He doesn't seem to have an issue with what I said. In fact he concured. Theres historical accuracy to what I was saying. 

yes yes.  And how many people do you think took offense to what you said?  It doesnt change what I said, you do this all the time.  First comment on your wall for example is about console wars to where you go on a rant about MSFT's failures which wasn't even the topic at hand btw.

Im sure ive derailed this thread enough.  

TO be a little on topic

@Op  I disagree.  While yes some of the things you said are factual you have predictions as well.  Maybe they will be correct and maybe they wont be but nothing can be a 100% until it actually happens.

None the less i respect you making a calm thread for mostly rational discussion.

Wait, wait...what I said when I first came into the thread had nothing to do with a console war. Absolutely nothing, man. I was saying that strong third party support is one of the things one will need to stay in the running. This is something Sony and Microsoft have comfortably opposed to Nintendo unless they have another casual market blowout where they expand the market, but as I've been seeing the market this gen is going to shrink. Even Nintendo admitted Sony and Microsofts launches will revitalize the market.

OP's point is essentially," screw the natural order of how things are seemingly going to go this gen and just play the games.". Its not about whether people agree with him 100% or not. This is actually the first gen in a while where I've contemplated getting all three consoles and I will happen. The competition is fierce, but the way its going to end is looking wholly predictable already. Of course as Sony proved this gen, no one knows until the end.

Yeah, if Sony or Microsoft were actually running a network structure and not a peer-to-peer one. There's nothing they're doing that Nintendo's not doing. You're paying *them* to use *your* online to play with others. Sounds like slavery to me.

That's funny, you don't need to pay extra $$$ to play a lot of games online with Steam. You also didn't need to do so with PSN on PS3, which was most certainly a "network infrastructure" as you call it. The argument really doesn't hold water, and Sony seemed to be doing just fine having free online last gen. And while Nintendo may not an XBL type of system, the Wii U has it's friend structure and new Miiverse functions, the latter of which I'm sure costs at least some money to operate. However, even if Nintendo DID have a more elaborate "network infrastructure", I think they just might not charge people for online gaming, because no matter how people like you try to rationalize it because "your company", IE the company you're obviously a fan of, is doing it, it's still a fucking ripoff.

No, network costs don't "come on the disk you buy", but the online modes that the developer programmed into the fucking game sure as hell do. And getting bent over and told to take it is getting bent over and told to take it, no matter how you try to justfy it, it is what it is. And that is precisely what paying $70 for a PS4 game, and then having to pay a manditory monthy PSN fee JUST to play that game online, is.

Playstation 4 is going to have the superior 1st party Exclusives. I'm sorry but Fable has gradually went downhill to absolute manure. Halo is still great but a former shell of what it once was with Bungie. Rare and its IP's have been well and truly raped and buried. Microsoft yet again will prove they have a lackluster array of 1st party games.

I do hope Ninty doesn't get greedy as MS and Sony and keep the online free... maybe that put PSN normal as okay to use for MP (even tough I don't use it...) keep PS+ just for the special content that are great...

Theres no real demand on Nintendo products for them to do it. If Nintendo makes their games even more online friendly  the demand will come. Nintendo has conditioned Nintendo gamers to play on the couch with the family rather than to play online. They would have to reverse a thirty year old process they've basically perfected. That and they need to fix their issues with third parties in a major way so those top third party online games can be on the Wii U.

Most steam games are peer to peer, with some using content servers or dedicated servers, but we are talking consoles here.

Both Microsoft and Sony are running coherant connectable network infrastructures ranging from content management to profile storage / cloud storage and for games that warrant it, dedicated login or game servers, Nintendos approach is simply to issue friend codes and bounce you to the person you want to play with via relay, Nintendo has no tangible accounts system, when connected to the internet you are just a hardware id, thus if you switch machines for any reason you start over.

Saying the two are the same shows a complete lack of any workable knowledge of the network systems in place.

Valve doesn't own/operate/pay for the entire Steam network either. :)
Internet providers all around the world host Steam content and Games Servers near their content delivery networks which not only improves throughput, but saves the internet provider a ton of money by having that data near-by. (It's vastly cheaper to transfer data a couple hundred kilometers, rather than half way across the planet/continent.)