What a strange statement. It's kind of like a thief explaining his crime because the money was left on the counter.

When you explain this as one of the reasons Nintendo's userbases tends to not focus on third party games people think it's just an excuse but here we are with someone at a big company admitting it happened.

Low quality or low budget? Both aren' necessarily the same. It is not entirely clear what he means.

The wii was less powerful than the original xbox but had the novelty value of its controller. 24MB of main memory, 3MB of video and 64MB of slow memory for buffering, disc cache etc. 2 channel sound, 24bit colour and only ED resolution. It was never going to be capable of much and couldn't run the same games as PS3 or 360.

Even the ps2 had 32bit colour and 5.1 sound and even had high resolution 1080i games like gran turismo, none of which is possible on wii.

What does a software developer do when hardware is commercially successful but simply not powerful enough to run their mainstream games. I would suggest doing enhanced versions of previous generation software that the console is capable of running seems likely rather than the huge problem of trying to cut down and optimise code so it can run on wii. I don't think Sega were alone in treating the wii as a special case. I remember wii getting a special Need for Speed game that was awful because it couldn't run the ps3/360 need for speed game of the same time. I personally played more gamecube games on my wii than wii games. I keep my favourite gamecube games when I updated to wii and often found very little worth buying on wii and would fallback to my gamecube collection.

It's not a good thing.  And it's not a good thing that people bought these poor effort games either.  But as he said that market is gone and games need more quality now.  Which is all that matters. 

Not true and Sega deserves credit for funding projects as well.

Well the reality Sega still makes money on low quality titles, they are on mobile.

But hey, Sega is a  business. I dont care if they make money on crap, I just hope they make content for savvy consumers as well.

Why would it be an issue? It's a business. If you do a cheap crappy game that sells 3 or 4 million copies, it's pure profit. The market must tell them what to do. If cheap stuff sells well, they will do cheap stuff. It's less risky, it was a good business decision.

People more often than not forget that this is a business and companies make decisions according to what the big market wants. If the needs of the market change, they either adapt or die.

A good example is Battlefront. EA could either launch the game months latter with a campaign or launch a more barebones version but do it before The Force Awakens launched. Some team sit down, did some research and calculated that the boost provided by the hype of the film would offset any loss of sales due to lacking single player, while also making the game cheaper. If the game flopped, they wouldn't do it ever again. But it didn't, it worked. So they wil do that again and again, because that's what the market wants. The game even outsold handily the previous entries that did had a campaign.

excuses, excuses, excuses.

Dead Space extraction was included as en extra in dead space 2 (or 3) on the HD twins. Its entire purpose was to instill the feeling that the Wii experience was inferior and it served its purpose.

As for sales it didn't deserve shit.