yep it is not widening horizons it is trolling my friend.

Vgking for the first time in history i agree with you!!.

+1

That's quite a claim to make of a guy with a PhD in mathematics, I must say.

There's a funny thing about "simple economics" - it's almost always bad economics. Economics is not a simple field, it is a highly complex area in which things are so non-linear, it's almost absurd. Decisions made right now, when the Wii U has a small install base, can make massive differences to the situation if and when the Wii U has an install base in the high double digits of millions.

This is why, for instance, so-called casual games did so well on the Wii - developers of these games put them on the Wii early, and established a strong install base for these games. And so, you now have, for example, Just Dance 4 on the Wii being the top-selling game of the week after 10 weeks on the market, despite the Wii's successor having been released already.

Consider the Rabbids franchise. Ubisoft released a strong version of the game on the Wii at launch. Now, they've had repeated million-sellers in the franchise on the system, while other versions, on other platforms, struggle. Why? Because they established a fanbase on the system from launch.

This is also why you always hear Ubisoft talking about the importance of launching new IPs at the beginning of a console's life - because that is how you create a strong and stable fanbase.

It's not a simple concept, I know. But your reductionist approach to economics has been disproven time and again, in the videogame industry and in other industries.

As I said the overhead assosiated with multiple cores will mean that the i3 would still win in most benchmarks, tho roughly equal in synthetic tests. And the i7 in the benchmark is much closer in clock rate than in your example, in fact the gap is only half the  difference and you won't find any benchmarks which are more than double the performance. So given your example the i3 would win in most benchmarks.

I never had a problem with the premise just your bad example. And clock rate does equal power using the same architecture and core count, I guess logic is a problem for some people.

Considering that 1/3rd of all Wii U's have been sold in Japan, what exact estimate do you think of Wii U owners will buy Metro for the Wii U? You also have to consider the extra costs for developing for a new platform, and specifically programming for the pad. 

In short, it's really not worth it when you consider the much wider and lucrative markets of the PC, 360 and PS3. Comparing the Wii to the Wii U is flawed as the Wii did not offer the same games as the PS3 and 360 and was being offered when all the consoles were relatively young. The Wii U is trying to directly compete against a market of over 140 million console sales, and that's ignoring the PC.

State me the math to show otherwise plx. 

You really need to change your posting tone and habits.

You are again completely ignoring the whole point of my post, which is to say that it's not about the current market. It's about where the market will be in 2-3 years.

Besides which, the game isn't slated to release until March. By then, it is expected to have an install base of 5.5 million or so, and even with Japan assumed to have 2 million of that, and that nobody in Japan will want Metro, that's still 3.5 million people to sell to.

Now consider that the extra costs for developing for a new platform will reduce costs for future titles developed for that platform, and is thus an investment. Experience with the pad will also help them to improve their future Wii U titles.

That you then referred to "lucrative markets of the PC, 360 and PS3" shows me that you really don't know what you're talking about. Why do you think that THQ is in a hole in the first place? Why are the tipped to be the next publisher to collapse? Well, let's look at their support for the Wii... other than a few select titles, their Wii games consist of low quality licensed games (like Ratatouille). Of those few exceptions, there were a couple of weak WWE games, Big Beach Sports (and similar), a forgettable racing title that was launched late (compared to other platform versions), de Blob, Deadly Creatures, Drawn to Life... and that's it. Oh, except for their uDraw thing. For the entire generation. And yet, they still saw a better net performance on Wii than on PS3, and comparable to 360.

Note that their best-rated game of all time on the Wii was "You Don't Know Jack", with de Blob at second place with 81.12% according to GameRankings.

The fact of the matter is, THQ didn't put in the effort with the Wii, and they're not really putting in the effort with the Wii U. And it'll only hurt them further.

thq still butthurt over deadly creatures and the wii u controller making their utablet obselete.

In 2 -3 years the market will be with the next generation of consoles (PS4/next 360). This current generation will be left behind and therefore it's not worth developing for the Wii U. Sales haven't been brilliants, Nintendo stocks are bombing, and the Wii U offers almost the same power as the 360 and PS3.

You also need to consider that many wii U owners will probably own either a PS3 or 360. As the Wii U is just a multiplatform console as such, why bother developing for it at this moment in time? Trying to set up brand loyalty is ludcirous as there is no guarentee it'll work. Do you really think THQ want to be taking gambles when all the other devs are giving the WIi U a miss?

THQ is in a hole because it made some very, very bad games and even worse management decisions, not because people refuse to buy games...

You idea that support for the Wii is indicitive of success is ludicrous. How many core game publishers for the Wii have gone bust? Oh right, most of them. Deep Silver? Eurocom? Remember those names? Also by your bizzare-o logic, Treyarch and Infinity Ward should be bust...
How much of that net performance on the Wii was to do with the hardware sold rather then anything else? And outside of Nintendo and bundled titles, how well did games sell?

No one other then Nintendo put effort into the Wii. And frankly not putting effort into the Wii U makes sense as people will still buy the games, but just for their other console. That way you save dev costs and still sell just as many titles. 

Ultimately, I just want the Wii U to have the big JRPGs, so as long as they are dominating Japan, they'll have those and I'll be a really happy man(lets see how much dumber SE and other JP devs can be :D ). I'll keep using my PC as my primary shooter box of course, although the notion of using the game pad as a scanner in Aliens sounds really intriguing for sure, that might be a reason why I'd get that for Wii U instead.

Sucks that THQ is in such bad position right now, but looking at Metro 2033 on PC, I'd say optimizing codes on the Wii U might not be a strong point for the devs no matter how much resource you pour into the Wii U in such a short time frame, I honestly don't think they can do it, they simply don't have the man power or talent to pull it off, Metro devs are just not good enough.