| RolStoppable said: Metacritic has nothing to do with AAA. But anyway, it's not that hard to see which Wii games have high production values, neither is it really hard to determine which games had a rather big marketing campaign. It's not as much guesswork as it sounds at first, especially when it comes to Wii games. If a company didn't push its game hard, then it certainly isn't a AAA game, because these expensive games are supposed to bring in the big money. Valve is a horrible example, because as a PC developer they were never reliant on consoles anyway. But publishers whose bread and butter is the console market have to answer investors questions why they don't support the Wii which happened to be the fastest selling console in history. And that a time when the consoles that those third party publishers supported were struggling. |
Valve is relevant. If they believed there was money to be made in Wii games or ports (with the former being more likely than the latter), enough to make diverting resources to a Wii development team, they would. They're savvy.
They were savvy enough to flip flop on the PS3 and eat a lot of crow in the process when they saw the market potential hit a certain point.
Do you really think every game developer and publisher has to answer to the investors (the board of the directors; investors/common stock holders generally have minimal say) in how they divert their creative resources? They don't. That would be like suggesting that Bungie, now that they're an independent developer again should or courld be strong armed by investors into developing their next blockbuster for the Wii because of the "great commercial potential" the platform presents for their games.
As for the whole marketing issue, that always seems to be the mantra whenever a hot, anticipated title doesn't hit the sales projections predicted by fans rather than the companies who actually developed the games, regardless of platform.
