vizunary said: Please stop confusing devs and publishers. A dev is more like an artist, they want to make whatever they want to make, and they will choose the hardware that caters to their desires. While a publisher will "generally" make fund whatever dev project they believe will make money. There will be plenty of devs who will want to work with the newest tech as well as many that want to work with a new type of gameplay.

I appreciate this comment. We do need to clarify the definitions of developers and publishers and associate the desires of each with the stated title.

Although, much like artists, graphics don’t necessarily mean attempting to reach the epitome of completely realistic representation. Many of the worlds most famous and influential artists were not apart of the representation movement of art. Duchamp or Pollack anyone?

Don’t fool yourself into thinking that the only holy-grail left for gaming is going to be true VR. Once this is accomplished, the art will only be moved by the people who think outside of the box for awhile. Much like what happened to the art world with the advent of the camera; the rise of impressionism, cubists, the dada movement and abstract art alike started to change the very definitions of art itself.

If you see video games as an art, yet think that single handedly graphics are the most important aspect for gaming, you prove to know very little about art as a whole.

As to the main question, I think most third party developers were just as doubtful about the Wii as most analysts and insiders were. Of course most of them will be changing their tune rather quickly, and supporting the Wii, if it establishes the largest user base. That is simple business.

Not all of them want, and or care to focus on the Wii as some developers have chosen to take the HD path of gaming more intesely. It is said to take 2-3 years to make a game on PS3/Xbox right now were as it only takes about 1 year for Wii. Personally I see more PC cross over developers wishing to use the HD consoles more, as they naturally are working with bigger beasts by the nature of the PC business and those consoles prove a good place to port their work and expand their own market share.

Very few traditional console developers are interested primarily in the HD consoles, but they have established interests they are pursuing. Don’t let this fully convince you though, as their bottom line will dictate many things for them in the end. For instance, Kojima is still letting the likes of Snake branch out to the Wii is he not? He did the same for the Gamecube even though it narrowly came in last as expaning the marketshare for his games is sound business. Although this might not  fully prove to be the best example as MGS4 is an established franchinse guaranteed seller this gen. Thing is, most developers and games don't share this rare quality.

DoesWhatNintenDont said: vizunary said: Please stop confusing devs and publishers. A dev is more like an artist, they want to make whatever they want to make, and they will choose the hardware that caters to their desires. While a publisher will "generally" make fund whatever dev project they believe will make money. There will be plenty of devs who will want to work with the newest tech as well as many that want to work with a new type of gameplay. I appreciate this comment. We do need to clarify the definitions of developers and publishers and associate the desires of each with the stated title. Although, much like artists, graphics don’t necessarily mean attempting to reach the epitome of completely realistic representation. Many of the worlds most famous and influential artists were not apart of the representation movement of art. Duchamp or Pollack anyone? Don’t fool yourself into thinking that the only holy-grail left for gaming is going to be true VR. Once this is accomplished, the art will only be moved by the people who think outside of the box for awhile. Much like what happened to the art world with the advent of the camera; the rise of impressionism, cubists, the dada movement and abstract art alike started to change the very definitions of art itself. If you see video games as an art, yet think that single handedly graphics are the most important aspect for gaming, you prove to know very little about art as a whole. As to the main question, I think most third party developers were just as doubtful about the Wii as most analysts and insiders were. Of course most of them will be changing their tune rather quickly, and supporting the Wii, if it establishes the largest user base. That is simple business. Not all of them want, and or care to focus on the Wii as some developers have chosen to take the HD path of gaming more intesely. It is said to take 2-3 years to make a game on PS3/Xbox right now were as it only takes about 1 year for Wii. Personally I see more PC cross over developers wishing to use the HD consoles more, as they naturally are working with bigger beasts by the nature of the PC business and those consoles prove a good place to port their work and expand their own market share. Very few traditional console developers are interested primarily in the HD consoles, but they have established interests they are pursuing. Don’t let this fully convince you though, as their bottom line will dictate many things for them in the end. For instance, Kojima is still letting the likes of Snake branch out to the Wii is he not? He did the same for the Gamecube even though it narrowly came in last as expaning the marketshare for his games is sound business. Although this might not fully prove to be the best example as MGS4 is an established franchinse guaranteed seller this gen. Thing is, most developers and games don't share this rare quality.

I completely agree with everything you just said.  I think overall the Wii will end up with the majority of big money titles by the end of the generation, but it won't be anything like the difference between the amount of PS2 games to Gamecube and 360 games. After all, every single developer started the generation expecting the 360 and PS3 to be top brass, and all these games (GTA included) began at least a year ago, most 2 years ago or more.  A visible shift in developmental focus shouldn't be expected any earlier than 2008, though we are seeing early signs already (much earlier than I expected).

Fearing the dark days of the NES and SNES (as they were for third party developers) and with the recent debacle that arose from putting all your eggs in one basket as we saw in this last gen (PS2) then the successor not living up to its predicessor (PS3), developers are probably more cautious now than ever.

I think we're entering in awkward era where the consumer loves Nintendo but the developers don't.

@Leroy Brown what debacle from last gen? PS2 was almost all third party software.

On topic: I think it will be split pretty evenly, lots of PS3/360 games (not many exclusives, for now. I think the gap will close at least slightly in the US and Expand in Japan) and Wii support will be ramped up.

steven787 said: @Leroy Brown what debacle from last gen? PS2 was almost all third party software.

PS2 had alot of third party software and exclusives, third parties were happy, everyone was ready for Ps3, Ps3 was a flop, third parties are in a pickle now, thus debacle. In otherwords, last gen they had put all their eggs in the PS2 basket and this became problematic with the PS3's failure and now they're forced to readjust their game plans and views on console exclusivity.

Can't believe nobody's mentioned the old chestnut that 3rd parties don't want to have to compete with Nintendo, which if you look at the recent charts, Japan's especially, you can't instantly disregard as groundless excuses like I personally thought they were last gen.

LeroyBrown said: steven787 said: @Leroy Brown what debacle from last gen? PS2 was almost all third party software. PS2 had alot of third party software and exclusives, third parties were happy, everyone was ready for Ps3, Ps3 was a flop, third parties are in a pickle now, thus debacle. In otherwords, last gen they had put all their eggs in the PS2 basket and this became problematic with the PS3's failure and now they're forced to readjust their game plans and views on console exclusivity.

I don't know that 3rd parties were all that happy. They were already planning on diversifying their support before the PS3 disappointed. And last gen they only concentrared their eggs in Sony's basket because it was so dominant. Both the Xbox and Cube had good 3rd party support at the start of the generation. Had GTA3 been more like GTA2 than the most influential Killer App of its generation, its possible the parity between systems would have been greater, and support for the XBox and GCN greater.

LeroyBrown said: steven787 said: @Leroy Brown what debacle from last gen? PS2 was almost all third party software. PS2 had alot of third party software and exclusives, third parties were happy, everyone was ready for Ps3, Ps3 was a flop, third parties are in a pickle now, thus debacle. In otherwords, last gen they had put all their eggs in the PS2 basket and this became problematic with the PS3's failure and now they're forced to readjust their game plans and views on console exclusivity.

I don't know that 3rd parties were all that happy. They were already planning on diversifying their support before the PS3 disappointed. And last gen they only concentrared their eggs in Sony's basket because it was so dominant. Both the Xbox and Cube had good 3rd party support at the start of the generation. Had GTA3 been more like GTA2 than the most influential Killer App of its generation, its possible the parity between systems would have been greater, and support for the XBox and GCN greater.

vizunary said: johnsobas said: 3rd party developers would rather develop for Wii, and the reason why is very simple (we're not talking about userbase size or demographics here). They would rather develop for Wii because it is easier and cheaper to develop for. The lower the cost to make it, the lower the risk for developers. Developers don't care about making great graphics, they want to make money. The only problem there could be for developers is getting used to developing for the wiimote. This must be the reason that GTAIV is on the Wii, oh wait... snap....

I'm sure your not so stupid as to think that Rockstar believed that the Wii was going to be this successful when it first started developing GTA4 a couple of years ago.

The 360 and PS3 offer advantages in speed, graphics, memory, etc. The Wii offers innovation in control. I am sure every developer wishes that all these advantages were present in a single system. Until then, the developers and publishers have to choose which of the two they want to focus on, but the sales of the Wii will surely entice some to forsake the horsepower for the waggle. Of course this disparity is why most gamers think that it'll be hard to get through this generation only owning one console.

I think a lot of people are assuming that everyone WANTS innovative controls. I actually don't. I think Wii is a great system for what it is, but it certainly isn't my idea of gaming (mostly due to motion controls, I much prefer the Xbox controller. I don't want to have to move my body to play)

Also I think that there are certain types of games that will just always be on superior hardware. Do you seriously think that if the Wii was dominating when Gears Of War was being conceptualized, they would have developed it for Wii? Not a chance (in my opinion). I'll admit, part of what made Gears so amazing was it's visuals. (that, and the chainsaw bayonet)

Now don't go and tell me that I'm a Wii hater, and that all I care about is graphics. I own almost every Nintendo system available. My NES gets more use than my PS3. I understand that gaming isn't all just graphics. But if we want to keep pushing the limits(graphics, huge immersive worlds, physics) we need powerful hardware, and the Wii just doesn't impress in that area.