I never said they didn't. I said their business doesn't rely on them doing so.

Not as well received as Wii games

Actually the OP isn't misinformed, he just didn't know how to put it properly, the problem with MS and Sony as I already pointed out, is that their focus isn't gaming, they have no interest in seeing gaming prosper and grow, as long as they are able to achieve their other goals, Sony wants to create a convergence box that basically is the center of you daily life, and replaces your computer, while MS wants to prevent Sony from doing so.  Nintendo is the only company actually focused on gaming and therefore have an interest in seeing gaming grow and prosper as an entertainment media.  This is why Sony and MS could never disrupt the market like Nintendo has, they are technology and computer companies, they don't think in terms of games first, the PS3 was designed as a blu-ray Trojan horse first not a games machine, when Nintendo designs its consoles it designs around what it wants the games to be.

This thread is prooving to be the ultimate "SALES fanboy" ever. We all know that numbers are important, and since this gen, more = better (acording to said fanboys). To the OP: Nintendo nearly broke the iindustry in the 90's because of its tyrant habits. Nintendo has great franchises, but thats it. Its HARD to see new IPs coming from them. Why? Its sure money when they release a new Mario, Zelda, Punch-out, and so on. So we expect third parties to fill that hole, but its hard for them, for they compete with Nintendo Itself, wich eats their chances of selling as well as said franchises. Sony and MS came into the industry for many reasons, mayinly this one, the same one that keeps Nintendo afloat, MONEY! Nintendo was born as a toys company. It still is, to some (me included). But why do I care? I am trying to talk sense into guys who is likely to say things like 'Sony dont deserve to  be on gaming industry' or ' Nintendo is the only game company worth'.

People who close their eyes to the past cannot see its mistakes. Nintendo did their fair share, some of they are making a come back this gen. Sony is paying/payed foir theirs. MS done a lot of them/is doing theirs. Lets hope they learn from them and with them.

No they didn't what they did was market in Others more, back in the SNES era, Nintendo's presence in Europe and others, was extremely limited, in fact once you take Others into account and of course growth in population, you can basically account for most of the growth from the SNES era to the PS1 era.

Xbox live still hasn't reached much of the market, only a small chunk uses it

I don't like how everyone is turning this into a Sony & Microsoft vs Nintendo thread. That is not what the thread was about. It seems like everyone just read the 1^st sentence and skiped right to posting.

I DON'T CARE WHAT COMPANY IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER! So stop with the comparisons all ready.

The reason as to why people think that MS and SONY doesn't have any first party is because their games really just look like ANY OTHER 3RD PARTY GAME. They have nothing that give them an identity like Sega or Capcom or Nintendo.

Trust me, if MS or SONY could make a kart racer or some other game starring recogniced characters, they WOULD DO IT. Sony and MS are not above milking franchises, or making all stars games, they just CAN'T because their games have not been mega hits that will always be remembered such as Super Mario Brothers or Sonic.

Every game that is put out by Sonys and MSs studios just follow the latest trends, they are our time's equivalent of the Sonic clones of the 90's. They will be remembered just the same way all the mascot platformers were (excluding Sonic). Sony though, has made one exception, LittleBigPlanet might be remembered as a game that gave the PS3 an Identity, maybe the ICO games too, but that is like 2-5 against all of the games in the classic franchises  that Sega or Capcom has.

Games with generic themes can become legends too because of quality, just look at Blizzard's games, but MS and Sony doesn't have any games of Blizzard caliber either.

That's why the PS1 and 2, and the Xboxes never really interrested me, it felt like they had no identity the way Nintendo or Sega or Blizzard or Capcom has.

I agree with much in the OP. The structure that Sony and Microsoft has isn't really suited for gaming either. Both Nintendo and Sega desinged their hardware from the software they want to make. Nintnedo and Sega are very integrated companies. Microsoft and Sony doesn't have that integration between software makers and hardware makers. When they got into the industry, they made the hardware first, moneyhatted third parties, and bought some studios later. Sony and MS should really start uniting their console divisions with their game divisions, for the good of gaming.

No. In the 1st 2 sentences I said that it sucks that Nintendo was the only video game company making consoles now and that Sony was a electronics company and Microsoft was a Software companies.

but wat does that matter?..there is a large portion of the company dedicated to gaming..wether its in internal or exteral( ur PS corp example) it doessnt matter

Your entire OP is based on the premise that Microsoft and Sony are messing up the industry.

Even what you call Nintendo's laziness is brought on by Sony and Microsoft.

You compare the gaming industry to the music industry, while saying gaming is no good in its current form, so either:

a) Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo need to step up the first party development, or

b) There are many different brands of console, all of which can play every game, giving us a situation like the MP3 player.

To be honest, I think the industry is fine as it is. Within the next couple of quarters, all three companies will be profiting, sales for all consoles are strong, and there is a diverse and quality range of games on every platform. The last thing we need is a company like Apple having complete domination over the industry.