^Yep, a certain number of stinkers and a lot of mediocre ones in there. But frankly, the situation on 360 was only marginally better, considering that the "kiddy" section is entirely missing and a certain "first time in HD" boost.

Reading the astronomical amounts of stupid emanating from the arguments in this thread has made my head hurt.

Bottom line id's gameplan doesn't involve Wii cause they deal with technology and selling their technology, where have they always done this? on the more powerful consoles and PC.  This means they need third parties to sell to and of course they'd encourage third parties to support platforms they want to support.

As for the rest of the arguments going on... seriously what does it have to do with id?  What does the arguments accomplish?  So one person wants to debate with everyone else and waste 30 minutes of their life spouting ignorant things that aren't true, so what?  Trying to prove them wrong isn't going to change their mind, best thing to do if someone is wrong, ignore them maybe they'll become informed some time in their life.

"Bottom line id's gameplan doesn't involve Wii cause they deal with technology and selling their technology, where have they always done this? on the more powerful consoles and PC. This means they need third parties to sell to and of course they'd encourage third parties to support platforms they want to support."

We know that. It was his comments about developing for the Wii in general that we took issue with.

What does it solve?  Nothing, they want people to support the platforms they support so they can make money.  A company wants to make money, so unheard of!

He's not just speaking for his company there. He's claming something about the Wii, and speaking for all developers, when what he is claiming was proven false long before.

That is what we have a problem with. Did you miss him making that claim?

I'll just reiterate the point that blows the argument out of the water:

Every fps game on the Wii, minus Far Cry (a hugely buggy port), and possibly Medal of Honor: Vanguard (a crap port with no sales tracking here), have outsold both of Id's games on the HD systems.

The end.

I think what he meant to say was "So there's lots of money to be made in casual games, but we won't do it for the Wii. We prefer to make cell phone games and then port them to the DS."

Never forget. id does want a piece of the casual pie. But they want to do it undercover so they don't lose their internet-street-cred.

EDIT: and what Shanobi said above me, hahaha.

When you put things like that... ouch.

I in general agreee with your point, but I disagree with a number of the specifics.

1.  This means nothing.  What really matters is what type of games those people are buying.

2.  Now we're getting somewhere.  But again, which type of third party titles are selling well?  Is it the type of game that id makes?  id focuses heavily on online-centric FPSes that push the bar of technology.  That doesn't really jibe with what the Wii is offering.  Really, only the PC suits them, though they throw off some cheap ps3 and 360 ports for some extra change.

3.  This also means nothing.  If they only cared about dev costs, why not go with PSP/DS over Wii?  Or PSN/XBLA?  Or just release a small title via Steam?  Audiosurf made a profit the very day it was released! 

What really matters is what type of game you're trying to create.  After that, you decide if there are any platforms out there that could feasibly support the title while bringing in a profit.  Touching yet again on what I said above, id makes games that just don't fit with the Wii. 

And even if a company does go ps3/360, they still wouldn't have to utilize what each console has to offer to the max, thus avoiding the huge develoment costs often associated with blockbusters released on the platforms.  The Way of the Samurai 3 is currently lthe 17th best selling ps3 title in Japan, and from a technical perspective it looks like a Wii game, only at a higher resolution and with better AA.  It probably didn't cost much more than its predecessors to develop, and certainly not much more than a decent Wii game.

5. Agree 100%, provided you actually market the games for the platform *cough*Ubisoft*cough*Capcom*cough*.

6.  If you make an abomination like Lair, then yes.  But if you manage to pull out a big title, it can be extremely rewarding.  The main issue is developers assuming they have to push the consoles to the max in terms of graphics.   Gameplay is severly lacking in many titles this gen, and that's an area that hasn't changed much this gen versus the last, outside of the Wii.  Developers need to spend more time fine tuning that rather than trying to get as many cycles out of the Cell as they can.

___

In the end, third parties need to take the Wii more seriously, but first they need to determine if the Wii is right for what they're offering, and more importantly, how they can change what they're offering (if need be) to best suite the Wii.  It's quite obvious some publishers are struggling with the latter, as shown by EA's disasterous "All Play" series.

1- I'm just saying, ignoring 50% of the market when you're a game developer seems rather foolish especially for the ones which aren't profitable right now.

2- See Shanobi's post. Nevertheless I was making the case for a 3rd party developer in general, given that these declarations from iD's CEO are quite general (as far as the OP shows), not iD specific.

3- It means something when you put it together with the other points, especially number 6.

6- I'm talking about 3rd parties financial problems, with several publishers and developers going bankrupt and many others having huge losses (and no, this is not only due to the recession since it started before that). Frankly I think we're witnessing an industry crash, and if the Wii is not what helps publishers get out of it, I don't think anything will (they have tried almost everything else).