I'm not talking about the people that moved to play the halos and uncharted. Those are lost causes as they think FPS are the only real games.

I am talking about those people who can only afford one console. So their choice is simply Nintendo games or 3rd party games (i.e. EA Sports games, GTA, FINAL FANTASY aka NONE FPSers lol). If they want 3rd party games more than they want Nintendo games due to them being adult oriented and can only afford oen system they will go. However If they cna get their adult fix (NOT ALL BUT ENOUGH) then they get the best of both worlds, Nintendo games and 3rd party mature games.

And as I said, they need to focus on RETAINING there users first rather then wanting to get a huge flow of Sony and Micrososft users to their console. This is why 3rd party support is critical. It also woud help if they created more new IPs or resurected some of the other franchises like FZero and Starfox.

Hell they should have bought the rights to the RARE games when they had the chance in the GCN days. Those games alone are iconic enough for people to stick with Nintendo. Imagine if Wii U launched with Killer Instinct, Banjo, then followed it up a year later with say conker and perfect dark and even ressurect battle toads. 

Tagging for later.

Very good points. The crowd that Nintendo lost after it lost Rare hurt it even more so with the crowd that had grown up and the fighting game fans who had jumped ship to Sony and Microsoft.

The people who like GTA are far more likely to be fans of Sony and Microsoft IPs than Nintendo, because those games are more similar to GTA.  The big third party franchises are all like that.  Assassin's Creed, Red Dead, Borderlands, etc.  Final Fantasy really isn't a megaton franchise anymore.  FF and Kingdom Hearts would be nice, but they're not essential.

Madden/Fifa are the biggest IPs that are missing that would be in line with Nintendo fans, but the reason for their absense is not hardware.  Even if we assume the Wii U cannot run PS4/XBox One games, EA is going to be making Madden games for the next five years or so on PS360, so there is no reason those couldn't be ported to the Wii U.  It's crystal clear that EA's problem with Nintendo has more to do with a personal spat than the hardware on the Wii U.  As for the other big third party franchises, COD is there.  Assassin's Creed is there.  Batman Arkham Origins is there.  Aside from EA the bigger franchises are present. We'll see if this contiues as the PS4 and One roll out.

As for Rare titles... lol @ the idea that these games are still relevant.  Take your nostalgia glasses off.  Conker and Battletoads are going to make some sort of difference?  I love Banjo as much as the next guy, but the days where he makes a difference are long behind.  Instead, Nintendo has been investing in other things.  Buying Monolith Soft for example which made Xenoblade, bringing Sonic Lost World as an exclusive, Shin Megami X Fire Emblem, and Bayonetta 2.

And still, the dollars and cents of making a more powerful console don't make sense for Nintendo.

Firstly you need to stop taking every single game I write as some sort of list of the types of games and go thorugh their relevance. Those are jsut SOME examples. I am not going to write out every 3rd party title that would fit a Nintendo audience.

Now the reason Banjo etc.. are irrelevant today is because Microsoft killed the franchises. If Nintendo owned them they would not have let them die of like that and probably Retro would have made somehting magical out of the franchise like they did to Donkey Kong. Also look at killer instinct, many people are going nuts over it and that has been missing for 15 years or so. So who is to say if banko and conker were in the right hands it still wouldnt be relevant. I used this as an example of NIntendos past mistakes of letting those IPs go.

The poiint being CORE games just doesn't mean FPS, there is lots of key games Nintendo gamers are missing out. In the end as I said some can only afford one console. So if it is a choice between 5 Nintendo games they like vs 30 3rd party core games, then they will get the other platform. Imagine if 25 of the 30 games were on a Nintendo system, then those users would stick with a Nintendo system to get the 5 Nintendo games + 25 3rd party games.

But what are the biggest third party franchises?  Cod, Elder Scrolls, Battlefield, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed, Fifa, Fallout, Arkham City, Left 4 Dead, Borderlands, Lego.  Those are just going straight down the list on XBox 360's best sellers list.  Aside from Skyrim, the potential for these games to win over gamers from other consoles is limited.  The only big exception is the Lego franchise, which is probably why Nintendo invested in Lego City Undercover.

Banjo and the rest are irrelevant because they are irrelevant.  Perfect Dark is a game that was that the FPS genre left behind.  Conker was a novelty game that was based around the appeal of a drunk squirrel and an enemy made of feces.  Killer Instinct was a game that rode the wave of massive 2D fighter popularity on the SNES and would be a 1-2 million seller, at absolute best, today.  Banjo is the only one that MAY be relevant today (I actually loved Nuts and Bolts), but even that is iffy. You love those franchises, and I love those franhises, but they weren't worth the $377 million dollars (a little over 400 million with inflation).  Nintendo instead invested in things like Retro Studios, Monolith, deals with Sega and Platinum games, Lego City Undercover, and so on so forth.

And yeah, of course it would be better if Nintendo could get all those third party games on their console, but you're completely ignoring the cost of getting those games on the console.  If it was free, then hell yeah Nintendo would do it, but these things cost money.  If Nintendo operated the way people on the internet seems to think it does, in a world with unlimited money and zero overhead, then there would be no issue.  But making a console on par with the PS4 and XBox One costs money, which is a point you seem to be missing here, and Nintendo won't necessarily be able to recover that money or shrug off a billion dollar loss like M$.

I hate when people say MS ruined Banjo/Rare etc...

Wii did fine without third party support, they won the gen. M$/Sony can't push hardware with first party alone, therefore their consoles rely heavily on third parties. PS's identity was shaped by thirds. As is Xbox'. Which leaves both console manufacturer at a disadvantage. If another corporate conglomerate entered gaming with deeps pockets, like say Samusung, they would likely crush Sony, simply because they have deeper pockets. And thirds are only as loyal as their wallets.

Its important to note, third parties caused the crash of 83, ironically, Atari gets the supposed 'blame' but as a result of third parties actions, that is was birthed Nintendo's strict policies with them. Third Party games only matter when they can move hardware, and few Third Party games do that.

I still believe another crash is coming. It's almost inevitable, I think. Dev costs rise, software sells less, economy in the crapper. What happens if CoD goes the way of Guitar Hero? I think many will be shocked just how much red and decline is coming for the industry.

Well they kind of did.  As much as I loved Nuts and Bolts (and I loved Nuts and Bolts) it was on the wrong platform.  A console that had to that point been very focused on shooters and sports was not the ideal place for a cuddly platformer/car hybrid.  Game would have likely sold better on the Wii, if the Wii could have handled it well.

As for ruining Rare in general, a lot of Rare staffers have talked about how the process changed when MS was involved.  It wasn't so much about MS dominating Rare with an iron fist so much as it was about Microsoft not having the strong development background that Nintendo did and being unable to help out Rare in the way Nintendo could.  A lot of Rare's people left after MS bought it.  Lots of people agree that the sale was not a good thing for Rare.

http://www.rarefandabase.com/exclusive-where-are-they-now-an-interview-with-chris-seavor/

Wii had lots of 3rd party support, just not in the core genres. Whilst Nintendo games had the best sales (with the exception of Just Dance), third-party devs still made profit on the machine (especially considering the lower costs of casual, standard-definition game development) and released a huge number of titles.

It's also strange you mention Samsung having deep pockets when MS have deeper pockets than both Sony and Samsung. By that line of logic they should have destroyed Sony with their deep pockets. As it is, they're competing on equal ground and have similar third party support.

As for the 83 crash, it occured because of cheap, unlicensed "clone" titles from anyone that had the ability to produce a crap title (effectively garage developers). Nintendo introduced the licensing model which has survived until today for retail games. The console industry will not see another crash of this nature as that licensing model is still very much intact.

If a crash comes it's more likely to occur in the currently growing mobile market (and I'm a strong proponent of mobile gaming). The app store model is far closer to the state of vide gaming in the 80s with a few major hits and a slew of clone titles from lesser known developers.