Ex-Sony Dev: Wii U Won't Last Another Christmas

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
Stavros Dimou said:
I don't think I've ever read a larger wall of "Nope!" than this post.

#1. Yes, if you ignore all the new IPs Nintendo have released in the last decade it's fair to say that haven't released a new IP for 10 years. /facepalm. They spent their time targeting a new market and were immensely successful with it. Just because you're not part of that market doesn't mean they're incompetent.

#2. Had Nintendo matched the PS3/360 in hardware it would have gotten them more third party support, but would have likely made the console prohibitively expensive for the market they were trying to target. And even if they did have the third party support it's hard to say how much of their competition's audience they could have swayed anyway, considering their focus on motion control over a standard controller. Sticking with older tech cost them core gamers but allowed them to capture a whole new audience. They needed to change things up and they did it in the best way possible.

Regarding the Wii U, they were never going to find an audience just doing what the other two do, and any attempt would have lost them the new consumer base they built with the Wii. The Wii U is probably the best compromise they could have hoped for, but they completely failed to market it - hence the poor reception.

#3. Super Mario Bros. was (one of) the first game(s) on a home console to outshine Atari. Arcade games already shat all over the Atari. It CERTAINLY wasn't the first game where a character could jump - there was Donkey Kong and (not super) Mario Bros. before that, but even on the Atari there were plenty of games with jumping characters (Pitfall anyone?). The Mega Drive/Genesis came out a year before the SNES so Super Mario World wasn't the first 16-bit game (plus, again there were arcades that were much more powerful). Mario 64 was arguably the first decent 3D platformer (unless you liked Jumping Flash) but the first was Alpha Waves. And Mario Galaxy the first ever motion controls game? Seriously? It wasn't even first motion controlled game on the Wii, let alone ever (and there were barely any motion controls in that game anyway).

To answer your question though: New Super Mario Bros. Wii introduced simultaneous multiplayer (NSMBU is just a sequel to that), and Super Mario 3D World brought 3D multiplayer.

#4. Nintendo have filed C&Ds against heaps of fan projects - particularly Pokemon ones. They are simply too popular to stamp them all out, but even if they just didn't care that would be a point in their favour rather than a strike against them. Your point here serves no purpose.

Re Budget: Again, the fact that Nintendo DOESN'T throw $100 million into a game is a GOOD thing. Have you not noticed all the AAA studios crashing and burning lately? The market simply cannot sustain those kinds of development budgets and Nintendo would be fools to follow those companies to their graves, or as you put it: "conforming to modern standards". "Modern standards" are sinking the industry, and Nintendo knows better than to follow suit.
 

LoLife

New member
Dec 7, 2012
49
0
0
Only recently did I find out that the Wii U was a stand alone console and not an add on the fact that its been a year and people are still scratching their heads still wondering that, with a small number for quality titles and the fact the Wii U has a lot of promise but is being squandered means that Nintendo's marketing department along with senior management & board needs to be put to rights.
 

Arrogancy

New member
Jun 9, 2009
1,277
0
0
Xsjadoblayde said:
Steven Bogos said:
proposing that Mario's poor performance was due to lack-of-interest in the red-hatted plumber.
Wait...what? He just lost confidence in himself?? A fictional character? Well, could be drugs. Ya know how these things go...
I don't know if this is trolling or not but...He means that people, the intended audience for Marion games don't care about Mario anymore, not that Mario is somehow going through some sort of crisis.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,567
4,371
118
Arrogancy said:
I don't know if this is trolling or not but...He means that people, the intended audience for Marion games don't care about Mario anymore, not that Mario is somehow going through some sort of crisis.
Now that would certainly be an interesting change of pace. Mario pulling a Wreck-it-Ralph.
 

SargeSmash

New member
Oct 28, 2013
33
0
0
Eldritch Warlord said:
You don't have to be writing in assembly language for your code to be platform specific. Yes the vast majority of the code will be high-level and platform independent, but you may have noticed that the games industry is very competitive. A lot of work goes into optimization, getting the best graphics and highest performance, and pretty much any optimization will be platform specific.

Wii U using PowerPC architecture while it's competitors all use x86 just means that there will be more to do in terms of optimization for a Wii U port, which a relatively small install base doesn't really encourage.

You're right that the 7th generation is all PowerPC though, so Wii U would be a much simpler port of games for 7th generation consoles. 7th generation is on it's way out though.

To answer your question: no. The Wii U architecture isn't at all Cell-like (as much as has been revealed anyway, which is all that is relevant to game development), neither is the 360's architecture for that matter. Unless what you mean is that the CPU and GPU share main memory, in which case the answer is yes. In fact all the 7th and 8th generation consoles share main memory.
I reckon I was throwing that out there because I remember the discussions about the IBM skulduggery regarding development of the Cell processor for Sony, while at the same time using some of the things they had learned with that and working on the 360 processor.

And you're right, you do a fair amount of platform tweaks. Since I'm not a developer, I have no idea how difficult that ends up being, or how much work it actually takes to optimize the bottlenecks in the code. I know quite a few devs have tools to quickly identify those problematic areas, and try to wring more speed out if they can.
 

Stavros Dimou

New member
Mar 15, 2011
698
0
0
NoeL said:
Stavros Dimou said:
I don't think I've ever read a larger wall of "Nope!" than this post.

#1. Yes, if you ignore all the new IPs Nintendo have released in the last decade it's fair to say that haven't released a new IP for 10 years. /facepalm. They spent their time targeting a new market and were immensely successful with it. Just because you're not part of that market doesn't mean they're incompetent.
Yes they spend their time targeting a new market. I'm not saying something contradictive. What I am saying is that by targeting this "other market" they stopped targeting the "default" market where the rest of the consoles are targeting.
And that "other market" they targeted is already fully covered with the Wii and they are never going to want to buy another machine like that until it breaks. Which means these people won't follow over to WiiU. And by releasing a new console that practically targets at a target audience that doesn't exist,they are not competitive. Competitive against who,their own self ?

#2. Had Nintendo matched the PS3/360 in hardware it would have gotten them more third party support, but would have likely made the console prohibitively expensive for the market they were trying to target. And even if they did have the third party support it's hard to say how much of their competition's audience they could have swayed anyway, considering their focus on motion control over a standard controller. Sticking with older tech cost them core gamers but allowed them to capture a whole new audience. They needed to change things up and they did it in the best way possible.
Nope. Don't know how much the consoles costed at your country,but where I live XBOX360 was priced 300E at its first day,ps3 600E,and Wii 250E. In comparison to xbox360 the Wii wasn't value. It was a way weaker system and it only had a 50 dollars / euros difference. I disagree that Wii is the best thing Nintendo could have done.

Regarding the Wii U, they were never going to find an audience just doing what the other two do, and any attempt would have lost them the new consumer base they built with the Wii. The Wii U is probably the best compromise they could have hoped for, but they completely failed to market it - hence the poor reception.
What are you talking about ? Check the facts. The casual gamers that bought a Wii didn't got a WiiU. They already lost this audience. These people don't follow game franchises like 'core' gamers do. These are the people that will buy a Chess board once and will play chess on it for their whole life.They won't be buying "Chess 2 with new artstyle".
What Nintendo did in fact with the WiiU was the stupidest thing they could.And I'm talking about 2 things here that both are factors to one trap that Nintendo fall on: to have machines compete with each other.
By not following the hardware race on the home console area but doing so in the mobile console area,they've reached a point were the only visible difference aside 3ds's 3d effect is the screen resolution. Games on 3ds and WiiU look so much the same that people will prefer to play on the 150E console,not the 300E console,because you know,its cheaper.
And they fact that they copy-pasted ds's second screen feature on their home console makes games feel even more the same,which again is a factor NEGATIVE for Nintendo because they have 2 different products offering experiences that are so much similar that one takes away sales from the other one.

#3. Super Mario Bros. was (one of) the first game(s) on a home console to outshine Atari. Arcade games already shat all over the Atari. It CERTAINLY wasn't the first game where a character could jump - there was Donkey Kong and (not super) Mario Bros. before that, but even on the Atari there were plenty of games with jumping characters (Pitfall anyone?). The Mega Drive/Genesis came out a year before the SNES so Super Mario World wasn't the first 16-bit game (plus, again there were arcades that were much more powerful). Mario 64 was arguably the first decent 3D platformer (unless you liked Jumping Flash) but the first was Alpha Waves. And Mario Galaxy the first ever motion controls game? Seriously? It wasn't even first motion controlled game on the Wii, let alone ever (and there were barely any motion controls in that game anyway).
I say one thing,and you reply me for another thing. I didn't said Mario Galaxy was the first game with motion controls,I said Mario Galaxy was the first MARIO game with motion controls.
It seems you skip reading chunks of test.

To answer your question though: New Super Mario Bros. Wii introduced simultaneous multiplayer (NSMBU is just a sequel to that), and Super Mario 3D World brought 3D multiplayer.
Noooope! Mario Bros on the NES had simultaneous multiplayer too.
And 3d multiplayer isn't really much fresh either. It's been done by Doom since 1993.

#4. Nintendo have filed C&Ds against heaps of fan projects - particularly Pokemon ones. They are simply too popular to stamp them all out, but even if they just didn't care that would be a point in their favour rather than a strike against them. Your point here serves no purpose.
Explain me how from a business perspective it is a good thing if even I can make a game based on their copyrighted work and get money out of it,without ever even contacting them.

Re Budget: Again, the fact that Nintendo DOESN'T throw $100 million into a game is a GOOD thing. Have you not noticed all the AAA studios crashing and burning lately? The market simply cannot sustain those kinds of development budgets and Nintendo would be fools to follow those companies to their graves, or as you put it: "conforming to modern standards". "Modern standards" are sinking the industry, and Nintendo knows better than to follow suit.
No I haven't noticed AAA studios closing. I've noticed Bethesda spending 65 millions on Skyrim and getting back 650 millions though. Once again,someone gives me an answer that I find it hard to believe. Basically what you are telling me is that everyone should drop their standards and make worse looking,worse sounding,smaller games.
I'm sorry my friend,but I tend to have a different point of view. I want to see video games evolve and improve their quality at inifinum. :)
Have a nice day.
 

nathan-dts

New member
Jun 18, 2008
1,538
0
0
Tenmar said:
If anything it just demonstrates just how egotistical people are when it comes to the hobby of video games now. I mean now you have an entire generation that are now full grown adults, most likely with kids and a full time job and can't really budget the time to play video games anymore. They have also accepted the "mini-van" console that is the XBONE and PS4. They have new demands and also demand that the content of their games are more "mature" and not appear childish. They want that feeling that they the games they play are more mature and not look like the are the adult in the children's section of the public library.
People don't complain about these games because they're simplistic. People complain because it's been the same for decades. The last time Nintendo shook up their franchises was on the 64 when they transitioned to 3D. If Nintendo output new stuff then you wouldn't get comments like this.
 

Ieyke

New member
Jul 24, 2008
1,402
0
0
Kenbo Slice said:
What's with all these guys who used to work for Sony coming out of the woodwork to say negative things about Nintendo and the Wii-U? I really want to know. Did they have a traumatic experience with Nintendo and their consoles?
I think the fact that his studio is defunct tells you pretty much all you need to know about the value of his opinion.
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Dragonbums said:
STENDEC1 said:
Darth Rahu said:
Nintendo treats their customers with respect, a lot more than what I can say with the other guys.
Yeah. That's why they're the only console manufacturer left who still has region locking despite pleas by customers to abandon it. That's also why they're the only console manufacturer whose digital purchases are tied to the console, not an online account, in which case if said console dies and you didn't back up your purchases, you're S.O.L.

Yeah...um compared to the other practices that Sony and Microsoft allow third parties to indulge in these are minor inconveniences at worse.

If Region locking and a stupid digital account system (that they recently announced they just fixed anyway) is the only real problem you have with Nintendo then I would say they have a B+ in terms of consumer respect.
That wasn't the point. The point was saying that Nintendo respects its customer at all is disingenuous.
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Saidan said:
"Nobody gives a s***" about Mario", eh... that sounds very professional mate.
An opinion doesn't always have to be professional sounding.

And the numbers don't lie.

The new Mario game's launch has shown something that Nintendo should be shitting its pants over right now. If Mario can't sell their consoles on name alone it there is next to no hope for that console until another first part title comes out. And their only announcing the new Legend of Zelda this upcoming year at E3. That announcement more than likely will not have a 2014 release date and disinterest for the Wii U will be at an all time high.
 

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
Stavros Dimou said:
Yes they spend their time targeting a new market. I'm not saying something contradictive. What I am saying is that by targeting this "other market" they stopped targeting the "default" market where the rest of the consoles are targeting.
And that "other market" they targeted is already fully covered with the Wii and they are never going to want to buy another machine like that until it breaks. Which means these people won't follow over to WiiU. And by releasing a new console that practically targets at a target audience that doesn't exist,they are not competitive. Competitive against who,their own self ?
They would buy another machine if it appealed to them in the same way the Wii did. The Wii U only kinda does, but the main problem is the fact most people with a Wii don't even know about the Wii U. That's a failure of marketing, not product.

Stavros Dimou said:
Nope. Don't know how much the consoles costed at your country,but where I live XBOX360 was priced 300E at its first day,ps3 600E,and Wii 250E. In comparison to xbox360 the Wii wasn't value. It was a way weaker system and it only had a 50 dollars / euros difference. I disagree that Wii is the best thing Nintendo could have done.
The Wii was always the cheapest, and only got cheaper. This was never the main selling point, but it's a strong point nonetheless.

Stavros Dimou said:
What are you talking about ? Check the facts. The casual gamers that bought a Wii didn't got a WiiU. They already lost this audience. These people don't follow game franchises like 'core' gamers do. These are the people that will buy a Chess board once and will play chess on it for their whole life.They won't be buying "Chess 2 with new artstyle".
Wii owners "didn't got" a Wii U because they don't know it exists! Those are the facts. Talk to anyone not in the gaming sphere - they're clueless about the product.

Stavros Dimou said:
Games on 3ds and WiiU look so much the same
Wow, not even close...

Stavros Dimou said:
I say one thing,and you reply me for another thing. I didn't said Mario Galaxy was the first game with motion controls,I said Mario Galaxy was the first MARIO game with motion controls.
It seems you skip reading chunks of test.
That's not what you said, but let's just pretend you did.

Stavros Dimou said:
Noooope! Mario Bros on the NES had simultaneous multiplayer too.
True, although Mario Bros. doesn't really fit into the "Mario" genre that began with Super Mario Bros. I guess we can say it's the first "Super Mario" game with simultaneous multiplayer.

Stavros Dimou said:
And 3d multiplayer isn't really much fresh either. It's been done by Doom since 1993.
Wait, I thought we were talking about Mario games? Talk about hypocrisy!

Stavros Dimou said:
Explain me how from a business perspective it is a good thing if even I can make a game based on their copyrighted work and get money out of it,without ever even contacting them.
I'm pretty sure none of those fan games are making money off the property, and the ones that do get their asses sued off by Nintendo.

Stavros Dimou said:
No I haven't noticed AAA studios closing.
I guess you're just ignorant about the state of the industry then. Here's a list [http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=459131].

This [http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/3439738/the-state-of-games-state-of-aaa] is also worth reading. AAA games NEED to be smash hits to make any profit at all. Tomb Raider sold two million copies yet was a financial failure. That's insanity.

Stavros Dimou said:
I've noticed Bethesda spending 65 millions on Skyrim and getting back 650 millions though.
Case in point - smash hit.

Stavros Dimou said:
Once again,someone gives me an answer that I find it hard to believe. Basically what you are telling me is that everyone should drop their standards and make worse looking,worse sounding,smaller games.
Yes. Devote resources to creating solid gameplay rather than making things look and sound as good as they can. Dark Souls only sold 200,000 copies (compared to Tomb Raider's two million) but it was a critical AND financial success. Dark Souls turned a profit for the studio, Tomb Raider didn't. It was also a better game, despite looking and sounding worse.

Studios can still sink money into large scale Magnum Opuses but they simply can't afford to do that for EVERY game they make. This is what's making studios drop like flies. They sink all of their resources into games they can't afford to produce then pray to God it becomes a smash hit. If the game only sells "very well" as opposed to "exceptionally well" they collapse. This is a poor business model! It's also a model Nintendo is wise enough to avoid.

Stavros Dimou said:
I'm sorry my friend,but I tend to have a different point of view. I want to see video games evolve and improve their quality at inifinum. :)
i.e. you want magic to be real. What you "want" isn't financially viable. What you "want" has led to the AAA industry pumping out the same watered down, by the numbers CRAP because they can't afford to lose tens of millions of dollars road testing a new concept. It's precisely why indie games have stolen the spotlight over the last six years or so - they can afford to fail.

Ironically, video games have been improving in quality, just not in the market you're pointing to. We're seeing new, innovative and fun mechanics come out of indies and smaller studios - the guys ACTUALLY driving the games industry. If all you care about is games that look and sound as close to real life as possible... why the fuck are you gaming in the first place? Just go outside!
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
WildFire15 said:
Well he contradicted his own statement that 'no one gives a shit' by stating the 150k who do.

It is sad though that quality got trumped by shiny mediocrity, I'm holding off on Xbox One and PS4 until something worthwhile comes out, though I don't disagree that Nintendo needs to have another look at their advertising strategies and getting some more games out that aren't part of their big series'.
In more than a year since release, Nintendo managed to shift fewer units to the region than the PS4 managed in a week. Given that the PS4 costs more than the WiiU and has an incredibly weak lineup (which is expected at launch), I'd say you've got a problem that goes well beyond advertising. Beyond a few Nintendo exclusives, there isn't much worth playing on the Wii U and third party support is virtually non-existent. That third party support problem won't reverse itself without a major increase in consumer interest in the platform (demonstrated by moving units into homes) which means it's up to Nintendo alone to make this happen. And if they can't even get people to buy Mario for the system, it's a grim sign to be sure.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
NoeL said:
Wii owners "didn't got" a Wii U because they don't know it exists! Those are the facts. Talk to anyone not in the gaming sphere - they're clueless about the product.
I would point out that there isn't much evidence that suggests they'd get a Wii U even if they knew it existed. The audience for the Wii, that is, the people that made it the staggering success that it was, have other devices in their homes right now that fill their gaming needs.

NoeL said:
Dark Souls turned a profit for the studio, Tomb Raider didn't. It was also a better game, despite looking and sounding worse.
I'd say that, at best, it could be qualified as a different game. Most of the strong points that people point to in Dark Souls would be seen as god-awful design elsewhere. Hell, every one of the the things people pointed to caused rage and bile when it came from a different game. The fact the game doesn't explain anything to you was a major gripe with the opening hours of Witcher 2 causing the developers to go back after the fact and entirely remake the first few hours of the game. The lack of save points has been a cause of concern for people in games like Dead Rising. The minimalist storytelling style is often pointed to as a flaw in Bethesda games by people who want explicit story rather than world building. It's easy to point out how the two are different; attempting to categorically state that Dark Souls is better is an impossible task.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
AzrealMaximillion said:
Dragonbums said:
STENDEC1 said:
Darth Rahu said:
Nintendo treats their customers with respect, a lot more than what I can say with the other guys.
Yeah. That's why they're the only console manufacturer left who still has region locking despite pleas by customers to abandon it. That's also why they're the only console manufacturer whose digital purchases are tied to the console, not an online account, in which case if said console dies and you didn't back up your purchases, you're S.O.L.

Yeah...um compared to the other practices that Sony and Microsoft allow third parties to indulge in these are minor inconveniences at worse.

If Region locking and a stupid digital account system (that they recently announced they just fixed anyway) is the only real problem you have with Nintendo then I would say they have a B+ in terms of consumer respect.
That wasn't the point. The point was saying that Nintendo respects its customer at all is disingenuous.
To you of course. But they sure as hell are a lot better in many aspects compared to Sony and Microsoft.
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Dragonbums said:
AzrealMaximillion said:
Dragonbums said:
STENDEC1 said:
Darth Rahu said:
Nintendo treats their customers with respect, a lot more than what I can say with the other guys.
Yeah. That's why they're the only console manufacturer left who still has region locking despite pleas by customers to abandon it. That's also why they're the only console manufacturer whose digital purchases are tied to the console, not an online account, in which case if said console dies and you didn't back up your purchases, you're S.O.L.

Yeah...um compared to the other practices that Sony and Microsoft allow third parties to indulge in these are minor inconveniences at worse.

If Region locking and a stupid digital account system (that they recently announced they just fixed anyway) is the only real problem you have with Nintendo then I would say they have a B+ in terms of consumer respect.
That wasn't the point. The point was saying that Nintendo respects its customer at all is disingenuous.
To you of course. But they sure as hell are a lot better in many aspects compared to Sony and Microsoft.
To you of course.

It works both ways.

I did not once say that Sony and Microsoft aren't out for my cash. But to act like Nintendo respects its customers more so than the other two companies is foolish. All 3 companies have their BS and Nintendo has just as much as the others. They are at the end of the day, a company first.
 

Stavros Dimou

New member
Mar 15, 2011
698
0
0
NoeL said:
They would buy another machine if it appealed to them in the same way the Wii did. The Wii U only kinda does, but the main problem is the fact most people with a Wii don't even know about the Wii U. That's a failure of marketing, not product.
While many people who bought a WiiU are from this crowd of people,there where also a few others that bought it so they can play their 'core' games like Mario and Zelda. It isn't a problem of marketing for Nintendo I think.
Where I live Nintendo is the most active on marketing. There are WiiUs hooked on TVs on various stores,and they even rent space of stores to host scenery with real-life sized Mario pipes and boxes,so people can get in them and take photos,to market NSMBU. In America they even have people dressed as Mario to hand out WiiUs for FREE. No one else publisher does. Nintendo have the most active marketing for their new console than any of the other companies.
Yet people on the stores just skip the WiiU. Even on demo stands the thing doesn't attract people,while GTAV had a big line of people waiting for their turn to play. Marketing is everywhere. It's just that people ignore it.

The Wii was always the cheapest, and only got cheaper. This was never the main selling point, but it's a strong point nonetheless.
Yes it was always the cheapest. But it was just 50$/E cheaper than XBOX360 and XBOX360 was a way more powerful system.

Wii owners "didn't got" a Wii U because they don't know it exists! Those are the facts. Talk to anyone not in the gaming sphere - they're clueless about the product.
They know it exist,they are not living in caves they are living on the same cities we live,and they casually visit the stores,and the stores are full of Nintendo commercials.And they ignore all the posters and demo stands and skip them and go to other things.

Wow, not even close...
Not even close ? Really ? Then why the new Super Smash Bros will be released on both platforms ? The exact same game,with nothing changed ?


That's not what you said, but let's just pretend you did.
Are you kidding me ? For God's shake,my post is still on this forum,check it to see what I actually wrote before replying me on something I never wrote about.

True, although Mario Bros. doesn't really fit into the "Mario" genre that began with Super Mario Bros. I guess we can say it's the first "Super Mario" game with simultaneous multiplayer.
So an official Mario game is not a Mario game. OK...

Wait, I thought we were talking about Mario games? Talk about hypocrisy!
What I'm saying is that with a few exceptions,for decades every new Mario game would come with a feature that is generally considered "fresh" at its era.Even if this feature has been seen on another game before,Mario games where of the most adoptive series of games when it came to using new technologies.I'm not hypocritical,you just can't distinguish between simple things. I am talking about the evolution of Mario games and their adaptability of new technologies,and the first time you completely changed the subject to not Mario games,and on the second time told me that the WiiU Mario is inovative because it did something other games have been doing for 20 years. I'm sorry but if you can't realise a simple thing that I'm writing,which is that usually each new Mario game would have a feature that is considered fresh in its age,then then it's not me the hypocrit. Saying that a 2013 Mario game is inovative for having a 1993 gameplay feature is much more suited to be called hypocrisy.

I'm pretty sure none of those fan games are making money off the property, and the ones that do get their asses sued off by Nintendo.
Use Google. Check how many Mario games you will find playable on websites. If on the website you visited there is a commercial,then the site is making money off the Mario game. Simple as that.

I guess you're just ignorant about the state of the industry then. Here's a list [http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=459131].
With about 4-5 exceptions like Team Bondi,the most of these studios weren't qualified as AAA. I took time to check on the most of the studios of that list,and most of them had less than 30 employees. In fact I never even heard most of them or their games. That's not AAA. For a studio to be considered AAA in this age it should be on the range of 70 to 150+ people. A team of 8 people making 3-month games that they release on Facebook isn't considered "AAA". Again,it's not me the ignorant.

This [http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/3439738/the-state-of-games-state-of-aaa] is also worth reading. AAA games NEED to be smash hits to make any profit at all. Tomb Raider sold two million copies yet was a financial failure. That's insanity.
What this article shows to me is that just spending more money on making a game doesn't mean it will also sale more. You also have to make a good game come out of it. The article presents the fact that Mass Effect 3 made 13 million dollars more than it costed as a negative thing. While earning more than spending is what is needed to raise your capital,a small earning is better than no earning at all.But Mass Effect 3 is a bad example. The reason it didn't brought in more money is because EA took central parts of the game's story and gameplay and decided to sell them as extras,thus selling a defective by design product. If the product you are going to sell is defective and consumers consider it's not a good deal,no matter how money you spend on it,it won't sell as good as products that are working right. Because just spending money doesn't gurranty you that you will get more money,you also have to have the knowledge to spend the money the right way. If I hold 1000 dollars and go give them to a goat to eat them,I can't expect the goat to give me my money back. The reason games like the ones on the article on the link you posted didn't sold well is because of bad design decisions.
The amount of money someone invests is irrelevant if the person that is making the decions is a fool and drives the studio to the wrong way with his decisions.

Case in point - smash hit.
That's the point. To make a smash hit.

Devote resources to creating solid gameplay rather than making things look and sound as good as they can. Dark Souls only sold 200,000 copies (compared to Tomb Raider's two million) but it was a critical AND financial success. Dark Souls turned a profit for the studio, Tomb Raider didn't. It was also a better game, despite looking and sounding worse.
You have no idea how games are made,do you ? I can program you all the gameplay mechanics of a Mario game in a single weekend,and a week on testing + tweaking them,and I'll have all the gameplay functions of a Mario game like jumping, extra life powerups etc on just a weekend. And then I can save the script files and re-import them on the next Mario game without having to code all that again. For simple games like Mario this is something that can be done in just a weekend.
For more complex games like an FPS it can take a few weeks. Yet what needs months to be made is the 3d models, animations, and levels of the games. Gameplay prototyping is like 5% of total development. There is also about 5% for sound,10% spend on bug fixing,30% for level design,and 50% for making graphics.
And judging by how much the same the gameplay of Mario games have been for the last decade,they could as well move code from one project to another,and just have people work on a single day to make new gameplay mechanics,from which only one will be chosen. Now if a game did something for the first time ever,a feature never ever implemented in the past,then yes,it could take weeks or even months of testing and polishing. But in the case of simple games like Mario,it's hardly it can take more than a week to write its gameplay code. Except if there is not concrete idea of how the gameplay will be and you have a team spending time to R&D. R&D for new stuff can take too much time. But again,we aren't talking about Portal here,or the construction of a unique state of the art AI system,we are talking about jumping and crouching.
Allow me to have a different taste than you,and not liking Dark Souls please.

Studios can still sink money into large scale Magnum Opuses but they simply can't afford to do that for EVERY game they make. This is what's making studios drop like flies. They sink all of their resources into games they can't afford to produce then pray to God it becomes a smash hit. If the game only sells "very well" as opposed to "exceptionally well" they collapse. This is a poor business model! It's also a model Nintendo is wise enough to avoid.
I agree that not all studios can invest huge money on their games. But still most of the studios that close doesn't close because they invested more money than Nintendo. They close because their games weren't as good,or weren't marketed enough. But let's put that on perspective. No matter the amount of sales if a team of 16 jobless pals can make more impressive games than a multi-billion company,there is something wrong. Investing more money on a game can be an adding factor to the sales,but in order for there to be any sales at all,the game has to be good enough to begin with.
And since Nintendo themselves have shown that they can't make substantial enough changes to the design to keep their franchise relative for ever,and instead rehash the same gameplay and story,perhaps they should start making them more shiny. A product has to feel enough different from one the buyer already has to make him consider buying it.
If you have a car already,and you want to buy a new car,most probably you won't buy the exact same model. But one that looks different.Maybe even a completely different type of car,like for example having already a sedan and getting an SUV.
A reason Nintendo's WiiU isn't selling enough is because the software they have released for that up to that point feels stale. For God's shake,look at the facts: The game that managed to rise the sales of WiiU most (WindWaker)is a remake.
If a remake of a Nintendo game feels more fresh and have more things changed than a "new" Nintendo game,then there is really something wrong with Nintendo.

i.e. you want magic to be real. What you "want" isn't financially viable. What you "want" has led to the AAA industry pumping out the same watered down, by the numbers CRAP because they can't afford to lose tens of millions of dollars road testing a new concept. It's precisely why indie games have stolen the spotlight over the last six years or so - they can afford to fail.
I can't believe what I'm reading. I say that I want to see games evolve,and you are telling me that because AAA game studios also believe that games should evolve,they don't evolve their games and instead release the same games every year. I start wandering if the time I spend writing this post have any purpose.
HOW DO YOU ???
So you are basically telling me that they are not evolving their games because they evolve them ?
OMG. I'm speechless.

Ironically, video games have been improving in quality, just not in the market you're pointing to. We're seeing new, innovative and fun mechanics come out of indies and smaller studios - the guys ACTUALLY driving the games industry. If all you care about is games that look and sound as close to real life as possible... why the fuck are you gaming in the first place? Just go outside!
The success and booming of indie developers is just proving my point. The one and only point that I'm trying to make you understand with all those posts.
That we have reached a point where Indie developers,even one-man teams,with no budgets at all,can produce games as impressive or even more than the games a multibillion dollar company does.
If that's not incompetency from Nintendo's side,then I really don't know what it is.
But if I was the CEO of a company with billions and the products under my command were worse than the products that the average Joe does at his garage,I' would be feeling such a shame to walk around other people.
 

Stavros Dimou

New member
Mar 15, 2011
698
0
0
Oh and the latest news story is that PS4 on its fist week sold 2 million units.
That's 2/3 of what WiiU sold in a whole year.
Now you might say that this news story is irrelevant,because Nintendo is targeting another audience and blah blah blah...
The point is Nintendo have expenses as the other do too,and their product clearly shows that it is not selling enough,no matter what the target audience people think it is.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Jul 15, 2013
4,953
6
13
Arrogancy said:
Xsjadoblayde said:
Steven Bogos said:
proposing that Mario's poor performance was due to lack-of-interest in the red-hatted plumber.
Wait...what? He just lost confidence in himself?? A fictional character? Well, could be drugs. Ya know how these things go...
I don't know if this is trolling or not but...He means that people, the intended audience for Marion games don't care about Mario anymore, not that Mario is somehow going through some sort of crisis.
Ah, some clarity. I believe my head just interpreted it wrong the first time. This happens now and again.
Although a story involving Mario going through a horrendous personal crisis could be very interesting, and overdue, considering the amount of crap he has to go through. Perhaps a 'me, myself and Irene' style breakdown could occur with Killer 7 'esque' results ;)

Also, i'm not sure what the boundaries of trolling is. I guess it's only a matter of perspective. I don't feel trolled, so that must be ok. Whatever it feels like to be trolled...
 

MKGirlism

New member
Dec 6, 2013
4
0
0
I was randomly searching on Google, and look what I found:

Stavros Dimou said:
#5 At the same time they are officially quite unfriendly to 3rd party developers and indies. The things they require from a developer to allow them to release a game for their console are responsible to a great part for the bad support of 3rd parties for WiiU,but Nintendo DOESN'T CARE.
For a developer to release a WiiU game he has to

a) Pay 10.000$ to Nintendo for the development kit and Developer License.
b) Already be in the business for at least a year,and have that last year at least 50.000$ per month profits.
c) Have the studio geared up with closed circuit cameras,keycards,and bulletproof windows because Nintendo is afraid someone will break into the studio and steal the development kit to find out its top secret hardware.
d) Have a publisher as a different legal entity.
e) Even after all of the above are done,there is still no gurranty that your game will be released on the system because it might not pass Nintendo's qualifications,and at least until now they don't have on their developer website a set of guidelines / rules of what element could make them cut a game.
A quote filled with bullshit.
Number A is entirely false, you don't need to be a millionaire to get a Dev Kit, it's 7 times less than what you claim, plus Developer Licenses are free of charge.
Number B is completely false too, we obtained a Developer License right after we registered a business, so we had absolutely no profits at all, when we started.
Number C is, just like Numbers A and B, false. Just a lock on the door is enough.
Number D is only true if you don't want to handle so many contracts, but it's not needed.
Number E is mostly true, except for the guidelines thing, which is available on the WarioWorld.com, after logging in.

I just came here to clear it up, I'm the living proof.