"This is a considerable increase in cost because they cannot slap some PC version footage or whatever with the Wii version in many places without being fined for misleading advertising."
If you mean "in addition to the original cost", but this ignores that many multiplatform marketing campaigns note all the systems, without having to have separate commercials or footage.
"The average sale price for Wii titles is lower than Xbox 360 and PS3 titles. So whilst they may save money in making it, they don't exactly reap that reward in a retail setting."
That would only apply if the development cost was 2/3 (the $20 cut versus $30), but it's often 1/3 or even more.
"Will Wii titles stand the test of time as compared to many HD console releases?"
Considering how many get thrown into used bins compared to Wii games, it looks like this favors the Wii.
"lso 360/PS3 titles often sell the same or better when made into sequels whereas on the Wii especially sequels have often done considerably poorer."
First of all, there are few Wii sequels to these games in the first place. Second of all "often" doesn't mean "all" or "guaranteed". Sure Red Steel 2 and No More Heroes 2 had lower sales, but neither lost money, and Call of Duty has been consistent hits on the Wii. Third of all, the 360 and PS3 versions tend to get surrounded by other games of the type, so they actually have an audience. The Wii needs more of those games in the first place, not the rare release. And the aforementioned reasons are not real reasons not to do it.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
