If you want to compare Wii 3rd party sales to sales of all games on the 360 and PS3. The Wii's 3rd party's control 32% of the third party market.

Obviously the 360 and PS3 have had quite a few 1st party sales. So Wii's third parties are doing quite well in comparison.

Nintendo controls 25% of the entire console software market right now. Third parties allowed this to happen.

Well then their loss... life's hard... you have to play and work hard to compete. Is Nintendo unbeatable?  No.

Basing these so-called "third party struggles" on the performance of one Boom Blox game = epic FAIL.

When we see a 3rd party, non-niche game with a respectable marketing budget and it bombs hard, then we can talk.  What a waste of internet bandwith.

No, no, no. It's based on Zack and Wiki, No More Heroes, Okami AND Boom Blox. You know, the type of game that sold multiple millions of copies on every other system in history.

BTW, why should third parties "compete with Nintendo"? It seems to me most of the top third party games on Wii don't directly compete with anything Nintendo has on the platform.

<3

Also Greece > Austria 

 Not really.  The first four weeks of data is 100k, but I'm not sure even all of those are in May.  Also consider that North America =/= USA, and we're looking at a difference of 10-20k between NPD and VGChartz.

@Legend11: We're still waiting for your response...

 I find this whole argument mystifying because so many 3rd parties used to do just fantastic on Nintendo consoles, like Capcom, Konami, Hudson, Square, etc.

If you ask older gamers what games defined the systems like the NES and SNES, they're undoubtedly going to list Street Fighter, Contra, Castlevania, Bomberman, Megaman, Final Fantasy, etc. (unless they're an idiot or a troll trying to make a fallacious point).

They never seemed to have a problem competing with Nintendo's 1st party titles then and they clearly survived from the profits of doing so because they're still around today.

So you have to ask yourself: why is it such a flipping problem to compete with them now? Does Capcom not like putting piles of cash behind their games and the ADVERTISING of games anymore?

If kids were buying SNESes for Street Fighter 10 years ago (and they were), how the hell can it be impossible for Capcom to not be able to replicate that success today? 

And over the course of the last 15 years since the SNES, 3rd parties have moved farther and farther away from Nintendo-style development.

I am not saying that 3rd parties can't possibly ever compete with Nintendo and Nintendo has a magical hold over their platforms that can't be broken; I'm saying that in the process of moving toward Xbox/Playstation style development over the last 15 years, third parties have consequently moved away from Nintendo, and now they're stuck.

Nintendo is asking third party to challenge the traits that have led them to success: third parties have built their empires over the last decade on constantly improving graphics, static control methods, and a consist focus on the 16-30 year old male demographic. Now, Nintendo is challenging the notion that graphics matter, that control is static, and are expanding the gaming demographics.

Again, think of a company like Epic as a supreme example (but this is also true, to a lesser extent, of companies like EA and Ubisoft). Epic has built their entire company around pushing tech; their games largely rely on cutting edge technology to appeal to their fanbase, and in addition, they sell tech, in the form of Unreal Engine 3. Therefore, the Wii directly challenges their entire business model: if Epic were to make games on the Wii, they'd go bankrupt almost instantly. EA et. al are not quite as locked in as Epic is, but the same truths do generally apply; they have spent the last 15 years selling their games partly on the basis of increasing technological power and higher production values. The Wii directly challenges that method of game design.

This isn't just about switching platforms, it's about changing the entire philosophy of how to sell games, and that's a very hard transition to make. Especially when you're changing from a philosophy that directly led to your success in the first place. 

Care to elaborate?  Wait, I'll do it for you.

Z&W - point and click games never were big sellers and Capcom saidit surpassed their sales expectations.

NMH -  Best selling game from the developer in history and surpassed theirsales expectations.

Okami - PS2 had an install base of 110 million when released and sold how many?   So you expect a 2 year old port with minimal advertsing and 1/6th the install base to sell in the millions?  It soo surpassed publisher expectations.

Boom Blox - Poorly advertised and not even close to being done selling.

Do you know what publisher sales expectations mean?  It means based on the install base and marketing budget, how many they expect retail to purchase.    If they expect X amount to sell, then anything above it is fantastic.   Your problem, and this whole thread in general, is that you're comapring arbitraary figures with no context to sales expectations from the publishers.

Let's say publisher A expects their game to sell 100k and it actually sells 200k.
And publisher B expects their game to sell 500k but it actually sells 400k.

Guess which one is a success and which one is a bomb?   The 200k unit is a bigger success than the 400k unit despite the actual unit sales.

Not every game is an apple from the same tree.