Have you played BF4 on floodzone?  It doesn't just look like the map is flooded, the water level rises changing the flow of battle and real waves shift the height of vehicles and people dynamically.

If Sony went third party I would be fine with that because a great game is a great game.  However I would want them to keep making their consoles as well because their consoles are actually good.  

A game is a game.  A console is a console.  

The fact that a game of the same genre is selling better in another platform (and this is extremely cherrypicked, UK first week only) doesn't guarantee that the least selling game would sell better in the other platform.

Unlike most Sega franchises Virtua Fighter has been constantly great, even after Sega went third party. Tekken has been selling ~4M per entry until recently, so there's an audience in Sony/MS consoles for 3D fighters. Yet the best selling Virtua Fighter game is... Virtua Fighter 2 for the Sega Saturn.

Nintendo consoles are distinctly unique from the corporate twins.

Two consoles that similar aren't needed. The only needlessly divide gamers.

Imagine if the competition was between Nintendo's ond school style of consoles, versus, say... only the PS4. Gaming would be interesting again.

We can both agree that Microsoft joined the console race souly to leech off of Sony's market share whereas Nintendo expanded gaming by making it good (NES) and casual (Wii), and Sony expanded it by bringing gaming to adults (PS1, PS2).  Yes I think Microsoft should stick to PC.

But don't act like Mario wouldn't work just as well on other consoles (Mario Games on Wii U use a standard controller).

I actually think they're both awful for the video game market, running their gaming divisions at a massive loss puts off other companies from getting into the industry and leaves us consumers stuck with a duopoly. In this position they've been able to fleece the consumer with pay for online, DLC and pay to play practices on full priced games and consumers haven't had a viable alternative to turn to. 

But I don't care about Sony or Microsoft. I'm more just interested in why people are so against Nintendo going third party. And I'll post this again because people seem incapable of reading my posts, I'm not advocating going third party. I just want to know why people are against the idea. For me it's the more innovative control methods Nintendo consoles have.

They're powerful enough to provide great games, and that's what matters to me. As for online, I consider that second only to achievements/trophies in terms of the most overrated aspects of gaming.

Nintendo doesn't need to go third party any way. They're not broke (or anywhere close) like Sega was and they don't have a ton of debt like Sony does (in fact they have zero long term debt).

What they need is for the Japanese management to be slapped upside the head (Iwata included) and for competent Western management to be installed immediately to assist in rejuvenating the company.  

That and they may need to seek out a hardware partnership with another party such as Apple, Google, Samsung, or perhaps a content alliance such as one with Disney.

Then they can compete with anyone.

The only people about to go bankrupt is Sony & Microsoft. So why are people afraid of them going 3rd party, since the Wii U sells more during the same week compare to the PS4 & ONE. (if you exclude the Launch week, LOL)

I like you and your notion original poster! I want Nintendo to be third party because they make a lot of great software, but the hardware is lacking since the N64.