Third Party Devs have made up their minds about the Wii.

[NJ5]

mibuokami said:
^ But why would they persist if their is a alternative viable market? Its not as if it doesn't exist, look at the Wii, look at the DS. If development really has become such costly endeavour, wouldn't risk management at the very least eliminate the risky venture or downgrade it to development on a less costly platform? It just still feel so simple to me that I can't believe people could NOT see it. There has to be other factors.

Maybe I'm just too naive and optimistic, but I cannot believe that answer is so simple.

Regarding alternatives, let me ask you a question: do you think 3rd parties tried hard enough on the Wii, in order to prove the existence or non-existence of an alternative there?

Did they do all they reasonably could to try to prop up the alternative market that the Wii represents?

In my opinion they didn't even come close. For the most part, they launched spin-offs of their franchises (they did this with Resident Evil, Castlevania, Dead Space, and many more). Other times, they launched games with niche appeal (Zack & Wiki, Madworld), which got turned into supposed examples of the Wii's inability to sell core games.

A point-and-click adventure game (a genre which has been forgotten for years) and a black-n-white high violence game are supposed to convince us that core games can't sell millions on the Wii, even though other core games have sold millions on the Wii? That's why Wii fans in this forum feel like puking every time someone pops up with the Madworld example again, as if it proves the Wii audience is a big zero in terms of buying core games.