This one is pretty bad compared to some of their other statements. The spin just makes me mad.

Yes, but when you say this about every single thing they ever said ever, it kind of takes away the impact of what you're trying to get across.

Of course, because kids don't play Battlefield or sports games...

I believe that regardless of what is said, it is important for Nintendo to work on developer relations. They must work with developers to align release dates, secure some funding, do co-operative marketing, and finding the right titles. I will use Activision as an example, games like Call of a Duty are not really a good choice to develop for Wii U due to lower sales potential caused by the system having a narrow demographics (the install base is too low and made of a very narrow demographic); but games like Skylanders have much better potential currently and so Nintendo and Activision should work with each other in order make the most of this franchise on the system. In this area, Nintenco has to put in a greater effort and devise a strategy with third-parties.

On the other hand, EA is losing an opportunity to cater to this younger demographic. I do not believe it is very healthy for EA to just target the older male demographic when they have the potential to do so much more. I would bet that if they put Plants Vs. Zombies on Wii U eShop and update the 3DS version then they would get reasonable sales and profits (yes the sales would generate them much less than what they make on mobile but it would still be pretty good).

Expecting Wii U Owners to buy Mass Effect 3 is like expecting someone to watch The Hobbit 3 when he hasn't watched the first two.

Third party publishers have just released so much shovelware on the Wii (U) that Wii (U) owners have become wary of buying their games. Third party publishers are also too afraid to compete with Nintendo games, so they don't put much effort in their games. It's a never ending viceous circle.

Why would a company care whether their money comes from little kids, teenagers or adults? It makes no sense. 

One of the many reasons I think you're the smartest poster on VGC. Nothing against Khan, just really like your observations.

(blushes). Yeah, probably. I don't know what it was early last year, something in the water or that terrible job i had, but i was more ornery than i've ever been.

This statement here, though. This just ain't right.

ESRB rate their games based on content, not some subjective level of sophistication or whatever. So that's what that word means to a lot of gamers. Don't worry, gamers don't think they're sophisticated when they play games rated Mature, they understands it just means how inappropriate the content is. But many people, yes, including kids and adults, like inappropriate content regardless of how sophisticated it has been presented. Maturity is an umbrella term, it can mean anything, and it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

The problem with maturity as an ideal, as something greater than, IMO, is that it allows influential people to impose or enforce their own ideas of how we should behave onto others, instead of allowing individuals to shape themselves. It's worrying to say the least. 

Nothing. Besides porting existing/new titles.. But why should they? When franchises like; Battlefield, FIFA, Crysis etc sell on other platforms and are making them money, what reason is there to support a console to a userbase that do not buy the games?

EA's recent offering are big AAA titles, sports, PC sims and mobile games. These are the type of software that do not fair well on Nintendo consoles. There isn't much they can do about it. The audience have already moved onto other platforms.

It doesn't have anything to do with how well their games compare to Nintendo.