Browsing through some of the recent software sales pretty much confirmed my thoughts on Wii 3rd party sales and why they do or don't sell well on the system...

Lego Indiana Jones is a good example of a third party/multiplatform game done right on Wii, and it also pretty much sums up what your typical average Wii owner looks for when it comes to purchasing software... name/brand recognition and if its based on a proven game type... in this case we have Indiana Jones (strong recognition) and a game based off the Lego series of games (Lego Star Wars also did very well on Wii).
 
The majority of successful third-party Wii software is based on an existing license or brand (see: Guitar Hero 3, RE:4 and UC, Lego games, Mario and Sonic Olympics, etc.) with the exceptions to the rule being games that specifically cater to the casual/minigame audience like Carnival Games and the Raving Rabbids series.

So if a third party game doesn't have that going for it right off the bat, it's pretty much doomed to mediocre sales regardless of quality unless theres a huge advertising campaign behind it. That of course is hardly ever the case because most publishers can't be bothered or dont want to risk investing in advertising their games that much, just get them out there and hope they sell enough to break even or make a little quick profit for them.  Great games like No More Heroes, Boom Blox, and Zack and Wiki have to rely SOLELY on word of mouth in order to have any chance of success, because the average Wii owner takes one look at the box and can't tell the difference between games like that and the countless amounts of shovelware on the system, so they play it safe and go with something they know and trust.

So yeah I know i've gone down the same roads and re-beaten a dead horse till its mince meat, but hopefully everyone will stop whining about the state of 3rd party Wii sales now, cuz the only way the situation mentioned above is gonna change is if..

A: 3rd partys start taking Wii development seriously, which has been happening for some time now and is starting to show, but more importantly...

B: Publishers need to push quality games and advertise more.  And don't expect Nintendo to crack down on shovelware anytime soon either cuz they're too busy counting their money to care... so 3rd parties are on their own for now in faring against the neverending onslaught of total crappage that makes up a good chuck of the Wii software pie.

I don't plan on going into any details, but I'm pretty sure I could sum up your entire post and just replace Wii>PS3/360 and replace Nintendo>Sony/Microsoft.

You should really take a look at the games that sell on the other systems this gen too. In fact you should take a look at last gen as well, I think you may start seeing a trend.

^^^Yeah i know my post was a little long-winded, thanx for summing it up haha.  I just hate every week seeing another thread about 3rd parties doing poorly on Wii and everyone wondering why, so I figured I'd spell it out in plain English so everyone understands.

It kind of seemed worded similar to how many of the anti-Wii threads sound. I wasn't too sure how it was to be interpreted.

Yeah basically both gens are similar because in terms of Sony & Microsoft, 3rd party/multiplat software sells more on the system with the larger install base, last gen being the PS2 and this gen being the 360.

Also, last gen Nintendo came in 3rd because mainly only Nintendo software sold on the GCN, and this gen Nintendo is 1st because mainly only Nintendo software sells on the Wii.

...

......

.........

...........

WAIT WHAT?!? LoL *does not compute*

Edit: Sorry if my OP sounded a little anti-Wii but thats not what i intended at all, I'm a proud Wii60 owner and i can vouch for the 3rd party situation on Wii because so far I've only purchased ONE 3rd party game myself and that's Zack and Wiki... I rented NMH and liked it but quite worth the $50 for me, same goes for Boom Blox although if i find it cheaper sometime soon I'll definitely pick it up.

Yeah, I totally agree with that. It's too hard for Betty the Wii owner to know what is a good game and what's crap so she sticks to what she knows - Mario, Resident Evil, Star Wars, Sims, etc.

A good answer to that is for Nintendo or a 3rd party alliance to make a 'gold seal' of quality where games either pre-judged by Nintendo or better an alliance of 3rd parties and those found of high enough quality get the seal. Alternatively critically acclaimed games get rereleased as part of a 'platinum' or whatever series.

Before someone argues that'd never happen - it could, the wine industry in Ontario got together to do exactly that. An alliance of independant wineries judge each other's wines and those that meet certain standards get the seal. This helped the Ontario Wineries alot because the public now felt confident in what they were getting (either good or cheap).

That sounds an awful lot like the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" that is generally credited with getting third parties pissed off at Nintendo and causing them to bolt for Sony and the original Playstation.  For that reason, I'm not sure that Nintendo or third parties would go for something like that.

Re-releasing critically acclaimed games or million sellers as "player's choice" or "platinum" is a more realistic option in my opinion.  It would probably go over better for all parties if the games had already proved themselves instead of being released with a seal.

The players choice is definitly missing and should be introduced, another thing i think will help in the long run is Wii Ware. I think given time they'll be a spate (is that a word?) of titles that will establish an audience on wii Ware and publishers will push for full blown releases so they can cash in on them also.

The old Seal of Quality was a mixed blessing.  It did kinda help to save the industry, since the Atari would allow every piece of crap in the world to be released, and Nintendo's strict quality control cut most of the crap out.  And then they kept their super tight grip of quality control for years until there were finally serious competitors and it was too expensive to make crappy games, so the Seal was irrelevant and it hurt them.  But at first it was a huge benefit.

No console company can afford to ever do that again though.

You are aware that although not a restrictive, both the 360 and the PS3 have a mechanism that let Sony and Microsoft review game projects before they get developed for their respective console ?

I'm not sure what kind of feedback they give exactly but they do get a say in what game come out on their console...