Not guesswork. Establish facts, connect the facts, make an educated conclusion. Good to see I present factual evidence though, and you present nothing. 

And Sony didn't get nearly the amount of ball pollishing as Microsoft did, last gen. especially. This generation, are you blind again? The Xbone went tits up, and became a disaster from day one, third parties knew it and they ran for the hills. 

You took two disparate and tenuous quotes and linked them. Hardly the "factual evidence" you claim it to be and hardly solid grounds to be making theories... certainly not enough to form a conclusion.   

And as the person making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Btw, the used game policy was hinted at in leaked design docs and from industry insiders in early 2012 (doc is no longer available but: http://kotaku.com/5879202/sources-the-next-xbox-will-play-blu-ray-may-not-play-used-games-and-will-introduce-kinect-2). At no stage were publishers mentioned or was it cited as a specific benefit to partner companies (other advantages for developers were mentioned in the doc).

Also, you're contradicting your last post. Either they ran for the hills, or they continue to support X1, even now. Which is it?

I think for the NX's first two years, Nintendo should just set up a deal, but only for like 6-7 of the top third party IPs. They agree to pay 1/2 the cost of the port and supply a team of developers to handle the ports.

I'd do that for COD, Batman, Madden, FIFA, Final Fantasy, and Destiny.

And that's it. Assuming the cost of a port is $2-$3 million, that's maybe $8 million/year out of Nintendo's pocket ... peanuts.

Not the Wii U, the Wii did, at least it damaged it for the hardcore gamers with all those casual games that filled it's catalogue.

If Nintendo can somehow cut all their expenses and maintain this sales rate - despite not really having many titles, despite the high cost of the system, then they can point to a profit story and call that success.

I think its amazing they've maintained a higher sales rate, despite so few titles, and despite holding firm to their price point.

The machine should be $199 by now, if you ask me. They need 4 times this many titles.

So they have carved out a little niche and a profit story, and I have to hand it to them, I didn't think this niche would exist.

I still don't believe it'll exist tomorrow, I just begrudgingly admit it seems to exist today - it makes no sense to me.

Anyway....will it sink Nintendo...if the Gamecube didn't, why would Wii U?

I don't think they can endlessly do this, however. They need a hit on the next one.

It's pretty slow with the interesting retail releases, yeah.

I don't think the console overall is likely to do or have done any more damage to Nintendo's image so many other things they have done.

Sure, it has meant that Nintendo has been pulled from shelves in most European department stores and even many toy stores, But they weren't really privy to those spaces with the GameCube either.

Yes if Nintendo treated 3rd parties professionally then the Wii U would have had more 3rd party support-  But they can t expect 3rd parties to support the Wii U when their own support of the system was questionable the 1st year+ and still seems barley adequate

Look at Minecraft- it is on virtually every console excpet Nintendo- so all those other consoles, mobile etc managed to work w Mojang to get Minecraft and al of them are better for it-  But Nintendo can t get the deal done and Nintendo is prob going to be hurt the most by missingin out n Minecraft- as the younger generation that Nintenod once onwed likes Minecraft more than Mario

Nintendo can be succesful next gen but they will have to invest alot of $ s on the front end and take some bigger risk than they are used to _ something they have not been willing to do in recent years

When has a Nintendo system ever been $500? Well perhaps in Australia lol. 

$300 is nothing. People spend $800 on a smart phone every 6 months to upgrade so a $300 investmenet even for 20 games over the life of a console isn't bad. plus shit liek this will appreciate invalue after 10 years because it is so rare so you cannot loose. 

Man, you know what I meant. There are a hundred articles written about used-game profits, and publishers mad about it. Comments on DLC justification, and the Access Passes. A rationalist would also ask why would Microsoft introduce a system which doesn't benefit consumer rights? Also, the author contradicts your point by regailing "publishers sick of seeing retailers like GameStop crow about their revenues from the sale of used games".

Please continue. 

That just means that publishers would be happy to see this system incorporated, but remember, Gamestop and other retailers are also Microsoft partners (afterall, they have to sell the machines in the first place). There is no evidence to suggest MS partnered with either publishers or retailers when it came to making the used game policy.

As for your question on consumer rights, this system has been in place and highly successful in other markets; the Apple app store; Android Play Store; Steam; Battle.net. So there was evidence that in the minds of some consumers, the advantages of such a system outweighed the breach on consumer rights and the companies who own those system were virtually printing money. I'm not entirely surprised that one of the console manufacturers tried to bring this closed subscription system to consoles.