Well said. I agree with this very much.

@Metallicube
Well written, but I'm going to disagree. Though there is some merit to what's being said. Curing the NES/Sega, SNES/Genesis days Nintendo still had the majority support even in spite of Nintendo level games. Their games still sold tons in market perspective. That didn't stop any of the 3rd parties to jump to the competition. They stayed on those systems regardless of Nintendo and regardless that SMS and Genesis(from what I hear) are superior hardware.

The reason was back then these third parties were interested in the games and the money. This has changed. Sony did a masterful job starting with the PS1 era or possibly it was moving in this direction anyways, but the companies were more focused on the prestige of making games. I've noticed this generation that many developers and publishers are constantly hyping comments along the lines of "pushing the system to the max"

The Wii is not a prestige machine. It's the cheapest, it's the weakest and has the worst bad rap around. Putting DMC4/5 on the Wii would essentially be the effect of being ridiculed by peers. Put on top of that, that marketers can make assumptions that making game X will bring in X sales. They feel safe in throwing X budget at the game(though this can fail as in the case of Bayonette). So you have companies that want prestige and the assumption of known sales.

Nintendo isn't Nintendo's worst enemy. That's just hyperbole to justify the continued reasoning to make games for the purpose of prestige. Though no one in the industry want's to admit they make games for prestige than the fun of making good games.

At least there will always be exception. Thank goodness of companies like Square Enix(you read it) at least they have been honest about their company goals since the N64 days.

I really suggest readers to read the Comic Speculator Market.

Well said. I agree with this very much.

@Metallicube
Well written, but I'm going to disagree. Though there is some merit to what's being said. Curing the NES/Sega, SNES/Genesis days Nintendo still had the majority support even in spite of Nintendo level games. Their games still sold tons in market perspective. That didn't stop any of the 3rd parties to jump to the competition. They stayed on those systems regardless of Nintendo and regardless that SMS and Genesis(from what I hear) are superior hardware.

The reason was back then these third parties were interested in the games and the money. This has changed. Sony did a masterful job starting with the PS1 era or possibly it was moving in this direction anyways, but the companies were more focused on the prestige of making games. I've noticed this generation that many developers and publishers are constantly hyping comments along the lines of "pushing the system to the max"

The Wii is not a prestige machine. It's the cheapest, it's the weakest and has the worst bad rap around. Putting DMC4/5 on the Wii would essentially be the effect of being ridiculed by peers. Put on top of that, that marketers can make assumptions that making game X will bring in X sales. They feel safe in throwing X budget at the game(though this can fail as in the case of Bayonette). So you have companies that want prestige and the assumption of known sales.

Nintendo isn't Nintendo's worst enemy. That's just hyperbole to justify the continued reasoning to make games for the purpose of prestige. Though no one in the industry want's to admit they make games for prestige than the fun of making good games.

At least there will always be exception. Thank goodness of companies like Square Enix(you read it) at least they have been honest about their company goals since the N64 days.

I really suggest readers to read the Comic Speculator Market.

Sounds more like a bunch of butt hurt fans making a bunch of statements filled with hyperbole

It's not hate at all. Most of the things that were said are actually true. Maybe a little exaggerated though.

But hate is a really bad choice of word.

And don't fall for the "it's hard to develop separately for the Wii because it's not HD, THAT's why it gets little support!" argument. It is merely an excuse. Remember that Gamecube and N64 both had comparable hardware to their competitors, yet still they got shunned. Because even with powerful hardware, the consoles still present one problem for the 3rd parties, and that problem is Nintendo.

LoL, this made me laugh..give me a break, most of the things they said were true...sure.

But any way, some thing is definitely odd when you look at things through the looking glass. For instance, a platform like the Wii, sells the most software, sells the most hardware, has the lowest dev costs, and gets treated worst than the PSP when it comes to third party support. It can't be an argument about cpu power, when this is the case. Furthermore, you have systems like, Gamecube and the N64, that were way more powerful than the leading console the last 2 gens but third party support was crap for those systems too.

It is convenient, how the case is made for installed base for those instances, but then the context changes to power or resolution for the current context.

Not sure I understand the whole can't compete with Nintendo thing, as they had no problem competing with Nintendo during the SNES or NES era. Or more currently with the DS.

It most certainly is hate, the why of it all is probably the hardest to put in words. But people can feel and see it, from G4TV, to GI, to N4G, hell Kenology created a thread based on this very premise. I think its the Nature of Disruption, or a Disruptive product, People look at the NES through rose tinted glasses, but if you were to compare era's you'd see the NES and Wii are the most similar of consoles. NES was hated on as well, by third parties to the media to the justice department etc. Just read what EA had to say about the NES back then lol. I guess its just coincidence that the NES like the Wii, was/is a disruptive product.

Well it is hard to get a game designed to use 256mb of Gpu ram to run on  only 64 mb of ram without totally redoing the  game's art. Art is a big cost. So if for a third party point of view design a game to run on 256mb of Gpu ram can be ported to X360/PS3/ PC without redo the art/graphics. X360/ps3/PC combined has a bigger user base than Wii alone.

Well it is hard to get a game designed to use 256mb of Gpu ram to run on  only 64 mb of ram without totally redoing the  game's art. Art is a big cost. So if for a third party point of view design a game to run on 256mb of Gpu ram can be ported to X360/PS3/ PC without redo the art/graphics. X360/ps3/PC combined has a bigger user base than Wii alone.

Just because you have to redo it doesn't mean it's hard. It's only hard if you agonize over every frame and object.

And userbase is not a valid point, as that doesn't mean more people will buy the games.

Like I said, difference in console power may be PART of the issue, but it's most definitly not the ROOT of the issue. If it was, the Gamecube and N64 would have recieved comparable 3rd party support to Sony and MS.

Look at the Dreamcast. Despite having a powerful console (and the MOST powerful for awhile), most 3rd parties flocked to the Playstation and later the PS2, which played a great role in killing the Dreamcast.

It cannot be that hard to port a game to Wii. Notice how you didn't see 3rd parties complaining about the difficulty of porting an Xbox game to PS2. Or a PS2 game to PS1. Or even a PS3 game to PSP.Yet these consoles certainly were not similar in power.

If they don't have trouble making crossplatform games for PS3 (which is supposed to be way more powerful than 360) to 360, then I don't see why it should suddenly become a major issue to port to Wii as well. The issue is not difference in console power, but the difference in brand loyalty and quality games that Nintendo presents.