The problem with your theory, Dodece, is that it doesn't hold up in all tests. Specifically, the NES and Wii run counter to your claim that greed is a downfall characteristic for Nintendo. In both cases, they opted for proprietary media, "gimmick" controllers galore, near-monopolistic control over their game library, and low consideration for the needs of their third-party developers. And instead of being shortcomings, those traits have allowed Nintendo to be even more successful instead.
Greed served Nintendo well at times, and poorly at others. The issue, therefore, is not greed. The issue lies higher still in terms of their interaction with the market at large. In what situation is unrelenting greed beneficial? When you have a virtual or actual monopoly, of course. And when is it bad for a company? The rest of the time, naturally. Ergo, the issue is not the greed, but the factors that led to the greed no longer being an advantage for them, that being the factors that lost them their virtual monopoly in the first place.
You cannot lose a monopoly, literal or virtual, simply through greed; Microsoft would have been out of the home O/S business before the turn of the century happened if that were the case. A monopoly only ceases to be a monopoly when the barriers to entry are breached and authentic competition appears, causing the monopolist corporate values to become competitive corporate liabilities.
Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.
