Don't forget Resident Evil going 4x beyond its expected sales (along with Umbrella Chronicles). Let's examine the relentless progression of this sort of argument, shall we Akuma?

Early 2007: The Wii doesn't sell games.

Mid 2007: The Wii doesn't sell games except for Nintendo games.

Late 2007: The Wii doesn't sell games except for Nintendo games, and Resident Evil, and some casual games

Now: The Wii doesn't sell games except for Nintendo games, Resident Evil, Guitar Hero, and casual games. Oh and Call of Duty may be (on the way to) million seller, but that's only because it's such a huge franchise now.

The needle through which you thread this argument is getting progressively smaller. CoD5 is clearly going to be a million seller: I think it's very odd you'd include it in your argument, when it clearly supports the notion that these games can sell on Wii. No More Heroes is Suda's best selling game ever, on any system, including the PS2. There certainly are flops on the Wii -- just as there are on any system -- but the examples you've chosen were poor. I think a better example would have been Nights Into Dreams, or the recent Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles game.

The response to your position, is as always: "How many companies have really put major efforts on the Wii?" Obviously there aren't huge successes under the circumstances we see when the games do not exist. Here's an example: I'd bet good money that Resident Evil 5 alone costs more money than Zack and Wiki, No More Heroes, Nights into Dreams and House of the Dead Overkill combined. Easily.

How much narrower does the definition have to get, Akuma? How long until we can just say, "Okay, the Wii sells games?"

fixed

Ok, name 20 low selling titles on the HD consoles and name 20 high selling titles. Without checking vgchartz.

That doesn't matter either.  Games that sell a lot of units can still lose money.  Games that don't move that many units can still turn a profit.

If you can't really name them, they are not visible to you. You don't care. 90% of the games people could name have made a profit, and if you ask a casual player it will be almost 100%. Its in the group that people are unfamiliar with that the unprofitable games live.

I see a lot of unprofitable games high up on the "page hits" list on this website.  If these games were that unknown, that wouldn't happen.

I'm guessing Lair didn't turn a profit. That game was highly visible. No one will know about it in a few years, but that's only the natural progression of most games, whether they profit or not. Occasionally a game will be both unprofitable and a very good game, in which case it gets remembered -- just by fewer people.

But games that aren't profitable are probably forgotten more quickly since fewer people bought them. It only makes sense. In fact -- as a certain someone might say -- it makes perfect sense.