Miyamoto confirmed that he's working on a new IP

3 games (including a mini games collection)... great. All in the space of 4 years... 

Even discounting Wii Sports, within the last two generations (which is foolish since it was a new unrelated IP same as any other), Nintendo has had Animal Crossing (yeah the N64 had a game in the series but since it wasn't released outside of Japan at the tail end of the N64's life, the Gamecube original was a new IP for Europe and North America), Pikmin, Xenoblade, Chibi Robo and Endless Ocean. Not to mention upon their last two hand held generations they have seen new IPs like Hotel Dusk, Another Code/Trace Memory, Brain Training, Nintendogs, Rhythem Heaven, Style Savvy, Denpa Men, Pushmo/Pullbox and more that I don't even care to type out.

Out of those I listed, only one (Xenoblade) has yet to spawn at least one direct sequel or spin off, although the untitled Monolith Soft game seems to be one in all but name. While not all of them are selling gangbusters, most performed solidly and with barely any real push by Nintendo (Style Savy had the only one that got a marketing push of any kind).  While there is truth that NIntendo focuses heavily on established IPs and money makers, the idea that they haven't done anything new since the N64 era is hardly true.

Are any of their newer IPs likely to take out Mario, Kirby or Zelda anytime soon? No. But really neither is WarHawk, Gravity Rush, EyePet or Heavenly Sword going to top Gran Turismo (Sony's longest running game franchise), Ratchet and Clank or God of War. Nothing Microsoft is likely dropping is probably ever going to be more popular then Halo (though a few of their Kinectic games sell stupidly high). New IPs aren't some rare unicorn they happen all the time it is difficult to project though if they turn into viable franchises. But honestly new IPs are new intellectual properties of which can be tapped for more sales and none of the major hardware manufacters are hurting in their attempts at any point, it is just that Microsoft and Nintendo have reliable sources of income they don't have to gamble with all the time not that they haven't had success.

So there is  the arugement made along with supporting arguement on against the tired "It doesn't sell as much classic franchise xxxx" so it doesn't count as successful or a new IP. Can we drop this weak arguement that seems to stem from certain fans hating on proven franchises carrying companies?

P.S. I sort of wanted to include Mass Effect (since Microsoft was heavy in getting the first one released and its main publisher) and Professor Layton (Nintendo handling all publishing duties of the games outside of Japan) due the involvement of promotion Microsoft and Nintendo did to get those franchises as popular/known as they did but I figure that would open a whole other box of worms.

No offense, but... You are by far the most delusional human being I have ever encountered. You are spouting off your ridiculously misinformed opinion, and you have convinced yourself it is fact. I am truly astonished. You can't be serious? Is this really how you think? Are you 12? How do you make it through the day.... wow... it would suck to be you. 

Moderated Kasz216

Never said it told soley on multimedia. I said that it sold mostly on multimedia, which it did. Which is why it survived almost two and a half years of poor ports, and which is why it even barely caught up to the 360's lifetime sales. That's irrefutable. The attach rate and software sales of it's games prove it. Comepare Wii software sales to the PS1. Both sold more than 100m. The Wii demolishes it in software sales. Compare the the DS the PS2. Both 150m+ consoles sold. The DS creams the PS2 in software sales. Compare the PS3 to the 360. Both sold 80m+ consoles. 360 creamed the PS3 in soft ware sales. That's because a lot of people didn't buy games for the things. Maybe a few for the kids. Everything else was movies. Look at the PSP software sales. Why wasn't the PSP Go a hit? It did everything infinitely better than the PSP. Because by that time the iphone was out and there was no "portable DVD player" spin it could use to sell. It had to sell as only a gaming console, and it flopped. The PS3 had to stand for a long time as only a game console because it was too expensive for a lot of people, and once the price dropped down, people bought the thing, and didn't buy games. Why? Because a large amount of people bought Sony consoles for their multimedia. It's not like that anymore, and that will cost them 10's of millions of console sales. It's why the Vita will fail, why the PS4 will struggle once it's out of the gate, and why if Sony didn't have Gran Turismo, the PS4 would fail sooner.

It's a good console that caters to a specific and tiny "hardcore" audience, and without GT and DVD4KBlu-ray multibedia selling point to buffer it's sales, you'd see the console Vita out. Same situation. No GT. No new multimedia. No sale.

I'm not sure where you're getting your software figures from as this site is pretty unreliable for software sales (especially in Europe/Other, many games don't have EU/Other data). That's before we even talk about the lack of digital sales data. I have no idea why you seem to think just under 200million units per annum on Playstation for the last 3 years is somehow low (from Sony's financials) or proof that Sony consoles aren't predominantly sold based on software.

Your comparison is also flawed. Software sales for PS1 vs Wii? Software across this entire generation has been higher than in the previous two gens at the same time point. Of course Wii software will be higher!

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/192546/Markets_ready_for_new_consoles_but_oldgen_surprisingly_viable.php

And when has the 360 creamed the PS3 in terms of software? Yes the 360 has sold more software but it's not like the PS3 hasn't sold a significant number of units of software. If the UK is anything to go by, Sony and specifically PS3 are doing just fine in terms of software:

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/MattMatthews/20130430/191479/UK_Retail_Video_Game_Marketshare_for_1Q_2013.php

And that's a market where 360 hardware is far ahead of PS3, so the 12% difference between the consoles isn't that surprising.

As for PSP, software was bad mainly because of piracy; it was one of the easiest machines to hack. The PSP Go? Did everything worse than the PSP and at a higher price point.

How much games did the others come up in the same timeframe? I know you can do better. Look at pokoko and banaking for example, they can do better than you, you should learn from them how to argue.

As for best exclusives I would go with Sony, but to be honest everyone has his/her own favorites. For me its Sony maybe Microsoft can cramp some good things together, but to be honest I think MS will have the hardest time to survive.

Who will sell the most Consoles: Hmm, thats a difficult question. My intitial responce was Sony, because I think Nintendo fans buy their console for the existing franchises and if they are missing the console has a hard time (see the wii u). And to be honest looking at the recent past I doubt Nintendo can rely only on new IPs, just look at the Wonderful 101, but truth to be told there are flops everywhere. Nintendo would probably create new great franchises with a laughting smile if they had to. They wouldn´t be the most inovative new games, but to be honest no one would care. I´d guess in the end Nintendo would sell the most consoles. Sony a close second and for microsoft, well they show they can create new franchises if they have to, but if they can repeat the success of halo, I doubt it a little. So I say Microsft might be the one who looses out in the end.

Others what?

This is the best reply so far. And someone said earlier that apart from the new wave of casual games, Nintendo's last new ip was in the N64 era. Wrong. It was probably Pikmin on Gamecube.