^I would retract your last statement. While you may THINK this is true, it really isn't something always true in the industry.

The official websites of the development teams list how many employees are there. Quick Google search.

Blue Castle Games has 170 staff according to their site.  Not all were on DR2, but most probably were, as were plenty of Capcom staff in addition to that.  It easily had a 100-plus man team, as do all Capcom's MT Framework titles.

Inafune also talked about the insane costs for internally made games in his 4Gamer exit interview.  Basically, it's common for AAA games to cost $35-50m (and also common for them to lose money), and he mentioned that RE5 specially had a staff of 150, and that (upon leaving) Capcom had 700 staff on just 4 projects.  He also said that Resident Evil and Monster Hunter were the only internally developed Capcom games this gen that could be considered "hits" (so not Lost Planet 1-2, Dead Rising 1, DMC4, etc).

Wait, wait, wait!

Now I don't know much about blue ocean stuff but if I remember the general idea is that you can't compete for a blue ocean.

KISS: If you are competing then it's called a red ocean and that just about any market not being competed for is blue ocean. Appealing to a blue ocean doesn't mean success anyway if the market size is 1 person.

Well you see that's the plan for this generation, they make a big investment on the engine and art, second game rolls around and they keep most of the assets from the first game to make the second to substantially lower development costs, ever wonder why despite losing money on a title this gen companies praise HD console development, or instead of the standard 18 hours for a (good) action game last gen this has shortened to a third of that (6 hours) and its now a trilogy?

It is all because developers and publishers have invested so much in the first game, even if they lose money they're going to press forward with the second for the hope to break even, and by the third they hope they're in the black again.  Unfortunately that often isn't the case this gen.

I was gonna make a big wordy response, but I don't feel like wasting the time =)

I'll sum it up - Nintendo is ever evolving, has seen what works and what doesn't. This gen they at least embraced the concept of online gaming, and will strive to make a more competitive online system.

You seem to assume that only Sony and MS can learn and evolve (aka motion gaming offerings). Nintendo has seen the power of XB Live, HD gaming, and being left out of the 3rd party development because of the areas they are weak in.

Bottom line - next gen winner? Who knows? Who cares? We'll all be dead at the end of 2012 =P

Improved online experience. Something like PSN/Live I guess. No more friend codes and laggy hosts. Preferably, free.The only thing the next Nintendo console needs to get me to buy it, is the same thing any console would need to get me to buy it.

I disagree, in fact I think Nintendo could have another monopoly in the home console business. 3DS is gonna be less successful than the original and they will lose to the iPhone, but on the console side I see them achieving much more than they have.

Comparing the Iphone sales to DS sales is not a fair comparison though. It is like comparing PC sales to conosle sales.

You really think so? Even with the Android market starting to stomp the crap out of iPhone's market share?