To add to that, if Nintendo software isn't powerful enough to sustain or support a home console, it's not exactly going to be a monumental shift for whoever got those franchises.

Fact of the matter is Nintendo software isn't as powerful on home consoles as people think it is. Look at Gamecube. It sold on Wii because it was the WII.

And once again the software is selling poorly.

There is a very dedicated fanbase for Nintendo software, but on home consoles it is not big.

Nintendo franchises aren't powerful enough on their own, but when paired with full third party support and Halo and/or Uncharted and company -- I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think that's a difference maker. 

Zelda + Halo + Mario + Titanfall + Mario Kart + Forza + Killer Instinct + Smash Bros. + every major third party dev + dudebros audience + NFL jock audience ... for example ... Sony would lose in this scenario, no matter all the good things they do with the PS4 ... they can't counter that. 

Nintendo can still move hardware (see 3DS which even with a slow start is selling faster than either the PS3 or 360 did), but asking people to buy a console ONLY for the 4-5 big Nintendo games a year is tough, because the PS/XBox have all the third party support. Even the scales, and it's a different story. 

People like Nintendo games, everyone grew up on Mario, it's just not everyone wants to pay $300 just to play Mario games. 

You raise some valid points.

Still I don't think it'll ever get to this. Sony's handheld division will be dead by the time it did and if Nintendo had any sense they would go where the money is. MS has it and they're the type to offer it. Afterall they did try to buy Nintendo once.

And, if we follow the idea that Nintendo abandoned the home console market after a couple of flops, it would likely mean a general decline in revenue for their IPs across the board.  That means less leverage.  In addition to that, the moment Nintendo stops making their own home consoles, all their IP would see a further decline.  A Nintendo box means a protected and favorable environment with a constant stream of up-front advertisement.  That route would be gone and Nintendo would have to sell their games like everyone else, via traditional methods.  They would also be in direct competition with all the other big publishers without a home field advantage.  No, they wouldn't tumble like Sega, but they also wouldn't be the same Nintendo they are now--else they'd still be in the home console market.

So some people would rather have Ninty series just straight up die rather than see it on another machine?! that sounds smart

to be fair, the Sega comparisons are not really the same and are wrong. Sega messed up LONG before they got out the console buisness. Ninty never got and i imagine most likely never will get that bad.

I think we have ask ourselves if Sony even would want Nintendo on their platforms. Why you ask? Well, they DO have some franchises that's pretty similar - and those franchises might take a hit if they were to face Nintendo’s IP head on.

But I'm pretty sure that IF Nintendo would go 3rd party they'd stay exclusive to just one console, and that's because Nintendo likes to do quality games and that in turn means sticking to ONE console.

I also think they'd just go all out on their handhelds instead of going 3rd party on another console.

Gotta stop you there. It did not "sell on Wii because it was on Wii", no, no, no. Games like Mario Kart Wii and NSMBWii *sold* Wiis. The immense hype machine behind Brawl also helped push the platform, albeit in a lesser way (this is discounting all of the "Expanded Audience" games as a wii-unique phenomenon), as did Galaxy 1. Console Zelda is smallish compared to other killer app franchises but given that there are no substitutes for the game, it too has a console-selling ability that is not to be underestimated.

Nintendo makes console killer apps that the competition *prays* they could make. Sony and Microsoft really only have one apiece that could go toe-to-toe with Nintendo's killer apps: Gran Turismo for Sony and Halo for Microsoft.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I get where you're coming from and you're right to a degree, but I look at past Nintendo systems and Wii and think if it wasn't for the wii's concept that software would not have sold whatever else Nintendo came out with. There was massive hype for Wii before and at launch, without any of those ninty franchises.

NInty DO have some enviable franchises, simply based on their legacy alone. But I find it hard to believe MS and Sony prayed for them during the Gamecube era. Will this gen be any different to that?

I think both prayed they could have the Wii effect more than those Nintendo franchises.

Never say never. Big Nintendo fan that i am, long-term talent cultivation is a big unknown in the game's industry: Nintendo themselves are led by largely the same people that have led them from the early 80s, but these guys have to retire and/or die in time: Yokoi and Yamauchi are already gone. No single entity in the game industry has managed to survive and retain relevance as long as Nintendo, such that they are still recognizable as the same company they once were. Square Enix is really the closest comparison, where folks like Nomura and Horii. In western game companies, talent is very fluid and development houses appear and disappear pretty rapidly (Rockstar's managed to hang around for about a decade with good stability, but then look at iD or EA. On the Japanese side, look at Capcom, Nintendo sold Rare because they saw talent flight coming in a big way, and even Retro Studios is almost unrecognizable from the studio that made Metroid Prime).

The only business out there that you can look at to see what the future holds for Nintendo might be Disney, a movie distributor who is also a strong in-house producer and has had to build and retain talent for generations. It remains to be seen if Nintendo's up to the task (although one sees a lot of new faces in the Iwata Asks segments, and Nintendo's not stupid).