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+

Edit: At the end of the day, YOU can't blame the developer for putting out great games. YOU want them to produce great games, and when they do, YOU can't blame THEM for YOU not purchasing the game. "Make better games and they will sell". When they put it out good games, it is then YOUR duty to buy them. YOU can't say it's the developer's fault that YOU didn't buy their GREAT game. Or should I blame Capcom for YOU not buying Okami? I heard Okami was a great game, maybe even one of the best on the PS2. I blame myself for not buying it, because well...I didn't buy a great game. Or should I say "curse you Capcom for putting out quality! I won't buy this!"?

"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?"

What did you do assuming all those games didn't flaws in execution, marketing, or other factors?

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...

Flaws in exectution? Not every game is perfect. Uncharted had its' flaws, but it was still a good game. MadWorld has its' flaws but it's still a good game. Marketing? I don't know about you, but when those games were initially coming out, I saw a good amount of commercial for them. And with viral marketing becoming even more popular, you can't say they weren't heavily advertised. Other factors? Time constraints, no money at the time, etc. are all things that could be factored in, but they are not absolutes because we don't know the cause behind every situation. Otherwise we could all say "Nobody bought game X because they were all broke when it came out"

"Flaws in exectution? Not every game is perfect."

If people think think those flaws are not worth their time, they won't buy them.

"you can't say they weren't heavily advertised"

Wrong. I can, and they weren't.

Communications, expression. It doesn't have to be a consumers a fault or consumers are always right. I don't know where you got that from, but they are not mutual concepts. Sometimes times it's not about a good game or marketing, but getting across what the game is and who it's for. If I make Max Payne and try to sell it to my daughter it doesn't work. Though I wouldn't be so foolish to do so nor did Sega. While that is extreme an FPS fan of Halo does not mean that they will be interested in Mass Effect, though often the advertising will be aimed at the same group. Though they shouldnt there is overlap. Also you can't sometimes there is nothing inherently wrong with the game design, but it's apeal. Okami is proof of this. It didn't sell on the PS2 wich had the biggest *sigh* core and casual, but it is apparently selling better on the Wii. Why doesn't Okami a very good designed game sell well. Because it's an upperend artistic game for conesuirs. The developer develivered a good game, but a game for a small market, but didn't realize the market was smaller. It could have done a ton of advertising to increase exposure. This means that the developer failed to communicate.

So no the consumer is not always right, but that doesn't mean it's there fault to buy a game that doesn't appeal to them.

Think of it this way:

Haze has outsold Valkyria Chronicles, by a decent amount. Do you blame Ubisoft/Free Radical and Sega, respectively, for putting out those games, each of the respective caliber (or lack thereof in the case of Haze) or do you blame the schmo that went to the game store and decided "Instead of buying this gem known as Valkyria Chronicles, I'll buy this utter shit Haze"? Tough question, I know

As long as hardcore non Nintendo published games won't sell on the Wii, he's perfectly right to say that. Why bother spending millions of dollar on a hardcore Wii game when you can just make something casual for half the price that will most likely double the sale of the harcore game ?

You act like the answer is obvious, whe you can't tell the difference between a vendor and the customer?

How many of these teams have actually done that yet?

You can name every single 3rd Wii game released that falls into this "hardcore" category and I can tell you the exact reasons why it underperformed.

Try me.