Very good post, Mike.

I think that, regardless of the side of the fence your on (in terms of how well CoD:WaW did on Wii), it's almost indisputable that the Wii version of CoD:WaW, as well as SD games as a whole did well.

Did it make anywhere as much profit, ROI, or IRR (under most scenarios) as the X360 or PS3 versions? Unlikely. But we're talking about one of the most profitable games of all time. The most important thing is that World at War validates the fact that a core game, if done RIGHT, can turn a profit on the Wii, and older SD systems. It may not make as much of an impact as if.....The PS3 version was canned, but it's still a significant impact. We should see more and more games that 'should' be PS3/X360 become PS3/X360/Wii, and rightfully so: Wii development costs of the port should be low enough to garner a profit in most cases.

How prevalent are the PS3/360/PC combination? What surprises me here is the fact that a port between the Xbox 360 and PC is often 'free' in terms of developer effort. Why is it, that when a PS3 game gets ported to the Wii for example they make full use of the Wiimote but the same game ported to the PC often gets gimped in many more ways and in effect its a much simpler port?

So basicly, why does the Wii get better quality control when the ports are more difficult?

The big three have some rules on porting software to their platform -- for example, if you port an old PS2 game to the PSP, you are required to produce a bit more content for it.

Nintendo may very well have prereqs for using the Wiimote in some spiffy manner, before they will allow a 3rd party to make a port to the Wii. They want you to be able to drink a beer and play at the same time.

lol@ montana, ya just call it the worst thread ever and THAT will remove all credibility... I have seen you do that before to other people, kinda pointless. Um to Outlawauran, sorry I spun off on youa bit.. I have a flu and am on my way to OCS and was drunk off on nyquil... lol.

And ya, please read my points before trashing.

1. I never said my numbers were official, I stated at best they were ballbark, and even pointed out it really depended on how much it cost TREY to port it.
2. I never said The Wii version was more important, by any many means.

The whole point was to show that COD:Wii is (might be) more profitable per dollar invested than the HD version. I know if there was no HD version the Wii versions dev cost would have been like 4x more. I think that it would be bad business to not put high profile multiplats on the Wii in future since the extra investment has a better (again not proven until we know actuall dev cost) IRR than the initial investment.

{claps} end of thread

profit margin ..... maybe
profit dollars ...... no way in hell.

Your silly logic doesn't sway us Wiilievers. We know that all things HD must be inferior for the profits, because our leaders tell us so.

If 3rd parties would only stop making games for HDs and concentrate on Wii, we know for certain everyone would make more money and be happier, and we can think a trillion zillion reasons why this is the case, even though your silly HD logic says they are wrong.

Silly logic makers.

Viva la Wii!

It's this complex that needs to stop. People are going to be crazy if they don't The Conduit is costing $15-20 million.

To be fair, the Wii has had some...Excessive...Development costs on some games. Red Steel was $10 million. That should be in the same ballpark as The Conduit.

The lowest figure I've seen for Red Steel was $12 million without advertising.