Nintendo's been relaxing their policies^

Almost all of them.

Nintendo's policies are actually very very nice. Heck it's pretty amazing actually that depending on luck you can contact them and get a wii u dev kit within a week.

Indeed.

I've gone hands on with one myself. Nice piece of kit.

Nice. Which one do you have?

The tides are beginning to turn. Sales increases in Europe and Japan as well as the US..

If you develop it, they will come..

Before I answer the next challenger, I have to post this.
Take a listen.

♫ Unity by Rick James ♫

Unity
Brother sister there's got to be
Unity, yeah
Unity
Unity's what's missing
In our lives
Can't you see?

We need love
A little word of confidence
Every now and then
A little honesty and trust
Among us
A little love and harmony
And there'll surely be

Some Unity
Unity
Unity

*Unity*

John Lucas

My point was: Wii isn't able to get a AAA hardcore game living up to the standards of the 7th generation in every aspect but in graphics and at the same time, in this last parameter, to stay in a 6th generation level. For example, it's impossible to get on Wii GTA IV with San Andreas graphics or Assassin's Creed with Prince of Persia 3 graphics or LA Noire with The Getaway graphics, etc. And it's not possible because of technology matters + software sales history. Connecting these 2 points, no dev would dare to do it...and that's why after all these years they didn't have done that. Is the Wii not technology superior to the PS2? Yes it is. But has the Wii any game with better graphics than Gran Turismo 4. No it hasn't. And has the Wii any western exclusive AAA hardcore game. No it hasn't. Why? Because technology + feasibility = development decision. That was my point and you just off-topic it.

Regarding Resident Evil, the 4 was released on the Wii but the 5 and 6 weren't. Why because Wii can't follow PS3/X360 without a graphic downward of at least 2 generations (and gamers would never accept that). You just prove my point with your own examples.

And tell me, Assassin's Creed 3 didn't envolved enough effort to sell well? Your logic is wrong again.

As for the ZombiU, it's a fail (even Ubisoft says that). The game is as innovative as lets say Nintendo Land and the former doesn't get not even 25% of the sales of the latter. Ubisoft is known for its innovation, that's why games like Splinter Cell, Assassin's Creed and Just Dance sold so well. And the same will happen with Watch Dogs and The Division. But Zombi U is selling around 10% of those games and it's already in Ubisoft's fail basket along with games like Ruse or End War. When you deal with innovation you hardly get what you worked for (your claim is simply not true). Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you don't even try because you know that a casual game like Just Dance can do well on the Wii but a harcore game like Assassin's Creed would hardly be profitable on it.

On what?...and what is your point anyway?...

Let me tell you my perspective and then we see who is twisting what. Nintendo made huge profits in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Actually, Nintendo has been doing large profits since it was born. Sony and Microsoft have already put more money into their gaming divisions than what they ever got from there. And remember that Sony dominated 2 generations like Nintendo never did since Sony is in the industry. When I talk about profit, investment is already in there (as a cost). And when I talk about gaming division, it's games and consoles (precisely like Nintendo that you like to emphasise it's a toy company), not televisions or phones or operating systems or any other "waste" as you say. So, it's like I said: as a PS3 owner all the money I spend goes to the development of more games and consoles and not to the pockets of greedy men like it happens with Nintendo. This is what really matters when we, gamers that love games, talk about sales and revenues and profits. And you can't twist it in any other way.

Ok, theorically you're right. It should be possible. But then you need to see what is feasible. In the end what matters is what comes out for us (gamers). People can tell Wii is more powerful than PS2 (and I don't challenge that) but then I see PS2 games with graphics Wii has never delivered. It's like comparing a more powerful car with another one that actually has higher top speed and acceleration. I prefer ends over means, I prefer results over intentions.

We are not in a Nintendo's board meeting. We are in a game forum. I think my point is pretty obvious and I made it clear in the last post. You can tell success depends on the perspective and that Wii is a failure only in my perpective and I agree with you. But my point of view is a gamer's point of view.

Well, then you are commenting on a "fucking idiot" with "absolutely no logic thought" forum topic :) But I understand your point: in a generation's transition analysis, Wii did much better than Game Cube so it's a success. Mine is more long-term than yours (and because of that my conclusion is the opposite) but I believe we agree with each other's perspectives. It's only a matter of criteria.

That last paragraph is serious twisting. To fit your pre-conceived notion of reality. Go to business school and learn something about longevity. Nintendo's always been about providing something unique to the consumer. I'd say the only thing they're greedy about is market share. They like to dominate. But they've shown more care for the gaming industry as a whole than any other multi-media company. What happens when these companies get hit by hard times? They fire employees left and right. Places like Activision makes these licensed games in six months and churn out crap, but then again the people cant make good products that they are not invested in. What does Nintendo do? Iwata takes the blame, he chops his salary in half, and he refuses to fire anyone. I've not seen someone in this industry THAT invested in making their direction for a collective whole a success. If he fails the company, he's shit out of luck. That is the position they put themselves in. No one else would be willing to do that with their mentality. So they better bring it, being arrogant wont get you anywhere.

Graphics really should be the last thing companies should be worried about. But no they take it as the easy way to advertise their products rather than focus on moving their game craft past the nineties. Games still have terrible AI. Game performance is way more important than how pretty you can make things look trying to impress people. People are trying to immerse people going about it in many different ways and they forgot the most important part of all. THE MUSIC. Immersion is what this gen is about and what are they still pushing? THE GRAPHICS, to what end? THEIR DETRIMENT. Its all about how the games FEEL.

The Wii was literally classified as two gamecubes duct taped together. It was on a different plane all together.Hence games not being ported. They had to make separate games.Many 3rd parties jumped on that bandwagon.

Your argument is completely revisionist.

As far as Im concerned there is no such thing as a CASUAL game and a HARDCORE game.

Its content that people play with in different manners. What you do have is shitty throwaway phone game type shit, and real MEATY experiences you can seek your teeth into. Everything else is visual style flair and fluff.

I see where ur coming from now and cant really say I disagree