Wii 'Inhospitable' for Third-Party Games

[AlexMax]

Interesting article which basically confirms what I've been thinking for ages:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/wii-inhospitable-platform-for-third-party-publishers-says-analyst


The Wii is still a difficult format for third-party publishers looking for sales success, according to one analyst.

While three Wii games from Nintendo featured in the top ten best-selling games for August in the US, EA's Madden NFL 09 was the only third-party Wii title to do so, despite the Xbox 360, PS3 and PS2 versions of the same game taking the top three positions.

"The Wii version of Madden 09 sold 79 per cent less units than the PS3 version and 87 per cent less units than the 360 version, despite a larger console installed base and an improved Metacritic rating," noted Doug Creutz of Cowen and Company.

"We continue to believe that the Wii is a relatively inhospitable platform for third-party publishers," he said.

Creutz also noted that no THQ titles made the top ten best-sellers in August for the third month running, Electronic Arts and Activision Blizzard only saw single digit year-on-year growth, and Take-Two sales were down 53 per cent due to 2007' release of BioShock.

And shacknews responds thus:


When you sell the only current-generation system that allows selling "budget" games when they launch, you're bound to wind up with a library of games that aren't hits. Microsoft, for example, forbade selling games below a $40 price point at launch. The policy reared its head when Rockstar launched its table tennis game at $40, leading consumers to question the game's price tag. The logic, supposedly, was to restrict the console's library to games with more value in them.

The Wii, with its huge install base and lack of a Microsoftian price-equals-quality policy, was a welcoming platform for non-hardcore, easily produced games. These games aren't made to sell a million copies; they're made to turn a quick profit from a short development time and a movie tie-in. They're the fast food of games. As such, Wii's third-party entries on NPD have always been rare. The last two before Madden were Guitar Hero III and LEGO Indiana Jones--like Madden, two very big games that just happened to get a Wii port.

That the Wii version of Madden is under-selling the others is understandable. When a new sports game is released, it should sell better on hardware that generates more realistic images and has more flexible online play. But someone looking at NPD charts and wondering why the Wii's broader game library isn't showing up is just looking in the wrong place. The platform is profitable, even for third-party games. But when those profits don't go to Nintendo, they go to the guys that made the Wall-E game and sold it for $30. Simply put, looking for the Wii's third-party success in the NPD charts is akin to reading Bon Appetit magazine and wondering how McDonald's makes so much money.

I'm so glad I sold my Wii. It truely does have an abysmal software library, with the only good games being supplied by Nintendo or by companies making watered-down Playstation 2 ports, yet Nintendo fans lap it up because Nintendo tosses them the occasional bone with the millionth tired sequel of a N64 game.

Discuss.

[AtmaWeapon]

What's there to discuss? Nintendo's strategy is to target their loyal fans and a part of the market that has traditionally not been too interested in video games. You've repeatedly made posts to "bring it to light" and continuously been met with responses that indicate this.

Yeah, Nintendo's pretty much abandoned their fans in lieu of the casual gamer. A few years ago, Sony and Microsoft did the same thing to the Nintendo fan in favor of the type of person that stole a Nintendo fan's lunch money in elementary school. The thing is, the few games that I enjoy on my Wii I enjoy a lot. So there's not many of them; wasn't the same true of the XBox in its initial period? For the longest time, there was nothing but the promise of Halo, then there was Halo and not much else. By the way, how's the PS3 library looking right now? There's Metal Gear Solid 4 and... Metal Gear Solid 4. Your best value right now is the PS2, and if you look at the signal/noise ratio on that library you'll find that if you think the Wii's abysmal you have a very very small idea of the abyss.

So yeah, I'm pissed at Nintendo. Still, I play a good game when it's made and Nintendo makes good ones, so I'll buy those. Lately I'm an MGS man; I have to wait for the next time Nintendo remembers people like their franchises to get another good game.

By the way, it's interesting that one of your points is the Wii's only good games are PS2 ports and tired sequels. I just looked at your gamertag, and let's look at the cream-of-the-crop original games you devote time to:
N+: Port of a years-old flash game.
Bionic Commando: Rearmed: Sequel to a decade-old NES game.
Marathon: Durandal: Sequel to a decade-old FPS game.
Call of Duty 4: Millionth sequel of generic WWII FPS
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars: Mod to the 4th sequel of a decade-old FPS
Rez HD: It's Rez, in HD!
Geometry Wars Evolved: Another sequel?
GTA IV: 4th sequel to a series; judged as groundbreaking and lackluster depending on who you ask.
Halo 3: The first was bland; was there really a way to make a sequel let alone 2 sequels?
Pac-Man C.E.: Pre-Atari port?
Bomberman LIVE: NES port?
Street Fighter II: HF: SNES port? Does Capcom even know how many sequels there are?
Tetris Splash: Is there anything that this hasn't been ported to?

Man, I can see how the Wii's library of classic games wouldn't appeal to you; you spend your time playing only first-rate games that you can only get on consoles advanced enough to push 16-bit sprites!

[MottZilla]

Atma, Call of Duty 4 is the first to leave WW2 behind. It's not a bad shooter by any means. SF2HF is the Arcade Version emulated (or possibly a port), not the SNES.

I do agree with you that it's not about having a million suprb games in the library. Really there aren't that many games on any recent system that I think are all that amazing. Most systems have alot of average and crap games.

The reason I don't care for the Wii is Price and the low number of games I find interesting for it. Not to mention the lack of quality online play. Funny enough, that's the same reason I'm not into the PS3.

We've been through this a million times now. The Wii most certainly is getting in profits. Probably for 3rd party developers too since the costs are much lower. They just don't have that many games out that those of us fine amazing.

[Revfan9]

Since when does a game have to get good sales to be a good game? The developers may justly care about sales, but the only gamers who do are rabid fanboys desperately trying to make stabs at each others pride.

I have a Wii because Nintendo will occasionally throw a good game at us, and for me at least thats more than Sony and Microsoft's consoles do. Shooters and Sports games bore me. When a decent (By my standards, which means "Worth spending money on") game comes out for the 360 or the PS3 that isn't an FPS or another Madden game, let me know. I haven't seen a single one yet. I'll be waiting with my wallet.

[Alex-Link]

The only games I care about for the Wii right now (and have) are Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Mario Kart Wii, and Wii Sports. And the upcoming ones that I care for are Tomb Raider: Underworld and the new Zelda (yay!). I don't really need any other games right now, I'm happy with the Wii, although the addition of Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts would have been nice. I still like the Wii so far.

[vegeta1215]

There are a lot of games I'm looking forward to at the moment, and most are non-Nintendo games (now that all of Nintendo's "big" games have already come out, such as Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Smash Bros, and Mario Kart)

I will say that the biggest thing that bugs me about non-Nintendo games is that visually they are hit or miss. Graphics aren't as important to me as gameplay, but I do expect a certain level of quality. The Wii isn't as powerful as the 360 and PS3, but it's more powerful than the Gamecube, yet many developers are making games that aren't much better than PS2 graphics.

[The_Amaster]

Yeah, it's interesting. On the 360 you've got some good titles and some bad titles.
On the Wii you have 90% bad titles, and 10% frickin' awesome titles.
And the PS3 has...well, I'm not sure honestly. The only PS3 games I've ever even heard mentioned are MSG4 and Little Big Planet.

But yeah, Wii games are extremely hit or miss. Either it rocks or it sucks.

[Cloral]

Since when does a game have to get good sales to be a good game? The developers may justly care about sales, but the only gamers who do are rabid fanboys desperately trying to make stabs at each others pride.

True, however this is a discussion thread ultimately about sales. And why is it with such a large install base (the biggest of the three consoles) that so many third-party games don't sell as well as you would expect.

I think a lot of it has to do with who's bought the Wii. I think a lot of people bought the Wii for Wii Sports and think of it as Wii Sports. People who hadn't really played any games before, who could never handle a game like Madden which most of us would find overly simplistic.

As for those of us who bought a Wii for the games, well, most of us have a Wii and either a 360 or a PS3. So when something comes out that is multi-plat, we end up getting it on the 360 or PS3 because it looks better, and most multi-plat ports have less than exciting motion controls. Really, how many games other than by Nintendo have been built around the Wii and the motion controls? There's Boom Blox, which started kinda slow but has actually sold decently well. There's Carnival Games, a game most would consider shovelware, but that's sold over a million copies. And then there's Mario and Sonic, which sold far better than it had any right to. So if at some point in the future we see more games designed around the Wii instead of simply ported over to it, I think we will see better third party sales.

[The_Amaster]

Thats why I'm excited for MadWorld, Conduit, and especially, especially de Blob. All three look like they've nailed it. Too bad it's finally starting to happen so far into the systems life.

[AlexMax]

Since when does a game have to get good sales to be a good game?

Why spend tons of time, effort and money on a good game for the Wii when you can make something on the cheap and easy with some lame gimmick or on some known franchise and sell a million copies?

Granted, this tactic is as old as time itself, but the Wii is in a rather unique position for a couple of reasons. First, the Wii is using last-gen relatively well-known hardware. Companies already know how to work with it, with the added benefit of essentially getting a free PS2 port out of the deal if they're so inclined.

An upshot of this is that the standards are lower. Last gen-games have last-gen sets of expectations. You're getting five-year old graphics. Multiplayer (or online functionality at all, such as online high scores/leaderboards) is an afterthought and usually poorly thought out and buggy if implemented at all. There is no expectation for any of the games to be 'meaty' with extra features, continued support through updates, downloadable content, or anything that makes you feel like you're getting your 50 dollars worth (the sole exception to this rule being Super Smash Bros Brawl). WiiWare is pretty stale compared to some of the truly awesome stuff that's available and soon coming out on Xbox Live Arcade So basically you can get away with even less effort than you would if you were writing crapware for the 360 or PS3.

Really, if you enjoy games at all, you're doing a major disservice to yourself if the only console your mommy bought you you own is a Wii.

[Revfan9]

Maybe we just live in different worlds, but I'm not a hardcore gamer. I have a Wii, with a library of about 7 games, and I never touch it. Aside from when I briefly reminded myself of how much Super Mario Galaxy sucked balls sometime last week, I haven't turned it on in months.

I just like a video game that fills you with that good feeling inside. Games these days don't really do that for me anymore.

[Beldaran]

Super Mario Galaxy sucked balls

Well, I guess I don't have to listen anything you say for the rest of history, since you just relinquished your credibility.

Galaxy was so awesome.

[Russ]

Well, I guess I don't have to listen anything you say for the rest of history, since you just relinquished your credibility.

Galaxy was so awesome.
Agreed 100%.


Anyways, what does it matter if the Wii lacks third party games. It has plenty of Nintendo titles that no other console has that make it and awesome system. Who cares about a few third party games that don't make it to the Wii?

[rock_nog]

Revfan, is there anything you DON'T hate?

[Revfan9]

Super Mario Galaxy would be awesome... If it had functioning camera control. Half the time I just can't see where I am at all and the other half the camera is so far zoomed out that it hurts my eyes to try to play. And there is an option that lets you zoom in to see where you are... That you aren't allowed to access in any place where you would actually need it.

Unless there's some super hidden button combination that I just skimmed over in the manual and never managed to figure out on my own, I'd love to know it.

[Masamune]

It's called controlling the camera properly.

[Rijuhn]

Well, I guess I don't have to listen anything you say for the rest of history, since you just relinquished your credibility.

Galaxy was so awesome.

I also agree 100%. Super Mario Galaxy was epic freaking awesomeness! I loved being able to jump around a small globe and totally get like 2 full orbits before the gravity pulled me back. So sweet!

[Beldaran]

Super Mario Galaxy would be awesome... If it had functioning camera control. Half the time I just can't see where I am at all and the other half the camera is so far zoomed out that it hurts my eyes to try to play. And there is an option that lets you zoom in to see where you are... That you aren't allowed to access in any place where you would actually need it.

Unless there's some super hidden button combination that I just skimmed over in the manual and never managed to figure out on my own, I'd love to know it.

I guess the programmers forgot to compensate for the fact that you suck.

[Revfan9]

I hereby christen thee thread "Bash Revfan"

Really, if you all really are capable of playing the game just fine with how the camera is implemented in it, then you're the better gamers. You're better with gaming than I could ever be. I'm amazed at your incredible superiority.

[rock_nog]

I'm just damn confused - I never had any issues with the camera.

[The_Amaster]

Yeah, I remember it getting awkward like, once, at this spot in Honeyhive. Other than that, everything was great.

[Gerudo]

So let me get this straight. The general consensus of you think Galaxy was epic greatness, yet Revfan dislikes it, therefore Revfan has no credibility, is wrong about everything he had grievances with, and apparently "sucks". I'm quite sure that speaks volumes about the rest of you if you jump on him about his opinion.

In any event, Galaxy was "okay" in my opinion. Really fun with two players, and nothing glaringly terrible about it.

Concerning the Wii's lack of this or that, and how "fanboys lap it up", or how it doesn't have "superior than PS2" graphics... It's something you'll be complaining about until the next generation of consoles comes out sometime in the next several years. I really doubt there will be a Wii title that will just make everyone go really ecstatic. Calling a game "hit or miss" is a little backwards because every title that comes out is "hit or miss".

I've made several purchases for the Wii I regret, but I'm not gonna trash the Wii. Those purchases are good for giving to other "non-gamers".

[rock_nog]

It's not that he doesn't like Galaxy, although that is kinda weird. It's the fact that he seems to think the game is technically flawed when none of us have ever experienced anything of that nature, certainly not on the scale that he's talking about. It's really hard to take someone's opinion about a game seriously when they're seeing technical flaws that other people aren't. Well that, and he does kinda have a reputation for being a downer on everything.

[Beldaran]

The fact is, if you think Mario Galaxy has a difficult camera system that makes it too difficult for you to complete the game, then you flat out suck at the game. The camera system is excellent, and far surpasses that of most 3rd person platformers, especially considering the unusual geometry of the levels.

[Cloral]

I think what it comes down to is this: if you're trying to take control of the camera and move it around all the time, then yes it kinda sucks. Having to use a dpad (that isn't even in a place that's easy to reach) instead of an analog stick does make it more difficult. However, as Amaster42 noted above, I only really wanted to change it once or twice in the entire game. It wasn't always perfect, but really it was about as good as you could expect considering that you're always running around blocks of level geometry. So I think Revfan's problem was that he was trying to fight the camera instead of just letting it do what it wanted to do.

[Revfan9]

It's not so much that I was trying to fight the camera as it was that the camera seemed to be perfectly programmed to try to make me die for no reason (And always seemed to wait on the Purple Coin stages until right when I hit around 95/100). It put me into akward positions constantly and in most of these trying to fiddle with the camera control didn't help out much. Admittedly, it happened more often in some galaxies than in others (And a couple like the Space Junk Galaxy were absolutely perfect and gave me no problems), but its these ones that ruin the entire experience. Maybe it's just because I'm no good at jump estimation, but gaming experiences (and therefore opinions) are subjective. If I don't have a good experience with a game, no amount of outside opinions who had a great experience will change this. I'm not saying that people should follow my experience alone (as no one experience is enough to judge a game by itself), I'm saying that it should be at least considered and taken into account.

And I'm also not a very easy person to satisfy, I'll often stop using an application after the first couple of times it gives me issues, technical or otherwise, for example. So always take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

[Radium]

I'm so glad I sold my Wii.

You'll wish you didn't when the new Zelda game is released! :D

[rock_nog]

Frankly, I just don't know how anyone can say "Gee, I don't need Mario Kart or Smash Bros." Okay, there are other versions, I suppose, but the Wii finally lends net support to both. Besides, my other all-time favorite version of Mario Kart is 64, but I only own it via virtual console anyway. I do have the original Smash Bros., and there is Melee, but I don't have Melee, and the original just doesn't cut it these days.

[Cloral]

I can see how someone would say that they don't need the Nintendo staples. I can see someone not enjoying them, especially when some of them had motion controls tacked on to them (looking at you Twilight Princess and Galaxy). That said, I've quite enjoyed having my Wii. Galaxy was great despite the waggle ad-on, Prime 3 felt amazing to me on the console (it was, after all, the game at E3 2006 that convinced me that the Wii was something I wanted), and Wii Sports, for all its simplicity, worked great and even appealed to my parents who never play games otherwise. I don't play it that much lately as I'm getting kinda tired of Mario Kart and I don't know what the next game coming to it will be that I will want. But that's pretty typical really. Before Vesperia came out, I hadn't hardly played my 360 in months. So as far as I'm concerned, they're both good consoles to have. Though these days I'm mostly playing Team Fortress 2 on my PC.

[jman2050]

I'm pretty sure the idea that third-party games don't sell on Wii is a bunch of hogwash, at least based on everything else I've read before this article came out.

[MottZilla]

Frankly, I just don't know how anyone can say "Gee, I don't need Mario Kart or Smash Bros." Okay, there are other versions, I suppose, but the Wii finally lends net support to both. Besides, my other all-time favorite version of Mario Kart is 64, but I only own it via virtual console anyway. I do have the original Smash Bros., and there is Melee, but I don't have Melee, and the original just doesn't cut it these days.

Cause we aren't all ubber fanboys? I can live without playing the latest Nintendo games. There are better games.

[Aegix Drakan]

There are better games.

:D And there are worse games.

[Revfan9]

Cause we aren't all ubber fanboys? I can live without playing the latest Nintendo games. There are better games.

I'd really have to agree with you there, everything Nintendo has thrown at us recently has been nothing but a disappointment. The last game I would honestly call "Good" that we got from them was SPM. Metroid Prime 3 was okay, but I thought it deviated too much from the old exploring concept of Metroid to become more like an FPS. I really could have just saved my money on them.

[rock_nog]

Cause we aren't all ubber fanboys? I can live without playing the latest Nintendo games. There are better games.
I was being a bit facetious there. But really - I mean, if you happen to like the style of play of Mario Kart, it's not like there are any major competitors out there.

[Revfan9]

But what if you DON'T like the playstyle of Mario Kart?

[rock_nog]

Touche. Okay, ya got me there.

[Masamune]

Anyone who doesn't like Mario Kart not only sucks, but is also a faggot.

[Revfan9]

Anyone who calls people immature names in place of building constructive comments not only sucks, but is also...

Wait. Why does this sound so familiar? What year is it? Am I reading AGN or GameFAQs? I can't tell anymore.

[Masamune]

You're easily bullied. :|

[MottZilla]

I was being a bit facetious there. But really - I mean, if you happen to like the style of play of Mario Kart, it's not like there are any major competitors out there.

Major competition, I'm not sure, but there are alternative games that have the Mario Kart battle/race gameplay. For example Full Auto on Xbox 360 and PS3 I thought was pretty cool. Racing with actual cars equipped with machine guns, bombs, missiles, etc. Honestly if I want to play Mario Kart, or Star Fox, or Metroid, I don't need to buy the latest Nintendo platform. I've got a perfectly good Super Famicom, and plenty of other things to play those games.

[The_Amaster]

Well, yes, you could play Super Mario Kart instead of Mario Kart Wii. But then you could also play Doom instead of Halo for that matter.

[rock_nog]

I'd rather play Doom instead of Halo.

[MottZilla]

I'm gonna have to second that, I'd much rather play Doom than Halo. But you know what I'd rather play Gears of War than any of the games anyone is going to mention. My point is that Nintendo ran out the clock on their franchises. I mean I love Metroid, Kid Icarus, Mario, Zelda, etc but I love what they used to be more than how they are whored out now anyway. The GameCube is really what did it for me. Paid something like 200$ for that system and while there were some great games for it (F-Zero GX, Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 1's Remake... ) it just wasn't enough. I mean, it's not that I think the new versions are bad games, it's just that they aren't very interesting games anymore. And about "now you can play them online!", well sorry to burst your bubble but thanks to emulation we've been able to play these games online for a long time now anyway.

[The_Amaster]

...which is why I'm glad it looks like 3rd party is finally getting their act together.
I mean, have you seen de Blob?
Or what about Z&W, or No More Heroes? You cannot argue that NMH would have controlled the same with a regular controller.
The Nintendo franchises may be getting a bit stale, but other developers seem like they're finally done releasing mini-game collection after mini-game collection, shovelware after shovelware.

[Revfan9]

Not so much that the old franchises have gotten stale as it is a development team that's so focused on making things "New And Exciting" that they remove everything that made the old franchises so awesome in the first place to replace it with experimental crap that hardly ever works out properly, at least not to the extent that the old formulas did. Nintendo spent so much time in their R&D department thinking "How can we get new people into gaming?" that they forgot what makes a game worth getting into.

[vegeta1215]

The GameCube is really what did it for me. Paid something like 200$ for that system and while there were some great games for it (F-Zero GX, Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 1's Remake... ) it just wasn't enough. I mean, it's not that I think the new versions are bad games, it's just that they aren't very interesting games anymore. And about "now you can play them online!", well sorry to burst your bubble but thanks to emulation we've been able to play these games online for a long time now anyway.

I have more games for the Gamecube than any other console. I think I have around 30 in all, and they're all great games. Am I in the minority?

I haven't played the new Mario Kart for Wii, but all of Nintendo's other big games have been really great imo. (even Twilight Princess, which I have a better appreciation for now that I've played it again) I am curious what's coming next though. I can't imagine what they'll do to change things up, but they have surprised me before.

[MottZilla]

Yes you are in the minority. I probably have as many Xbox 360 games or more now than I did at the end of the GameCube. And we still have some years left on the 360.

[Kairyu]

Didn't we already do this (http://www.armageddongames.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102180)?

Anyway, my opinion is still the same. Nintendo's gone mainstream, Sony's gone off the deep end, and as things stand the next system I purchase will probably have been made by Microsoft.

[aces2022]

[QUOTE=vegeta1215;1192761] Am I in the minority?
QUOTE]

If your a minority I am too. I mean SSBM, I know I have at least three Maddens for the Gamecube (PS2 just didn't have 4player, the Xbox didn't have the controller), Mario Sunshine (different experience but was still good), Mario Kart, Skies of Arcadia (which most of you all missed out on), Tales of Symphonia, RE4 AND RE0, (yes 0 sucked after 4, but it was good BEFORE THEN), Metroid Prime 1&2, MONKEY BALL , Luigi's Mansion (was a good first experience), Eternal Darkness, Timesplitters 2, F-Zero, Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door, Beyond Good and Evil, Pikmin, The Viewtiful Joes, Mario Golf, and Animal Crossing.


If you didn't like the Cube you didn't try. Talking about ports to Nintendo consoles, some of those were either shared, or ported to other consoles. Besides the games that have been made on other consoles, Nintendo still had some part in making them. Most of the people who make games now got their ideas from playing Nintendo when they were younger.

If there are crappy games that are released on the Wii you can't blame Nintendo. Sure they sign off on them, but it's probably because everyone said there wasn't enough choices on the Cube, so now they give them more and alot of them aren't enjoyed by gamers like you. Some kids play, some old people play, some casuall people play, and alot of Hardcore Gamers play. you have to understand while there aren't as many in each of those groups as there are hardcore gamers, added together they make a large percentage. They enjoy those games.

[MottZilla]

Alot of the games you mentioned were available on other systems too. While there were some superb exclusives on GameCube (primarily F-Zero GX for me) it didn't hold much more than a small niche.

As far as the Wii goes it looks like it should do better than the GC did, but once again it will not be the center of attention. You have to remember that generally consoles are judged on how they do overall in their time frame, or atleast I tend to see it that way. The NES and the SNES were definitely on top in their arenas though I will say Genesis did well too. But after that, while the N64 certainly had a big following the next two generations were dominated by the Playstation. Remember we expect big things from Nintendo being that they were the unstoppable juggernaut back in the day. So with Wii they carved out a profitable niche but that's not what us older gamers are looking for really. But you know we won't really know the story till it's history anyway.

I also should add that I do want to have the Nintendo Wii again (I sold mine) sometime but the primary reason I don't go get one is ofcourse supply issues but also price. I'm not going to spend $250 on the Wii when I know how badly that price is fucking you. I won't overpay for technology. The Wii isn't worth its price, even if you want to argue actual costs, when a Xbox 360 costs $200 and the Wii costs $250 that is plain as day to see you are getting ripped.

[aces2022]

Where are you getting a 360 for $200?

[Icey]

http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-Core-Arcade-Bundle/dp/B000WENLBY/ref=pd_bbs_5?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1221899314&sr=8-5

The Arcade bundle is only $200. You have to use memory cards to save games and such, but it's a good deal nonetheless...

[aces2022]

Ya that is a pretty good deal.. I feel jipped.

[Dechipher]

Kicking it back to SMG, I would just like to chime in that I'm sure SMG was a great game, but I couldn't get into it because for some reason it made me sick to my stomach and dizzy, something that hasn't been a problem in a game before, nor since.

[AtmaWeapon]

Honestly if you have the idea in your head that Nintendo should be "winning" the console war you need to shift your opinion of "winning".

Nintendo's stated goal is to not target the audience of Microsoft and Sony because an arms race with either/both companies would be stupid. Nintendo would be bankrupt if they had losses that would just make the others' investors nervous.

So Nintendo is going to lose by sales this time. Maybe not last place, since the PS3 is having a quality games issue, but they're definitely not going to sell as many systems and games as Microsoft. However, their cost/unit is far less than the competition, their price is lower, they have at least five major franchises that are always guaranteed sellers, the news loves to report on "crazy" Wii games, and right now at least half of their library is virtual with almost no cost to Nintendo. They're making money hand over fist. Nintendo's not going to make as much money as Microsoft; there's no way. But I'd be willing to bet if you look at the cost vs. profit ratio, Nintendo is laughing all the way to the bank. They may not win by sales or popularity, but right now their shareholders are very happy people.

Honestly what Nintendo's doing right now isn't much different than what Sony did with the PSX and PS2. Sony pushed video games onto demographics that used to shun and ridicule people who played video games. They noticed these people were highly competitive and tailored games that exploited this nature (also sports and violence.) This completely changed the market of what makes a "good" game, and tilted the industry in a direction I don't like (Final Fantasy was ruined by Sony IMO.) Now Nintendo's doing the same thing: they found a demographic previously uninterested in video games and produced a system tailored to appeal to this demographic.

Do I feel betrayed? Yes. Do I think Nintendo's going to decide this is wrong and come back to gamers like me? No, for the same reason Apple's never going to revert to that high-quality "other" computer maker: once your shareholders see what "thinking different" costs, you're going to start "thinking the same" or get replaced pretty fast.

[Cloral]

Maybe not last place, since the PS3 is having a quality games issue, but they're definitely not going to sell as many systems and games as Microsoft.

Just a quick correction, Nintendo has already sold more systems than Microsoft. So in that sense they are "winning" this console generation. Though if you're looking at it in terms of winning, then you're looking at it the wrong way.

[MottZilla]

To clarify what I mean, Nintendo will never "win" in my eyes unless they put out a worthy successor to the SNES. That means cutting edge design and hardware. But as it has been pointed out, Nintendo isn't ever going to do that. That's why my primary console is the Xbox 360 which currently is the best deal of technology and design versus cost.

[Aegix Drakan]

Yeah, this console race is kinda weird.

XBOX and PS3 are running around the track, trying to beat each other to the finish line and get the prize money (and the XBOX is winning).

However, the Wii is also winning, but not by running the track. No, it's too busy walking around the stands selling snacks, and also making a lot of money.

:P Analogy work for you?

[Revfan9]

Wait, Nintendo will never make as much money as Microsoft?

If you mean Microsoft as a whole, then definitely. But accounting for just the Xbox Microsoft has barely made any money off of it at all. (Last I checked, Microsoft has only made losses off of the Xbox since day 1, but I don't keep exactly up to date with it so that may not be true anymore, but I'm highly certain they aren't getting rich off of it.)

Microsoft isn't selling the 360 to make money directly off of the 360, they're selling the 360 as an attempt to take over the gaming market to further seal consumer dependence on the Windows platform. If Microsoft had its way, game consoles wouldn't exist, and the Windows PC would be the only serious gaming platform. MS would much rather throw money in the toilet than allow a competitor any chance of success (As Nintendo and Sony directly compete with Microsoft whether the 360 is placed in as a factor or not, since Microsoft controls the PC gaming market), especially if that competitor has a serious chance of loosening (or completely dislodging) Microsoft's grip on the OS market.

Nintendo is in a unique position in the "console wars" because they're the only major first-party developer who is entirely dependent on the video game industry. Microsoft and Sony could jump ship and be able to still exist pretty well off of their other divisions. But Nintendo can't. If they lose in the video game market, they lose everything.

That said, Nintendo's one goal is to make money off of the video game market. Not to provide the ideal platform for third-party games, not to please a small crowd of fanboys, but to make money. Which they seem to be doing a pretty good job at so far.

[MottZilla]

Microsoft is in the business of making money just like Sony and Nintendo. The thing is they all have different strategies to achieve their goal. Nintendo don't want to risk the capital on any decent technology. But Sony and MS are going for much more than just the video game area as both systems are meant as funny enough, Entertainment Systems.

But you know we all know this already.