All the big gaming sites carried the story of the analyst who said Wii was "fool's gold".  I decided to do some digging.

The story came from a Gamasutra article asking 3 analysts the following questions:

Do you think it's safer to invest in casual game development over Triple-A, hardcore games?

How would you rate investing in game development for any of the console platforms? For example, is developing Wii games the best investment?

What about investing in game development for any of the mobile platforms -- such as the iPhone?

The first analyst said he would advise against investing in a single game, but instead invest in a major publisher, and focus on multiplatform titles.

The second analyst is the one who called Wii "fool's gold" which all the gaming sites quoted.

The third analyst said the following,

----------

Billy Pidgeon, IDC

Investing in developing casual games or Triple-A games...

I would not invest in AAA console games unless it was a genre breaker or game changer, and it's hard to identify one of those. It's definitely a bigger risk. The payoff could be major, but I think the risk is too high.


Opinion of investing in game development for each platform...

I would invest in Wii-packaged goods, but also in downloadable -- indie, not casual -- games for all three consoles and for the DSi, if not the PSP.

I'd invest heavier in PC games, delivered to PC and online wherever possible, and at emerging models such as free-to-play and other micro-transaction-based business models in all regions including North America.

I also see big potential for game developers to make virtual worlds a success by transforming them into something much more game-like.

Investing in game development for any of the mobile platforms...

I would invest in high-end phone games with alternative distribution -- on the PC, outside the carrier.

But these would be developed not just for iPhone, but for all the iPhone competitors and iTunes app store competitors who have a chance of getting it right before Apple does.

And the point is?

That the big gaming sites made a story out of one analyst who was negative on the Wii, while ignoring the other two.

Hmmm... I learned nothing.

Wow, very informative...NOT

Atleast there's still someone who has understanding in financial issues.

Surely, you know the negativity on the Wii is "news worthy". It wouldn't have recieved 1/10 the attention as it does now.

Why invest $60 million on a game like Killzone 2 for 1.5 million in sales when a game like Rayman does twice that for about $300k in developement cost? Left 4 dead got it right. They made a game on their 5 year old source engine, focused only on multiplayer and sold over 2.5 million. high development cost does not equal great sales. innovative games do.

I think its safe to say Sony was hoping KZ2 would have a bigger impact and move more hardware.

KZ2 is more about moving systems than profit, IMO.

The problem is, you need large amount of games of various genes to move large number of systems.