and even Ninja Breadman made a profit

That doesnt make sense. That'd suggest that Wii Development is 30 mil for a game. Im pretty sure games like Carnival Games didn't cost more than 6-8 mil to make.

Maybe he meant games need to sell 1 mil dollars to be profitable

Makes ya think though, if a system that costs 10 mil per game to make needs to sell 1 mil units to be profitable, then most of the hd games will need to sell at least 2-3 mil by this logic, so a good chunk of HD games aren't profitable too.

I have a feeling the math is off someplace, or this is a spoof quote

This is nearly as misleading and cherry picked as this thread's original article;

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=106369&page=1&str=1834033007#

i read recently that the budget for the average wii game is 7-10 mil... however not every game like say gameparty uses even 1 tenth of that budget... really poor read :S

I thought the average cost was 1 mil, considering the shovelware who was made for Wii. But a good game (like Nintendo's ones) on Wii doesn't even cost 20 millions to be made, I think neither 10 milions (maybe Zelda or Metroid or Mario, just the graphic top on Wii).

So this article fails, a lot of Wii games can be profitable with 200k or more, it depends on the game (the Conduit and Madworld probably gave profit) and as you sa it's impossible that a SH published just 4 profitable games out of 83, they would have stopped by now.

That could be what Reggie meant in the original interview (assuming he actually said it, I can't be bothered to go back to an original source) perhaps referring to Nintendo games alone.

so funny. Then ps360 games need to sell 3 million to profit ROFL

I can't find the article right now, but I remember a guy (not sure if a "real" analyst, or someone along the lines of BruceOnGames) that said that an absurd amount of games (for any console) didn't profit at all lol

Yeah it boggles my mind that third-party publishers aren't taking the Wii more seriously. The Wii is a lot cheaper to develop for than the PS3 and 360 and even cult-like games like the ones you mentioned manage to make profits. Having played No More Heroes (which is a "core" action-adventure with partial motion controls) the past couple of days and really enjoying it, I asked myself why the hell third-party publishers haven't considered putting more of their "risky" titles (ie. new IPs, niche games, etc.) on the Wii exclusively.

It's as if third-party publishers want to shape the gaming market to what they want. Rather than make the necessary adjustments to adapt to what the gaming market wants (and the sales have spoken. The gaming market doesn't want Mirror's Edge, Dead Space and Dante's Inferno that badly. If they did, the games would have turned a profit. They want Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 987 instead). EA is losing money and plenty of other third-party publishers are losing money. THQ was almost bankrupt until UFC 2009 Undisputed (which wasn't a risky title. The UFC brand is very popular) saved it's ass. I don't see why EA couldn't have put Dante's Inferno on the Wii. It would have dodged the "God of War clone" label being thrown at it. The production costs would be much cheaper and they would have been able to make a profit. Revenue isn't everything. You can make a game profitable on the Wii with a lot less revenue.

When you see Sega publicly saying that Madworld was profitable and then next minute they turn around and say that there is no core market on the Wii, they were a mismatch with the Wii, you have to really wonder about their motivations. Maybe what Naz said about the gaming media hating Nintendo also applies to third-party publishers? Because right now, I just don't see the rationality in what the third-party publishers are saying and doing right now.

If Wii party games need to sell 1 million the be profitable, then God of War, Uncharted 2 and Gran Turismo have to reach 10 million each one to be profitable!