I need a list of AAA third party titles that have sold bad on Wii.

My theory is that with a few exceptions third party games do sell much better than they deserve.

This point is very logical, but honestly The Conduit is a mediocre game that would have bombed badly on the other systems, for example The Conduit has managed to sell better than The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena.

Nintendo doesn't just dominate their platforms software sales.

They dominate the entire industries software sales.

top 10 games this generation

6 published by Nintendo including the top 4

top 10 software of all time.

10 published by Nintendo.

it extends to top 12 before a game comes in.

32 out of the top 50.

So of course third parties are finding it hard to compete with the best software developer on the planet, because all other companies combined across all platforms in history still can not compete.

Well, now we know that Hardcore Wii owners love 3rd party games. Thanks Patcher.

LOL, unfortunately when you are talking about publicly traded companies a profitable 100-200k seller is a drop in the bucket (or market cap).

It would be best not to assume that I am ignorant of how business works and not to take my words out of context.  I explained in the following line why I chose to use that piece of data.  People will think you either didn't understand the rest of the text or didn't read it.

You are right in a way but you disregard the topic of the thread.  We are discussing Pachter.  His predictions and analysis are for businesses and investors.

I say you are right in a way because small companies who have a small ownership/management pool do make "core games".  Smaller companies are generally nimble and run with low overhead.  They can make a "Conduit" or a "Mad World" and see a profit because of their low overhead.  If Sega worked out a good deal , they probably make profit on publishing whether the title sold 10k or 1 million copies.  But for Sega, Capcom, or EA to make a game like this they spend a lot more doing it.  They have buildings and campuses to maintain, huge accounting, distribution, legal, and other departments, and bulky and slow development procedures.

"LOL, unfortunately when you are talking about publicly traded companies a profitable 100-200k seller is a drop in the bucket (or market cap)."

That's ignoring cost, and pretending higher sellers, with the same profit due to cost, somehow aren't a drop in the bucket.

Uh, yeah. What exactly are you talking about?

Anyway, to those selectively pointing out third party "failures" (like CoD:WaW), I wouldn't say it has anything to do with being third party. If Nintendo came out with a mediocre first person shooter, it wouldn't be selling any more than The Conduit did. Most shooter fans have probably already been snatched up by HD consoles thanks to Halo / Modern Warfare, anyway.

@Procrastinato:

Well, first of all, asking us (forumgoers) of our buying habits isn't going to tell us much. More of us here own NMH, than Wii Fit.

As for the 180', the problem is how people seem to believe Nintendo is responsible for "crappy" 3rd party sales. The reality is, they seem to be the only ones that actually know what they're doing. If Nintendo slapped their name onto MadWorld / NMH, it wouldn't magically sell millions. If EA was the company behind Wii Fit (with the same large advertising push and all), sales would have still exploded like they did.

guess u guys have said it all.So what's our conclusion?

What? No, even if a company made $15 per copy in profit *(which they don't) and sold 200k that's $3 million. To a small company, that's a lot.  To EA (6.15 billion  market cap/4 billion in revenue/ they still manage to lose a billion dollars last year) that is insignificant... never mind the fact, if you had read the rest of my post instead of only the first line, a larger company (the type pachter is concerned with) is not able to make a "core" game with a low enough budget to make a profit off of 100-200k.

I did not forget or ignore cost.

I am not pretending anything.

I am talking about pachter, talking about large companies.  He's not concerned with the small privately held firms, unless he's specifically says that he's talking about those firms (and usually in relation to the whole market or a larger firm).

Do me a favor, do not take any more of my quotes out of context (unless they make for a good double entendre and are funny).

If that three million is from an HD game, it's still the same profit. You claim I'm taking you out of context. No. You're just looking at half my argument.

I was wrong, you aren't taking it out of context.  You do not understand. Maybe it is my fault.  I will break it down into three pieces.

Pachter is talking about trends of large companies. Not the niche products or small developers.

Large Publishers and Publicly Traded companies are big and bulky.  They wouldn't be able to producing a core game with a low budget, like a small company can.  So a large company cannot make that type of profit off of a "core" game because 100-200k is not enough for them to make a profit with their slower, costlier development cycles.

Wii owners do not buy as many "core" games as owners of other consoles.