Quoted for truth. I think it is appalling that these 3rd party devs, are actually mad that the wii audience do not want to buy their crappy games, its down right insulting. Then they have the cheek to blame Nintendo, because without super HD processing powers they are not creative enough to make a good game. 

@xerostomia: Thanks for your input, but it didn't make any sense.

You have somekind of point there with the attach rate, but also notice, that 360 has been out a year longer, which makes wonders to attach rate.
Just a while ago, Nintendo released figures about 3rd party sales (in Americas), in a certain timeframe since launch, when Wii had the biggest (raw) 3rd party sales out of the three. So, Wii is tracking above 360 and PS3 in 3rd party sales.

Basically you were proving what i said 3rd parties dissing the Wii userbase with your PS360 example, since what's the reason to buy the Wii version of multiplatform titles, since it's either dumbed down version with tacked on controls or the PS2 version with tacked on controls.
Exclusives sell, because they tend to be made ground-up for Wii and therefore uses Wiis abilities better than multiplatform titles that doesn't have Wii as a leading platform.

Since you seem to be stuck with your Madden example, let's note that Madden 09 is tracking around 50% above Madden 08 in the first 10 weeks sales (this is for Americas, since VGC doesn't have other regions numbers).

Wii sports and Wii play account for >25% of total Wii software sold and almost 33% of software sold in the million plus sellers. If you remove those tites, it significantly impacts the numbers.

I agree that Nintendo puts out more excluves than MS, but I view that as a negative. You are trying make your pie and eat it to (your software competes with 3rd party software for market share). Look at attach rates (it is the only 'standardization' between consoles, and time, Wii owners only buy 5 titles and 2 of them is going to be Wii Play and Wii Sports, that means there are only 3 more ttles out of the entire Wii library that people will buy, hmmmmm Mario cart or Call for duty, hmmmm smash brothers or Madden, hmmmm mario Galaxy or Star wars. We know what people end up buying. It does not matter what 3rd party developers put out there, they simply cannot compete with anything that has Mario in the title. The one title that has truely impressed me is Wii fit. Inovative, and has sold very well despite the costs. The point of putting attach rates to non-nintendo titles is to see how many 3rd part games are sold per console the answer is not even 2.

I would think that EA/Ubisoft/Take2/konami etc, etc, are far more knowlegeable in this matter than either you or I am. They probably track many, many stats including trends, buying habbits, demographics, etc. They have a much larger vested interest (money) than either you or I have (pleasure in playing games). It makes no sense to me to blame EVERY 3rd party developer for the lack of sales as they ALL cannot be wrong. Yes, if a particular developer or few of them are struggling on the Wii but many of them are successful, then blaming the develoeprs is acceptable. But when every develoepr has the same issue (for the most part), Nintendo is at fault here. They are the ones that (are equally as smart, if not more smart) in realizing the gimic they have and have used it to their own advantage. The rest of the gaming industry has gone forward (MS, Sony, and all 3rd party developers, including those for the PC), but Nintendo CHOSE (and by all immediate indications chose correctly from a pocketbook standpoint) to make the Wii and have in doing so alienated themselves from the core gaming community. Nintendo has done nothing to support 3rd party developers this generation and it will come back to bite them.

The best analogy I can think of is like this: Blizzard decides to make diablo3 for the consoles but because Nintendo has dominant market share but with last generation hardware power, TOTAL game sales are less, because the quality product is being made for the PS3/Xbox360, BUT they no longer have the userbase (PS2/Xbox/gamecube) they had last generation for a LAST GENERATION GAME. Thus sales numbers are significantly lower even though PS3 and Xbox owners support diablo3 very well. This is because of nintendo and their decision to use old hardware (why play diablo 3, when it will look the same/play the same as diablo 2 on the Wii). It is not the fault of Blizzard. How could it be their fault? The same applies to EA/Ubisoft etc, etc. I do not blame Nintendo for trying to make money, but stop blaming the 3rd party developers. Its like buying a 8 year old PC and then complaining that Crysis is gimped on your computer and thus I am not going to support crysis any more until they make games to support my PC. there are 1000's of last generation on the PS2, gamecube and orginal Xbox for that.

@xerostomia: Now it made even less sense.

First, 3rd parties isn't a single instance. This was the first part that went wrong. How does it help for example Hudson if Ubisoft has 5M+ sellers on PS360? It really doesn't matter who has the biggest sellers, if it's not the specific publisher/developer, 1st or 3rd party, whose game is the big seller.

Next you contradicted the first point, by noticing the same as i just wrote above.
Which one to buy, GTA or UT3, MGS or Soul Calibur? If you want to know what really worries 3rd parties, it's that even high profile 1st party titles flop on PS3.

No. Nintendo haven't alienated itself from the core gamers. Who really alienated itself from core gamers, is Sony.

As for the Diablo example, why buy Diablo 3, if the only improvement would be graphics? Or are just suggesting, that you buy the same shit, only in prettier package and be happy about it?

And your PC example, if (nearly) most of the active gamers had 8 years old PC and they wouldn't buy games unless the PC can run them, i think it's the stupidity of the developer for not to make games for the old PC.
The industry runs with games that people want to play and buy. What the developers are doing, is that they create a product for consumers to buy. Nintendo have managed to do this very well this gen, with games and consoles, and some 3rd parties more or less worse. If 3rd parties want to complain about something, they can complain about them making bad products.

bdbdbd, you are correct in blaming Sony for part of the problem, but let me ask you truthfully, how many of the current Wii games could not run on the gamecube (forget about the motion sensor for the moment). My suspicion is that all the games will run similar on the gamecube as it currently does on the Wii.

The diablo example is valid as MAJORITY of games comming out are next versions (halo3, GTA 4, MGS4, Soul Caliber 4, Gears2, resistance 2, Fable 2, Fallout 3, CoD:5, etc, etc) and these games play the SAME as the previous versions, except for graphical upgrades especially, on-line gaming, and audio. Diablo 3 is going to be fundamentally the same as diablo2, a new story, but core gameplay will be the same. So yes most of the Xbox/PS3 owner buy the same 'shit' as you so eloquantly put it. Miilions of people will buy Diablo 3 BECAUSE it is the same shit packaged nicely and with newer graphics (don't think that Wii owners are any different in buying the same 'Mario stuff' either). Why mess with a successful franchise. People justify buying because the perceived difference is that it will require a newer computer to play because of the graphical upgrades, better AI, better physics etc, it will make gameplay more engaging and 'refreshed'. If they made a 'gimped' diablo 3 for my 8 year old PC I may just skip the title completely. I own all 3 consoles, and I will never buy a multiplatform game on the Wii. This does not mean I do not support 3rd party developers, I just will not support 3rd party developers on the Wii because it is on the Wii hardware. Similarly what 3rd party developer will have a vested interest in producing a new IP for an obsolete piece of hardware exclusively? They will produce it multiplatform and port to teh Wii (unless Nintendo pays them to make a new game). I buy Mario games for the Wii beacause Nintendo is the only place to play Mario and my prior machine was the N64 and I do not have a gamecube. Plus my kids want to play Mario, but they play all the othergames on teh Xbox/PS3.

@xerostomia: I actually wasn't blaming Sony, i was just using Sony to point out who has the real problems.

Well, any of the 1st party big "traditional" IP:s wouldn't run on GC "as is", since they have the "full" 480p widescreen running at 60Hz and Wii has some lighting effects that couldn't be done with GC. But, in general, the difference isn't that big.

Why fix something that isn't broken, is a good question, not in the sense what the question itself asks, but in the sense that how do you know when something actually is broken.
The developers know, that the current system where you update your previous game with new flashier graphics, is broken with increasing costs and stagnant audience. That's why the games are made easier all the time to reach a broader range of gamers.

You said you do not support 3rd parties on Wii due to Wii hardware. There's three possible problems:
1. You do not represent the majority of gamers.
2. Most do not have multiple consoles.
3. What difference does it make if an exclusive is 1st or 3rd party?

As for Diablo, if i recall, there was a big whining around internet for the changes Blizzard is going to make to Diablo 3, so the game isn't just "same shit in prettier package". But as an example, i do understand what you were after.
So, if we keep going with your argument, if there's no point in getting the Diablo 3 if the graphical would be the same, what's the point in making the whole game, outside milking the customer? From customers point of view, nothing, so you end up getting the game for the graphical update.

My point was, that the 8 years old PC would be the one with most gamers and installbase. They are not going to buy new hardware in few years, so the wise thing to do is to release games for it.

As for new IP:s, the best-selling platform is always the best for new IP:s, since the big userbase is most likely to purchase the game. As for Wii and new IP:s, the cheapest platform is always the least risky. Nintendo have successfully introduced new IP on Wii, there's Conduit and Madworld coming and NMH was a success as a best-selling Suda game ever, Zack&Wiki i believe had quite a legs. When on the HD side, we have games like Haze and Too Human, which definately underperformed.

This is actually an excellent point. It's not like 3rd parties or new IPs do BADLY on the Wii, they just don't do as well as the overinflated expectations that people have based on the hardware numbers.

the projected software sales are overinflated for quite a few reasons:

1) 3rd parties (and HD fanboys) seem to think that because Wii supporters don't require high end graphics, that they don't expect high end gameplay and features as well. Thus many ports of quality games suffer having important features cut from the game.
In reality, even the Wii consumer base that thinks Wii Play is awesome notices when controls aren't good, or when the a game that is SUPPOSED to have a good storyline ends up not coming through on that end.

2) 3rd parties (and HD fanboys) seem to think that just because the Wii has a larger footprint, that the entire footprint is actually their marketable audience, and if they don't match the sales of Wii Sports, then a game is a flop.
Wii is actually the perfect platform for Niche games, provided 3rd parties recognize that they are not going to be marketing towards the entire Wii audience. While the 360 and PS3 generally have a specific type of gamer that makes up 90% of their base, the Wii has an INCREDIBLY diverse consumer base that means that just about ANY niche game has a shot at getting a somewhat decent following.
The lower development costs mean that companies are not out on the streets if the game flops, and the legs that Wii games tend to have can mean that even if sales are lackluster, they can continue doing well for a long time. Of course, that's provided they do a good enough job for people to want to see more from them, and not completely jade their potential audience.

3) 3rd parties (and HD fanboys) seem to think that the audience has to be there for the game to be marketable. 3rd party developers keep on following trends, rather than setting them. When Nintendo came out with Wii sports and Wii play, there was a veritable glut of hastily slapped together knockoffs as companies tried to cash in, but consumers could already get what they wanted with Wii Sports and Wii Play, so why should they also get a crappy knockoff? Yet 3rd parties are also doing this with other games as well. They aren't coming out with FPS or RTS or PC games that have the potential to do well, because they haven't yet seen those type of games do well.
In reality, people want those games, but since no company has put those games out on the Wii (at least not in the quality that people expect), consumers that want those types of games have no reason to get a Wii, and thus are not going to be there to buy the game when it comes out. Once companies actually start pumping those types of games, it will draw the consumers in and there will be no competition for the first company to hit with a good quality game. Every company that tries to cash in on that genre afterwards will have to compete with the first one who broke into it.

What I dont get is if Reggie is openly stating that a load of these games released for the Wii are currently crappy then how are they still getting the "Nintendo seal of approval"???

bdbdbd, 1st of all thank you for having an intellegent conversation with me. The Sony issue is interesting in that they really misread the population. The PS2 was a run away success, and a great template and they were certainly banking on the PS3 doing the same. The fundamental problem was trying to fight two fronts at the same time ('next gen' gaming and HD video) and thus making hardware rediculously expensive for the masses. If they took the MS route, kept the same hardware but removed the blu-ray drive, they would have released 1 year earlier, and would likely have a large part of the Wii marketshare as the console would be almost the same price as the Wii. The whole gaming landscape potentialy would have been fundamantally different. They may have won the HD battle in having Blu-ray emerge as the format of choice mainly because of the PS3, but I personnally feel that in this Ipod generation, downloads will be the HD format of choice, not physical media (i really belive that that is why Toshiba backed down, they have far greater resources than Sony, and could have survived as a niche product just like sony's own propriotory products). The only thing negative that I have to say about Sony is that they are 'arrogant' in that they really try and push their propriotery formats (from beta, to UMD, to the memory sticks etc.). So perhaps in many ways, the slow adoption of the PS3 relative to the Wii has actually changed the gaming landscape for consoles this generation, and for that I fault Sony.

With regards to #3. what difference does 1st part of 3rd party exclusives make for Wii' you are absolutely correct and I stand corrected. My thoughts on this though, is that I really 'doubt' that any third party developer will be able to make a steller AAA game excluvely for the Wii. The reason is why would they make it exclusive? If Ubisoft made Assassin Creed for the Wii last year, it makes no sense for it not to be on Xbox/PS3. (ie lets say MarioKart was made by someone else. Why would they restrict MarioKart to the Wii? They would be more inclined to make MarioKart 'HD' for the PS3/Xbox and then make the port to the Wii). I do not know the costs for video game design, but if 'they' felt that it was cheaper to develop exclusively for the Wii and forgo HD gaming all together then unfortunately for gamers, the future of gaming is going to be poor (I need my HD gaming, 3-D lighting effects, textures, 5.1, 7.1 sound, on-line interactivity, and the many benifits of the newer game engines provides). I loaded an old need for speed game (Undergorund), it was not as enjoyable (though I loved it at the original time). I played starfox N64 recently, it was fun for a few minutes, but it was like playing pacman again, fun for a few minues thats it, and I would not spend $49 or $59 for it today, I would spend $5 to have it on Xbox live Arcade with surround sound and HD graphics though).

With regards to new IP's, absolutely, the best selling console will be the best place to sell, and in previous generations when hardware was equivalent that arguement holds. The contradiction to that staement will be that today, I need to be 'wowed' by a new IP in order to get my entertainment dollars. Gears of War is such a game that was 'Wow'. Halo went it 1st came out was a 'wow'. Bioshock was a 'Wow', Assassin's Creed was a Wow, even though CoD4 was a sequal, it was a 'Wow'. The sequals are just milking the franchise for more money Halo 2,3, Gears2, CoD:WaW, Assassin Creed 2 latter next year, etc). Halo Wars will be a million seller because of the halo name. I bet there will be many, many people that will buy the game, not realizing that it is a RTS, not FPS. Now when I say 'Wow' I do not mean just graphically. Its the complete package of gamplay experience. This complete package can only be had on HD consoles. This is the reason why the there are many million sellers on the Xbox (more than the Wii). The 3rd party developers get it and know how to make great games. For whatever reason they cannot do it on the Wii, and when every developer has the same issue, the problem is the harware or the demographics of the userbase are totally different.

Perhaps I am being a little harsh on the Wii, but my perspective is from being a bit of a hard core gamer. I totally accept that great games do not have to be great graphics. I bet little Big planet would actually sell well on the wii. However it iis a much better game becuase it is on teh PS3 because of what the Ps3 hardware offers. StarCraft was and is a great game still. However, do not make a new game that is like Starcraft quality in this generation and expect to sell well. Why would I play that game when I can still play starcraft? You have to do better than starcraft, much better if new IP, but I wil buy starcraft2 as a blind buy because of the name. I trust that Blizzard will not let me down (have they ever made a flop?). Same thing on the Wii. Mario games almost get blind buys, because it is Mario, not because they are great games (don't tell me that Mario and Sonic at the Olympic games is a AAA title) but what chance does a new IP have when competing against Mario.

Yes, because Nintendo walks into every third party, pins them down and forces them to make bad games.

Nintendo- Now squeal for me third party! SQUEAL!