I might make it more confusing. Lol

First, define 'negative games' for me. What is a 'negative game'? Are they not employing a combination strategy with respect to the games they are publishing? (In house and out). Do they not have exclusive in double digit figures? Those games appear to be oriented towards both the core and casual segments. How is that bad for gamers?  Enlighten me if you find me ignorant. I am led to believe Microsoft’s position is still better for the gamer when compared to Nintendo (but only in those narrowly defined terms), and I am by no means an Xbox enthusiast. That’s just how it looks to me as a gamer.

When I say "negative game" I mean they are paying for an otherwise multiplatform game to be exclusive to their platform, so money is spent taking games from other platforms rather than increasing the number for their own. It makes sense for them strategically as they close the gap between them and other platforms by 2 games for less than the cost of one, however this results in fewer games overall and is bad for gamers.

still waiting for that WRPG from one of sonys W1st party dev...

really depends on what you like. Im going with Sony, because simply put i think they have the better games and better variety. Ok "better" is debatable they might not have a Halo, but they do have a Killzone and a Resistance. While Ninty, which i like 2nd dont have a FPS to their name or an openworld, etc.

I would say Sony or Nintendo. Sony really did a great job with publishing on the PS3. They seemed to respect individual studios visions and didn't push sequels down our throats. That being said no one can deny just how great nintendo has done with it's own franchises as well. Their games tend to age sell. Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, and others are still fun after 20 years. That can't be said about most games being published by MS or Sony.

I would say Nintendo when they actually have a strategy. They have low budgets and still sell high for tons of profit. MS does High budgets and tons of profit. Sony does a mix some high and some low, harder to tell if they make tons of profit. However both Nintendo and MS seem to abandon their consoles when sales get lower, which might actually help them profit. But I am sure Sony is making a lot more money from 1st party this year then MS and Nintendo.

All of them are guilty of this. Microsoft is not the only one that engages in such behavior, and from the looks of things it seems their stance has shifted in favor of creating more true exclusive content than timed exclusives. It is also not always a disservice to gamers. Look at Bayonetta 2 since it apparently would not have seen the light of day as a multiplatform game. But the real question is, what proportion of games are true exclusive to timed exclusives? Added to that Microsoft seems to have a strong showing (quantitatively at least).

Nintendo has been forming partnerships with a lot of developers. One could argue if that wasn’t the case third parties could channel their resources in multiplatform games for the benefit of a wider group of gamers. Platinum could be making multiplatform games for all systems instead of making Bayoetta 2 exclusively for the Wii U, or NamcoBandai could channel more of their resources to other projects (multiplat) instead of providing Nintendo with assistance. On the other side of the coin these partnerships are needed since Nintendo insinuated that they need assistance with the transition to HD. These instances can hardly be decoupled, and with that said and taking everything into consideration, I still think Microsoft > Nintendo with respect to the topic.

Sony takes the most risks nowadays, that said I kinda feel "cold" to most of their IP for some reason, whereas Nintendo just seems to still have a certain magic.

If you could some how mix the two together, you'd have the perfect 1st party.

I like the Halo franchise, but the rest of MS' stuff I'm not thrilled about. They totally mismanaged Rare too.

I think I misunderstood the point of the thread. I didn't think it was about which publisher has the best games but has the best strategy for their own following.

Microsoft loses because they don't have enough IP's yet.

Nintendo loses because you said only take consoles into consideration. While they do great with their HH's they almost always have console droughts. Plus, they forgot about many fan-requested series.

Sony is terrible when it comes to their HH strategy but there's a reason why there Consoles have won every generation before the PS3. PS3 will likely pass the Wii when all is done too.