Sega "Can Take More Risks On The Wii"

[John Funk]

Sega "Can Take More Risks On The Wii"

Despite lackluster sales of games like MadWorld and The Conduit, Sega isn't ready to give up on making "adult" games for the Wii just yet, says president Mike Hayes.

Speaking with Wired [http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/08/mike-hayes-interview/], Sega president & COO Mike Hayes that even though MadWorld and The Conduit had underperformed, "You'll see more games in that genre coming from us."

That isn't to say that Hayes isn't disappointed in the numbers he's seen for MadWorld - he's just not ready to write them off as just being due to Wii owners not wanting to play more mature-oriented games:

[blockquote]The thing that we're saying is, Sega would be extremely arrogant to have a title that didn't do as well as we thought on a platform and then say, 'Those kind of games don't sell on that platform' ... MadWorld sales were very disappointing, but was that to do with the platform? Was it that people didn't like the art style? Or that people didn't like the way the game played through? It could be many things, which we're obviously researching.[/blockquote]

There are two main reasons Hayes and Sega aren't ready to write the Wii off just yet. One of them would be the console's large "install base of some 34 million in Europe and America (maybe half of whom don't own Xbox 360s and PS3s)... So even if you took half of those where they're not into those (core) games, you've still got 8 million consumers to go for."

The other reason is that it's simply less pricey to develop for the Wii - which means it's easier to recoup one's investment. "ecause the development costs can be less on Wii, that means you can sell less to be successful.... We can take more risks on the Wii," said Hayes.

(via Edge [http://www.edge-online.com/news/sega-%E2%80%9Cwe-can-take-more-risks-on-the-wii%E2%80%9D])

Permalink

 

[AboveUp]

The other reason is that it's simply less pricey to develop for the Wii - which means it's easier to recoup one's investment. "ecause the development costs can be less on Wii, that means you can sell less to be successful.... We can take more risks on the Wii," said Hayes.

With that same logic they could be making even smaller and more original games on Live Arcade or PSN...
Though I can see where they're coming from. They're aiming at the "Its not bad... for a Wii" game market, it seems. But even then, they'll have to battle it out against No More Heroes and Mario Galaxy, which are good games, no matter what console they would've been released on.

 

[Kiutu]

Maybe try less to be like out of Gears?

 

[Aura Guardian]

Keep on going SEGA. I'll buy your games. Madworld and HOTD:Overkill were great. The Conduit is next.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I don't think it's the mature content, I think it's that they keep trying to imitate popular genres on the Xbox 360 or the PS3. You're not gonna be a better FPS than what's on an Xbox 360, the Wii doesn't have the horsepower to process large open spaces and numerous enemies.

I've yet to see a game sell just because it looks pretty or has mature content on any console. You've got to make a new genre or game design specifically for the Wii.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

See, I bought all of those games. While I loved all of them, it's not that because they were 'mature' that they didn't sell, it's because they were obscure. HoTD Overkill was a rail shooter which only has a die hard fanbase. MadWorld had an art style that actually had my friends saying 'I would love this game if it wasn't in black and white'. The Conduit, despite it have good gameplay and a good story once you delve past the surface, the overlaying concept is an alien invasion.

At the end of the day, what does sell are established franchises, whether the titles are mature or not. RE4 sold a mill and a half. If Capcom did a spin off title with the same engine, it would sell a similar amount because RE is an established franchise. Same with CoD. Same with even Sonic.

And while certain types of games have much more of an opportunity to break through on the PS360, if you look at the vast majority of those games, they are established franchises. A lot of what is trying to get to the core demographic are either obscure games or themes and concepts that an established franchise would sell far better.

So really, either bring established franchises to the console, or do something original without being obscure. Then you'll get your sales.

P.S. Even Obscure titles don't sell a heap on other consoles. Mirror's Edge isn't even close to a million yet, which is quite depressing.

The other reason is that it's simply less pricey to develop for the Wii - which means it's easier to recoup one's investment. "ecause the development costs can be less on Wii, that means you can sell less to be successful.... We can take more risks on the Wii," said Hayes.

With that same logic they could be making even smaller and more original games on Live Arcade or PSN...
Though I can see where they're coming from. They're aiming at the "Its not bad... for a Wii" game market, it seems. But even then, they'll have to battle it out against No More Heroes and Mario Galaxy, which are good games, no matter what console they would've been released on.

Which is exactly what they should be doing. MadWorld wasn't even 'it's not bad for a Wii game' it was just simply obscure, regardless of console. We need to see more No More Heroes, more RE4s, more Super Mario Galaxy's. MadWorld was still a step in the right direction though.

It does sort of annoy me when people think 'well Wii's graphics aren't on par, so half of the games on the PS360 can't work' when in actual fact, they can, they just won't look as pretty.

 

[Woem]

It's obvious what will happen: Sega will start to release crazy ass JRPGs on the Wii.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Just as long as they don't make anymore sonic games they can do what they want.

 

[electric discordian]

Why do people seem to hate shooters on the Wii? Yeah it doesn't have the horsepower for massive graphics but what could be better than aiming the remote rather than trying to aim a reticule with an analogue stick. I can shoot much more efficiently and accurately with a wii remote than a 360 controller.

 

[Echolocating]

The Conduit and MadWorld hardly interest me. If Sega was taking a "risk" with those games, it's a pretty expected and timid one. I'll give some credit to MadWorld for it's unique art direction that was most likely wasted on a shallow, juvenile game.

I just get a little frustrated when publishers complain that their "awesome" game does poorly. I have to ask, was the game really that misunderstood? I'll sing a different tune if Monster Hunter Tri does really poorly when it comes over to North America. I know it's an existing franchise, but it's the first release on the Wii; a system known for it's supposed casual, uneducated demographic.

 

[KDR_11k]

What really annoys me is when people consider the Wii's lower power to mean they can act like it can't do better than the N64.

With that same logic they could be making even smaller and more original games on Live Arcade or PSN...

I'm not sure, I think I've read that the online stores don't have very good sales and retail games do better.

Keep on going SEGA. I'll buy your games. Madworld and HOTD:Overkill were great. The Conduit is next.

The Conduit is pretty bland and uninteresting, I'd suggest waiting for a pricedrop.

You're not gonna be a better FPS than what's on an Xbox 360, the Wii doesn't have the horsepower to process large open spaces and numerous enemies.

Leaving aside that not all FPSes have enemy spam and wide open terrain there were games with large enemy numbers and wide open levels on the PS2. The Wii is the most suitable console for an FPS because of its controls, claiming it's underpowered is claiming there were no good FPSes before 2006.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Keep on going SEGA. I'll buy your games. Madworld and HOTD:Overkill were great. The Conduit is next.

The Conduit is pretty bland and uninteresting, I'd suggest waiting for a pricedrop.

So is every other FPS I've played (excluding TF2 since that one actually interesting). What you said isn't going to stop me.

 

[hansari]

The other reason is that it's simply less pricey to develop for the Wii - which means it's easier to recoup one's investment. "ecause the development costs can be less on Wii, that means you can sell less to be successful.... We can take more risks on the Wii," said Hayes.

So...did they make a profit or not? Cause if the sales were "disappointing" enough to not even "recoup" some money, then theres no way to spin that bad news now is there?

 

[Graustein]

The other reason is that it's simply less pricey to develop for the Wii - which means it's easier to recoup one's investment. "ecause the development costs can be less on Wii, that means you can sell less to be successful.... We can take more risks on the Wii," said Hayes.

So...did they make a profit or not? Cause if the sales were "disappointing" enough to not even "recoup" some money, then theres no way to spin that bad news now is there?

I'm not quite sure. Even if they lost money on MadWorld, though, I think this is a good thing. They're blaming themselves, not the system, for MadWorld's performance, and promising to keep trying and (hopefully) do better in future. That's definitely something Wii owners need to hear more of, instead of this constant "I'm not going to bother making anything for such an inferior system" rhetoric that we seem to be getting instead.

 

[Pendragon9]

Problem is they're trying to make hardcore games too much. Blood and gore do not a good game make.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

You're not gonna be a better FPS than what's on an Xbox 360, the Wii doesn't have the horsepower to process large open spaces and numerous enemies.

Leaving aside that not all FPSes have enemy spam and wide open terrain there were games with large enemy numbers and wide open levels on the PS2. The Wii is the most suitable console for an FPS because of its controls, claiming it's underpowered is claiming there were no good FPSes before 2006.

You're conflating two very different social values. The FPS has changed drastically since 2006. People expect very different things and play these style of games very differently. The Conduit is a very good early 2000's shooter, but the genre has moved on. It's just a tribute to a style of playing that no one cares for anymore.

 

[KDR_11k]

You're conflating two very different social values. The FPS has changed drastically since 2006. People expect very different things and play these style of games very differently.

Aside from a greater obsession with cover and headshots and trading health displays for regenerating health I honestly haven't noticed a change. Considering the biggest console FPS this generation (Halo 3) is just a plain sequel to a console FPS of last generation the change seems minimal to me.

The Conduit is a very good early 2000's shooter, but the genre has moved on. It's just a tribute to a style of playing that no one cares for anymore.

No, it's not a very good 2000 shooter, Quake 1 was more fun and more varied.

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

Keep trying SEGA. At least we know there's one third-party development/publishing company that's actually trying.
I past up MW but got The Conduit, sadly The Conduit kinda sucked, it made me want to play a good FPS like Halo or Call of Duty.