But microsoft IPs sell millions more than Sony IPs...soooo whats the deal?

I guess I would ask you what the difference is between Sony paying for exclusives and Nintendo hiring someone who then makes the exclusive.  Sony funded the IP and was instrumental in its being made, why is it that hiring a development team doesn't count towards creating something while Nintendo hiring Miyamoto does?  Miyamoto isn't the head of Nintendo, he was hired by them just as Media Molecule and Naughty Dog were hired by Sony.  If Miyamoto had already proven himself as a developer and had a team made up would he no longer count as being part of Nintendo?  Why is it hiring singular people makes them part of a company, but hiring groups does not?

My thoughts: you're making the rules so that Nintendo has an obvious and unending advantage because they started in the industry back when there really weren't established teams out there to hire, and since they hired singular people instead of established teams they are creating something while Sony is just funding something that would have been with or without them.  But who's to say that LittleBigPlanet or Wipeout would be what they are today without Sony's influence, or that Miyamoto never would have made Donkey Kong in his basement if he didn't work for Nintendo.  Heck, even Nintendo does the team hiring thing nowadays because that's how it's done, I'm sure they would have done the same if they could have back when it all got started.

My post was in response to what Xen said before that Nintendo barely make any new IPs (not counting those they bought exclusive rights for). Well buying new IPs is not making them yourself and that is my point which I point out for the second time now.

Of course there is a difference when you go out to hire teams to make a game that might already be in development but sought a publisher and Sony showed interest in the games or maybe they had the idea and paid a developer to make it.

Who said anything about Miyamoto being the head of Nintendo?

Yes companies hire people to build teams that make games :P

No I am not making rules to make Nintendo seem like the winner here. Buying new companies or exclusive rights to a game is different than making the game yourself. A company that buys other developers is either out of ideas themselves or really like what they see in a game owned by another developer.

Shadow of the colossus and Ico are great games made in house or that is what I think anyway.

Anywho

How is it different?  Can you prove to me that the game would have been the same without the involvement of the publisher?  Can you prove that the people working at Nintendo wouldn't have made the same game if they didn't work there?

From a financial and business aspect there's a difference and it's clearly better to fund teams in house, but from the aspect of creative merit there really is no difference.  Nintendo either gives Miyamoto a sallary or they buy a development team like Retro Studios.  The end result is a game that would not have existed without them and the merit is the same.

You mean to say that every publisher is involved in the games they publish? Seriously? You mean Sega decides how Conduit should be like? You mean they sent one of their guys to check how the game is being made?

No it is not always like that there is a difference when a developer makes a game and needs a publisher. Some games are complete and then they seek out publishers. Little big planet creator were bought up after they had a game they could show lol   

Well sure a game could be made even though a company did not hire or buy the guys/developer… that’s how many of the games Sony owns today came to existence :P

They had something to show, but it certainly wasn't what they came out with.  I'm sure Miyamoto had something to show the company before they greenlit anything too, it's how it works.  And no Sega doesn't decide how Conduit should be like but Sega doesn't own the IP either.  If you actually own the IP then damn straight you'll have influence over how the game is developed.  

Media Molecule was bought up after they made a game for Sony whose IP Sony owns.  If they were bought up to continue making Ragdoll Kung Fu I could see your point, but without Sony LBP wouldn't exist and it is just as much a Sony IP as anything made by Miyamoto is for Nintendo. 

Which games, which games were made by companies Sony hired and would have been the same without them?  And for the last time, why is there more merit in hiring a staff than hiring a development team?  Sony made those IP's just the same way Nintendo makes theirs, makes no difference if the games were "in-house"or not they were still games made that would not exist in their current state without that company.

lol what the hell are you talking about where on the wii can i get a racing sim like gt 5, a mmorpg like dc universe online, motion cam games like eyepet etc?

"Sony doesn't have like fighting games, RTS, and RPGs"

fighting ( what fighting games does nintendo produce on wii btw smash? ) - can't think of any

rts ( what rts games are produced by nintendo on the wii? ) - can't think of any

rpgs - demon's souls and white night chronicles

SONY press conference: Half Life 3 announcment == WIN

Sony has always been the console for people who like variety.  The Xbox is a very US-centric system, so Western RPG's, Shooters, and Racers there, Wii focuses on platformers and all ages games.  Playstation doesn't have a niche, which is both it's greatest weakness and it's best quality.  It's got racers, action games, adventure games, platformers, shooters, puzzle games, you name a genre is has some exclusives.  hell, I still think that Killzone is a better FPS than Halo, but that'll only result in anger.  Look at it this way: 

Action - Metal Gear Solid, God of War, Heavenly Sword
Adventure - Uncharted, inFamous
Racing - Gran Turismo, ModNation Racers, Motorstorm
Platformers - Ratchet and Clank, LittleBigPlanet
Shooters - Resistance, Killzone, MAG
Sports - MLB: The Show
RPG - Final Fantasy vsXIII, Demon's Souls, 3D Dot Game HEroes (shuddap, that game ruled!) 

So yeah, the console has a wide variety of games.  Wii has their staples:  Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Wii titles, Epic Mickey, Smash Brothers, etc, but nothing else of value really.  No Pokemon, no great Third Party games other than No More HEroes or MadWorld (is that third party?) 

Xbox 360 is also pretty much geared towards a certain crowd.  Halo series, Gears of War series, LEft 4 Dead series (if you don't include PC), Fable, Mass Effect (1, anyway), Viva Pinata, Project Gotham, Forza....that's a whole lot of shooters, some western RPG's, Racing games, and whatever Viva Pinata is.  Most of which are also on PC (I like to not include PC becuase it makes 360 look even worse if that's factored into the argument.)  

All systems have their good games, which is why fanboys are so frustrating, it just happens to be that Nintendo and Microsoft have each cornered their respective market and showered them with advertising, so their sales are through the Roof.  sony has the best variety and quality in its exclusives, but are very passive in their marketing, so people don't buy them as much.  a shame, too, becuase I happen to think that quality should speak for itself.