If you're a game publisher with dozens of IP and multi-million dollar revenue and you're unable to capitalize on some platform that sold abysmal ammount of units, then leave it and get to more prosperous platforms for bigger marketing outlets. But if you're big-ass publisher and unable to heavily capitalize on platform that's proven money printing machine and accounts for half of industry game revenue, that might be an indication that you're obsolete and market is changing leaving you behind. It's a matter of business, not personal likings.

//Actually I would rather make both, but if you insist on choosing only one option I'd go for compact car/SUV. It's interesting to solve some actual problems of actual people, rather than make some useless piece of junk that would make happy only me.

@ mai )

you know, managers don't make games and if they initiate a project you'll get a babiez/petz - the proven top teams probably come up with their own projects and managers just choose which one to fund, so if the team doesn't want to make a Wii/DS game they won't

and your reasoning is faulty - compact cars/SUVs don't solve problems of actual people, they use existing tech, which was introduced and matured for the high end cars and have come down in price due to mass production (hence they are inexpensive to make and to buy), so if you actually wanted to solve problems, you would go for "useless pieces of junk"

@ mai )

judging by your posts here, you seem to have a problem with this and companies probably have the profitability problem with it

I agree that the analogy has become useless, because you answered with a reasoning (and a false one at that), while all I wanted was to clarify how some (not all by any means) top developers may "feel" (subjectively) about this, as the Wii definitely won't allow for as many visions to be realized from a design point of view.

I felt it was important to mention that these "feelings" actually seem to be an important factor to game development, or at least in my opinion it's a way better explanation why the Wii doesn't see nearly as much AA+(funding) projects as the HD consoles, than the "the gaming industry hates the Wii" or "the 3rd party devs are still riding the false horse" other people have come up with.

Getting personal, are we? Don't judge me, especially by such a dumb criteria as my post history, what it shows is just your lack of arguments. Now I need to take a break, next time.

personal, what? no, I'm just trying to say, that game development, especially for top level projects, probably doesn't have that much to do with "business" as you'd like (hence you "have a problem with it", no?)

if you look at activision you can see what's happening if your top producers/devs aren't happy anymore with what they are doing

You don't need to repeat the same argument in every post you made. I got it from the start and intentionally ignored it, as I thought it was covered by my first post in the thread, quoting myself:

What you described is clearly a management flaw.

piracy is not Wii's problem,its its audience.Even if piracy stops Wii games won't sell any good

PS1 was the most successful console ever?

Doesn't matter what Wii's successor was,its the audience

Yes, it was at that time. And whatever you may think, it makes all the difference. Publishers like to play it safe, and with good reason.