Why they would have to engage into large investments? Why are you saying that my words imply they would save money or time with such a console?

I'm only saying that unlimited hardware capabilities give total freedom to software development. It can be cheap, it can be expensive. It can be low-res, it can be HD. It can be low detailed, it can be highly detailed. It can be superficial, it can be deep. It can be whatever devs want. FREEDOM. Is that hard to understand?

I am going to take piece by piece and reply to each point

1.1. What Nintendo does with your dollar

Your philosophy on the game industry business is a generally bad idea. It promotes stagnancy by keeping profits low. While "$1 in = $1 out" seems like a good concept, if you cannot sustain the $1 in part, you are already close to debt. It makes that 1 flop is even more dangerous. Lots of "debt to gamers" as you put it shows health in a gaming company.  The industry doesn't grow vertically then. The danger of a flop puts the company also in a less risky mood that less creative works get created and they don't need to make the next big thing. Instead of the industry growing exponentially, it grows at a steady slope or not at all. There would be more derivative series and less Wonderful 101 or Beyond: Two Souls or Xenoblades. 

1.2. How Nintendo has evolved along the time

I don't get why this particularly bad especially with the previous section. maybe you think that Games should be become more like movie. Is realism innovation or is that merely going with the trends. And is it objectively better. The crux of how this is bad is that Nintendo is not following the industry trends. Moving the industry forward is making your own trends. Assuming that Modnation Racers or Spore advanced the industry forward isn't accurate. They advanced the industry in a tangental direction or we would see track editors in most racing game or there would be more games like Spore. However, I don't think you are completely wrong but they still evolve in some ways.

1.3. What Nintendo is willing to offer

The problem with this is that too many games drop in price too fast and game sales are too front loaded for most non Nintendo games. The high value of Nintendo games acts as an insurance as you can resell the game for close to the original value or if you waited a couple months down the line, you wouldn't get a better deal. With most other games, in order to get you to buy the game on day one, they throw in a day-one DLC or preodrer bonuses and tack on a multiplayer since that's when the community would be largest. These kind of practices we dislike as gamers. As for the lower cost games, we have seen that a lot in the past 2 generations ie pack in Wiimote with Wii Play as the biggest example and their downloadable offerings. they offered NSLU as a standalone $30. They don't offer their main games at lower prices because of the value they percieve themselves. they percieve Super Mario 3D World as at least the value of Uncharted or Last of Us. While i agree they should lower their prices quicker for their big games (perhaps like the Nintendo Selects), behaving like the rest of the industry who have little respect for their initial customers is not the way to go.

1.4. Nintendo’s policies towards gamers

The first example is telling of Nintendo's horrible past but isn't really indicative of modern Nintendo. The second example is while bad, is more indicative of their fear of piracy than control of the consumer. And Nintendo only really divides releases into 3 or 4 main regions for physical. If you are from say Latin America, you can import all your games from America since it should work on your system. The eShop's lack of presence in several countries is an issue though. The  more worrying problem is that Nintendo in its policies towards gamers is that nintendo is causing issues with fan community particularly the video making ones. Regardless of one's opinion of Youtubers, they use Youtube to work at the thing they enjoy. And then, they almost canceled EVO last year because of Melee. They need to promote the Youtube community better since its a very valuable one now that people trust them more than actual journalists.

i think I'll tackle the 2nd topic later

I'm open to debate but that doesn't mean I have to blindly accept what you say. I have counter-argued everything that I disagreed with.

But if you think that way, maybe we shouldn't discuss anymore. As you may have noticed, I have been spending a lot of time building all these arguments on my replies. If you don't see them, why the effort? Then, let's just stop.

Though I'm all "debated out" from that locked thread awhile back, there are some points I have some serious contentions with, lol...

However, I voted that we need more people like Nintendo anyway. Companies are much like people, none of them are perfect. We can point at any company and sit there finding things they do wrong, or flaws they have, etc. etc. But at the end of the day, it's what the company does right that leaves its mark on the industry, and with the release of games like SM3DW and DKC:TF (and obviously prior and future games), Nintendo continues to bring a unique flavor and wholly different identity than Sony/MS, and that is sorely needed in the videogame industry right now more than focusing on how much Nintendo saves money (which is something I would love to debate with you about, as anyone knows that investing the money you get the moment you get it is a fantastic way to put yourself in debt since ROI is never a guarantee, and is more often NOT).

Most people don't care about how negative your findings (or opinions) are about Nintendo, they just want you to realize how awful your methodology is.

It's obvious by now that you think you are being perfectly objective (Just like the Guinness Book) and nothing will change your mind.

And again, you can't compare an essay to the fucking Guinness Book! Damn, lol.

Im out, peace.

I was replying to more to the OP, but when I hit reply, VGChartz crashed (it seems), and I lost all of my reply so I will no longer reply to the OP as I don't feel like going through it over again.

The overall thing I wanted to say is that your post is filled with things that are either not true, are biased, cherry-picked data, or simply opinions stated as facts. So this isn't about whether I support Nintendo or not, it's about how poorly researched OP is.

Cheap? Nintendo mastered the 3D movement with Mario 64. Non-linear story telling? Animations based gameplay? You mean press X to win?

 Did you ever play Mario Galaxy? DKCR? Smash? Mario Kart? Xenoblade? Zelda? Banjo? Fzero? star fox? I guess not since you said they only invest in cheap gameplay... Open world, simulated physics and advanced graphics does not equal better games. Could Nintendo take advantage of  that? Most likely, however it is amazing how making games with symple (I am calling it cheap, since you are really afraid to say what you think) gameplay they manage to outsell the competition by several million units... 

Look up the contract bit, its on wikipedia, I remember reading it ages ago.  Something about weird fine print being added that gave them power over Nintendo's licenses.  

So what, they are just supposed to keep using the PC standard even when it will make a game console outrageously expensive?  Here's another standard which you may have forgotten.  200-300 dollars.  That is how much game consoles cost back in the N64 and earlier eras.  Why should they go higher when it will break the price point that's been maintained for so long.  It's Sony and Microsoft that went over.  

Why do you need evidence that the gamepad is easy to program for.  Controls aren't exactly the hard part of designing a game.  Pretty much every third party that released on the Wii U added a few gamepad features then released it as a Wii U exclusive with a new subtitle.  Batman and Deus Ex being prime examples.  Developers couldn't ask for an easier method of making a game have exclusive content.  

If you want to define the norm, how about any game which does something risky that you might see in the indy market, but created as a core franchise.  Examples would be Boom Blox or Zack and Wiki: Quest for Barbados Treasure.  Those would have never been core titles on the PS3, they were only made possible because of Nintendo's open minded audience.  

And yes Sony audience is closed minded.  You've more than once categorized cartoony graphics as being less worthy than hyper realistic graphics.  You have spent an absurd amount of time trying to shoot down a console brand which is beloved by its players and for what reason?  Because they don't share your values?  Nintendo may be somewhat shitty to third parties, but to the consumers they are the most moral group in the entire gaming industry.  

People are entitled to their own opinion and to freely debate in here. If some of them think that Nintendo's attitude is so bad that they would never learn from their mistakes and therefore they should go out of the console business, that's fine. They are not harming anyone by expressing such an opinion. And, as long as it is backed up by arguments, it's a respectful position.

I'm not saying I agree with them, but I respect them. You may not understand their position and call them fanboys and claim they are not fans of videogames, but then I wonder how do you see those that after reading the OP (which factually describes a lot of bad things that Nintendo has been doing) voted that Nintendo doesn't need to change one bit. Are they fans of videogames? Don't you see them as "disgusting" users too? And they are twice as much. I wonder why your focus was on the few ones that wanted Nintendo to fail.

I believe we all have a common ground: we like videogames, we want this industry to thrive. But we have different views about how we get there. I respect them all, even the ones that think that Nintendo doesn't need to change one bit.

Regardless the opinion of each person, for those that only come here to vote, I naturally ignore their opinion. For those that come here to comment, to share arguments, views, additional facts, I see what they have to say and eventually reply to them. Those are the users that matter.

So, please, try to do the same and stop intimidating other users. A forum is a place for democracy, not for censorship.

In your view about Sony and Cell:

- Sony was perverse by designing a complex system that would make 3rd party development difficult.

- Sony was naive by thinking they could win without 3rd party support.

You implicitly call Sony perverse or naive as it is convinient to you. Doublestandard?

You have yet to reply to this:

"Then Eye Of Judgment, LittleBigPlanet and Flower are only refinements from what games? And what about Twisted Metal, EyePet and Singstar? I'm also curious to know which games are Heavy Rain, Destruction Derby and Getaway refinements from. And also MotorStorm, Knack and Killzone."

Exactly on the editor. Making a powerful editor and creating a game from it is a tremendous risk. First, such a powerful editor is a monster of uncontrolled quality. Second, creating a game from an editor that will be available to everybody is like working on a fully transparent building. Their effort and talent was totally exposed. Third, such a game is not cheap to create and it could have easily become a massive flop.

Graphic leaps don't count? Why? Cell was an innovation and a major risk.

But I tell you more. EyeToy was a risk. Blu-ray was a risk. PSP Go was a risk. PlayStation Now will be a major risk.

You want games? Eye Of Judgment was a risk. They've created an entire cards gaming ecosystem inside the PS3. LittleBigPlanet was a risk. Heavy Rain was a risk. A button-choice-based game could have turned into an anecdotic flop.

Let me know if you want some more.

You're not listening: the issue is not on the software, it's on the hardware dissemination. Imagine PS4+XOne selling 800M per year and smartphones selling 30M. How would be the software sales of each one? What would the the profits of the consoles' AAA games vs the 1-dollar apps?