Is the Wii 'inhospitable' for third-party publishers?
by Chris Greenhough 
{ Sep 12th 2008 at 12:45PM }
At least one analyst thinks it is, and he's not short of support. Cowen Group analyst Doug Creutz's comments were prompted by the latest NPD figures, in which the Xbox 360, PS3, and PlayStation 2 versions of Madden NFL 09 hogged the top three positions, with the Wii version relegated to ninth place, behind Wii Play, Wii Fit, and Mario Kart Wii. "We continue to believe that the Wii is a relatively inhospitable platform for third-party publishers," said Creutz.Is he stating the obvious, or does the success of certain third-party titles suggest otherwise? In the past, we've found many fans pin the blame for low third-party sales on third-party developers, suggesting that better quality products would compete with Nintendo's own wares. Can the same be said, however, when even critically acclaimed titles such as No More Heroes and Zack & Wiki sell poorly?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
il_duce620 @ Sep 12th 2008 12:51PM
I respond with the age-old response: advertise, advertise, advertise.
I saw Madden commercials and ads all over the place, but didn't see ONE for Zack and Wiki (great game, by the way), let alone for No More Heroes (also a great game). Nintendo has ads for Wii Fit and Mario Kart.
I can't speak to whether Nintendo themselves make it difficult for third-parties to produce a game, but one would think it would be a GOOD thing to have good third-party support on your platform, rather that suppress it in favor of first-party titles (look at WiiWare and how Nintendo is holding off).
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I blame the advertising on this one, yo...
David @ Sep 12th 2008 12:58PM
Look at the alternatives for the wii that's near the top:
4. Wii Fit - Wii – 394.9K
5. Mario Kart - Wii – 328.7K
It seems like Wii users simply have more choices this week on how to spend their allowances.
Donny @ Sep 12th 2008 1:28PM
I really think that the 3rd parties are the ones hurting themselves. They develop these games for the standard controls and then just do a sloppy job of porting them over. This is a real shame see the success that the Wii system has seen. I believe that the success of the Wii is showing a shift in how people wish to interact with games. I would like to see 3rd party developers develop games for both types of systems and really utilize the motion control capabilities of the Wii. Until they actually start to focus on the Wii and its unique controls we will continue to see a lot of crappy games.
Feras @ Sep 12th 2008 1:00PM
I bought the Wii because it was a Nintendo console, and I love Nintendo games (always and forever). When it comes to the PS3 and 360, I think Sony and Microsoft both focus on third party developers, if Nintendo were to do that, all it's fanboys would burst open with the news of no more Marios, Zeldas, etc etc. I know I would!
Even disregarding gameplay of games though, Nintendo has a history of churning out great games for its platforms with great graphics and lasting gameplay. The last good graphics third party game I've seen on a Nintendo system is RE4 or Star Wars Rogue Squadron lol. I don't think developers who develop for the Wii try that hard.
samfish @ Sep 12th 2008 1:08PM
I don't think it's inhospitable. The thing with Madden is that Microsoft in particular made a huge, heavy play for the types of people who buy Madden in droves, as they're the ones who played a huge role in the PS2's success...and to a certain extent, they have that audience locked up.
Madden having that big All Play banner on the Wii version probably didn't help much for it's sales, either. It kind of makes it seem like the gimped version to a lot of people, I'd bet.
But yeah plenty of 3rd party games have sold well on the Wii. More than enough to dispel the myth that games don't sell.
Peter S @ Sep 12th 2008 1:11PM
Gotta agree that advertising helps an awful lot. Z&W - great game, but little to no advertising. It is also somewhat of a niche market compared to a lot of the other genres - racing, fighting, RPG, FPS. There just aren't as many old-school Adventure gamers around as there used to be.
Admittedly a lot of the Nintendo titles are pretty cool, but it's not impossible to make a good 3rd-party title. I think a lot of the companies just want to get a version running on Wii rather than a version that is well-suited to the Wii. They rush some port/game and think that it's got some waggle support so must be an instant hit on the Wii. In reality, the game is bad to start with and the controls are poorly implemented. Those companies then blame Nintendo. There may be some cases where Nintendo is stifling a game, but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.
For me, my decision will be made based on whether the game is good and fits well with my gaming preferences more than who made the game. Cost also factors in which is why I don't own a copy of most of the titles - I wait for them to be on sale or used.
Mr Khan @ Sep 12th 2008 1:17PM
Nintendo is not without blame, though its a very complicated story to say the least. For one thing, Sony and Microsoft actually advertise good 3rd party titles themselves, if they feel like it. Sony certainly helped push MGS4 and Microsoft routinely pushes staples like GTA and the EA Sports games
Nintendo's more laissez faire strategy creates a more darwinian environment for 3rd parties, and any software ecosystem with Nintendo in the mix is going to mean trouble for the other guys.
However, there is once again the question of 3rd-party effort. This is a tale that has been very bad, but is improving. Looking at Force Unleashed, Sonic Unleashed, and World at War, you see dedicated Wii ports, often with a team of their own making them, that look good and play well. Madden 09 for Wii did better than Madden 08, and it reflects not only the growing Wii base, but the growing quality in 3rd-party attentions
Then there are the old myths, which are hard to dispel. The myths of 3rd party failures on Nintendo systems in general (a myth spawned by the fact that RE4 sold a few hundred thousand more units on PS2, a device with 5x the install base, than on the GC), that cause 3rd parties to become wary of investing real money and effort, especially when good returns are a safe bet on the other platforms
This is a long post, and i do apologize, but the question of Wii and 3rd parties is more complicated than the glib anti-Nintendo (Nintendo hates 3rd parties, Wii sucks anyway, why should they try on Wii?) and the glib pro-Nintendo (they don't even try hard, why should they expect results?) arguments.
Mr Khan @ Sep 12th 2008 1:54PM
So it did send that comment through, under a completely different account somehow?
Mr Khan @ Sep 12th 2008 1:21PM
Damnit! Another comment got eaten and diverted to the "You Did It!" screen. I apologize up front if it appears anyway as a double post
My much longer post, which i'm now too frustrated to add again, basically said that Nintendo is partially to blame (No advertising given to quality 3rd party games, slow to update their SDK's to make new peripherals and functions available to outsiders), but that 3rd parties are too wary to try investing big bucks into a Wii title, when the 360/PS3 install base is larger (for now), and returns from that base are a safer bet.
The old, prevailing myths about Nintendo consoles and 3rd party sales also come into play, as does Western Dev's resentment of having to "dumb down" their work for Wii, since they are prone to follow the high end of the technological spectrum.
samfish @ Sep 12th 2008 2:52PM
It's not a matter of advertising quality 3rd party games, solely based on quality.
Nintendo, like Sony and MS is a business...thus, they're only going to advertise a 3rd party game is it will contribute to their bottom line.
If, for example, assume Nintendo gets a 15% cut of all 3rd party games (I have no idea how much it really is). Zack & Wiki sold 330,000 units at $40, which equals $13,200,000. Nintendo's cut would be $1,980,000. Nintendo would have to feel that an ad campaign that costs less than 2 million dollars would net them more than that in profit...probably at LEAST $4-6 million.
...and if Capcom doesn't think Zack & Wiki was worthy the money to roll out an ad campaign and they're keeping the majority of the profits, why on Earth would Nintendo?
In short, the hardware makers will only advertise games if they feel it will be a substantial addition to their bottom line.
Ghaleon @ Sep 12th 2008 1:27PM
I think it's an attitude thing. I had to FORCIBLY sit people down and make them play Z&W. I know people who love Geometry Wars 360 but don't bother w/ the Wii version. Nobody I know cares about NiGHTS who didn't play the original.
Most gamers today I think are lazy and want whatever is thrown in their face, along with more realism and violence. The Wii is succeeding through Nintendo first-party "sure thing" games, as stale as they might be to someone like me. Creativity and actual challenge don't drive game purchases anymore.
MuckyMann @ Sep 12th 2008 1:35PM
I think the problem is that there's just too much Wii third party shovel ware. That combined to the negativity which naturally comes along with gimped third party ports inevitably leads to some major Nintendo loyalty because they completely screw up less. Consequently good third party titles become the exception, and therefore too much of a gamble for most consumers.
I don't know how good the numbers are but going through Gamestats I found this break down of the systems. I know this is not a complete accounting of all games, but it's the only stats I could find in the amount of time I allowed.
PS3 : Total games scored 146. Games reviewed 7 or above: 116 = 80% of the games.
X360: Total games scored 280. Games reviewed 7 or above :209 = 75%
Wii: Total games scored 128. Games scored 7 or above 87 = 68%.
So going by that the Wii has the least amount of good games. And that's not even counting Ninjabread Man. This further shows how picking up a poorly marketed third party game (despite positive reviews) is a huge gamble for the Wii owner.
guttertalk @ Sep 12th 2008 3:42PM
Interesting point. However, the numbers raise questions.
If the Wii is criticized for having 7% fewer 70+ games than the 360, why isn't the 360 criticized for having nearly the same percentage fewer 70+ games than the PS3?
Still, that 7% translates to 8-9 more games rated above 70.
ZombiePikmin @ Sep 12th 2008 1:42PM
Sega, EA, Activision they dont seem to have much trouble
ZombiePikmin @ Sep 12th 2008 1:45PM
Ignore my last comment.
Sega,Ea,Activision the games they make recieve Nintendo Love
8-bit.artist @ Sep 12th 2008 1:48PM
no more heroes was critically acclaimed? game isnt that great. style over substance.
boom blox started slow but i think that gained ground. blast works is great. medal of honor heroes was a decent game. those are the 3 3rd party titles i own.
i dont care about golf and i dont care about football or sports games in general, so anything EA puts out sports wise, no matter how good it is, i wont buy it.
Nigeria @ Sep 12th 2008 1:55PM
It's all down to advertising. Like, in the UK, if you open a newspaper or switch on your television you're bound to find a commercial for Big Beach Sports. As such, the game has gone on to sell a decent amount.
Plus, I think 3rd party developers still have the Gamecube/N64 mindset: those customers only buy Nintendo so lets not bother. Kinda defeatist. What they don't realise is that for many of us this is our first Nintendo console in ages, in some cases ever. It's a different market, one that is a little more open minded. Frankly, these developers and publishers shouldn't act so cowardly. There's a risk in every action, but without action we're left with ifs and buts.
Aside from a few odd gems, the decent games are coming from Sega, Nintendo, and Capcom. They're taking a chance and, for the most part, they're benefiting. This situation will change, though– and that's not just hope speaking. It was like this when the DS first launched. It was pretty dire. Then it gradually started to blossom, and it's now the best system on the market. It just took a little time, that's all – a bit sooner than the Wii, mind.
Also: Fuck Ubisoftz.
Hamster @ Sep 12th 2008 9:59PM
I have to switch over whenever a Big Beach Sports advert comes on for fear of putting my foot through the TV screen.
Dante G @ Sep 12th 2008 1:55PM
I agree with the lack of advertising being a big cause of low 3rd party sales.
With Madden it's a bit different though:
Madden 08 for the wii was crap, so previous buyers hesitate this time around.
If you have a wii + a ps3 or 360 you're probably not getting it for the wii, because of online play and hd graphics. And because you know the wii version of sports games is usually gimped.
Sales for Wii software are usually less front loaded than on other consoles and have a better chance of selling more copies over time. Kinda like what happened with guitar hero. I think this is because lots of wii owners, namely parents, don't have the cash at hand to buy the games on release day, or aren't well informed about them, or just don't care about release dates.
ProfWho @ Sep 12th 2008 2:11PM
Exactly, advertising matters. Remember those ads for NMH and Z&W?
I don't.
phenylketonurics @ Sep 12th 2008 2:14PM
Slack advertising is definitely the culprit here. Cruetz's citing that Madden game is kind of contradictory considering it's INCREDIBLY genre/consumer oriented. The Nintendo crowd isn't generally mad about that type of thing.
Now, as for Zack & Wiki and No More Heroes ... very bad advertising and the games were okay. Challenging (especially Zack & Wiki) but nothing I'd return to after a once-through.
But whatever. I believe that 3rd party developers still have quite a negative view of Nintendo when it comes to working FOR them, and vice versa. Nintendo was crawling on its hands and knees last generation for developers only to be kicked away. Harsh?
lobotomies4free @ Sep 12th 2008 2:21PM
it's a generalization i know but shooters, rpgs, and racing games seem to sell systems today and how many good games in any of those categories does the wii have? I guess we have sports games
Roman @ Sep 12th 2008 2:24PM
Madden on Wii was a different game than the other platforms, right?
I don't play Madden myself, but going by the box art it look like that had made a more casual game for the Wii. And how many people that play Madden really want a casual game?
Gonzo @ Sep 12th 2008 2:40PM
I think the main problem is probably that the most critically acclaimed titles are tedious pieces of shoe like No More Heroes; and I'm sorry but no amount of advertising would've made that game more compelling. If that's the best quality the third parties can muster on the Wii, then yes they're doomed.
Take it from me, advertising only tends to quickly kill bad products like that: word travels faster than hype. It's why they don't press-screen bad movies.
Cyantre @ Sep 12th 2008 3:59PM
I regret buying the Wii. An extremely large majority of the time the only titles I'm interested are the big-name first-party titles, and Nintendo releases those few and far between. Now that the Wii has become the non-gamer console with a bunch of cutsie/gimmicky titles it's almost a waste to even own one.
I've supported Nintendo for a while, but there is just no getting around the fact that to play the best games from other developers, you're going to need a Xbox 360 or PS3. Even with the multiplatform games, the Wii gets the gimped version because the hardware just isn't up to the standards of the other competing consoles.
Mr Khan @ Sep 12th 2008 5:07PM
The "gimped ports" thing is becoming less true as time goes by, though.
Certainly not up to the graphical standards of the other (an impossibility), but good, dedicated versions made by competent teams are slowly becoming the norm, and the PS2 ports are beginning to fade, at least in the sense of larger multiplatform titles. Like i said in the long-ass post that the comment system garbled: Look at the Force Unleashed, Sonic Unleashed, the newer All Play EA Sports titles, and Call of Duty: W@W. Each version seems to be well-tailored to the Wii's capabilities, both in solid controls and in Wii-appropriate graphics.
Leland @ Sep 12th 2008 4:19PM
I agree with the advertising comments. Advertising plays a huge role.
I also agree that a lot of 3rd party people, IMHO, haven't been putting in enough effort in their Wii titles. Lazy ports, bad controls, etc.
Going back to the advertising bit - We all know that Nintendo has focused majorly during this console generation on "recruiting" new people to become gamers. So, why should 3rd party game makers expect people who are new to gaming - who probably aren't reading sites like this one or researching what's out on the market - to just automatically know about their games if they're not advertised????
I'm sure a lot of the sales for Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii were new gamers who happened to see the butt loads of advertisements on tv and thought "ooh that looks fun!" So, I'm sure, Nintendo's first party games have an advantage in sales because they are getting money from people outside of PS3's and Xbox's circle of buyers.
rvkremer @ Sep 12th 2008 4:26PM
It seems like the people who scour the news blogs all day (us) are the only ones who know about the quality third party games. There are a lot of quality third party games out there, but they get lost in the shelves of retail with all the shovelware. The only ads on TV are for first party games. Bottom line is people don't know there are other games for the Wii worth buying unless they see it somewhere!
Guaranteed, if they show a commercial during primetime for something like MadWorld, and people will buy it. Even if the game sucks, it has a certain "Whoa, cool" quality.
Leland @ Sep 12th 2008 4:29PM
Hmm, my first comment seemed to disappear. So I'll try again (watch it show up twice now)
Anyways, I believe that advertising has a lot to do with it. This generation Nintendo is focusing a lot on "recruiting" new gamers - people who have never been into video games before.
What are these new gamers seeing? Ads for first party games (aka Wii Fit, Mario Kart, etc). How many of these new gamers are going to look for 3rd party games? Probably not a lot. Why? Because they're not fanboys! They aren't hard core into video games yet!
They see the ads and think "ooh that looks like fun!" I personally had several friends who aren't gamers who wanted to buy Wii Fit just because they saw the commercials all the time.
So I'm sure these "new gamers" are a large part of why 1t party games are selling so much better on the Wii than anything else. It doesn't seem like the 3rd party people are giving any thought to this.
Now, I also have to agree with the comments about quality of 3rd party games. Zack and Wiki, IMHO, is the only 3rd party game so far that's worth the money. The other ones need some SERIOUS improvement to be worth anyone's time.
Russ Carroll @ Sep 12th 2008 5:27PM
I believe it also due to gamers.
So-called 'hardcore Gamers' don't want to play Wii games, they feel it somehow threatens their 'gamehood' and are worried what it means about them if they play a Wii game and like it. It's a bit cynical, but nonetheless carries some truth.
There are a list of games out there like PES that are better on Wii (not a big list, but a list). There are plenty of 3rd Wii only games that are great. How many people are playing them and how many are refusing to give them a try? From the numbers it is very clear that hard-core Nintendo fans are playing the Wii, but the kind of player who would dig MadWorld are not playing the games (and ironically they seem to have the strongest opinions despite having little 'waggle'-on experience.
Madden on the Wii deserved better sales than it got b/c it is a good game and innovative. The same could be said for a dozen other games.
At the same time, Guitar Hero on Wii didn't deserve to be the best selling version of that game (and it looks like Rock Band is following in its footsteps).
What does it all mean? I don't know really.
However, I still state that Nintendo's lackluster game release schedule for winter is probably the biggest favor Nintendo could do for 3rd party devs...even if it wasn't done on purpose.
KaBob799 @ Sep 13th 2008 1:44AM
"However, I still state that Nintendo's lackluster game release schedule for winter is probably the biggest favor Nintendo could do for 3rd party devs...even if it wasn't done on purpose."
How do you know it's not on purpose? One of the first things I thought was that Nintendo decided to take more time with it's games so the 3rd parties could get some sales before the (now even more improved) 1st party games come out.
Adam @ Sep 12th 2008 5:38PM
I have all 3 systems and I will say that I spend 95% of my money on the Wii games just for the fact that I have a very young kid and when he gets to gaming age, I know I'll have an easier time teaching him on the Wii. Plus Playing GTA or Gears of war in front of him is not the best, so I elected for Mario instead. I personally like madden better on the Wii just for the controls. Last year I had 08 for the 360 and the Wii and ended up selling the 360 version. For now the 360 only see RB and GH, the PS3 sees GT5 and Blu-ray while the Wii get's all the love.
Thunderbird @ Sep 12th 2008 9:10PM
What about carnival games didn't that sell over one million copies? I think third party developers need to find out what sells on the Wii and make it (sadly it probably isn't sword fighting games.)
Junorhane @ Sep 13th 2008 10:19AM
Is the Wii inhospitable? No, but it's certainly more challenging to make (good, high-selling) games for than either the X-Box or the PS3, just by its very nature.
Microsoft doesn't make games. Sony doesn't make games. They need third party developers to make games for their consoles in a way that Nintendo doesn't.
Nintendo makes games. Often very good games. Sometimes the best games.
A game company trying to compete on the Wii has to compete with Nintendo, and that's difficult. A game company trying to compete on the Wii has to make games that use an inherently different interface than the X-Box or the PS3, and that can be difficult. A game company competing on the Wii has to hinge their game on something other than the shiniest of HD graphics, and that could be difficult.
The short of it is that if you're trying to make a good Wii game it can't just be cross-developed with a PS3 or X-Box game and get downgraded graphics, it has to have its own development, its own resources, its own new rules of design, and it has to be at least as good as a Nintendo game.
That's not inhospitable, but it's potentially very hard.
Deozaan @ Sep 13th 2008 2:07PM
When I saw the NPD data showing that Madden on Wii wasn't at the top, I interpreted that in a completely different way than this analyst.
To me it meant that Wii owners had more sense, and preferred fun, new things, instead of "Generic Sports Clone [insert year here]"
Sure, Mario Kart has had a few iterations in the past, same with Mario and Zelda, etc. And the stories may be similar each time. (How many times is Peach going to get kidnapped by Bowser?) But they sure don't play the same and they sure don't come out every year with the only "new" feature is different names on the back of their shirts.
Terry Bodega @ Sep 13th 2008 2:19PM
It's not surprising that the Wii 3rd party scene has such a problem their software sales. They take us for a bunch of idiots by porting a ton of shovelware onto the system or giving us alternate versions (Soul Calibur Legends) instead of what we really want (Soul Calibur 4.)
Have the companies put out quality content and titles that people want to see and people will buy them. Strangely enough, the DS is inferior to the PSP graphically..and yet it's software library is pretty good. I've yet to hear about 3rd parties complain in that market even though it's practically the same situation when it comes to how powerful the systems are vs the competition.
I bet a Kingdom Hearts for the Wii would sell like hotcakes..as for a good port of Street Fighter 4. Just imagine how many more copies of resident evil 4 would have sold if they used all the extra power of the Wii to up the resolution (instead of that artificial limit of 480p) to 720p or had used improved textures and more polys/better filtering to get rid of the jaggies.
It's sad when my Dreamcast hooked up through VGA on my TV looks better than most Wii games. I could rant about my 360/PS3 with their own issues but with the Wii it's definitely things that could be fixed.
TheTimelyHoward @ Sep 13th 2008 9:52PM
I don't think you guys really understand what constitutes a "failure". No More Heroes and Zack & Wiki both sold quite well. Generating a profit does not equal failure. If someone develops a quality game for Wii, people will buy it. No More Heroes and Zack & Wiki are proof that this is the case.
That's really all I've got. I'm just letting you know that neither of those games were commercial failures. Want to see a Wii game that didn't make money? Look no further than Opoona.
PsiWren @ Sep 15th 2008 1:35AM
["We continue to believe that the Wii is a relatively inhospitable platform for third-party publishers,"]
I kinda agree, but it has nothing to do with advertising. Personally, I think what they REALLY mean is that either they're too lazy, short on time, too money-grubbing, or it's more trouble than it's worth to them make good and/or new stuff for the Wii.
Consider, from types of games, to gameplay, to audio and even the physical structure of the Playstation and X-Box's console and controller, they're ALmost twins (I said almost!). Okay, fraternal twins. Anyways, enough that it's fairly easy to bring their games from one sys to the other.
But, the Wii is a totally different animal. The movement system is TOTALLY different from that of the PS and X-Box. Don't remember where, but I've come across articles/interviews sprinkled around here and there where it was mentioned that in the case of carrying other game systems games over to the Wii, that a lot of the developers found, because of the movement control differences, that they had to tweak the game enormously to make it work, or one guy even said that they'd had to practically re-vamp their original game nearly from the ground up to have it show to advantage for the Wii.
Eh. Enough for now.