Lubbo said:
Well, i agree with you but in my opinion it shouldn't have been hyped and promoted by nintendo as much, or they should have had contracts with companies to make a certain number of games compatible with the motion +
That's a bit of a paradox, isn't it? As all companies, game makers want to make as much money as possible. Adding motion+ support takes time, and as such, those companies will wonder "is the extra effort of adding motion+ support going to be worth it?".
That's where the sales of the motion+ become important. Basically: the more people get it, the more likely companies will be to add the support to their game. That's also where nintendo's hype becomes important: it has to sell well in order to 'seduce' companies into adding the support (see also: the guitar hero franchise).
That's also why I said I don't know whether nintendo can be blamed for so few games having motion+ support. It's because they basically have to make sure that the extra effort that game companies will have to do to allow for motion+ support isn't too big.
And to be honest...I can't say how much harder it is to code a game with motion+ AND regular wiimotion support than just one that has regular support. Take into account that the current load of games were already a work-in-progress by the time the motion+ shipped, and you'll see that it's not as easy as "just" adding some support.
As much as I'd like to see nintendo bitching all other companies around to tell them they MUST add motion+ support, I don't think that's very realistic. If you were a company's CEO, why would you want to sign a contract that would postpone your shipping date (and thus cost you extra money*)?
I'm a bit curious as to how the motion+ is going to stop piracy. It's easy enough to download WSR and buy a separate motion+. It's more expensive than the usual 0$ pirates usually play for games, but it's still cheaper than "simply" buying the game.
*programmers don't work for free
