Sorry to hear that my writing style is not your cup of tea. I'll freely admit that I'm trying to improve the conciseness of my writings, but at the moment I use as few words as I think are necessary to get my point across. I would like to add, however, that it may have been better to point this out to me in a post that does not rival one of my own in length. Food for thought and all.

As to the rest of your post, I'm sad to see that the majority of what you've written is merely a reiteration of what you've said before, rather than a proper refutation of my own counterpoints. Ah, my apologies, I slipped again there, and used "big grand words" instead of smaller, more common ones. I'll stop doing that for the rest of this post, even if the *ahem* "big" words are the most appropriate. Actually, screw that. I'll write how I want to. You're perfectly welcome to despise my writing style, of course, but I'm afraid there's nothing you can ever do to get me to change it. However, I'm pleased to see that you did sort of address some of my points, so I willingly take you up on them.

Let us begin with your insistence that in spite of the counterexamples I served you, you continue to maintain that the people you know at EA all despise the Wii, that everyone they know feels the same, etc. etc. The reason that I selected Will Wright and Gabe Newell as my examples is that they are two of the industry's leading and most respected third party developers. I used them to represent the fact that, contrary to your earlier claim, third party developers hating working on the system.

Once again, I quote you your own words: "The best developers want to make the best games and the wii simply doesn't interest them." I then submitted two examples of some of the best developers who are, in fact, very interested in the Wii, more so than the other two systems. Does that mean that "ALL developers share the same opinion", as you asked in your last post? Hardly. Eric Capps went on record last week as having zero interest in the platform. Unfortunately, you seem to have gotten confused about what precisely we were discussing. You see, you are the person the made the claim I bolded in this paragraph. I then gave two examples that show that your blanket statement is wrong. Note that I limited myself to two for the sake of brevity, and also that those two are some of the biggest names in the industry. More imporantly, note that I never claimed that every developer out there is champing at the bit to develop for the Wii, because I know it's not a valid argument. You see, I prefer to make arguments that are supported by the data, and making a claim as outlandish as yours would violate this principle.

I would also like you note that I've provided reliable, verifiable sources to support my claim. Not only have you failed to defend your assertion that "the best developers want to make the best games and the wii simply doesn't interest them", you attempted to sidetrack it by inserting anecdotal evidence from your friends at EA, friends that the rest of us don't know and can't contact. I'm not impressed. Even if you are being honest about your friends' existence and beliefs, it is not enough to support your thesis, unless you honestly expect us all to believe that the people you know stand in for all of "the best developers," or that you expect us to simply take your word that "ALL the teams they talk to (including non ea teams) say the same thing." You cannot. As famousringo's signature says, "the plural of anecdote is not 'data.'" I thus repeat my earlier statement: I've shown you to be wrong. Now either edit your claim, or accept that you're incorrect.

Next on the agenda is your remark that until the "quality" third party games actually materialize, you'll remain skeptical. Fair enough. I believe a quick look through the list of games third parties have already released will show that several quality games are already out for the Wii. We've actually been playing them for a while, you know. But these are not the AAA, massive-budget games that I believe we were both referring to. I've already cited some of the reasons I strongly suspect that those games are coming, and that they're coming soon. Feel free to browse through my earlier posts on this thread and find them. Whether you choose to believe my reasoning or not is your prerogative. In the end, though, our individual opinons on this matter mean little. Time will soon tell which of us is right. You've not shown me anything that leads me to believe that it won't be me.

I did get a smile on my face when I read your newest post. You see, in the course of a few hours, you first gave me a criteria for what makes a game "hardcore" and what makes another "casual." I then pointed out the blatantly obvious: many "hardcore" games show precisely the same characteristics as "casual" games, and vice-versa. You then claim that although Grand Theft Auto will attract some casuals, "grand theft auto 4 is a hardcore game that also has a casual following," and that this somehow explains the fallacies I pointed out earlier. From this, I can only assume that you're not really reading my posts. I shall cut and paste my response to this, and hope that you catch it the second time.

ttp://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."

Now, let me go into a bit more detail about what the rest of us read in this paragraph, as I assure you it completely contradicts your prior and more recent claims. It begins by noting that "hardcore" gamers were the first to play Grand Theft Auto III, but then it goes on to say that it began to appeal to "casuals." More important is the next sentence that I included. "No one had any idea that it was going to be as large as it was...it took six to eight weeks before people realized something unusual was happening and that there was crossover appeal to that game." What this means is simple: the "hardcore" may be responsible for Grand Theft Auto's initial sales, but it only became big when the "casuals" jumped on board.

It was those people who made the game what it is. Grand Theft Auto, which you and so many others consider to be a "hardcore" game, is mostly being bought and played by "casuals." the ratio of "hardcore" to "casuals" is probably quite similar between Mario Kart, the "casual" game, and Grand Theft Auto. That completely contradicts the very notion that there is some magical divide between "hardcores" and "casuals", since none of us seem to have the slightest idea how to identify and separate members of the two groups. I honestly could go on this point for pages and pages, citing game after game after game throughout the eras to prove just how incredibly bone-headed this notion of a divide between "casual" and "hardcore" gaming, but I'm thinking that even if Jesus himself descended from the heavens and told you that you're wrong on this issue, you'd still cling to your irrational beliefs on the matter. That's your right, of course, but until you show me something that makes me suspect I'm wrong, and that the reasons I posted earlier are somehow flawed, I and many others will continue to ignore you on this subject.

Alright, now it's time for the "stealing" third party support from the 360 and PS3. Once again, I've addressed this issue in my earlier post. And once again you've not shown me anything that persuades me that I'm the least bit wrong. This is not to say that I can not be. But you see, when you make a bald assertion, and then fail to support it with anything more than "well that's what I think", then I'm not going to take you too seriously. But again, for the sake of clarity, I shall delve into a bit more detail about what I said earlier. I'm glad to see that you admit that Monster Hunter 3 is a valid example.

I'm a bit confused, however, about your counterpoint concerning EA. You appear to assume that there is a warehouse somewhere that stores employees for third party developers to purchase whenever there's a need to host more projects. I'm fairly certain there's not. As monstrous as it is, even EA has finite resources and manpower. They may have reorganized the company flowchart to reflect the creation of a new division, but I can assure you that in order to man the division they had to transfer a lot of personnel from their other sections. Unless, of course, you believe that EA simply waved its hands and conjured up all those employees. I would also like to point out that every dollar that EA, and other companies, spend on developing games for the Wii is one less dollar that they can devote to the PS3 and 360. I would also like to point out that you ignored the other examples I gave of good third party support that we know is en route.

Finally, I would like to point out that as much as it may amuse the rest of us, your attempt to engage in a List Warz isn't particularly impressive. I refer to my earlier point about supporting one's arguments: you said that the Wii will continue to be criticized until its third party offering consistently outsell those of the 360 (why no love for the poor PS3? I'm sure it's not because including the PS3 would completely destroy your argument, so I'll be satisfied with thinking there must be some awesome reason for this glaring ommission that you're keeping private.) I believe I have done a pretty good job of showing that you're wrong in the eyes of the only people who's opinions on this subject really matter, i.e. the third party developers themselves. I even underlined this point earlier. Or did you think I was writing all of this just to rival Tolstoy in terms of the length of my submissions? Your list is a...decent counterpoint to the argument that the PS3 and 360 aren't seeing any third party support. Unfortunately for you, no one here has actually, y'know, said that. But hold onto that list, as I'm sure it will come in handy if you ever decide to post on nextgenwars.com. I'm sure you'll fit right in.

Sadly, this will be my final post to you on this issue. Looking back on what I've just wrote, all either of us is really doing is reiterating what was said earlier. Rather than continue to go around in circles, I'll satisfy myself by saying that you're wrong about the Wii being justifiably "critized." I've told you why I believe the current numbers are not a good indicator of what's actually been happening, and you've yet to impress me with anything you've said in response. If you ever feel that you have something impressive enough to change my mind, something which isn't just a regurgitation of what you've said over and over again, post it here in the forums, and notify me about it. You'll have to forgive me, though, if I don't exactly hold my breath.

1. So generally the Wii has an unfair advantage in 3rd party sales because the games tend to have legs, unlike 360 games.

2. So yet again another unfair advantage that the Wii has, the 1st party is helping the 3rd party game. Good that Microsoft doesn't do anything like heavily advertising 3rd party games for their system in TV commercials.

3. But production values and critical acclaim mean a lot to 360 owners. They should buy the games in droves. How many 360 games are there with an average rating of 80 or more? 150?

4. So the lower amount of 3rd party sales on the Wii can't be blamed on the far better 1st party sales on the platform? You know, there are only so much games will people have time to play.

How about an additional point:

5. Wii 3rd party sales have to be only half of the 360's sales, because Wii games cost roughly half in development. If the Wii's 3rd party sales are larger than 60 % of the 360's 3rd party sales, 3rd parties generally were more successful on the Wii if we consider return on investment.