I see it the other way around. Most quality HD games are big blockbuster titles with a huge advertizing budget. Most quality Wii games are small, artsy games with barely any advertizing budget at all.

That certainly explains the sales difference.

There are huge bucks to be made on Wii, look at Nintendo's profits

Why are you comparing first-party profits to 3rd party?  They have radically, radically different business models.  That Nintendo makes a lot of money from their has relatively little bearing on the 3rd parties.

Apple makes a TON of money from the iPhone store.  Other companies, for the most part, don't, because there's too much competition (over 15000 titles).  The number of iPhone games that make a decent amount of revenue is a tiny fraction of the whole, and none of them compare to the awesome profits accrued by Apple via licensing fees.

Nintendo's business plan is akin to a pyramid scheme -- sheer quantity feeds Nintendo well, but divides the income so thinly amongst the 3rd parties, as to make it hardly worthwhile.

Nintendo makes a lot of profit off the Wii because they make good games in established franchises with solid marketing ...

Unless you're claiming that third party publishers can't do this, I don't see why there is a big distinction between Nintendo and third party publishers.

HD is just a good addition, nothing important, I say this because there is a difference when hooking your ps3 to a non HD tv than a HD tv with the HDMI cable, but this, like I said is just an addition. This is not the reason AC is on ps360 and pc.

Maybe he shouldve gone to an aspect like better tech performance on the system, but there is no need of this and the huge Wii userbase prooves that.

and this is not related, but the difference between a great pc and the ps360 isnt as notable on games because developers think of these consoles because of the higher software sales they can bring, and a pc exclusive with high production costs and with high requierments isnt as safe tp make.

When Nintendo advertise they advertise to sell both a system as well as a game. There is a completely different risk/reward structure for them when they consider advertising expenditure vs the expenditure of a third party publisher.

Third parties just need to make games with larger appeal, and not throw money at them to please the critics. That's how you make money on the Wii. Nintendo isn't doing this magically. It's the simple formula. How do you think PopCap is doing so well?

I don't understand how a pyramid scheme has any similarity to Nintendo's business plan. Nintendo charges licensing fees to third parties just like every console maker does. There's no division of income.

Please explain.

I don't really agree with this article. The reason those games aren't on Wii whilst is partly to do with the power restriction is more to do with the fact that there is a bigger audience for those games on the HD twins. It's easier and cheaper to make an HD game for the HD consoles & PC than having to port down to Wii. The collective user base of all 3 HD platforms is higher than Wii alone and the few core style games that are on Wii don't sell as well as core titles on the HD systems.

Money is there to be made on Wii, but these traditional games are unlikely to come on Wii unless the publisher believes they have broad range appeal and is worth investing in a Wii version.

And I find the difference in core games between the HD consoles and Wii isn't down the visuals, but that games on the HD consoles tend to feel more dynamic and alive. I think physics has played a much bigger role in the HD game experience than 720-1080p visuals alone.

"It's easier and cheaper to make an HD game for the HD consoles & PC than having to port down to Wii."

Have you seen the costs of those HD games? Putting them on the Wii wouldn't be cheap, but more costly and harder? That is just not possible.