Oh, I figured. This was written more for the benefit of posters I actually respect. You're just the convenient launching point.

....EA seriously?

They were selling out Dead Space Extraction as a $15 downloadble months later and had a functional THIRD-person version running off the iPhone. For all intents and purposes, Extraction was a joke.

No, that ignores the fact that costs for those games goes up, and sales have not risen to match them. In case you didn't notice, few developers are making money on them, so claiming they are more financially viable is a fallacy.

Furthermore, third party sales for Wii games overall are still very high, despite how many cherry pick the occasional game's individual sales.

Don't forget that they literally gave it away with every sale of the Limited Edition Dead Space 2 on the PS3...

To a certain extent, I think that is some of the point for these big third party publishers.  They don't want to compete with the little guy.  They want to raise the barriers of entry ever higher, so that they have less competition.  It works too, just look at all the dead companies.  But, it is a double edged sword.  Even the big publishers seem to be struggling with their profit margins this gen.

Just like they planned on doing with NBA Jam.

I've been pondering this for years now, and while I can't recall any direct evidence which proves this theory, I have to admit that it does explain what is otherwise a course of action that is contrary to their own financial interests. But I'm not quite willing to buy in yet. Third-parties have done several things that tell me that, in certain circumstances, they're quite willing to operate in low-budget arenas.

Most third-parties, for instance, did eventually devote dev teams to the Wii, even if those teams were rarely their A-teams. The same is true of the DS. As another example, EA in particular is going to pretty great lengths to try and crack the mobile and low-end PC markets, to the point where they're opening new studios and spending hundreds of million to acquire teams that are experienced in those markets. We also have examples like Epic going through the effort of making their engines work on the iPhone, notwithstanding that it's much less powerful than the Wii.

I actually think your theory is giving third-parties too much credit. In my opinion, they're not long-sighted enough to conceive of such a strategy, let alone try and carry it through. I think it boils down to the fact that the big (at the moment) third-parties really only know how to make games bigger (but not necessarily "better"...). They know how to work with the traditional control pad. They rely on ever-increasing horsepower to sell games. They know how to superficially emulate what's worked for others. They're comfortable with PC gaming.

If we hold these true, and assume that these factors override financial viability, have we not explained everything that's happened this generation? Higher dev costs and smaller markets be damned, we know how to operate with the HD console market. The legion of superficial Wii minigames is explained quite well. Even the infatuation with the iPhone, a market that theoretically should be anathema to The Industry, suddenly makes sense: it's a handheld PC that's got more horsepower than other handheld systems. What's not to love!?

EA is the only one that's trying to bust out of this cycle; coincidentally, EA is run by someone who has no prior experience in gaming and who has not yet found a winning formula. Meanwhile, we have Activision mindlessly milking winning formulas to death, and Ubisoft clamoring for a new hardware generation because they need to extra horsepower to sell games (their words, not mine). Originality is rare amongst these folks, and insight seems to be even more so. :-/

"I actually think your theory is giving third-parties too much credit."

Lol, hard to argue with that.

"I think it boils down to the fact that the big (at the moment) third-parties really only know how to make games bigger (but not necessarily "better"...). They know how to work with the traditional control pad. They rely on ever-increasing horsepower to sell games. They know how to superficially emulate what's worked for others."

A little more seriously though, I think my original thought is what drives this process.  Especially when it comes to graphics.  Spend enough money on the technolgy, and you will stand out (so the logic goes).  It doesn't have to be particularly long sighted.  It really just needs to hold for one game.  And then it is applied to the next.  And then the next.  And the next. And so on.  In effect, it could become a long term strategy to driving out the competition without very much thought.

You are definetely right that it is not universal to everything these companies do.  There has to be a least one smart business man at these companies screaming at the top of his lungs, "Diversify, diversify, diverisfy!"  Right?  (Right!?! )  Then there are investors to please.  I would think that sentiment would be found there too.

I'll touch on some of that...

SFIV wasn't on every platform other than Wii so why complain?

Who cares about Spyborgs? Was anybody expecting that to be good?

Dead Rising for the Wii was built with an inferior engine and on a technically inferior console. I'm not sure why they bothered. They should have just made perfect ports for PS3 and PC.

People keep praising RE4 sales on Wii, but lets bear in mind it launched for only $30 and its higher quality than the typical Wii game. Its the best reviewed core title on Wii period. Hence, a gem surrounded by crap.

I highly doubt 800K was their life time expectation. Maybe that was a quarter expectation. For the record, RE:DC has been out for 72 weeks and its struggling to 800K. While RE:UC hit 800K in 13 weeks. Hence, RE:UC sold a shit ton more units at full price. Face it, RE:DC was a flop.

Madworld hit the bargain bin after a few weeks. They probably hoped it would move 600K during the holiday at full price. Why else did Sega pull back support on mature Wii games?

Are you boasting that Wii's big exclusive, over hyped, and heavily marketed shooter, The Conduit, sold more units than mostly crappy and obscure HD FPS games? It should also be noted you aren't combining the sales of many of HD shooters.

In regards to NMH, late ports sell worse. Very few late ports sell better than the original.

Muramasa definitely got more attention than Odin Sphere. And it might be because the Wii lacks niche title compared to PS2.

The Okami data doesn't include WW sales for either PS2 and Wii. But once again it stood out more in the Wii's lack luster 3rd party library.

honestly, I don't think that higher market share = higher sales (case in point dead space extraction et al.). I was just pointing out that when HD consoles are grouped together they have more market share than the wii, and it is more than likely 3rd party developers factor this in to the equation when deciding what platform to develop for. Yes, I understand that costs also rise but (probably) not as much as the sales (though if the game bombs then obviously it won't have the desired effect).  

All I see from Nintendo fans is blame towards Third partys for not giving the wii adequate support. However, I feel that third party developers are free to choose which platform they develop their games, and I absolutely detest seeing wii fans giving a list of bullet points as to why the wii is a much better platform to develop for (e.g., cheaper to develop a wii game versus HD game; 86 million user base, etc.). I am sure they have weighed the pros and cons of development for each platform BEFORE deciding to develop for a particular platform (e.g., wii vs ps3 vs 360; wii vs 360/ps3; all platforms). 

I don't see AC3, Mass Effect 3, Skyrim, Batman AC, Bioshock 3, Deus Ex HR, and so many more coming to the wii, and nor do I expect to see the developers for the aforementioned games convert to wii development.