I agree with this, for the most part.

"Back in the day (8 and 16-bit eras), there was really no “typical” Nintendo fan."

That's the core of the article, in my opinion.  Back then, everyone played on Nintendo and they bought all kinds of games.  It was Nintendo's decision to go with a cartridge system that resulted in almost all the "general gamer" fans leaving.  What remained was a concentrated core of Nintendo-centric gamers who valued anything Nintendo above anything non-Nintendo.  People who liked almost every other style, type, and genre went elsewhere.  It was a Nintendo decision that caused this migration, which they will eternally be responsible for.  I know this because I was a Nintendo gamer through the NES and SNES but I was more a fan of third-party games; I resisted at first but I had no choice but to jump ship eventually.

The thing is, even if you can say certain people have a narrow range of taste, I still can't really blame them for that.  That's who they are.  Now, if they're just buying something because it has a Nintendo label stuck on it, yeah, that's lame, but it's not quite the same thing as buying Nintendo because you really like platformers or the Nintendo style.  I'm sure there are Sony and Microsoft gamers who act the same way, it's just that they are vastly overshadowed by the large amount of gamers on those systems who are fans of a wide variety of gaming options.

Basically, it's Nintendo's problem.  They've failed to win back fans of third-party games.  Are they in a very difficult position trying to do so against Sony and Microsoft, who go all-out for third-party publishers and developers?  Yes, certainly.  However, the original break stems from Nintendo's own actions, so it's ultimately Nintendo's responsibility.

@Soundwave:

I agree with both your post.

I will add that recently Nintendo is also to blame, not just fanboys. By sticking to their outdated policies with home consoles. They got lucky with the wii but lacked the intelligence to capitalise on it. They insistence on thinking only of themselves when it comes to hardware has massively backfired. Now they are pretty much a laughing stock in home console gaming.

Their recent policy of putting out consoles a generation behind the competition doesn't give developers much confidence when they want to show off their skills by making games look as good and complex as possible.

In this generation power matters but Nintendo couldn't see it and many fanboys can't either. OK, fanboys may still not buy third-party games as was the case with the GC but at the very least give yourself a chance by making the console graphically competitive.

Batman and Assasins Creed are good examples of why not to put games on the Wii U.

@Mythmaker1
Totally agree as well.

So basically only fanboys are allowed to buy new consoles... Good to know

Every console has it's fanboys.

"Key features" is the weasel word here, which different fanbases will interpret very differently.

...what the hell is your point? 

I agree, the problem with Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are it's fanboys. They agree with everything the company does even if it's bad for gamers because they're fighting this stupid console war against the companies they don't favor.

When the PS3 came out it was horrible for gaming (Terrible price point, no games) the sony fanboys defended it while sony fans, nintendo fans and microsoft fans condemned it causing sony to create the PS4 which has been exactly what gamers want and need while coming in at a $399 price point.

When the XboxOne was going to have DRM, Microsoft fanboys defended it, while Microsoft fans, Sony fans, Nintendo fans came out and demanded DRM be changed and explained to Microsoft that they would boycott their console if they didn't change and this caused Microsoft to change their tune.

Now currently the Nintendo Wii U is struggling to offer us gamers value and Nintendo fanboys are defending the company/console tooth and nail for this pointless console war while Nintendo fans, Sony fans, Microsoft fans are speaking up for gamers to make Nintendo change and offer us what we want.

P.S there's a difference between being a fan of a company and a fanboy, fanboys defend their company even if their company is doing something bad for gamers while fans criticize their favorite company when they are doing a bad job for gamers.

Shokio is a huge fan of nintendo and even he has come out and said Nintendo needs change and if you find yourself disagreeing with shokio and still saying Nintendo is doing everything right and feel nintendos criticsm is because of "Industry bias" chances are you're a fanboy and you're the reason nintendo is struggling and not changing for us gamers. 

I personally think that Pachter is partly right. I don't own a Wii-U (and would most likely only buy Nintendo games for it but just because there are no good 3rd games available that can compete quality-wise) but I bought more than 60 games on former Nintendo consoles. And almost all of them were made or published by Nintendo.

The reason is just that Nintendo's own games are too good (which can easily confirmed by metacritic reviews), so 3rd party developers have a very hard time to compete in quality. Why buy a bad 3rd party game when you can buy a better Nintendo game instead.

Gameboy: None of my 20 (or so) games were made by a third party company, since all Square and Enix JRPGs were published by Nintendo.
SNES: None of my 20 (or so) games were made by a third party company, since all Square and Enix JRPGs were published by Nintendo.
N64: only two of my 15 (or so) games were made by a third party company (Turok 2 and Turok Rage Wars).
Gamecube: one of my 10 (or so) games was made by a third party company (Soul Calibur 2).
3DS: None of my 2 games was made by a third party company.
Dreamcast: 2 of my 10 (or so) games was made by a third party company (Soul Calibur and Metropolis Street Racer).

PS2: All of my 10 (or so) games were 3rd party because Sony's 1st party games cannot compete quality-wise, look at Knack as a recent example. There really is a huge quality gap between Wild Arms and Zelda and between Crash Bandicoot and Super Mario.

Since I like JRPGs, I bought a lot of 3rd party games on my PS2, since the PS2 has no good 1st and 2nd party games all, at least none that could compete in quality with Nintendo's best games.

The problem was just that Nintendo games were of a much higher quality, so why buy 3rd party crap? On Sony's consoles you have no choice because Sony does not make any Nintendo-quality games that I could like.

On the other hand, if there are no good 3rd party games to buy, you will not be able buy them. If there had been good 3rd party JRPG titles on N64, Gamecube or Dreamcast, I would wave definitely bought them.

So I read the entire thing and I agree. While there are Nintendo fans who do purchase third party, I've said many times that Nintendo fans are the reason that their systems lose third party support.

A lot of Nintendo fans state that it's because Nintendo games are the best, etc, etc, and while that's entirely debatable, as the writer stated, how can Nintendo fans debate when they rarely ever play other games? It's kind of hard to say this game is better than that when you've never played one or the other.

I think that there are many games on Nintendo consoles that are better than current Nintendo first party games, as well, but I'm in the minority, just as the writer is I guess. Or I may be in the minority as I also play third party titles, and not just first party. The image he posted of the quote Michael Pachter made how "Nintendo fans will buy any box that has Nintendo on it," really couldn't ring any truer. As good as some of the games are, they're not all as good as Nintendo fans make them out to be. They'd see that if they've played more third party games. Even if it was through consoles that they already own.

In that case, no game is better than the Nintendo World Championships 1990 on the NES because it is the most expensive.