I think Matt C is just frustrated because developers ARE making some excellent games for the Wii but publishers are too chicken to fund/publish them.

He's right, it would be a terrible waste to have great innovative Wii games never see the light of day because publishers are a bunch of conservative cowards and only want to publish what's worked in the past (a big problem on Wii since it's not following the pre-established norms).

I agree it would be nice to see Nintendo publish them for two reasons:

A) Nintendo doesn't have any mature titles themselves and since the Wii is suppose to be for 'everyone' that includes people with mature tastes.

B) To show it can be done successfully. Now for argument sakes, this might be best done through the back door. IE: Nintendo creates a new publishing house so there not published by 'Nintendo' or partners with a 3rd party like Capcom, gets them to agree to publish it with Nintendo agreeing to guarantee a certain return amount in case the game fails in exchange for a small % of profit if it succeeds, providing certain standards and conditions (like advertising) are met.

Yes, but you forge th fact that the Wii had a great success in Japan, with actually little competition from Sony (Im not even counting MS), so, eventually all Japan orientated software (Dragon Quest as you quote) will land on Wii, because its the only home console with reasonably good sales.
Occident is another story.

"The Wii is generally about name recognition and trendiness"

Is it any different with the other 2 consoles? When you see Uncharted ( a very high quality new IP ) struggling to reach 250k in America what do you make of that? It's the general trend nowadays in this industry, not a specific Wii "flaw". 

Well, this this argument is flawed too.  The big developers absolutely can survive on the PS3 and 360.  GTAIV is going to sell even if it completely blows.  The issue isn't that they can't survive, it's that they are going to be seeing drastic changes in profits from last generation.  

For example, a game on the PS2 may have sold 3 million copies, and cost $20 million to develop.  That was high budget last generation.  The sequel to that game on the PS3 may cost $35 million to develop, and manage to sell 1.5 million copies.  Did the developer make a profit on this game?  Absolutely, but when they look at their financial reports, are they going to be satisfied?  Absolutely not...

Exactly!

When a japanese developer plans to bring a JPRG or other Japan oriented title, is going to put it in the console that sells the most software and has lowest costs, or is it going to put in a console that struggle to sell more games than machines?

Support is coming. At least in Japan. Just wait a couple of month till Square Enix drops the bomb ;)

I completely agree. Big developers will survive like Konami, Capcom,etc it's the small ones that'll perish or get bought. But companies aren't in this industry (or any other industry) to just "survive"; they'll need great returns to their investments. The case is, that there are only two ways to do it :

1. Develop a "in-the-norm"  high budget big known franchise like FF, MGS, Halo on the HD consoles.

2. Develop for the Wii. 

The article would be reasonable (not good) if he had not used the following examples: Manhunt 2, MP3 and No More Heroes.
Manhunt 2 is so bad that it made me think a lot about suicide lately. It got the worst Wii controls so far IMO. The button mapping is pure shit. The graphics are crappy on the PS2, on the Wii it is an insult. Gameplay could not get more repetitive and lame even if they tried. The plot is just an excuse to kill people.

MP3 is a ignorant choice for an example. MP, the highest rated game last generation, sold 2 million copies in 4-5 years on a 22 million (hardcore friendly) user base. Why would MP 3 do better in 6 months on one of the most casual friendly consoles ever? It is an extraordinary feat for a Metroid game to do 1 million in such a short time.

NMH is not a good example either. Niche title, Japan only release. If I am not mistaken it did better than Killer 7 in Japan (in a much smaller userbase).

Which mature game the publishers refused? If it is something like Escape from Bug Island 2 I would not call it promising.

I disagree with his conclusions also. Nintendo job is not to publish underperfoming and crappy M rated games. They could develop some if they think it is worth the trouble, but I do not like this "blame Nintendo first" strategy. What is next? Should they allow 3rd parties to add Mario to their titles to boost sales? How about lowering the quality of their games to give third parties a chance? What about developing the whole game for the third parties?

 Of cource Naz, perhaps I was being a bit too hyperbolic. All third parties that support the HD consoles over the wii aren't going to be bankrupt in the next four years, but if they follow that path Nintendo will be just about the only developer showing substantial growth. Nintendo has sky rocketed with more money than they know what to do with (it will be interesting from a business perspective to see what such a conservative company will do with such a vast fortune). But what of other third parties? Will making a modest profit off of a 4 year project be enough to stimulate healthy growth? Not a chance. At the end of this gen, Nintendo will have an incredible amount of cash to buy struggling third parties that can't seem to cope with the new paradigm shift.

 What I was trying to get across is that Nintendo could very easily go back to being a giant powerhouse of a monopoly because stubburn and clueless third parties insist on Churning out 57 HD FPS a year, and insisting that the wii couldn't sell any real games.

Things like that are the reason I argued against people in another thread who claim that the Wii is going to get all the big third party games and the 360 and PS3 would be left with basically nothing.  I still don't understand the reasoning of Wii fanboys who keep arguing that.  I mean it seems like one third party executive after another says the same thing that Matt has posted in his blog.  Even the companies that do come out and support the Wii (like Square Enix) seem to have doubts about the Wii and are still supporting the PS3 and 360. 

I guess we'll wait to see who was right (some of the fanboys I've argued with said all the support would shift at the start of 2008, others said it would be E3 2008 when all the major franchise titles like Resident Evil 5 are cancelled on the 360/PS3/PC are moved over to Wii).  I guess we'll know in a few months who was right and who was talking out of their ass.

BINGO! FTW.   This is exactly the problem with the industry right now and everyone knew it going into this generation.  At least MS to their credit tried to keep development costs as low as possible, while Sony made that damn cell processor that developers have been hating as it drives up costs (at least initially).  That's why Nintendo took the route it did.  And Publishers have to get their heads out of their butts and stop doing what use to work (but works less and less - profit wise) and follow Nintendo's lead. 

 But for the good of the industry maybe Nintendo could help reduce the risk for 3rd parties. They are filthy rich right now and in the end this would benefit them too. This is possible in a number of ways which I won't get into here.  If not, then some current publishers will fall and newer, more flexible, more innovate ones will rise.  Right now I'm watching Gamecock to see how/what these upstarts do on Wii.