I wouldn't say they are idiots, but they may not have excellent taste and will gobble up anything Nintendo releases, as can be seen by the constant sales of game slike Mario Kart, Mario Party, NSMB and more which have little enrichment properties from one entry to the next (NSMBU will be an exception). However, many are already unsatisfied customers. It will be hard to gauge how much this sales strategy can last.

Also, sales =/= quality, but sales == popularity, exposure and appeal. As such, to use sales a basis for superiority is misleading.

For example, what would you say is a higher quality game or better game:

Wii Play or Xenoblade Chronicles?

The exhaustion point above applies very well to Wii Play, and other big sellers, which are no longer able to yield the same numbers. We've gone over this before, but since then we have demon training which is not doing well, only solidifying this perception that sales does not necessarily mean long-lasting value. The DS touch gen games and Wii casual games most of the time a case in point.

You make good points, I don't deny it, but there are nuances and balances to be made to it that are very important. You can't say I'm judging on taste and justify someone else saying a game is good based on sales, it doesn't work that way as sales can be attributed to many factors, indisputable excellence not necessarily being one of them.

I'll put the sales debate under a spoiler tag so you can focus on the rest/

@underlined. I don't believe you can prove the contrary with sales, as we will tackle below.

@bold. I think that's a stretch, I won't argue it because you (and I) want to get to the heart of the question. I'll just tell you it's incorrect. For example, I have no problem with an excellent game not selling very well, as I know that Sales =/= quality. All I'm trying to show is that numbers are not adequate to reflect the quality of a game, in most cases. We know of the terms "Sleeper hit" and "underselling", as well as "cult niche games" and so on.

@F-Zero-Kirby. I honestly think that's a cop-out. Most people can recognize a killer app, and the late entries by Nintendo can rarely be considered that because they fall short of Nintendo's legacy, as many who have experienced it would agree. It's not a question of taste from genre to genre, it's a question of recognizable awesomeness, and that's to those who have been exposed to it in the past generations. I believe F-Zero, LttP, Super Metroid, and Kirby's Adventure, despite being of very different genres, are outstanding video games that are highly comparable in quality. I can't say the same about the latest entries. And I concede it may simlpy be my taste and the tastes of a few others I've talked to.

@Wii Play and XC. I believe that is a no-brainer. I have yet to play  XC, but I have only heard good things about it. I can't say the same about Wii Play, which was fun, but was not  excellent by any means. It is a reasonable game (not crap), but it is uncomparable with the greater games of the industry (in all its history). Simplicity isn't the question, nor is the target audience, the question is quality. I also find that the logic you offered doesn't fit well with the sales:

Having said all that, I will agree that it's important to compare apples with apples in terms of MMO/single/multi/online, as those have different calibers, and also sales based on price. Putting apples with apples, two single player games, no bundles, we have Wii Party at 7.80M and games like XC at .73M (almost 10 times less sales with no expected legs). Is quality truly an indicator of Sales, or is marketing, preference of the genre/gametype, etc?

If I were to follow your advice and compare sales within a category of "target audience", it would help the debate and would definitely help improve the metric of Sales = "Quality". But even then, a game may have the same "target audience", but reach a completely other target audience for x, y, z reason and lead to completely different sales, not giving us a clue on the variation in quality. Examples are Fable 1 vs SotC vs Zelda OoT. They all target the action fantasy audience, but reach very different segments due to different marketing, different platforms and different styles. So how far should we filter down until the metric becomes blunt?

"How important is prestige?", I like the question. I could answer that subjectively, but how could we measure concepts so as to make the judgement objective? Questions of value:

• How to define the level of prestige of a game?
• How to define the impact of a game on total HW and SW sales, and as such profit, and especially how over a longer period of time.
• How to measure the success of a game amongst other games that help sustain a system, with the theory that the synergy of those games are greater than the sum of their sales?
• How to define successful sales, over what time period, can it span generations? Can we use the concept of brand loyalty to accept a lesser sale as invaluable towards the sustenance of sales and interest in the brand in the future?

Fail lol. This is precisely why Ninty shouldn't do anything you are sayin. There will always be a market to expand to, so they don't have time to make overrated crap that sells like crap.

User was banned for this post - Kantor

Funding and developing are two different things.

To the best of my knowledge, this discussion isn't about EAD doing an internal development of a game like ICO. Or at least it shouldn't be; the scope is too narrow there.

1. Because everyone around them already makes those types of games. 3rd party support is what Ninty needs, not wasting their time making those games, when they could making games for the segments that Sony and everyone else doesn't serve. That's what got them to where they are today.

2. What Ninty fans want is pretty obvious, take a look at the Wii's highest selling games and you will see precisely what Ninty fans want.

3. How you are still missing the point of Sony not doing anything special but making games 3rd parties already cover is hilarious. Nearly every game they make is generic to say the least. Beautiful graphics doesn't make it innovative lol.

4. so no, they shouldn't is my answer

I wouldn't put it past him, funding is fine, but not developing one themselves. They have more important games to put out, and look at what I quoted him saying a few post above. He says "the blue ocean is won, now there is nothing but red", that shows exactly how much he knows lol. He pretty much said there is no more market to expand to, it's been maxed out lol. Wow what fail.

You will gain much more traction much more quickly if you make your points without deriding the person you're talking to.

I don't think EAD even could make a game like Shadow of the Colossus; it's so far out of their portfolio and design philosophy it would be like watching a wood carver trying to paint a portrait. They'll get the gist, but somethign about it will be off.

For now I'm fine with them continuing to fund Platinum Games.

How am I deriding you?

Not me. Happydolphin.