He's not right that Wii development isn't justified. It shouldn't have to be. Developers are just fooling themselves that there isn't an audience for their games, or that they can't make an audience.

He's saying: I know how the market for PS3 and 360 works and because there's evidence I'm ready to take that risk. Show me evidence that I would make a good investment by starting developing my game on the Wii.

And your answer is that he should not even question the issue? Do you really have an argument, or should developers just knee in front of the Mighty N because you do?

There wasn't evidence the 360 would be a good market. Developers just assumed it would be, put their games on it, and marketed them. It was a self-fulfilling thing, that they are refusing to see can happen with the Wii. So don't give me any crap of "risk". Too many developers now know better.

Check the 360 launch lineup again. You'll find titles that followed proven trends on the original xbox (QT4 followed Doom3, other FPSs), several sport games that were little more than safe higher-res ports, MS' own games and little else.

The 360's library was hit and miss as well in the first months and the initial development costs were kept quite low (7-10M dollars according to the infamous factor 5 chart).

Stop acting as if third-party developers were ready to gush on Microsoft's and Sony's console from day one, but hate the Wii for no known reason. They made sure to assess the risks, they learnt what worked and did not work, they kept developing more expensive and bigger versions of what worked.

Exactly like EA is doing by going the on-rail road with Dead Space Extraction, and like Capcom has done by never investing into big projects on the Wii, they started by playing it safe. Accept that the Wii is two years behind in terms of third-party development because other ecosystems were more proven and developer-friendly.

There's no foolishness and no conspiration here.

"Check the 360 launch lineup again. You'll find titles that followed proven trends on the original xbox (QT4 followed Doom3, other FPSs), several sport games that were little more than safe higher-res ports, MS' own games and little else."

But they didn't do that on the Wii. The 360 didn't come with the audience magically built in. Neither did the PS3, or even the PS2. This is just a fallacy to think the Wii is somehow excluding a hardcore audience. The developers who are reaching out are finding them, whether you acknowledge it or not.

^That is the last straw naysayers can grasp at. Good point Lord.

Please, check your facts, will you? Wii launch lineup:

- EA: a Madden game and Need for Speed: Carbon

- Activision: 5 games among which COD 3, Marvel UA and a Tony Hawk game

- Ubisoft: 7 games among which Rayman Raving Rabbids, Far Cry, Splinter Cell DA and Red Steel

- Atari: Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2

A total of 32 games, 29 from third parties. The 360 had at launch 18 games, 15 from third parties.

Of course some of the launch third party games ended up being really bad, but does it look like a games list from developers that are scoffing at the Wii? To me that looks like a honest initial committment, probably more impressive than the one that the 360 got.

And again, if all developers who tried reaching out were getting a good response, why would they not develop more games for the Wii? Are they simply insane at Activision/InfinityWard to develop Modern Warfare 2 for PC/PS3/360 but not for the Wii? Do they hate money?

And they are grasping. That only shows a launch lineup, not a followup that was given to the 360 and PS3.

Stop avoiding answering the real issues, please. You're flapping around aimlessly.

I brought out the launch lineups because you said:
"There wasn't evidence the 360 would be a good market. Developers just assumed it would be, put their games on it, and marketed them. It was a self-fulfilling thing, that they are refusing to see can happen with the Wii."

The launch lineups prove that developers started on equal footing towards 360 and Wii, exploring the respective markets with numerous games of various genres.

The question is always the same, and you are avoiding answering it: why should developers refuse to develop further games for the Wii if they had a satisfying response to their previous efforts? Why is Ubisoft still making Rabbids games, but Activision won't make MW2 its third COD on the Wii?

The logical answer, unless madness on their part is involved, is that they evaluated their parameters and decided if a followup was worth it or not. Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't.

Is that so hard to admit that the Wii might be too risky for some genres and projects? And that thousands of smart people working in many studios have probably more insight on the subject than our average forum lurker?

Wait, when did this happen?