Just Dance and Guitar Hero Carnival Games sold great on Wii, so it's not true third party stuff doesn't sell on Wii, it was just different types of third party content.

The whole concept of the Wii is "get off the couch" social gaming with family/friends.

Things like Monster Hunter Tri and even GoldenEye are going to have a limited appeal on a platform like Wii.

The audience for the Wii outside of the hardcore Nintendo fans, if they wanted some "serious couch gaming" would dabble in a little NSMB or Mario Kart or LEGO Star Wars/Harry Potter/etc.

1. First of all, most developers never put non-family titles on the Wii. Second of all, neither Sonic nor de Blob is "family-geared" - that's just revisionism. They aren't gory pseudo-realistic FPSes, but they're games designed for gamers. And if you want examples of games selling better on Wii than one of the other two, that's a lot easier to do. CoD3, for instance, did significantly better on Wii than PS3, despite the PS3 version having multiplayer.

2. Your definitions don't make sense. That's all I can really say at this point. Table Tennis was as much a simulation game as golf or soccer.

3. What makes Tomb Raider non-family, but Sonic family? And no, you explicitly said "My point is that multiplat games do better on HDs(especially 360) than they do on Wii unless its some dancing for fitness game." - "dancing for fitness game" doesn't translate to "Family-friendly".

4. I'll be honest, your wording here is strange enough that I'm having trouble parsing it. Perhaps if you re-word it, I'll understand what you're trying to say.

5. How do you define "arcade" vs "simulation" in this context? And how, by that definition, does Table Tennis become "arcade" while Fifa becomes "simulation"?

6. Oh, Scholarship edition counts because it was released at same time on 360 as on Wii? How does that work? My understanding was "not counting late ports". An easy argument to put forward would be that most of the people who owned a PS2 bought a Wii, and thus didn't need to get the game again, whereas 360 owners at the time were mostly Xbox owners before that. Just one example of why using ports from the previous generation is a bad idea for these comparisons.

And I didn't say that MW Reflex had to compete with other FPSes. I said that it had to compete with better games. Why would you buy MW Reflex when you could buy Smash Bros, Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart, House of the Dead 2&3 Return, Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime 3, etc, etc? Meanwhile MW Reflex, which was 2 years later than the other versions and lacking in features, still managed a healthy 1.46 million copies sold, with NO advertising. And that's the other factor to consider regarding CoD titles on the Wii - Activision didn't advertise the existence of the Wii versions. They did make mention of WaW during E3, but their advertising around release didn't list Wii. They didn't even include the existence of Black Ops for Wii in their press release in 2010. And yes, by 2009, there was most certainly competition for the FPS market. It had to compete with World at War (which had been ported alongside the other versions), The Conduit, and Medal of Honor: Heroes 2, in terms of online, etc. There was, quite simply, no reason to expect MW:Reflex to sell particularly well - it probably sold better than anybody expected, actually.

And you just suggested that Wii owners were so starved for games that they bought games that sucked... what's the basis for that claim? I said that they didn't buy CoD titles en masse because there were better games to buy.