Nope it doesn't matter what games are made on average, the market will become so flooded that the overall revenue meets overall expenditure with a margin to justify the capital investment.

Nope, you haven't proven it's bad to make good games for the Wii, because that scenario should have happened with other systems, and it hasn't. Don't you dare insult our intelligence by even thinking you can convince us the Wii is different.

I haven't tried to. All I said was that the Wii isn't going to make the industry massively profitable overall. It doesn't matter how they approach the Wii, its just a function of the market that as long as there are companies which are profitable there will be more entrants into the market until the average profit is simply a return on capital investment and nothing more.

"All I said was that the Wii isn't going to make the industry massively profitable overall."

No, you also implied there would be a flood of good games that would somehow be a bad thing. If you had just stated that other thing, I wouldn't have an issue.

Did this same situation occur with the Playstation 2?

Average profit doesn't sound like it should be used in this sense either. Some games succeed, others fail, so the average should just be a break-even balance.

Im talking about the overall balance of the industry. In essence you can't save the companies from themselves. However in this sense as the sales/revenue ratios are vastly skewed towards a few blockbuster selling games the majority of games whatever system you care to think of will lose money. My point is that the Wii is no exception to this. My other point is that a more restricted entry and less competition means that in a less competitive market there is a possibility of gathering a higher profit margin on average industry wide.

So ... are you suggesting that to have high profit margins, a game-making market should have lots of companies that are losing money?  If not, then what exactly is your argument?

Looks like it's official (again), VGChartz rabble knowz all about the games industry. Industry vets shamed by their own dumbness, relative to VGChartz rabblerousers. How do games industry vets do their work, being so lazy and dumb? Do they bathe? Can they even add?

Also, in other news, big game "failures" like Lair, Crackdown, Haze, and Too Human charged as bills to developers by publishers. Sent with note "You brakinz our zer0-risk contract, now you owez us bux!" Devs go out of business, paying publishers back for their troubles.

Full stories at 11.

Im saying that the more monopolistic the section of the market, the more potential profits to be had. If the cost of entry for the next generation is say 40M for new releases then you would have what is in essence an oligopoly of publishers; Acti-Bliz, EA, Ubi, Take2 and say Bethesda who can release games on the systems and thus competition will be more limited. The more open the market, the more perfect the competition the better it is for consumers and the worse it is for developers and publishers as competition drives down margins. This is likely one of the reasons why the big publishers haven't given the Wii the interest they perhaps should have because they are looking at the long term viability of each market.

@Procrastinato: Very funny stuff.

^ I see. Aside from your argument itself, I think that gives publishers WAAAY too much credit, especially due to the "long term" part. In fact, I think it's a big problem that too many companies are chasing the immediate buck without looking at the long term.