Shane, you haven't addressed a single issue. In fact, you're refuting a couple issues simply by saying "I don't care what you say, I'm going to keep ranting." Please back up your claims, or there's no use in you posting.

No, that still makes them 3rd party. Publishing games != 2nd party. You actually have to be an owned subsidiary.

This is why Spyro games can still be found on the DS, even though the character is still the intellectual property of Insomniac. 

 Had you considered the possibility that "nobody has had much luck on Nintendo platforms since the SNES days" because Nintendo consoles have had a significantly smaller user base than Playstation? Again: considering the size of the userbase, both Rogue Squadron and Resident Evil sold quite well. Resident Evil sold better than many of the most important Nintendo franchises. However, because the system had 1/5th the installed base of PS2, this success was comparatively mild. 

Let's put this simply: you agree that 3rd parties did well on Nintendo systems during the NES and SNES days. Those were the days when Nintendo had the largest install base. 3rd party titles have sold less well since then (again, compared to PS1 or PS2 sales), while Nintendo has had a much smaller slice of the pie. Why is it not logical that, with Nintendo regaining the largest section of market share, that 3rd party titles would once again be highly profitable?

As it stands right now, several 3rd party companies developing exclusive games for the PS3 claim they are struggling to make a profit (source: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3155564). I'm certainly not suggesting this is because Sony is a bad company that hates 3rd party developers. There is one, completely logical thread that ties these systems together: a comparatively small user base. Other systems such as 3D0, CD-i, and Neo-Geo all fall in to the same category: none recieved significant 3rd party support because their user bases were too small.

I repeat: this isn't a "3rd parties can't make money on Nintendo systems" problem, as the NES and SNES clearly show. It's a "3rd parties can't make money on small platforms" problem. 

Shane said: If people are only buying Wii Play because of the controller, Nintendo's wasting their advertising dollars. This explanation doesn't cut it for me. Are some of the sales coming due to the controller? Yes, no doubt. Are all of them? No, plenty of people have played Wii Sports and liked it enough to pick up Wii Play, on top of the heavy marketing campaign. If people are stupid enough to not realize Wii Play is made by Nintendo, they shouldn't be allowed to play video games unsupervised.

I would also assume that not every single person who bought Wii Play purchased it because it had a controller. Given that it's sold millions of copies, saying that "every single customer" bought it for any specific reason is probably a bad idea.

I can tell you this, Shane: I work in the Games department at Toys R Us. I have never, ever had anyone come into the store and ask me for "any game made by Nintendo," or any such thing. I've had tons ask me for "that game that comes with a controller." Parents don't tend to even know the name of the game, let alone who developed it. They just know it comes with a controller, and little Becky or Johnny needs a second controller to play with his friends.

Again, not suggesting that this represents every purchaser. I'm saying it represents most of them, and that very few people are literally buying this game because it was technically developed by Nintendo.  Lastly -- please don't mock people who don't know who developed each game they purchase. In a lot of cases, the people purchasing it aren't going to be playing the game at all: they're buying it for their child or friend. Even for those who are going to be playing it, the particular development house really isn't a significant issue.

 Might depend upon that N64 was very hard and expensive to devlop on, and had a relative small userbase. GameCube was a joke when it came to userbase. I should know I was one of the few one. The statement is also clearly wrong because DS is good for 3rd parties whatever you say.

It is also wrong because Trauma Center (Wii) is one of the best selling Atlus games in USA. It might not sound much but they have never been that big publisher. The same thing can be said about Majesco which have made a lot of money on cooking mama (both on DS and Wii). It is not only about how many copies you sell it is about profit.

True and still 3rd party software sales sucks on PS3 in Japan. The truth here is that neither PS3 nor Wii is pretty good for the moment in Japan. The difference is that on Wii you have a chance to sell to a userbase that is larger than one million.

EDIT: Not only that PS3 tie ratio totally is really really bad, 1.30 compared to Wii:s 2.36. Of course the majorite of the games sold is Nintendo games there but at least Wii owners is buying games.

End of EDIT.

By the way when should you answer my claims about the sales in USA? Because they are damn much better for Wii than PS3 that is for sure.

You must be f***ing kidding me. When I bought Baten Kaitos I had no idea who made it, am I retarded for that?

EDIT number 2:

How good is DS for 3rd parties? Well looking at the last week (ending 13 May) we find 19 3rd pary titles in the top 50. So please don't tell me that DS is bad for 3rd parties.

Wii had only 1 3rd party title in top 50.

PSP and PS2 had 4 each.

PS3 had none, zero, nada. The first game at all was on spot 74!! That is how good PS3 sells software in Japan.

End EDIT 2.

Okay guys, Shane is getting teamed up on now. Let's just drop it.

Thank you for remaining composed in your replies, Shane. I may (strongly) disagree, but that much is appreciated, especially when you're arguing against a large group.

Wii has all the third-party licensed crap like Open Season dragging down its 3rd-party sales averages, too. The numbers can be spun any which way. The only way to tell who's doing better is by who's getting the most new games announced -- that's the real measure of who the devs/pubs think is best for their games. Right now we're seeing a lot of Wii exclusives, Wii multiplats with PS2, PSP, and/or DS, and 360/PS3 or 360/PS3/PC multiplats. Not too many new PS3 3rd-party (not Sony published) exclusives announced these days. But they'll still get plenty of games, especially with Sony's first-party and published library stacking up. It's not like the N64 or GC or Xbox didn't have a lot of good games to play despite a crappy userbase.

to be honest, if I bought a PSP, I'd immediately mod it and never buy any games simply because it is much slower to play off the umd than the mem stick. with the DS, I'd use the mod to sample games before buying them for niece and nephews and keep them legit. I'd still buy games for myself if I really enjoy it because there is no disadvantage to playing with the official cartridge

Smaller userbase is valid but lacking. On a larger userbase, there are a lot more games. Also, Nintendo themselves had no problem creating million sellers on smaller userbases, The Namco article is interesting, as people have applied the statement about RR7 to every single game anyone ever makes. I find it hard to believe early adopters would not know who makes Wii Sports (and by extension Wii Play), though I could see the people buying games for them (at their request) not knowing. Nintendo's monopoly in the portable space has allowed that to be useful, but that doesn't help its consoles any. What I'm waiting for is a Wii exclusive that's actually worth announcing.