Hunahan said:
1. One of the major things in my argument is that I've acknowledged that many of the games in question were pre-determined to go to the PS3 before Wii's dominance was assured--although I would argue that Wii's dominance WAS assured, at least in Japan, way back when the words
five ninety nine were uttered. The developers in question, specifically Square Enix, Namco, and Konami, didn't recognize what was right in front of everyone and decided to forge ahead with titles in production. The main thrust of my argument is that once those games are delivered, those publishers SHOULD be putting major exclusives on the Wii.
2. The question of "should" vs. "actually caring." The question I was answering was in relation to the 360/PS3 install base...
in the US. The entire premise that you think is debunked by me saying, "they don't care," is in fact confirmed by that statement. Everything I've shown, said, and charts I've used points to that very fact: despite worldwide dominance, western devs focus on the hardcore audiences despite the eventual leadership of the Wii install base.
Moreover, the idea of "should" vs. "what will happen" is clearly speculative based on the idea investors like to maximize profits (money earned over money invested). I pretty clearly stated in the OP, both times, and specified, both times, that this entire premise is based on sound investment strategy--not on whether publishers will be forced to observe that.
A side note: I don't appreciate the insinuation that I somehow "wish" this to happen or that this argument is in any way motivated by anything other than a love of strategy, sales, charts, and the business of gaming. That argument is beneath both of us and you lower this into some imaginary fanboy war when you do so. If it does matter, and everybody spending time making valid arguments in this thread would say that it doesn't, I certainly do not want certain Japanese Big Name Games to be made for exclusive to the Wii platform for my very own unspoken fanboy reasons. I won't address this again.
3. It's not a theory. It's an argued position that I think smart investors would be wise to observe. I'm open to criticism, where valid. I'm definitely open to arguments, as I've shown both here and in numerous other threads. When I'm wrong, I stand down. But instead of arguing you're debating semantics, using strawmen arguments and suggesting things I've said mean another. If you'd like to debate relevant points, I'd love to, but you're not off to a great start.