Yes, yes I am serious. In the world of video games, the customer is not ALWAYS right. Everytime a game doesn't sell, you guys fall back on "well if your game didn't suck, people would buy it".
What did Capcom do wrong with Okami? What did Sega do wrong with Valkyria Chronicles? What did EA do wrong with Mirror's Edge and Dead Space? What did Ubisoft do with wrong with Prince of Persia? What did Epic/Midway do wrong with Unreal Tournament 3?
Under the sentiment of "make better games, and people will buy them", how do you explain the low sales of the above games? The developer lived up to their end of the bargain, and since you believe that if they make better games, people will consequentially buy them...yet they don't sell very well, who's, then, to blame?
Are you SERIOUSLY going to say "I blame the developer for making a good game."? Or I guess all those games aren't "appealing" and 3rd parties should all make Wii Fit-esque games so they all sell 20M+
There is such a thing as oversaturation..Look at Deca Sports 2. The first one is a platinum seller the second one is a dud. If certain companies want to bark up the same tree or fish in the same pond they will find a diminishing supply of fish biting. But really, blaming the consumer? That's almost as bad as blaming a system..oh wait...
Bet between Slimbeast and Arius Dion about Wii sales 2009:
If the Wii sells less than 20 million in 2009 (as defined by VGC sales between week ending 3d Jan 2009 to week ending 4th Jan 2010) Slimebeast wins and get to control Arius Dion's sig for 1 month.
If the Wii sells more than 20 million in 2009 (as defined above) Arius Dion wins and gets to control Slimebeast's sig for 1 month.