A hypothetical discussion

[Bodhesatva]

ampillion said:
Some developers have already invested money in things more suited to making games for the stronger technology. They've probably picked up new software and computer hardware just for the next gen, and weren't expecting a system that relies more on the control system than the graphical output for gaming. So, expecting a PC-like console, a lot of companies readied for that. The 'low tech' solution in the Wii was at first, dismissed merely because of Nintendo's past performance and the unorthodox use of motion control on a less powerful system.

However, it's price point and new, hands-on style of control has drawn in plenty of interest. And a lot of companies can't ignore a new market of people to sell things to. (New enthusiasts to the hobby of gaming are a lot more relaxed about things, they do not over analyze or respond to gaming history as core gamers do. Not to mention, those new gamers can slowly be weaned towards meatier products, to attract more dollars and turn casuals more into core gamers. Not all will, but some, certainly.)

So gaming studios will do one of three things.
1) Grow to add support for the Wii and it's hardware and control setup, to harness the growing market to both create more Wii games and fund other projects for the more powerful systems.

2) Support only the casual system, drawing in cash from small, niche titles to make their bread.

3)Support only the powerful systems, saving the investment into new divisions to put back into their larger bankrolled titles.

Honestly, I see most big 3rd party producers going the route of number 1. The casual market, if it's proven to be a new avenue for revenue for the entertainment dollar to be drawn into the gaming sector, cannot be ignored. Its more or less an untapped market at this point.

Number 2 will most likely only happen for small, startup groups. With the price to develop a Wii title fairly cheap compared to the other two systems, a small company with good ideas could make cash feeding on the new market.

Number 3 will most likely not happen. I don't think there are any 3rd party producers that can afford to stick to only the big guns, unless they are already making a lot of cash off previous projects. A company like Square Enix or even Capcom could probably afford to, but in all honesty, why would you want to take big gambles with every new project, instead of smaller, less risky ventures? Sure, the net profits might be smaller (Unless your product is just awesome.), but it would cost less to fund from the beginning, making it profitable in less units sold.

I think this is all very reasonable, and I agree with your conclusion. In fact, I think we can already see a few companies already fitting your first mold (Konami, EA) and second (Majesco, who made Cooking Mama and Bust-A-Move, among others).

To be honest, when considering all of the reasons we've named to develop for the Wii, and all the reasons Blue3 articulately laid out NOT to develop for the Wii, there is one reason that dominates all the others: how much market share will the Wii have? Right now, I think a lot of us believe that 33 percent market share is realistically the lowest it could go this generation. If that's the case, there's a lot of money to be made and a good deal of smaller games will be made for the system. But what if it breaches 50 percent market share? 60? 70? I don't think any of those numbers are out of the question, and if the Wii DOES hit 70 percent market share, basically all these other points we've taken the time to so carefully outline are suddenly near-irrelevant. Artists don't want to compromise, don't want to compete with Miyamato, developers have already invested in 360/PS3, yadda yadda; if the Wii really ends up being as big as it appears it can be, all that reasoning will be crushed under the boot of simple, hard economics.