Agnates said:

Dvader said:

Who is giving you a minus 1.

The GC was not on par, right, it missed out on some games mainly cause it was clearly 3rd place in the US and the demographics of Nintendo consoles always came into play. Still the vast majority of 3rd party games came onto the GC.

Look at the recent releases: Bioshock 2, Bayonetta, Darksiders, FFXIII, Battlefield 2, Aliens vs Predator, Dante's  Inferno just to name a few of the third party games to hit. All of them on PS3/360 not one on Wii. If the Wii were on par with the PS3/360 do you honestly believe that not one of those games would also be out on the Wii. They would be, Battlefield 2 would be on the Wii, GG would have his awesome FPSs that the Wii is missing.

So you are claiming that because of what happened 4 years ago, the thought that the Wii would fail and all that is still the reason the Wii is not getting third party support now. What happened then happened then and your explanation makes sense, what is happening now is different. Most companies still don't bother to make major third party games, they don't want to put their best teams at work on a Wii game cause there is more money to be had on the HD systems and that system allows them to make the games they want.  I don't think anything would ever change cause of the hardware limitation of the Wii. I think that even if all the 3rd party devs knew exactly where the Wii would be today back in 06, that they still would be focusing on the HD systems, there would probably be better support but the Wii would not be getting the major releases.

The second those specs were revealed it was obvious this was going to happen. Nintendo created a split, there are the HD consoles and there is us, you need to choose one. You can do really watered down ports that would require to create an engine from scratch and many modications for it to work on the Wii but who wants to do that. And as you stated most people don't want lesser ports. So the major companies give Wii their scraps, their B-teams, here is some cheap hardware, make a cheap game. All the shovelware is the third parties fault. There is a giant market to be had and people will buy good games. But do you believe that if Square put all their resources into FFXIII on the Wii that it would sell as much as FFXIII on 360/PS3,  I don't think so.  A series that is known for being cutting edge, it wouldn't work. So Square gives Wii Crystal Bearers, a lackluster effort. It's a combination of the main teams making their games for the HD consoles and the publishers putting out the worst possible effort on the Wii that has created this. But all that would be different if the Wii was on the level as the other two. FFXIII would simply be in development for all three consoles, it would have been easy to pull off, it would have happened.

Have you noticed that nearly all the best Wii third party games are odd strange titles, lots of them puzzle games and stuff. The companies that say, hey lets make a unique game centered totally on the wiimote is usually the one that makes a noticable title. The company that says lets just try to make lesser version of what the HD consoles have usually turn out poor. The Wii is different so I want different games from the Wii, I don't want ports, I believe CoD is a waste of time but it's CoD so it sells well so that made sense. I want new original games that don't suck, sadly with developers all putting their best teams on big HD games the Wii rarely gets the awesome original game.

There is lots of blame to go around as to why the quality of the third party games on Wii is not so good. I believe that is a different argument than why isn't the Wii getting the major franchises, the major FPSs, the major third party release. That is a simple obvious answer, cause it's not on the level as PS3/360. Obviously to be at that level changes the price of the system, probably changes the userbase completely, it alters all of history. But hey you would be playing Battlefield 2 with a wiimote (its EA they port EVERYTHING). Argue all you want that the Wii wouldn't get those third party games, it might miss out on few, maybe really violent ones, but not many. One other aspect you are missing is that most game companies want to work with the best tech, want to be cutting edge, want to make the best game possible. It's not all about the money.

No, I'm not claiming it's only because of what happened 4 years ago, maybe you should read the whole post.

Again, changing the Wii's specs could have affected the Wii's success so you can't claim it would have guaranteed 3rd party support if it was more powerful. The GC tried that, and it didn't work, the Wii's success wouldn't be guaranteed had it gone after the same market. We also have evidence that at least some games can be ported with minimal effort and can result in sales that more than justify the cost and yet they still aren't. Your speculation still cannot justify (without fanboyism) why exactly COD4 wasn't originally on Wii despite the sales of the previous games, which as explained were on par or better than the PS3's and not a "sad fraction" as you falsely stated. That fraction only came after killing their chances by skipping 4, and back then the likes of you were claiming it couldn't be ported, which was easily shot down with Treyarch's sloppy understaffed efforts.

And yes, I've noticed what the Wii's quality 3rd party titles are, I don't see what that has to do with anything. It only means they haven't tried to make any serious effort in other genres (hell, that's been our topic of discussion, lol, I don't see why you bring it up as something new), even though Nintendo and some other exceptions prove other types of games can be succesful as well. There are also whole genres completely ignored, not just because HD systems do them, as nobody does them at all. Where are the great 3D platformers that would get those who enjoyed Mario Galaxy to play them? There was De Blob, which was succesful, then nothing, not even a sequel in sight until recently, which might be too late. But that's another topic.

The "simple obvious answer" you keep going back to is merely far fetched speculating that the Wii would have been just as succesful had it been more powerful. You simply can't know that, it's not a fact no matter how many times you repeat it and ignore evidence to the contrary. You aren't convincing anyone acting like that.

The Wii isn't getting FFXIII but it's getting DQX. That is the approach developers should take. A different game, with its lower dev costs, on Wii, a different game on PS360. CAPCOM did it with Monster Hunter Tri for Wii, and Lost Planet 2 on PS360. They couldn't even afford another game of such high production values (among the many they already have, I don't imply they only do one at a time, obviously) hence the  move from PS3 to Wii for the former. Ubi's doing similar by providing two new PoP games, one for PS360, one for Wii, which isn't a port. So, yes, there is a way for Wii to get the big franchises, even those that can't be ported (which are fewer than those who can be). Hell, some realised that early on but instead of making a decent effort they wanted to fool the audience (RE: DSC comes to mind, what exactly stopped CAPCOM from making quality follow ups to RE4 - not 5, which they recently said may be possible to port actually - and helping that market grow instead of do rail shooters that perform worse with every iteration? was it the dev costs being higher than a port? bs, as higher as they may have been, sales coupled with nurturing and growing a potential userbase they currently don't profit from would more than make up for it - plenty HD games sell less than optimally but still keep being made, a Wii game wouldn't cost nearly as much - and yet EA made DS: E instead of a proper game). The reason it's not getting games is, my previous comment which didn't only talk about 4 years ago. Some change, but too littletoo late in the generation. Their loss.

Except that I am not arguing at all about how successful the Wii would be. In fact I think it would be a disaster for them if it were PS3/360. All I am saying is that the big 3rd party games were never going to come to the Wii because of their choice of hardware. The day Nintendo announced the specs was the day i knew there was going to be a major split in the types of games the Wii would get. I don't understand how you think that if the Wii were like PS3/360 that it would NOT be getting all the major third party games.

You act like you know all these internal sales numbers and costs vs profits and all that. Do you think these mega companies don't know all the actual data. If all of them are choosing to not make ports there is a reason. If they knew they could make money they would make money, something else is at work there.

Of course making separate Wii games is the best approach. That is what I am arguing as well.

Dvader said:

aspro said:

1up review.  Now, besides the fact that the reviewer is talking to Dvader, who said he will skip 3 because it is missing out some content -- and that is okay --

What are you talking about? Wrong person.

 Sorry man, thought you said that on a podcast.

Dvader said:  

I don't understand how you think that if the Wii were like PS3/360 that it would NOT be getting all the major third party games.   

Because GameCube didn't, Wii is still different, it says nothing of the online service, and it would be selling a whole lot worse than even that.  Some?  Yes.  All or near all?  Not a chance.

Dvader said:

Yodariquo said:

Dvader said:  

I don't understand how you think that if the Wii were like PS3/360 that it would NOT be getting all the major third party games.

Because GameCube didn't, Wii is still different, it says nothing of the online service, and it would be selling a whole lot worse than even that.  Some?  Yes.  All or near all?  Not a chance.

GC got most, it was nothing like what is going on with the Wii now. It would be getting the grand majority of them.

I agree.

I think even if they made a console with 60% of the 360's power, that was able to do 720p high-def, with a bare-bones online service similar to Sony's that didn't require the foolish friend-codes, they would have done fine and gotten a ton more support in the multi-platform and "hardcore" areas.

Unfortunately they went for the Gamecube with extra sugar, with a mommy-protect-me online plan. It pisses me off.

Yodariquo said:

Dvader said:

Yodariquo said:

Dvader said:  

I don't understand how you think that if the Wii were like PS3/360 that it would NOT be getting all the major third party games.  

Because GameCube didn't, Wii is still different, it says nothing of the online service, and it would be selling a whole lot worse than even that.  Some?  Yes.  All or near all?  Not a chance.

GC got most, it was nothing like what is going on with the Wii now. It would be getting the grand majority of them.

GameCube stopped getting support later in its life because its sales stagnated.  Wii would have been dead in the water, and support dried up just as quickly.

Yeah, especially since so many companies were predicting nintendo to be third place and were not working on supporting it very much at all. Nintendo needed other another strategy to survive, since comparable tech last generation didn't bring in the gamers or the companies. They are all comitted to sony and xbox.

Hell, look at the ds. Would that be getting better support in the west if it had psp specs. I don't know why it would, and I don't know why more haven't put out games for it.

Dvader said:

Right Nintendo did the right move for them, so its hard to argue against it. But that move came at a cost. The story is I don't completely blame the devs for the lack of support, at least in the form of their best games, Nintendo made a console that put them in a different tier.

I'm with Edge make some halfway graphical system that can sort of handle ports and sell it for $300 (probably at a loss but whatever) they would have been fine.

It's not a matter of blame for anyone.  It's business, which then means it's whether or not the publishers are being stupid.  That's a yes and a no.

And that's a no on a $300 Wii that's going to get what you want.

Archangel3371 said:

Hey I just saw a TV ad for the Xbox 360 Arcade on sale for $129. I think it was a regular 360 ad so the sale should be everywhere. It's only good until the 19th though.

Since you can move your hard-drive from 360 to 360 if I were still in the states I'd get 2 at that price.  

I'm serious, that way I could ensure I'd be able to play my 360 games in the future.  I did the same thing when the Dreamcast and PS1 hit their low price points.  $129... I wonder if they are refurbs? 

SteelAttack said:

aspro said:

Archangel3371 said:

Hey I just saw a TV ad for the Xbox 360 Arcade on sale for $129. I think it was a regular 360 ad so the sale should be everywhere. It's only good until the 19th though.

Since you can move your hard-drive from 360 to 360 if I were still in the states I'd get 2 at that price.  

I'm serious, that way I could ensure I'd be able to play my 360 games in the future.  I did the same thing when the Dreamcast and PS1 hit their low price points.  $129... I wonder if they are refurbs?

They most likely are. But you're right. If I had that kind of sales around here, I'd certainly pick up a spare one.