Nintendo spins false assumptions on software sales
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Aug 8th 2008 at 2:15PM }
That is a very impressive chart. What we want to know is what happens when two things are taken out of that chart: first-party titles and -- way more importantly in Nintendo's case -- a little piece of "software" called Wii Play. After doing those two things the chart may look the same, it may look totally different, but we'll be sure to post the comparison when we get it.
Update: Third-party chart now up.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
shane86 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:21PM
They're probably including Wii sports in that.
felixlighter @ Aug 8th 2008 3:26PM
Almost certainly, which is even more misleading than Wii Play.
OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Aug 8th 2008 8:04PM
Samfish: Except, obviously, that's only half the story.
Who the hell cares how much TOTAL software is selling on the system? Obviously, the system that's getting the most people on board is going to have the lead in total units moved.
But where does the third party publisher benefit most from putting the software? Why isn't this chart showing AVERAGE units sold per third party title? If I'm a third party publisher, I don't give a crap if I can put a title out that barely breaks 100,000 units, when I can put it on another system, one where my fellow third party brethren are performing much better.
You know why it doesn't show that? Because Nintendo's in last. Guaranteed.
What's more conducive to developers and publishers? Being in a crowded market where the first party dwarfs your sales, and you all sell a little? Or a more wide-open market, where the customer embraces them, and you all make out decently well?
samfish @ Aug 8th 2008 8:15PM
I love playing Move The Goalposts.
If you follow that Kotaku link, you'll find a list of games that have all sold over 500k in the US on the Wii.
Furthermore, the argument you're trying to make was never made in the PS2 era, despite the Gamecube and 360 all having attach ratios near the PS2's.
To answer your question,
"But where does the third party publisher benefit most from putting the software?"
Traditionally, the answer has been 'the market leader'. RE4 went to the PS2 because of that and, surprise surprise, outsold the Gamecube version.
This is not ALWAYS the case, though, because taking into account demographics sometimes is important, too (Viewtiful Joe's higher GC sales vs PS2 sales). You can't always paint it with a wide brush.
However, this MAY not be the case on the Wii. We just don't know. It's hard and unfair to compare when most publishers are putting out games that they'd be thrilled with if they break 100k.
What more do you want, man? First we're told 3rd parties don't sell. They obviously do. Now it's changing to "they don't sell enough"?
Here's an idea! Put games that are of equal caliber and quality to 360 or PS3 games on the Wii and let's see what happens. I guarantee you the Wii version will sell just fine. Unfortunately, this theory has yet to be proven, as there are no games, save first party Nintendo titles, worthy of being compared to something like, say, Bioshock.
OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Aug 8th 2008 8:34PM
You know if Nintendo wanted to be patently open, they'd just release all the data. I'm not "moving the goalposts". I'm telling Nintendo that kicking the ball out of bonds doesn't, and has never, counted as a field goal.
First off, those 500K+ titles are from VG Chartz, meaning they're BS numbers. I'm sorry, but no Atlus title has ever broken 500K here in the US. Those VG Chartz numbers are worthless. You know how I can tell where those numbers are from without them even being sourced in that post?
It's because they're obviously BS.
Second, your answer to: "But where does the third party publisher benefit most from putting the software?" is incorrect. It may be correct sometimes, but the true answer is the system where the average title like yours sells the most. Since I can't break it down by genre, the only likeness I can break them down to is third-party non-third-party, and third party titles are selling better ON AVERAGE on the 360 and the PS3. This is very important. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's the statistic at the crux of this debate.
If 10 million publishers sold 3 copies of their crappy games is the Wii truly a good system for 3rd parties? If 1 company sold 30 million copies, and everyone else put together sold 3 million, is it a good system for 3rd parties? The answer to both is no. The average health of 3rd party support can be determined by showing how the average 3rd party title is selling.
Finally, lastly...no your posts aren't getting deleted. The joystiq servers are just weird like that.
samfish @ Aug 8th 2008 9:17PM
"Since I can't break it down by genre, the only likeness I can break them down to is third-party non-third-party, and third party titles are selling better ON AVERAGE on the 360 and the PS3. This is very important. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's the statistic at the crux of this debate."
Yes, it is absolutely true that PPS360 software tends to sell more. Do you know why?
It's not because of the audiences not buying games. It's because of SALES EXPECTATIONS.
The average game for the 360 or PS3 is INTENDED to sell 750,000+.
The average game for the Wii is intended to sell somewhere around the 250,000 mark.
THAT is the true crux of the debate. A game like Zack & Wiki was NEVER meant to see sales like Bioshock. The game SURPASSED Capcom's expectations at 330,000!
Obviously, when you have more games on average that are meant to sell more than your typical Wii game is, you're going to see a higher percentage of sales.
In that respect, it is an irrelevant point. Where are the games intended to sell 750k+ on the Wii?
What I'm saying is that Wii games are typically meeting (Okami) or surpassing (Zack & Wiki, Boom blox, no More Heroes) those expectations, and it's time for 3rd parties to step it up.
LaughingTarget @ Aug 9th 2008 8:28AM
To paraphrase Samfish:
Games on the 360/PS3 have to sell 750k units to make money.
Games on the Wii have to sell 250k units to make the same money as 750k units on the 360/PS3.
This is remarkably easier on the Wii, both due to lower sales requirements and the dramatically larger install base.
There isn't much difference between the PS2 and the Wii. Both have a small, hardcore crowd. Both are dominated by casual players that rarely buy new games. Both are the best business choice for risky titles since the sheer volume can generally ensure a level of profitability.
The PS2 didn't get niche titles like Okami or Disgaea because it was the best console to make games on, it was indisputable that it was the most piss-poor development platform of its generation. Such games were made because there was such a massive customer base that almost guaranteed a risky project could make money.
The only reason we'll see risky titles on the 360 or PS3 is because they started development when everyone assumed one or the other would dominate the market. Those kinds of titles will mostly dry up from anyone but first party owned development houses as development resources shift Wiiward. The Xbox and GameCube weren't well known as meccas of third party originality, the PS2 was. This was only because it had the most units on the market.
Huey2k2 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:22PM
Does Wii Sports factor into that graph?
Because if so then the numbers are a little bloated. They aren't really "selling" Wii Sports so much as they are just giving it away to everyone.
Also if you ever intend on buying another Wii Mote you may as well buy Wii Play, so I'm not even sure that should be counted into it either. I mean sure you are selling Wii Play, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of people that bought it simply wanted a second Wii Mote and just got it instead because it came with what was essentially a free game.
Tim Burns @ Aug 8th 2008 2:24PM
Not to mention at one point the only way to find a second Wiimote was in Wii Play
Huey2k2 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:26PM
"Not to mention at one point the only way to find a second Wiimote was in Wii Play"
Indeed, not that I am deny that games like SMG, Brawl, Mariokart and the like sell bad. I just think that graph is more than a little skewed in Nintendo's favour.
Ricksta @ Aug 8th 2008 2:49PM
How do you think Super Mario Bros. on the NES became the best "selling" video game of all time? 40 Million+ sold since it was bundled with the 60 Million+ selling NES.
I remember seeing it at Funcoland in the mid 90's for 19 cents...
ONOZ @ Aug 8th 2008 3:27PM
Wii sports were like kittens, they was giving them away.
Sorry, I was just listening to MM.
LaughingTarget @ Aug 8th 2008 5:10PM
Pay attention to when the sales spiked, November 2007. Wii Play was released February 12, 2007 for the US and early December 2006 for everywhere else. The sales off Wii Play had already died by November 2007.
Now, here is the release list from November 2007, right around when the Wii software sales exploded:
http://letsplaywii.com/calendar?month=11&year=2007
There was only one major Nintendo first party release that month, Mario Galaxy. That attributes the roughly 5 million we're seeing in the initial jump.
December:
http://letsplaywii.com/calendar?month=12&year=2007
As you can see, not a damned thing, unless you can attribute another 5 million units to Galaxy (you can't, it peaked at 6.1), that leaves a crap load of third party sales.
Since then, the only other major first party Nintendo release was Mario Kart Wii.
Worldwide, Nintendo has sold roughly 54 million units of first party games. The above is NPD only. Nintendo sells roughly half of their total software in the US, this leaves 30 million (give or take a million) units of third party software sales on the Wii in the United States. For comparison, the chart above shows that the next contender, the Xbox 360, has moved just a little over that in TOTAL. This includes first party games like Halo 3, which I've specifically left out of the calculations.
Basically, the Wii has moved more third party games than the Xbox 360 or PS3 have moved in total and is on a path where the Wii third party games (again, discounting Nintendo's ridiculous sales levels) are on track to outsell the aggregate total of all PS3 and Xbox 360 games sold combined in another year.
Wii Play is irrelevant.
LaughingTarget @ Aug 8th 2008 5:12PM
"This includes first party games like Halo 3, which I've specifically left out of the calculations."
Correction to the above sentence: the same first party games I've specifically left out of the Nintendo calculations.
LaughingTarget @ Aug 8th 2008 5:15PM
One more correction, Mario Galaxy only sold 3.5 million units in the US, not the 6.1 mentioned above, the spike is further attributed to not Nintendo games.
Tez (PSN: Tezasaurus) @ Aug 8th 2008 5:20PM
Get yer facts outta here, LT.
LaughingTarget @ Aug 8th 2008 5:27PM
Never! I shall eternally crusade against ignorance using hard evidence and scientific method! Feel my wrath as I wage a numeric jyhad against opinion masquerading as fact!
bm @ Aug 8th 2008 5:39PM
Too bad everybody is too busy downvoting anything even remotely pro-nintendo to notice the obvious facts staring in their face, LT. :( Talk about butthurt fanboys, haha. Emphasis on "boys".
helios_eclipsed @ Aug 8th 2008 7:29PM
A spike in November 2007, you say? I don't think it matters what games came out that month. More important, I think, is that November is the month before December, and that's a season that always sees sales shoot up. Note that the spike continues through December and the after-holiday sales season.
It's important to remember that most people don't buy games and systems right when they come out. Something priced $250 is often reserved for occasions like birthdays and holidays. Same is true of games that cost $50. And if there is a solid casual contingency in the Wii market (I don't care what your opinion on the Wii is, this is irrefutable), then the holiday season is going to be their biggest time every year, big new titles or not.
LaughingTarget @ Aug 8th 2008 8:13PM
Well, good theory, except it didn't just spike, it spiked and then sustained the rate. The other two systems don't have a similar reaction at the same point. The Wii is picking up a ton of speed and we're going to see the development on the PS3 and 360 drop off as the Wii continues to steamroll in a Dark Knight-esq ruling of the sales charts.
Raikage (GOLDEN Gun Of The Patriots) @ Aug 8th 2008 2:24PM
This should prove interesting...
propanol @ Aug 8th 2008 2:28PM
You may exclude software on whatever arbitrary conditions you wish, but the fact is that Wii software will be eating 360/PS3 software's lunch before long (perhaps not when comparing the top sellers, but overall), especially once publishers have figured out ways to market effectively to the type of consumer that is interested in the Wii (the usual bribing gaming press doesn't work here).
Huey2k2 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:30PM
Using the Wii Sports and Wii Play sales logic though, shouldn't MS get "sales" from the inclusion of the Halo 3 beta on Crackdown?
Using that logic companies could really start reaching out at tiny little pack ins for software sales numbers.
Jake11 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:35PM
Imagine Poniez
propanol @ Aug 8th 2008 2:45PM
No, because the beta version of Halo 3 was a free pack-in with Crackdown; you were paying for Crackdown and not the Halo 3 beta. Same logic applies to Wii Play; the product is specified as being Wii Play and hence it's a sale of that product.
By your logic, Guitar Hero sales would be sales of the guitar peripheral rather than Guitar Hero software.
As for Wii Sports, I don't think the numbers presented by Nintendo include it, so it's not really relevant to this.
Duke @ Aug 8th 2008 2:53PM
"As for Wii Sports, I don't think the numbers presented by Nintendo include it, so it's not really relevant to this."
They won't be relevant to this discussion when you know that as a fact. At present you think that, and thus you don't know the relevancy.
Noshino @ Aug 8th 2008 2:56PM
"..especially once publishers have figured out ways to market effectively to the type of consumer that is interested in the Wii"
You mean like bundling the game with a Wiimote and pricing it at 49.99?
Anam @ Aug 8th 2008 3:45PM
@Huey2K2
The problem is now we're assuming that 100% of everyone who bought Wii Play did it just for the controller. Maybe some people bought it for the game, have you considered that? "Oh no" you say, "they wouldn't do that because the game sucked." Uh-huh, just like no one would by Jaws because it sucked.
If we're not including Wii Play because someone bought it for the controller then I officially demand that Joystiq subtract 1 third-party sale from Microsoft for Guitar Hero III, since I ultimately bought it for the extra guitar controller to play with Rock Band and thought "heh, maybe the game will be good too." Just like when I bought Wii Play. Tell me what the difference is.
Dale @ Aug 8th 2008 5:20PM
Propanol said...
"By your logic, Guitar Hero sales would be sales of the guitar peripheral rather than Guitar Hero software."
Incorrect.
The Wiimote is the main control device for the Wii system. It can be used on any game, not just that with which it comes bundled (Wii Play); and you cannot enjoy multiplayer games without buying an additional Wiimote.
As Wii Play was, for a long time, the only method of purchasing an additional Wiimote, Wii Play's sales were artificially inflated by people who simply wanted to enjoy multiplayer games.
Even now, I hear of people who buy Wii Play when they first buy their Wii as it's a way to get an extra Wiimote with a cheap game thrown in. Not a way to get a fantastic game with a free Wiimote.
The Guitar Hero guitar is a novelty peripheral only used by the game it comes packaged with.
It is not an even comparison.
LaughingTarget @ Aug 8th 2008 5:25PM
This poor poster got voted down but has one of the most accurate statements in the entire thread.
Anam @ Aug 8th 2008 5:43PM
@Dale
Wrong.
Guitar Hero III's controller can be used with Rock Band. That is the primary reason I bought Guitar Hero III. And without individual instruments available for Rock Band, it was a choice between buying Guitar Hero III or spending another $170 or whatever.
That is easily comparable to the choice between Wii Play or buying another Wii for $250.
Finally, who gets to decide whether the 11 million copies (according to Wikipedia) of Wii Play were all bought by people who didn't care about the game? Again, people are assuming that it wasn't bought for the game because the game sucked, but that's not a valid argument because we all know that many people buy sucky games.
It is completely 100% fair to use Wii Play sales in charts like this. It's just not fair to include 1st-party sales to justify 3rd-party titles.
Jon A. @ Aug 8th 2008 2:28PM
The NPD does not count pack ins, so no, Wii Sports is not included in that graph. I'm sure Wii Play is included, though.
samfish @ Aug 8th 2008 2:30PM
I've never said this in my 2+ years posting here, but WOW, Joystiq. That is some BLATANT trolling. Way to go.
Huey2k2 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:35PM
I agree 100% that it is trolling, but at the same time there is a slight bit of truth to it.
I don't know anyone that bought Wii Play because they actually wanted Wii Play, they bought it because they wanted a second Wii Mote and either were unable to find one on its own, or because it was essentially a Wii Mote with a free game.
Also nobody is really buying Wii Sports, you're given it for free when you buy a Wii.
That's not to say though that first party Nintendo games don't sell well. SMG, Brawl, Mario Kart, Strikers, and so on are great examples of how well Nintendo branded IP's are doing, but if you ask me these numbers are slightly bloated.
Fenix @ Aug 8th 2008 2:50PM
samfish
This is why I love Joystiq!!!
Anni @ Aug 8th 2008 2:50PM
I've still never said it. But every time one of those articles pop up that basically read "This game is not coming to Wii lol," I'm thinking it.
Noshino @ Aug 8th 2008 3:01PM
"I've never said this in my 2+ years posting here..."
2+ years and you have said nothing about it? Meh, it was about time it also got to Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have had their good share of it.
borland502 (SDF Macross) @ Aug 8th 2008 3:06PM
Heh, trolling is all about the POV though. Gamer sites aren't generally about the "Wii Plays" of the industry, even if the game is printing Nintendo money. So if Nintendo releases a misleading graph trying to illustrate how they are kicking ass in serving the non-minigame demographic...isn't it appropriate to call them on it?
Drinking the offered koolaid is no way to get a company to change. Otherwise I'd like to present a graph that illustrates how the Playstation Brand is totally rocking the sales charts**
**May include historical PS1,PS2,PSP,&PS3 data from all regions.
samfish @ Aug 8th 2008 3:10PM
I don't like accusing the writers of it, is all. It's so dickish. I even kept my mouth shut when Vlad Cole was still around and the bullshit articles he posted (Nintendo got it plenty back then, Nosh).
This is just the most obvious and unabashed I can personally ever remember seeing it, is all. Stuff like this is why I avoid D-toid, for the most part. I just hope it isn't a new standard, is all.
Jack of No Trades 85 @ Aug 8th 2008 3:16PM
Sam
I been comming to this site for almost three years. PS3 and 360 got all of the bashing then. Trust I remember it well because I got banned all of the damn time for standing up.
borland502 (SDF Macross) @ Aug 8th 2008 3:21PM
"I don't like accusing the writers of it"
Of course, but is it the wording or the subject that's out of bounds trolling? I guess I'm curious what hit the sore spot for you, because there have been a number of very, very snarky headlines and images over the years for every platform. I don't think the core subject matter, that Nintendo is trying to beef up street cred with misleading statistics, is wrong.
Noshino @ Aug 8th 2008 3:22PM
Oh yah, I forgot Mr. Cole, but after the announcement of the Wii, he didn't last long, but yah, for the past 2 years Sony and Microsoft have had more trolling (although it was more subtle) than Nintendo
Either way, I don't understand how this is BLATANT trolling, Nintendo gave a chart to show that "low software sales for Wii" is just a myth and it only had combined sales of 1st and 3rd party software, how is it not misleading? they are just calling them out on it
samfish @ Aug 8th 2008 3:32PM
Jack, as I recall you were banned because you had a penchant for derailing nearly every topic by dragging how you don't like Nintendo into it.
The wording+image+overall tone of the post is what put it over the top, Borland. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have cared a year or so ago if it was Sony or whatever, but lately it's just become too much effort to bother hating on the other consoles, for the most part (although I still relish internet meltdowns, even if I'm a part of it). I just expect a slightly higher caliber or posting on Joystiq, as opposed to other news sites. They've GENERALLY struck a good balance on snark+news which I like, but lately for me personally, it seems like that balance has been slipping (yes, even before E3).
samfish @ Aug 8th 2008 3:34PM
I also don't disagree that it was misleading and they SHOULD be called out on it. The point is that this is pretty over the top for Joystiq, in my mind.
borland502 (SDF Macross) @ Aug 8th 2008 3:47PM
"They've GENERALLY struck a good balance on snark+news which I like, but lately for me personally, it seems like that balance has been slipping (yes, even before E3)."
I think it's global really since various podcasts I listen to are getting harsher towards Nintendo as well. This is oversimplification, but I think gaming outlets are starting to place Nintendo in a category akin to movie franchise titles. It's not really that bad, but it's the the sort of vibe I'm picking up.
The whole Hardcore vs Casual riff started well before E3. E3 was just a capstone to the feeling.
tmacairjordan87 @ Aug 8th 2008 3:47PM
BS was spewed out, and BS was called. I see no problem here.
3cubed @ Aug 8th 2008 3:50PM
The thing is the writer asks what would happen if the Wii's first party titles were taken out how would it look. Well then what happens when you take out first party sales for all three consoles? Seeing as how xbox has had Marvel Alliance & Forza bundled before, and PS3 has had Motorstorm & MGS4, that would skew their numbers too right?
borland502 (SDF Macross) @ Aug 8th 2008 3:54PM
"...that would skew their numbers too right?"
Correct, taking out bundles would affect the numbers for other platforms. The key difference is the order of magnitude the change would make. Eliminate the MSG4 bundle, or Halo bundle, and you do not dramatically alter the landscape of a long term sales chart.
Park Zero @ Aug 8th 2008 3:54PM
@ Samfish
If Nintendo was using this graph to illustrate how well third parties are doing on the wii, then Joystiq is not trolling. All companies should be called out when they use numbers and graphs to make misleading statements.
Vcize @ Aug 8th 2008 4:01PM
Sam, it would be one thing if Joystiq were making taking something and just blindly saying it was false. But what we have here is Nintendo showing us how well their 3rd party sales are by showing us a graph that includes 1st part sales as well, when we all know that the big N has a crapload of 1st party sales.
They may well have shown us a puppy and said "as ythis young mammal clearly shows, we sell more 3rd party games than anyone else".
It's not even about whether or not they sell a lot of 3rd party games, it's about them blatantly lying about what they're showing us right to our face.