It is not risky. Most developers learned it's more risky on HD systems. Take Two and EA have admitted that. And "powerful enough" shows you didn't really read my statement.

Since when its Wii the only system plagued with "Well if it isn't well known properties it doesn't do well" The whole damn HD library in 08 was full of 4's. Also what are people talking about Wii development risky..as if risk is also exclusive to Wii development. I don't recall any devs going belly up from a Wii flop.

There have been no big budget "AAA" third party Wii title. That type of game won't sell if it's not made.

Call Of Duty WaW is one. Just because it was multiplatform doesn't mean it wasn't big budget. And it did sell, despite being two years after the last CoD game on the Wii, which was mediocre.

@Lord: You think W@W really cost that much to make a Wii version?

Most developers? Is that why they are flocking to develop for the Wii like there's no tomorrow?

Oh, no, wait. They are not "because they're pigheaded".

What EA, Activision, Take Two have admitted is that diversification is healthy. That's what any financial promoter will tell you when building a stock portfolio.

Look at EA. Are they porting Dead Space to the Wii? No, they are making an on-rail game. As I said, playing it safe because other on-rail shooters sold well enough on the Wii. Their other project? A tennis game.

Look at Capcom. Did they make the necessary investment when porting Dead Rising? No, they went with low-budget and a recycled engine because it was risky. Did they include the Wii when developing RE5? No, they used a common engine on 360 and PS3 and they announced a new on-rail shooter on the Wii.

Face the facts: these developers are not sure that they can get their investment back if they develop mature, AAA games on the Wii. You can tell each other that the costs are lower and that they are stupid, but I doubt any of you has access to more statistics, cost projections and risk assessments than those "pigheaded" developers.

There are obvious risks with the "HD" projects, of course. First of all bigger upfront expenses. But that's a risk that they are more willing to take, apparently. I'd say that one of the reasons is that they don't want to be left behind by those studios that go forth.

They have continually to build new tools and engines, to estabilish new IPs and to test new ideas. They can't just say "ok, we'll go back to make safe Wii games for two years to make some money". Big entities like EA and Ubisoft will diversificate. Those that can't afford that will take their risk where they deem better.

That said, what has "powerful enough" in the context of toolchain convergence and cost saving to do with your statement:

"I'd say it's not developing for the top selling, and less expensive to develop for, system is being justified here. It's just being pig-headed that's making developers still see HD development as default."

I read it. It said the same things I read many times in the past.

Actually, developers like Activision have stated that the Wii is their biggest bread winner. The flocking to the Wii has already begun, and will continue to move in that direction.

Again, Activision for one has stated that the Wii is now their priority.

The one thing I'llnever get about Wii development,is if everyone forgot how to develop games from last-gen.

I figure if they knew how to make games on GC/PS2 hardware, the only true difficulty they will have in making a Wii game is motion control. It seems as if they dropped all 2001-2006 tools and are 100% HD, with no knowledge of how to make a Wii game without being restricted by "limitations".

@Shanobi

Activision is making its money on the Wii with Guitar Hero. Ubisoft is making money on the Wii with the Raving Rabbids series.
Do you think that they are abandoning the HD scene? That money will mostly go to create the next games for the 360 and PS3.
The day that Activision will stop making GH on the PS3 and 360 and that Ubisoft will move HAWX and Prince of Persia and Assassin's Creed to be Wii exclusive, then I will admit "you're right, they are flocking to the Wii because developing on the HD consoles was too risky and with no rewards"

@Saviorx

They know very well how to make games like they did on the PS2. The fact is that they don't want to. They want to make bigger, more complex games, because that's what everybody does.

Take the Rygar version on the Wii. It was more or less a faithful port of the PS2 version. It was destroyed in reviews because this is not 2004 anymore. What was once an average game is now considered unacceptable.

And you could say: that's reviewers for you. Bunch of tecnophiles. Too bad that it sold 100k copies, thus the public probably also expects something more nowadays.

People actually read the interview? Or only bash the same arguments of the last 2 years?

I know many won't believe this, but Capcom seems to know this. Dead Rising CTYD actually would look like an N64 game if they didn't (it could not possibly look as good on the Wii as RE4 does, because the 360 version only moderatly tops RE4 in terms of both polygon count and texture resolution, and that's a system 8x the power of the GC, compared to a system only 2-3X). That's also why Dark Chronicles has better lighting than a lot of Wii games, and of course why Monster Hunter 3 looks great so far.