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.

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! 

 That's an interesting find you have there. I'm honestly a little surprised at those numbers, but not because I don't think there are plenty of quality Wii games out there. Instead, the reason ties into why I would be a little cautious about using that list in the future: it's "Top 100 titles" are composed of limited and subjectively selected games.

What I mean by that is that NextGen, like Metacritic and its ilk, have ratings created exclusively by young male gamers who are already enthusiastic about games, so the list's mileage may vary. As an example, we can all agree that Wii Sports is a large part of what first got many of the new gamers interested in our hobby, so obviously it appeals to them far more than a Halo or Call of Duty. And yet its metacritic ranking is somewhere in the mid-70s, placing it just above Chessmaster Live...

Sorry, I was looking at new and innovative titles, that are completely unfamiliar to people before development. The potential innovators. I got some wrong because I was in a hurry. Gears is ok because it was made by epic which is NOT owned by Microsoft. Its a third party exclusive.

The point of the innovation list I was trying to make, was that I believe that the Wii needs completely new intelectual property to really deliver cutting edge innovative gameplay. The core of the system right? For that to happen, the games have to succeed and pay off or they will not be made. So far this has not happened yet, and most innovation has come from Nintendo themselves. I think it will happen and I stated that it would come from smaller third parties that will make some truely outstanding games which will rise about the shovelware.

 While I see what you're getting at, I think I did address this concern in my earlier posts. Again, third parties appear to be making more profit (not revenue) off the Wii than they are on the HD systems, if my math and reading are correct. This includes the new IPs, such as the oft-mentioned Zak and Wiki and No More Heroes, as I wrote in the last post. I also believe there are some flaws in your current assumptions. For starters, it may not necessarily be true that the Wii requires entirely new IPs to be successful: while the new control method certainly opens up new ways to play, it can also easily accomodate and enhance more traditional games. Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart, and Metroid are all prime examples of this: the IPs may be quite old by this point, but they play differently, and that alone makes all the difference. I actually have more thoughts about how the controller will probably have great long-term impacts on all games (not just Wii ones), but that's a topic for another time.

You are right, I think I was wrong to assume that new IP's would absolutely be required. I was thinking too much of smaller software development houses that lacked the appropriate IPs. Though I would have to assert that it the Wii has a greater return on investment currently for third parties. In absolute terms the profit issmaller than the HD consoles currently.

I am still concerned that the small software houses will fail to gain traction on the Wii, advertising may be required to really distinguish a good game from the rest on the Wii.

 I've bolded the sentence in your post where I believe you went astray. The assertion is obviously correct, as Clover proves, but it hasn't applied to the Wii so far. Third parties have certainly found the system to be quite profitable: for many of the mid-and-small sized developers, it may well be their lifesaver. Again, not to toot my own horn too much here, but refer to my previous posts for most of my answer to this issue.

Yep I think you were right.

I'd also like to add that while Nintendo may be doing more innovation than the rest of the industry combined right now, they're hardly the only ones who are doing so: I believe that Pro Evolution Soccer for the Wii is completely revolutionizing how we will play sports games in the future, as the Wiimote finally allows you to control the whole team, not just a single player. Boom Blox is an incredibly original and creative game that realistically isn't possible on any other system: if EA does choose to port it elsewhere, I believe those ports will meet the same fate that Raving Rabbids did. Pro Evolution Soccer has already proven to be quite lucrative for Konami, and I expect that in the long run Boom Blox will do the same for EA. There are other examples out there, but listing them would simply clutter my posts even further; I'm working on being more concise, and listing games is a prime way to do the opposite!

I think the if you wanted to really quantify what Nintendo is doing, you would say it is "innovation with insight". It is too easy to innovate in counterproductive ways. It takes insight to really nail innovation and produce products that really excite and shake up the market time after time. Wii fit really changed my picture of the company. I will have to look at pro evolution soccer what you say sounds really interesting!

We do, however, agree that more innovative games will almost certainly be arriving in the near future. 

@grampy: Open mouth, insert foot. Sorry, I'd assumed that the list was built along the same lines as metacritic, and was thus reminded what happens when you assume. Thanks for the link: I'll definitely have to give it a closer look in the morning. For now, I'm off to bed. I enjoyed this thread and the discussion, so thank you for starting it.