There was a nice graph on these forums a while back (just before E3) showing a running total of profit and loss made by each company. Now I wish I bookmarked that thread so I could paste that graph. Even through the worst times sale wise, the profit margins where just incredible.

Like others have said if anything Sony got the free pass this gen (and somewhat the VITA is getting one). With such crap sales initially you would thing companies would have dropped the system and did work for 360 which was booming. Nintendo despite winning console sale wise has not received the 3rd party support. Instead all we got was test games and shovelware to make profits for companies to help fund their HD projects instead of reinvesting the money back into Wii.

Nintendo should have made it their business to encorage third parties on the Wii. Heck look at MS with the xbox effort in Japan early on. Exclusives jrpgs left, right and centre. Sure Nintendo doesn't have the funds of MS, but they were certainly rolling in the dough for most of the gen. So imo lack of third party support was AT LEAST 50% Nintendo's doing (or lack thereof).

The only reason Nintendo had to support the Wii for themselves was because of the way they advertised the console. "It's a family console, even your grandparents will want to play!". And it was a genius movement. They aimed at the non-gaming audience - which is WAY larger than the gamers.
However, on the long run, things start to get ugly. It's easy to realize that - just look at the decline of Wii sales, while PS3 and Xbos sales stay stable and actually increasing.
Nintendo KNOWS that an approach exclusively to the casual market (which was the case of the Wii, as it got pretty much ZERO third-party support, despite being the absolute leader of the gen) works for the first 4 years or so of a generation - but after that, it's pretty much impossible to keep momentum. Recently, one of the big guys (I can't recall who), said that "the Wii is not a casual console". That's why I'm skeptical about the Wii U: casual gamers have no need to buy a new console (they already have a Wii), and Nintendo will have to directly compete with Sony and Microsoft for the gamer audience now.

And the OP does have a point: it's easy to see people bashing GoW Ascension for being "the same", but no one complains about New Super Mario Bros. 2/U. Since the Wii and DS, everything Nintendo does is "innovative" and "revolutionary".

Lucky? Haha, Nintendo knew exactly what they were doing

The PS3 would have won the gen. PS3 fans however would stay out of EVERY internet debate :P

Hahaha wtf was that? That chick made Reggie look good!

With Wii, Nintendo just get luck? Seriously??!
and gamecube HD?

From 2005, Inresponse to Ken Kutaragi's inference of working more hours for a PS3:

I dunno, call me a fanboy, but I still hold respect for this guy. Sure, what he says may sound wierd at times, but let us see the big picture here. The PS3 could be a make-or-break product, so understandably, Sony has to pull all the stops to try to create as much hype as they can. I mean, c'mon, probably hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the PS3. So, if he's gotta say some things to help increase potential sales, then GO FOR IT! Ok, I'm done...*crawls back under his PS2*

Kutaragi is as clueless as a guy who sold more than 90M video game consoles in the US and more than 200M worldwide. No more no less. 

Microsoft is as clueless as a company that sold 15M video game consoles in the US and less than 25M worldwide. No more no less. 

We can all draw our own conclusions.

The way I see it, the PS3 is an extremely fast PC specialized to play games. 

In that sense, I am ready to pay up to $800 for it. 
If the games end up being mind blowing, I am sure other gamers will pay as much. 
I am not talking about people who don't have jobs or any disposable income. 

This happeneds everywhere. Just accept it as a fact of Fanboydom. 

Why Sony got a pass just because they're Sony that Nintendo wasn't allowed to have?

Sony released two budget consoles that had not much more power than their predecessors, they made the least powerful consoles of their respective gens.

Sony don't make Tekken, Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid. Namco Bandai, Square Enix and Konami could very well decide to not support PS4 and Sony can do nothing about that.

And the first party titles: Sure, Nintendo didn't produced titles for their well known game-series for Wii like Zelda, Mario, Fire Emblem, Metroid, Smash Bros., Mario Kart etc. That may be well the reason, the Wii failed...

Well, I may remember wrong, but Dance Dance Revolution was a PS2-title. Like Buzz, Singstar and other casual crap.

Yes, Sony was so dead in the water back in the PS1 and PS2 days. I remember that well!

Nintendo copied the concept of the PS1 and PS2: They made a cheap but not powerful console. They made casual titles for it.

At the same time Sony gave up on the concept that made the first two Playstations successful: they made a powerful but expensive console, they concentrated on games like God of War, that have a loud fanbase, but does not sell so much consoles like Singstar did at PS2-days. Maybe they go back to the winning formula in the next-gen.

You construct a virtual 'Nintendo-fan that has sticked around in the N64 and GC days and is praising Wii Fit over Uncharted'. I don't think such a fan exists. Even if one or two of such a strange creature exists, they are rare. Most fans of Nintendos core-IPs stick to Nintendo, because they didn't gave up, Wii got Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Mario. Also you could argue, that in at least one aspect, Wii Fit IS a better game as Uncharted, it clearly sells better. But overall I think, the fans of Wii Fit don't buy Zelda and vice versa. They're two separate demographics.

And, Nintendo did release the Rainfall-games without fan-involvement - here in Europe and in Japan. That Nintendo of America is crazy should show you, that you better import Nintendo-consoles from Europe.