You wrote "the only thing that comes to mind is RS2 and that wasnt launch and we all know how that went". Last I checked, the term "and we all know how that went" actually implies causation. Don't blame me for seeing that and claiming I "love" to look for things. You pay attention to what you write. I've learned to do so on internet threads, instead of trying to blame others for my writing things that have possible interpretations (when I clearly don't, then I have reason to call on people, but I have to make sure what I wrote was unambiguous first).

^^^^ "we all know how that went"  = we all knew it flopped i dont know how you can get that mixed up, how were you confused

By Western are you including Europe? UbiSoft is one of Nintendo's biggest third party supporters and they are most definatly western. Then you got Sega America and Europe who give Nintendo some of the best titles from third parties. Sure you don't have 2K or Rockstar but we do get some EA support as well. THQ is quickly becoming a big player on Wii and they are western as well. Activision also gave Wii several ports and continues to give it several big titles a year.

Sure Epic Games, RockStar, 2K and many other developers publishers don't support Nintendo. But I'd say their is definatly western support for Nintendo.

What I meant is that Wii Motion Plus launched entirely with 3rd party support, ie no 1st party games were in the launch line up.  If I remember correctly it launched with Tiger Woods and Grande Slam Tennis, with Wii Sports Resort being released about a month later.

The context of you putting it with something else made the confusion, as placing it there implied a connection.

Now why Epic should make games for Wii? They aren't obliged to develop on any platform, I think.

Everyone can do business the way they want to. If someone thinks that you won't make a profit with a shooter/whatever on wii (and makes a party game collection/whatever instead), it is their choice.

Epic shouldn't lie and twist facts to justify their veiws. Same as any developer about any system (yes, I'm including Valve about the PS3 in the past).

Also, Wii if you think you won't make a profit, that's not a choice, that's trying to claim a fact. Facts are not up to choice. Wii development costs are objectively lower, and HVS pointed out they money they spent on Conduit 1 was high for a "core" Wii game, but still made money.

If they don't make the shooter, they are loosing the money they could make, and the customers they would secure, for both that game and later games.

Trying to claim a fact? :D No, that is what they think is most likely and by that, they will make the choice not to make a game. 

Care to give me a link for the financial information from Sega(the publisher) about the conduit? If you can't do that, don't claim it as a fact.

Loosing the money they could make? Customers they would secure? Wtf? And you mentioned something about trying to claim something as a fact.

They might make some profit, if they were lucky. They also might lose a lot of money. It is also very plausible that they would not secure any customers for later games.

Edit:

Oh and they don't have to justify their views for you. No one does. Even though you might think you as a wii customer are the center of the universe, you are not.

Actually if they think they can sell even one more copy of their game by taking a crap on Wii/whatever platform they aren't releasing their game, I think they should do that.

The directore of TheConduit said it made money, and I'll give the link if you want, but he couldn't exactly lie about it, as the SEC would consider that a form of fraud.

And shooters on the Wii HAVE made money more often then not. Activision has sold millions of shooter games on the Wii, mainly because it's the only developers actually releasing shooters on the Wii consistenly. That is a fact, so don't claim I'm pretending this could happen. We know it has.

And it's not luck. It's low cost. You clearly haven't looked at how high HD game development has gotten, with how low Wii (and even PSP) development has stayed. And because the cost is low, the money they would lose in a flop wouldn't be as high as the HD systems.

You claiming the risk is high, when the costs show otherwise, shows you really are making up stuff and claiming it as facts.

Sure, The Conduit might have been profitable for the developer. How about the publisher who paid the developers?

The fact is that the same shooters which have sold millions on Wii have sold tens of millions on the competing consoles. The market is on the competition and multiplatform shooters sell only fractions on Wii.

Ok. I haven't looked at them. As we are talking about shooters, point me to the developing costs of the Black Ops HD-versions (combined as porting between hd-consoles is pretty easy?). Then point me to the developing costs of the Wii version.

Then tell me about ROI when HD-versions have sold like 20 million and Wii version has sold what, 500k?

Risk is always high developing a game, unless it is a proven IP. But the funny thing is that I did not claim that or neither am I making stuff up.

You are the one who is making stuff up (dev costs, success of the conduit for publisher and so on) and claiming them as facts.