1. The gaming industry doesn't need to die, just get smarter.

2. Big games should not be the primary focus for developers.

3. The Wii's market isn't unpreditcatble, just not established.

4. You want a big game to sell on the Wii, it has to be just as good as the best selling big games on the HD systems.

5. Focus on making some games awesome for the customer, not awesome for developers or the crticis.

6. Don't try the games for the new market among the enthusiats, but among the gaming laymen.

7. The game industry doesn't need to die, the gaming press does.

8. Price gouging is not where the money is.

I begin by stating my interpretation of each point in a single sentence.  Feel free to correct any point where I have misinterpreted you.

1.  Your argument is that companies making expensive games are losing money so they should make less expensive games. There are companies making equally expensive games and profiting.  Clearly there is a market capable of supporting expensive games however the companies losing money are failing to cater to that market.  The error here is not in the making of expensive games, the error is in misreading the market on the part of those companies that lose money.

Some of the profiting companies have other ways to make money, like Epic has the engine sales and Valve has Steam. But they also don't spend more on their big games than the revenue sources get.

2.  Your argument is that developers should make small and large games.  In stock trading, a diverse portfolio is often favored as one is "spreading the risk."  Game developers should and likely do look at each title as an investment.  Just as in stock trading, keeping variety in their lineups can be very advantageous.

3.  Your argument is that developers had a better understanding of previous generations' markets, not that today's market is unpredictable.  I agree that developers had an easier time during some of the previous eras however, whether you classify it as developers lacking in understanding or the market being unpredictable, the base result is the same.  The market acts in ways the developer does not anticipate.  You are essentialy hedging terms here.

The difference is that one means you will get it as long as you keep trying. The other is that you cant' get it at all. One is problem and solution, and the other is defeatist.

4.  Your argument is that good games for the Wii can sell the equivalent of good games for HD consoles.  Obviously.

5.  Your argument is that the developer should focus on catering to the consumers.  It would be wise to cater to the people who are going to buy your product.  That said, I know quite a few people who think the Wiimote has too many buttons and is too complicated whereas there are some who still prefer to use a Gamecube controller where possible.  Catering to the consumer is easier said than done.

You can't please everyone. Nintendo basically used compromises, like the Classic Controller and even working with Capcom to make the improved version.

6.  Your argument is that developers should take steps to better understand their customers.  More knowledge is always better.

7.  Your argument is that developers should listen less to the gaming press.  I believe that continued survival in the gaming industry is achieved by continually expanding your audience as well as pleasing your existing audience.  Your existing audience will not be around forever and assuming it will leads to stagnation.  Newly attracted audience members may not be around in the coming years or even coming months.   I believe a game developer should "walk the line" between attracting the new and catering to the old.  Nintendo does this quite well.

8.  Your argument is that making more appealing games is the key to success, not milking existing games.  A viable revenue stream is a viable revenue stream.  If that revenue stream ceases to be profitable then it is no longer viable and will be terminated.  The market as a whole will determine whether DLC and the like is a viable revenue stream for developers.

Actually I meant that, but didn't put it that well, was relying on those revenue sources isn't a way to shore up big spending. Appealing games over either one is seemingly better, as that's what Nintendo is focusing on, even if they stumble.