Look at what happened to Atari, Intellivision, Sega, NEC and 3DO.  They are a smaller player than even Capcom and Konami at this point, and less relevant.  Without controlling the platform, Nintendo would get lost in the shuffle.  By controlling the platform, they are able to put in what features they want to have there.  Moment you lose the platform, you don't get nearly the same level of media focus.  You end up spreading your development across multiple platforms.  And with Nintendo, that would mean they would likely have to outsource their development to other platforms, and the likes of Miyamoto wouldn't have the same level of supervision.

Same would happen with Sony and Microsoft.  Strip them of controlling the platform, and their stuff would get lost.  The having a coverage level on part with EA and Activision due to controlling the platform, would be lost.  Halo and you name whatever titles they have, would not be as relevant.

Reality is, if you want to be a player, you DO NOT lose a platform in a videogame market you control.

For Nintendo the biggest advantage of being a console manufacturer is that they can produce the hardware that is needed to create the experiences they want ... Before Nintendo moves forward with any particular hardware strategy it (probably) needs significant support from their internal developers and modifications are probably made as needed. Using the Wii as an example, it was Retro Studios that argued the nunchuck was essential to western games that made Nintendo pack it in with the system.

So many bitter people in this thread.

Fact of the matter is this; it takes years to develop a game. Costs a lot of money. The devs didnt know the Wii was going to take off. All their resources were aimed at the HD consoles. When the Wii hit it big. devs started porting games over, but because of hardware limitations it had the inferior version.

Now i dont know about you but i would assume that most people would want the superior version of a game. So it is common sense that people picked up the HD twins for these games. Heck i got the Wii a few years after it came out, for Nintendo games only. I do have just dance and what not.

The point is for a 3rd party to put a game on the Wii it has to be a game thats not on the HD consoles because it aint really going to sell. Alot of people who have a Wii own a HD console as well or just have the Wii for fitness.

i said many a times, had the Wii been HD it would have sold more units and had just as much support or stole the support from the HD consoles.

It has nothing to do with devs not wanting to develop on Nintendo consoles or being scared off from competing against mario games and stuff like that. What nonsense.

The Nintendo self-domination happened with the GC as well -- 75-80% of the top 20 selling games in the last two generations on Nintendo consoles have been first party. The statistic has been flipped for the Sony and Microsoft consoles (based upon VGC data).

There is not good, complete data for the N64 era, but the results are probably similar. My guess is that Nintendo sticking with the cartridge format and third parties having a viable alternative in Sony after years of Draconian contracts (with Nintendo) helped start this. Nintendo's variation in format, from a smaller capacity disc on the GC to a smaller graphics ability on the Wii exacerbated it. Plus, given the code monkey see-code monkey do nature of the business, the result has been a lot of bad minigame collections on the Wii instead of ports.

Mike from Morgantown

That, plus the additional focus and media coverage you get is an advantage about every single console maker out there has.  You get to shape the direction the platform goes, being in synch with your developers.  What you are saying (and I am repeating) is pretty much what Nintendo has said regarding this.  There are some partisans eager to get their hands on certain titles on another platform, that long for a console maker to leave.  These never really ever pan out the way people expect.