PS3 situation is completely different from N64 one... Useles topic

Comparing Nintendo's first party to... anyone else's first party is foolish. Nintendo will always have the top sellers - they're the only company that really has worldwide, "everyone" appeal. Super Mario 64 outsold the PS1's top seller (GT). Mario Kart 64 outsold the PS1's second best seller (FF7). In America, the N64's dominant region, it held 4 of the top 5 selling games, even though its userbase was half of the PS1's!

Nobody can compete with that.

Now, the question is, is this necessary for a successful console? The PS1 and PS2 have me believe otherwise. Besides the GTA series, there weren't Nintendo-sized hits on the consoles, but they still did very well. The third parties can make the console, and the PS3 is still getting support. Their exclusives are about on par with the 360's, so the main issue now is the price.

i see it as a fresh and new challenge for sony. a few of their exclusive ps1/ps2 games were getting a bit dated now, i.e the final fantasy and tekken series and maybe sony were getting a bit too conplacent with them games. losing their exclusives should force sony to buck up their ideas and bring out something new, LBP is a good start i guess

You really can't compare the two, although their situation seems quite similiar.

First, Nintendo has always had just a couple of games that sold a lot, compared to a more diverse first party offer from Sony. So you can't say Nintendo consoles sell more because Nintendo has more five million plus sellers. While Nintendo console owners usually buy most of all top-tier first party games, PS owners may are just interested in some.

Stronger third party support for the PS3 has already been mentioned, I won't go into this any further.

My third point is the different situations of the companies. Nintendo wanted nothing more than make a profit and have a console spread wide enough to keep up their brand name. Sony is a company that has much more sectors than gaming, so they might leave the sector although being profitable, or stay in although making losses. Their situation is just more complex, so I don't know what their goal is and if they can reach it with first party games alone. I tend to say no though.

errr don't forget the GB as one of the major reason why Nintendo has always stayed afloat...

similarly, sony is not just games... but then that part of the company is not doing that great right now either...

sure GB made nintendo money but really not the reason.  Nintendo always made money off of the console except for the gamecube for the first few months which lost like 8 bucks or somethn.  Also Nintendo first parties have always been stronge sellers and were always guaranteed to genorate large sums of money.

PS3's situation is more like the dreamcast, than the N64

I would like to also add that Nintendo were never in danger either it be losing money or downsizing. Market share they lost quite a bit at the time but never lost money. This is how nintendo survives for over a hundred years without a major layoff or downsize. Its just business decisions they make.

So many people so wrong in so many different ways ... I'm definitely coming back here after work.

Sony is not doing so bad. It's the two others compagnie who's doing so well. I think they gonna survive but the ps3 is not gonna live 10 years.