Pachter: Wii sales surpass PS2's initial 2-year performance

Your going to see some quality 3rd parties but your right in saying that the Wii will never have photo-realistic mature titles that dominate the PS360 market. Those games are expensive to develop and can bankrupt a developer if one flops. The Wii is kind of a victim of it's own success because the user base (predominantly casual) prefers games like Carnival Games and Hasbro Game Night to games like No More Heroes. That's not to say those games won't sell but not well enough for developers to make the effort when they can make a casual cash in.

Little Big Planet wasn't a sales failure but it didn't do Gears Of War or Metal Gear like numbers because that audience doesn't really exist on the PS3. Microsoft is finally starting to tap into that market with it's line of family centric games that still appeal to some of the hardcore gamers. In time I do believe that Sony will attract those gamers back in as those games are made and as the price of the console gets reduced.

What bugs me is when you call the hardcore gaming market a niche market. It makes up more than half of the current gen sales and buys the most games. There is enough room in the industry for both segments (PS2 proved it) but calling the hardcore market a nice group of elitist gamers is disingenuous at best.

It is a niche market, though. If you ask me, a game like Okami is more "hardcore" than Gears 2 or Halo 3. Why? Because I can ask any schmuck on the street about them and they'll at least have a general idea of what they are. In other words, they have "mainstream appeal", whereas to know what Okami truly is, you'd have to read gaming sites, check reviews, etc. stuff that a lot of people who own ANY game console just dont do.

But then again, how does one define a word with no meaning?

"the Wii will never have photo-realistic mature titles"


You mean photorealistic -immature- titles. That's what I call things aimed at high school kids and frat boys.

Besides, "photorealistic" is completely subjective. A generation ago, PS2 games were considered such. And in the generation after this, all your so called photorealistic titles will be considered very fake looking. Visual realism doesn't age well, and that's bad if that's all a game has going for it (*cough* about 90% of all those titles).

I have to agree. Look at how gracefully games like Link to the Past and Chrono Trigger have aged compared to Ocarina of Time and the original Unreal or Final Fantasy VII. Thats why I love what Clover (now Platinum Games) did. If you ask me, games like Okami, Wind Waker, Dragon Quest VIII and probably X,Wario Land: Shake It, and Viewtiful Joe will always be regarded as great games. They're graphics are pretty much future-proof since they didn't go for "realism"

That's also part of the problem/equation. What passes for hardcore and what passes for casual? I wouldn't consider Gears Of War or Halo 3 as casual games. They are sort of to broad of terms and just generalize all games into one of two categories. I guess you could say that hardcore means graphic content with mature subject matter. I would probably define something thats casual as something thats really easy to play. So easy that anyone could pick it up and not feel confused. I play games that by my own definition would be considered both hardcore and casual.

Not only do we define individual games as casual or hardcore but we also classify gamers as either casual or hardcore. My son, daughter and fiance (their mom) are all casual gamers. They can play games like Little Big Planet, Midnight Club and Rock Band but they don't get into all of the specifics and customization that I use. For example, Marshall (my son) plays Midnight Club and knows how to change the color of his paint but he doesn't understand what all the customization means or what effect it has. He is content with driving around the city in the same car. It;s fun for him just to drive without ever feeling incomplete that he hasn't beat the game or got all the trophies.

Any game can be played on an ultra high competitive level but that doesn't make it a hardcore title. I would consider most Nintendo games to be casual in nature. By that I mean that you can just pick up and play them without getting confused, frustrated or lost. It doesn't mean there is more to be done in any given area or circuit (what the hardcore wants to achieve) but it's more of a pickup and play experience.

Maybe we can also further categorize casual games as ones that don't really challenge you as much as you just play them. I would consider the epitome of casual gaming this generation to be the Wii series of Wii Play, Wii Sports, Wii Fit and Wii music. It's not about a learning curve or even an object of completion so much as it's about just playing. The essence of pure gameplay as opposed to any type of narrative. It doesn't mean those games are bad in any way but they really do appeal more to a casual audience.

Now we just need Iwata at a Japanese press conference saying "we're bigger than Buddha"

Khan: you get a + for that.

everyone on this site refuses to believe that even though it also brings in a controller peripheral and caters to a huge audience like the wii tries to.

In the same way that Simon destroyed the board game market.

There's a big difference between releasing a casual game for a game system and releasing a casual game system.

It just happens to be one of the few games that appeals to everyone. Everyone likes music and at some point wished they were a musician. It also allows for casual no fail play as well as a more hardcore centric tour mode that requires heightened difficulty to complete. It just appeals to both. Mario Kart and Smash brothers brawl (as do most Nintendo games) have that same appeal. I like to characterize it as easy to learn but hard to master. Anyone can pick up Smash Brothers and play it without having ever played a videogame in their life.

I don't know what metric you would use to determine what is casual and what isn't but thats my opinion on the matter.

But to say that traditional gaming experiences simply don't exist on the Wii is outright wrong.

I won't deny that the Wii is selling fantastic numbers of consoles to people who don't own one. But to shun the system entirely and fear for the future of gaming is ludicrous.

Besides, it'd be foolish to say that the Game Boy, or other portable gaming systems, weren't - by this definition - "casual" games.

And that's why it's those kind of games that will be the future. Games for the hardcore gamers that will buy it and all the dlc to boot, and games for the masses of gamers that will push the sales off into the stratosphere

Bridge games are the future for those who really want to make bank, and they will become the focal point of the industry, with both hardcore and casual being smaller groups that still find prosperity

One of my teachers bought a PS3 just for rock band >_>.

"But to say that traditional gaming experiences simply don't exist on the Wii is outright wrong."

If you consider traditional gaming to be games like MegaMan, Mario Bros., and Zelda, then the Wii seems to have more traditional gaming than the 360 and PS3. Outside of XBLA and PSN, the 360 and PS3 are focused on shooters, what about all the other genres of traditional games?

So in other words "I bought a Wii just to play games made by Nintendo and now that they've taken the usual break between releases Im all grumpy". amirite?

Have you tried any of the following?

Shaun White Snowboarding
de Blob
Boom Blox
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09
Pro Evolution Soccer
Mario Kart
SSBB
Okami (god help you if you haven't played Okami)
any VC games
World of Goo
Tetris Party
LostWinds
Dr. Mario Online Rx
Art Style: Orbient
Art Style: Rotohex
Battalion Wars 2
Medal of Honor Heroes 2
Wario Land: Shake It!
Endless Ocean
Mario & Sonic at the Olympics

I'll answer for you Iridium.

"No."

No offense, but out of all those games, I would only feel comfortable recommending 3 of them to any of my friends that already own a PS3 or 360.

Iridium I have a 360 and I wouldn't mind playing these out of this world HD games that make Metroid, Mario Galaxy, Paper Mario, and Zelda seem like Atari games.. What are they?

"Sure the PS2 had a lot of shovelware but it also had far more good games than the Wii has at the same point in its life. PS2 graphics and gameplay also got better as time went on. The Wii seems to have peaked with Mario Galaxy and has gone backwards."

Do you even understand why this is the case?


Jacksons your friends must really like action games, cause there's a lack of action games in that list..

Yeah no offense but that list is pretty weak. Most people do buy a Nintendo console for first party "classic" franchises. Nintendo has never had the type of 3rd party support Sony and now MS have.

After playing LittleBigPlanet and Valkyria Chronicles, I can't find a single PS3 game worth playing. Maybe if the PS3 was the only console I had I would find more games to play but compared to the Wii, PS3 games are mostly shooters and I'm a platformer and RPG fan.

Most PS3 games are PS2 games with higher resolution graphics. The gameplay and controls haven't changed in over 10 years.

Sure you can say Resistance is superior to The Conduit, but that only matters if you're a shooter fan. Not all gamers are shooter fans.

PS3 games need to make up for the lack of innovation with better graphics. I find it sad that the most realistic graphics in a PS3 game are in a generic FPS game that plays like a PS2 game.

The more the PS3 sells the worse games are going to get for it. Developers will pour tons of money into a game's HD graphics and neglect gameplay and story. They will just make HD sequels to PS2 games because they will probably sell more copies of a game with super-realistic mature-looking graphics on the outside than CaveStory will ever hope to.

Sure the PS2 had a lot of shooters but it also had far more good RPGs and platformers than the PS3 has at the same point in its life. The PS3 seems to have peaked with LittleBigPlanet and has gone backwards.

Evan,

By your own logic Wii games are just game cube games with barely a noticeable difference in graphics. I'm all for motion controls on the Wii but from my experience they usually don't work at all. The only game thus far that I have found with good motion controls was Mario Kart.

If all you can find to play on your PS3 is Little Big Planet and Valkyria Chronicles then you need to go ahead and get rid of it. Your also missing out on allot of good games by just generalizing them as nothing but generic shooters.

Just stick with the Wii and play the E for everyone games that appeal to you more. If you have already made your mind up about an entire genre of games because they have guns then there is no reason for you to even own a High Definition console. Saying they are only about graphics and nothing else is utterly absurd to me in reference to the PS3 & 360. That would be like me saying all Wii games are just stupid mini game compilations without substance. That statement is equally as stupid.

If you want me to give you a good list of RPG's that you somehow missed I can do it.

Just for fun, here's some numbers I pulled off Metacritic for a discussion over at that other gaming blog. There are the 80/50 ratios for each system. Meaning the number of games with an aggregate rating of 80 or higher over those with a rating of 50 or lower (i.e. good games vs terrible... higher ratio is better):

Wii: 42/72 = 0.59
360: 130/63 = 2.06
PS3: 84/18 = 4.67
PS2: 320/162 = 1.98

And for comparison I put the PS2 in there because a lot of people like the claim the Wii is like the PS2 with a lot of trash but a lot of gems... the numbers say otherwise.

@johnnynumber5

Yeah, I admit I was stretching a bit to match Iridium's post sentence by sentence.

I do appreciate some shooters like Gears of War and Bioshock. But I don't like that shooters seem to be "taking over" gaming. The biggest budgets and most hype is being spent on shooters, and fans of other genres are getting the shaft.

"Just for fun, here's some numbers I pulled off Metacritic for a discussion over at that other gaming blog. There are the 80/50 ratios for each system. Meaning the number of games with an aggregate rating of 80 or higher over those with a rating of 50 or lower (i.e. good games vs terrible... higher ratio is better):

Wii: 42/72 = 0.59
360: 130/63 = 2.06
PS3: 84/18 = 4.67
PS2: 320/162 = 1.98"

I think by this point everybody knows that the major third parties have not been putting much effort into their wii games.. and the good to bad game ratio shows it. I think this has been covered a million times already.
Now if you want to show us something thats going to convince us that in spite of the wii's incredible sales, 3rd parties are still going to give wii the cold shoulder, then thats a different story.

"And for comparison I put the PS2 in there because a lot of people like the claim the Wii is like the PS2 with a lot of trash but a lot of gems..."

People are saying the "wii is like the ps2" not because the wii's 2 year library is better or equals the ps2's 9 year library.. They're saying they're alike because the wii is selling to the same broad audience that the ps2 did (still is)and the sales show it.

"People are saying the "wii is like the ps2" not because the wii's 2 year library is better or equals the ps2's 9 year library.. They're saying they're alike because the wii is selling to the same broad audience that the ps2 did (still is)and the sales show it."

That's only partially true. Far, far, far, far more often I see the comparison come up when people try to defend the Wii's line-up. They'll compare it to the PS2 and say something like, "Yes, there's a lot of garbage, but that just means you have to dig to find the gems. Just like the PS2". Both are selling to broad audience, but I think the Wii has very clearly brought in more casuals that have a lower standard for games.

"Now if you want to show us something thats going to convince us that in spite of the wii's incredible sales, 3rd parties are still going to give wii the cold shoulder, then thats a different story."

I don't think they will. The Wii is a much easier target. The bar is much lower both technically (graphics, etc...) and from a gameplay standpoint. Even if your shovelware misses the target you aren't out as much money. Just try again.

Moptimus Slime,
Your game list, other than VC (which is emulating old games) does nothing for me.
People are allowed to have different taste in games.
I love the 16bit era but to me all the Wii has to offer is paying for emulated classics, Wii Sports, Wii Fit and maybe when you have a group of people over Mario Party 8.
The Wii by far has the worst library of games and even the few good ones that I don't care for are by Nintendo.
The Wii needs better 3rd party support and further more, the need better games from the 3rd parties!
Konami is there but look at what they put out compared to the PS3 and the 360!
Capcom make T VS C and that stays in Japan only!
The Wii can't hold its own like this as most "gamers" will require a 2nd system to get what the Wii can't deliver on.
Sure the hardware sales are awesome, but software sales suck and look who's buying the Wii. Many non-traditional gamers are happy just with sport simulation games!
The combinination of non-gamer purchases and lack of good non-Nintendo software explains the crap software attach rate to the Wii.
And really, should I have to struggle to find hidden gems on a system? Some gems should be obvious or multi-platform and thats clearly not happening!
I've also put my time in with House of the Dead 2 & 3 Returns, Metroid, Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy and Zelda! Yes they were good, but they are nowhere near enough for me to only own a Wii and be satisfied! Back to the VC, I love the VC more than anyone should, but that brings nothing new to the table and being realistic, most people would rather get it for their PC for free.
I'm not trying to challenging you here, but as I said, your list is a waste of my money! Don't get me wrong, if you like it and you loved those games, that's awesome and I'm happy for you but that doesn't mean most people agree with you especially when the big named games get sequels on PS3 and 360 but get nothing or some crap spinoff type game on the Wii like Final Fantasy CC and Castlevania J.
Nintendo isn't doing enough to give the hardcore gamers anything to chew on or even to attract other companies to make their flagship sequels on the Wii.
That's just my opinion but I think the sales numbers side more with my opinion then your list.

Evan,
I don't agree with your PS3 claims.
I like innovation but I also like sequels which are true to their prequel. Not everything needs to change to be good.
Every 3d Castlevania has sucked compared to any 2d Castlevania. Bring on Castlevania Judgement, a stupid fighting game instead of a real Castlevania game just to try to use the Wii's motion sensing! So why bother pushing a formula that doesn't work?
But yeah, I hate all the overflow of 1st person shooters and racing games. That's just how it works..look at Warcraft II, as soon as it took off, everyone made RTS games, same with Doom/Quake. Thats whats selling now so companies think they can cash in on the genre. I couldn't be more bored of 1st person shooters but COD4 came along and I enjoyed it but that was far more than enough for me for a long time.
Don't get caught up on the innovation wave, some innovation is good but innovation for the sake of innovation is more weak then having too many of 1 type of game.
The 32bit era came along and everything went 3d, now theres a huge demand for 2d and classic games! That's just how things go and balance is something that gets thrown out the window when ever a game gets a lot of attention; everyone has to clone it and try to improve on it!
Its boring, but thats where we are now; hope that changes soon but i doubt it.

The reason Nintendo consoles had become systems you get only for Nintendo games (not really true for most) is because third-parties keep playing this indecisive game of will they, won't they. If you ask what a person buys a Playstation 2 for, you'd probably find names like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc. Those are third-party games. Those are the games that become the corner stone of a system and its legacy that is followed by the next same brand system. There's a guarantee of sorts in people's minds when they're deciding on what console to buy. Nintendo lost the Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy titles during the N64, and with that brings uncertainty. One of the reasons I bought a GameCube was because there was a guarantee of the entire Resident Evil series on it. What guarantees can you say of third-party games/franchises that will grace the Wii? Even though the Cube got a Tales game or MGS Twin Snakes or Soul Calibur II, what exactly happened after that? Nothing followed of those franchise but the PS2, well it got like five Tales games, at least two (new, neither port or remake) MGS games, and Soul Calibur III. Nintendo needs some sort of mainstay to their lineup that comes form third-party software providers, and I don't mean the type that Ubisoft's been dishing out.

P.S. The Wii doesn't need any more games with low framerate and sluggish controls

Or on any system. Drives me nuts.

Even worse is when you spend some time playing Burnout or Ratchet or some other 60 FPS title then switch to a game like GTA IV. It makes your eyes bleed.

I think developers have an assumption that experienced gamers will play online matches, while casual gamers will play single player campaigns. Both suffer. The single player campaigns have gotten too easy for experienced gamers, and online matches are intolerant of newcomers.