Actually the reality is this:
Sony: Make the game you want to make, with the features you want to include. (This is why PSN has less features for developers but is more flexible)
Microsoft: Make sure you have*insert list of features and psychological hooks here like multiplayer/coop/lighting style* but otherwise have a good time.
Nintendo: Make a game your momma wants to play that is still fun for you, I.E. to fundamental gameplay principles first. Innovation mainly in how you play rather than what you play.
So the result is:
Sony: Reviewers and hardcore gamers/other developers love your games, but you don't understand why mainstream success strike rate is lower than it should be with such high reviewing titles. This is because game developers make the games for themselves, hence their higher satisfaction and better technical achievement whilst mainstream users are often not quite catered for as fully as many other titles.
Microsoft: Reviewers and hardcore gamers start noticing paterns in game releases, makes games feel a little stale on release. However many of the required features are beneficial to longevity and user satisfaction such as consistancy and having basics like coop. Whilst the graphics and innovation may suffer, the titles push more of the right buttons for mainstream users. Also games start to look a little like candied hardcore games with bright lights and pastel colours, Halo/Fable/Forza especially, but the mainstream likes shiny things.
Nintendo: Pisses off reviewers (Reviewers: Isn't this the same game I was playing 10 years ago?? Nintendo: Yes, and it still works) but mainstream users don't really care most of the time. The games sell remarkably better than any reviewer would say they ought to, Kinda like Avatar.
Tease.
