1. What makes you think Sega didn't get a decent cut? I don't think you know how dividing revue goes. I don't know much, but I do know both the developer and publisher get money.

2. You claimed that Wii games like shooters would lose money, not that they would sell less. I'm not going for your bait and switch argument. More money is still more money, even if it's just an extra million copies, which is why Activision is still supporting the Wii, because they know money is there even when other developers refuse to see it.

1. Low sales of the game.

2. Show me where I claimed that "Wii games like shooters would lose money"?

I said that if a developer thinks they would not get a profit on wii, it is their choice to or not to make the game on wii. And because I am pretty sure I have to mention this in the post, breaking even is not profiting. So once again, where did I claimed that wii shooters would lose money?

Don't even bother with that. You switch arguments all the time, ignore the things that don't suit your own case and you sure do love to use straw man argument.

@lordtheknight  ok ill give you that.

@mr. t- tar did they really, wasnt Sports Resort a launch title??? or at the very least didnt it release in the launch window??

I think it did, but I think the third party games came out just before it.

From a publishers perspective:

Marketing: Can throw up to and inclusive of 360, PS3 and PC versions into the same marketing campaign. Marketing can easily cost as much as the actual development of a title. Wii versions usually require their own marketing effort. This is a considerable increase in cost because they cannot slap some PC version footage or whatever with the Wii version in many places without being fined for misleading advertising.

Publishing: The average sale price for Wii titles is lower than Xbox 360 and PS3 titles. So whilst they may save money in making it, they don't exactly reap that reward in a retail setting. Theres a very good reason why Wii games recieve quick price drops and big stars like Just Dance initially retailed for $40. This means the actual costs of royalties, packaging, licencing to Nintendo, shipping are much higher, especially as Wii games aren't front loaded so therefore must be continually drip fed into stores whereas 360/PS3 games often only require one big production run and shipment and they can forsee demand better due to pre-ordering.

Long term sales: Often a publisher has 5-10% of its revenue gained through legacy titles. Will Wii titles stand the test of time as compared to many HD console releases? Also 360/PS3 titles often sell the same or better when made into sequels whereas on the Wii especially sequels have often done considerably poorer. Many titles are selling as well or better on their 3rd or more installment.

From a developers perspective:

UE3: For medium to smaller developers who made Xbox 360/PS3 titles it was a great boon for them to be able to use Unreal Engine 3, Unreal Engine 3 doesn't work on the Wii due the Wii's architecture and lack of RAM not meeting the minimum requirement. Immediately any developer wanting to use UE3 cannot make a Wii title.

Development: Xbox 360 and PS3 and PC use the same shaders, they can also be ported between relatively easily due to similar capabilities and architecture due to Microsofts efforts on the 360/PC front and the fact that the Xbox 360 and PS3 are cut from the same cloth and are more similar than any consoles architecturally in the recent (20 year) history of consoles. They also don't require significant developer attention as analogue to mouse conversion is well known whilst developing a workable Wii control scheme would take the limited attention of the core development team.

Desire: Finally developers like the HD consoles better because they are artists and they work for the love and certainly not the money. Publishers know this, which is the foremost reason why they don't give their best teams to the Wii because their core talent can and will walk if they don't like something. Artists like being able to express their artistic work and the 360 and PS3 lend them this ability more so than the Wii by a considerable margin. These people could earn considerably more if they worked in other industries. If it was just a job they wouldn't be doing the job of working on the Wii by choice, the ones who don't have a choice work on the Wii, hence shovelware.

"This is a considerable increase in cost because they cannot slap some PC version footage or whatever with the Wii version in many places without being fined for misleading advertising."

If you mean "in addition to the original cost", but this ignores that many multiplatform marketing campaigns note all the systems, without having to have separate commercials or footage.

"The average sale price for Wii titles is lower than Xbox 360 and PS3 titles. So whilst they may save money in making it, they don't exactly reap that reward in a retail setting."

That would only apply if the development cost was 2/3 (the $20 cut versus $30), but it's often 1/3 or even more.

"Will Wii titles stand the test of time as compared to many HD console releases?"

Considering how many get thrown into used bins compared to Wii games, it looks like this favors the Wii.

"lso 360/PS3 titles often sell the same or better when made into sequels whereas on the Wii especially sequels have often done considerably poorer."

First of all, there are few Wii sequels to these games in the first place. Second of all "often" doesn't mean "all" or "guaranteed". Sure Red Steel 2 and No More Heroes 2 had lower sales, but neither lost money, and Call of Duty has been consistent hits on the Wii. Third of all, the 360 and PS3 versions tend to get surrounded by other games of the type, so they actually have an audience. The Wii needs more of those games in the first place, not the rare release. And the aforementioned reasons are not real reasons not to do it.

Thing is if DEVELOPERS didnt alienate the WIi from the start the COD games would of sold much better. I know I went out and baught a PS3 just for COD . IF they come out on Wii would I have done the same? Probably not.

Even with year late releases MW has sold over 1million. 

1. I haven't seen anything of the sort and it depends on local advertising laws. Its easier to develop one advertising campaign worldwide and going by what I remember often games have different advertising between Wii and HD versions.

2. Development costs are 1! cost involved in releasing a game. You still have marketing, distribution and console owners fees to take into consideration as well and many of this fees severely restrict the margin per disc if the price per disc is lower.

3. What you call a hit in terms of revenue is different to what a current publisher would call a hit. Selling 500k is insufficient in this day and age. This is especially true if that 500k was sold at an average sale price of $35 over a period of 6 months.

As for legacy revenue im talking about cut priced software, bargain bins, compilations and remakes and on the PC this is an especially important source of revenue especially again with regards to Steam.

1. Well I don't know how the whole thing works, so I'll leave it at that.

2. I still have to find the article, but it admitted that $20 for Wii (and likely past consoles) went directly to the game and $30 for PS3 and 360. That means distribution and console owner fees are already taken into account. So by that number, it's basically marketing and development costs. That same article also stated that typical HD game costs are about $20 million, while high Wii game costs are in the $15 million range (assuming any Wii game has topped Mario Galaxy's $16 million), with The Conduit likely not even near costing $10 million (especially with reduced prices later on) considering that would be what 500K would earn directly for the game. That means marketing would have to be pretty high to make a poor margin compared to the HD games, and most developers don't spend more than a pittance for Wii game marketing, even the "casual" games.

3. Sega is fully publishing the sequel, and promised to market even more. So they clearly think that was sufficient. Plus your "this day and age" comment is false. It should be "insufficient with the budget and marketing of an HD game". Applying those standards to Wii games is the same BS spin developers have been using to justify not supporting the system, despite what the hard facts say.

 Thats assuming a full price game purchase from the first shipment of software. Your margins per game sold are always going to fall considerably once you're talking about games which cost between $20 and $40. If the game price drops $10, the publisher loses at best $7 in revenue. Nintendo doesn't take any loss, distributers and disc manufacturers don't take a loss and retailers certainly also don't take a loss. So if they were making $20 at $50 they are making $13 at $40. So unless they can sell at full price, those numbers don't work particularly favourably for games which cost only $5M to develop. These are the hard numbers, you cannot deny the lower margins publishers take reflect the lower development costs. The Wii is no more a safehaven for publishers than the HD consoles are. They both reflect the challenges of retail distribution. This isn't BS spin, it is the reality of distribution by retail and the costs publishers incur from all sources in order to get their games into your hands.