@Kyros: Apparently we agree that PS360 development is more expensive due to higher graphical standards. That was my point, if there was some other point you were discussing with someone else I may have missed it. If that's the case, I apologize.

If I'm not wrong, wasn't Lair rushed out and unpolished as far as controls goes and perhaps other parts? That against a game from maybe the most important Nintendo series of all time, where everything has to be perfect in Miyamoto eyes? With other words, I think Super Mario Galaxy could rival the cost of HD games, but Lair could be more expensive to and would have been if it had gotten the time it needed.

@ Kyros

One of the points with Wii was to keep development cost at GC/PS2 level, without the developers having to spend much time and money to learn a new system, as Wii is close to how the GC works (but controls probably gave them problems instead). All that to give the developers possibility to make games as they fit, anywhere from trash-visuals to somewhere beyond GC and Xbox. That compared to Xbox 360 and PS3 where so many things from development kits and beyond are, or at least, where more expensive then on the previous generation.

So there are cost advantages on Wii, that i the benefit of working on Wii. But nowhere does it say Wii games has to be cheaper to make then HD games and if a big core game is cheaper on Wii, it might not be by that much (or, it just might).

Many games break even and profit more easy on Wii compared to many Xbox 360 and PS3 games, no matter what type of game.

That's an illusion they like to cultivate. It is also completely untrue. Making games is only a means to an end for these companies; they exist to make money, and nothing more. Any perceived "caring about the product" is nothing more than trying to add features that they believe will make it sell better.

That's what HD was to companies like this: a marketing gimmick to hook the technophiles that made up the core market. Now that the core market is failing to sustain companies, they're having to relearn the techniques that built this industry in the first place, and graphics-are-everything wasn't one of them.

Yes, they should make it their lead platform.

There is a difference between upscaling and an image already being at 1280*720. This arguement is pointless though, because if your willing to be so baseless then you'll just attempt to drag me with you into something more baseless then prove a baseless point. Touche?

That's not what does it. The added cost comes from graphics: rather than upscaling the textures, they pack them full of miniscule details that no one notices during gameplay anyway. This requires much more effort, when the only real gain is that you can make nicer screenshots and trailers for your advertisements. Which is, of course, the whole point: selling more copies through better marketing.

I still say, once Wii reaches 50% marketshare, there is absloutely NO excuse for Wii to not recieve major support from third parties, if not be the lead platform. Any 3rd party that still refuses to do this does so at their own risk.

Well, actually this could be a good idea. One could make game for wii and then port it for HD consoles with better graphics & maybe some extra stuff. Game mechanics in console games today are pretty simple and not so cpu intensive. For example [Gears of War - enough graphics] is something wii can handle. Thats the one thing why I don't like console games. They are way too simple. :/
(Try same with Total war: Empire for example.)

If you ask me, third parties have already made up their minds.  They're not going to go backwards at this point, because that will only handicap them for the next generation (ie after another 1-3 dev cycles), when they have to go forward again.  Like the Soviets at Stalingrad, the rallying cry seems to be "Not one step back [in graphics]!".

But most third parties are relasing the majority of their games on the Wii, and most of them are selling very well :/.