CoD3 was the worst entry in the series, across all platforms.

Your argument kind of falls apart after that, in my book, since you can basically sum up all the FPS games on the Wii, like Metroid Prime 3 (which didn't suffer from the pitfalls you mentioned), CoD3, CoD:WaW, etc. and they still probably won't catch just the PS360 CoD:WaW numbers, let alone the numbers of the gazillion other shooters available (in competition with each other) on those consoles.

You could say "they don't sum up because there aren't very many titles!" and to that I would say "They don't even thrive in a market vacuum, as you state, despite excellent review scores on several of the titles."

I think your reasoning is a bit of stretch.  But... to each his own, as they say.

COD4 not being on Wii really hurt it's overall pull for the COD franchise, plus COD W@W Wii was horribly gimped; didn't have split screen, didn't have all the modes.  This is all stuff that I as well as many others look for.

Metroid Prime 3 sold respectivly but it's a niche game and niche games don't have really high ceilings, look at Mirror's Edge on PS360, it's a niche game and had relatively low sales.  Infact both versions combined don't even add up to what Metroid Prime 3 has sold.  So this proves the point that hardcore niche games on PS360 and grounded too.

Madworld and House of the Dead look like alright games but honestly nothing about either game screams "buy me".  No More Heroes deserved to be a flop too because it has got to be the worst game I have ever bought.  If stuff like this replesents the mature-hardcore offerings on Wii that is somewhat sad.

To put it simple third party devs are for the most part throwing their trash, recycling, and offbeat games on Wii.  The Conduit and Monster Hunter 3 should be good examples of how mainstream AAA games sell on Wii, so long as the general public know they exist (advertising and publicity will play a massive roll too).  I used RE:4 as an example because it is the ONLY AAA third part aminstream game that even pops into my head.  For an aging port it's enjoyed good sales too.

We rely on the publishers to tell us that.  Like recently Sega said they were satisfied with HotD and MW sales, despite them being non-spectacular (aka under one mil.), yet people still jump on the "they are lying" bandwagon.

It is pretty known fact that dev costs for the Wii are much cheaper than the HD consoles (however as good as this might sound, it does attract that unknown 3rd party devs to make some crappy game to make a quick buck). 

But like Khan said, they conveniently left out the profit which made their article seem a little biased :P. 

Althoug hI will admit they make some good points, it seems like a desperate attack to bash the Wii XD.

Good catch SnowFlow. I forgot to mention that the Wii version of CoD: WaW was missing features.

Monster Hunter is mainstream? Perhaps in Japan but in NA and Europe I thought it was pretty niche.

Others have addressed the point already, but I actually think the sales of the Wii version of Call of Duty: World at War compared to its HD counterparts only emphasizes the point I made about brand equity and product quality in relation to sales. To illustrate this, let's look at the Call of Duty franchise and its performance on the current generation of consoles.

Let's start with Call of Duty 3, the first Call of Duty made available on all current-generation consoles.  Naturally, the 360 version sold best because of its larger install base and familiarity with the brand (Call of Duty 2). If we look at the PS3 and Wii versions, both of which were launch titles, we see that they sold at an equal pace, with the Wii version actually edging out the PS3 version by a slight margin. In terms of quality, however, Call of Duty 3 is considered across the board the worst iteration of the franchise yet. While the PS3 and 360 versions weren't amazing, the Wii version was a certified mess. It had sloppy controls, first-generation PS2 graphics and, worst of all, no multiplayer to speak of. 

Next we arrive at Call of Duty 4. Now, Call of Duty 4 was, in every way, a vast improvement on its successor and an absolutely amazing game in its own right. The sheer quality and freshness of Modern Warfare propelled the game's sales to previously unheard of heights for the Call of Duty franchise, selling several million on both the PS3 and 360. The title skipped a Wii release, however, a mistake whose effects would be made clear later.

Finally, we arrive at Call of Duty: World at War. The game chose to return to its WWII roots and to again release across all three platforms, much like Call of Duty 3. Though not as successful as its modernized predecessor, the title still went on to become the second most successful iteration in the franchise. Partly because of the larger install bases, yes, but also because of Call of Duty's greatly improved brand equity.

Let's examine World at War on the HD systems. When PS3 and 360 owners saw World at War it was not Call of Duty 3's relative mediocrity that came to mind but the excellence of Modern Warfare, despite the fact that it shared both developer and setting with Call of Duty 3. The quality and recent familiarity of Call of Duty 4 ensured World at War's success on the HD front.

The same cannot be said of the Wii version. The only familiarity Wii owners had with the franchise was Call of Duty 3, a two year old shoddy hand-me-down, and perhaps the knowledge of the amazing Call of Duty 4 for PS3 and 360, a title Wii owners were not deemed worthy of. And while it was World at War for Wii was a decent game, it was still a significant downgrade from its HD counterparts that was failing to maximize the Wii's potential.

So rather than feeling fond memories of the excellent Modern Warfare, Wii owners felt only resentment at being left out yet again. It's no surprise that the sales of the PS3 version are tripling the Wii version of World at War, despite the equal performances of Call of Duty 3 across both consoles. It's simply a matter of quality and consistency.

The average Wii consumer may not research as extensively as us avid forum-goers, but it would be a mistake to assume that they would not remember being slighted. To me, it just shows that if World at War can sell as well as it did on Wii despite all of these enormous setbacks, then a market must clearly exist.

So... the would-be ~7 million that were going to purchase CoD:WaW and didn't, because of their horrible experiences with CoD3... their friends really persuaded them that the reviewers were wrong, and that they should avoid CoD:WaW and just wait for The Conduit?

Procrastinato, I'm not sure I understand your response... who are these seven million people, and where did you get that figure? 

Your mention of friends and reviewers is also puzzling. I would argue that the average Wii consumer would be less dependent upon professional reviews and more likely to rely on friend's opinions or their own past experiences. It would be foolish to underestimate the immense power that word of mouth holds.

Having said that, if a Wii owner were to peruse World at War reviews, what would they find out? That it's a decent game, but it lacks the polish and features of its HD counterparts, makes poor use of the Wii's capabilities, and largely feels undercooked. Regardless of whether you hear that from a friend or a 'professional', the effect will be the same and will be reflected in sales. It makes no difference whether you're a recently converted gamer or a hardened enthusiast such as ourselves, if experience or opinion dictates that the game does not meet expectations, then you are much less likely to buy it. 

Yet, despite all of this, World at War has passed the million mark. That is a testament not to the brand's strength on Wii or the title's quality, but the existence of Wii owners who are starved for such content.

Oops, posted twice! Is it possible to delete posts?