Most hardcore games dont sell on the Wii, especially the kinds that demand a pad with 16+ buttons.

That's absolutely true. But 3rd parties are still following their old business model and are apparently happy with it. They don't want to create games that "change the way we game". A lot of them are very conservative with their approach and they still reap the benefits because many traditional gamers are also conservative with what they want to play. I know I don't want to stand up and pretend to shoot a basketball. I want to sit back, relax, and push a button. If I wanted to pretend to shoot hoops...I 'd just go to the gym and play ball.

Anyway, like I was saying, the Wii market has proven to be one that fully embraces the "new possiblities of the generation" whereas the HD console's market proves that the embrace traditional games. Seeing as how 3rd parties are also doing the same, it only makes sense to put them on HD consoles. What should Capcom have done? Gone with their original formula, made some tweaks, and produce RE5? Or should they have completely revamped it, apply motion controls that are tight, and also make it "Wii-friendly"? It sounds like the latter would actually take considerably more effort, and if they screwed up, they'd get barely, if not no return on their investment, whereas they should have, and did, go with their tride and true method of producing games, putting it on consoles where the consumers repeatedly show that they buy those kinds of games..and wah lah. Success

I think there are a lot of reasons why, and each developer probably as their own mis of them.  Here's what I can think of:

1. Bad marketing: I don't mean advertising, I mean research.  Before this generation started, everyone pretty much wrote Nintendo off as a future 3rd party; and when they got details on the "Revolution", most didn't take it seriously, or thought it some kind of Hail Mary pass by a company desperate to stay relevant.  Instead of taking the Wii seriously and trying to understand what Nintendo was trying to do, they ignored it, and threw everything they had into the HD pot.  Since it takes years to make the games, the games that are coming out now, where started before the systems came out, and the Wii struck gold.
   
   
2. Biased developers: Many of the developers are gamers themselves, which is what fuels their passion, but also creates a bias.  The people most motivated to make games, are the ones attracted to gaming by the games; and the bigs one like GTA or Call of Duty, will lure people in who want to make games like those.  The developers seem to only want to make games for themselves, and the only gamers they recognize are the ones who play those same games; they don't want to make games FOR other people, and so those gamers tend to be dismissed as "casual" or "non gamers".  Nintendo's focus with the Wii was to reach out to broader audiences, and the developers didn't want to play ball.
   
   
3. Catch 22: Third parties are uncertain of the Wii, so they don't want to sink huge dollars into Wii projects, and won't make AAA games on the Wii until the second rate stuff does better.  The gamers on the other hand, don't want to buy second rate crap, especially when Nintendo makes AAA stuff, and third parties make AAA stuff on the HD consoles; they won't buy the second-rate games when there are better games to buy.  Both the developers and the gamers are waiting for the other to move, and we get a stalemate.  Gamers won't buy bad games, and it's unfair to ask them to, so third parties need to step up with better games that can meet the demands of gamers, compete with Nintendo, and compete with their own HD games.  Then again, why would you compete with yourself, which leads to...
   
   
4. Audience fragmentation: What happens if game developers started putting their hardcore games on the Wii, and they started selling?  While having more fans is a good thing, it means they now have two audiences to satisfy, and have to create two games to reach the whole audience instead of one.  It's preferable to keep all the games of one kind on one platform and have everyone by that platform.
   
   For example, if Tatsunoko vs. Capcom sells well, then Capcom's in a tight spot.  It's great to have more fans, but now they have to keep making different fighters on different platforms; do they keep Street Fighter on the HD consoles, and make Versus games on the Wii?  In a perfect world, everyone would have an HD console and a Wii, so all fighter fans could play Street Fighter and vs. Capcom; but we don't live in a perfect world, so there will be HD fans who want Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, and Wii fans who want Super Street Fighter IV.  Capcom will be stuck either having to make each game twice, or having each game only reach half the audience.
   
   
5. Nintendo: Some of the older developers remember Nintendo from years ago; Nintendo wasn't evil, but they also knew that business was a tough game, and did play hardball when needed.  Hiroshi Yamauchi himself was known for his imperialistic management style.  Also, they've got the development resources to carry a system (almost) by themselves; if Nintendo takes the lead, there is little incentive for them to do 3rd parties any favours.  Sony and Microsoft are not in that position; while they may have some big titles under their belts, they need 3rd parties like "a fish needs water", and will do what it takes to keep them on side.
   
   Although, there were some third parties who switched from Sony to Microsoft because they were worried that Sony was becoming too powerful; now it seems like they are trying to keep the HD consoles at war with each other, as close to a 50/50 split as possible.

There are more reasons than these, but this is all I care to write right now.

3rd parties following their old business model is true and unfortunately sad. I believe it would have been great to have some publishers and developers creating secondary companies to try newer models rather. Allowing them to not ruin the old traditional names in their eyes but have the oppurtunity to come to grips with a new model.

I think the trick with the control is that people are thinking of it too much in the mind of wii sports direct motion control. There are alternatives the wiimote provides such as the angle of the controller influencing the angle of the basketball shot or the aggressiveness of your defence.

Capcom is a good example with RE 5 (~5.2mil sales). They could have easily have developed it for the wii rather than HD. The controls were fantastic in RE4 wiimake (~1.66 mil sales) and graphics people were more than happy with. Focussing on a single architecture and one they already know (similiar to Gamecube) the development process would have been simpler and cheaper with fewer people. The return on the investment would more than likely have been simlair with fewer sales. But cant really debate what could have been.

Like what wii game?

I don't buy the idea of audience fragmentation being a problem. The whole idea of a capitalistic profit orientated business is to seek profit where-ever they can. If they can find an untapped market and sell even more copies across a wider base they will certainly do that. A port isn't a problem really if theres an audience they are targetting.

I think the real problem isn't the development issues across the different platforms its a marketing issue. Both HD consoles can use the same advertisement but you're really pushing far into false advertisement territory if you include the Wii on one which supposedly includes gameplay. In addition to this I would suggest that they feel a lot of Wii games aren't as good to advertise on a visual medium in that they feel they may turn people off due to 'inferior visuals'.

The problem with splitting the audience is more of limited resources; it's not good enough to just chase profit, but chasing the biggest profit in the most efficient way possible.  Creating two versions of any game that has a split audience means more money and time spent making those games, and less resources availalb eot make other games.  It would be better if the company could keep the whole audience on one platform, or at least on fewer platforms, that are easy to port between each other; that frees up the resources needed to make more games that can make more profit.

Now in Capcom's case, if there was a sizable audience for a Wii version of Street Fighter IV, and the resources to develop it would have come at the expense of something like Bionic Commando, then that's a no brainer; but they thought that any fighter fan would have just bought an HD console to get SFIV, and Bionic Commando was going to be a hit.

I've seen quite a few advertisments for games on HD consoles and the Wii that show the HD version, and simply state at the end that there is a Wii version.

Just one thing: are you idiot?You are JUST BORING.Since when sayings are evidence?That's just statement.

You don't even read(or give a respense to) a reply of someone else that concerns us. I am not saying they are bad,they are useless to me.And I think you understood nothing of my sayings: I told I played Street Fighter since a while.If by the game you're talking about SF IV, who mentionned that game?How is our discution linked to the subject?We're losing it.

STOP YOUR PREJUDICE!Didn't you learn this?

In game developers, there is no huge quality dropoff after Blizzard, Valve, and Nintendo.  If there was, how do you explain the excellent quality of 2009 games like Uncharted 2, Call of Duty: MW2, Resident Evil 5, Street Fighter IV, Beatles Rock Band, when compared to the 2009 games made by Nintendo, and Valve (Blizzard didn't release any, but that says something too).  Valve and Blizzard have released quality titles only, but there has been some mediocrity from Nintendo like the Wii Animal Crossing, Wii Music.  New Super Mario Brothers Wii is pretty good, but it's nowhere near ad good as the older Marios, notr as innovative as Galaxy.

It's easy to answer the OP question:

(A) Split the Wii's attach ratio into two parts -- 1st party and 3rd party attach.
(B) Consider that 3rd party profit on Wii titles is somewhat less than it is on HD titles, when considering raw numbers sold.
(C) Note that Nintendo is always pleased to announce how the Wii has the "most" titles released each year, and then consider that there are negative consequences to that for the 3rd parties, especially given what you've figured out from (A) above, the lower profit margins per unit from (B), and the greater shelf space competition from (C). This raw statistic is great for Nintendo, however, because it means more licensing fees.