| NJ5 said: In those parts he's talking about id's business, but certainly not in the quotes the OP highlighted.
|
Indeed. But even the parts that I bolded were not about strictly id, but about any third party that develops the same types of games, very different from Nintendo's in his own words.
He's not saying that third parties can't make good business by developing on the Wii. Those who adhere to Nintendo's formulas and to licensed/casual gaming ususally do, he says. But there are no precedents of great successes for the kind of game id do, while there are on the other consoles.
It looks like reasonable risk assessment based on existing sales data, instead of wishful thinking.
You could lament that it's an egg and chicken problem, but frankly that's not up to id to prove or disprove theories about possible reception of games on the Wii platform. That's something that Nintendo should have done years ago, cultivating the third party ecosystem in the beginning.
They didn't, maybe they were never interested in pushing the platform as really diversified in genres. But still, it's their platform: Sony and Microsoft did what they needed to do to have a variegated lineup. With first party titles, with financed exclusives, by developing infrastructures and engines, by helping studios with their own experts.
Nintendo only said: here's the platform. Take or leave. Well, I own a Wii but I can't place the blame squarely on the shoudlers of the third party developers for not wanting to jump in the dark.
