No matter what you think, IGN is right.

[theRepublic]

WilliamWatts said:

theRepublic said:

WilliamWatts said:
Nintendo caters extremely well to the market of people who buy 1-6 games every year and live happy and sensible lives which are not dominated by gaming. Because this market buys so few games they have to make games which everyone will like and enjoy.

Nintendo does not cater to the nutso hardcore gamers who own 3-5 gaming systems, buys 7+ games per year and harps on about this and that and are incredibly fickle and hard to satisfy. These people also trade in games quickly, buy used, and have no loyalty to even a particular system.

The former earn them more money than the latter. So what should they try to cater to the nutso hardcore group when everyone else does as well? Why can't there be one console for people who aren't in that nutso hardcore group when the other two cater to them pretty well?

Then why do Wii owners buy more games than PS3 owners?

Because every game Nintendo makes is not some sub niche off a niche. Their games aren't 'third person shooter RPG hybrids' Or 'third person shooter action adventure' games. They can address a wider market, and im not talking about the audience of the consoles im talking about how the console is designed to address the audience. The PS3 is designed for people who buy more than x number of games per year and Sony releases a wide variety of small selling titles to keep their small rabid hardcore subset fanbase satiated. But this rabid talkative hardcore fanbase likes to think its all there is in regards to Sony but it isn't and the lower software sales in general reflect a userbase which isn't as satisfied as the Wiis.

I'm not talking total.  Take a look at the tie ratios.  They can be found on this site.

More Wii software is sold per Wii, than PS3 software is sold per PS3.