Very true. And it seems many of the bigger devs are expecting dev costs to rise even more, next gen. I recall ubisoft making these claims. I wonder how long it would take for this industry to crash, because this path is unsustainable.

Ubisoft's claims are simply insane. They said they expect average budgets of $60 million. So even if a publisher gets 50% of the revenue from a sold game (which is likely not the case), each game would have to sell 2 million units...

^ But why would they persist if their is a alternative viable market? Its not as if it doesn't exist, look at the Wii, look at the DS. If development really has become such costly endeavour, wouldn't risk management at the very least eliminate the risky venture or downgrade it to development on a less costly platform? It just still feel so simple to me that I can't believe people could NOT see it. There has to be other factors.

Maybe I'm just too naive and optimistic, but I cannot believe that answer is so simple.

I don't mean to be rude, but that makes no sense.

How are their "target audience" graphic whores if the games would sell just as well (if not better, given the user base) on the Wii, granted they'd put the same ammount of effort?

Seems too much of a simple solution for such a big number of companies to be oblivious about. This companies have been around for a while and have survived in this market... how exactly? By being complete morons and not seeing such simple things?

Like mibuokami said, there has to be something else to it. They can't be this stupid.

Regarding alternatives, let me ask you a question: do you think 3rd parties tried hard enough on the Wii, in order to prove the existence or non-existence of an alternative there?

Did they do all they reasonably could to try to prop up the alternative market that the Wii represents?

In my opinion they didn't even come close. For the most part, they launched spin-offs of their franchises (they did this with Resident Evil, Castlevania, Dead Space, and many more). Other times, they launched games with niche appeal (Zack & Wiki, Madworld), which got turned into supposed examples of the Wii's inability to sell core games.

A point-and-click adventure game (a genre which has been forgotten for years) and a black-n-white high violence game are supposed to convince us that core games can't sell millions on the Wii, even though other core games have sold millions on the Wii? That's why Wii fans in this forum feel like puking every time someone pops up with the Madworld example again, as if it proves the Wii audience is a big zero in terms of buying core games.

After a big console gaming crash there is usually a rise of PC gaming, with numerous outsiders emerging. So let's wait and see.
This time, though, there aren't only PC's willing to scavenge consoles' corpses.
Personally I wouldn't be unhappy about a Google attempt to launch a gaming platform, maybe following the Android model...

You seem to be talking about a single "target audience" shared between all the consoles. I never implied the target audience is the same on all the consoles.

SW3 is doing great on the wii but nobody cares;)

It's sales are comparable to the rest of the series, but it's a relatively niche series. So it's not exciting enough for the pro Wii crowd and it's not favorable to the anti Wii crowd. Frankly I'm glad it's selling like this. It shows that just like Monster Hunter 3, a game given all the same circumstances as the actual series will actually sell in line with the rest of the series.

The publishers are trying to provide what Wii owners have demonstrated they wish to purchase. They're not going about it wrong, nor are they guilty of "not trying" -- that's ridiculous. Every Wii game developer wants to see their game on top. Every Publisher wants every game to perform in a stellar fashion. They do the best with what they have (usually this means "what they have to spend").

Wii games have gotten a lot less to spend than HD titles (@MaxwellGT2000: I have never debated this, btw -- go read my posts carefully. I have always stated that publishers need to invest more in the Wii if they want quality titles, and have never doubted that publishers are telling the truth, that Wii development is lacking, in terms of development money.  Those numbers were always averages, and averages are heavily skewed by the sheer mass of shovelware).

Now they've come around, and are realizing they need to invest in the Wii, on a per project basis, to have any chance of succeeding with it. You still aren't going to see M-rated titles. You're only going to see the kinds of games that Nintendo, and eventually other 3rd parties, has/have proven to work. Investing more means they will play it even safer -- just like they do with HD games. Shooter after shooter after shooter on the HDs is safe. A lot of the cheapest dev teams (i.e. ones in Eastern Europe, HK, etc.) have really started to nail the common HD genres, so there will always be a plethora of cheaply-made HD shooters, etc., as well.

You can probably expect mostly platformers, fitness titles, party games, brain trainers/puzzle games, and youth-oriented games of all sorts on the Wii from now on -- anything that's been proven to work with the everyone/youth demographics. License titles will remain as-is, although the smaller licenses will probably dry up. You'll likely also only see huge toy and movie IPs from now on, which will cut the shovelware percentage down immensely.

If any M-rated game IPs ever become popular on the Wii, they'll have to be a breakout titles that had a low budget in its first iteration.  Something small but cleverly made -- perhaps as WiiWare.  The publishers won't risk putting a spendy M-rated title on the Wii without serious franchise backup (like Call of Duty, which will probably continue to eek out an existance on the Wii, albeit in delayed or crippled fashion).