I don't think RE:4 or MP3 would sell as many copies today as they did when they were released.  RE:4 had very little competition, and frankly, many of the early adopters of the Wii *were* hardcore gamers, who wanted to experience what the Wii could give them, in terms of game experience.  RE:4, RE:UC, and several other Wii launch/near-launch titles have seen success that has not been, and cannot be, repeated in this day and age, in my opinion.  Look at the HD shooters of the time, and compare -- Perfect Dark, Resistance, some junk no one will ever remember... they just didn't look that good, really.  Nowadays, the comparison is much more drastic.

"You have to ask yourself if its they who are stuck, or if its you, though."

It's history. When some people are set in their ways, something new will throw them off. They will resist it. Not by agreement, but by choice. It's what the US auto companies did.

They are stuck, and that's why they are losing money.

I disagree, RE4 could still sell, because it wasn't about graphics but gameplay that made it so good, the game took all the good stuff that was of RE4 last gen, and gave it great Wii controls.

When RE5 came out, people were bashing it, and saying it should have been on Wii because they missed the Wii controls of RE4 Wii, clearly shows that people are more concerned about the gameplay than the graphics

What exactly is a quality "casual" game And why shouldn't third parties just focus on making quality games for Wii period.

That first question is the one that baffles 3rd party publishers to this day.  The answer to the 2nd question is "too much risk in unknown territory" -- the very idea of doing quality titles on the Wii involves invalidating the whole "Wii games are cheap to make" mentality that attracted the 3rd parties to the platform to begin with.  They're pretty averse to high-risk Wii projects, now that they've burned themselves (with supposedly low budget titles) so badly.

"the very idea of doing quality titles on the Wii involves invalidating the whole "Wii games are cheap to make" mentality that attracted the 3rd parties to the platform to begin with"

Which means they stupidly think making the games for even more on the HD systems is a good thing. When a game costs enough it can still lose money at a million sold, and that's an average, the developers are just being delusional.

They could save a hell of a lot of money putting at least a third of those big games on the Wii. Market unpredictability is just their BS to avoid putting those games on the system.

You're imagining that those same games could be decent at 1/4th the budget, and that's just not true.

Graphics are a factor, but they are far from being the majority of the expense, with very few exceptions.  A good Wii game should cost about 1/2 as much as a good HD game, at a minimum.  Good PS2 games cost 1/2 as much as good HD games.  There's no reason Wii games should cost less than PS2 games to make -- none.  Those low figures the publishers (like EA) used to love doling out were averages including a truckload of shovelware, rather than figures exclusive of all games but the 1 or 2 quality titles they were trying to make (if that).

I mean really... where were the "quality" EA Wii games that cost only $5M to make, back in 2007, when they made that statement?  Madden and Tiger Woods?  and they excluded all the shovelware when they claimed "1/4th to 1/3rd"?  The idea that quality Wii games are that cheap to make is pure folly.

"You're imagining that those same games could be decent at 1/4th the budget, and that's just not true."

I did NOT write that it cost that little. If you're just going to make up points we make to pretend you can counter them, I will ask you to leave the thread.

I was just using the commonly quoted number from John Ritticello, from a couple years back.  I didn't claim it was "your" number.

If you've never believed said number was referring to anything but shovelware budgets, that's great -- very insightful of you.  However, your post claimed that, somehow, moving projects the Wii, rather than the HDs, they would inherently become profitable.  I don't think you provided any backing to support that (or can provide it), so I (mistakenly, it seems) assumed you believed in the "all things Wii are cheap and 1/4th the price of HD things" fallacy.

LordTheNightKnight: "They could save a hell of a lot of money putting at least a third of those big games on the Wii. Market unpredictability is just their BS to avoid putting those games on the system."

Feel free to support your theory above with some ideas of your own, about how publishers can just turn things around and begin making the big bucks on the Wii.  We would all like to read it, if its interesting, I'm certain.  

Just blowing smoke and saying that's-how-it-is is something that... well should entail you leaving the thread, as you say so brashly above.  It adds nothing.  Its propaganda, or, as you put it... "BS".

good riddance they suck anyway