MH4, DQVIII, Layton's, SSFIV, Lego, Sonic, Rayman, Tales and goes on and on

To be honest (and fair), I don't think that answers the question being posed here.  Sure there were successful third party games, but the success of the Nintendo console was established before and without those third parties.

The success of those systems do not rely on third party support, they just add to the success.

I'd like to see 3rd party companies have success on any platform but there is a part of me that really doesn't give a shit about most third party companies. I haven't been that impressed with a 3rd party game in quite awhile.

Nintendo doesn't need to bend over backwards for third party companies. If you can produce the highest selling and best system selling games then you don't have to depend on third party companies as much as other console manufacturers. I'd rather see Nintendo continue to court indie developers and maintain decent relationship with a few third party companies (mainly Sega, Capcom, Atlus, and a few others). I am not impressed with any Western third party company and I wouldn't care if they all went bankrupt. 

While I do like a couple (looking forward to Destiny and Watch Dogs) I mostly agree.  My PS3 collection is probably 90% first party exclusives.  My Wii collection is all exclusives.  I think I could still fill my time even without most 3rd parties.

It's not true. It's a cycle. How is that so hard for everyone to understand after we had the clear example of the n64 and gamecube?

Nintendo's consoles do well on 1st party games first and foremost, but 3rd party games sceal the deal for buyers who also have different tastes. 100m people bought a Wii, 35m bought Mario kart. So not everyone wants Mario Kart. The same goes for other 1st party games.

The DS is another great example. Yes, NSMB helped launch the DS into great sales, but 3rd party games such as DQ, Layton, Atlus games, Megaman and many others sceal the system's success making the library much more robust.

Anyways @OP. I think Bethesda has nothing to say, since they never supported Nintendo they should just shut the hell up. As for the others, very fair statement by Activision.

@fatslob. Why would Ubisoft want to make games for the U? Because MONEY... If they can establish a consumerbase early on, they can make much more money over the course of the gen. This has been their strategy since the PS2 and GC days.

Good chuckles at Bethesda.

So, what Nintendo should have done was to listen to them on how to build the console? Hahaha. That's like the son trying to tell his father how to fuck.

Bethesda should recognize (as soon as possible) that Nintendo is a superior software developer to them as evidenced by total sales, general reception, critical reception, number of releases, cultural impact, pretty much any metric in the world, and take that fact into account.

It would be incredibly asinine for Nintendo, the undisputed king of video game development, to listen to the whims of the likes of Bethesda. What could Nintendo ever stand to gain from letting inferior developers influence how to build their hardware?

Bethesda don't need to realise anything, they said what they wanted from a Nintendo system to develop for it, Nintendo didn't deliver, so Bethesda is out.

"Undisputed king" isn't doing so well now though is it? Or will it vs X1 and PS4.

When it comes to home consoles they're definitely not undisputed.

Seece, Bethesda never made games for Nintendo, not ever, except for like 1 or 2 DS games and maybe 1 Wii game. They have no say at all.

If Bethesda wanted input it's obvious they were open to develope for WiiU, because Nintendo didn't go the route Bethesda wanted, they decided against developing. Bethesda isn't obliged to develope for WiiU, and I doubt they thought they had any clout with Nintendo, they just laid down their requirements, simple as that. Doesn't mean Beth was demanding anything and don't "have a right" to give their opinion.