Thoughts in my head are often formed in the context of arguments; I will deliberately criticize my own ideas in order to see their flaws. One such idea (that I've seen on this site several times) is that game developers won't make games for the Wii because they are artists. As artists, they would not compromise their craft by developing games on an inferior platform. Okay, so this was how my internal dialogue handled this idea:

Max: It seems to me that a lot of developers will move over to Wii development. Because it has a much larger install base than the PS3, and because development costs are considerably lower, publishers stand to make a great deal more money from these Wii games.

Steve: No, I don't agree. Artists don't compromise themselves. They will not accept inferior technology for the development of their art.

Max: Hm, okay. Then why don't these artists make more games for the PC? High end personal computers are already beyond the PS3's capability, and as games like Crysis show, the results can be amazing. If we are to assume that developers are "artists" who will make no concessions that may lessen the possibilities of their craft, why are there only a few PC developers? This problem only gets worse as time goes on. In two years, PCs will be way, way beyond the PS3, and not just slightly beyond it.

Steve: Obviously the PC gaming industry is much smaller. WoW aside, there really isn't a lot of money to be made there because few people are willing to keep their computer up to date in order to play all these high end games.

Max: Okay. So these developers-as-artists won't be willing to make Wii games because it compromises their art -- even if they would make more money doing so; however, they also won't be willing to make PC games because they can't make much money off of it -- even if this means compromising their art. This seems illogical.

Anyone care to criticize this dialogue? I hope the point I'm making is fairly obvious. Can you pinpoint anything wrong with its logic?

Your argument makes sense. I understand why some developers choose PS3 and 360 as their platform of choice, and I can understand why some developers choose not to develop on the Wii, because they think they need more power.

I disagree that art is not possible on the Wii though. We've had plenty of beautiful titles like Shadows of the Colossus and Okami on the PS2, and the Wii is VASTLY superior to the PS2. Part of being an artist is starting with your medium and making something beautiful from there. There's plenty a game developer can do on the Wii.

Is this a artist thing only conversation. Or can other reasons be included in the reason they wont make wii games.

Absolutely, please do comment Blue3. You could argue -- reasonably I think -- that people won't develop for the Wii for a number of reasons, only one of which are the hardware's limitations. 

1 - Well devs banked on the succes of the PS3 making game technology that needed PS3 power. Millions were invested in next gen gaming while wii was looked on as a joke. Its hard shifting recources to the wii now, expecially when you can always take your product and throw it on PS3/360/PC.

2 - Competing with Nintendo/Miyamoto, its damn near impossible to beat them. Except for maybe Square with an Rpg can you see anyone making a wii game better then Nintendo themselfs ?

2.1 - Sales, using the DS/PSP as example of the future yes the Ds outnumbers the PSP 2-1 yet the highest selling 3rd party game is on the PSP, there is really in no great reason for 3rd partys to flok to the wii while adandnoning PS3/360 becasue its outselling them.

2.5 - sales, on quite a few occasions a wii game has failed to out sell the PS3 game. Now think 360/PS3 version vs Wii. Madden 1.6 milllion for 360, 386k for PS3 359k for Wii, Is it worth it to make a wii version if at the end of the day the wii sales are only 15% of total sale. (used Madden just as example)

3 - More dependable demographic, a tried and true shooter and you got great sales. Making a game for the wii demographic is harder. This might not make much sense.

Wouldn't it also depend on your artistic style as not all art is photo realistic and if that was not your perferred artistic style you likely could produce your art on any of the systems also as an artist even with inferior materials would you not want your arts seen by as many people as possible? Think those are Steve like arguments. As for Max I'd say no art by its nature is meant to appeal to only a niche market and those are the people that will understand and appreciate it for how much time and work went into it. Ehh more on Steve side myself but can understand Max point of few anyways now I feel like I'm talking to myself so leave it at that.

2: One word: Rare. They had some top-notch titles that went toe-to-toe against Nintendo and fared arguably better in some cases (GoldenEye 007, Donkey Kong Country, Blast Corps come to mind).

But based on that logic, wouldn't everyone simply buy Nintendo and eschew any other console - after all, it's "damn near impossible to beat them"? What's the point of other developers coming out with new games for non-Nintendo platforms if it's "damn near impossible to beat them"?

Some developers have already invested money in things more suited to making games for the stronger technology. They've probably picked up new software and computer hardware just for the next gen, and weren't expecting a system that relies more on the control system than the graphical output for gaming. So, expecting a PC-like console, a lot of companies readied for that. The 'low tech' solution in the Wii was at first, dismissed merely because of Nintendo's past performance and the unorthodox use of motion control on a less powerful system.

However, it's price point and new, hands-on style of control has drawn in plenty of interest. And a lot of companies can't ignore a new market of people to sell things to. (New enthusiasts to the hobby of gaming are a lot more relaxed about things, they do not over analyze or respond to gaming history as core gamers do. Not to mention, those new gamers can slowly be weaned towards meatier products, to attract more dollars and turn casuals more into core gamers. Not all will, but some, certainly.)

So gaming studios will do one of three things.
1) Grow to add support for the Wii and it's hardware and control setup, to harness the growing market to both create more Wii games and fund other projects for the more powerful systems.

2) Support only the casual system, drawing in cash from small, niche titles to make their bread.

3)Support only the powerful systems, saving the investment into new divisions to put back into their larger bankrolled titles.

Honestly, I see most big 3rd party producers going the route of number 1. The casual market, if it's proven to be a new avenue for revenue for the entertainment dollar to be drawn into the gaming sector, cannot be ignored. Its more or less an untapped market at this point.

Number 2 will most likely only happen for small, startup groups. With the price to develop a Wii title fairly cheap compared to the other two systems, a small company with good ideas could make cash feeding on the new market.

Number 3 will most likely not happen. I don't think there are any 3rd party producers that can afford to stick to only the big guns, unless they are already making a lot of cash off previous projects. A company like Square Enix or even Capcom could probably afford to, but in all honesty, why would you want to take big gambles with every new project, instead of smaller, less risky ventures? Sure, the net profits might be smaller (Unless your product is just awesome.), but it would cost less to fund from the beginning, making it profitable in less units sold.

my #3 comes to play, The demographic is way differant. Nintendo games wont work well on 360.  You think halo would have done 6 million on the GC ? 

I think all of these are good points, save one (which I will comment on). I'd add to your list that a PS3 game can easily be ported to the 360 (for additional profit) while the same can't be said of a Wii game. I know this doesn't support the PS3 exclusively, but it still helps. 

And I absolutely agree that development for the PS3/360 won't come to a halt, even if sales trends remain as they are. My personal totally-made-up projection would be (assuming the Wii does actually win the generation) that the Wii would have 100 very good or excellent games, while the PS3 and/or 360 would have about 70 or 80. In other words, even if the Wii "wins," it's not as if the higher end consoles won't see a good deal of amazing games. Not even just a few gimme ones, either. A good, strong portion.

The one point I disagree with is your PSP/DS comparison. To be honest, DS took developers by surprise almost as much as the Wii did; many of the best 3rd party games are on the PSP system. There are no Metal Gears or Grand Theft Autos on the DS. Only recently have serious third party DS games been developed; first the Final Fantasy remake, and now a new Final Fantasy (which has sold better than the recently released PSP version, by the way) and a new Ninja Gaiden. So I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily -- but one should note that the heavy hitting 3rd party titles have been on the PSP. Put simply: the DS has no 3rd party title like Grand Theft Auto. It's hard to know if a blockbuster 3rd party title like that would sell well on the DS, because there aren't any yet. A few are on their way, though, so we'll see how they do when they arrive here in the states.