please not the 3rd party argument... the reason those games were so huge at opening was marketing and hype, and the final component was quality, but quality actually has more to do with the legs.

Ok, core gamers are smart enough to buy a good game even if it is not 1st party, if Conduit is good 80 meta or up it will have a solid open, if it is 90 or above it will have a good opening, it will not have an opening like the games I mentioned because it is a new ip. Casual buy stuff on commercials and word of mouth almost exclusivily (maybe moms buy games of boxart and reading the back... lol).  2nd Sega has proven it can sell on the Wii if any 3rd party can.... sega can. Also the Conduit is stepping into a void, a really think with a great marketing scheme they game can be huge (like 3 million ltd). Right now my prediction stands at about 2 million if it gets a 90, 1.2-1.5 if it get somewhere in the 80's. The game will have to be average or bad (75 or below to not sell near a million)

Also imo 75 is average for a core game if a core reviewer is reviewing, and if it is a casual game getting a 75 from a review the game is great.

Had to put that in there, just to kill any confusion. I also see where your confused about my statement. I'm saying just because a piece of software has made profit doesn't make it sane to stop selling that software.

I'm not saying that sales automatically = profit, that is another arguement; on that note I can say that not selling a product is worse than selling a product at a profit.

An example being;

Hypothetically

Sony sells PS3's at a loss so selling each actually hurts their wallet up front.

Microsoft sells Xbox 360 with no profit or loss .

*In those two cases sales either makes no difference or hurts the company up front.

Nintendo makes a profit from right out of the box.

*In this case each unit sold is profit.

However in all 3 cases theirs more than just up front return; All 3 platforms need mind share as well as market share. By claiming market share they can acquire (historically) mind share. (I'm speaking gaming industry specific) The higher the market share the more software publishers will see the viability of that platform which means more options for the consumer which in turn results in more consumers.

After all the consumer is always correct, by providing strong options that are marketable you can allow the market to make it's decision - from that point forward I'm in the dark. Trends, accesablity and reluctance all play a role that I haven't begun to calculate.

But my point is that the more mind share that is owned by a brand or franchise the better, which can turn just as profitable as the initial product if not more so.

It's really the other way around. These series are established among core-gamers (you know those people that don't actually own a Wii), still they sell very well on Wii.

That's my whole point abour RE and Zelda selling well on Wii, it proves that there's a sizeable core audience for core games.

I'd say for 3rd party games yes, but no for first party games.

If a mario/zelda/metroid game only sold 500,000 it would be a joke. I've never seen a mario sell poorly though so that likely won't happen.

Are you just ignoring my point ? titles that can sell on name alone will not proove your point.

e.g " i love fps's i think i'll buy conduit " =could core gamer

e.g2 " i love the resident evil movies , i'll give that game a try " = proly isn't a core gamer

e.g3 "I always see that Ninty character my son has the figurines , i'll give that game a try" =proly isn't a core gamer

If you just want to ignore the point that someone that buys a Zelda or RE game has a high chance of liking core games that's fine. I'm talking about the audience for the Conduit, not a 1:1 relationship. Red Steel also sold a million, as did Metroid 3 also prove that there is in fact an audience for Conduit. But please ignore all that.

But seriously stating that 5 million people bought Twilight Princess because his/her son has Zelda figurines is completely retarded. And someone that saw the RE movies isn't very likely to ever spend a cent on the franchise again.

Never said that , what i'm trying to say is that you can't attribute the sales of a core title to a core audience if the franchise is  established. Saying  "5 million people bought Twilight Princess because his/her son has Zelda figurines is completely retarded " is almost as retarded as "There clearly is a "hardcore" gaming audience on Wii" when using established i.p's  to proove your point.

I never said you were wrong , i said your justification was weak. Use new core i.p's  that sell well to proove existance of the core gamer not franchises that could be bought purely because of brand recognition, otherwise it's just your word vs mine.

I really don't get how new IP's would prove the point, but established ones don't. If anything established franchises are popular among people that played earlier games in the series and therefore much more likely to be in gaming for a while and as a result of that are used to buying games.

New i.p's generaly dont have  the brand name,recognittion etc that established i.p's experience once established so when some one buys this brand new i.p StealthShooter 5000(Wii)  they generaly aren't doing it for reasons othert than having an interest in stealth shooters.

  i.p''s like Zelda were brought to fame on the backs of core gamers on early Ninty consoles i agree. But once it  is established like Star Treck , Naruto etc the apeal may not lie in the core mechanics of the genre but in things such as brand reccognition,populariity etc.

This still does not prove the audience for The Condiut is not there.