Analyst: Investing in Wii development is 'fool's gold'
by Ben Gilbert 
{ Apr 8th 2009 at 6:15PM } 
Creutz explained that while there are 19 million Wiis on the loose in the US, the combined numbers for Xbox 360 and PS3 still edge out the Wii by 3 million units. Creutz continued, "I think the Wii installed base represents, to a certain extent, fool's gold for someone looking to invest in video game development." We'll keep that in mind once we get Joystiq Publishing off the ground.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Fakero @ Apr 8th 2009 6:19PM
If a developer makes a worthwhile game, it WILL sell regardless of platform. Problem is too many of them treat the Wii like a second class citizen and then expect high profit margins for shoddy games anyway.
CTC XBL-supapaypamawio PSN-ctclaw @ Apr 8th 2009 6:24PM
Zak and Wiki's low sales numbers say hello
Madworld's sales numbers say hello.
Fernando Rocker @ Apr 8th 2009 6:26PM
This...
The only titles with high budgets are the Nintendo titles... Super Mario Galaxy is a masterpiece... Metroid is awesome, SSBB, Zelda, etc...
When third developers invest the same time and budget as Nintendo, then I will pay full price for that game.
I do have a lot of Wii games, but it's obvious that third party devs are the responsible for the bad games on the Wii. Nintendo is the only one that has been developing both casual and hardcore.
At least the Wii is getting support this year. In my opinion, the Wii should have the same kind of support as the DS. It should have unique games, and stylized games.
But third party devs will never sell the same amount of software as Nintendo of they keep developing Babiez and Petz games.
Fernando Rocker @ Apr 8th 2009 6:31PM
CTC
MadWorld already sold 150k... I know it's low for HD standars, but it will sure be a million seller. Even Zakk and Wiki it's aparently getting a sequel (Capcom Forums).
Just look at deBlob or Boom Bloox... they both sold less than 15,000 in their first week, and both are million sellers now.
The problem I see with third party devs on the Wii is, that the price they offer they games is way to high for what the offer, the value... sure, I will gladly pay $50 for Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid, Mario Kart, etc... because I knwo that those games are worth the price. But $50 for Zakk and Wiki? It's a great game, but the value for a game like is like $25 or $30.
Same with Overkill... House of the Dead 2 & 3 compilation already sold a million, but Overkill is way to expensive at $50 dlls.
OMGOMG @ Apr 8th 2009 6:31PM
As does No More Heroes.
FNG @ Apr 8th 2009 6:32PM
make a game called "wii senior bowling" with "older" characters and the 15million old people who have bought a wii will eat it up.
let's be honest here. the wii's install base is not the same gamers that are making up the PS3 and 360 install base.
yeah, I have a wii, but it's only around because of the wife, and she is hardly plays now that the novelty has worn off.
Yourself @ Apr 8th 2009 6:35PM
Those are pretty terrible examples. Zack and Wiki is an extremely niche title - adventures games have never sold well (barring some obvious examples), and it's hardly even one of those. Calling it a "core game" is really totally ignoring the meaning of that statement and generalizing beyond necessity.
MadWorld - well I don't see why you need MadWorld explained to you. It's been out for what, less than a month? Plenty of Wii games have show growth over time and gone on from a similar slow to sell ~2 million copies.
Feba @ Apr 8th 2009 6:38PM
Right, CTC, because Zack and Wiki and Madworld aren't niche titles at all; and they don't have significant problems with gameplay (Zack and Wiki's "trial, error, repeat" approach to puzzle solving, and Madworld's occasional freezing are enough to keep a lot of people that would otherwise be interested away)
The fact is, there are plenty of *good* third party games on Wii, as there are on any console. But all of the real gems are first party. The closest thing to a triple-A third party title is RE4, and that's a gamecube port.
Now, I love No More Heroes, and I'm looking forward to picking up Madworld and Overkill, and there are plenty of third party games upcoming that I'm looking forward to. but they don't compare to Nintendo's efforts, or other similarly quality titles on other platforms. Until the Wii is a true platform in its own right, and not "hey, we just have to make something less crappy, and with blood!", third party games will do poorly.
D_Average @ Apr 8th 2009 6:42PM
Geometry Wars Galaxies just crawled out of the bargain bin to tell you to "piss off!"
CTC XBL-supapaypamawio PSN-ctclaw @ Apr 8th 2009 6:42PM
They are both fine examples, both are great games that didn't get the sales numbers they deserved. Yes, I know that Madworld hasn't been out for long, but you can't deny that it's first week sales were pretty disappointing. My point is that even when a good game does come out, if it wasn't made by Nintendo it rarely gets the sales it deserves. 1 million copies of a game sold isn't much when there are 50 million Wii's out there. And before anyone freaks out claiming I'm some Nintendo hater, I have a Wii with 20+ games for it.
mr mobius @ Apr 8th 2009 6:48PM
Zack and Wiki is going for £12 on Amazon, so I'd encourage people to pick it up. That's very cheap.
Fernando Rocker @ Apr 8th 2009 6:58PM
http://s129.photobucket.com/albums/p236/fernando_rocker/?action=view¤t=HNI_0024.jpg
That's only about 50% of my Wii collection (the other half is on boxes... I'm still moving out)... there are a lot of titles missing in the pic like Animal Crossing, Battalion Wars, Excite Trucks, Fire Emble, Super Mario Sluggers, Dewy's Adventure, Dragon Quest Swords, Chocobo's Dungeon, etc...
Problem is, the only AAA games are Nintendo ones, which they released in their in 2007. Nintendo can't do everything by themselves. Look the third party games by MS and Sony: about the same quantity, but they have the advantage that third party devs do develop high end games for their systems.
And for example, of course, I will buy Excitebots and Punch Out because I know that those will be better than Nascar Kart Racing and Ready to Rumble...
Mr Khan @ Apr 8th 2009 6:59PM
If you look down the million-seller list for Wii, crop out the Nintendo titles, then check out the first week sales, the figures you find are often quite embarrassing
I used to have the link to it, but i can't recall it.
Fernando Rocker @ Apr 8th 2009 7:02PM
Edit: Look the *first party games by MS and Sony: about the same quantity as Nintendo...
OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Apr 8th 2009 7:08PM
Fernando: "Nintendo can't do everything by themselves."
Try telling that to Nintendo. They're doing the same BS Sega did. Lock away functions from third party devs and only allow first party games to have them. Ever wonder why you don't see features on the Wii or the DS "implemented" until a first party game does them, and then all of a sudden a flood of games come out afterwards with that functionality?
Hmmmmm...
Fernando Rocker @ Apr 8th 2009 7:14PM
Like what?
EA is going to be the first with a game with MotionPlus support.
OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Apr 8th 2009 7:22PM
Just looking at the Wii, let's see...
Online anything, Nintendo first.
Mii support in game, Nintendo first.
Using the remote speaker, Nintendo first.
Remember Perrin Kaplan specifically talking about how they didn't roll out all the features at once because they "didn't want the public to be overwhelmed". (Because obviously, who could possibly handle being able to go online with a new console.)
That's one part. The other part is that Nintendo wants to keep that stuff to themselves. They'll give it to everyone else when they feel like it. It was the same with the Dreamcast. Just look at the Sega games comparatively and they were doing things with the system that no third-party company could. It obviously wasn't just money, because All-American 18 Wheeler was not a high budget game, but still did things visually that no third party game could match.
esposch @ Apr 8th 2009 7:23PM
@ Fernando
You forgot Okami. Huge production values, and easily hits Twilight Princess for six. Although, it is a PS2 port...
@ Stupid analyst retard head
You're kinda leaving out the minor detail that a PS3/360 game costs double to triple to produce, because of all the time they have to spend on graphics and complex engines.
@ Everyone
Core games on the Wii sell well. Brawl has sold as well as Halo.
esposch @ Apr 8th 2009 7:32PM
^ And porting.
Comet @ Apr 8th 2009 8:01PM
OMGOMG,
No More Heroes 2 says hi.
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 8th 2009 8:17PM
@esposch
The Wii is a great console that has changed gaming for the better and has brought new consumers into the fold. Thats not something that anyone should question at any step of the way. However, this issue at hand is really quite different and is about 3rd party developers expectations on the platform.
They (HD consoles & games) cost more to develop but you have three platforms (360, PS3 & PC) to spread sales across and userbases that buy your games in droves. If the Wii had comparable technical specs they would be getting all the 3rd party love (SF IV, GTA IV, Fallout 3 etc etc) but it's not feasible to scale back the quality to the point that it isn't recognizable (Brothers In Arms, COD WaW & Shaun White SB) on a console whose install base isn't all that interested in the first place. Not to mention the added development costs to port the game down to the Wii and to add in efficient gestural controls, which, still isn't possible because motion plus hasn't been released.
Do you expect developers to go out of their way and make a super technical critical darling to be lucky just to break 1 million sales in the games lifetime? The truth of the matter is that a lot of people (probably the vast majority) buy a Wii to play Nintendo first party games. We have seen some platformers and party games sell well from 3rd parties so for the most part thats what will continued to be made.
LBP & KZ2 didn't sell Halo & Gears numbers out of the gate and everyone considered them a failure. However, when Wii games flop there is always some excuse as to why its acceptable. I don't expect Monster Hunter 3 to sell well outside of the Asian/Japanese market, either.
The Wii is what it is and if I were a developer and/or publisher I would certainly want to experiment with it and try to make some good content. However, I wouldn't want to throw some massive amount of development resources towards a game that at best is going to sell 1 million and change. I guess the good thing is you can easily port a game to the PS2 and to a lesser extent the PSP so it isn't all that fruitless.
In the end the Wii is sort of a victim of it's own success. Because the console is accessible to anyone there are a large number of owners that only want to play the casual stuff. You need a mix of both core and casual to truly be recognized as the best console. The PS2 did just that but this generation has fragmented the market into two sects: hardcore & minimal casual and Casual and minimal hardcore.
When Monster Hunter 3 releases we will know once and for all if a big budget 3rd party hardcore Wii exclusive can sell first party numbers.
Mr Khan @ Apr 8th 2009 9:11PM
You realize half of what you're spouting is grade A horseshit, Random Guy.
"Mii Support in a Game, Nintendo first," well, maybe, because, just maybe, the game that the damn console is bundled with has Mii Support. How in the hell are Nintendo supposed to allow 3rd parties to have it before that?
Plus the fact that we knew the Conduit would have voice chat before Animal Crossing was announced (it came down the pipe a few days before E3 2008)
samfish @ Apr 8th 2009 11:12PM
"When Monster Hunter 3 releases we will know once and for all if a big budget 3rd party hardcore Wii exclusive can sell first party numbers."
Nope.
And here's why you're wrong:
A) Monster Hunter has never sold well in the west, so it's foolish to put that kind of pressure on it. The ONLY way this is a test for a AAA level third party game is if you watch Japan's sales. Unfortunately..
B) Console versions of Monster Hunter have never really sold well even in Japan. The PS2 versions weren't exactly flops, but compared to the PSP versions of the game, you'd be wise to appropriately temper your expectations.
Although contrarily, I suppose you could just as well argue that the PS2 Monster Hunters came out before the series struck gold on the PSP, if I'm not mistaken.
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 9th 2009 1:50AM
Samfish
You are exactly right in that the PS2 versions set the path for the successful PSP games. This is a hardcore 3rd party big budget Wii exclusive. It's the ultimate litmus test for the theory presented by the analyst.
Heimbachae @ Apr 9th 2009 6:37AM
BLAH BLAH BLAH!
Louis @ Apr 8th 2009 6:21PM
I think it really depends on what type of game you want to make and how far from a piece of shit it turns out to be. If your game is original, creative and fun then I don't think it matters what console it ends up on.
Louis @ Apr 8th 2009 6:22PM
Damn, Fakero beat me to it. Basically said the same thing lol
Alex Sohn @ Apr 8th 2009 6:22PM
interesting point, i just always assumed the wii install base had surpassed the ps3 and 36o combined install base
Morisato @ Apr 8th 2009 6:29PM
One thing to keep in mind though, is the dev cost of each system. I remember reading that the wii is significantly less costly to dev on... and while the 360 and ps3 have similar capabilities, both systems run differently making a simple port from one to another very difficult.
NoughtSoClever @ Apr 9th 2009 10:52AM
Yeah, developers costs about as much as two gamecube developers duct taped together....sorry, couldn't resist.
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ Apr 8th 2009 6:30PM
I would agree with that considering the top sellers are mostly Nintendo titles & EA Titles. But as long as a GOOD game is put out there I would think that the masses would give it a try..
Miles @ Apr 8th 2009 6:39PM
I totally agree with Nintendo and EA being the most likely purchases of a consumer. But even if your game is good, the Wii library is surrounded in a sea of shit. We all sit here and read Joystiq, IGN , 1up ... etc. . So we know what's the good stuff.
But if a kid who just happens to get a game while his mom is at the mall, he'd never notice something without the Nintendo, EA or sequel tag attached to it on the Wii.
And if Mad World, Zak and Wiki have sold or will sell a million units, a developer has to ask himself, " Should i wait out this investment for 18 months, or just make it on 360 or PS3 and get it back by the time the holiday rush is over? "
Mr Khan @ Apr 8th 2009 7:01PM
But you don't get it back as easily on PS360. It's much harder to turn a profit.
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 8th 2009 9:06PM
Mr.Khan
Thats a myth.
samfish @ Apr 8th 2009 11:20PM
No, it really isn't. Higher development costs = higher barrier to turn a profit. Simple as that.
There's nothing stopping you from making a cheap game on the HD consoles, but it'll almost always be cheaper on the Wii.
Moptimus Slime (Gobot in disguise) @ Apr 9th 2009 12:58AM
how are you gonna guarantee you make the money back? If you release it during the Holiday Rush, you'll get lost in the storm of games that have more hype than China has babies COUGHCOUGHUBISOFTCOUGHCOUGH. If you release it during a down period, you have to market the hell out of it to get people to go out and buy it.
Face it, whether or not a game is truly "good" (which differs from person to person) doesn't matter. Gamers today only buy games based on hype (see Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, No More Heroes, Mirrors Edge, the slow and steady LBP compared to Gears 2, NFS: Undercover, Resident Evil 5, Carnival Games, and many more). THAT is what's truly killing the gaming industry.
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 9th 2009 2:32AM
Samfish
Publishers make an additional $10 on every PS360 games but still pay the same liscense fee with Nintendo. Developers can spread the game over multiple platforms which increases profitability. Finally, the PS360 crowd is also very likely to purchase premium DLC that isn't available on the Wii excluding music tracks for rhythm games. We don't have detailed information on how many games have profited on any of the three platforms but when you factor in the extra revenue because of price point differences, premium DLC and selling the game on multiple platforms it evens out any differences in development costs.
This is the way I see things: 3rd party developers have less risk when they make a game for the wii but they also have less chance of a high return/reward. PS360 developers have greater risks because of everything entailed but if you can be successful the reward will be greater.
Dave @ Apr 8th 2009 6:34PM
That is one nice steering wheel...
HDpurist @ Apr 8th 2009 6:35PM
The Wii is a complete novelty. I own one but haven't played with it for a year now...still boxed. It was fun for the first few months but the hardware is just crap compared to PS3 and 360. Nintendo made a huge mistake with GameCube 2. Absolutely no longevity.
darian @ Apr 8th 2009 6:47PM
"Still boxed" implies you never opened the package. Given that you assert you played with the Wii for at least a couple of months, this is odd.
Alternatively, if you had played someone else's Wii, why aren't you selling your untouched package on eBay for fun and profit?
Justin @ Apr 8th 2009 6:52PM
Does the Wii need longevity? Nintendo has put themselves in a postion of being able to do anything again. When the Wii 2.0 comes out N will most likely make things backward compatible again like they did with the Gamecube. So when the Wii 2.0 comes out parents like me will be more inclined to purchase something that will work with all the extra stuff that I have already purchased. Unlike the PS3 which won't play my PS2 games at all and the 360 only able to play a few of my original Xbox games. So from a gamers stand point the Wii won't last long, but from a parents stand point Nintendo is cheap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7PhJp3ciRQ
TrojanGuy @ Apr 8th 2009 6:41PM
Not only are the combined installed bases of PS3 and 360 higher, but people actually BUY 3rd party games on PS3 and 360.
darian @ Apr 8th 2009 6:54PM
While the 360 and PS3 are more similar to one another than either is to the Wii, remember that targeting multiple platforms increases development costs. Depending on what technology you're using the cost may be small or large, but it is definitively non-zero.
Discussions of install base size are, however, red herrings. (WARNING: Car Analogy) It's akin to focusing entirely on tires when arguing whether a Ferrari or a Toyota is better. Not only are you ignoring all of the other important attributes of the cars, but also the metrics by which either can be considered better. Someone who wants to race cars isn't going to want a Camry, but someone who needs to take their kids to school is probably going to avoid a high powered sport's car.
Mr Khan @ Apr 8th 2009 7:02PM
People actually buy MORE Wii 3rd party software than total 360 software (1st and 3rd)
So there it is.
TrojanGuy @ Apr 8th 2009 7:43PM
Last I read, that's not true Mr Khan. And of course, based on anecdotal evidence (i.e. everybody I know), nobody seems to own much on Wii that wasn't published by Nintendo.
Chris @ Apr 8th 2009 6:42PM
I would so buy games from "Joystiq Publishing".
sonicspike41 @ Apr 8th 2009 6:52PM
The first game should be a date sim where young tweens get the chance to live out their fantasy life with Justin McElroy or Andrew Yoon (or any of the others of course).
I'd laugh in favor of it.
MowDownJoe @ Apr 8th 2009 9:56PM
Would living with Ludwig mean you'd have to fend off lions? I'd choose that every time.
jynxycat @ Apr 8th 2009 6:47PM
Fool's good ? Psh. Our publishing base is almost all Wii titles at the moment, and any multi-platform games lead off with the Wii.
To say that it's not a good move to produce Wii titles over 360/PS3 titles is fairly short sighted. Unless you're a major developer making some AAA title, your sales will be more brisk, with the correct game, on the Wii.
Highlar @ Apr 9th 2009 9:46AM
Reading this comment it sounds like you are part of a company publishing games for all 3 platforms? If this is so, how would you say sales compare...via your perspective...between the 3 systems? Just curious, as that sounds like it could make a good point to this argument.