Nintendo was not wise if they wanted third party support. They didn't know how powerful devs were truly expecting the next generation to be. Look back at reggies statements on CNN about how powerful their version of COD was and how the CNN anchor. If their graphics were dramatically better than the PS3 and 360 they would be on par with the PC version of CD which of course, its not. Time has already shown that the Wii U is already being pushed. The only major advantage the Wii U has is a ram advantage over the current gen consoles and slightly better graphics. Even in BF4 the PS4/XB1 version of BF4 will be at high settings opposed to ultra high settings on PC at its max and and current gen consoles will be at medium to low settings (most likely low just like . The Wii U by all means should be equal with Sony and Microsofts next gen consoles, but its just not going to happen.

This is the video where Reggie talks to the CNN anchor. I used to defend Nintendo about this stuff....sorry....not anymore. I learned my lesson after doing a little research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=137X2LcF-wM&feature=player_embedded#t=261

As I told Devil Rising, not only would devs have to dumb down the multiplats for Nintendo (which theres no problem as long as the 360 and PS3 are being supported) but they would also have to find the resources in tandem to make games for the same dumbed down multiplats the 360 and PS3 are getting. If the games come late? Ok, it makes sense to create a special ported version, kind of like Sony's DLC policy on late games, but with Nintendo they expect devs to break their backs for them and thats just not going to cut it any longer. 

The only company that seems to have a contractual dispute with Nintendo is EA. They both need to get it together there to have an agreement of the online and location of Origin so Nintendo can at least experience more EA titles outside of Mass Effect 3 (which should've come with the trilogy).

I live in Louisiana. Nintendo and Apple are the only two companies who charge me tax for online purchases.

Tax depends on your state and country, but Sony doesn't include tax in PSN Purchases.

Bethesda and Gearbox have never supported a Nintendo-console why would Nintendo consult them?

Given the unforgiveable amount of glitches in virtually every Bethesda game, their efforts to make even more complex games ain't gonna be pretty.

Well if you believe Nintendo they were trying to make a big push for 3rd party support this time around, wouldn't that include trying to build relationships with companies that don't already make games on their platforms?  Otherwise you're just left with trying to get increased support from the companies that you already have a good relationship with which will only get you so far.  

Agreed.

Gearbox makes more crap games than good ones in my experience, and Bethesda seems incapable of making a game that's not crippled by glitches.

Nintendo doesn't want the type of third party support MS/Sony lobby for. They've even said it themselves.

They make their hardware based around their own creative fetishes and if they can accommodate a third party request here and there (like clickable analogs) they'll consider it, but that's about it.

You just like Devil are so focused on disinfranchising them you forget that Gearbox made Borderlands which has been a hit franchise this gen. Skyrim...well you know the sales. We shouldn't even be talking about what they did, just their relationships to Nintendo. Stop trying to discount them to dodge the fact that Nintendo doesn't play well with others unless they are willing to work within their perameters in gaming. 

I have played both Borderlands and Skyrim, and found them both to be seriously flawed. Given that neither dev provides content that appeals to me, their lack of Nintendo support wouldn't hurt me even if I was a Nintendo only gamer, which I am not.