Sorry guys, never said I was a statistician. Whatever imperfections in my methodology, I still think that there is enough solid data to refute the sweeping statement that NO 3rd party game can succeed on the Wii. Guitar Hero III alone proves that the right game can do very well, and Resident Evil proves that it doesn't have to be a kiddy game.

 Ah, sorry. Reading back on what I wrote, it sounds more aggressive than I meant it to be. But your reasons are pretty strong, and I'd add another: this site is great for many things, but it can still be off for some games (often by omitting a region entirely). On an unrelated note, thanks for posting all those development cost links in the other thread: they're a bit outdated, but they're also still useful for comparative purposes.

@squillam: I'm not entirely convinced that your comparison is as apple-to-apple as it first seems. In fact, it may be precisely the opposite. HappySqurriel tangentially explained why; each and every one of the new IPs on the 360 and PS3 is a big-budget affair, spearheaded by their respective developers' top talent, with the marketing muscle to support it. By contrast, many of the Wii's third party new IP's are (hitherto) relatively low-budget games, often made by developers' smaller and newer studios. Miyamoto himself has pointed this out in the past.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13373

“If there's only one piece of advice that I could give to the managers of third party companies, it would be that a lot of times it seems that when they're putting games out on Nintendo hardware, those games are being developed by their third-string team or their fourth-string team", said Miyamoto.

The same, obviously, cannot be said of games like Assassin's Creed, or Bioshock, or Mass Effect, or any of the other new IPs the 360 and PS3 currently have. I'd also like to point out that by taking the top ten IPs of the 360 AND the PS3, you're essentially stacking the deck even further; now you're putting the Wii's best against the HD consoles' combined best. I don't think I need to point out the flaw in that argument. 

Finally, I direct your attention to SuperLloyd's post, especially the part about what it takes to make a game successful. We know for a fact that games on the 360 and PS3 must sell more than their Wii counterparts simply to break even. Ubisoft, for instance, spends two or three times more on their HD games than on their Wii games, and they're more the rule than the exception.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18389

Simply put, most third parties would be perfectly happy if their games sold less than they do on the HD consoles, because even with lower sales, they'll still have higher profits. Sega essentially said just that not too long ago.

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/05/13/afx5000811.html

"As rebuilding our consumer video game business is crucial, we now need to review our game title strategy more flexibly to adapt ourselves to changes in the trend of the market" Ueda said, referring to Sega's release of more game titles than competitors to the PS3, which lagged sharply behind (the) Wii in terms of sales.

This effect can be seen even more dramatically in EA. I posted EA's revenue shares earlier in this thread. Note how high their HD sales are. Note also the information that we know about the difference between the Wii's and the HD consoles' development costs. And then finally, read this article.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/24602976

"The company reported a $94 million loss for the quarter, or 34 cents per share, compared to a $25 million loss, or 8 cents per share, a year ago. Net revenue, however, was up 84 percent to $1.13 billion...Analysts had expected the company to break even on revenue of $834.8 million. Though sales increased at a brisk pace, the larger year-over-year loss indicate that the company has yet to truly firm up its bottom line."

Essentially, what we see here is that even when revenues are rising, profits are diminishing because of the insanely high development costs on the HD consoles. And of course it's profit, not revenue, that a company needs simply to survive. So if the HD consoles' development costs are starting to hurt the behemoth that is EA, what do you think it's doing to all the smaller fry? Actually, I can answer that.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6189861.html?sid=6189861

"Since January, a host of development studios have closed their doors, suspended operations, or otherwise stopped making games...During that same period of time, the industry has racked up phenomenal sales. NPD's retail software-sales data for the US has been up by double-digit percentages for each of the first three months of the year, with growth of 47 percent and 63 percent in February and March, respectively."

They're being priced out, simple as that. But the same doesn't appear to be true of Wii developers, for whom the lower development costs mean they can actually make their games, and realize strong profits...

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18144

http://ir.majescoentertainment.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=286976

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18247

There are more examples out there, if you care to look for them. And, as has been pointed out many times, including several times in this thread, even the original third party IPs on the Wii that are supposed to be embematic of the Wii's failure, No More Heroes and Zak and Wiki, have actually gone on to make their developers money, so much so that Suda 51 wants to make a sequel for his game, and Capcom is rumored to have greenlighted Zak and Wiki 2. I bet Factor 5 wishes they could say that, even if they sold more copies of their game than Grasshopper and Capcom...

So in conclusion, I would actually argue that even if the situation is as lopsided as you think it is (and I don't believe that for a nano-second), third parties appear to be doing better on the Wii than they are on the HD consoles. Their sales and revenue may be slightly lower, but their profits appear to be much, much higher. And at the end of the day, it's profit, not revenue, that keeps a developer afloat. 

I said I factored them out! "Completely new intelectual property third party games". My belief is that the large development houses will stay where they are for their AAA teams. I remember loving Commander Keen. That development house made Doom 3 and Quake wars. I remember really liking Jill of the Jungle - That software house made Gears of War. Their are a lot of small - Flash/Wiiware developers, a lot a medium sized PC/Console developers that can't compete with the size of the big publishing houses. The Wii is the "shovelware" machine because it is where people try out new ideas. Most new ideas suck! But until these developers can start making money and ideas are tested and thrown out or kept the Wii will remain a third party graveyard. The problem I see, is that none of the new ideas have stuck yet. I want the Wii to be a place where new and innovative ideas can flourish, not just the same rehashed IP's. 

1. Assassins creed. 3.71 + 2.61 =6.32
2. gears of war 5.17
3. marvel ultimate alliance 2.42
4. Rainbow 6 vegas 2.12
5. Mass effect 1.84
6. Bioshock 1.76
7. Saints row 1.76
8. lost planer 1.47 .28 =1.73
9. Rock band 1.40 0.57 =1.97
10. Kane and lynch dead men. 1.04 0.67 =1.71

Total third party = 26.8 million. Top ten third party 1^st generation titles.

Average revenue @ $60 per game = $160,000,000

Wii

1. Carnival games = 1.78
2. my sims = 1.06
3. red steel = 1.05
4. cooking mama cookoff = 0.81
5. high school musical – singit. 0.81

7       excite truck = 0.61

8       smarty pants = 0.6

9       game party 0.56

10    trauma centre = 0.53

Total Wii third party new IP = 7.83 average sales = 873000, average revenue = $44,000,000

All I can say is 3rd party games do sell on the Wii, if they are good *cough* not JAWA *cough*. People who say they don't might not have the proof.

I've already written why I think your list is flawed, so I won't repeat those arguments (although I can understand if you were writing this while I posted, as I take a long time to write). I am, however, interested in hearing your take on it.

That said, I'd like to point out some further flaws, this time limited to this specific post. To nitpick: Rainbow 6 is not an original IP, but instead the latest in a rather long series. Gears of Wars is published by Microsoft, and is thus a first rather than third party game. You should also take off Excite Truck, as it's a Nintendo game. Finally, you're assuming that each of the games you've listed sold at the same price. Seeing as how I can find a new copy of most of those games for less than their original retail price, and that a healthy amount of sales are received after such price drops, the revenue stream isn't as high as you think it is. That, of course, applies both ways, although the higher you are, the farther you can drop.

Furthermore, remember that only a fraction of this revenue will actually reach the publisher, let alone the developer. The first parties all expect their tithe, there are costs to manufacture the product and packaging, there's an extra cost to ship, there are sometimes duties to pay, there are the different currency rates to consider, there's the cost of advertising, the retailers' cut...in other words, even if the game itself somehow generated the average amount of revenue you posted, only a peice of that is going to trickle down to the folks who made the game. That's important, because suddenly that $100 million you got in revenue may not actually cover the $50 million it cost to create the game, and you're worst off than if you had simply remained idle! 

Trying to prove the argument "No third party games sell on the Wii" is trying to argue with an idiot. It isn't an arguement you even need to bother with. What you need to prove is if there is a healthy environment for third parties to succeed on the Wii in comparison to a multiplatform 360 and PS3 title. Most of the people saying no third party games sell on Wii are usually just making sweeping generalizations and don't really mean absolutely none can sell, just that most don't. Here's all the proof you need:

1. When a developer puts an A effort forward in a profitable looking game, most times it becomes a profitable game.
    Ex. RE4 and Guitar Hero III 

2. When a developer puts an A effort forward in a non profitable and/or niche oriented game, most times it performs on par with what it would have done on the PS2, a very healthy comparable environment for third parties to make money.
     Ex. Okami Wii vs. Okami PS2, No More Heroes vs. Killer 7, Zack & Wiki vs. Escape From Monkey Island

3. The development of minigame and "Touch Generation"esque projects doing well is a result of the opening market and will not directly affect the sales performance of more "core" oriented titles. They in many ways cater to different audiences and sometimes meet in the middle, but not always.
    Ex. No More Heroes was probably not affected at all by Carnival Games, because the respective audiences for each           are so vastly different. Carnival Games just has a wider appeal.

Now i've said my peace. 

Bold - my addendums. 

Why did you leave off Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games?  That's a 3rd party original IP.   Rayman raving Rabbids is alos a 3rd party unique IP.   Both use characters form other Ips but are in themselves unique IP's.  RE:UC isn't a sequel either but granteed it too is branched from another IP.  The Simpsons game is missing.

Grampy,

Would have backed you up more except too many of those games haven't been released yet to have their projected sales tracked. But for the ones on your list that have been released, they have done quite well.

Also, to reply to a few others...
While no one really can say how well NMH would have done if made for the X360 or PS3 compared to the Wii, according to VGChartz in the puzzle genre, guess which game is the best seller for 3rd party on the three new generation systems? And number 2 overall after Wii's BBA:Wii Degree? That's right. PS3 has none. And Z&W sells 33% better than the leading X360 puzzle game. Though, looks like X360 will try to make a comeback with Frogger. I'm sure that in HD, it will look spectacular.

Here was a bit of a surprise from Best Selling Games the Analysis by Mat Mathews, Next Generation April 10,2008
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9900&Itemid=2&limit=1&limitstart=2

This chart shows how many of the top 100 titles can you play on each platform. The total is more than 100 because of multiple platform games.

"The Xbox 360 can play more than a majority of the games listed in our top 100 software rankings. Right behind it, with 52 games and its own majority, is the Wii. The PlayStation 2 is further behind at 46 and the PlayStation 3 even further back with 44.

To return briefly to the subject of exclusives, the Wii's 52 games include 12 games which are exclusive to the platform. On the other hand, Microsoft's 54 games include only 3 games which are exclusives. "

What this means is that a Wii owner can play 52% of the top 100 games, only two less than the year older Xbox360 if you include the 12 1st party games that are Wii exclusives. Leaving those 12 out means that you can still play 40% of the top 100 3rd party titles on the Wii which is a lot closer to the PS2 and PS3 numbers than I expected.

So the myth that Wii owners don't have access to any of the important 3rd party games is not supported by these figues.