Toy was with the PS2, that we saw own games for the "Eye Toy" platform. I mean, there werent really that many PS2 games that really took advantage of the Eye Toy camera regarding the gameplay in the game(s), at least after my knowledge. I think some of the reasons for this was because using a camera as a control scheme might not work that well with all games and because that Eye Toy was an addon and not a standard controller, like the Wii controller is.sphinx said:
Or are Microsoft and Sony asking developers to take advantage of Natal and/or Sony Wand and use it in "normal games" (or what i shall say) and trying to make Natal and Sony Wand much used in games in general? In most cases it would probably most likely be an optional control scheme at least, since Natal and Sony Wand are not standard controllers for the Xbox 360 and for the PS3. Is it easy to use 2 control schemes in one game, one control scheme with a more traditional controller and one control scheme with motion controls? Does any Wii games use 2 control schemes where both control schemes works pretty good for the game? I wonder how many Xbox 360 and/or PS3 games that will have some support for Natal and/or Sony Wand.
But ye, i do agree that Natal and Sony Wand probably wont be that popular, at least not in Japan, and at least if we compare it to the popularity of the Wii. I think that one of the reasons why is because that Natal and Sony Wand are controllers that needs to be bought seperately, so the software support for them might be somewhat limited, at least to begin with. But who knows, i think it shall be interesting to see how many developers that will support Natal and/or Sony Wand and how many games that will be made for Natal and Sony Wand
Didnt he just ask if the 3rd party sales are higher on the PS3 compared to the 3rd party sales on the Wii? And then he said that it was a poor preformance on Wii's behalf because that the PS3 install base is about half the size of the Wii install base. Why is the PS3 in it's first year and why is the install base of the PS3 7 million? I am just curious about thismanueldelalas said:
But as DeaconKnowledge mentioned earlier in this thread, you cant drink if there is no water. The PS3 has seen more bigger 3rd party titles/games compared to the PS3 this year, so it might not be so strange why the 3rd party sales have been better compared to the 3rd party sales on the Wii this year.
I am sorry for the late replies to these quotes :\
EDIT: I added some text.