Network now...FEATURE
Exclusives Analysis: Wii
By Kris Graft
April 2, 2009
See also:
Related Articles:
“Just look at the NPD data. It isn’t just one type of consumer saying that they’re buying Wii Fit."
Also see Exclusives Analysis: PS3 and Exclusives Analysis: Xbox 360.
One way for first-parties to ensure that they have plenty of exclusives for their videogame console is to make their machine’s controller a motion-sensing wand and then sell 50 million hardware units in just over two years.
That’s exactly what Nintendo has done with the Wii. By making the Wii’s control interface almost completely incompatible with traditional controllers, Nintendo has virtually guaranteed that third parties will have to create games specifically for the console. Aside from that, Nintendo’s first-party library is stacked with some of the most—if not the most—desirable properties in gaming: Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Pokemon Metroid, etc., which are backed by some of the most respected talent in videogames.
The critics who say that Nintendo is relying too much on these classic properties may not be paying close enough attention. While continuing to crank out games featuring Mario and Co., Nintendo is making a steady move towards non-mascot-based games, with titles on Wii and DS like Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Music, Nintendogs and Brain Age. All of these games are worldwide million-sellers.
“We have a lot of stuff,” says Denise Kaigler, VP of marketing at Nintendo of America. “We don’t stay still at all. We’re always moving. If we’re not always doing something to expand gameplay opportunities and experiences for the consumer then what are we doing here?”
This year, Nintendo of America has announced it will release games including ExciteBots: Trick Racing, Punch-Out!! and Wii Sports Resort. Wii-compatible re-releases of GameCube games such as Pikmin and Mario Power Tennis that are in the “New Play Control!” series, and launched earlier this month.
For the core gamer crowd, or as Nintendo likes to call them, gaming “veterans,” the currently announced Wii lineup (more announcements are certainly due this year) doesn’t strike the same chord as one populated with new Marios or Zeldas, even though both Punch-Out!! and ExciteBots have roots in classic franchises.
One of the more talked-about “problems” that Nintendo’s Wii has encountered is the supposed abandonment of the core gamer.
But from Nintendo’s eyes, it has always supported the core gamer, and continues to do so. Nintendo chief Satoru Iwata, speaking at last week’s Game Developers Conference, extended his gratitude to the “vet” audience, saying they are the ones who have spread the Word of Wii to new gamers, leading to rapid adoption of the unique console.
Kaigler says Nintendo doesn’t particularly concern itself with “balancing” its portfolio to include an even amount of “core” games and an even amount of “new gamer” games. “We don’t look at it like that. We look for the thread between all types of gamers,” she says. “Surprises, experiences that you can’t get any place else, fun, competition… that’s what core gamers want. All of our games do that.”
Her opinion is in line with game design superstar Shigeru Miyamoto, father of Nintendo’s most prized properties, from Mario to Wii Fit. Miyamoto said in 2007, “The fact is, I don’t think there is such a wall between [core and casual]. While there are indeed games designed for core and casual markets, core users are also enjoying casual gaming.”
Kaigler elaborates on the triumph of Wii Fit, an $89 game and hardware bundle that sold 4.5 million units in the U.S. in 2008 to become the third best-selling game in the region. “Just look at the NPD data. It isn’t just one type of consumer saying that they’re buying Wii Fit. Certainly not one consumer segment is buying Wii—more like 50 million consumers. We have Wii Fit, but there are so many others. Animal Crossing, my goodness, it was the core gamer that made that into a franchise.”
She continues, “We certainly want to make sure that our ‘core’ fans, our loyalists, absolutely understand that we will always be committed to making sure that we bring to market games that they absolutely love, whether it’s beloved franchises or new experiences.”
It’s still early in the year, and core gamers unsatisfied with Nintendo’s currently announced first-party offerings have plenty of time to wring their hands and speculate on a Wii announcement of the next Mario, Zelda, Pilot Wings or F-Zero. But while they’re waiting for that, expect Nintendo to continue selling its long-legged titles aimed at a wider demographic that’s willing to pay good money for unique gameplay experiences.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Oops, meant as a response.
Regarding the comment about relying on big titles. Nintendo has made more new content this generation than they have for some time.
Secondly, I'm sure Miyamoto would like to stop relying on those titles but they are the main reason you buy a Nintendo system. His fans would eat him alive for doing a system with no mario or zelda games.
"His fans would eat him alive for doing a system with no mario or zelda games."
That's very true. But fans of other consoles are the main ones crying about Nintendo "rely[ing] heavily" on existing IPs. In fact, Sony just did that in a recent article: http://www.edge-online.com/features/exclusives-analysis-playstation-3?pa...
Though I like my 360, one has to admit that most fresh ideas in gaming derive from Nintendo machines - come on, most games got a graphical update and not much more this generation. Nintendo at least tries something radically new from time to time - one has to admire them for that. And while I agree that the Wii currently lacks a bit, I am willing to give them more time, sticking to the DS proved very satisfying indeed!
But generally speaking, I am currently pretty frustrated by videogames as developers mostly seem to stick to their guns. The most amazing era for any gamer was the PS1, N64 era when developers tried so many new and interesting ways of playing games and thus it is no real wonder some of the biggest franchises of today got invented or turned great at that time.
You have to remember that at the end of the day it's the publisher that decides what gets made and what doesn't. We often don't even here of the titles that are shot down before they're being made, some of them are rather innovative. Right now, with the current economic crisis, publishers have to appease the shareholders, and they want a return. They'll fund a project (Gears of War 6) rather then a new IP that could be innovative because everybody loves Gears, so there is a guarenteed return there.
There is always two sides to this coin. You can't just look at the developers and blame them, sometimes you got to look at the people who're funding them.
Actually Sony have thrown a number of notable, innovative new IPs at the wall and continue to do so. Think: Little Big Planet, Heavy Rain, The Agency, MAG etc. I don't think Sony gets enough credit for their adventurous and innovative publishing.
Not often, no. You have to remember though that they also built the console, and have several development studios including shares in a few publishers as well. They have the money to back it up, mainly because the PS3 is still losing them money every single time one is built, while the Wii has been pure profit from the beginning and the Xbox360 just now hitting the line I believe. They need to get the PS3 to work and they need to show off that it's the best and that people should spend gobs of money for that console.
Not even innovative, Killzone 2 has been a technical and gameplay achievment for the PS3. Every PS3 bought goes towards a license fee that Sony gets, and if the game comes from one of their development studios then even better, more money to them and rightly deserved.
I suppose to cut it down is that you're right, and that they are trying. I think though the only reason why they're trying so hard is because they need to start turning around a bigger profit like the Wii and the Xbox360.
Good point! You are quite right!
i am coming to the conclusion that zelda and mario are the most expensive titles in the world, because they require a special platform to be played. nintendo should concentrate on making handhelds -- look how many good tiles are on the ds -- and focus on creating control schemes that could be used as peripherals on other high-end consoles. i truly don't care about platforms in general, what interests me is the quality software they make: one console future please!
can you imagine how cool a zelda game at 1080p with motion controls? yeah right. then we wake up.
The Wii is okay apart from the feeling that you're playing 2nd class video games on it. It took me a few months to play through Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Smash Bros and Twilight Princess. After that, my Wii got stolen during a burglary.
I actually felt lucky. The insurance money I got from losing a new Wii was used to buy a 360, and I haven't felt any regret to this day. The Wii can never do what the 360 or PS3 can. Which is why, no matter what Nintendo says, it's not interesting to most gaming interested. It's a casual machine. They're just trying to turn that image around to make it sell even more.
The GC was kinda fail, yes. But at least it stood up against the Xbox and PS2. And so did the N64 vs its rivals. Now, Nintendo has just said "fuck it" and made this cheap, IKEA-style machine for everyone and their step mom.
Although I think you're being a bit harsh on Nintendo, I do agree somewhat. They realized after the GCN that they can't compete with MS and Sony on their ground, so they create their own ground and fight no one. They're lost some credibility it seems with the traditional gamer, but they care less as people have kinda unfairly branded them as "kiddie" even when the GCN was more capable when compared to its rivals. Nintendo just embraced an image people had of them and realized even if they offered the HD goods with the Wii, no one would have cared as most don't now (I mean the Xbox/PS fans from last gen). It really was the only direction they could have gone, or they'd be staring at 3rd place again.
And in the article Nintendo goes on to say they don't consider themselves involved in any console war. Well, they're not. They are not directly competing with the 360/PS3. They are different machines aimed at such a different market that they really aren't competing. Yes, they both play video games, but that's like saying a $149 RCA surround sound reciever (with speakers) is in direct competition with Yamaha or Onkio 1,000$ audio systems because they both create sound. Different markets want different things whether or not they are in the same category. Ford doesn't market their Focus to the people who buy Ferraris or Corvettes do they? But they both are cars with 4 wheels so they automatically are in direct competition. No, they're not. I'm not trying to say the 360/PS3 is better in general to the Wii, just that they aren't necessarily competing with each other because they are so different in what they offer. it's subjective to say which is better/worse so no one could claim that, I'm just claiming they're different and not really competing with each other. Just my opinion of course. But it is interesting that more people seem to be interested in the PS3/360 "battle" than the Wii outselling the pants off the two of them.
Nick, quick question (just for clarification)... What does this mean:
"They realized after the GCN that they can't compete with MS and Sony on their ground, so they create their own ground and fight no one"
What is Microsoft and Sony's ground? I'm really rather curious...
"And in the article Nintendo goes on to say they don't consider themselves involved in any console war. Well, they're not. They are not directly competing with the 360/PS3."
I don't think that's meant to be taken literally. All three are videogame systems competing for gamer dollars. If the Wii isn't in the console war then I'd love to know why 1). Sony/Microsoft evolved their tactics around the Wii and 2). why the hell NPD/ChartTrack/Famitsu/Media Create tracks the damn thing. The Wii is competing with the 360/PS3 when the former introduces a new sku in the hopes of slowing the momentum of the Wii and the latter lost a few key exclusives to the Wii. What Nintendo is saying is that they aren't competing with the same VALUES. Creating a Goliath box with 1,000,000 pixel display, 2160HD display, with more shaders than real life type of arms race is only gonna see the industry collapse. IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE! Dev costs would be incredibly high and it would be game over. It's already beginning. You see it, don't you?
"They are different machines aimed at such a different market that they really aren't competing."
This is the rhetoric that PS360 fans often use to exonerate the Wii from the console war because it's winning. But just to correct you... MS/Sony target the people who consider themselves "hardcore". Nintendo targets EVERYONE. It's not a different market, it's the entire market. Nintendo didn't SHIFT focus, they EXPANDED their focus.
I can always count on you and Ozzman to comment any time I talk about the Wii lol. So here goes.
“ Nick, quick question (just for clarification)... What does this mean:
"They realized after the GCN that they can't compete with MS and Sony on their ground, so they create their own ground and fight no one" “
1. I could have worded it differently, but my point was was that Nintendo failed at trying to be successful with a similar type of console and design while up against MS and Sony. If they came out with a Wii HD with no motion sensing controller and system specs similar to the 360 and PS3, they’d be in third place again. As I said in reply to Dubs I think, that maybe Nintendo went the route they did because they wanted to and not out of necessity. That’s an idea I don’t mind flirting with so I can recant my stance on that a bit.
“What is Microsoft and Sony's ground? I'm really rather curious...”
2. Traditional console (high spec sheet type of thing) for traditional gamers.
Ok, your middle paragraph I’ll reply to as best I can.
“If the Wii isn't in the console war then I'd love to know why”
3. I do believe the Wii is in a market the 360 and PS3 isn’t. Just because they both play video games does not mean they are meant for the same market. Cooking Mama sells great on the Wii, it most likely wouldn’t sell very well on the PS3/360. Rainbow Six sells great on the 360, I don’t believe it would on the Wii. I know I’m over generalizing, but I’m trying to make my point. We can agree to disagree on this one.
“Sony/Microsoft evolved their tactics around the Wii”
4. Because Sony and MS want a piece of the pie. Nintendo has targeted a market MS and Sony neglected to realize existed and now they’re attempting to play on Nintendo’s ground by “borrowing” ideas (and will fail I’m quite confident). No matter how many ideas the Wii offered the 360 tries to rip off the casual consumer won’t recognize the 360 they way they do the Wii. It’s kinda like Nintendo trying to compete with the same concepts as MS and Sony last gen not working out for them; MS seems to be trying to compete with Nintendo at Nintendo’s game. I think it’s great there’s significant distinctions between the PS3/360 and Wii. It offers more variety. I don’t need my 360 to try to be a Wii, there already is one and Nintendo makes it. Just like MS and Sony had the traditional/hardcore gamers last gen and Nintendo had a hard time courting those gamers. MS will have just as hard a time courting some of the Wii’s casual audience base.
“why the hell NPD/ChartTrack/Famitsu/Media Create tracks the damn thing”
5. It just wouldn’t make sense to not count the Wii even though no one really cares about THAT race because Nintendo has run off with it already. But in that same regard, the people who care about the race between the 360/PS3 don’t give a rats ass about the Wii anyway. So they could really care less how many Wiis are sold. It’s not that I’m sour that the Wii ran off with it (some say “hardcore” gamers are mad that they’re not the focus). I’m not and don't believe that anyway at least not with the 360, I’ll only be mad when the console I own starts abandoning games its loyal fans have grown to expect from them. It’s like Mustang vs. Camaro, people who own one of those only care about how well the other does, and neither care that the Camry smashed both of them in sales. They all 3 are cars, but they sell to a totally different audience. Now if the Ford (MS) decided to drop the V8 from the Mustang GT (360), put in a V-6, added two doors and try to call it a Mustang, Mustang owners wouldn’t appreciate that very much. But Mustang owners aren’t going to get mad because people are buying up Camry’s like there’s no tomorrow as long as Ford keeps making Mustangs they way they always have. Now, Toyota makes a sportier version of the Camry, and Ford makes a V6 version of the Mustang, but at their core they’re the same. And that’s why I don’t mind MS making family friendly games as long as that doesn’t become their focus and I still get my Halos, Gears, and other meathead shooters (joke). And Nintendo has their Conduit and Madworld, but they will still have their Cooking Mama and Playground games. Only problem, it seems like MS is thinking about making a Camry out of their mustang for the Camry audience, but the Camry audience won’t budge, and they’re wasting their time. (ok, enough with overdone analogies).
“What Nintendo is saying is that they aren't competing with the same VALUES. Creating a Goliath box with 1,000,000 pixel display, 2160HD display, with more shaders than real life type of arms race is only gonna see the industry collapse. IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE! Dev costs would be incredibly high and it would be game over. It's already beginning. You see it, don't you?”
6. Yes I agree and I have seen the effects of high production costs. I think there needs to be the Wiis of the consoles, but also the 360s/PS3s as well. There’s something for everyone. MS has been in the green (though not for a long time) but they have made money on the Xbox brand and things are looking up for them overall I think. I don’t think Nintendo’s way of doing business is the ONLY successful way.
“This is the rhetoric that PS360 fans often use to exonerate the Wii from the console war because it's winning. But just to correct you... MS/Sony target the people who consider themselves "hardcore". Nintendo targets EVERYONE. It's not a different market, it's the entire market. Nintendo didn't SHIFT focus, they EXPANDED their focus.”
7. I don’t agree. I honestly believe the Wii is targeted at a totally different audience (see Mustang/Camry analogy above) so they’re not really fighting the same battle. They are selling consoles, but I think most of us can agree the majority of the Wii owners are quite different than people who prefer to game on the 360/PS3. Or else they’d buy one. I also don’t agree that Nintendo targets EVERYONE, at least not equally. Just like MS doesn’t target the casual as equally as it does the hardcore. They offer Banjo, Lips (sorry), You’re in the Movies, Scene it, many casual live arcade games, ripped off Miis, etc. to try to court some casuals. But they know who their core audience is. There is no way Nintendo targets the hardcore quite as much as MS or Sony and you know that. Each console has an unbalance of games targeted at all kinds of audiences and I think it’s safe to say the 360/PS3 caters more to the hardcore (but not ONLY) just like the Wii caters more to the family/casual gamers (but not ONLY). I really don’t think that’s that hard of a concept to understand (I can’t say understand or distracting without thinking about Christian Bale anymore). As far as Nintendo expanding focus instead of shifting it, I can buy that, but I think they may have expanded it at least somewhat at the expense of some of their most loyal fans (me included). I’m confident there are Nintendo hardcore fans from back in the SNES days that have been with Nintendo all the way up to the GCN that are pretty pissed at Nintendo. I know I was one of them. I actually turned the page during the latter years of Hiroshi Yamauchi’s tenure after I could see Nintendo was going in a direction that didn’t suite me and I’m sure I’m not alone.
Ok, sorry so long...
You're just full of cliches today, Nick! You even took it back to the old [insert high priced luxury car here] vs. [insert homely, family car here] analogy to represent HD Twins vs. Wii. Camry's are great cars btw, I have one and love it.
Anyways, I'll only respond with these two blurbs:
- You can try to make excuses all day... But Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft are all in the console videogame business and all their boxes are competing no matter how you try to say their targeting different markets. I doubt Sony or Microsoft would comment on the Wii as much as they do in their NPD spins if they weren't - though they've pretty much given up with that since last October.
- "But in that same regard, the people who care about the race between the 360/PS3 don’t give a rats ass about the Wii anyway."
I don't take that to be true by the amount of time they take out of their day to troll it at every opportunity!
"But in that same regard, the people who care about the race between the 360/PS3 don’t give a rats ass about the Wii anyway."
I don't take that to be true by the amount of time they take out of their day to troll it at every opportunity!
Lmao, touché.
Well, I put a lot of effort into replying to each and every one of your comments. But at this point I'm happy enough to agree to disagree.
Oh, and I don't have anything against Toyota Camry's either, especially the newest model (it actually looks pretty nice and the V-6 packs Altima-like power (I have a 3.5 Altima, moon-roof, spoiler, 17" rims and I love it). Uh-oh, are we going to start debating Nissan's and Toyota's? I personally like the Titan over the Tundra, but the most recent Tundra is an absolute beast.
I'm a mid-size sedan guy myself... and I like Nissans too. I'm not a big fan of the Altima, but I like the Maxima. My Camry is a V-4, with no moon-roof, spoiler, and factory rims. Therefore, I predict your car is cooler than mine and would eat my car up in a race.
The Maximas are nice, too. I don't like what they did the the headlights for the newest model though, and it seems the 370Z kinda has the same headlights, not a huge fan. I want a Nissan GT-R, don't have 75gs though.
Nothing wrong with a V-4. I'm sure it still has some pop though.
It is MS and Sony who can't compete with Nintendo on their ground. MS and Sony are stuck in the same boring old horse race of adding more pixels, megahertz and gigabytes. I suppose that crap appeals to a certain type, but that traditional, "hardcore" audience is shrinking away to irrelevancy.
"but that traditional, "hardcore" audience is shrinking away to irrelevancy."
er... maybe you missed the launches of Halo 3 and GTA IV.
Same difference Dubs. My point was Nintendo created a league of their own. They tried to compete on the same grounds as their competitors last gen and didn't do quite well even though their system outperformed the PS2 in graphical capabilities and held their own against the Xbox 1. I think they realized that horsepower for THEM wasn't the way to go. Nintendo was able to show there is a market that doesn't care about graphics and in some cases gameplay either. That is Nintendo's area.
But I wouldn't go so far to say the "hardcore" or as I like to refer to them as "traditional" gamers are irrelevant or even shrinking. That is a bit silly to think that actually as there have been just as many (50 million) HD consoles purchased as Wiis (also 50 million) this gen worlwide. The 360 and PS3 are fighting over one demographic (hardcore/traditional) while Nintendo has the mainstream/casual market to themselves. If there were just one HD console, I think it'd be a much closer race for "1st" place than it is now. Yes of course there are people who both have a 360 and PS3, but I think that percentage is smaller than the people who have a PS3 and a Wii or a 360 and a Wii. So, I have to disagree with you whole heartedly that the traditional gamer is irrelevant, I just like to go with numbers and facts when considering my opinion.
It's your prerogative to disagree with me about the shrinking and eventual disappearance of the traditional/hardcore market. Certainly it's not going to happen overnight.
But I disagree just as vehemently if not moreso with your characterization of Nintendo's developing and releasing the Wii as anything resembling a DEFENSIVE maneuver. They went in the direction they went with the Wii because unlike MS and Sony they are a gaming company first and a technology company second, because it's in their nature to advance the state of the art of gaming rather than to get caught up in a boring arms race of hardware specs. This is why I made the distinction in my original comment above and why it's not a case of "same difference."
Either way, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out!
I appreciate the well written and objective response Dubs.
You do bring up a very interesting point that it wasn't a defensive maneuver on Nintendo's part (the direction they went with the Wii). I've always believed they did the best they could in the then-video game climate and realized competing in that same climate would net most likely the same results so it wouldn't be wise to go that route. Maybe it's a combination of the two? Maybe being faced with the decision prompted them to pursue a different approach and the motion control is what they came up with? Or maybe like you said, that was the natural step they were going to take regardless of the GCN's performance? But, what if the GCN did much better last gen than they did, would they have had the motivation from a business standpoint to take such a risk with their next console? I think not. It's all about business and if they were PS2-like successful with the GCN they would have had no reason to change their tactics. So I'll venture to believe Nintendo wanted to take a different route as you say, but I will also believe that the GCN's relative poor performance had SOMETHING to do with their move away from the traditional.
I'm not naive enough to think Nintendo hasn't been one of the most innovative companies in the video game industry since the NES, but I can't believe the move had more to do with innovation than it did business. Or at least I can't believe that the GCN not performing so well had nothing to do with their change of direction. Either way, it's a very good point you bring up. I hadn't considered that aspect of my argument before.
edit: Although, innovation and business CAN go hand in hand.
But, what if the GCN did much better last gen than they did, would they have had the motivation from a business standpoint to take such a risk with their next console? I think not. It's all about business and if they were PS2-like successful with the GCN they would have had no reason to change their tactics. So I'll venture to believe Nintendo wanted to take a different route as you say, but I will also believe that the GCN's relative poor performance had SOMETHING to do with their move away from the traditional.
Nick, I think you are right on there. Nintendo fell back two positions in two generations. They were #1 with the SNES, #2 with the N64 and #3 with the GCN. They realized that they were in a very poor position to compete in hard ware for another generation. SO they had a choice, make an expensive high powered console and compete for the very same eyeballs they have been competing for the last two generations, or try something different.
Personally, I think the Wii was to bee Nintendo's console swan song. They tried something so different, so unexpected and put their faith in the wind. And boy did they get a hit. When the Wii was introduced, traditional gamers and developers didn't know what to think. But it caught the eye of people outside what we call traditional. They fell in love with it as it was intriguing and looked like fun.
It was 100% risk for Nintendo to go the direction of the Wii. No doubt about that. Had it failed, they most likely would have bowed out of consoles completely and stuck with handhelds and being a 3rd party dev.
Thanks Zach.
Very well said post. It's an interesting topic, that's for sure. I'm off for the day most likely (gotta go do PT, run errands). Not trying to post and run, just gotta go. Later!