"They're not going about it wrong"

Sales are slowing. That is going about it wrong.

Procrastinato: The only way one can say Wii doesn't sell "M" games is to magnify the games that didn't sell well (which is generally more than the game just being rated M) And ignore the M games that did sell well (which again is generally more about the game itself moreso than the ESRB rating)

Also from looking at Wii's game collection and seeing the games that sell, I'm noticing a lot of "fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me" So many of the "mini game" "petz and deca sports and even Shaun White, boom blox etc (I could go on lol) Wii owners like something fresh and aren't into the whole annual purchase of the same game with minor tweaks sort of thing.

I remember a quote from Miyamoto early on in Wii's life making reference to if third parties want success on the platform, they need to designate their A teams to the Wii instead of the C teams being asked to make a Wii game. This hasn't happened. 3 yrs in and there hasn't been a AAA third party effort yet. Save for MH3 which proves the opposite of what many third parties (and forum dwellers) are saying.

MH3 hasn't shipped outside of Japan yet, but given prior MH sales outside of Japan, I doubt that it'll sell a significant amount more than it has.  It's not a landmark yet.  It's sold a million in the franchise's historically most significant and clear target market.  That's nice, but its not a landslide.  FF 13 has already demolished its sales #s, and on a platform which is vastly outnumbered by the Wii.

On top of that, I don't think you have any data on how MH3 was made, to use it as an example.  Did it re-use/upgrade art resources from the PSP and PS2 MH games?  Did it re-use single-threaded engine technology -- the Wii is, in a sense, a super version of the PSP, from an architectural and code API standpoint.  How much did it cost to make?  Do you know, or are you just assuming the best, based on Western publishers' comments on their average Wii dev costs?  Are many other devs going to have the advantages needed to make their game cheaply, if MH3 was cheap, and had the advantages I listed above?

Given the limited differences between the Wii and consoles from the past generation, I think its fair to assume that MH3 could have pulled a "Gears 2" with regards to dev costs on the Wii.  There's no reason to think that HD games won't get the same benefit, moving forward, and they appear to be a safer bet, for most genres.

Besides, MH3 is a "T"-equivalent game, is it not?  On top of that, its a RPG, and its in Japan.  Too many exceptions to use it as a decent example.

"Save for MH3 which proves the opposite of what many third parties (and forum dwellers) are saying."

Unless they latch onto the sales of the latest PSP game, and pretend Capcom's word about making loads of money off MH3 doesn't count.

Ok. I don't know how much dev cost for MH3. You got me. But let's see, a game sells over a Million and has P2P online in ONE region. No other third party game had achieved this feat in Japan until FFXIII (Which I wonder how much THAT game needs to sell in order to secure profit, do you know the dev costs for that one?) Capcom came out and credited MH3 for their rosy financials for the quarter. So I fail to see your point. Where the point I was trying to make clear that a game that was supposed to go to PS3 changed platforms due to dev costs and sold very well. I'm secure in believing DQX will sell very well. But these are games that will sell well regardless of platform. RE5 wouldn't have sold on Wii?

My point was that, as long as you don't understand the details as to *why* a game profited well (ports, for example, are extremely profitable, because their dev costs are *very* low.  CoD Wii is undoubtably very profitable), you can't apply it as an example of how other games should be developed.

MH3 isn't a huge leap forward from other MH games, which were already beautiful.  Yes, its the most beautiful, as the latest iteration in a franchise often is, but it doesn't actually seem as though the engine is much different than previous MH games.  Improved, yes, but pretty derivative/iterative in nature.  That's kinda self-explanatory, to me.

I would put MH3's improvements over its predecessors on the same level as the recent God of War re-releases on the PS3 over their predecessors.  The games didn't actually change hardly at all, outside of have some restraints removed, due to the extra horsepower of the PS3 over the PS2 -- yet its much nicer looking.  And it was dirt cheap.

"ports, for example, are extremely profitable, because their dev costs are *very* low."

No. Developers when directly asked, point out ports are costly. Not as costly as an original game, but not low. If your argument is based on assumptions, it's not a good argument.

And we know why MH3 profited. It sold well and people were paying for the online, in a way that exceeded the development and marketing. Duh. The figures are there, so it's not an assumption.

Um.  Link?  No offense, but I've never a dev say such a thing... ever.

It's rare they talk about it (which does admittedly leave room for this misconception), but I've seen a few places, like when I directly asked about ports on the Capcom forums. Sven, who isn't just a mod but works for Capcom, pointed out ports require trying to fit all the game code and data on another system. Almost everything has to be redone. I mean it's like building a house twice, only you can't even reuse the materials most of the time. You have to remake the materials from scratch.

If you take some internet forum poster's word, then you've got to take my word that this forum moderator (who have would have no idea regarding porting dev costs -- why would he?) is dead wrong. ;)

I know you disagree with my statement, and you don't need to agree.  You've heard it, and perhaps it'll sink in some, and inspire some thinking on the subject for you, and other readers.  That's all that was important to me.