he says nintendo takes from them the same amount that sony and microsoft, but wii games are cheaper so lets says they keep US$20 per copy, by 100,000 thats 2,000,000, mad world is around 76k now so if the game had a cost of 2 million it will have to sell 100,000 to break even, but break even is not a success, is not something that will make you start throwing hardcore games into de wii and if mad world had a cost of 6,000,000 then it needs to sell 300k to break even.

I think the guy is exagerating, but he is not so far away from the truth, he is saying that if you make games like BABYZ, you will make a huge profit,  games like madworld will flop comerciallly.

That would be the problem. If he used logic in his statement, people wouldn't criticize him so much.

Also, assuming the cost to make games on HD consoles is doubled from Wii, Madworld (since we are using it as example) would need to double the sale to break even. Based the numbers you proposed, if it costs 12 mil to make MadWorld, it needs to sell 600K to break even on HD console. There is no guarantee Madworld would sell that much on either HD console if Dead Space or Mirror Image wasn't able to sell that much.

Seeing some people actually defend this raging shithead makes me wonder how low you can sink for a gaming console. Is it really worth defending the scum of the earth, just because he says things that fit into how you WISH things were? Incredibly pathetic.

Yes, people do that all the time. It's why some people like certain political sites and shows, because whatever view they have, those sites and shows support them.

 I assume you are tlaking about the guy who claimed Nintendo games sell for $40? Well I can tell you what you seem to have taken from it is wrong. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony al take different amounts out of retail games sold last I heard. Your MadWorld math is fairly accurate, but you seem to have completely missed the boat on its sales. It has a higher launch than CoD:W@W and that is a million seller. It has about the same opening as NMH and it went on to sell 400k. That would cover a dev cost of 8 million for break even using your numbers. Its just not that hard to make a lot of money back from a game that "only" sell a few hunfred thousand.

There are idiots in the gaming business as well, just like how there are good 5 star chefs, and extremely bad ones putting roaches into their soups, and "imo" I can tell you that this Peter W. guy is a very very bad chef in the video game business. He is still saying the Wii is as powerful as the first xbox when it's the wrong fact and it clearly shows his incompetence and what a lot of the devs are like in the US, retarded but still getting paid. He's confusing features vs power, Pixel and Vertex Shaders is a standard feature in more current video hardware these days, but that's a feature which has nothing to do with raw power. The Wii does custom shaders around the TEV which is a different system and requires a different learning curve, but raw power-wise, it's quiet a bit ahead of the original xbox in raw performance, and needs a different style of coding for shader effects. Just because he's worked on a few games, it doesn't mean he's all knowing about the industry, since he said Madworld needs to sell 2-3 million copies to make a profit hahaha.

Btw, we won't know if Madworld is a flop or not until at least half a year to a year later, that's not how Wii games work which is a known fact and a moot point to argue about.

ps: 3rd party NA devs can only blame themselves for making inferior games then saying it doesn't sale, at this point, people are being very careful about purchases because of the flood of shovelware that these idiots make, so any new quality game takes a longer life cycle for them to sell well to make a profit.

I love it. 3rd party dev finally says what's been said "as a fallacy amongst anti-Nintendo fans" all along (you know, the people who actually know what goes on financially)....and you all get angry. So much for "Zack and Wiki/NMH/MadWorld/House of the Dead/etc making profit despite selling poorly" argument.

Not only do the games sell poorly, they're not even making profit. In the past couple days, I've called out this argument, and now even that is dead. LOL

From Iwata at GDC:

9:16 a.m. Iwata is spending a few minutes talking about why third-parties can make a profit on Nintendo platforms, despite some contrary opinions. Now he's telling an anecdotal story about one of his early game development projects. He showed a project to Miyamoto, who said it could be good if they had a few more month. Iwata looked at him, mouth open, because he only had two development days left, not months. He agreed with Miyamoto that a better version of the title would sell better, but he didn't have that time. He had to compromise on quality and he did. "That set off the next step in the cycle," which he refers to as "the death spiral." Because of poor sales of the game, Iwata didn't have the money to properly fund the next project, etc.

Third parties are making a profit on Wii with hardcore games, get over it... some good games don't sell as well as others has always been the issue in the industry no matter the console or era of gaming.

 Lets play a little math game shall we? Let's assume a publisher makes $10 off of every disc sold. This is actually very low, but I want to give you the best shot you can get. If a game sells 200k then it will make $2 million gross for the company. Now this is where I need your help. Is $2,000,000 more or less than $600,000. It does have that extra zero there, but 2 is less than 6 so I am not sure.

 Just so you don;t have to check there are around 190 Wii games that sold 200k or more in our database. Everyone of them would have made profit with a budget he claimed would never be made back on a Wii. The guy was talking out his ass and its obvious to anyone who stops and thinks about the subject for more than 2 seconds.

I'm not a fanboy nor do I hate, I simply know that idiots will exist in any industry and I've met oh so many of those. He's the type that I hate the most too because he was talking non sense for about 85% of the time and the worst part is that some people actually believe him. It's mind blowing to me. He's not the Market/PR guy nor does he control the financial aspect of the company, dood's just talking out of his ass.