I agreed with Griffin they should buy some 3rd party companies or exclusivety because the 3rd party are still weak on Wii.

Hmm I bet they could set up their own XBL-ish system with that kinda dough =P, I wish Nintendo would go a little spending crazy and buy a few companies, and give all the teams a go ahead for full VO and live Orchestra for all Nintendo made game.

Nintendo wisely doesn't want to enter into a buying game either because its one that will ultimately hurt the market and potentially shoot themselves in the foot in the long run. If you buy a third party developer, you risk scaring off half the talent in the buy. If you buy exclusivity, you give incentive to the competition to do the same as a counter potentially leaving even more games out of your reach as the competition retaliates. In the end, you create a market where developers expect you to throw around money and pay out favors instead of a market where the developers, publishers and consoles exist as equal partners.

Nintendo wants to return things back to the way they were, a market of sound business, not the current market of essentially throwing money and profits away just to get games and win a competition where no significant money is really being made in the end. Nintendo wants a market where good games are rewarded, not games with the franchise with the biggest dollar price.

What Nintendo really needs to invest in is advertising, but until they can meet demand with supply they risk hurting their image in pushing the Wii too hard on the consumer who can't get it. Nintendo doesn't need to buy third party games, thier first party is enough to sustain them and make them insanely profitable. Clearly they want more third party support, but if third party developers aren't willing to play ball, then it will be their loss in the long run. This is a waiting game that Nintendo will win one way or another. The real question is, how much longer can third party developers afford to keep losing out in this generation of uncertainty.

I actually agree with girl gamer elite, and thats somethin. Im curious GGE and this is not a loaded question, is it bad for the industry that micrsoft (and to a lesser extent sony) are apying off 3rd party devs for games?

Like everything it has its postives and negatives. While it gives Developers more upfront money to make bigger projects it also creates a standard which is ultimately defeatist to all parties involved down the road and doesn't necessaraly return the money to the degree that might have been hoped. Instead of new, refreshing or innovative games, Developers are payed big bucks to keep recycling the same old tried and true formulas and in order to keep the franchise as successful as it was less risks are ultimately taken and the games start to look more and more alike. Like a muscle, when not used, the Developers ability to be creative, adapt to innovation or compete realistically in the market atrophies. This generation is the perfect examples of third party developers panicking when the sure fire console they were banking on (Playstation) isn't the industry leader anymore. Now that they can't make the same kind of money back off of projects put on expensive HD consoles, third party developers expect to make the bulk of their profit off of the incentives payed to them by companies like Sony and MS to develop for their console. The problem is this doesn't work out for all games or all developers leaving the bulk of the industry in financial distress and MS and Sony in a perpetual cycle of money loss/mediocre gains.

I will just have to say that this is not true.

It only gets better from here on out.

John Lucas 

I am a Nintendo Fangirl, but one of the more objective reasons I support Nintendo is that I don't see the Video Game market really going anywhere other than the PC under Sony and MS's direction this generation. This of course is a bold claim, but I am someone who has been gaming long enough to remember what it was like to be excited about a new and upcomming game that wasn't just an FPS that was slightly better than the last. The 360 and PS3 are not the legacy of the PS2, they are the legacy of the Xbox. With ever expanding online play and co-op Video Gaming just becomes another substitute for backyard football and male competition. I imagine the next gen consoles will come with a fire pit and stone club to enhance the gaming experience.

That doesn't mean there aren't good games or a modest diversity of games on the 360/PS3, that doesn't even mean there aren't games I want on the 360/PS3, many would even argue that its a better library than the Wii's. But if their current game library is anyone's definition of a postive future for gaming then perhaps it would be wise for you to start equating the market's health to your own enjoyment of gaming less you find yourself up a crick a generation downt he road.

 John, you should make that an official prediction.

@Girl Gamer Elite

Xbox Live Arcade and Playstation store have some pretty diverse games on them.  Also even though a lot of games do seem be the last gen games but with better graphics some of them actually are doing things that are moving games forward.  Take Star Wars: The Force Unleashed for example, on the outside it may look like a last generation game with better graphics but it actually has new technologies that are also appearing in some other next gen games that are adding new things to gaming.  Then you have other games that are doing things with co-op, number of players in multiplayer, etc,  that were never dreamed of last generation.

As for the games themselves publishers simply want to play it safe. Do you really think the same thing isn't going to happen to Nintendo's next console?  Nintendo didn't solve a problem they simply postponed it 5 or 6 years.

You keep telling yourself that Legend, but using such a pauldry excuse would be no different than me trying to argue the Wii has the most AAA games because of Virtual Console. XBLA and PStore are supplementary not the core feature of the consoles or the driving bulk of game development this generation. You're just making excuses.

Not only do you first try to deny the limited diversity of games on the 360/PS3 but then try to say in the same breath that its something we're just going to have to accept. Which is it? In addition, you try and force a defeatist/fatalist ideology down our throats as if we're simply to take the corporate money shot in the face like good little lemmings and spend big money to keep buying an ever narrowing game library. You are just aruge to we should accept things the way because these problems will always exist which is to the same affect as arguing, "it doesn't matter if you treat your diabetes or not, you'll always have diabetes so it doesn't matter so what's the point of waisting your time treating it?" You see, its not the fact the market has a problem, its to what degree the problem exists and the factors which contribute to it. Of course these problems will persist in some way shape or form no matter what the nature of the market just as they always have, but MS and Sony are only inflating the problem beyond the threshold of market health while Nintendo is working to solve it and bring stability and profit to the parties involved.

You can tell us Nintendo will sucumb to the same fate years from now despite their efforts, but since you're one of the same people who initially wrote off the Wii as a failure then a fad, why should anyone listen to your predictions? You made your choice in gaming and we respect that, but don't try and piss in our ear and tell us its raining. This whole generation has thus far been little more than a lesson in gamers of your mentality being wrong.

And yes I do agree Star Wars: Force Unleashed offers new diversity to gameplay, but largely only on the Wii due to controls, assuming they live up to the hype.