On the surface you'd think that due to significantly lower development costs that the answer would simply be yes but I'm not so sure.

When it comes down to it a developer has the same target as any other business out there, to bring in a steady, sustainable and ideally increasing profit & it is this fundamental reason devs will be wary of Wii. For the last 2-3 gens all most of the industry has really done when faced with a new console is apply the same blueprint they've used in the past and add glitzy visuals. Due to the very nature of the Wii it prohibits these glitzy graphics and in some cases prevents some of those blueprints being used at all.

What the Wii demands is creativity and innovation, rare commodities in the VG industry and their use also brings with them risk. Look at what happened to a big chunk of Capcom's experimental GC software or more recently Okami on PS2, these games have shown the industry that deviating from the accepted formula can really be punished. If titles like this in terms of breaking from the norm are going to have to make up a bigger proportion of developer's lineups it opens up the real possiblity of previously stable devs going out of business if a string of these titles flounder just as the ones I mentioned did.

An industry where the PS3 or 360 ruled would provide another 5-10 years of relative safety and predictablilty where the same old thing with a new coat of paint could be rolled out for the same old profit. This would suit bigger devs especially as they have the most to lose if the rules change & it's because of this that I can see PS3/360 projects being given the green light over Wii until economics dictate that they absolutely must try something different.

Conversely I can see smaller devs benefiting as they are never going to be able compete with EA when making a sports game or SE when working on a traditional RPG but they can compete in previously untapped genres and types of games that the Wiimote now makes possible, where the big boys have yet to establish and solidify their presence.  

As a result I think that it'll take a long time for Wii to attract the same strength of developer support the PS2 had even if it shows similiar hardware dominance. We'll continue to see the big budget projects heading to the HD consoles and the smaller, quirkier titles, that can flop without resulting in bankrupcy, heading to the Wii due to the risks inherent to each platform for a while. Eventually though the market will show what sells consistently on Wii and we'll start to get the big, ambitous titles we so crave for whatever genres Wii owners buy but I'm sure for at least the next year or so my big money games will be made by Nintendo, it's just as well they kick ass! 

In conclusion I don't think 3rd parties want to see Wii win because they don't yet know how to be successful on the platform. Unfortunately for them the consumer has spoken and they will have to change or scrape a living on the other less significant consoles. The companies which adapt will, after some teething problems, thrive and those that don't will be left behind. Obviously none of the companies want to alter business plans that have proved profitable for years but once they have made the transition I doubt they will harbour any ill will towards Wii and some may even be thankful, after all how many WW2 shooter projects can a sane development team take?

Diagree. Up until now Xbox and PS3 get the main games and Wii gets the spin-offs. That's mainly due to the fact that most 3rd party devs were caught off guard with the success of the Wii. If this trend goes on (Wii's success) , we're gonna see more hardcore games and no more spin-offs on the Wii. This are just shaping up right now.

I think you're missing a few things:

1) 3rd parties traditionally do better when all consoles compete for their support. When one console dominates (Nintendo, SONY) it tends to result in terms being dictated to the 3rd party. If there is parity, the 3Ps are in a better position to set their own terms. Thus I don't believe that they want anyone to "win" the way the NES and PS2 did.

2) It doesn't matter who the developer is. Higher costs = higher risk = less profit. Many 3Ps didn't want Sony to go the route they did (see #1), which is why they are so willing to abandon it in its time of need. So long as Nintendo's dev costs remain low, they don't need to sell so many games in order to turn a profit, and that gives them the freedom to figure out what will work on the Wii.

"Eventually though the market will show what sells consistently on Wii and we'll start to get the big, ambitous titles we so crave " - quoting myself from the OP. I think our views actually concur, where is the disagreement?

 Sorry, typo I was thinking of a disagreement with my friend over this wher writing this...

1) I never said they did want any 1 platform to win just that they definately didn't want Wii to. From what I can gather Sony treated devs pretty fairly last gen even though they dominated. I think hardware manufacturers have learned that acting like N did in the SNES days doesn't pay off long term. Also extra expenses like training staff on multiple architectures and porting is largely avoided if 1 console 'wins'. 

2)"Higher costs = higher risk = less profit"

In general I'd say yes but when you don't know what a certain audience wants or how to make it the waters become more muddied. For instance it would be cheaper for Michael Bay to make a period drama than an eplosion filled, CGI heavy action flick but if I was a studio boss with stockholders to answer to I know which one I'd give the green light.

There is one point everybody seems to forget:

The 360 was out in 2005, without any competition, but it didn´t sell well.

The PS3 was out in 2006 and as we can see with the recent price drops: It doesn´t affect the Wii that much and the Wii doesn´t affect the PS3 that much. Plus, all those games which were successful last gen are flopping right now.


You can believe it or not, but without the Wii we´d ask ourselves where the big videogame crisis of 2007 came from and what we could do against it. There is not that giant market for HD consoles everyone wanted to see, because the prices are just too high (and yes, 300$ for a PS2 and 500$ for a PS3 IS a difference), so the market all in all would probably be smaller now without the Wii. and don´t tell me all those casual gamers would buy a PS3 instead. They wouldn´t.

1) I'd argue that Sony's dominance allowed them the confidence/arrogance to make the PS3 and launch it at a price that made 3Ps cringe. Under "not Sony's problem", the dominance of the PS2 hurt sales of games for other consoles.

2)The problem is that almost all video games are essentially Michael Bay pics, almost all going after the same niche market. Either they minimize competition by doing non-traditional games, or they minimize risk by developing cheaper game, or they attempt to recoup costs by going for the largest audience. Either way, Wii wins.

I kind of agree but not completely. I think it's hard to say if the PS3 price cut affected Wii because it remains sold out. For all we know demand decreased for Wii after PS3 was cut but not enough to fall below supply. I'm also not sure about the Wii not impacting PS3. It's definately not going for the exact same audience but there's definately some overlap. I'm sure there would have also been a lot more buzz around PS3 since launch had the Wii not completely hogged the limelight. I actually think the console which has suffered the most sales wise from Wii's release is the PS2. It may still be doing great for a system of it's age but nothing compared to what it would be if Wii was removed from the equation.

I absolutely agree that the industry was headed for a crash as there wasn't anything significantly different enough about the PS3/360 to convince people to upgrade console. SNES to PS - massive strides into 3D gaming. PS to PS2 - allowed far more complex 3D gaming which resulted in games like GTA3 which just couldn't be done previously. PS2 to 360 - nothing comparable to jump in earlier gens, just more of everything with extra polys.

1)The potential demise of the PS3 will hurt Sony though, not devs, in the mid to long term anyway. If the PS3 had exploded out of the gate and as expected secured the no.1 spot this gen then I'd agree with you but 3rd parties have the option of developing for consoles with smaller costs and larger userbases. Biggest beneficiary of PS3 = BlueRay, biggest loser of PS3, Sony's gaming division/PS brand name.

Yes some devs already have PS3 games underway but if early enough in development they can can them and if too far along they can port to 360.

2)I'd say in terms of games I'd associate expensive action flicks with GTAclone27 or generic FPS#562 and art house flicks with Pikmin, Katamari or Viewtiful Joe.

"they minimize competition by doing non-traditional games"

I fail to see how those games are comparable to a Michael Bay film?