Can you provide an example of a similar game on each system where the Wii game costs more?  Like a Mario vs. a Ratchet and Clank or a Red Steel vs. a Haze or anything like that?  Because what you're saying is the exact opposite of what all evidence I've ever read says.  Wii has the cheapest dev costs, the cheapest devkits, the smallest dev teams, and the shortest dev cycles, when compared to the PS3 and the 360.

@Esa-Petteri: You're still not getting the point. If the developers are giving estimates about games costing 2-4 times on HD consoles, they are saying their shovelware on PS3 or 360 cost atleast 2 times what the shovelware cost on Wii. Which you only are proving with your Midway and THQ examples.

About the sloppy code, if IBM is to believe, Cell is picky about the code you're using. 360 can handle "sloppy code" much better than PS3 (so does Wii, but only on lower specs).

What you are trying to compare here, is a game with the same level of graphics on Wii and PS360. Of course, the game you want to compare, has to be a Wii game, since the other way around the game is impossible to make (and again, what's the point in doing that, it spoils the idea of the HD consoles). So we can say that making an HD game on Wii, is infinitely more expensive to make that a HD game for PS360.
Btw, which version of Megaman 9 do you think was the cheapest to make, WW, PSN or XBLA version?

Rayman raving rabbids? :p Really, I don't know if there is exactly the same game. But your logic fails, if someone would make the same game for wii and for 360, it would be cheaper to make on 360. Just because you can get away with sloppy coding. No need to optimize. What is your reasoning? Why would exactly the same game (graphics,controls, all the same) cost more on more powerful platform?

Do I have to take your word for it or can you show me where those developers referred to "shovelware" costs?

What are you trying to say there? Ps3/360 are only about HD or what? Anyway if someone would make a wii-like game for 360 and wii, it would not cost more to develop for 360.

Megaman 9? Don't know, don't care. All the same?

If another product is graphically superior, how can it be similar? Show me a link about some developer saying that a similar game would be 2-4 times more expensive on Ps3/360. Then I can believe you.

If you are talking average games on platforms, I can agree that wii games are noticeably cheaper to develop. ;)

@Esa-Petteri: Actually it's you who's running the shovelware argument. The devs have said that the ballpark is around 2-4 times the cost. You are saying it's because they have put out shovelware on Wii, which is cheaper.
Now, since the developers you pointed out, have been successfully putting out shovelware on all three consoles, the shovelware is included in their ballpark figure on all three consoles.

Ok, you ask for examples about essentially the same game for all platforms, i give you one and you don't care?
The game have cost propably the same for all three platforms, with additional cost for XBLA and PSN, for it required to be in HD...

So your entire argument is based on a hypothetical scenario in which somebody makes an SD game on an HD console?  HD graphics alone more than double the costs of an SD game.  Do you know any SD games on HD consoles?  If so, compare their costs to a Wii game.  Also, compare their sales.

@Esa-Petteri: By judging your reply to HS, i see you finally are getting the point. There's no idea in making a game, that has Wii level of graphics on PS360 and Sony and M$ require all the games in HD. And there's the point we've been talking about, it's the graphical level that's adding the costs and lower graphical level, and it's smaller costs, on Wii is the whole idea in Nintendos strategy considering the Wii.
To put it short: On Wii, you're not able to make games that look the same as on PS360 and on PS360, you practically have to surpass the level that Wii is capable of. There's what causes the additional costs.

Okay, Capcom said Monster Hunter 3 was on the Wii because development costs were a hell of a lot less.

Out of their big games, this was the first to start development after the Wii launched (as in it's hard to counter with RE5 since that was in development before it was clear the Wii was a hit), so they evidently think the Wii was a better deal.

Nooooo....

Let's have another look at that chart, shall we?

Do you, by chance, happen to notice that after "Gamecube" but before "Actual AAA Next-Gen" there are two other, sizable bars? I'm curious, did you just think those were there for decoration? Or are you reckoning that developers don't have to lay the groundwork for their games? Those two bars are also part of the cost of making a AAA Next-Gen title. Think back to what you yourself have posted:

"According to THQ Chief Executive Brian Farrell, while an investment in an Xbox 360 or PS3 game might be in the range of $12 million to $20 million on average..."

Let's put the pieces together now. Either THQ is spending more money on their average (non-AAA) titles than other developers are spending on their AAA's...or you're deliberately misreading the chart. I'll admit to being satisfied with either explanation, actually, since they both go against what you claim.

AAA HD games cost much, much more than the average HD game. Next point, please.

Mmmmm...

Hypocrisy is delicious.

You have my most sincere apologies. I didn't know you had been given the ability to exclude points of data that contradict you. That's a handy super-power!

A quick reminder: the relevant sentence that you wrote is "Games like nhm,boom blox or little king's story would not cost any more to develop on ps3/360 than on wii."

I went and underlined the word that's making me laugh at you now. I'm sure you can see why it's relevant. If not, I'd be happy to give you some brief English lessons. No problem, really.

I'll admit to my error here. I mispoke. "Shovelware" has a very precise definition. "Crappy games" has another. Mind you, both of them are usually the result of a lack of effort on the part of the developer, although you can have the occasional expensive turd too. And since in your book "effort" means "money spent"...

You're setting up a difference without much distinction.

Again, I used "shovelware" when I should have said "crappy game." See above.

And to answer your question directly, Unreal Tournament gets a pass. The other two you listed, along with stuff like Blitz: The League II and The Wheelman, and the rest of their lineup, are indeed, crappy games. Although the latest Mortal Kombat is supposed to be decent, for what it's worth. (Not much)

So they do, my friend, so they do.

Of course, the publishers you named still do far more of the former than the latter...

You reckon there's just a one-time decrease in development costs, mate? Granted the Wii stuff won't go down as dramatically, but the Wii isn't actually a Gamecube, ya know? There's plenty of new stuff under the hood, mate.

As a fun game, can you name at least one blatantly obvious development tool that's new for the Wii? Go on, guess!

The point.

>

>

>

>

>

You.

Read what I wrote again. It does make development cheaper than it would be. It's also a requirement this generation, where once it was something fewer developers had to do. And remember that liscensing an engine isn't going to get that much cheaper over time, either. And things are still expensive. And yes, it's "less" risk. But it's still a "lot" of risk.

....you do realize that these are just the Top Twenty, right? It's important that you recognize that, as the ability to read is important to our continuing this discussion.

As to your last sentence, would you care to assess which companies are more invested in HD? And where said companies lie, in terms of the profit line? Don't say "Ubisoft", by the by. It wouldn't be smart. You can say Activision, and be mostly correct, assuming you ignore Blizzard's role in that number, but then you have one publisher that's profiting off HD, and several more who generally aren't. Is...is that your idea of a healthy marketplace?