"Let's do that. As I stated, making high poly count models is easier than low poly count, especially if you're trying to get it to look decent. Have you ever used a 3D modeler?"

Last I checked this was about rendering the cars AND fitting them in the memory. That is not easier, and you fail for twisting things around so much.

I not really sure what your point is anymore, Groucho, so I'll say this.

From what I have heard Super Mario Galaxy cost about 16 million. Grand Theft Auto 4 and Metal Gear Solid 4 both cost over 100 million.

That means that the break even point of a high production value Wii game is much, much lower than HD games with high production values. That means that it is generally safer to develop games for the Wii.

It is extremely pricey to create all the detail that HD games require. SD games can look great without that level of detail, because you can't see that detail on a SDTV anyway.

IF you use a 3D modeller to modellize your car ( ok that's a big IF as I think most game developers are not there yet), the only change you have to do to increase your polygon count is a parameter to the function that facets the model......

I think we should get there soon though as I don't see why car manufacturer coudn't provide simplified 3D models of their cars to game developers. That would ensure accuracy of the models and simplify the integration process...

Yes I work in CAD so I have an idea of what I am talking about...

MGS4 didn't cost anywhere near 100 millions, I'm not sure where you got that number...

I think the last leaked numbers put development costs in the 40-50 million ballpark at most..

That very well could be true.  Rumors are generally unreliable, so my numbers could be wrong.  But even if your numbers are right, then my point remains valid.

I'm pretty sure I am still right for GTA4, though.

@Groucho: Ok, if we use you logic, developement costs are only going down and in previous generations games have cost more to make, due to systems being more constrained overall. That's not what the game budget say. There was a time when game budgets were tens of thousands, when they are today tens of millions.

I'm saying it's impossible to make a Wii game that is even remotedly close from technical perspective.
The part of tweaking the maximum performance out of the system, shouldn't be considerably cheaper on Wii than on any other system, but what counts is the amount of work put into game before tweaking the system. You are trying to compare Wii maxed out and HD system without maxing out.
That relates to your last gen example. If a visually last gen game would be on the HD consoles, it would have a budget similar to last gen games, maybe even less, but what's the point of making the kind of games? The HD consoles only idea is to make games look better that they did last gen.

Why did you mention average? It's not what you were talking about for starters. The early 360 games are visually pretty much comparable to the visually better Wii games. From technical standpoint, even that level isn't possible to reach on Wii.

Apparently Polyphony Digital could have had use for your 3D modelers, the game would have been out ages ago.

If what you say is true, and SMG cost Nintendo 16M USD to make, consider these items:

(A) The Wii is, basically, a super GameCube.  Any GameCube engine (example: SMS) could be easily evolved into a Wii engine.  Any evolved game would cost a lot less to make. (i.e. SMG)

(B) The GameCube wasn't very popular.  Not many 3rd parties had pre-existing GameCube engines when the Wii hit the market.  Nintendo already had a good one, which they likely already invested many (I would say tens of) millions into.

(C) 16M USD is a decent-sized budget for most HD titles.  The ones you are mentioning are WAY out of the typical HD"high end expense" ballpark of 20 million.  You are quoting the extremes as though they were the norm.  On top of that, SMG was likely evolved from SMS.  That makes 16M USD pretty dang spendy for it.

Even if you 16M number is true, 16M, given the circumstances, is a HUGE Wii game budget.  And summarily, SMG was an *awesome* Wii game.

All I'm saying is that, back to the original topic, the only thing publishers need to "understand" about the Wii, is that it's attach rate, combined with raw numbers, will eventually make PS2/Wii cross-plats unnecessary, and the 3rd parties can spend all their budget on the Wii, and focus on exclusive engine development, to boot.  Voila.  Good Wii games.  Nothing magical about that.  Reggie, et. al. need to sell about 80-90M consoles to make that happen -- its not the 3rd parties' "fault".  The Wii is too distant from the next-gen consoles to justify ports, and too close to the worlds most popular console (the PS2) to justify exclusives.

Its not the third parties' fault that they produce crap games that sell like crap? It seems to me like that is entirely their fault.

Wow.  Back to square one.

Sorry, I've run out of steam on this one guys.

Going back to your original point, I agree that third parties should invest more in development for Wii titles.  It just doesn't take nearly as much as it does for HD games.  Comparing high production values to high production values, HD games are two to four times as expensive as Wii games.  This is largely due to the fact that Wii games only need to look good in SD, while 360 and PS3 games need to look good in HD.