The Wii made it easier for small players and new entrants to the industry and it made it harder for established medium/big developers and publishers. If the market weren't split into two distinct levels like we had last generation there would be a different dynamic going on.

3rd party sales on Wii aren't peachy? I can tell you, that is false..

Besides that, the market was shrinking in that the total number of people that play was getting smaller and smaller. I'd say most of the growth in the console sales growth last generation was due to multiple console ownership. For example having two PS2's, one in each kids bedrooms. Something that was less likely to occur with the PS1/N64/Saturn generation.

So Nintendo decided to create a disruptive console, one that would attract new consumers but gradually move up market and attract core users. Motion controls will take over from traditional controls next year and Wii will no longer be a disruptive product. That's where the Vitality Sensor will come into it. Natal can replicate motion controls and mimic the Balance Board to a certain degree but it won't be able to replicate the Vitality Sensor.

Anyway, the Wii hasn't taken any bullets as you say, it's Sony and Microsoft that has taken all the fire because exsisting companies are nearly always doomed when faced with disruption.

Did they? Are all the casuals who own the Wii who have 2 games really "gamers"? I don't think so. Yes, they own a game system, but they don't game like the rest of us. To them it's just a toy, to "gamers" gaming is a hobby. And, overwhelmingly, those that think of gaming as a hobby have not jumped on the nintendo bandwagon.

Hobby?  I think that is a bit much.  Rebuilding a 69 Camaro is a hobby.

How many 'gamers' do you think there actually are? Once people are old enough to have responsibilites they aren't gonna be spending hours and hours of their time playing games. 

Another argument for you I have is this. I know someone who has owned a PS3 from launch and all he plays is Warhawk and CoD4. That's two games but he plays CoD4 religiously and has no interest in other titles. So he's a casual gamer in the sense that he only owns a couple of games but he plays those games in the way you describe you would play all your games.

I'd say people who own a lot of games and play them in the way you describe are either younger than 18 or are truly the hardcore and most likely game on a PC and attend tournies. I'd say that only 10% of the install base of this generation are 'gamers'

I'm not sure how you guys could expect one. We see how long it takes to make one with just Wii tech; imagine how long an HD Zelda would take to create.

@puffy

I didn't mean take the bullet in a negative light. I meant someone had to do something radical, be the different one, even at the cost of the "hardcore" fanbase. Nintendo was the one who had to do it.

Indeed, he's wrong. 3rd party sales on the Wii are fantastic (even though it varies from game to game like any other system). However, I'll have to disagree with you on the second paragraph. The market was definitely staying stagnant or decreasing (6th generation had roughly 250 million consoles sold, 5th generation had roughly 260 million, but my math is rough). Trust me, the whole "multiple systems" thing is BS. It's great that each of your kids has their own PS2, but that's not the norm. And frankly, if we want to talk multiple ownership, it's far more likely that someone would buy their kids their own Gameboy or Gameboy Advance. And since the Gameboy was so cheap and popular back in the day, it had that advantage more to itself. So no, you're wrong with that paragraph.

I've never bought the multiple console ownership that much either but what I do buy is the opening up of other regions to gaming falsely made it seem like the current gaming population was growing instead of declining.

It made it hard for the "big" devs/pubs because they are not taking it as seriously as they should.

To understand it better we should look a developer or publisher's shoes and we will see why there are many mistakes on Wii games. I will stereotype in this case (there are companioes that do not fall in any of these):

common "blind" medium/big developer or publisher:

These companies have been making games for multiple plarforms and/or PC and have established themselves in the business for the benchmarks in their games. As the hardware was getting better in raw power with a resul of better graphics and sound. It is understandable that a though that the games they will release will be much better than the ones they did last generation, that they can trully realize their visions and have less limitations. They see themselves as "evolving". It is not  sin but simple logic: "you have the budget to fully use high powerred hardware, why not use it"?.

With the Wii not being as powerful in raw power, it collides with their business and game development strategies.Whan a company falls into the logic that better hardware = better games, they do not see the Wii as a huge opportunity for them. This is why they do not release games for it or the games they released.... well... you know better than I. Because of the bad sales or weaker than the HD counterparts they blame the Wii gamer and do not learn from the feedback, they just don't care to do so because they do not see a common Wii gamer in their list of customers

If we change the term "Game" to "Software Application" that does a job, if your software does not sale it's because it does not perform the job that is intended to do in the way the consumers want, so it's your fault, not the customers.... And the Irony is: a game is a Software Application

This is not the case with handhelds because is a different model than consoles. 

common "blind" small developer or publisher

These companies do not have the same budget and resources to directly compete agaisnt the medium or big ones and they games are relatively "under the radar". These companies in order to start growing are starting small, with small hardare requirements and as many platforms as possible. These companies have a desire to grow (which doesn't?) and have a known place in the market as a great innovative game creators. The most common and logical approach is to start small and then evolve with each iteration of grouth.

The Wii has become, for many, the best step towards that goal, chaper to develop, new kind of customer, innovatice control mechanism, and taht the big/medium companies have not exploided it yet, so they have a better chance to grow. However, there is also a logic that better harware = better games, and because they see the Wii as their stepping stone they make the Wii game like they would do for an HD with the difference of motion controls. This in result has a gave with an overall quality better than the ones released by the "big" companies, but perform poorly in sales because they do not want to see the values these new customers have. They based on assumptions.

There is a common feature taht a few companies share, no matter the size. I they see the wii as the platform for easy income (profit) with poor excuses of games they label as "casual"... we have shovelware

Well I know from experience that the people I know had more consoles per household in the PS2 gen compared with the PS1 gen. This would prove that the market was actually shrinking and wasn't just stagnant as the numbers suggest. Also the opening of new markets only adds to this theory.

I don't have a very large sample size though, maybe 10 people out of 15 had two systems compared with 4 out of 15 the previous gen.