^^ ^^
No local multiplayer. This is correct.

I wont take very long becuase I'll probably address the entire topic with it's own topic.

I don't think you understand the situation quite well here-- the PS2 did have the weakest hardware last gen, but it was so close to the Xbox and Gamecube it practically didn't matter to anyone. The Wii is much weaker then the 360 or PS3.

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

Ah, true, but that does not mean it was not the strongest. The system was not the strongest and the developers made games for it. It was not the strongest, yet it made fools of it's competitors. It was not the strongest, yet it had the most software. Does this not sound just like the Wii? Yes, the system are so far apart. However, the PS2 had many exclusives. It would have been easy to make a port to the other consoles, a good one at that. So why is it that the third parties act differently to Nintendo then they did to Sony? The Wii and PS2 are very similar in terms of their situation, so why is the Wii ignored so? This is the incompetence of the third parties.

If it was best selling at games then there wouldn't be this issue. Consoles sold =/= games sold. And, despite popular belief(on this board), its not just because "teh dum developerz just wantz teh HDs"

Oh, but it IS the best at selling games. Just look at those software sold.

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console=Wii&publisher=&sort=Total

Wii Fit, Smash Brothers, Mario Kart, they all sold well. A lot of those games were redical ideas many third parties wouldn't touch with a 10 ft poll (and for good reason), yet Nintendo did it. Why can't the third parties do it? Blizzard can also pull of these feats as well. Perhaps it is not Nintendo's fault.

Mmmm, I hardly call the million sellers on the HD systems "failing" in any way. Look at Konami; MGS4 had a MASSIVE cost, and made all of it up and more. They posted a surplus. The real culprit here is the economy. Western studios are effected even more then Eastern, from the look of things. Obviously low selling games would be creating losses, but not the "uber death losses" that HD gaming is so terribly blamed for(on this board anyway).

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

Not I didn't say anything about million sellers. But, let's back up for a second.

Compare the sales of Metal Gear Sold to many Wii games. You'll see that a lot of them are higher yes?

The economy, as you mentioned, is not the cause of the current state of third parties. It only accelerated what is happening. The system was flawed from the beginning. The games cost a lot to make in terms of resources. You had to have more employees working (labor is your highest cost in a business), the power to run facilities, money for supplies like art resources, and anything else you may need. These games also take more time to make which means all of these cost more. You can make more money with a twenty person team making a low budget title for a handheld. This is how many small developers have lived. The system could not work. The cost were high and the buyers were few (the 360 is selling less then the PS2, and isn't moving fast enough). The margin were low.

Third parties were initially attracted to the Wii for that reason. However, they used it as a quick cash grab. As the sales show, this plan failed. They saw it as some other force and not their shady work. They then go back to making HD games. They continue to lost money.

Technically, yes. But the entire paragraph is absolutely inconsistent with the rest of your explanation. Zack and Wiki certainly wasn't a souless port, and its not even sold 500k. De blob, CoD WaW, both great games. Both below 500k.

Zack and Wiki failed becuase it focused to heavilty on demographics. Look at the name even. Seems kind of childish. The advertising for the game was incorrect. Of course, there is more too it.

Madden was great on the Wii. 

The consumer disagrees.

So your saying if it isn't a half assed port it will sell well? CoD WaW and Madden certainly weren't bad games on the Wii.

They weren't, but they also were not a major focus in development. The 360 version was usually always the main focus. In fact, I beleive in 2007 (or was it 2008?) they talked about how Madden for the 360 was the best version becuase it ran at a higher frame rate (ohhhhhhhh). First, consumers don't care. Second, the Wii version was pushed to the side. They decided, "Ok, we'll release this too I guess," and we get the Wii game. They may still be good, but the focus is wrong. For instance, Madden could be liked by the entire family. Football is America's favorite sport. However, they advertise it and try to sell it to the 18-35 people, not the family. Thus, Madden on the Wii misses the mark for it's lack of "testatorne" consumers.

They are supporting the team that sells more games, which is all they care about. If there were exactly 6million PS8s out there and 40 million Wii2's, if every single person on the PS8s bought the game then you can bet people would be developing every game for PS8. My point, they could care less about install base if it doesn't sell more then the competition.

Install base always mattered. Look at the PS2. It had the install base, but it got the games. Your idea works only in theory. As a business man, you can't think like this. The always made PS2 games becuase there were more fish. Even if the fish in the smaller pond are easier to catch, you may not get as many fish as the bigger one. This is how the third parties thought during the PS2 era. Now, they share your logic. Tell me, by looking at the current state of third party developers who do you think is right?

Nintendo didn't do anything bad. If anything they got the formula right to bring non-gamers into 'gaming'. They are doing fantastic for themselves. And for the last time, its like no on this board has been effected by the ****ed economy and just forgets about it all the time. If the economy was rolling on fine I doubt the losses, if the companies even posted losses, would be near as severe.

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

The whole point is that Nintendo didn't do anything wrong. Thats the whole reason why I wrote this. But anyway.

Wow, so the economy is the reason these companies went under, not their bad decisions. I'm sure they'll think that was the cause of their demise as well.

The times were are in ARE NOT BAD. The 70s were bad. The 30s were REALLY bad. Now. Not so much. Not to say we are dandy, but the economy is the biggest scapegoat of our time. If these companies were smart, they would be doing well. The banks in the 30s did not fail because of the economy; their bad decisions made the bad economy.

lol.

It saddens me you even think this. I assume you think the idea is outlandish, but let me take you into a new world. One outside the industry dreams and the talks of developers. It's called reality.

I can say I'm justified when I say that I am smarter then every third party developers who does not have 50+% of their resources in Wii game. WHY? Much like the PS2, the Wii is going places. It has sold over 1million units worldwide in a week twice. It will probably do it though the rest of this year. What does this mean? More people have Wii verses 360s. What else? That the Wii will have a longer shelf life then the other two consoles. What am I geeting at? Would it not be smart to make Wii games? There is a lot more money in the system. You may say more people buy PS3/360 games, but the Wii still has higher selling titles. To anyone with any business skill, this would be like saying "There's gold in them thar hills." Third parties ignore this and make PS3/360 games. They are starting to be hit hard. It was inevitable; the economy only sped it up.

wow this thing has become a monster... I have never seen so many long well thought out post in one thread...

All right. I'll make a post tomorrow about this, then.

God, I get so tired of correcting people on things that they should know, especially on a site where people debate sales and costs. Google is your friend.

Last gen was 5-6 dollars per game sold, this gen isn't even that.

"For the companies that do put next-generation titles out early, making a profit is tough. Namco Bandai presidentTakeo Takasu said his company needs to sell at least 500,000 copies of each PlayStation 3 game it creates to make a profit. Analysts predict that some other publishers will need to clear 1 million units to get in the black--and start making about $1 per game sold.

The remaining $59 per game goes into many hands. The biggest portion--nearly 45%--goes toward simply programming and designing the game itself. Then the console maker, retailer and marketers each get a cut. Add in manufacturing and management costs, and depending on the type of game, a license fee. Some gamemakers also have to pay a distributor to help get their titles in stores."

http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox360-costs-tech-cx_rr_game06_1219expensivegames.html

It's called the distribution system, and it says hello.

Oh, and further on your 5 million dollar development point: MOST GAMES ON THE WII DO NOT COST 5 MILLION TO MAKE. Triple AAA titles, 5-10 million.

But most games? 5 Million? Are you serious??? Try more like 1-2 million.

You know, people seem to love forgetting that the Wii is the "social" console, where everyone wants to sit around and play with each other. I'm really pissed off that The Conduit won't have local multiplayer, and I think they're idiots. I want to be able to play these games with my brother and my friends, damnit!

I hope game quality doesn't deteriorate because of the recession. It would be awesome if the games got better because the companies need more money.

45% of $60 is much more than 5 or 6 bucks, so if that's what devs (the people who do the aforementioned programming and designing) get then most should be doing all right with 500k units sold of a 360 game.

I've heard fanboys through that assertion around a lot, but never seen an actual quote to back it up.  You got a link for that?

What part of this do you not understand?

"Analysts predict that some other publishers will need to clear 1 million units to get in the black--and start making about $1 per game sold."

Also, Google. Seriously. I gave you the companies, how hard is it?