Reggie thinks third-parties don't 'get' the Wii: discuss

Alright, alright. There's a few things going on here. First off, Reggie Fils-Aime told Forbes "I will be able to say our licensees 'get it' when their very best content is on our platform, and with very few exceptions today, that's not the case." That's a pretty good conversation starter right there. He also lamented the absence of Grand Theft Auto and Spore on his platform, teased community features without spilling anything at all, and for kicks threw us this utterly hopeless word on a price cut: "At some point, it will be time to adjust the [price], but we're nowhere near that point now." We're pretty astonished that a console honcho like Reggie would so summarily insult his third-party partners, but we can't help but agree -- though peep Nintendo Wii Fanboy's via link down there for an alternate perspective on the matter. To us, the question really lies in the blame game: is Nintendo's Wii strategy and unique hardware approach to blame, or is everybody else out there too dense to cash in? But really, this is just too wild, too incendiary, too awesome for us to hog all the discussion. Hit up the vaguely-applicable poll option, and then let loose in the comments. We're all ears!

[Via Nintendo Wii Fanboy]

What's to blame for a lackluster collection of third party games on the Wii?

Third parties aren't trying hard enoughPeripheral-oriented first party strategyNintendo's secrecyGraphics / processing limitations Lack of serious online functionalityNone of the aboveAll of the aboveLackluster? Not so fast.Vote

[mark @ Nov 19th 2008 12:47AM]

every single one of the poll choices right now are 12.5% with one vote each, hahaa.

[JohnTitor @ Nov 19th 2008 1:08AM]

well you're first commenter maybe, they all start like that, a cheap way to avoid divide by 0 or something

[Reader @ Nov 19th 2008 1:22AM]

He had to vote to see the poll though.

[o29 @ Nov 19th 2008 1:38AM]

@Reader:

Actually you can just press vote without selecting anything to see the results. No one ever seems to know that though.

But really I'm sure they all start at 0 anyway.

[Ridgecity @ Nov 19th 2008 1:44AM]

You forgot to add a choice for Nintendo's very hard to break 1st party reign. Third parties don't have a hard 1st party competitor on the other consoles. Look at the success of third parties on DS, where Nintendo isn't releasing 2 games every month.

Just a couple days we knew Smash Bros. Brawl sold better than GTA IV and Halo 3.

[John @ Nov 19th 2008 2:37AM]

Where's the option for "Nintendo needs to get its head out of its butt?"

Basically, Nintendo is asking third party publishers to do a hell of a lot more work for the same amount of money. There's always the issue of porting games over to different consoles, but with the Wii, you not only have to scale down all of your graphics to ridiculously horrendous levels of suck; you also have to redesign the game's control system based on a completely different paradigm than the other 3 platforms you're developing for (xbox360, ps3, pc most likely).

When it gets to be that in-depth, it becomes less like a port and more like a complete remake of the game. Not only that, but chances are that serious gamers will more-than-likely own one of the other three platforms you've developed for, and will probably buy it for one of the other platforms due to better graphics and simpler controls, so what's the point? Casual gamers, i.e., my mom and kid sister, would never buy Grand Theft Auto even if it did come out for the Wii, so it seems like a waste of time for all parties involved.

[Reader @ Nov 19th 2008 3:46AM]

"Actually you can just press vote without selecting anything to see the results. No one ever seems to know that though."

Oh hot damn, thanks for that. I normally pick the stupid one to see the results.

[Hold McGroin @ Nov 19th 2008 9:55AM]

They sure do!!! They shovel the cheapest crap possible as fast as they can and turn a profit on selling way fewer copies to moron "casual" gamers who can't be bothered to jump on Metacritic or even IGN just to see that they're about to drop $30 on a game rated 2.0.

I think the Wii has become a victim of exactly what everyone said. It can't compete in graphics so the AAA titles will only come from Nintendo, the rest will be crappy ports and "casual" shovelware that equates to bad flash games.

Don't blame 3rd parties for doing what you knew was a bad idea.

[El Taco @ Dec 4th 2008 8:39PM]

I couldn't seem to find the option for "3rd party developers don't take thew wii seriously and think its only for non-gamers" option.

[Ignatius @ Nov 19th 2008 12:48AM]

Oh, they get the Wii fine, it's a money making machine they can throw tons of crapware on to make a quick buck off the uninformed consumer.

"We Cheer!" anyone?

[KarlW @ Nov 19th 2008 2:26AM]

The games don't do much better than their PS3/360 rivals. Given the massive install base and momentum, you'd expect much better.

I think the whole Wii control system was ill thought through. It works for Wii sports, and very select areas of other games. I think some people at Nintendo imagined how much fun Wii sports would be, and didn't think how well the system scaled. Motion based control isn't a scalable system. It applies to the Wii, and it applies to the iPhone, where I'm still angry that Super Monkey Ball sucks so much.

Oh, and part of it is Nintendo's well established franchises. Who wants to great a game on a console with such branding heavyweights as Mario, Wario and Zelda? Really makes it hard to get new IPs noticed. HALO was only big on the Xbox because it had no established brands. Neither did the original Playstation, which allowed MGS and Crash Bandicoot to step up and define the console. Most new IPs get lost in obscurity under the burden of having to compete with established characters and genres. You have to be really good to get significant attention. If you're on Nintendo's world, where those brands don't die or fade (unlike Crash Bandicoot or Sonic), it's much harder.

[Aaron @ Nov 19th 2008 3:17AM]

I remember when the Nintendo Seal of Quality actually meant something. Now we get the likes of Ninjabread Man and Bay Sitting Party.

[Plothole @ Nov 19th 2008 7:02AM]

The only thing the "Seal of Quality" meant is that the game or accessory had been officially licensed by Nintendo. This was never meant to indicate the actual quality of the game, and indeed plenty of crappy titles even way back to the NES have it.

[AMiSH PiRATE @ Nov 19th 2008 10:21AM]

@Aaron

When the Nintendo Seal of Quality meant something? When was that? When they slapped it on "Barbie," "Home Alone," or any of the hundreds of drecks for the NES? I'm as much a Nintendo fanboy as the next kid sporting a SMB2 wallet with holographic cover, but the SoQ means Nintendo approved its release (unlike anything released by Galoob, Tengen, or Codemasters in the NES days). It never meant Nintendo said, "hey, this is a great or at least playable game!"

[Luthyr @ Nov 19th 2008 12:10PM]

@KarlW

Definitely. The Nintendo Wii is good for pretty much Nintendo only. How is a third-party really going to compete with a company that makes tons of money from selling hardware and then can channel it into developing their own games? Nintendo can put tons of money into a game without worrying if it really makes that much from game sales alone if they know it will also push hardware. Not to mention the advantage of getting to know hardware secrets (Wii Motion Plus) before anyone else.

[JohnTitor @ Nov 19th 2008 12:49AM]

I say they should just screw everyone, and make a quick move while they are ahead
bust out a new more powerful console with moar everything (and backwards compatibility) with all the money they've been holding back
if it works and they make even more money, give current gen owners a trade up option

[Paul Nicholson @ Nov 19th 2008 12:54AM]

You left off "Insufficient storage and other DLC support for future revenue streams"

[Sonic_13 @ Nov 19th 2008 1:04AM]

Wii supports DLC (and has for a while). A lot of games already have DLC features. Just to name a few they include: Rock Band 2, Guitar Hero World Tour, Mega Man 9, Final Fantasy: My Life as a King, and Samba de Amigo.

A 2gig memory card provides more than enough space to store all these games' DLC. A 2gig card is around 15,000 blocks.

[Plothole @ Nov 19th 2008 1:11AM]

I agree with this. A mere 512MB of flash memory seems incredibly short sided. Sure it takes SD cards, but while you can transfer your downloads to these, you can't run said downloads without transferring them back! (At least not yet... it isn't entirely clear what the "fix" they've promised for next year does.)

[Plothole @ Nov 19th 2008 1:22AM]

NOTE: I was mostly referring to shop channel downloads. As I haven't used all the games that feature DLC, I'm not to clear on all the mechanics in play there. Though from what I understand GH World Tour gets around this by transferring data from the SD card to a temporary cache on the internal flash drive.

[Fred @ Nov 19th 2008 4:22AM]

Also forgotten: Nintendo has always had onerous licensing agreements, which insure they see all the sales profits, and the game developers see relatively little. You can't blame the 3rd parties for being underwhelmed by this little weak console with unusual chips, and now unusual control design, when the return on investment for the developer is so low. That's a big reason Nintendo has always been dependent on first party game success to drive its console sales.

[TI89GANGSTA @ Nov 19th 2008 12:54AM]

I havent touched my Wii since Twilight princess...err..did that come out right?

[Jaws @ Nov 19th 2008 12:54AM]

-lack of DVD / Blu-Ray playback
-lack of hd storage
-lack of easy porting based on the older technology

it all adds up. I asked my g/f if she wanted one... and she thought about it for a bit... and she basically said that it would only be for the Wii Fit, and for just that, it wasn't worth it. I'll stick to the PS3.

Next time Nintendo.. .maybe next time (try a little harder... k?)

[Plothole @ Nov 19th 2008 12:58AM]

How on earth does lack of DVD movie playback lead to poor third party support? And if blu-ray had anything to do with anything, then why is the 360 getting decent support?

[G @ Nov 19th 2008 7:42AM]

Ok the lesson here is not to listen to your girlfriend for advice on anything to do with gaming.

[Kamokazi @ Nov 19th 2008 9:45AM]

You're just being a bitter PS3 fanboy, that's all. Also, the lack of easy porting makes me giggle....how's the backwards compatibility working on that PS3?

I use my Wii mostly for when I have people over. Mario Party, Wii Sports, and Smash Bros are fun to play in a group. I know a couple families who have Wii's and children up into their early teens that play together a few nights a week. The point is, the Wii is not intended to be the sole console of a hardcore gamer. The reason it's popular is because it did exactly what Nintendo wanted it to do: appeal to non-gamers, and it doesn't need any of what you mentioned to do that. It's selling like crazy because it's appealing to a very large segment of consumers unlike any console before it. I personally don't consider the Wii as a significant competitor for the PS3 or 360...it's that different.

[Justin @ Nov 19th 2008 12:57AM]

The Wii is a fine console for those who appreciate it's games.

I can't appreciate the gameplay over graphics and audio. Gears of War 2 and Fable 2 look incredible on my 50" Plasma in 5.1 surround sound via TOSLINK. The Wii's graphical engine looks terrible.

The only game I ever wanted to play from Wii I played on my GameCube, and it was Twilight Princess. I remembering thinking that the big N was the pinnacle of the gaming world, Sony was evil, and Microsoft was cumbersome and clumsy. My perspectives have swung completely with the 'current gen' consoles.

[Miguel @ Nov 19th 2008 1:24AM]

Except Sony is still evil, right?

[Sonic_13 @ Nov 19th 2008 12:59AM]

It's definitely "Third parties aren't trying hard enough".

Let's look at the other options:
"Peripheral-oriented first party strategy" - Third parties are more than welcome to use these peripherals. None of the best third party games use them anyway.
"Nintendo's secrecy" - Not really sure why this affects the quality of third party games
"Graphics / processing limitations" - A good game doesn't need HD graphics. And considering nearly all third parties aren't even reaching the limit of Wii's graphics, this is a lame excuse.
"Lack of serious online functionality" - Not a reason for poor third party games. Sure it can help, but it isn't necessary. Just look at games like de Blob, Zack and Wiki, No More Heroes, Okami, World of Goo. None have online (well technically WoG has online leaderboards), but all are excellent third party games.

[o29 @ Nov 19th 2008 1:25AM]

These are all negatives in comparison to other consoles. The only incentive for third parties to develop on the Wii is the wider user base, but functionally, a developer is limited when designing a game for the Wii, compared to what they can would be able to do on the 360 or PS3.

It's obviously Nintendo's fault for designing a system whose functionality is severely limited when compared to its competitors, and frankly they probably knew they would alienate third party developers but didn't care. They still sold many than any of them. It's just a shame for those of us who actually care about quality games.

[thesimplicity @ Nov 19th 2008 1:54AM]

After experiencing most of Nintendo's first part offerings (Mario Galaxy, Metroid 3, Wario Ware) and then buying a crapload of third party games... I have to say that third party developers aren't trying enough. Boom Blox was one of the best games I've ever played... why can't more third party titles be like that?

I'm guessing because they need to port it to other systems to make a profit. But, goddamn, if there are more games like Boom Blox in development, I'll line up on launch day.

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Nov 19th 2008 6:15AM]

"Nintendo's secrecy"

As thing stand, Nintendo pretty notifies 3rd parties last about what its plan on Wii roadmap. That is what I understand "secrecy". Essentially they do something in their back office, present it to public, simultaneously sending to retails. Then they get surprised (always) that 3rd parties are pissed that they do not have time to support the new toys. MotionPlus and DSi are recent examples.

"Peripheral-oriented first party strategy"

When you come with something so original as WiiMote, your best shot at speeding its adoption is to make it easily available or even completely open. IOW, HomeBrew Channel should have being preinstalled and free SDK available to anybody. That would have created a healthy development community where many ideas could have being easily tried to let WiiMote to mature. But that goes against console market traditions - Nintendo as publisher and licensor will never do it.

Console game business is true business now. They have long term "business plan" and they already have planned their budget for several years ahead. Due to high cost of development tools, adoption of anything new, what requires a separate item on budget is no-go. That means Wii will be fully supported by 3rd parties only after few years, when they would have a chance to recraft a budget. But given economic conditions this might be even more delayed.

Essentially it all boils down to the fact that Nintendo has never positioned itself as market leader. As market leader, you may not be secretive and surprise announcements are no-go. You have to plan everything several years ahead and communicate timely that to your partners so that they can put new expenses on their budgets.

[SKI @ Nov 19th 2008 9:07AM]

No time to support WM+? They announced it a year before the peripheral would launch. No time for DSi support? It's the same as the DS, and what developer would use the cameras for their games? The DSi's screen isn't good for a real-life pic in-game.

[Alan Strangis @ Nov 19th 2008 12:49PM]

Sonic_13 said: "Graphics / processing limitations" - A good game doesn't need HD graphics. And considering nearly all third parties aren't even reaching the limit of Wii's graphics, this is a lame excuse.

I'm sick and tired of hearing that kind of bull$#it. It's the same BS some used to say about 3D graphics in general, that it was just eye candy.

The truth of the matter is that some games DO benefit greatly from a more realistic and immersible environment (Dead Space, Resistance, GoW2), while others barely require 256 colour graphics to be addictive (N+, World of Goo)

This ties into 3rd party developers who don't make certain titles for the Wii. It is impossible for the Wii to deliver the atmosphere of something like Dead Space (insert GoW or Resistance or Fallout 3 if you wish), which is essential for the overall experience of the game.

Some designers take pride in that, and any fiscal benefits they may see from a wider distribution to another platform are far outweighed their desire to not water down what they consider essential to the title.

It's like shooting a movie on 35mm then downgrading it for YouTube distribution.

That 'fiscal benefit' is further reduced by Nintendo's aggressively 1st stance, which I don't think ANYONE can objectively deny. Compared to Sony and MS, Nintendo does very little for 3rd party developers.

Read enough developer interviews, and it becomes pretty clear that from many devs POV, it's a combination of things that keep them from hopping on the Wii bandwagon.

Reggie is full of crap when he says 'devs don't get it'. The point is they DO get it, and in many cases it's not worth it.

[Jon Nelson @ Nov 19th 2008 1:04AM]

I've had a Wii since the second shipment of them in December two years ago, and I'm so sad to have clicked the "All of the Above" vote, because it's absolutely true.

And I agree that it's possible that the Wii's uniqueness was its only real weakness in the console wars. I think that it's amazingly innovative, but at the same time, we (Wii?) seem(s) to get screwed out of a LOT of really amazing games, as the author mentioned, like GTA.

Not to mention I was pissed when I heard that the new Soul Caliber game wouldn't be ported to the Wii, and we'd just get that filthy rehash of Soul Caliber 3.

[AJ in the East Bay @ Nov 19th 2008 2:01AM]

I went with "All of the above" as well.

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Nov 19th 2008 6:27AM]

+1.

If they truly wanted WiiMote widely adopted and recognized as viable control scheme, they needed to make it open. It's only natural to highly mercantile game business to be very reluctant to change something in its business plans for sake of "two duck-taped GCs" from company which is famous (and always reasserts that) for being bad at communication with 3rd parties. It's just too risky from business pov.

[Electromodo @ Nov 19th 2008 1:06AM]

I can't wholeheartedly say that games collection for Wii is lackluster... it is just oriented on a different demographics. This is really a hard for me to say that... but I will try: Wii is not for hard core gamers and geeks. It is for:
- Kids who like to play Mario Cart together
- Teens who like to play Raven Rabbidz
- Young adult parties who like to play Tennis, Bowling, etc. together
- Young parents who like to play Mario Cart together with their children
- People like me who like to wave the unusual controller in games like Resident Evil or Call of Duty (from time to time).
- Stay-in-shape-minded but lazy women
- Elderly people who can not play real tennis but still do well with virtual one

I think the current choice of Wii games is good for the above mentioned categories.

But did you see the hard-core gamers in this list? Or geeks who like to watch Netflix movies in HD online? No, they already own an Xbox or a PS3. The problems here are Wii graphics limitations and Nintendo's marketing policy. They are pushing Wii as some sport-gaming device, not like a traditional console.

There are still several nice "traditional" games for Wii, like "Resident Evil 4" or "Zelda", but the choice in this particular category is (I agree) a lackluster.

[DP @ Nov 19th 2008 1:07AM]

"Not trying hard enough"? It should be not even trying. I can tell you a good number of them really just don't care at all for the Wii, for better or for worse.

[Leo @ Nov 19th 2008 1:11AM]

I think Nintendo is basically flicking the bird to all of us here on the internet.

[Ignatius @ Nov 19th 2008 1:30AM]

In the middle of swimming through their cash, Uncle Scrooge-style.

[silentio @ Nov 19th 2008 1:16AM]

If I pick "All of the above", it includes all the points including "None of the above"

Loop! Excuse me while my brain explodes.

[Plothole @ Nov 19th 2008 1:31AM]

Please try to explode in the other direction. I'd rather not have brain juice on my new shirt.

[Poom @ Nov 19th 2008 1:16AM]

Everyone complains that the Wii doesn't have enough games and yet there's never enough of them in the market.

[Chris W @ Nov 19th 2008 1:24AM]

Honestly I think its Nintendo that doesn't get the Wii. Aside from Wii Sports Nintendo doesn't understand how to use its new hardware without making new hardware. All games can now be placed into three categories for the Wii:
* Copies Wii Sports motion ideas (mini games or small components that utilize the new capabilities while the rest is standard fare)
* Could have been controlled just as well or better with a real controller. (Zelda, Metroid, etc)
* Relies on additional hardware to improve experience (Wii Fit, Mario Kart, etc)

Not to say there aren't games that use the controller perfectly at times, but does it work that well through the whole game... or just from time to time? Getting right in the fight with shooting your 'mote like a gun in Metroid... but its a pain in the ass outside of shooting whats in front of you.

[Mr. Picklesworth @ Nov 19th 2008 11:32AM]

Heck, take a look at Super Smash Bros.

I was completely looking forward to that game because I always hated its control scheme. To me it felt unresponsive, indirect, sluggish, heavy... I found myself mashing buttons to little effect and by the end my fingers would ache because the game unnecessarily requires it.

So when the Wii was going to have Smash Bros, I didn't just think "I hope this uses the real controller;" I assumed it would! I assumed "this game would be superb," because with the Wii they could have it completely intuitive for once, and introduce some very neat, very tactile things. It's not like they need to keep rehashing the same game; the Wii is about being new. And why the Hell would /Nintendo themselves/ go against their own stuff? The Wii /is/ its controller.
Somehow they already forgot that. Smash Bros is only really playable with the GameCube controller, which means new peripherals for a lot of people. Oh, and it means a wired controller for a lot of people. It also means that the potential is completely lost. Smash Bros. Wii feels no different from Smash Bros on the GameCube to me, because it is played on the same weirdly shaped, heavy buttoned mass of purple plastic. There are no tilt controls except in the menu and it is just as difficult to comprehend. It is /not/ a group game -- at least not for the types of groups the Wii is meant to cater towards.

It should also be kept in mind that Nintendo is the publisher here. They are the ones who deliver the final golden stamp of approval for those third party games. They are the ones who provide services to third party developers to make their games good. They are the ones who provide the advertising and the development kit.
So I can't help but think this is really entirely Nintendo's fault for encouraging such incompetence throughout their ecosystem.

[EMaster @ Nov 19th 2008 1:36AM]

I think Nintnedo, specifically Reggie, need to have a focus group with developers and 50 ppl who have ben Nintendo customers of the last 25 years and let him know what "They" are not getting. Kicking your core fans and loyal customers in the balls (or eggs) and changing your platform over (which there isnothing wrong with money wise but you can;t just abandon your core audience either). Third party developers have no interest in the wii because their titles not only don't get enough exposure but are over shadowed by Nintendo's first party software. Third party developers may also have no interest in making software because they know that it will get pushed into the background by Nintendo to make room for their own shit to it's "new" audience. Nintendo is going to fall flat on their ass in the next 4 years when quite possibly those kids and soccer moms move onto other stuff as they are older and they won;t even sell their first party crap anymore. At which point they will find their old core fans to have moved on after this whole betrayal started back at e3 where they told ppl like me to stick it. Thus causing me to sell my wii.

[o29 @ Nov 19th 2008 1:38AM]

@Reader:

Actually you can just press vote without selecting anything to see the results. No one ever seems to know that though.

But really I'm sure they all start at 0 anyway.

[o29 @ Nov 19th 2008 1:39AM]

Damn you, Engadget comment system!

[Zorque @ Nov 19th 2008 1:45AM]

I picked "all of the above" but I'm excluding the "third parties" option. Having a console that's hard to design for, both from a gameplay design and actual programming standpoint, is really not a smart move if you're trying to lure in third-party developers. Furthermore, I almost get the feeling Nintendo would rather populate the console entirely with their games, and then blame third-party developers for the console's faults.

The technological disadvantage is enormous too, and frankly it's just stupid. Why develop a console with less power unless it's to prove some inane point? It's not to drive prices down, that's for damn sure. Nobody enjoys having to develop separate games just for the Wii, because multi-platform titles make more money and provide a far higher return on the initial cost with minimal effort required to port the code over.

You know, scratch what I said earlier, third parties probably aren't trying hard enough, but honestly I don't see a reason why they would at this point.