Support NeoGAF

[Die Squirrel Die]

Yeah that document is really interesting to me from that perspective. As well, what's interesting is that the publishers and platform holders obviously also work very closely (first name basis) with people at major retail partners on exclusives and bundles. I mean I guess it shouldn't be news to anyone, since Sega famously had horrible relations with retail which really hurt them, but sometimes one forgets how all interconnected this industry is.

I thought it was interesting as well to see how extensively Sega's lineup was covered. I think Stumpokapow's original point, which has been missed a bit, is that it's an illustration of how publisher/platform negotiations really work. It isn't just about the big name games and a large cheque.

 

[jcm]

To me the most interesting part of the document is the idea of an import store on PSN. I've already posted my thoughts in the Yak 3 thread, but they really have to do more with the economics of PS3 publishing for small Japanese devs, so I'll repost them here. The document seems to suggest that SCEA would allow for English subbed games on PSN store for $40.

If I'm right, and Sony really is considering selling subtitled Japanese PS3 games at a budget price on PSN, then it's really exciting news. Small, dialogue-heavy games are presumably very expensive to do English voices with. Doing English subs should be cheaper, and the game could be released on PSN in HK, EU, and NA.

I'd guess that makes PS3 development significantly more attractive to the niche Japanese publishers. I don't know what the split is between the developer and Sony on PSN, but if it's 50/50 selling 25K copies in the US at $40 each is half a million dollars. That could be the difference between break even and profit for smaller devs.

 

[jett]

This shows you only one thing, how desperate they really are. Or have you forgotten their attitude before billions went into the drain?

Some of you are really pathetic.

 

[Deku]

But you haven't given any actual reasons, just broadly dismissed the concept ..etc etc etc.

Here let me help you:

the list is really reaching to include 'the promise' of E3 booth space, considering 3rd parties with unique titles a manufacturers wants to feature generally gets E3 booth space from all 3 manufacturers.

There's a lot of quid pro quo and not much else.

^ I guess that is BROADLY dismissing his list, to the tune of the following requests which largely translate to quid pro quo.

- Sony offering goodwill if SEGA is willing to invest in HOME.
- Sony wants DLC or on-disc bonus characters in Sonic Racing.
- Sony promises marketing support in exchange for timed exclusivity.
- Sony will give E3 booth space if Sega can do PSP-PS3 connectivity for any product.
- Sony wants to sell PS2 games on PSN, will comarket anything if Sega puts the PS3 controller in the ad.
- Sony will offer marketing support for downloadable Dreamcast games.

And to clarify, I never dismissed co-marketing as a concept, that would be strange in this context. I've only dismissed it insofar as an example of a 'best practices' that apparently only Sony is doing. I think its a huge assumption to make on his part, considering the list has mainly 'standard' things that all 3 manufacturers already do. *E3 booth space, bundles, special deals to get downloadable content into their DLC outlets, pre-alpha testing by the manufacturer's expert players etc.*

It's also completely obvious that the current shape of the market is not in any meaningful way the result of distorted incentives from no-preconditions monetary handouts by platform holders. Companies aren't sticking to the sinking PS360 ship because they're getting cut checks that make up their losses on every title they release -- the quantity of day-and-date multiplatform games alone is enough of an indicator of that.

Seriously, the idea that the unsustainable business model of HD development (which I've consistently been one of the loudest drum-beaters about on GAF) is a result of a distorting effect from moneyhats, rather than bad decision-making in the face of a daunting and problematic set of platform-selection incentives, is insane. That's not really what you're trying to suggest here, is it?

eh? My point is that Stumpy tried to tie in his list of co-marketing requests Sony is making of Sega as a jumping board to nail this whole 'moneyhat' discussion, even going to the point of mocking it using terms such as comical cheks.

My point is to run through the state of the industry then politely point out it is in no way connected to his list of largely marketing related side deals. And that much broader financial implication of moneyhats is for another discussion and a separate thread.

Further, my position is exactly same as yours. That the unsustainable business model is due to is a result of a distorting effect from moneyhats. But again, I'm not here to make that argument, only to point out it has no relation to his lists of marketing deals.


Here let me qoute myself again. When the issue was first brought up, I responded with this.

As for the financial (moneyhat) thread of your argument, it's completely separate

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Hate to interrupt the lovely discussion, but has there been anything said yet about ToV's first week sales yet? It released the 18th, right? So it's three days sales for the week?

 

[Stumpokapow]

Hate to interrupt the lovely discussion, but has there been anything said yet about ToV's first week sales yet? It released the 18th, right? So it's three days sales for the week?

First day sales are Friday and count Thursday.
First week sales are Tuesday/Wednesday and count Thursday->Friday->Saturday->Sunday for all games except the exceedingly rare weekend releases.

This Monday-Wednesday are holidays in Japan, so numbers might be a tad delayed.

 

[le.phat]

Some of you are really pathetic.

you should check his history, what a fucking cheerleader :lol

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Due to their lack of resources? Compared to Sony?

I really can't even do more than :lol at that.

Well, perhaps I should clarify - when I say "lack of resources" I'm thinking more of Sony's movie/music/etc. business. They're a huge company with fingers in lots of pies and the ability to bring them all together in a way that other companies focused on a single sector aren't. Nintendo may have vast coffers but they don't have that kind of cross-media pull that they can use in negotiations.

I don't think it's an unreasonable point, although I admit my wording could have been a little better

 

[poppabk]

Well, no, we do have "a clue," both from many past statements regarding the distance Nintendo tends to keep third parties at (publishers commenting on being blindsided by announcements like the Wiimote and WM+, discussions of lack of marketing support to many non-top-tier games, etc.) and from the fact that whatever they're doing wasn't working very well until, arguably, recently.

Given that we are discussing a (assuming it is true) list which includes confidential information about some broad strategic Sony plans for the future which was leaked by a 3rd party to the world at large including their competitors, Nintendo may be on to something.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

bad decision-making in the face of a daunting and problematic set of platform-selection incentives

What do you qualify these incentives as, charlequin? I couldn't infer them from reading your posts so far. I want to think "Incentive based reward programs", however i'm not so sure.

 

[charlequin]

largely translate to quid pro quo.

I don't understand why this is a point for dismissing this information. This entire discussion is about quid pro quo, to the tune of me and stump saying "Sony and Microsoft are really aggressively putting various small-scale quid pro quo offers on the table for publishers and Nintendo seem to be doing so much less aggressively."

I've only dismissed it insofar as an example of a 'best practices' that apparently only Sony is doing.

I don't think anyone has claimed "only Sony is doing it." stump actually brought this up to counteract the common idea from people in these threads invested in defending Nintendo's actions that courting publishers comes only in the form of the huge Publishers Clearinghouse checks. This conversation is a good example of how that's not true, and how these kinds of small deals clearly aren't distorting the environment, but would be leaving Nintendo behind inasmuch as they're unwilling to play the same game.

eh? My point is that Stumpy tried to tie in his list of co-marketing requests Sony is making of Sega as a jumping board to nail this whole 'moneyhat' discussion

Are you trying to argue somehow that these things are unrelated? In what way is a list of co-marketing and incentive strategies offered by Sony to court further Sega development not a relevant data point in terms of establishing what strategies hardware companies use to court development? You seem to be creating an artificial separation here between different forms of publisher outreach that I don't actually understand the purpose of.

Further, my position is exactly same as yours. That the unsustainable business model is due to is a result of a distorting effect from moneyhats.

Errr, maybe you want to read my post again (or be more careful with lost negations in your sentences, if there's a "not" that's supposed to be in there.) My point is that the distorted market (i.e. people developing too many HD games and not enough Wii/handheld games despite the unprofitability of that strategy) has nothing whatsoever to do with "moneyhats."

What do you qualify these incentives as, charlequin?

This was probably a sloppy bit of wording on my part, as I think I slipped from the active use of incentives (i.e. a company offering specific benefits to another in exchange for certain behaviors or performance) to the passive business/game-theory sense (i.e. passively-existing conditions that encourage a profit-maximizing entity to pursue certain courses of action) without making it clear that I was doing so.

When I say that there's a problematic set of platform-selection incentives, what I mean is really the sum of the following factors, some of which are reasonable and some of which are not:

• The "heavily support last gen's winner" rule is pointing at the PS3.
• But the PS3 pretty clearly tanked all over the world compared to PS2. This is problematic.
• The "support the market leader" rule is pointing clearly towards the Wii.
• But there's a host of different reasons people are resisting developing for the Wii.
• They're used to Nintendo being somewhere between unhelpful and actively hostile to third parties.
• Nintendo hasn't taken steps to clearly and unambiguously dispel this image.
• Developing seriously for Wii would require a massive shift in development style and approach that could prove costly for a hidebound organization.
• There is (pre-MH3) no concrete evidence of big third-party hits on Wii, and a number of odd bombs, so there's an (overemphasized) risk of trying it out and getting burned.
• Similarly, there's a potential reward for being the guys who hit it big on the Wii that's being underestimated because it's so uncertain.
• The DS and PSP are both relatively huge, and can offer some of the same benefits as switching to the Wii, but with less uncertainty and less need to change fundamental business model.
• And then a bunch of other stuff like greater console prominence in the US, actual developer technology needs, etc.

I think not being the followup to a market leader, having a totally different development strategy associated with it, and being in the shadow of the handheld market all worked together to give publishers a (potentially rational on an individual level for some, but clearly irrational on a marketwide level) aversion to moving effort to the Wii, and that it would have been to Nintendo's advantage to roll up their sleeves and start bribing the kids to go in the pool, basically.

 

[donny2112]

Nintendo may be on to something.

The best way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone.

 

[Deku]

I don't understand why this is a point for dismissing this information. This entire discussion is about quid pro quo, to the tune of me and stump saying "Sony and Microsoft are really aggressively putting various small-scale quid pro quo offers on the table for publishers and Nintendo seem to be doing so much less aggressively."

Based on a leak from Sega which has perfectly decent release schedule on Nintendo platforms? I've called it reaching, and I still think it is.

And as I pointed out, much on the list are marketing side deals that are pretty familiar already (an in nothing particularly innovative or fresh) and is already being done. Or am I somehow mistaken to think Nintendo doesn't do bundles, have E3 booth space for select games, have requested and gotten de facto exclusive content for its virtual console etc?

I assumed Stumpy was reaching to prove a point from a prior discussion, which is why I asked what angle he was going for, since the list he presented seems strangely out of place from the overall argument he is making, which isn't really controversial or disagreeable.

And again, to go from the list to his (and your) conclusions, require several levels of assumptions and broad generalizations to go from the 'Sega list' to 'universally true list of what Nintendo isn't doing'. I think Nintendo isn't doing a lot of things, but its not those things listed.

Are you trying to argue somehow that these things are unrelated? In what way is a list of co-marketing and incentive strategies offered by Sony to court further Sega development not a relevant data point in terms of establishing what strategies hardware companies use to court development? You seem to be creating an artificial separation here between different forms of publisher outreach that I don't actually understand the purpose of.

co-marketing doesn't break the bank and several things in stumpy's list will cost very little money, and are merely requests to put content on Sony platforms. It IS quite different from actually spending money to get something, or worse, subsidizing development of an entire game, multiple times, continuously, all the time. I think Gears of War is a great example. A lot of people always mention is as a shining example of how third party HD games can be financially successful and Mark Rein can brag about making money off his own engine. Except he leaves out the part about Microsoft paying for most of his bills.

Errr, maybe you want to read my post again (or be more careful with lost negations in your sentences, if there's a "not" that's supposed to be in there.) My point is that the distorted market (i.e. people developing too many HD games and not enough Wii/handheld games despite the unprofitability of that strategy) has nothing whatsoever to do with "moneyhats."

I misunderstood then.

 

[Sipowicz]

probably a bit OT but i've noticed that Nintendo dont really seem to give a fuck about western developers

they havent really nurtured Retro like they should have and they obviously have a terrible relationship with the likes of Take 2 and EA, as evidenced by the stream of tripe they release for the Wii

contrast that with Sony who've did a trememndous job with psygnosis, naughty dog, insomniac etc and they've even managed to score a really cool sounding exclusive from Rockstar

even DS third party support is pretty shit outside of japan and the DS is a beast.

 

[charlequin]

Given that we are discussing a (assuming it is true) list which includes confidential information about some broad strategic Sony plans for the future which was leaked by a 3rd party to the world at large including their competitors, Nintendo may be on to something.

Only inasmuch as secrecy about these things is particularly valuable, which I don't really think it is (to the degree companies seem to value it, anyway.) The Slim didn't not sell in Japan just because we knew about it six months early.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

probably a bit OT but i've noticed that Nintendo dont really seem to give a fuck about western developers

they havent really nurtured Retro like they should have

How do you come to that conclusion? They stuck with Retro through some fairly messy birth pangs and have worked with the company to produce three highly-regarded titles.

and they obviously have a terrible relationship with the likes of Take 2 and EA, as evidenced by the stream of tripe they release for the Wii

I won't speak for Take 2, but EA? Seriously? After giving them early access to M+, arranging bundles for key titles (in fact, letting EA be first to market with a new first-party peripheral!) etc.?

 

[charlequin]

which isn't really controversial or disagreeable

I'm not sure how that's true, given that every time I bring this point up I get immediate pushback to the tune that Nintendo should not be making any form of third-party outreach whatsoever.

to go from the 'Sega list' to 'universally true list of what Nintendo isn't doing'.

I don't believe either stump or myself have endorsed the list as being such a thing, rather than pointing to the list as an example of many things which platform-holders already do and have the ability to do again in the future, and suggesting that within this broad field Nintendo isn't doing enough (with the evidence being the obvious fact that no one will develop for their system) rather than that there's something specific they're 100% not doing that they should start.

I misunderstood then.

You actually think that development is lopsidedly favoring the HD systems because of what stumpy (rightly) derided as "cartoonishly huge checks," despite the majority of such games being day-and-date multiplatform, quite visibly not having significant payments of this sort attached to them, and the fact that the companies developing these games are still losing money so obviously no one is actually paying them enough to make up for the unsustainably unprofitable nature of HD development?

I won't speak for Take 2, but EA? Seriously? After giving them early access to M+, arranging bundles for key titles (in fact, letting EA be first to market with a new first-party peripheral!) etc.?

I think it's fair both to cite Tiger Woods as an example of Nintendo doing something exactly right and trying effectively to repair an earlier lack of attention with strong efforts in the present, and Madden as a situation where Nintendo should probably have butted in much more strongly.

 

[Sipowicz]

How do you come to that conclusion? They stuck with Retro through some fairly messy birth pangs and have worked with the company to produce three highly-regarded titles.

that's fair enough but metroid prime 3 was hardly a high priority for them. retro could have been huge if they had more support, but they didnt

I won't speak for Take 2, but EA? Seriously? After giving them early access to M+, arranging bundles for key titles (in fact, letting EA be first to market with a new first-party peripheral!) etc.?

well whatever they're doing hasnt worked. their software output on wii is just as shit as it always was and it doesnt look like it's ever getting better

 

[TunaLover]

How do you come to that conclusion? They stuck with Retro through some fairly messy birth pangs and have worked with the company to produce three highly-regarded titles.

Not to mention Retros plan on a next Prime game (multiplayer being considered), and a new project.

 

[markatisu]

well whatever they're doing hasnt worked. their software output on wii is just as shit as it always was and it doesnt look like it's ever getting better

Well at least you were quicker to the point instead of spending endless posts bashing Boom Blox, EA Active, and all the rest of the games you hate like in the Wii in 2009 - The official Thread

 

[marc^o^]

well whatever they're doing hasnt worked. their software output on wii is just as shit as it always was and it doesnt look like it's ever getting better

Again, I'm calling you out: you even haven't tried these games and then you add some FUD. That's so not neogaf.

 

[Deku]

I'm not sure how that's true, given that every time I bring this point up I get immediate pushback to the tune that Nintendo should not be making any form of third-party outreach whatsoever.

That's pretty dumb and I assume you get a list of greivances about betrayltons and such. But it's really not in the scope of this discussion to go into that. It's only not disagreeable according to me.

Or put differently, I wasn't disagreeing with stumpy or you because of the premise that Nintendo could do more.

I don't believe either stump or myself have endorsed the list as being such a thing, rather than pointing to the list as an example of many things which platform-holders already do and have the ability to do again in the future, and suggesting that within this broad field Nintendo isn't doing enough (with the evidence being the obvious fact that no one will develop for their system) rather than that there's something specific they're 100% not doing that they should start.

The endorsement is implied. If Nintendo were to go to 2k with this list to get even a spinoff of a GTA game, it still would not fly.

Generally where they are having most difficulty in getting support is actually getting content to be produced to begin with, not so much the co-marketing side of it, which I think has improved greatly. And to get content produced, they either have to spend loads of money, or get in line with the other 2 manufactuers so third parties can at least use the same engines they have invested millions into to make new titles. And that is more strategic level discussion.

You actually think that development is lopsidedly favoring the HD systems because of what stumpy (rightly) derided as "cartoonishly huge checks," despite the majority of such games being day-and-date multiplatform, quite visibly not having significant payments of this sort attached to them, and the fact that the companies developing these games are still losing money so obviously no one is actually paying them enough to make up for the unsustainably unprofitable nature of HD development?

We're 3 years into this generation so there's a large enough base, at least multiplatform, to support this. But there was a time a few years ago when this point would be more true universally, and certainly continue to be true for some genres. The exclusive RPGs Microsoft has been able to obtain are very clearly moneyhatted.

I think it's fair both to cite Tiger Woods as an example of Nintendo doing something exactly right and trying effectively to repair an earlier lack of attention with strong efforts in the present, and Madden as a situation where Nintendo should probably have butted in much more strongly.

The previous Tiger Woods game (i believe beginning with 07 and on) also showed very strong sales despite not receiving special promotion from EA. I think this is probably what needs to happen more of, is that if a franchise does well on a platform, the manufacturer need to go to the developer/publisher and reach out for sequels and more content and is something Nintendo doesn't do enough of, or does so inconsistently.

I'm having a hard time thinking a strong 3rd party developer partner that is on side with them, other than the small collection of DS devs. That's probably the kind of outreach they need to do more of. Just talking to developers and getting their input. They seem quite interested in what Miyamoto wants, but no one asks what a developer outside the company might want.

 

[poppabk]

Only inasmuch as secrecy about these things is particularly valuable, which I don't really think it is (to the degree companies seem to value it, anyway.) The Slim didn't not sell in Japan just because we knew about it six months early.

I think it is pretty important, because it outlines deals that Sega and SCEA are in the process of negotiating, that could potentially be co-opted or subsumed by their competitors.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Again, I'm calling you out: you even haven't tried these games and then you add some FUD. That's so not neogaf.

It isn't?

Only inasmuch as secrecy about these things is particularly valuable, which I don't really think it is (to the degree companies seem to value it, anyway.) The Slim didn't not sell in Japan just because we knew about it six months early.

Uh, it matters a great deal, especially when engaged in competition to the degree Sony and MS are. the degree of interoperability and synergy between two companies is critical information to competitors, and I bet even know MS is deciding on how to leverage these things with Sega and how Sony's plans affect their current business and trade models.

 

[lherre]

I won't speak for Take 2, but EA? Seriously? After giving them early access to M+, arranging bundles for key titles (in fact, letting EA be first to market with a new first-party peripheral!) etc.?

Well, maybe Nintendo hasn't anything to launch with WM+ ... isn't WSR the only nintendo title with WM+ support?

 

[Vilix]

probably a bit OT but i've noticed that Nintendo dont really seem to give a fuck about western developers.

Actually, it seems to be quite the other way around.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Well, maybe Nintendo hasn't anything to launch with WM+ ... isn't WSR the only nintendo title with WM+ support?

Apart from Span Smasher, yes. However, they could have just waited to launch M+ with WSR. That they didn't, and that the peripheral was bundled with several third-party titles for a month or so before WSR launched strongly suggests it was a push for support and goodwill (as well as increased market penetration).

 

[Mushashi]

So, which Japanese developer you think are the closest one to bankruptcy ?

You might say 2 publishers already had to quit this generation, Tecmo and D3Publisher. D3 was bought for less than the cost of one AAA game.

MMV is a contender I think.

 

[donny2112]

D3 was bought for less than the cost of one AAA game.

Seems reasonable. You can usually buy two or three of their games for less than the cost of a AAA game.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Actually, it seems to be quite the other way around.

Probably a number of reasons for that. Don't think they woke up one morning and decided to ignore Nintendo, do you?

Don't think it had anything to do with Nintendo's history of treating 3rd party stuff as nothing more than competition they don't want for their own development? Probably think it doesn't have anything to do with how Nintendo acted back when they were on top, back when the Nintendo seal of approval was thumbs up from the emperor and thumbs down was bankruptcy?

Nintendo gets as much 3rd party support as they deserve and more than they really want. The only time they pay it any lip service is when they get cornered by a professional enthusiast doing an interview.

 

[donny2112]

Probably think it doesn't have anything to do with how Nintendo acted back when they were on top, back when the Nintendo seal of approval was thumbs up from the emperor and thumbs down was bankruptcy?

Not in the slightest. Most of the people around now weren't around when Nintendo was on top with the NES. Most of the people around now grew up with "PlayStation = gaming," so it makes sense they would gravitate toward that mindset once they're in charge.

 

[Olaeh]

MMV is a contender I think.

This is a shame. MMV has been putting out most of my favorite games this gen. By far my favorite publisher, it's a shame they're apparently barely holding on.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Probably a number of reasons for that. Don't think they woke up one morning and decided to ignore Nintendo, do you?

Don't think it had anything to do with Nintendo's history of treating 3rd party stuff as nothing more than competition they don't want for their own development? Probably think it doesn't have anything to do with how Nintendo acted back when they were on top, back when the Nintendo seal of approval was thumbs up from the emperor and thumbs down was bankruptcy?

Nintendo gets as much 3rd party support as they deserve and more than they really want. The only time they pay it any lip service is when they get cornered by a professional enthusiast doing an interview.

The personification of the videogame industry continues on unabated.

 

[sphinx]

Probably a number of reasons for that. Don't think they woke up one morning and decided to ignore Nintendo, do you?

Don't think it had anything to do with Nintendo's history of treating 3rd party stuff as nothing more than competition they don't want for their own development? Probably think it doesn't have anything to do with how Nintendo acted back when they were on top, back when the Nintendo seal of approval was thumbs up from the emperor and thumbs down was bankruptcy?

Nintendo gets as much 3rd party support as they deserve and more than they really want. The only time they pay it any lip service is when they get cornered by a professional enthusiast doing an interview.

I don't thinks it's the way you portray.

on the other hand, Nintendo only try to improve 3rd party relationships when they need them.

Reggie was craving some Rockstar support back in 2006, if I remember correctly but those attempts at improving relationships ceased when Nintendo found out that the Wii was a winning console.

 

[Vilix]

Probably a number of reasons for that. Don't think they woke up one morning and decided to ignore Nintendo, do you?

Don't think it had anything to do with Nintendo's history of treating 3rd party stuff as nothing more than competition they don't want for their own development? Probably think it doesn't have anything to do with how Nintendo acted back when they were on top, back when the Nintendo seal of approval was thumbs up from the emperor and thumbs down was bankruptcy?

Nintendo gets as much 3rd party support as they deserve and more than they really want. The only time they pay it any lip service is when they get cornered by a professional enthusiast doing an interview.

Oh, I remember Nintendo's glory days. I remember what life was and how videogame news got around WAY before personal cellphones and the internet. In my many years I've learned one thing. It's when it comes to money history is just that: History. Japanese companies have cultural differences in doing things than there western counterparts. But they know they're not an island to themselves. Especially in an industry such as this. Since Iwata has taken the reins I've read time and again how Nintendo has reached out to devs/pubs. Yet a lot of them just won't bring their A games to the platform. I truly think there is nothing Nintendo can do, except do as Microsoft has done, and pay for exclusive A+ content. I believe it's not so much they don't care for what happened 10+ years ago, as they care about what's going on now. And, now, they wanna see the money. But, when Nintendo is making a tremendous amount of money on their own maybe they don't see a need to pay for third party content.

 

[DangerousDave]

But, when Nintendo is making a tremendous amount of money on their own maybe they don't see a need to pay for third party content.

That's exactly the point.

Sony or Microsoft needs third party. So they work in order to attract those companies to their consoles. Even if games like GT5 or Halo sells consoles, they need third parties to sell a decent number. Japanese RPG, GTA, EA games, MGS4, Yakuza, etc. In this, probably Sony is the one that needs more third party. Microsoft has a lot of very powerful first-second parties. In PS3, no first party has moved too much hardware, yet.

With Wii, Nintendo don't need third parties. The userbase that buys a Wii in order to play third party game is minor. Nearly all people that buys a Wii buys it for their "classic Nintendo games" (Zelda, Mario, etc), or for the new Wii casual first parties (Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc). Even the most-selling games, like Resident Evils or Monster Hunter didn't had too much impact in the hardware sells.

So Nintendo don't need third party games. Is good to have it, but I'm sure that Nintendo didn't buy any exclusive (even DQX or MH3), and don't give too much attention to them.

 

[bttb]

.

 

[xs_mini_neo]

Welcome to all fanboy races. It's not just an exclusive Sony trait, believe me.

Until this gen, I never thought the stereotypical Sony fanboy was different from the usual console fanboy, but....well, everything I have seen, heard and experienced so far says they are different. And you know how many devs have come out and revealed how much they hate Nintendo/love Sony. A lot of people got used to the idea that Sony was "it" and nothing was going to change that. lol, even I thought Sony would remain on top.

Not in the slightest. Most of the people around now weren't around when Nintendo was on top with the NES. Most of the people around now grew up with "PlayStation = gaming," so it makes sense they would gravitate toward that mindset once they're in charge.

Yeah. That's another thing this gen has revealed to some of us. PS1 is old enough that a whole gen of kids grew up with it, and of course 3D gaming. I'm not surprised when some of them say Sony brought 3D to the industry. When you realize that you understand why there are a lot of really, really pissed off Sony fanboys out there this gen.

 

[donny2112]

Japan Game Companies by Market Capitalization (millions of yen)
～09/18 market close

Company                              Market Cap        Exchange       Code
Sega Sammy Holdings Inc.                334,494        TSE            6460
Konami Corp.                            271,215        TSE            9766
Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd.          267,659        TSE            9684
Bandai Namco Holdings Inc.              240,250        TSE            7832
Capcom Co., Ltd.                        123,505        TSE            9697

Mid-tier company, indeed.

 

[poppabk]

Until this gen, I never thought the stereotypical Sony fanboy was different from the usual console fanboy, but....well, everything I have seen, heard and experienced so far says they are different. And you know how many devs have come out and revealed how much they hate Nintendo/love Sony. A lot of people got used to the idea that Sony was "it" and nothing was going to change that. lol, even I thought Sony would remain on top.

Even Nintendo thought Sony was going to stay on top.
Sony dominated the entire "3D era" of console gaming up until the PS3. For a lot of people that effectively means they have always dominated gaming. I think that having a guaranteed winner in each generation was a god send to publishers and to have the market fragmented as it is now, really does breed resentment, because it damages peoples bottom line.

 

[the thoroughbred]

If they keep throwing money around like that, then they will not make enough profit, regardless of success. And that is pretty much all shareholders care about. Gaming industry has become very risky. Nintendo after 10 years of being the 2nd and 3rd in the race, always had money. Sony after having the most popular console in history twice, and over 10 years of absolute domination managed to lose all profit in a matter of years. Most of it was lost within 1 year. Microsoft on the other hand has plenty of money, so gaming can be considered her hobby. She just likes to piss others off.

 

[the thoroughbred]

Well Nintendo did farm out the entire Mario universe for Sega's olympic sports game so I think Sega is still quite happy when it comes to Nintendo related things.

And what, at the time, seemed like a silly target has probably been exceeded. Anyone got the whole LTD sales of the Olympics games on both platforms.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Mid-tier company, indeed.

Well, first, Sega-Sammy is not Sega's video game division, it's a large company with several comparable divisions. Second, SCEA, not Sony internationally, was talking to Sega of America, not Sega-Sammy top brass. In terms of third parties, with Activision, EA, and Ubisoft at the top of the US market, companies like Sega, Square Enix Eidos, THQ, Take 2, Warner Bros Midway, Majesco, and Atari would be the mid tier. I think that's a fair assessment. I don't know how the shake down ends up looking these days in terms of where all those companies are relative to each other in terms of market share / mind share / revenue / profits, but I think we can safely say they're smaller than those big three.

I mean, if SCEA was talking to Warner Bros, you'd call them a low-mid-tier publisher rather than posting Time Warner's market cap, right?

 

[donny2112]

Anyone got the whole LTD sales of the Olympics games on both platforms.

A whole lot. 1 million combined in Japan. In the U.K., Wii is > 1m, and DS is > 600K. In the U.S., Wii was ~2m in January, and DS was > 1m last Fall. That's at least 5.6m worldwide between the two.

I mean, if SCEA was talking to Warner Bros, you'd call them a low-mid-tier publisher rather than posting Time Warner's market cap, right?

SEGA-Sammy is a lot more tied to games than the whole of Time Warner, though. Besides, I think bttb may have been making the point that courting SEGA may be worth more than courting other "mid-tier" companies would be, since they are not just relevant in the U.S.

In terms of third parties, with Activision, EA, and Ubisoft at the top of the US market, companies like Sega, Square Enix Eidos, THQ, Take 2, Warner Bros Midway, Majesco, and Atari would be the mid tier. I think that's a fair assessment. I don't know how the shake down ends up looking these days in terms of where all those companies are relative to each other in terms of market share / mind share / revenue / profits, but I think we can safely say they're smaller than those big three.

I'd say it's Activision-Blizzard, EA, and then everyone else. I'd classify Ubisoft as mid-tier, but Majesco, Atari, and Warner Bros. Midway as low-tier. Where's that Captain Smoker thread on company revenues?

 

[freddy]

I think it's interesting that despite the type of support evidenced in that thread about Sony 'moneyhats'/help it has failed so far in helping them recreate the success they previously enjoyed in the home console market. Also despite this massive success in previous generations it failed to translate into sustainable profit.

My original counter in this thread to Dragona saying Wii needs more PS3 traditional games because that's what sells, was: What this done for Sony in regard to console sales?

Looking at that answer then you come to: Why would it help Nintendo improve console sales when it hasn't helped Sony?
------------------------------------

In response to improving developer relations and adopting that strategy: What has this done for Sony this generation to improve console sales?

Looking at that answer: Why would it help Nintendo improve console sales when it hasn't helped Sony?

I think Nintendo has realised that doing things this way would move them into a bidding war which it has very little chance of winning and even if they did win might not show them much return on investment. Instead they've gone for leading by example which some have chosen to follow and some may be incapable of following.

I think the biggest mistake they've made this generation was having their machine so different to their competitors that it made it difficult to port games to the Wii financially. The fact that they are different though has been one its major selling points and given them a huge advantage in price. It could be fair to say Sony and Microsoft made a huge mistake making their machines too powerful as well.

 

[d+pad]

A whole lot. 1 million combined in Japan. In the U.K., Wii is > 1m, and DS is > 600K. In the U.S., Wii was ~2m in January, and DS was > 1m last Fall. That's at least 5.6m worldwide between the two.

Wow, I knew the Mario and Sonic at the Summer Olympics Wii game did well, but I didn't know it did *that* well, especially in the States.

Given the numbers you just posted, I'm a bit surprised most people seem to be ignoring the Winter Olympics version that's supposed to come out before the end of the year.

Could be another title to add to the list of games that could help the Wii this holiday season, don't you think?

 

[charlequin]

The endorsement is implied. If Nintendo were to go to 2k with this list to get even a spinoff of a GTA game, it still would not fly.

Sure, but the biggest reason for that is that going from their current beggar's feast situation directly to trying to sway someone on a franchise that is a) huge, b) extremely well-established on another platform, and c) one of the worst possible fits to the Wii's userbase would be a terrible idea.

Generally where they are having most difficulty in getting support is actually getting content to be produced to begin with, not so much the co-marketing side of it, which I think has improved greatly.

I'm not sure why you are asserting that co-marketing is unrelated to projects getting greenlighted. The vast majority of "moneyhats" are through either co-marketing or first-party-publishing arrangements (which do not require money to be directly exchanged and therefore do not require disclosure in financial reports.)

The exclusive RPGs Microsoft has been able to obtain are very clearly moneyhatted.

People have posted more thorough breakdowns of the whole list in the past, but in most cases it comes down to relatively small incentives rather than large cash payments. Everything we've seen about Vesperia has suggested that it was primarily proactive developer support, combined with Microsoft just asking them to provide a Tales game, that led to their platform choice rather than anything like payment of development costs.

They seem quite interested in what Miyamoto wants, but no one asks what a developer outside the company might want.

I agree that this is an extremely important form of outreach.

Uh, it matters a great deal, especially when engaged in competition to the degree Sony and MS are. the degree of interoperability and synergy between two companies is critical information to competitors, and I bet even know MS is deciding on how to leverage these things with Sega and how Sony's plans affect their current business and trade models.

Inasmuch as knowledge of what Sony is offering to Sega specifically to get them on board is tremendously useful to Microsoft, it is also likely to be provided directly to Microsoft by Sega in the form of "if you want us to get on board with you for X, you need to beat Y offer." And I don't see any evidence that any kind of unique or non-obvious techniques are on display here.

More relevantly, though, this chain of the conversation started with my mention that Nintendo had hidden the WM+ hardware and other such features from developers, and poppabk asserting they were "right" to do so since it would've gotten leaked. I think that particular needle is quite a bit harder to thread.

So Nintendo don't need third party games.

stump addressed this particular position (in a less polite but not particularly factually distinct fashion than I would have chosen) upthread:

The first three opinions are stupid, frankly

Looking at that answer: Why would it help Nintendo improve console sales when it hasn't helped Sony?

As I think I've said before (but maybe not explained in these specific terms), my own position is that it's rarely useful to "moneyhat" (or otherwise convince, cajole, or co-opt) support in order to directly improve your system's lineup with the software in question, but that they can be useful when there's a good reason to believe your platform is worthy of development, but other companies are being unreasonably resistant, in order to generate an obvious success story that makes other companies want to jump in.

 

[liuelson]

As I think I've said before (but maybe not explained in these specific terms), my own position is that it's rarely useful to "moneyhat" (or otherwise convince, cajole, or co-opt) support in order to directly improve your system's lineup with the software in question, but that they can be useful when there's a good reason to believe your platform is worthy of development, but other companies are being unreasonably resistant, in order to generate an obvious success story that makes other companies want to jump in.

I've followed your posts (and Stumpakow's) in various sales-age threads for a while, and it seems to me that your position has developed and grown more nuanced over time. That, combined with the apparent "pushback" that you continue to receive whenever you state this position, makes me feel that we need to make some allowances for both Nintendo and 3rd parties, understanding that their positions with respect to each other are also probably developing and growing more nuanced over time. That effective delay makes me wonder if it isn't essentially "too late" to substantively "correct" the situation for the Wii; should the focus be on how best to launch the next generation?

If so, what specific advice would you offer to (1) Nintendo, and (2) western 3rd parties, about how to improve their positions with respect to each other for launch of the next Nintendo console?

 

[Deku]

Well, first, Sega-Sammy is not Sega's video game division, it's a large company with several comparable divisions. Second, SCEA, not Sony internationally, was talking to Sega of America, not Sega-Sammy top brass. In terms of third parties, with Activision, EA, and Ubisoft at the top of the US market, companies like Sega, Square Enix Eidos, THQ, Take 2, Warner Bros Midway, Majesco, and Atari would be the mid tier. I think that's a fair assessment. I don't know how the shake down ends up looking these days in terms of where all those companies are relative to each other in terms of market share / mind share / revenue / profits, but I think we can safely say they're smaller than those big three.

I mean, if SCEA was talking to Warner Bros, you'd call them a low-mid-tier publisher rather than posting Time Warner's market cap, right?

That's a fairly arbitrary call about Sega. And I know where you're coming from. But I think it was said really to enhance your point to that is basically arguing that Sony is doing all this for a small out of the way 'mid-tier' company. (imagine what kind of deals they have instore of the big boys).

I'm not sure why you are asserting that co-marketing is unrelated to projects getting greenlighted. The vast majority of "moneyhats" are through either co-marketing or first-party-publishing arrangements (which do not require money to be directly exchanged and therefore do not require disclosure in financial reports.)

co-marketing is when a product is about to be launched or is in production and you're trying to figure out how to market it and the manufacturer steps in and suggest you put their controller on your TV ads in exchange for some benefits.

The content side of the business where games are greenlit is separate and is in fact not supported by any of the documents Sega leaked, which was all about marketing or trying to nab already canned content in a new service.

I frankly think you just want to keep on arguing. I thought I gave plenty of leeway for an agreement on my previous reply but apparently not.

So we'll just have to disagree on this point.

 

[spwolf]

That's exactly the point.

Sony or Microsoft needs third party. So they work in order to attract those companies to their consoles. Even if games like GT5 or Halo sells consoles, they need third parties to sell a decent number. Japanese RPG, GTA, EA games, MGS4, Yakuza, etc. In this, probably Sony is the one that needs more third party. Microsoft has a lot of very powerful first-second parties. In PS3, no first party has moved too much hardware, yet.

With Wii, Nintendo don't need third parties. The userbase that buys a Wii in order to play third party game is minor. Nearly all people that buys a Wii buys it for their "classic Nintendo games" (Zelda, Mario, etc), or for the new Wii casual first parties (Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc). Even the most-selling games, like Resident Evils or Monster Hunter didn't had too much impact in the hardware sells.

So Nintendo don't need third party games. Is good to have it, but I'm sure that Nintendo didn't buy any exclusive (even DQX or MH3), and don't give too much attention to them.

wow, you managed to get everything wrong. Congrats!