Gaming Did third party developers make good money on the Wii ?

[osirisjem]

.. the failure of the Wii to generate profits for third party game makers has caused the WiiU to fail.

Is this statement true ?
Really ?

With all the Wii consoles sold .... why did third party developers do poorly ?

 

[MrKill]

I would like to see how well Data Design Interactive's games sold... It was so horribly bad.

 

[Foxi4]

Is this statement true ?
Really ?

With all the Wii consoles sold .... why did third party developers do poorly ?

Because the Wii was a 100-million-selling dust collector, Nintendo's casual wonderchild. One glance at the best-selling list shows you everything you need to know - it was treated primarily as a Nintendo first-party gaming machine, the so-called "core" titles on the list can be counted with just your fingers.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Not being a best seller doesn't mean selling poorly. Nintendo titles sold so well, it was hard to match them.

 

[Foxi4]

Not being a best seller doesn't mean selling poorly. Nintendo titles sold so well, it was hard to match them.

This is a thread about third-party games. Anything that's not on the list sold under a million copies.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Anything that's not on the list sold under a million copies.

And anything under a million is unacceptable.

 

[Foxi4]

And anything under a million is unacceptable.

*Sighs* This is a thread about the third-party's apparent inability to make profits on the Wii. So yes, if third-party games sell under a million on the Wii and way, way more than that on other systems and the best-sellers list consists almost entirely of Nintendo titles, it's a trend.

And no, this isn't a "boo-hoo, the Wii was a bad console" kind of thread, it's a thread about third-party sales on the Wii, which were admittedly underwhelming.

 

[avran89]

Nintendo always has and always will be a company that markets and put their first party titles out. It was like this for the Gamecube, N64, and Wii. With the exception of Sega, Capcom, Konami, and Ubisoft. Nintendo consoles are PRIMARILY 1ST PARTY.

 

[JoostinOnline]

*Sighs* This is a thread about the third-party's apparent inability of making profits on the Wii. So yes, if third-party games sell under a million on the Wii and way, way more than that on other systems and the best-sellers list consists almost entirely of Nintendo titles, it's a trend.

And no, this isn't a "boo-hoo, the Wii was a bad console" kind of thread, it's a thread about third-party sales on the Wii, which were admittedly underwhelming.

1. I don't know why you keep pointing out that this is about third-party titles, because I never said it wasn't.
2. You haven't shown anything that suggests it sold "way, way more than that on other systems", so don't just throw stuff around without some evidence. It might be true (I can't say), but you still don't have any evidence yet.
3. I see no list of net profits.
4. There were more Wii games made than that on the 360 and PS3, both of which had longer life-spans, and I don't think third parties would keep making titles for a system if they lose money on them.

 

[Foxi4]

Nintendo always has and always will be a company that markets and put their first party titles out. It was like this for the Gamecube, N64, and Wii. With the exception of Sega, Capcom, Konami, and Ubisoft. Nintendo consoles are PRIMARILY 1ST PARTY.

Except they didn't use to, as shown by the NES, SNES, Game Boy and Game Boy Advance. The whole notion that Nintendo is "First-Party Only" started when Nintendo's competitors stepped up their game and the company lost its footing as the industry leader to which everyone flocked.

*Snip!*

C'mon, Joostin - you and I both know that the Wii isn't exactly a third-party triple-A mine. If you require an elaborate post with net profits and "evidence" (all of which is available quite easily, actually - it just requires work on my end, work that I'm really unwilling to put into this debate), you'll have to look elsewhere. All I'm going to say is that for example, Call of Duty: World at War shipped 11 million units total, 1 million of which were for the Wii - that's 9% of total units shipped. We're not even in double-digits territory here, and Call of Duty: World at War was considered a best-seller.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Except they didn't use to, as shown by the NES, SNES, Game Boy and Game Boy Advance. The whole notion that Nintendo is "First-Party Only" started when Nintendo's competitors stepped up their game and the company lost its footing as the industry leader to which everyone flocked.

They didn't lose their footing. See point 4.

 

[avran89]

Except they didn't use to, as shown by the NES, SNES, Game Boy and Game Boy Advance. The whole notion that Nintendo is "First-Party Only" started when Nintendo's competitors stepped up their game and the company lost its footing as the industry leader to which everyone flocked.

That's because at the peak of the NES, SNES, GB, GBC, and GBA the video game market in the 90s was primarily controlled by Nintendo with little competition other than Sega and a fledgling Sony at the time. Now in today's Market with a Growing Microsoft, Sony, PC, and Smartphone and handhelds the market share for Nintendo is getting crowded and the 3rd party devs go to other consoles.

 

[JoostinOnline]

The list you gave even makes a point to say that it's incomplete.

 

[Foxi4]

They didn't lose their footing. See point 4.

Ah yes, all those great classics such as Gallop and Ride! by THQ, My Horse and Me by Atari, Pajama Party: Charm Girls Club by Electronic Arts or Imagine! Babyz by Ubisoft. Listen, I get your point, I know there were plenty of games on the system - I have it. My point on the other hand is that most of those are shovelware - games that were easy to just push out with as little effort as possible to rake in some dough from the unsuspecting customers. There isn't a whole lot of "major" releases for the Wii, it's a commonly known fact, and that's not me hating here, that's me being realistic.

That's because at the peak of the NES, SNES, GB, GBC, and GBA the video game market in the 90s was primarily controlled by Nintendo with little competition other than Sega and a fledgling Sony at the time. Now in today's Market with a Growing Microsoft, Sony, PC, and Smartphone and handhelds the market share for Nintendo is getting crowded and the 3rd party devs go to other consoles.

Exactly - now Nintendo isn't the only option, so developers have a choice. They choose the company that allows them to maximize profits, which is the whole point of the thread.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Ah yes, all those great classics such as Gallop and Ride! by THQ, My Horse and Me by Atari, Pajama Party: Charm Girls Club by Electronic Arts or Imagine! Babyz by Ubisoft. Listen, I get your point, I know there were plenty of games on the system - I have it. My point on the other hand is that most of those are shovelware - games that were easy to just push out with as little effort as possible to rake in some dough from the unsuspecting customers. There isn't a whole lot of "major" releases for the Wii, it's a commonly known fact, and that's not me hating here, that's me being realistic.

My point was you keep saying things that often aren't true, and never with any proof.

Just because a game doesn't meet your standards for being enjoyable enough, that doesn't mean it wasn't profitable.

 

[Foxi4]

My point was you keep saying things that often aren't true, and never with any proof.

Just because a game doesn't meet your standards for being enjoyable enough, that doesn't mean it wasn't profitable.

Throw me a bone here, Imagine Babyz! surely isn't as profitable as Elder Scrolls: Skyrim or Grand Theft Auto 5, okay?

As for the "not true" part of your post, "that's like, your opinion, man".

EDIT: The way I see it, if third-party development was profitable on the system, we would see high-profile third-party releases, and those are few and far between. The system was, for the most part, a dumping ground for shovelware, which is sad since I really enjoyed it.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Throw me a bone here, Imagine Babyz! surely isn't as profitable as Elder Scrolls: Skyrim or Grand Theft Auto 5, okay?

Not as profitable, no. But I see no evidence that it wasn't at least profitable. I'd probably call it shovelware, but people buy crap.

I think this is more appropriate for "Did third party developers make good games on the Wii?"

 

[xxNathanxx]

This topic is

Throw me a bone here, Imagine Babyz! surely isn't as profitable as Elder Scrolls: Skyrim or Grand Theft Auto 5, okay?

They have probably made millions of those Imagine games and other games that replace an 's' with a 'z', if they weren't at least very profitable I don't think they would have made more than one. Then again development costs for those games must be minimal so it could be that they just said fuck it and made ten seasons in the hope someone would buy a copy. However if that's the case then they are again very profitable because they sell for quite high prices relative to first-party games.

 

[Foxi4]

Not as profitable, no. But I see no evidence that it wasn't at least profitable. I'd probably call it shovelware, but people buy crap.

I think this is more appropriate for "Did third party developers make good games on the Wii?"

I suppose that's a good point. What I'm driving at here is that third-party rarely took chances on the system and rarely developed big-budget games simply because they knew that their releases will be burried under an avalanche of Nintendo titles anyways, which seem to be the primary titles on everyone's to-buy list. Sure, there were titles like Force Unleashed or the Call of Duty series, but for the most part, big budget games usually sailed towards the PS3 and the 360, leading me to believe that their development for the Wii was not profitable enough to warrant releases.

They have probably made millions of those Imagine games and other games that replace an 's' with a 'z', if they weren't at least very profitable I don't think they would have made more than one. Then again development costs for those games must be minimal so it could be that they just said fuck it and made ten seasons in the hope someone would buy a copy. However if that's the case then they are again very profitable because they sell for quite high prices relative to first-party games.

Creating shovelware titles requires minimal resources, they're practically like vomit in any console's library - you shove a finger up your throat, something comes out onto the plate and you serve it because even if next to nobody buys it, you still made money just by throwing up.

 

[xxNathanxx]

for the most part, big budget games usually sailed towards the PS3 and the 360, leading me to believe that their development for the Wii was not profitable enough to warrant releases.

I think that also has at least something to do with the self-fulfilling prophecy that the Wii was a kids' console.