Sales are used as such an ugly term around here, but it permeates the majority of an IPs worth. I'd say critial response and anyone's personal opinion of an IP probably counts for no more than maybe a small percentage of what matters. Bottom line is, Nintendo IPs sell at a rate that no other publisher in videogame history can come even close to equaling. They have been able to sell such a wider range of genres with their original IPs. They can sell IPs in genres that other publishers have abandoned or aren't targetting, and can sell IPs in genres that many people believe to be largely dead or dying genres. I don't see any substantial evidence to support the combination of Microsoft and Sony's IPs beat Nintendo, let alone either one of them. Sony rides the wave of what's hot in genres for the most part, especially this generation, and they see some nice returns because of it, but Nintendo creates markets and then dominates them. I don't see any argument other than "I like Sony's games better" to suggest Sony makes better IPs, and I find that to be the weakest argument anyone can possibly make. From a market standpoint, which is where this article is coming from, there is Nintendo and then there is everybody else.

They have a hugeass dedicated fanbase that stuck to their consoles mostly thanks to their games (33 million N64's is no joke), a fanbase built since the NES. Aside from this gen, in which they simply carved out a whole market, that's the thing that mostly pulled them through (exception: Mario games). They built themselves on on it and have a far longer 1st party tradition than Sony, that built themselves on 3rd party, and started really investing in 1st party only this gen, really. BTW, what games DO they sell in largely dead or untargeted genres? Nothing comes up. To clarify, I'm not speaking about genres they pretty much created.

But I guess we have different opinions of what IP worth is based on. I couldn't care less about sales.

ahead of m$ thats easy in terms of 1st ips, its something sony does well at. not ahead of nintendo in my opinion though, until sony gives me a new legend of dragoon and dark cloud game for the ps3, nintendo will lead sony in terms of ip's.

i think nintendo will win e3 as well, who comes out in 2nd all depends on what suprises sony and m$ can show us.

On the dead or dying thing, no-one else in the industry would have had the balls to sell NSMBWii as a full-price retail game. The closest was LBP, and that was sold on the pretext of UGC.

If I say untargeted areas, I'm obviously talking about the markets they've created. You can't ask me to clarify what I meant and then say you're not getting on the same page. In regards to dying genres, fighting games, japanese RPGs, racing games and platformers is what I was speaking of mainly. These are genres that have taken continuous hits every generation or in racing games and RPGs just this past generation, and are becomming less relevant, and yet Nintendo can still succeed in that area greatly. 

What do you feel an IPs worth is based on? Your personal opinion on which games you prefer? That's narrow thinking. No company cares what you personally think. They care what the collective thinks, and the collective is derived from sales. An IPs worth should be whatever pushes a publisher to create IPs, and that is always going to be the same reason, to sell games. Nobody cares what one person out of millions thinks, whether that's you or me. Is it really that hard for you, and others that have shared the same thought process in this thread, to lose your personal bias for a moment and think about this discussion in an objective manner? We're commenting on a topic derived from a quote made by a market analyst. So why wouldn't we discuss IPs from the perspective of the market as a whole, and not simply whatever we feel like spending our cash on?

I'm not sure if they ahead of Nintendo IPS though. People buy Nintendo just for their games. i would say this gen they close. 

Damn, can't a guy just give his opinion on here?

I don't know. Can't a guy just get some critical thinking beyond the typical "So and so is the best just because they are"? Does every topic need to devolve into this, even when it doesn't ask for it? I can head over to IGN and get that in droves along with people that want to sell me Jordans on their websites. We even have people in the sale topics that talk about how much they don't care about sales because they prefer so and so game over other said game. It gets tiring because not every topic calls strictly for your opinion on which games are your favorites. This seems to be what many people want this topic to be, and I don't think it's too much to ask for a more objective discussion to emerge from a topic that began from a quote by a market analyst.

NSMB DS sales kicked major ass, and since Wii and DS audiences do share a lot of similarities, I don't see a risk.

@Onyx: Racing games dying? Eh? Some risk was a sequel to 5m plus MK:DD. Fighting game risks? You wouldn't Nintendo making Brawl a risk after 2 very successful games, would you? Platformers a risk? They're doing just fine, albeit not as well as in the 16-bit era. JRPG's I can agree on, but what did Nintendo really risk with? Xenoblade and TLS, end.

I could take this the other way around with Sony investing in Heavy Rain, Motorstorm, LBP, and Modnation racers. Genres either very unpopular or with narrow appeal.

Objectivity is a novelty in the gaming community today, since gaming itself is very subjective. Even the critics are subjective. Heck, you're on a forum, all you're gonna get is opinions. Objectivity is a rarity, and blissfully so. It doesn't make for good discussions. You asked me why I consider Sony's first party better, you got your answer.

Fair enough, but if you want an objective discussion then I doubt there would be a need for a discussion. Nintendo would win with no argument or critical thinking needed.