I'm sorry, was that for me?

In that case: do you know what a paradigm shift is? It's a very specific epistemologic concept. And no, a market focus shift does not qualify.

Tell that to all the people even on this site who still think that the PS2 was the most powerful last gen.  The differences in power between the consoles were very small, and nothing compared to this gen.

I agree completely. This deserved to be quoted. Nintendo didn't ABANDON anyone, they just wanted more people playing games. Their Fall Summit was CLASSIC Nintendo. Games of a WIDE variety. It's WHAT they do. I think if more developers realize that Nintendo wasn't trying to reinvent the lightbulb, but have more use one.

...If you have problems developing for the motion controls USE the Classic, or GC controller, if a gamer wants to play your game they will get what they need to play it. =/

Indeed. But even if they were perfectly equal, they would still be proof that graphical improvement was not "the cornerstone to console success".

The most you can say is that Nintendo, for the first time, totally sidestepped the idea of keeping pace in technical advancement with their competitors - note that it's not only graphics: sound, computation power, storage, network infrastructure...

That was a bold business move and one that is paying great dividends thanks to their new market.

I keep seeing people bring up Madworld and how it would have sold better on the PS3/360. Would it have? Killer 7 sold terribly on PS2, and better on Gamecube if I'm not mistaken. The same holds true for Okami on PS2 and Okami on Wii. You cannot make an effective argument with a niche title. If the Conduit sells poorly, then you'd have a legitimate argument. This situation is similar to No More Heroes. Posters tried to say NMH tanked when its the best selling game ever produced by Suda51.

This was a generational statement -- not necessarily a statement about the market leader. Each generation has made graphical strides in all the consoles.

And you are right, Nintendo went for something different and has moved the industry in a different direction. By definition, that is a PARADIGM shift.

Mike from Morgantown

It's funny how Valve's boss gets props for condemning the ps3 but iD's boss gets bashed for condemning the wii. I guess it depends on the number of fans on x console.

About his logic, he really has a point from iD's perspective. I don't see their sort of games making any headways on wii. The second problem 3rd parties seem to have is deciding exactly what kind of wii game to release. Is it more profitable to churn out multiple "party" games or a game like Gears?

Another thing that has me curious is the purported "cheapness" of wii games. Games are made with computers using technology the studio already possess. This is a fixed cost thats already covered except the studio gets additional resources just to make game X. Aside from that, won't the greater cost of develpment be the maintenance of the studio itself? By this, I mean the personnel cost i.e employee wages. Therefore, from my understanding game X would cost around 20 million (add a few extra in case of a borrowed technology and marketing) if 50 employees making $100K/year were working on it for 4 years.

In that case, if you switch the people who were making ps360 games to wii games, how would there be a significant decrease in cost if these guys don't take a pay cut? Also, since wii games apparently take less time to develop, would these guys always be working on something to justify their paychecks or would they be fired and rehired or are we just going to have lots of studio downsizing as part of the paradigm shift to wii game production?

Someone please correct me if I'm off because I still don't understand exactly why wii games are relatively much cheaper.

Again, no. Please look up the term. Innovative and lateral thinking applied to business decisions, maybe.

And how has the industry at large moved, exactly? Party games and shovelware existed on the PS2. Casual gaming existed yet in the form of singing games and quizzes and kid games.

Has the industry moved in a different direction because now the collections of minigames are played with a wiimote? The family friendly/party games are simply more under the spotlight because they are central in the Wii marketing strategy, instead of being a wealthy sideplate.

The savings is in the amount of personnel needed on a Wii game vs. the amount needed on a PS3 or XBox 360 game. The generation of HD graphics is thought to be quite expensive. And there is a raft of statisical and anecedotal evidence which support the supposition that Wii games are less expensive to make.

And don't take my statement as bashing id, per se. Given id's market and emphasis, at least in the short run, I think it is taking the more prudent course.

Mike from Morgantown

You're mixing things up, perhaps for the sake of criticizing other people.

What Valve said (correct if I'm wrong, but this is what I remember) was that they are not interested in PS3 development (though he said it quite harshly). What iD is saying is much more general, aimed at all third parties. I don't think anyone here is really surprised that iD wouldn't care about the Wii.