Jump to content
NEurope

jammy2211

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,081

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jammy2211

  2. Posted

    There isn't alot to add really, the Wii is full of crap and the more full of crap it becomes the harder it is to stand out Albeit some may argue it becomes 'easier' to stand out amongst the crap, I feel this would only be true if your audience were more informed and better educated (which assumes they don't enjoy the 'crap' in the first place).

     

    While comparisons to the Atari 2600 are laughable, it is no doubt becoming a problem for the Wii, and once these 'crap' games reach minimal retail prices it's going to escalate even further.

     

    Ultimately it to me reads as an excuse for 2k to ignore the Wii and justify developement for the PS360. I'd imagine it's not to that extreme though, especially after their success with Carnival Games. He does make a valid point though.

  3. Posted

    Of course 0.5 million is nothing compared to the 360 and PS3 versions. They will always get priority. I'm sure activision will at least consider it, after all they own the franchise, Treyarch and Infinity Ward are just the developers they hire to develop it.

     

    The key to whether it gets developed or not is whether it made a profit. Now 0.5 million copies, at $50 dollars a copy is still an impressive $25 million. It's not like it hasn't done some business!

     

    What's more producing it (as all it is essentially is a cut down copy of the 360 version) costs very little. I'm hoping for it to make an appearance. If it doesn't well it doesn't. But We've seen COD3, CODWAW and Quantum of solace, so there's a decent chance.

     

    You do realise that when a $50 Wii game is sold over 50% of that money doesn't go back to Activision's bank balance? Even with that in mind it'll still have done healthy if it sold at full retail price for those 500k, whether it was full retail for the long haul though I've not a clue.

     

    I think if the next COD is on Wii then it won't be made by Infinity Ward, albeit could easily use the same story etc. WAW's sales are probably irellevenent as if they're making a Wii verison it'd have been decided before WAW's release.

     

    I'm not sure what Activision are going to do though, as the next James Bond game coming out near xmas this year is supposedly PS360 exclusive, unless they've got another company in to produce the Wii verison. Hmmm..

  4. Posted

    Give Ubisoft a break, they need something to subsidise their HD flops.

     

    I'm sure Assassin's Creed more then made up for the lack-lustre figures of er... Beowolf... and er... Endwar?

     

    But yeah, Ubisoft arn't really that talented of a developer. They made a good Prince of Persia game and then screwed up every sequel, Assassin's Creed was a huge let down and having 10 Tom Clancy games in your library doesn't inspire much confidence.

     

    They did make Beyond Good and Evil though, which I've still not had a chance to play :(. Keep meaning to until the sequel hits us though... sigh.

  5. Posted

    Marvelous could be A Link To The Past? Remake for WiiWare? For DS?

     

    Can't be arsed with another Sonic / Mario collab though, never got the appeal myself. Would rather see Square-Enix make a new Mario RPG then SEGA try combine it with Sonic, or something.

  6. Posted

    Ubisoft: Wii is a "Girl-Driven" System

     

    January 13, 2009 by Art Green

     

    Ann Hamilton, a senior brand manager with Ubisoft, said that Nintendo’s Wii console is a “girl-driven system,” and is one of the main reasons the Wii has had such success in the marketplace.

     

    “What’s driving the Wii sales is the use of Wii by women, girls and families,” Hamilton said in an article from the Tulsa World. “It’s a really female-driven platform.”

     

    Hamilton believed that Ubisoft’s two brands that target female gamers–Imagine and Ener-G–have helped Nintendo target the female demographic with the Wii.

     

    “Girls wanted sports games to play, as well,” and pointed to their gymnastics and horseback riding titles as filling that need.

     

    This is the thread that'll never die lol. Ubisoft for new PR reps? :P

  8. Posted

    Some also have it so you can hear who's around you or those on your team. So you can chat to everyone on your team where ever you are, or you can hear whoever is in your earshot regardless of friend or foe.

     

    The Conduit will only let you hear whoever you have swapped friend codes with.

     

    Urg, dam friend codes, sort of kills it a bit for me if I was ever going to get it, as I won't know anyone on the thing lol.

     

    But yeah, I don't think Nintendo will ever allow proximity chat, it's the best part about the new Socom lol.

  9. Posted

    out me interest, how does voice chat work in other fps's. 16 players all yelling abuse at eachother seems chaotic- or does the game select who you're chatting with depending on targets or whose near?

     

    The best system is just where you hold down a button to talk and it's only one person at a time. Having everyone talk at the same time though works fine too.

     

    You'll very rarely enter a game where alot of people talk.

  11. Posted

    You know what. I'm not even going to continue with this argument. Neither of us are going to convince the other, there's no point.

     

    If you're so pessimistic about the Wii, why even bother coming to the Wii board anyway?

     

    Sigh, just do more reading into this sort of thing. Or continue living in your own little dream world where Wii prints money for everyone and is God's gift to console publishers around the world 0_o.

     

    And er, cause I own a Wii. I'm not pessimistic, I'm realistic, I don't think Wii isn't going to get hardcore games aplenty and build a following for them. Just not in the way some of you dream.

  12. Posted

    Sounds promising then, guess I'll wait and see. It does look like it's shaping up to be a good game, I'm just very skeptical but i prefer being that way, better to not hype it up.

     

    I do look forward to seeing where companies take Wii RPG's from PS2. I'm hoping with the promise of better graphics not being enough to be a 'selling point' as such, we see alot more experimentation and innovation in the genre - something akin to The World Ends With You. I don't think this is the right game for that, but this seems to have it's place.

     

    And yeah, it's a nice list but we're not going to see alot of them until 2010 in Europe, and beyond. I don't really know why I expect I'll be able to get this in Europe for summer though, oh well.

     

    I guess my fear is playing RPG's on the Wii is just going to be like playing them on the PS2... but not as fresh, and new. I'm sure there'll be exceptions once Square Enix get their ass in gear :).

  13. Posted

    But most other publishers don't market their games as well as Nintendo do. I see adds for Nintendo games all the time, but nothing for 3rd party games, at all. You have to market a game to the audience that there is to buy it. If 3rd parties marketed their games to these Nintendo fans rather than to nobody, perhaps their games would sell better.

     

    Marketing costs alot of money, like, millions upon millions. Obviously they'd sell better, but to proof financially viable for the money spent on marketing in the first place? I'm not sure, and if companies are going to invest doing that, why do it to the smaller part of the Wii's market?

     

    Marketing figures are sketchy but to add some perspective Wii Fit's marketing campaign has surpassed $100 million. Obviously this is the extreme end, but hopefully will give you some idea on why third parties aren't throwing money at their marketing department.

     

    But there's a reason titles like this became household names and sell really well. They started out as quality games and were marketed well. People aren't just going to buy a Wii to get 3 or 4 Nintendo games for it. They're going to want to buy a few more games to justify spending $250 on the console. And they'll buy the games that they think will be the best games for their money. If 3rd party games were marketed these people might actually find out about them and buy them.

     

    Pretty much covered this. Marketing costs money, lots and lots of money. EA and Ubisoft are much better at handling their finances then you, if they could market as much as you think they should, they wouldn't be making money.

     

    I said Mainstream. Not hardcore.

     

    My point still stands.

     

    Again, thats because nothing else is marketed at all.

     

    Marketing to an audience of 8 million isn't financially viable, especially when the Wii has a much larger audience for other games.

     

    There are a lot of 3rd party Wii games that sell a million or half a million units. And if you compare them to similar efforts on the PS360, they're not really that far behind.

     

    There are plenty that scrape their way to 500k after a year on the market and reduced prices at retail. Third party Wii games do struggle to hold their price and once retail has cut it, profits are severely reduced in turn. On the other hand it's common for the bulk of PS360 sales to come at full retail price.

     

    It does show that there is a market but it's not one which third parties should be putting their primary focus on.

     

    But, this is really starting to get pointless now, we've been going in circles for a while.

     

    Mainly because you need to get more realistic, you're taking a very simplified view on things, not looking at a wide enough picture.

     

    http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/20/casual-games-cost-marketing-moolah-ubisoft-says/

     

    That's the only article I can find at all on marketing with a google search. To give you another perspective though, EA cancelled 3 FINISHED Ps2 games last generation. Why? Because they didn't think they would be commercial successes, and thus weren't going to even back the money they spent marketing.

  14. Posted

    PS2 is dead and Wii is the leading platform so... Did the PSone have any reason to stand out next to SNES RPG's? wel... hopefully and if not, well... it's more of the same, and we as gamers always want more.

     

    Other companies would be wise to do the same instead of going nowhere fast for nothing in platforms that sell jack shit in Japan (and don't lead in the rest of the world either).

     

    It just feels like this RPG could be a mediocre non-standout RPG on the PS2, it gets alot of hype for Wii cause it's the first decent RPG announced.

     

    I dunno, nothing stands out to me as any different from the above-average but forgettable ones that litered the PS2 shelves, guess I could be wrong but I'm skeptical.

     

    Probably won't have much choice for a nice summer RPG anyway so I guess beggers can't be choosers. Unless I go for an MMO :/.

  15. Posted

    But clearly not all Wii owners are casual. Look at Mario Galaxy. it sold almost as well as Halo 3. So did brawl. I know not all 360 owners think like that, thats why I said "most" and there are a good number of 360 owners who do think all Wii owners are casual gamers, I talk to people like that everyday.

     

    I think using first party sales on a Nintendo console is a bit misguided, there are a large number of Nintendo fans who own the Wii and pretty much only buy Nintendo games. IT's the same sub-section who on the N64 and GameCube allowed the Marios and Smash Bros and Zeldas to so so incredibly well, but saw few third party offerings sell well.

     

    I hate trying to use all these terms like hardcore gamers and casual gamers and whatever else to attribute to sales, I think it sort of detracts from why games actually do sell.

     

    As long as they are marketed good hardcore games do sell well on the Wii. Mario Galaxy and Brawl were marketed well and so they sold well. Metroid Prime 3 and CoD:W@W weren't marketed well so they sold bad, regardless of the feasibility of marketing them. Badly made hardcore games don't sell on the Wii, the only reason they sell on other consoles is that mainstream gamers don't read reviews and generally don't know what they're buying and so they buy crappy games. On the Wii Good hardcore games like Brawl and Mario Galaxy will sell if they are marketed properly. And I don't know why people keep bringing up carnival games, it only sold like 3 million copies. Metroid Prime 3 sold half as well with pretty much no marketing, and being a niche game.

     

    @ bold - LMFAO

     

    But yeah, it's unfair to use Nintendo first party sales for anything. Any Mario Platformer will sell big on a Nintendo console cause of the owners of the console I said above. From what I've seen in Wii sales, even more important than quality / marketing is brand, it's why Sonic, House of the Dead and Resident Evil sell, they're house hold names.

     

    As for other consoles hardcore owners not reading reviews and buying bad games or something... that logic makes no sense and is just you making stuff up to try and justify numerous fliops on the Wii.

     

    8 Million or so people who will buy hardcore games on a console if they know about them is a big enough audience to prove that there are hardcore gamers on the console. I know some casuals will buy it also, but its not like Mainstream gamers don't buy hardcore games on other consoles.

     

    8 Million people of which 75% seem to only buy the ones Nintendo release, compared to nearly 50 Million PS360 owners and all the other sales they get on the PC version.

     

    The Wii's market for hardcore games is there and publishers are looking to exploit it, but it's never going to be their primary focus on the Wii, nor will it be their primary focus on where to put their biggest franchises and highest-budget games. Aside from the franchises which only sell in Japan, of course.

  18. Posted

    Microsoft took a piece of the Nintendo pie with Avatars. Why would Nintendo doubt they would copy this? The patent makes perfect sense in that way, I don't see what you're trying to argue.

     

     

    I don't follow Microsoft enough to really comment but Avatars seemed like a logical progression for Xbox live, you could claim they were ripping off The Sims as much as Mii's, or whatever.

     

    So Microsofts moves to stuff like Avatars, and pushing of games like Lips and You're In The Movies is moving away?

     

    I see them as part of the Microsoft console plan all along. The PS1 and PS2 sales method was always based around bringing in the core, and then expanding from there with your Eye Toys and Singstars and Buzz's, Lips and In The Movies were just expanding on the model the previous PlayStations introduced once it hit a mass market price.

     

    Yes, to prevent MS and Sony using it. It doesn't then inherently have to mean that they are preventing third parties from using it as you previously suggested.

    To be honest we're giving this patent too much credit now anyway. I don't see Nintendo patenting something with the intention of letting the majority of developers and publishers in the world using it though.

     

     

    So you really think there would be as many sales of the Wii if the only games on it were first party? You think the fact that the library is in the hundreds, not the tens, has nothing to do with peoples decision to buy?

     

    You're justing taking what I said to a hyperbole.

     

    I don't think anything third parties do is having any affect on sales, while if it wasn't there then the whole variety and wider picture may affect sales, but that's nothing to do with the patent. Just another tangent and another debate for another thread.

     

    Third parties aren't leading hardware sales in the way NIntendo are with software like WIi Sports and Wii Fit.

     

    I think the problem comes down to market size and what kind of game developers want to make. Who goes into the industry to program for Barbie Horse Adventure? Nobody. They go in to make Bioshock, or Fallout. Because, as evidenced by CoD:W@W, the market for those games is not there on the Wii compared to the combined might of PS3 and 360, the Wii simply doesn't get them. The extra work needed to port something to Wii just isn't worth it, which is a damn shame.

    Porting a Bioshock or Fallout to the Wii isn't just not worth it, in most cases, it's impossible. The Wii has got a market for some form of hardcore market, the problem is it doesn't make sense that the guys who make MGS or Resident Evil or Final Fantasy put their next major effort on the Wii, cause the market is simply far bigger elsewhere.

     

    You do address an interesting point on not wanting to make games like barbie though, which to me brings home a key point that alot of Wii developement should be focused around new studio's opened up specifically for Wii developement. What EA are doing with MySims and Ubisoft with Rayman RR, two of the most successful Wii Franchises.

     

    Aaanyway, much as I'm loving the discussion the three of us are having I must now sleep.

     

    I must be off to sleep soon, and with my imminent return to uni tommorow, I'll probably never get to finish this debate. Tis a shame, oh well.

  19. Posted

    I'm not really sure how this has appealed to people this much, I don't really think it looks good. For me InFamous looks better visually and the bodies don't diappear after you've killed someone.

     

    If you look at the video it's only just pushing past Wii standard graphics.

     

    I think slating the graphics is harsh on a pre-alpha build, and I see them as pretty impressive anyway.

     

    I don't see the graphics as an obstical anyway, even if they are disappointing, what this game seems to be focused on doing is more about just creating absolute mayhem with your crazy-ass mutant powers, or something. Something which GTA lacked, just having fun, which is what sandbox used to be all about :/.

     

    I think getting hyped for prototype is a risky game either way, it looks great but compared to something like InFamous I don't know how to react. I see it as something which has the possibility of being amazing, or could just be a disaster. I really just don't know.

  20. Posted

    So you know insiders in both MS and Sony telling you that neither of them are interested in the system?

     

    From my experience (As a member of the gaming press) Microsoft and Sony are shying away from what Nintendo are doing with video gaming. It's a different direction that doesn't suit their company initiative, some of this is no doubt PR spin but at the same time, it makes sense.

     

    Take Sony, for example, the PS3 is just one of many avenues to show where they want their future industry to go - It's HD TV's, HD movies, HD Gaming, HD video capture, not what the Wii promotes.

     

    What you are saying is that Nintendo patented the idea, thereby preventing third parties using it, thereby increasing Nintendo's sales?

     

    They patented it to prevent others using it, surely?

     

    Or are you saying Nintendo patented the idea, that was dumb, its going to push third parties away, and is ergo a bad idea?

     

    Well if they patented it, they don't want others using it. To push third parties away? Maybe not the intention, or what'll happen, it's certainly another look at a possible consequence. I doubt it'll make any difference to be honest, just adding another perspective.

     

    Because so far as I can tell, you're trying to say both.

     

    I'm just adding various perspectives, I do think the idea is stupid and far over-exhaggerated from what many people 'hype' it to be. Some of my replies have been as a counter to others opinions then my own personal opinions.

     

    What I'm saying is that just because Nintendo patented it doesn't mean they are going to cock block other developers from using it. They would want to encourage third parties, as seen so often on this very forum when people complain about third party support, or lack thereof. Better third party games means more console sales. More console sales means more software sales. Nintendo will not gain anything in trying to take an advantage over their third party software rivals. They will gain something in trying to take an advantage over Sony and Microsoft, their hardware rivals. Ergo, you're previous statement about the patent:

     

    I guess that is where we differ. I don't think Nintendo are in any position to care about encouraging third parties. I don't think they should want to or feel a need to, they're printing money off of the Wii by themselves and can no doubt continue to do so with or without whatever the third parties put on the system.

     

    Nintendo survived two generations with the third parties neglecting them and projcted the Wii to where it is now single handedly, why should they take any interest in the third parties? The people who are looking to take the markets they created away from them?

     

    You keep repeating this hardware sales thing but I don't see it, I don't think there is enough evidence either way to prove or disprove either argument. Other then Nintendo's dominant sales on the system, maybe.

  21. Posted

    But surely there is a benefit for them, as well. If they want to attract more casuals to their system, then this feature might help them.

     

    And they will want to attract more people to their console. Money makes the world go around.

     

    Microsoft seem to want a piece of whatever Nintendo's pie they've baked, Sony I'm not so sure. At the same time I don't think they'll be using this patent to draw these people in, it's just one of many possible ways.

     

    Nintendo are trend setters. Sure, companies will take their ideas, and they will use them in different ways. That's competition, and you try to be one step ahead of them always. Hence why they're always coming up with new patents and ideas. As a gaming company, they're always looking at ways forward.

    That's er, great for Nintendo. Yeah. 0_o.

     

    If you look at the Wii compared to the other consoles, then that's probably a different story when I originally compared the Wii to the Gamecube and N64.

     

    Ideally, if you just suspend your idea of a "hardcore" or "casual" game, you'll probably find yourself playing more of the lesser known games. Games like Dewy's Adventure, which hasn't even had a look in. Or de Blob. Two games I'm intending to pick up within the month.

     

    As for what qualifies as a strong game, it really does depend on what you're looking for. I enjoyed RE: UC, and I'm enjoying No More Heroes and Disaster, as well as Brawl, right now. With something like Gears of War, or Halo, I really, really do not have an interest to play these. That's my preference, I out-grew games like Halo, and look for something different.

     

    From a business perspective, I think the Wii is going to last. If you see WiiPlay still dominating the charts, or seeing Mario Kart still up there competing, you save your ideas for when things tend to run dry. Nintendo don't need to play catch-up. When you consider what we have seen on the system, you realise that there is still plenty of ammunition left for Nintendo themselves (not including third parties) to throw at gamers. There's more to them than just Mario, Link and Samus.

     

    The Wii will last but I just don't think it's in the way many people on here are dreaming up, albeit I think it's still an excellent prospect for the more 'hardcore' of gamers on the Wii. It's not the thread to go into that debate so I'd rather detract away from it and maybe bring it up in a more suitable thread.

  22. Posted

    To stop Sony and Microsoft using it?

     

    Do you realise how dumb you made yourself sound with this statement?

     

    Pardon me if I'm wrong but I don't see Microsoft of Sony caring about using whatever the hell this patent says. The only people it affects are those developing on the Wii....

     

    As for sounding stupid? Er, no, I don't see it.

     

    If Nintendo didn't want third party games to sell they wouldn't license them to release anything. They wouldn't sell them the SDKs in the first place. Why would they let them do some things, and not others? Sure, the games themselves are competition with Nintendo's, but they still need a quality third party backing in order to keep ahead of the competition in the shape of the PS3 and Xbox360.

     

    So you've gone from two extreme's, they have third parties their to sell games cause they have to. I'm struggling to see how any of your post addressed what I said.

     

    Nintendo don't want third parties competiting with them and stealing their sales, surely patenting something like this just shows that? Common sense shows that more, but yeah, again I just feel this patent is drawing far more discussion then it deserves.

     

    I'm really just struggling to see how this constitutes to the huge megaton epic news some people made it out to be, when I struggle to see it as positive in any sense of the word.

  23. Posted

    A patent doesn't have to be enforced to stop someone if they don't mind it happening. Nintendo can quite happily allow EA to make a game using the system if they want to.

     

    They aren't letting third parties in on their market, they are using third parties to sell more hardware to have more people to see software too. Basic math: If 10 people own a system and 100 of them buy a Nintendo game, Nintendo have sold 10 games. If 20 people own a system, and 50% buy a Nintendo game, they made the same amount of software while selling more hardware and having a larger potential market for future pieces of software.

     

    So why would Nintendo patent it? :/. It can only be cause they don't want people to use it, right?

     

    and yeah, third parties are going in on their market, and third parties are not selling systems. I don't get why Nintendo would have any interesting in helping third parties, they're selling the systems and cashing in on the market quite fine by themselves.

     

    Your numbers are just hypothetical with no real reason or backing behind them. The more games third parties make, the less Nintendo's first party stuff sells. I don't believe anything third parties have done thus far is really helping sell Wii's.

  24. Posted

    Licensing a patent. In the same way they allow third parties to develop games that use the WiiMote, but only if it's on the Wii. Sure, Nintendo might sell more of their own games (in terms of % of install base) if only they could use it, but they will sell more consoles if they give it to third parties, and inherently increase the market size for their own software.

     

    It's nothing like that. Mainly because it's not a patent they're paying to use the Wii tech, it's just console developement royalties, which they pay on 360 and PS3 too :/.

     

    And Nintendo's Software makes them alot more money then their hardware, there's no real reason Nintendo want third parties to get a piece on their market. The more Nintendo can have just to themselves the better, especially when it involves appealing to the expanded market type folk.

     

    It does seem kind of ironic to me that people bitch and moan and companies like NIntendo and Sony being sued for the most pathetic of patents, and then Nintendo make something like this. I just don't think this should be something patentable either, but oh well.

  25. Posted

     

    I don't find it a stretch for them to license the technology to third parties for free if it is of a benefit to their own console.

     

    Licensing a gameplay mechanic?

     

    Not gonna happen, third parties have far too much pride if anything. Plus if this really does so something amazing and helps Nintendo sell lots and lots, they're not gonna share it, right?

×