Listen and respond. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evqjOesXeUE

His analogy is pretty flawed to begin with, but I agree in some points. It is long know that nintendo creates their hardware thinking on their games first and formost. The part that he does not mention is that since the N64, 3rd parties avoided nintendo as much as they could. It is also truth that nintendo made some mistakes with the N64 and their policies were not the best, but even then, the gamecube was a very capable machine with a very high attach rate (Best selling tales ever, FFCC sold more than a million copies even if it was a spinoff, RE4 sold very well between others) and yet it got very little 3rd party support. Then the wii came out, yes nobody predicted it was going to sell as much as it did, but even after a record second and third years, third parties decided it was not worth the investment.
So why would Nintendo was to worry about third parties? Royalties? Niche games and experimental games do not sold that much to begin with, so there was not really reason to spent money and time on a lost cause.
Nintendo knows the wiiU is dedicated to nintendo fans and as many casuals as they can get, if anything nintendo should try to secure just dance, disney games, warner (batman mostly) and the like...

Is that your Youtube channel STAGE? Not bad...

I like BG, Though I think it could've been said better I agree with him.

Was gonna ask this. 

Edit: Saw it. Nintendo is not the kid that always fails but the kid that comes first. Can't be STAGE in the video as he would have known that Nintendo somehow manages to make more money even without 3rd party support. Also companies like Bethesda wanted a pc artichiture as their games fail to run well on anything else. They got it this gen with super hd twins and i am happy for them. 

Those investigative skills riderz

If you took the time to investigate you would have found this video on his channel,

This can't be Stage!!

Why would Nintendo involve 3rd party developers who (almost) never developed on their console in any decision they make?

Would you think they would go like the following:

Hey, Guys, we're working on a console. I know that you guys would didn't express any thought of developing for us before but we'll change everything on your opinion...
... in the hope that in some magical, fantastic universe - which was never going to happen - you might throw us a crappy game or two.

This is a childish and stupid reasoning.

After watching the video about Nintendo vs Atari, I realized something very important about how Nintendo does things.

Yes, Nintendo does things for themselves a lot. Yes, they have been restrictive to 3rd parties in the past (and to some degree even now). But if you think about it, it's somehow justified. The reason for the gaming crash was because of 3rd parties and lack of quality. Nintendo wanted to keep that in check (and having power over the market probably was part of it as well).

Nintendo does what it wants and doesn't really want to listen too much to 3rd parties because from past experience, they weren't really 100% reliable. Sony and Microsoft weren't in the market at those times, so of course they grew up with 3rd parties. Nintendo grew with their own IP's and games. Sure, they should be trying to re-establish their relationships with 3rd parties, but I think it's perfectly understandable why they do what they do given their past and what they may think the outlook on the future could be.

Building your console according to the whims of 3rd parties who won't support you anyway doesn't seem like a good idea.

Ugh. Too tired for a full response but here's my brief thoughts.

Nintendo is not Microsoft. They are not Sony. They are not a large company who can afford to take losses for several years on their gaming division. They are not a company that can rely on third party sales to carry them. They're a company that needs to make money basically every year, and the way they make most of their money off of their own software. Look at how their software sells relative to how their hardware sells, and then look at the same thing for Sony and MS.

If Nintendo wanted to do what third parties ask, the DS would have likely had one screen and no touch. The Wii would have been more powerful with the pro controller as its standard. The Wii U would be a console that would be just like the XBone or PS4 because that makes life easier for developers.

And what benefit would there be for Nintendo? Fans of the other fans are going to suddenly switch sides because Nintendo has the multiplatform games that they can already get from a company they like better? Probably not. If Nintendo was to follow third party leads, then you'd get a console that's made with Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, and Madden in mind. You'd get a quote unqoute hardcore gamer machine, which wouldn't make sense for Nintendo who doesn't make quote unquote hardcore games. Sony fans and MS fans who do buy a Wii or a Wii U are doing so as a secondary system anyway.

Nintendo is going to live or die based on their first party stuff. That's their advantage, and that's what has to take priority, even if that costs them with their parties. There are of course, places where they could compromise, but the number one objective is how to make Nintendo's games stand out.