Exactly this.

Nintendo the developer has far too many unfair advantages on their platforms. Were it any other industry you would probably consider it a conflict of interest. Nintendo designs the hardware to meet their needs. They have no licensing fees. They have first access to the hardware. They control the lineup, and they brutally defend their sales. They determine the demographics, and they control the peripherals with an iron fist.

There is nothing wrong with first party support as long as its done in moderation. A console manufacturer must afford third party developers with some consideration. Give them an opportunity. Let them have access to the fan base. Third party developers are fighting an uphill battle against an opponent with all the advantages.

Sony and Microsoft do a decent job of letting everyone eat at the table. Nintendo not so much. They need to stop developing so many titles. They need to leave adequate holes in their lineup. They need to provide better third party support in development kits, and ask for their input as to what they need. They need to hand out opportunities to third party developers.

Strategically it just isn't sound to go up against Nintendo with all of its advantages. You can argue whether the other things are myths or have some basis in reality. The truth is going up against Nintendo is like facing a giant. You have little chance, and Nintendo isn't going to really give you one.

I honestly will ask you which platform would you prefer to develop a game for. Which platform will give you the greatest opportunity. Leave your fanaticism at the door, and behave like you have no loyalty to any platform. Would you rather go up against Nintendo, or would you rather find room on one or two of the other platforms. Given that Sony and Microsoft will happily make room for you, and will probably try to make your product a success. Whereas Nintendo will not care as long as their bimonthly twenty year franchise titles sells a million copies.

Dangerous Dave and Lode Runner are better than ALL NES games.

'self proclaimed 'real'gamers'' you say.. I think you overdoing it when you say something like that.. you basicly say that these real gamers might not be the 'real' gamers they think they are, while I think you should understand what these gamers mean when they say a thing like that, and they really do exist in comparison to many other people who've got a console, but are not considered 'real' gamers.. or do you only don't like the term real, and would rather see some other word to describe the existing difference between groups of console owners?

What makes a 'real' gamer more 'real' than other gamers? Why can't they just be honest and admit that it's just that they're dedicated to playing video games? Do we really need artificial definitions of what makes a game versus a 'non-game', and thus conveniently pigeon-hole everybody who plays 'non-games' as 'casuals' and thus 'not real gamers'? I find it a rather elitist sort of word choice and mentality, to be honest. It somehow implies that one cannot accurately be called a gamer unless they fit very stringent requirements which most cannot.

I'm not going to Quote cause it'd be too long but QFT.

Per VGChartz, Z&W is the number #2 selling puzzle game for the Wii, PS3 or X360, behind Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree.  I think all will agree that the Brain Age IP has had a ton more advertizing than Z&W did.  Interesting to note that the just released Boom Blox first week's sales, with EA behind it and also more advertising, were about the same as Z&W.  

That being said, I will agree that more will trust a Nintendo game to be well made than a 3rd party one.  But that is true in all forms of entertainment.  If you like thrillers, whose book are you going to buy, one that I just wrote that got okay reviews, or one by Tom Clancy.  Which book is going to be stocked at stores?  Should Tom Clancy stop writing so that a book of mine sells better? 

Should successful well-known authors that write a lot, only be allowed to publish 1 book a year to allow for shelf space for the lesser known authors?

Which platform will give you the greatest opportunity?  Which platform costs the most to produce a new game on?  Considering that for the PS3 or X360, HD visuals and a superb sound track are minimum requirements for game to sell on them.  And how much does that cost?

Games like Cooking Mama: Cook Off or Carnival Games didn't cost that much to make, and whether you consider them shoveware or not, they appeal to an audience that otherwise isn't getting the games that they want.  So, if I had a completely new idea, equivalent to BrainAge, Nintendogs, Pokemon or Tetris, yes, I would develope it on the Wii (maybe first on the DS, I suppose).  

Perhaps you are right, but if so, then WiiWare will be a flop, since I don't imagine that many of those games will be produced by Nintendo. 

Name recognition certainly plays a part.  Granted, a crap game will generally sell like crap, but name recognition can help a great game sell much better than other similar titles.

Why else is Twilight Princess nearing the 5 million mark on the Wii, while Okami struggled to reach 150k on the ps2?

Also, why is Nintendo's first party is the one always brought up in situations like this, while Sony's is ignored?  In recent years Sony has begun publishing more games for their home consoles year-for-year than Nintendo, yet the individual IPs carry for less name recognition because they don't have the tenure that Nintendo's do.  Sony's IPs are gerally good, and they generally garner quite a bit of sales, but because they continually make new IPs (often not by choice, like Naughty Dog and Insomniac moving from Crash and Spyro to make Jak and Ratchet), they don't manage to build up the notoriety that Nintendo's franchises do, outside of a few like Gran Turismo (in other words, the ones that have been around for quite some time).

A paragraph by paragraph reply follows.

1:

In what way is Nintendo different from Microsoft or Sony? Sony also designs the hardware to meet their needs, as does Microsoft. Are you talking about the motion control stuff? Any developer can use that, not just Nintendo.

Licensing fees - the same for every manufacturer, they don't pay licensing fees to themselves (what difference would it make if they did?).

First access to the hardware; same thing here, obviously the manufacturer will be the first to know what the hardware is. Could we please stop with the truisms?

Controlling the line-up? What do you mean, other than another obvious truism which is the case for every company?

Determining the demographics? Same as above. Controlling the peripherals? There are plenty of third-party peripherals for the Wii, what's your point here?

2:

The third parties have access to the Wii userbase. AFAIK, Nintendo doesn't restrict anyone from developing on their system. What was the last time you read about a developer not being allowed to develop on the Wii?

Not only does Nintendo give 3rd parties a bigger userbase than Sony or Microsoft, they also give them a platform which is cheaper to develop for. What else do third parties want? A bag of money to help them make even more money?

3:

By this point, you're just getting hilarious. Nintendo needs to develop less titles? Oh my god... Do you mean that Nintendo should delibrately downsize their business just for the sake of companies which had no risk involved with the development of their consoles? Not only that, but you actually go as far as suggesting that Nintendo should leave holes in their lineup, and then point to third parties and say HERE HERE, get this money that we kept for you. Ever learned anything about business? It's all about risk and profit, not risk and no profit.

That doesn't make any sense at all. It could make sense if Nintendo had a monopoly on the games business, which is not the case by any measure.

4:

Again, Nintendo gives anyone the chance to develop on the Wii. Companies which made good games have sold well on the Wii, and there are plenty more 3rd party titles on the Wii from companies which have a chance of making big profit. BTW, ever heard of WiiWare? If that's not giving 3rd parties yet another chance, then what is it?

5:

If we're talking about a situation where I started a game development company, I'd honestly go for the Wii at this point. I'd be able to save money on development, I wouldn't have to recruit as many people to work there (making it easier and cheaper), and I'd have access to a bigger userbase. As long as I made a good and innovative game, and marketed it well, I'm pretty sure I'd make profit out of it even without selling millions of copies.