Even so, they STILL cost more and it is not being factored into your equations.  Not to mention the ones where they put in all that effort and cost and then it doesn't do well and it's all down the tubes because there is no demand for a sequel. 

I see posts here that are almost identical to those that would've been said years ago. Repetition in most answers here. Half of them don't seem to be proper replies either (No i dont want to show you which posts these are). AFter reading through the pages, Ill say one thing... THe same answer in every page is boring to read ...

very interesting analysis. Good points all around especially with epic not porting unreal engine to wii

You do realizes PC games have been in HD for over 10 years now right? HD has alot do with hardware. For example You can run Nascar 2003 in 5760 X 1080.  Yuo can also run Dirt 2 in the same resolution with 5870HD Graphic card.

HD costs have more to do with assets (texture resolution, shader effects) than with hardware. Nascar 2003 has less resolution texture and post processing effects than Dirt2, even if you run Nascar 2003 at 5760x1080 and Dirt2 at 640x480.

Exactly so it doesn't neccessary has to do with fact a game running in higher resolution. It has to do with textures and art work.  Even  consoles game in the past were often done on PC (HD machines) then down graded to run on the console. For example Ico and Shadow of Colossus on the PS2.

  SSBB has detailed artwork (textures) when it comes to the characters yet on SD display you don't see all those details.

1. I did not. Who would assume that unless the control systems are static from this generation to the next?

2. Controls have nothing to do with the majorty of a games production costs. Things can work badly and still get ported if they want to, if the control system doesn't work.

3. Because they wouldn't enter the market unprepared. They already spent their pre-console generation load on developing new I.P for the DX9 consoles. Then they found that the most successful developers were better left making DX9 console games and the only studios left were the smaller/weaker ones being asked to rush games to take advantage of the Wii success, I already talked about this in a previous page.

4. That seems to be speculation. Its impossible to say until we actually cross that bridge.

1. I was speculating, and as I found more concrete numbers I used them.

2. It was a part of a range was it not? That was an extreme end and I refined my numbers with research.

3. I used the rough total market size minus uncontestable sales by third parties, usually bundles. So minus some Forza 3 and Halo: ODST and Wii Sports / most Wii Sports Resort and all Wii Play, Wii Fit however I kept in. I figured it was the approachable market size as seen by a third party.

4. It is impossible to factor in the cost of development because the unknowns are too big. How many projects are cancelled during production? There are even games which were finished but have never been released because it wasn't worth the effort. Also things like engine development, reused assets and royalties for technology also complicate things. Revenue is the easiest and most accurate and I felt that including costs would reduce the accuracy of my tentative explorations of this concept. It may not be complete but it does have hard data to support it in the form of publisher quarterly results.

5. It takes longer yes, however they tend to make more games with fewer staff as they produce more sequels. For instance many games in this generation are now 24 months between installments when the first version took over 3-4 years to make.

Its very interresting to see all the third pary games going to the Ipod and Psp and won't even touch Wii

1.  But ... if you were initially speculating, where the hell did you get those extremely specific numbers?  

2.  So, yes.  OK, it's not a bad thing.  

3.  I don't understand this.  Do you mean you subtracted FIRST (instead of third) party stuff from the total market size?  If not, I'm afraid I do not understand your methodology or its rationale at all.  

4.  That's true, but it still seems wrong to make definite claims about relative profit without at least attempting to compensate for that aspect of things.  In particular, when you just DID attempt to factor into your findings claims that doing production, warehousing, distribution etc. over a shorter period of time instead of prolonged as with "legged" games results in massive savings, it strikes me as frankly dishonest to completely IGNORE savings that go the other way, just because it's impossible to know with certainty the degree of difference it makes.