No, most of it are facts and arguments based on facts. One thing that you and many other people are not getting is that the OP is a collection of facts gathered in a way that it passes a certain message. You may challenge the selection of the facts, you may challenge the way they are organized, you may even challenge the message (which is the end result of them all). But you cannot challenge them. They are facts. If you think otherwise, then please find in the whole OP one single paragraph that is not at least backed up by facts.

I have already accepted a lot of critics and different ways of thinking regarding the OP. But I will not accept what I find to be wrong.

No, I just don't want people to call opinions to facts or biased comments to neutral insights, and to do it on purpose just to unfairly protect their god company. I want an honest and transparent forum where people don't just say "you make silly arguments" or "you are a joke account". Instead, people are willing to openly debate what's on the table, giving arguments and backing them with evidences/facts, and put the truth ahead of any personal preference.

No one is trying to protect Nintendo.. Who is trying to protect them? Please point them out. Everyone is simply pointing out that your argument are not ALL FACTS as you say. 

You are not willingly open to debate that. To you, we are just trying to prtoect them. And you keep insulting us with your constant redirects to the OP like we're a bunch of idiots that don't understand it. It is full of opinions and twists and you keep denying it and when someone else brings up a valid point you say nonsense things like: "farmville is innovation".

It's like you only want to debate if it ends with us all agreeing cheerfully that Nintendo is the bigger evil of the 3. Completely disregarding what the other companies have done in the past that have harmed gamers.

I can see now, there is no debating with you. You are not open to anything but discontent towards nintendo.

Very well said-  I agree with you %100.  The question I have however, is WHY?  Surely Nintendo, Iwata and Co are not so incompetent that they could not see this coming well in advance of launch???  Why didn t they use some of their vast resources to do something about it? To bring in more games, ramp up their development studios, bring n select 3rd parties etc.   It si as if they wrote of the Wii U (at least from launch throuh the present) from the start.  

Nintnendo has not had any urgency re the Wii u -  So they are either writting the console off (while keeping it barely alve for its lifespan) or one day in the future they are going to step up and say they are ready to support the Wii U now and come out guns blazing-  but every day that goes by that they don t indicate tehy "are ready" makes me believe that much less it wil not happen and that they have essentially written off the Wii U and will just let it limp along for the next few years claiming htye supported it-       I really think they are goign to have a VERY hard time launching their next home console-  very few people n the market place wil trust them and many of their most die hard followers wait to the Nintendo consoles when specific gamess have been released, usually after the launch window or possibly 1, 2+years later

Yes Sony decided to make a huge leap forward in graphics which completely overshadowed what the 360 was doing by using unstable technology.  How could they possibly not realize it was gonna make development difficult.  All Sony was doing was trying to drown out the competition and create a monopoly but it backfired on them.   Sony created the graphics war by making that huge leap, then it became every Sony fanboys argument for everything, thus it became the selling point developers rode their games off on.  

You seem to think that anything with cartoony graphics aren't good graphics or expensive for that matter.  Sony does a little bit of everything, its Microsoft that only has two genres under its belt.  Of course if you make a new game, if its identical to anothers gameplay, it will get called out on it.  Making a variety of different games with innovative designs is basic for EVERY developer.  Tell me exactly where was the risk in Little Big Planet?  There was none, it covered a genre that Sony didn't have any games for yet....   That's all.  

Here's a rule for you to follow before you can claim Sony innovated.  Tell me what sort of risk was involved.  Sony never innovates in a way that actually risks anything.  The only place you can claim that they risked anything was with the Cell processor and the PS3.  However I won't even give you that because that was just a graphics leap...

Those developers are doing that because the console market sucks right now.  The iPhone isn't that much better but there isn't a risk that your entire department will be disolved if your game doesn't perform.  iPhone's may be everywhere but those games cost like a dollar and the market is flooded with them.  

And that's one area where your arguements breakdown.

Nintendo DOES NOT have $32b, their Total Asset is worth about $15b ($5.49b of which is cash and deposit), and they have a market cap of $17b. If they have $32b, there would be no way their market value is worth less than their Total Assets.

source: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2014/140129e.pdf

So, where did all those billions have gone? Nintendo mostly have gone and invested it into their core business, the Videogames Industry. Thus, Nintendo has actually been "contributing" a lot back to gamers, unlike what you claim in your OP. (Oh, and I dont think that $32.88b takes into account money infation, it may mean Ninty may have "given more" than what the numbers may say).

You say you presented facts, and you may have, but it looks you've mis-interpreted and distorted them.

Interesting read!

Long story short:

Those greedy, tyrannical bastards!1!!!1!!!!ONE!1!!!!

Actually, I believe I did. All those references you made about Nintendo's policies from the NES are not relevant anymore (aside the ones that are still standard practice), and comparing them to the PS2 era like you did in point 2.3 is being disingeneous. You're not making any clear distinction between the situation of the market at those different times, nor how Nintendo's practices have changed over the years. Putting everything on the same bag and trying to tie these elements together in order to prove some kind of attitude over the years is just misleading. As I said before, those decisions were made under different circumstances by different people.

All the examples I mentioned also go against the portray of Nintendo that you presented, like in point 2.2 for example, where you claim that "Actually, Sony and Microsoft enhanced it, providing good software development tools and eventually financing some projects if they were to be exclusives", to separate them from Nintendo. Following a different strategy/philosophy hardware-wise is not the same as ignoring developers needs, and many 3rd parties have actually benefited from said differences. You're presenting a false dichotomy here of everything or nothing, as if the only way to support them is to do everything they (the big publishers) allegedly ask, all while ignoring how Sony and Microsoft have also taken unilateral choices (CELL, Kinect, etc). If there's a group of developers or publishers that refuse to work with said technology, it's their choice, nothing more than that. And while Nintendo may or may not have holes regarding their support to 3rd parties in terms of development tools, it is undeniable that they have collaborated with 3rd parties in many other ways, which denotes intention. An intention that contradicts your narrative. 

As for your point about hardware specs bringing freedom, I would argue that we're at a time now where developers are far more limited by budget and time constraints than the hardware itself. If you check the lineup of PS3, 360 or even Wii, how many games do you see that take full advantage of the hardware ? How many developers have the time and resources to take advantage of said specs ? And last but not least, how much of said power is used to expand gameplay, and not just graphics ?  

What's the downside ? Well, for starters, said hardware costs more to both the consumer and the company, and it tends to be less reliable. Then, it incentivizes "AAA" developers to get into an arms race that prioritizes the use of said technology at all costs, no matter how creativity and profitability are impacted, in order to meet the expectations of a relatively small number of gamers in the market. You might not see this as an issue, but I do. I believe the technical side of gaming is there to serve the creative side, not as an end in itself. And that the priority should always be on the gameplay side, as it's the defining element that separates videogames from other art forms.

And finally, what's the point of consoles to exist if freedom is the ultimate goal ? PCs will always have the advantage here because of being an open platform that regularly updates itself, so why not support it instead ? Historically, the reason why consoles existed in the first place was to prioritize a pick-up and play philosophy over customization, power and complexity. To reach more consumers through affordable hardware and ease of use. And to have a controlled enviroment where every game complies with a set of standards, in order to assure uniformity and "quality control" (more than one meaning here...) among every unit. The fact is, the current direction Sony and Microsoft are going (and the one you're apparently supporting) goes directly against said values, which ends up putting the reason of said platforms to exist into question...

That's right, Cell was a bad move from Sony. It was a huge investment and there wasn't much of a return considering the small amount of titles that really took advantage of it. It was Sony being cocky and harming everybody (including themselves). If I was to write a "The truth about Sony", I would definitely include Cell in there.

However, there still is a huge difference between Sony's Cell and Nintendo's non-standard tech. Both tried to innovate on what wasn't their field of expertise, but while Sony was attempting to be cutting-edge making a huge investment in order to deliver a top-notch processor that would make the PS3 more powerful than any other console, Nintendo didn't try anything special at all, they just closed on themselves (like Apple always does).

I guess I don't need to tell you the differences between PC and consoles.

Gamers who prefer lower priced consoles can buy a PS3/X360 or even a PS2.

Wii has encouraged shovelware not only because it was less powerful. The way Nintendo has presented the console and the first games, with simpler mechanics, casual experiences, kindergarten environments, etc...that has positioned the console on a very fertile field for shovelware to flourish.

On the other hand, Sony/Microsoft have always positioned their consoles as for any experience, any environment, every gamer. They embrace both casual and hardcore, they provide means for both to thrive on their platforms (high specs for hardcore - PS Eye, Move, Kinect, Ilumni Room for casuals). They present AAA games, indie games, party games...anything. They do not encourage one specific segment over the others.

Shovelware is bad because not only their sales are "stolen" from the other games (people's money is limited) but also, in the long-term, people will not be convinced by the low quality delivered to them and will end up giving up from videogame consoles. Look at what happened to the Wii/WiiU.

Evidence, please?