Yep, it's the Michael Pachter of European countries.

Why wouldn't they just call Wii U a gen 7.5 console and make it a very short cycle releasing Wii 2 in 2015, with better specs than PS4 at a lower price? Why would you go third party only temporarily?

Even though I don't by Nintendo home consoles I would hate for them to go out of the home console hardware business, just like I thought it was a sad day that Sega went out of hardware but I never bought a Sega console.

I'll always want Playstation to have a strong generation. And I might uncharitably snigger at Nintendo (or MS) if it's are struggling. But really Nintendo being in the hardware game is much better than them not being in the hardware game.

I actually can't understand why some people salivate at the prospect of a console maker going out of business. Even with Microsoft I'm ambivalent about them staying in consoles, rather than hoping for Xbox's total demise. I don't say prayers to the console gods for Xbox to crumble and disappear. Actually what I'd prefer is for MS to sell Xbox to a third party. That way I could actually see myself possibly buying Xbox in a future generation; though not if they sold it to Apple.

I don't know why people are so opposed to this. It seems like a financially responsible option.
You make money on the games, not the consoles. No one can dispute that Nintendo titles would sell more on multiple platforms. And why would the quality of the games suffer? The devs are the same and they are able to work with even stronger hardware.

The only thing against this direction is Nintendo's (and their fanboy's) pride.

They might as well put the older WiiU games that never sold well on ps4 and x1. They'll make some money from it.

How exactly would this boost consumer confidence? If they were only appearing for the rest of the generation, then they would be burning both current Wii U owners and the new fans they'd be gaining on the other consoles once the next Nintendo console was released. On top of that, what would the motivation be to purchase future consoles, if they'd already produced games for competitor's systems in the past?

Not to jump on the Anti-Pachter bandwagon, but I honestly think this guy needs to reassess what he's saying sometimes. I feel like he just makes silly candid comments without really thinking them through.

Except it's not. Nintendo is built like a company that produces and makes games for one set of systems. If they were to go third party they'd have to make massive changes to the way they do business and their infrastructure. This chart shows Sega's woes. In 2004 Sammy bought majority stock in Sega.

All these different branches and studios...

EAD
SPD
IRD
SDD
NST
NTD
NERD
NSD

1-UP Studio
Creatures Inc.
Monolith Soft
Nd Cube
Retro Studios
Game Freak

create games exclusively for Nintendo systems. All of these studios would have to expand and learn to create for PS4, Vita, Xbox One, PC, MAC, iOS, and Android. That's not financially responsible and, like Sega, would set them back years. Like Sega, Nintendo will only go 3rd party as a necessity.

Patcher will never stop.

do people want a console with that short of a life cycle? im thinking no

Nintendo is not Sega. It has enough original IPs to carry the business whereas Sega has nothing. Sega was an incompetent company when it was having hardware as well.

Those Studios you mentioned wouldn't have to "expand" if they built their games on other consoles from the start. Nintendo's money is not special. They will get that from other companies as well.

And that whole bullcrap about "Nintendo games are tailored to special hardware". No it is not. It's just hardware. Stop pretending Nintendo's hardware is made of fairy dust. I have yet to see a Nintendo exclusive that wouldn't be as enjoyable on different hardware.

Nintendo has to start somewhere. They can't just snap their fingers and have the ability to create for a plethora of new hardware and operating systems. Nintendo employs over 5,000 people to manage two systems. Even more employees would be needed to keep titles coming at a sufficent rate on numerous different platforms. The 5,000 current employees would have to learn new systems. Porting is not as simple as copy and pasting.

This isn't about a Nintendo title being enjoyable on another system, it's about it being financially beneficial for Nintendo to do so, and it wouldn't be. Investors would leave and stocks would plummet. Money would be burned expanding as needed. Less money would be made because games would be coming out more slowly.

Sega was much smaller than Nintendo, even combined with Sammy they have but 2,000 more employees than Nintendo. Sega was in ruin until Sammy, who already had 3rd party infrastructure in place, came in to help. Nintendo being a larger company and having more IPs to take care of makes it more difficult, not easier. Unless Nintendo buys another company they'd have a difficult time transitiong.

Conceivably, years down the road, Nintendo would be making a profit. But just because it's conceivable doesn't mean it's guaranteed.