The problem isn't that Nintendo hasn't release solid games. They have.

The problem is most people don't understand that Nintendo is being smart and doing what is already common in the movie and other entertainment industries - counter content.

In Hollywood if Sony is releasing Spider-Man 4 (for examply) Warner is not going to release Batman 4 on the same week. That's doesn't benefit either of them. They release Batman a month later when the Spider-Man effect has worn off. So do they not place a movie against Spider-Man?? Of course they do. You release a Devil Wears Prada type movie. Both do well because they appeal to different markets.

Nintendo is bringing that strategy to gaming. Look at the huge volume of action and FPS titles out this holiday season. It's a bloodbath and many great games are going to fail to profit because they all released at the same time. People only have so much money and time. If Nintendo did bring out Starfox and Pikmin the fanboys would be happy but for every multiconsole owner those games would be competing for the same set of money. By releasing Wii Music and Animal Crossing now, they grab all those people who are not interested in competitive games instead - which is bigger than the fanboys realize.

Come next spring they'll likely bring out there more core titles (Punch-Out, Sin & Punishment and others) at a time when there's less competition for the 'core' market.

The wonders of viral marketing... Ever notice how 1.) before Microsoft came onto the scene, Nintendo hate was kept to a comparative minimum, and 2.) before Sony came onto the scene, what rare Nintendo hate there was was mostly just childish jibes clearly coming from Sega marketing? Also notice how anti-Game Boy and anti-DS sentiment have always been low to nonexistent compared to anti-Nintendo-console behavior. This is far from coincidence. This is viral marketing hard at work, astroturfing anti-Nintendo support entirely in the same fashion that anti-Apple support has been astroturfed by Microsoft for well over a decade now.

Well maybe it's not the difficulty of the maze but the industry's culture , direction etc . For me to explain my point of view further i'll need to explain some things

Asset led marketing

A marketing strategy in which the attributes of the product (the asset) are used to market the product. Types of attributes can include the brand name and the image associated with the brand. An asset-led marketing strategy asks "How can we use the strengths of the business to satisfy consumer needs?" Business strengths can include core competencies, brand image, and global distribution. This strategy can be used concurrently with a market-led marketing strategy.

Market led marketing

A marketing strategy in which a company seeks to determine what products a consumer might want, and then moves the company to develop those products. It relies heavily on market research. A market-led marketing strategy asks, "What do consumers want? How can we satisfy this want?" This strategy can be used concurrently with an asset-led marketing strategy.

As you can see Nintendo is the perfect mixture of Asset led and Market led marketing , they've idenified what the consumer wants and have used their own strengths to supports their new stratergy which would have immensley damaged them if they had failed , the untraditional approach is highly risky but prooved very lucrative for Nintendo. Nintendo has smoothly transitioned into the tyrant we see today , on the face of it Nintendo hasn't changed much but I assure you they are different in many ways from what they were pre-Game Cube.

In comparison the average third party is asset led , they probably haven't looked at what the consumer wanted since gaming began they've loyaly followed the console makers in whatever direction they felt  best and console makers have always taken a fixed and clearly defined path. But there comes Nintendo with the Wii in hand , 3rd parties were probably thinking "lol tf" and didn't take it too seriously at first  maybe dedicating some spare resources to make an effort on the platform , the Wii didn't play of anyones strengths except Nintendo at the begining of this gen. The Wii continued in strength growing at an incredible pace ,eating up the XBOX 360's marketshare and the 3rd parties were forced to take notice. They would have responded with more serious efforts but too risky or too far from what they knew well , 80%-90% of these efforts would eventualy fail . Some third parties would continue to try (EA , Ubisoft etc) some would simply ignore the Wii claiming it didn't compliment their strengths (Epic , Rockstar partly etc) . I won't explain further because I've reached my main point already , making succesful games for the Wii requires alot more than simply copying how Nintendo does it and applying the principles to your own games , it requires restructuring of your existing business effectivley changing the orientation of your business or funding expansion to make the standard of game that apeals to this new demographic for developers it's either too expensive or too risky , most likely everyone in gaming is praying the Wii was just a faze in the bigger picture of gaming.

It's like the growth sports clothing received when it became fashionable to wear it outside of sports , Some businesses capitalised and used new materials , colours and styles ( Nike with Air Forces or Adidas with Adicolours) many other businesses failed to capitlise on the opportunity and decided to stay with what they knew , they were pushed to the side as a consequence ( Umbro comes to mind).

The traditional gaming market is big enough to support alot of developers , but with the cost of HD gaming and a highly lucractive new demographic busiensses are going to struggle to compete effectivley without their cash.

If you don't feel like reading the above i'll just sumarise it with 5 words , their orientation is all wrong.

Well Matt C. at IGN does call out the 3rd parties for not having stepped up to the plate (and basically being gutless except for EA, Sega and maybe Ubisoft) in his editorial.

I'm well aware of the root of the problem, believe me. What I'm saying is that redirecting their strategy effectively would not be at all difficult. It's not even particularly obtuse as to what the best course of action is. As for not playing to anyone's strengths but Nintendo's, the NES did the exact same thing. PC developers hated the NES, and a lot of the ones who refused to even give the system the time of day no longer exist too. The point is, you either adapt to the dominant technology, or you fade from existence. It's always been this way.

You're right. It has been two years, the Wii has the largest install base, and allegedly been the easiest and cheapest current home console to make games, and most third party developers still haven't put any major might behind the damn thing. I've been thinking the reason Disaster and Fatal Frame were put off in NA was to leave a hole for other developers to fill for the holiday season, and yet Matt Cassamassawhatevermania just put out a big article about how the big N has been screwing up, and they should better next year.

What really kills me is how many examples and hints Nintendo has dropped with games like Wii Play and Wario Ware smooth moves, and few companies have even tried to run with them, like Billiards for Wii Play. When I played that I was left craving a full-scale retail pool game. Here's what third parties have put on the market so far.

Every review suggests that the 9-ball mini-game in Wii Play is far better pool game than South Peak's (makers of Two-Worlds) Pool Party. So I'm still waiting. How bout a fishing game on the Wii? I remember reading an IGN review on one of Sega's fishing games for the Wii and they said freaking Twilight Princess, still provided the best fishing experience on the Wii. A fishing mini-game in Zelda, still trumped every full retail fishing game on the Wii. At the current rate I'll have to wait for Nintendo themselves to make a damn pool game for me.

It's insane that almost no third party developer have made a true effort to make money with these low risk ultra-niche markets on the Wii. For a relatively small amount of money and time they could make a decent title to fill any of these voids and probably corner a under served market. But no, they do as little as possible, make something that barely passes quality control, and coax off undiscriminating buyers who base their purchases off Box-art.

This is why Carnival Games sold. (2.4 Million according this site!) It's nothing amazing, but it does a GOOD job recreating common carnival and fair games on the Wii. The Carnival Games I like in real life, I like in Carnival Games the game for the same reason, and the ones I hate in the real world, I hate in the game for the same reason. (Fucking ball never goes in the right cup!) It's limited, but it's supposed to be. 2K picked something simple, built a decent game around it, priced it accordingly for a niche audience, marketed it, and made a bank off it.

Outside of Pinball Hall of Fame: Williams Collection (which is on two other systems) what else has actually bothered with any real genuine effort to fill any of these little voids?

Well it just go back to the hypocrisy of most people about the Wii platform. People buy and praise the platform solely for its 1st party editions yet complain and bitch all the time about lack of 3rd party: ya know the parts they haven't care about in the beginning. Even more so they question why the 3rd party games don't sell like the 1st party ones yet they admit that they buy it solely for 1st party and 3rd party games aren't the same quality as the 1st party.

I mean when it comes to Wii and software, it's not going to win anything with these people. They are ignorant, bias, and hypocritical. And that's what happens when your the leader you'll be subject to this. So its best just to leave the debate of Wii software up to people that understand it from a non bias point of view and I'd be glad to help some people understand why some software sells and others don't.

Now why isn't Sony and MS held accountable for the inverse? Well MS doesn't make game aside from the guys they buy out so it's hard to hold them accountable for much but its obvious the franchises they do have such as Fable and Banjo Kazooie are under performing when compared to such 1st party games on Wii. Now Sony on the other hand is in many respects a lot like Nintendo so to see some of their biggest games releasing under perform is something a little more scary. Their biggest franchise is Gran Turismo which hasn't released yet so not too much worry. It's possible that it's the inverse of Nintendo for Sony, that its first party games simply can't compete with 3rd party. I think Resistance 2 vs. COD5 is a pretty good example of that.

When it comes to 1st party games, my biggest disappointment has been Sony JAPAN. They have gone missing.