The question is... are you sure that the developer is even getting any piece of that larger price...  You've also got to add in the extra expenses that HD console development can bring shipping and production wise.

Regardless of whether it is or is not possible, I think it is a foolish and dishonest way to look at the market ...

Of the 2000+ titles that were released on the PS2 there were 12 that sold 5 Million (or more) copies, and only (roughly) 200 sold 1 Million copies; the question shouldn't be "how profitable are games when they sell 5 Million copies?", the question should be "How profitable are games when they sell 500,000 copies?"

Beyond that, the next important thing to consider is the titles that are selling particularly well on the PS3 and XBox 360 are not the titles that cost $20 Million to develop and market, and there are few Wii titles that have spent nearly $10 Million on their total development and marketing costs. Consider Metal Gear Solid 4 as an example, Konami said that there were 200 developers working on it and it took 3 years to develop ... even modest estimates would put that game at a development cost of $40 to $60 Million without considering marketing costs; it was rumored (not that long ago) that Grand Theft Auto 4 cost over $100 Million when all costs are factored together.

The most realistic way to look at the profitability of HD games vs. Wii games on the Wide scale is "Which is more profitable a $5 Million Wii game or a $20 Million HD game when both copies only sell 500,000 copies?"

I know better than to waste time arguing with Legend in one of his classic, "Lets talk about how poorly a Nintendo sold item is performing in a cherrypicked subject, and I found a news article to validate my attempts to rain on your parade" posts.

I'll just say this.

Publishers are just starting to take babysteps into the AAA Wii 3rd party support market of game manufacturing.

Just because their first foray into the field isn't a resounding success doesn't mean that they are giving up, unlike Legend hopes they will. He hates the Wii, you must understand, first and foremost. Don't let him pretend that having Nintendo fanboys on the defensive isn't the bread and butter of his type of trolling.

Tales of Symphonia 2

Fragile


Final Fantasy CC: The Crystal Bearers

Madworld

Fatal Frame IV

Conduit

Deadly Creatures

de Blob

Tenchu

Spyborgs

Just give it some time. Red Steel, NMH, Zack and Wiki, Umbrella Chronicles, RE4, Guitar Hero, and several other 3rd party games have sold well above their expected sellthrough. First, however, you have to market them. Viral marketing isn't enough. Note to EA on that one.

If we can get over this fanboy crap of believing that one game proves or disproves a theory completely, then we can move on to some serious conversation. As for good 3rd party games, who is to say that Boom Blox doesn't have legs? Even if it didn't, wouldn't this failure of a good 3rd party game be the exception that proves the rule, rather than another in a trend?

Isn't that article cherrypicking one game to prove its point? How has anyone so far have been able to get away with actually backing it up? I didn't even read it, yet I can tell it's completely bogus and mis-sourced from its title. It's like saying, "The sky is red according to last nights weather." It really doesn't need to go any further than that.

It's a hit piece based off the NYT article from either an ignorant, casual, or fanboy reporter, and mention of it from this poster is nothing short of flamebait. Trust me, even Legend knows it's bull. He's smart, despite the fact that he tries to pretend articles like this have substance for his own ends.

looking at this NPD i think Haze stands out much more than bloom blox.

I am adding in that extra cost, Kaz. That was the whole point of my post.

If you don't sell many copies, then you don't make the extra development costs back. If you sell lots of copies, you do.  Look at simple examples.

Wii game: 10 million dev cost.
PS3/360 game: 20 million dev cost.

If we assume each PS3/360 game gives 4 dollars extra per copy, then the following math holds:

1 million copies sold: The PS3/360 game makes 4 million dollars more than the Wii game. The PS3/360 game therefore "makes back" 4 million of the additional development cost.

2 million copies sold: 8 million dollars more than the equivalent Wii game.

2.5 million copies sold: 10 million dollars more than the equivalent Wii game.

In this simplified model, a 10 million dollar Wii game and 20 million dollar PS3/360 game have made equivalent amounts of profit. Whatever the profit is is irrelevant; if it's 100 million dollars for the Wii, the PS3/360 version has made 100 million also, but it has done so by producing 10 million more revenue and costing 10 million more to make.

Now, any copies sold beyond 2.5 million mean the PS3/360 project has made more money.

I'm not entirely sure where the cut off point is,of course, but I don't think there is any question that the mega-hit games on the PS3/360 make more money than the mega hit games for the Wii, even when you factor in development cost. 

My god, Legend11. Its as if Nintendo raped your mother and killed your dog... You go so far out of your way to post news items which make Nintendo look bad that its uncanny.

That's true, but so is the opposite. I doubt the 10 dollar difference on a flop is proportinately large enough to make up for the extra development costs, assuming say, only 100,000 units are sold.

For instance, at 100,000 units sold, a PS360 game makes an extra million dollars. If a PS360 game costs 15 million dollars to make, and a Wii game costs 10 million, it would have to sell at least 500,000 copies to lose more money on the Wii than it would have on the PS360. That is assuming all of those copies sell at 59.99.

In reality, the cost difference between the average 3rd party Wii game and the average 3rd party 360 game is probably closer to 10 million. Not to mention that the game can then be ported to the PS2.

For instance, take the excellent and obviously super expensive game, The Darkness on the 360. It sold under 500,000 units. It probably cost in the realm of 7-10 million, I'm assuming, from just playing the game and guessing. Then look at Haze, ect. The game has amazing production values.

On the other extreme, a game like Carnival games, Rabbids, or even Red Steel 2. If they only sold 500,000 units, they would have easily doubled their development costs. An exception is Boom Blox, which I feel didn't cost nearly as much as some people think, to develop. It still probably costs a pretty penny, and at this point, it is almost certainly not making its money back from the Wii sku.

However, EA has said that the game could be ported. Now, it would obviously be without motion controls, but if it is, that tears the argument up, that Wii 3rd party games can't be ported to other consoles because of the controls. It is much more likely that graphical standards would prevent these ports, however, just look at the probably excellent Disgaea 3, and you can figure out that PS3 games don't have to be graphical powerhouses to get hype. 

Just to add to this thread. Big business likes big numbers. Therefore, POTENTIAL blockbuster games will always get a more favorable treatment from developers than other games.

Therefore, just like Hollywood, there are more parties interested in trying to make a 10Million selling game, than a 500K selling game, EVEN THOUGH it is much MORE RISKY (business wise) and the chance of losing money is greater.

As a big business, making a game for $5 million dollars, in the hope of earning (500K x $20) $10 million in revenues is LESS APPEALING than making a game for $25 million dollars in the hope of earning (5Million x $20) $100million of revenues.

Which is why, new, unique IPs SHOULD(makes more business sense) (and are) being created by smaller developers.

This is where your logic fails. If dev costs are 10 million on the Wii and 20 million on the PS3 and 360 there is a reason and it's quite simple. You need double the resources and double the time to make that 20 million dollar game. In the same time it takes to make a 20 million dollar PS3 or 360 game you could have made 2 Wii games. Completely blowing your idea's right outta the water. Basically you've proven that Wii development is the better choice. Especially if you can get the same sales numbers on each 10 million dollar game as a 20 million dollar game. Which BTW you can.

I was hoping you'd figure it out on your own.

Also, to add insult to injury, you are throwing this mystical 20 million dollar figure and 10 million dollar figure around as though that's how much the average game would cost to make that would sell between 1-5million copies. Obviously your figures are way off as games will vary greatly in price depending on many factors. I bet 20 million is very much on the low end for a PS3 or 360 game. Many devs are making 40+ million dollar games for those systems. Can we say for certain that many devs would and have spent that developing Wii games?