GotchayeX--

When Nintendo said they "weren't competing" with Sony and Microsoft, it wasn't just PR trying to lower expectations. It literally is part of their strategy to purposefully not compete with Sony and MS. And in fact, I think that they were trying to send a message to anyone listening that Sony and MS would be unable to compete with them.

I mean, they publicly named their system Revolution. They talked very openly about Blue Oceans and Disruption. The last cautious PR move they made was calling DS a "third pillar." Since then they've basically been advertising how they're going to revolutionize the market.

Call me intelligent discourse. I freely confess I do not come from the school of thought that a forum post should be able to fit on a bumper sticker with space to spare. I understand some have little to no attention span, but how is that my particular problem. Speaking often and saying nothing is hardly proof of intelligence. I prefer to actually discuss the subject rather then insert random snide remarks merely to pad a post count.

That said I think the argument is valid. Microsoft is pointing out their strengths while highlighting the weaknesses of a competitor, and it is a point backed up by the statistics on this very sight. Microsoft has done exceedingly well for third parties, and they are not in such a position where they directly compete with third party developers for consumer purchases.

Remember over the last few months Microsoft has let a number of companies slip from their grasp. The likes of Bioware, Bungie, and Bizarre being of note. Perhaps part of a strategy to only increase their appeal with third party developers. While Nintendo, and Sony as publishers are dominating their respective consoles. Strategically it might be a sound move. Every Nintendo developed game is a potential sale lost to a third party.

Pointing out a serious conflict of interest on the part of Nintendo, and an inability to make up the hardware short fall to offset the losses incurred by third party developers is actually quite savvy on the part of Microsoft. That is a incentive for third party developers to not develop for the Wii and to give greater consideration to the 360.

I wonder why some posters are upset that Microsoft is getting a little more competitive with Nintendo. Competition should help the Wii get better titles, or force Nintendo to put forth the effort to help their third party developers rather then hinder them. That might perhaps lead to a little less shovel ware for the console. Nintendo needs to get serious about its third parties. Rather then calling them lazy they need to make more room for them at the table. Otherwise more of them are going to find themselves agreeing with Microsoft.

@Dodece:

Competition is indeed a good thing, but history has shown time and again that the best-selling games on any of Nintendo's consoles are Nintendo games. Even the NES was this way, and it still had massive third-party support by the end of its lifespan. The first year or two in particular of any given Nintendo console tends to have a great deal of top-selling Nintendo titles, and a comparatively meager third-party showing. The Wii is shaping up this way too.

The way Nintendo markets vs. Sony or MS is quite different. Sony and MS rely all but entirely on third-party titles to draw in revenue, with their own titles usually making up less than 10% of their bestseller game library. Ergo, if third party dries up for Sony or MS, they're in big trouble. We've seen a fair bit of that affect the PS3 this year, and the 360 had some of that happening at the very start of its launch year. Nintendo's strategy, as ever, is conservative: they have several studios producing top-quality titles for their consoles at all times, assuring that they won't be up a creek if third-party support is lacking. It has the negative side-effect of making third-party developers have to work harder to get a profit off of titles on a Nintendo system (particularly in the first year or two), but the benefit to Nintendo is far greater. In terms of looking out for number one, Nintendo's plan is unbeatable. Not to say that MS and Sony's strategies are necessarily worse, but they do have a lot more risk attached.

On a semi-related note, I suspect that the Achievements system has helped boost some 360 games' sales. There will always be people who are addicted to showing off how "good" they are, and the prospect of upping their gamer ranking will look appealing enough to encourage them to go buy a few games that they'd never get otherwise. Granted, it's likely a fairly small part of the 360 market that does this, but it cannot be denied that this has an impact on third-party sales (largely a positive one, at that). Not surprising that Sony's developing a similar system to be integrated in the PS3 Home software.

By default, all game consoles compete with each other. That's just how the rules are played.

Microsoft cannot compete with gods. MWAHAHAAA