Then I concede that you’ve made an excellent counterpoint, and apologize for using incomplete data. I’ll try to be more careful in the future, and if you see an error on my part, please point it out to me. After all, you can’t get better if you’re making the same mistakes.

That said, I must still take issue with your overall thesis. Your main claim, if I understand it correctly, is that because the 360 continues to sell more third party software than the Wii, albeit by what even you must admit is quite a narrow margin, the Wii is therefore not an attractive platform for third party developers. This of course ignores the fact that third party games are outselling the PS3's third party games, and that it is not being heavily criticized for this, but for the sake of discussion we shall ignore this ever so minor detail. After all, there are still several other objections I have to this train of thought.

*WARNING. VERY LONG READ AHEAD. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED*

First, as that narrow gap shows, the difference between third party sales on the Wii and those for the 360 are nowhere near as large as they were even six months ago. Feel free to check the numbers for yourself: I’m fairly confident I’m right this time. (And if not, well, I don’t mind the taste of crow as much as some folks.) Third party sales have continued to rise for the system at a steady rate, and I see nothing in the data that makes me believe that this is not a long term trend. Retailers agree.

http://www.nintendorevolution.ca/11242007/03/retailer_nintendo_wii_third_parties_are_catching_up

Here, an HMV executive responded to a question of whether there’s still a difference between wii first and third party sales by saying "yes and no. Nintendo games are genuinely good, but I think third-parties are starting to catch up… Companies like Sega…EA…Ubisoft… they aren't selling as well as Brain Training but it all adds up to a healthy market. The volumes on the hardware are such that it's now worthwhile for publishers to make the extra effort of working with the Wii.

In other words, as your own data suggests, Wii third party sales are catching up to those of the 360, and appear poised to surpass them if the trend continues. Developers themselves are starting to see this trend. Factor 5 has gone from working on the Playstation 3 to making a new game for the Wii. EA has devoted an entire section to Wii games, and some of its big games are coming out for the system, including two games involving Steven Spielberg and the sole console version of their mega-game, Spore. More and more third party games are being announced for the system on an almost daily basis. Some companies, such as the developers of Mushroom Men and Hudson, have enough faith in the Wii's viability for third parties that they're literally staking their futures on the thing.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6188860.html?sid=6188860∂=rss&subj=6188860

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18247

There are numerous other examples, such as Capcom pulling Monster Hunter 3 from the PS3 in favor of the Wii, and the rumors that the next Sonic the Hedgehog game has the Wii as its lead platform. I'm sure you can come up with other examples if you wanted to. Now, some people here may feel that the Wii is a failure for third party developers, but those same developers obviously don't agree.

You will no doubt claim at this point that despite all of this, and despite the Wii's higher install base, third party sell proportionately higher on the 360. This is the "attach rate" argument that rose up a few months ago, when detractors needed something to prove that the Wii was a failure. You yourself allude to this when you write "(d)espite the wii having sold 6 million more consoles than the 360 it still can't out sell it in 3rd party software sales." I needn't get into too much detail to address this concern, because its a surprisingly weak point.

Ask yourself this: if you were a third party developer, would you care more about the absolute sales that your game received upon release, or about the proportion it sold in relation to the install base? If you pick the former, give yourself a cookie, because you've picked the same answer that anyone with common sense would. After all, choosing the latter argument means that the PS2 is the worst system of all time, since almost no game touched even 1/10th of the install base. In other words, third party developers don't care what percentage of people buy their stuff, they just care that enough people do so that they can turn a good profit. And if the current trends continue, that will inevitably be the case for third party games on the Wii.

But perhaps you'd like to interject at this point, and reemphasize that the Wii's current higher install base has not yet translated into the highest third party sales. The data has proven you correct at this point. But I'd like for you to answer a question for me: of all the third party games released for the Wii so far, how many of them do you honestly believe deserve to sell as well as the big-budget PS3 and 360 games have? If we're to judge Wii games by comparing them to the amount of talent and resources that they receive relative to the High Definition consoles, they should only be getting one third to one half of the PS3 and 360 sales. After all, that's how much they're spending on their Wii titles in relation to those on the PS3 and 360.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18389

"(A)n Ubisoft executive gave a breakdown of the company's average development costs per game...(with) PS3/Xbox 360/PC titles averaging 12 million to 18 million euros ($18.8m-$28.2m) to create for all 3 SKUs, and a Wii game expected to cost 5 million to 6 million euros ($7.8-$9m) to develop."

And it's not just that they're spending less on the Wii than on the other consoles: because the risk is bigger for the high definition consoles, they're also often devoting their most talented teams to those systems, and leaving the weaker teams on the Wii. This was the case with Sega, who outsourced Sonic and the Secret Rings, giving that company a shoestring budget to work with, while they devoted all of their money and their best talent to Sonic the Hedgehog. Guess which game sold better, though? See also Capcom, who gave Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles to some small developer no one's heard of, while they continue to devote their own manpower to Resident Evil 5. Heck, Shigeru Miyamoto himself pointed this out months ago.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3158427

"If there's only one piece of advice that I could give to the managers of third party companies" said Miyamoto, "it would be that a lot of times it seems that when they're putting games out on Nintendo hardware, those games are being developed by their third-string team or their fourth-string team. Maybe that's because they see those products as being unique projects or somewhat smaller-scale projects. But when Nintendo puts out a title that is designed to really support and sell its hardware, that title is always developed by one of our number one teams. And so I think that when it comes to the question of trying to compete with our software, I would really like to see the parties try to do that with their number one teams rather than with the third- or fourth-string teams."

So I would argue that third parties generally have nothing to complain about when it comes to Wii sales, as they're getting more out of their investment in the system than they are from the PS3 or 360. Don't believe me? Look at the link I gave to Hudson once more, where they specifially credit the Wii with their reversal of fortune in the market. Not convinced? Look at Zak and Wiki, which has not sold well in overall numbers, but which Capcom has publically said has satisfied their expectations for the title. In fact, it's widely rumored they're working on a sequel, something which is not generally done for games that fail. You may also look at the other "poster child" for "third parties can't sell on the Wii" stereotypes, No More Heroes. Some folks say the game sold poorly. Of course, the guys who made it actually went and threw a party to celebrate the fact that it's Suda 51's best-selling game ever. And he's been in the business for twenty years.

But I sense that you're the type who's willing to try and make the Wii look bad no matter what. I think you're going to read all that I've written, and say "Ha! So you admit that third parties don't put their best teams on the Wii! The Wii will never see the best games third parties have to offer!" To which I can only say that you're wrong once again, because they're already starting to.

Let me repeat some of the points I've made above. Will Wright and the team that are developing Spore will be releasing their game for the Wii. The team that is working for Steven Spielberg will be releasing two games for the Wii, one of which reviewers are already saying is a total blast to play. (Boom Blox, coming next week!) The Sonic Team is supposed to be using the Wii as their primary platform, with the rest being either an upscaled or downscaled version of the Wii's game. What's more, Ubisoft is rumored to have scrapped the first build of Red Steel 2 and started it from scratch, a la Resident Evil 2, because they felt the game needed to be better than it was. Camelot, a damn fine developer if ever there was one, is about to release their own Wii game, We Love Golf. And if you put even the slightest amount of effort into searching for more examples of third parties starting to step up and deliver their A games on the Wii, you'll be certain to find it with little difficulty.

You say that until Wii third party sales outstrip those of the 360, the Wii "will continue to get criticized." I would submit to you that the only people who have that opinion are either fanboys who have chosen to despise the Wii for whatever reason, or they are merely misinformed about the reality of the situation. As you have shown yourself able to back up some of your beliefs, I happily place you in the latter category, and hope that my efforts at education are not in vain. However, if there's only one thing you take away from all that I said, let it be this: third party developers are the only people whose opinions on the sales of third party Wii games matters, and as I've just shown, they've already voted with their feet to hop on the Wii train. I've no doubt that some people, excluding yourself, will try to find another way to make the Wii look bad. But the developers feel that the Wii will profit them, and at the end of the day it is their lack of criticism that truly matters.

Wow talk about a total fanboy rant saying "you guys used to say this and that" when i haven't said any of those things.

The only reason why 3rd party sales are close at the moment is 3rd parties aren't releasing any major games right now for the 360 or ps3 because they don't want to go head to head with grand theft auto 4, which is going to sell huge amounts of software and hardware that will keep the 360's software well above the wii and take the ps3's software right next to the wii's. And all this is happening when the wii has a 6 million lead on the 360 and a 12 and a half million lead over the ps3 and you wonder why the wii gets critized for it's 3rd party sales?

@Cookingyourmama: Read the post directly above yours.

@Noname: You epically win! I was thinking of writing something like that, but couldn't be bothered to find all those links.

 Meh. In my opinion, this is a sub-par effort on your part. But do me next! Please please please! And while you're at it, point me to the AAA third-party games that are the equal of Grand Theft Auto that have been released for the Wii recently, as well as the AAA games the PS3 and 360 have seen come out in the past three months, which would have given them more than enough time to avoid the GTA megaton. And since I'm building my wishlist, please also tell me why Nintendo is surrounding GTA with its own releases if the Grand Theft Auto series is truly so...intimidating...to others. Or do you think Mario Kart and Wii Fit are being sent to die? Alternatively, do you concede that GTA is not in fact the alpha and omega of gaming that you're making it out to be?

And @ thekitchensink: Thank you. Mind you, cookingyourmama, or someone else, may still be able to prove me wrong by introducing some data that negates my points, but I have my doubts that he will. But if he does, please provide the relative links next time, as finding and assembling the data cookingyourmama posted last time made me waste several minutes to verify that he was, in fact, mostly correct about that assertion.

Well that's a very long post their and i've done my best to read it all and take it all in, basically until the wii sells the most 3rd party software per week and sells it's 3rd party software at a similar ratio compared to it's installbase the wii will get critized, it's as simple as that really and no amount of people stamping their feet will change that. What i've found is the amount of rabid fanboys who can't possibly accept their is anything wrong with the nintendo wii is quite sickening because it gets in the way of rational conversations. The wii has poor 3rd party software sales for the amount of wii's that are out their just like the 360 doesnt have enough casual games and keeps breaking down and the ps3 is too expensive, these are all basic valid points and only fanboys will argue against them. The wii's 3rd party software situation has improved but it's still not enough and the wii's hardcore 3rd party software is just dire.

When it comes to 3rd parties the wii isn't stealing away any of the major games and developers are just choosing to put them on the pc/ps3/360 at the same time and until the wii can out do all of those put together their is no reason for developers to shift their big games onto the wii, right now the best the wii can hope for are dumbed down ports of these major games.

Despite how well the wii is selling i was expecting to see a whole host of new 3rd party wii games annouced but they are yet to materialise, it's not just money that governs what games get made, their actually have to be people who want to make games. I know several people who are programers, level designers etc. and they all want to make the best game they possibly can and they can't do that on the wii because of it's hardware limitations. Then their are people they know who are stuck on a team making a wii game or wii port and they hate it, making that game doesn't challenge them in the slightest and they are completly bored by it and couldn't care less if it flops or not. The best developers want to make the best games and the wii simply doesn't interest them.

What you fail to realise is not all games are the same. Games fall into 3 categories, their are games that appeal to hardcore gamers, their are games that appeal to casual gamers and their are games that appeal to both. A large chunk of the wii's userbase are casual gamers and the thing about casual games are when they launch generally they don't sell as much as hardcore games but they have much longer legs so several months down the line they are selling more then what the hardcore games are even tho their total ltd sales are lower. So right now because no major 3rd party games have been released for the 360 and ps3 for a while due to gta4 the wii's casual games with generally lower ltd's than the hardcore games are outselling them, plus their's the whole issue with mario and sonic at the olympics selling more than an average 3rd party wii game normally does because it has nintendo characters in it.

Wii fit is a casual game and is not competing with gta4, they appeal to two completly different types of gamers. Mario kart is game that appeals to both casual and hardcore gamers but again the amount of people that over lap wanting both mario kart and gta is small and mario kart has already been released in japan and europe so isn't launching at the same time as gta4.

You are yet to prove me wrong so i don't know what you are going on about their really.

 Yeah, it is a long read. Sorry about that. This one is too, although I try to organize it in such a way that it's as clear and concise as it can be, while still being thorough.

I obviously disagree with your assertion that the Wii isn't "stealing" third parties away from other systems, and that developers are simply giving Wii owners an "inferior" version of the PS3 and 360 games. For starters, remember that Capcom has already shifted one of its biggest games in Japan, Monster Hunter 3, from the PS3 to the Wii. That is hardly an insignificant 'coup' on the Wii's part.

I would also point out once more that EA is devoting an entire division solely to the Wii, including the two games its developing in conjunction with Steven Spielberg, and that the Wii is the only console that is receiving a version of Spore. I can assure you, from what we've seen those games are in fact "major", as you put it. Ubisoft is putting plenty of money and talent into Red Steel 2, a Wii-exclusive. Factor 5, Camelot, and countless other quality studios are also making Wii-exclusive games as we speak (well, Camelot is anyways, I'd imagine the Factor 5 dudes are in bed right now).

I'll grant you that many of these games have not been formally announced. But then Nintendo hasn't announced its second half of the year yet either. In fact, a lot of developers have been mum about their plans this year, which may be why we're lavishing so much attention on those games that have been announced. To this point, I can only tell you the cliched "wait for E3." After that, I believe we'll know which of us is right and which of us is wrong...until then, wait for E3!

Finally, your last paragraph. Please recall that before its launch, the Wii was being dismissed by many publishers and analysts as something that would be dead on arrival. After this proved not to be the case, it became a "fad", or an "impulse buy" as Sony so unwisely dubbed it. (Do you not want your product to be desirable enough that people see one and decide to buy it? But I digress.) After that, doubts about whether demand was peaking were the order of the day. It was only in the last couple of months that people in the industry (note that I did not say "people in general!") began to believe that the Wii was a viable system.

Seeing as how it often takes eighteen to twenty-four months to develop a game for the Wii, it is actually quite understandable that the major studios have not yet announed their big titles. I'd expect that no one would want to show off an eight month old build of their game, unless they wanted to go the bullshot route, or release a trailer that has nothing to do with the final game. Personally, I kind of prefer things the way they are now, as it lets me focus on the many good Wii games that have released or about to release this year alone. 

I'm sorry to hear that your friends got stuck with a project that they find uninteresting. But the rest of your paragraph just made me laugh. "The best developers want to make the best games and the wii simply doesn't interest them" you said. I ask you, then, where on the pantheon of great developers you would place Miyamoto, the man who had a large hand in the development of the Wii, and who helped to direct it in a way that allowed him to make the best games he possibly could. Ah, but he's a first party developer, so he doesn't count. Fair enough. Would you not place Will Wright on the pedestal of the finest developers?

 http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7691&Itemid=2

"The only next gen system I've seen is the Wii – the PS3 and the Xbox 360 feel like better versions of the last, but pretty much the same game with incremental improvement...” Damn. I would say that's a pretty good indication that Will Wright is interested in the Wii, even if it's just a tiny wii bit. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) But who's Will Wright to talk, right? I mean, he only makes "casual" "crap" like Sim City and The Sims. He's not a real developer. So let's ask the head of Valve, the company that made Half-Life, what he thinks about the Wii.

 http://gonintendo.com/?p=11654

"The happy story is the Wii...I really like everything that Nintendo is doing." But surely, Mr. Newell, you much prefer the higher horsepower and graphical output of, say, the PS3, right? I mean, you're a gamer too! "The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels. I think it's really clear that Sony lost track of... what developers wanted. I'd even say...they should just cancel it and do a 'do over.'" Um..never mind. Let's just move along, nothing to see here folks, c'mon, on you go.

 When a man deliberately puts on some blinders before venturing out into the world, it's no surprise that he's unable to see the whole picture. I would submit to you that your contacts with the game development industry are anamolous, as they're going against the grain of all the things I've just pointed out. Might I suggest listening to other voices, voices not restricted to the small niche you've unfortunately stumbled into? If you do so, you will find that there is a world of differing opinions out there on all subjects, the Wii included, and that the Wii is hardly the red-headed stepchild you've mistakenly taken it for.

My words here are probably not enough to convince you, as you unfortunately seem to have closed yourself off to the possibility that the Wii may in fact attract significant third party support. There's nothing more that I can do about that, I'm afraid. But six months from now, a year from now, two years into the future, when you start to see more and more of the AAA games coming out exclusively for the Wii, I would ask you to recall this conversation, and not be surprised at what's happened. After all, the truth is right there, just at the corner of your eye, waiting for you to see it. If you can't, then more's the pity. But the rest of us have some damn good first and third party games to play on our Wii, so you'll forgive us if we don't wait up.

It appears our posts went right past each other. I'll respond to this one, and then I need to get to bed. I will, however, be happy to continue our conversation in the morning if you so desire.

Once again, I believe you are incorrect. I've never believed there was such a thing as a "casual gamer", or a "hardcore gamer", or any other sub-category of "gamer." There are only those who play games now, and those who should. I can even show you that there are no "hardcore" and "casual" gamers.

First, consider the fact that until the Wii launched, the word "casual gamer" had not really entered our lexicon, although it was used from time to time, as I'll prove to you in a moment. And yet I'm certain we can all agree that what we now consider to be "casual games" existed long before the Wii. "Casual" is, after all, the label the lazy have chosen to apply to flash games, mini-games, best-selling games like Tetris, etc. What, then, has changed in the past eighteen months that we now throw the word "casual" around like it suddenly explains everything? Ah yes, I know. The Wii.

After all, it's full of stuff that completely doesn't appeal to you, and yet it's selling much better than the traditional systems, systems which cater almost exclusively to the same small niche of boys in their late teens and early twenties. This is not a knock on those people; after all, I am one of those folks, and I assure you I'm perfectly happy to sink countless hours into Oblivion, or a Call of Duty Deathmatch, or to collect everything available in Smash Brothers, or...well, you get the point.

But the Wii is being played by soccer moms, and old people, and girls, and people in physical therapy. They're not like us. They can't be True Gamers. No, we must invent a new word for these...foreigners...who have dared to violate our hobby with their uncouth ways. Let them be the "casuals", to mark them as being less devoted to our hobby than we are. And then let us sit back and jeer as they actually enjoy crap like Wii Fit. Look at those fools, having "fun" with their little mini-game fests. Don't they know that video games are only fun when you play them like we do? How can they not understand that if we don't like it, they shouldn't either. We are the arbiters of gaming, we decide what matters and what does not. And of course, we all think alike, right? As to those-not-like-us, sure, we'll tolerate them when they also pick up and play Mario Kart, or when they get lucky and pick up the latest version of Madden. But that's okay. After all, like you say, it's not competing with OUR game, Grand Theft Auto, the king of the hardcores.

Except...hey, what's this?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/04/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm

I'm seeing a date, 2004. I'm reading the article, and it's about Grand Theft Auto III. When Take Two released Grand Theft Auto III, the "game came on the scene, with a revolutionary style of play, core gamers liked what they saw – and they began talking. Before long, it was readily apparent that casual gamers were listening...(w)hen 'Grand Theft Auto III' was originally released, no one had any idea it was going to be near as large as it was," said Taylor. "It took six to eight weeks before people realized something unusual was happening and that there was crossover appeal to that game."

Oh Hell no, he did not just call Grand Theft Auto a game that appeals to "casual gamers." Grand Theft Auto is our game. It doesn't get any more "hardcore." After all, you said "the amount of people that over lap wanting both mario kart and gta is small" and you wouldn't lie to me, would you? So what's going on here? Could it be...? No, that's just too stupid. But...no! Not possible! And yet...maybe, just maybe, Grand Theft Auto is one of those games that grabs the attention of those-not-like-us. You know, the "casuals."

And maybe there are games like Guitar Hero, and pokemon, and, dare I say it, Wii Fit, that appeal to those of us who post on forums, and keep up with video games, while appealing equally as much to "casuals." And maybe some of us enjoy playing Wii Sports, just like They do. And some of Them pick up Halo, just like we do. I mean, Halo 3 is still selling steadily. It has "legs." Isn't that what you said made a "casual game?" And Wii Fit is highly front-loaded, seeing as how it sold out launch supplies in Japan and Europe. Isn't that what you said defined a "hardcore game?" And now that I think about it, I don't think I like the same games you do. And I doubt you agree with all of your friends' tastes in games either. And if I were to start a post asking who prefers the older-style Final Fantasies, and who favors the newer ones, I'd basically start a riot.

So tell me this, my friend. If we can't agree amongst ourselves what good games are, then how can we expect others to march in lock-step with us? And if "casuals" are buying and playing our "hardcore" games, our GTAs and Halos and Brawls, and if we're buying and playing their casual games like Tetris, and Guitar Hero, and Sim City, and if I like many people here actually had a great time playing Mario and Sonic at the Olympics with my friends, and if we're all having fun playing videogames, and if the definition of which game is "hardcore" and which is "casual" change in just a few years...what is there to separate the "us" from the "them"?

Have a good night.

^^^ this post was fucking brilliant.

noname2200, well written and very good points.