Or publish Sadness....

but since this is the age of sequels most games jsut need a few more new models and some updated texture work.

Relative to previous HD profits, yes. But not faster or in larger amounts compared to the Wii.

No. Just no. Even the most ridiculously cookie-cutter sequel requires far, far more effort.

In the Playstation/N64 generation there was an interesting thing which occured that people were not expecting ... The number of people needed to generate content exceeded (by quite a large margin) the number of people involved in producing software for the first time ever.

Durring the PS2/XBox/Gamecube generation even when you included the scripters into the people who were involved in producing software, the number of Artists and Level Designers easily outnumbered those involved in software 3 to 1.

With most game engines being licenced, and the number and complexity of scripts needed for a game not dramatically growing (in part because of physics engines) the majority of growth in expense of HD games has been the cost to produce high quality 3D assets; when you're talking about a signle character model taking 3 to 4 people a month to 6 weeks to complete the ammount of money saved from having an existing engine is tiny and unnoticeable.

So because HD developments costs are so high, developers are now playing it safe and reusing assets, often in the form of direct sequels. Is that really an argument you want to make in favor of the HD consoles?

Also, those same cost reductions through reuse of assets also apply to the Wii.

Since we're turning this into a 'profits' argument; Wouldn't it make more sense for EA (or any company for that matter) to make a casual game, rather than a hardcore game for the Wii? I mean if Game Party, Carnival games, or Mario and Sonic are any indication, a game doesn't have to be quality to sell on the Wii. Why not make a game that costs a lot less than a "hardcore" game, and sell millions of units? I mean, if a hardcore game and a casual game sell the same amount of units, the Casual game would still be more profitable, as it would obviously cost less to make.

Also, the thread title is sensationalizing. He didn't say "We should have bet on the Wii", nor was it implied. I know you didn't quote him, but by putting the colon after "EA CEO", you make it look like he said those exact words.

But he does say that "there's a second and third place that is meaningful, against which we can build a profitable business. That's a good and positive thing.” And "that, for the first time in history, the second and third placed consoles were still ‘meaningful’."

So basically, he's saying that they did put too much stock into the HD consoles, but they are still able to generate profits for them (As we can see in their fiscal reports), and obviously, they won't be stopping support for these two gaming consoles.

On a side note, my questions weren't there to imply "HD console's can not be profitable" but were serious questions that someone should ask the CEO of a major corporation ...

The fact is he is legally obligated to maximize the profits of his company and that means (regardless of whether you like it or not) if it would be more profitable for EA to make 4 small games for the Wii than to produce Madden for the HD Consoles he is supposed to make the 4 small Wii games. There is a certain ammount of freedom he is given to focus on long term profits over shorter term profits, but he should be able to explain his motivations in an intelligent manner.

No, as there is such a thing as market saturation. You can't simply flood the channel with 200 mini-game collections and expect to walk away with massive profits--if that were the case, that's all you'd get on Wii and everyone would be billionaires.