I doubt that Nintendo will ever again be the only console maker. If nothing else, the fratcore will never accept them, and someone will be there to fill that void.

Wii's graphical capabilities are superior to the GC.  'Tis not Nintendo's fault if Ubi didn't try.  See Mario Galaxy and other Nintendo games for examples of games that push the Wii hardware.

Agreed.

Duh.  This is a hypothetical situation.

Err?  If Nintendo had a monopoly they wouldn't get third party support?  Who made all those games on the NES and SNES?  Those were all Nintendo's?  Damn, they were busy!  And they didn't even have a monopoly that time...

Ooh...you got me there.  No wait, but Okami got great reviews but barely sold to 0.1% of the PS2 userbase.  It's already been outsold by the Wii version and that was a 2-year old port.  I don't even know why you'd pick [an unadvertised game like] NMH as an example.  Has it not been beat into fanboys brains yet that the very developer said he's happy with the sales and is working on a sequel???    

They've already made a nice profit from the sales so I doubt they poured millions upon millions into the game.  Games that have had a lot of resources put into them (and even some that haven't) have had great sales in return.  But this is way off-topic.  

Next time make it clear that you're referring to niche gamers only.   

First off, while I agree a Nintendo Monopoly isn't going to happen, that doesn't excuse the lackluster third party support.  And your example of 'gamers have to buy third party games reguardless of the quality' and the third party excuse of 'our games didn't sell and therefore we don't need to try' is essentially the same thing.

Third parties haven't given gamers a reason to buy their games.  Even the 'big' titles like No More Heroes, Zack and Wiki or Blom Blox would be considered weak titles when compared to the third party offerings on the other systems.  So to say gamers have to buy the titles in large numbers for third parties to show an interest in the system is just plain backwards thinking.

Development companies are suppose to give us a reason to buy a game.  Not our dollars give us a reason for them to make games.  Which, by the way, our dollars already ARE giving them a reason to make games for the Wii.  With the Wii outselling both of the other consoles combined.

Hey, I'm sorry if it looked sarcastic.

The fact is: I really agree with what you said. Maybe you didn't understand me because my english writing skills are not perfect (I'm from Brazil). But I was just trying to add a little more facts to what you stated. Look:

You say Nintendo's consoles are wondrous and durable. I wrote about the PS controller because Nintendo is always bringing innovation while Sony is just using the same old controller again and again. First, they added grips to the Snes controller design, with double the amount of shoulder buttons; later, they copied the N64 analog and Rumble (and again it was two of each), making the Dual Shock (wich was the same controller with extra functions). This is the controller that remains, with few minor changes for almost 15 years! No excuses, lack of creativity.

Then I mentioned 3RL ( the 3 Red Lights, aka the Red Ring of Death), to state that Nintendo's hardware is REALLY the most durable. See, Xbox 360's "death" is so usual it even have a nickname. It is even less durable than PS1 and PS2. On the other side, my N64 is still working perfectly. Even the save file for Mario 64 wich I started on Christmas'96 is still there on the cartridge!

If you still think I'm being sarcastic, just look at my collection. Yeah. Nintendo games.

Ooh...I'm sorry!  I completely misunderstood.  Sorry about that.    

Btw, your English is great.  I'm just used to a lot of sarcasm.  

I surely hope not. A monopoly f**** everything. Look at the OS market. If it wanst for some true competition these past few year, we would have to diggest Vista problems to the end of time. Now MS will release a (it looks like) less hardware needy OS.

Competition is always good for the market!

I didn't mean to imply that it was a fault of the Wii, but I can see how it kind of reads that way.  Still, it's a curious thing isn't it?  I'm not sure what Ubisoft's rationale was in releasing this.  There's practically no demand for it that I can see as everyone except XBOX owners had access to it last generation.  And by keeping the GC graphics they had virtually guaranteed themselves negative reviews.  So this game is just for the expanded audience, then?  Or people who love the game so much that they're willing to pay for and play through it again with Wii controls?  OT, I know, I know...

Duh...  Read the sentence again starting with the green part and go all the way through to the end of the purple part.  But don't miss the black part.  That's one of the most important parts of the sentence.

Err?  Read the sentence again starting with the green part and go all the way through to the end of the purple part.  But don't miss the black part.  That's one of the most important parts of the sentence. 

I really have no clue how you interpreted any of that as, "If Nintendo had a monopoly they wouldn't get third party support." I even said in a previous post that of course third party developers would make games for a monopoly but that this was unlikely to be a positive scenario for gamers.  I suppose you are using the same form of logic that determined that I obviously hadn't gamed before this generation because I commented that the 480p limitation alienated gamers with 50" plasma TVs.

Well, you can't really say that PS2 gamers were underserved by third parties when Okami was released so there's a bit of a difference there.  I picked NMH because it comes up so often as a game that Wii owners should be ashamed of themselves for not picking up.  It's particularly been championed by X-Play (who also gave Okami the same sort of attention and similarly cast shame on PS2 owners).  Part of the reason that NMH gets discussed so much is that it's nearly unique on the Wii in that it's a third party game that's not aimed at the casual audience.  And it's a Wii exclusive.  And it got great reviews.  (And it's a Ubisoft game that's not shovelware, but I digress again.) 

If you look at actual sales, you'll find that third party success on the Wii correlates more with successfully marketing to the casual audience than it does with production budget.  Theoretically, when a game is published multiplatform, Wii should get around 50% of the sales because it has nearly 50% of the console market share.  But it's difficult to sell on the Wii if your game isn't family-friendly (and even if you are family-friendly, you have to face the reality that a Wii-owner's gaming dollars will go to almost any existing Nintendo software before yours is considered).  That's why a game like COD:WaW (which has similar review scores across all three platforms) only gets about 10% of its sales on the Wii.

Wii gamers that buy third-party non-casual games are a niche.  Clear enough?

isn't the playstation sony's biggest cash cow?

Good.  You admit you had no point in the first place.

Again, speaking hypothetically.  The purpose of the topic is if Nintendo did acquire a monopoly in the industry.

See above.  

Completely changed the topic.  Did you forget all about the fancy percentages you were throwing around earlier?  I guess they don't apply anymore.  

I wasn't limiting my point to production budget.  Let's not forget about advertising.  I personally had not heard about NMH until I came to this site.  Did you see commercials for it?  Have you found it in stores?  And again, why are we arguing about a successful game?  The most successful one Suda51 has had to date?  And why should COD:WaW sell so many copies on the Wii when it's highly successful predecessor wasn't even on it?  Btw, how many copies did the highly acclaimed God of War 1/2 sell on the PS2?  Who decides how many copies a game should or shouldn't sell?  

Honestly, you bore me.  But congratulations, you're well on your way to filling up that Wii Bingo board.  End of conversation.