These words are not my own but I feel that they express in words more than I can ever manage to.
"Everyone acts like the Wii and the HD consoles were given fair, even shares of initial third party support, therefore "proving" the Wii can't support hardcore content when the same content that sells on the 360 or PS3 bombs on the Wii. But that's completely untrue.
The "hardcore" situation would have been much different had the Wii had Resident Evil 5 or Metal Gear Solid 4, had it had Mass Effect or Modern Warfare, had it had Assassin's Creed or Final Fantasy XIII.
Similarly, the 360 or PS3 wouldn't have done so well had they been forced to rely on Deadly Creatures or MadWorld, Mushroom Men or Umbrella Chronicles, The Conduit or Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers.
It's not a fair comparison at all. All of these negative developer perceptions are built on a foundation of misconceptions and faulty logic.
To be fair, I think we've passed the point of no return in terms of image, but that doesn't mean developers can continue to blame the Wii or Nintendo. Rather than saying, "Nintendo and the Wii do not support us or our content", they should say, "We let our biases and ignorance cloud our initial judgment, so we now best develop on the two HD consoles and forget the vast opportunities we missed had we merged our sophisticated content with a platform that had the widest potential audience".
No console is intrinsically "hardcore", it's whatever console developers collectively decide to support with their best content. The Wii would have been capable of supporting hardcore content had the developers been there from the start.
(And granted, while Nintendo shouldn't have to and isn't obligated, it would have been in their best interest to have nipped this in the bud from the beginning, doing whatever they can to start that perpetual engine of "hardcore" content with third parties.)"
-LoftytheMetroid, from Kotaku