He also mentioned the controller would be difficult to work with, but it's the same basic controller Sony and MS have with a touch screen added, they could just throw in an “always on map” and be done with it, that to me made me feel they know very little about the Wii U and therefore their views are based on misinformation, this in light of a bad port Bethesda made of Skyrim on the PS3, they really appear not to take consoles seriously

It still sounds like they're just not willing to put forth the effort to make it happen. Understandably fears could arise as there are monetary risks to it as far as providing the necessary resources are concerned, but Bethesda has little to base those fears on. They don't know how poor their games would sell on Nintendo's systems because they haven't developed one for a Nintendo home console in 22 years, they don't have much to reference.

- It makes sense that Sony and Microsoft would consult third parties on how to build their systems. Their systems thrive on third parties. Most of the software sales for their systems are third party so it's necessary to ensure the architecture evolves in a direction they can easily work with. This also explains why the two systems have wound up using such similar architectures.

Nintendo makes and lives on their own games, so prioritizing the architecture for their needs makes sense too. If third party support fell through they'd have developed the system in a way that may make it more difficult for them or is unnecessarily costly.

-This falls in line with the first point. And the issue makes some sense, if they're scared they'll fail to turn a profit they're not going to be willing to put forth the resources to optimize their games for the system. With the PS4 and Xbox One it's easy because they're essentially making the game for one system as opposed to two due to the similarities between them. And so that ties in with point three about the audience. However...

-ZombiU is the third highest selling game on the Wii U so far, that's not a game that falls in line with Nintendo's perceived audience The Audience argument always confounds me, if the audience isn't there it's because it's not being provided, not because there aren't people interested. Resident Evil, RE Zero, and RE 4 are not "Nintendo's audience" but all sold quite well considering the total number of Gamecubes sold, each in the top 20 best selling games for the system even. The Metroid Prime Trilogy doesn't even fall in line with their so called target audience and it's one of their major IPs. There is definitely an Action/Adventure and RPG audience on Nintendo's systems Bethesda has no excuse there. Gearbox's concern makes a bit more sense considering the lack of many quality shooters that have shown up on Nintendo's systems to date. You wouldn't expect there to have been many sales of that kind as a result.

-In my experience (Mass Effect 3, Assassin's Creed 3, Injustice Gods Among Us) Wii U's online is, overall, as good as what I've seen on Xbox 360 and PS3. It is just lacking in support, games to make use of it, an install base to provide enough people to play with, and the attention to provide updates to fix any bugs that pop-up.

Can Wii U online do everything exactly the same as PS4 and One online? Cross game chat, no restrictions?

Crossgame chat, no. But that's irrelevant as far as a single game is concerned. Being able to talk to your friend while you play Mass Effect 3 MP and they play Assassin's Creed 3 MP in no way actually helps the functionality of ME3 MP.  Yes the Wii U is still lacking in some features already provided by Sony and Microsoft's systems, but those have no bearing on the functionality of games made for the system and are not a viable excuse.  (It would definitely be nice if they can add this in later of course, it's convenient, but lack of it does not detriment the function of Co-op or Competitive online play.)

Define restrictions, there are none that I can think of or recall at the moment, but may just need my memory jogged.

They aren't really, they are just giving there reasons as to why they aren't making games on the WiiU

Both of them are mediocre anyways. They definitely won't be missed.

Oh well... When's Wonderful 101 coming out again? I can't wait!! Haha!

-Nintendo made their box without really consulting 3rd parties, whereas Sony and MS have done so from a very early point of the PS4/One development.

This point is bs because why would Nintendo give a shit what Gearbox or Bethesda think about their system specs if they barely or never supported their systems in the past.

-Nintendo's online is subpar when next gen seems to be focusing more and more on the co-op/competitive experience.

This point is bs because Wii U and 3DS online is just as good as competition.  I'm lacking cross game chat on Wii U?  Oh my fucking god, Wii U online sucks...

-Wii U not in parity with the PS4/One. Requires additional resources because of architecture and the need to cut stuff out of a game to fit the Wii U hardware.

-Audience is different from what Bathesda/Gearbox makes, which makes them reluctant to spend additional resources.

These are the two main points that aren't bs.  This is pretty much all that needed to be said.  I have no fucking clue why they try to take a jab at online infrastructure.

Nem, you have multiple consoles, how can you believe this? Online is the biggest separator from Nintendo and Sony/MS (and I kinda struggle to put Sony at the same level of MS).

I fail to see anything special that Microsoft or Sony has for online (especially considering you have to pay for it, PSN+ free games is about the only special thing that I see of any value).  You could once make the case against Nintendo when they had FC for every single game (DS/Wii).  That was the main complaint against their online.  What the fuck do you have to complain against it now?