Except for the fact that the context of what you said doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about that statement.  And the argument of "environment of exclusivity" is also wrong given that Nintendo's recent meeting pretty much outright told us they were considering using non-Nintendo hardware for games.  Maybe not fully, but you seriously cannot expect that from any of the big 3.  

Also, saying nothing is 100% accurate is just a scapegoat for you.  "100% accuracy" here refers to things regarded as truths in history, and since there's little to no other interpretation of these historical facts that counter your absolute statements, I can pretty much say with "100% accuracy" that you're wrong.

You're saying I'm being picky but I'm actually not at all.  I pointed out MANY things in your OP that were wrong.  I actually could have picked out a LOT more if I were trying to be picky.  In reality, you're just deluded, not us.

No, Nintendo setting the groundwork for TRUE 3D gaming with Super Mario 64 is a fact. Even several generations later, there are still big budget 3D action and platformer games that to this day struggle to have the quality of controls, physics, camera, level design, and game balance that Mario 64 had.

Sonic Adventure, while seemingly neat (with flashy graphcis) for it's time at DC launch, only paved the way for even more unbalanced, far shittier 3D Sonic attempts in the future. Sonic Adventure was a decent game, but to suggest that it "mastered 3D movement" at all, let alone infer that it did so better than Mario 64, is I'm sorry to say, highly laughable. Sonic has quite simply NEVER worked out very well in 3D. Mario 64 alone was an open, free-form, fully functional 3D world game. Most of Sonic Adventure basically felt like "on-rails" stages, something they've done ever since, and there were many parts where the physics, camera, etc., were straight up broken. It only got worse with SA2 onward. I am not debating Mario vs. Sonic. I am merely pointing out the actual features of both games. The only people on earth who are going to claim that SA is a better game than Mario 64, are massive long-time Sonic fans. And even then, even if you DO personally like Sonic games better than Mario games, which is perfectly fine, I am sure many Sonic fans would likely still concede that Mario 64 was all around the better made game.

And regardless, there was certainly nothing "cheap" about it. Your proclimations that Nintendo, their hardware, and what's more, their GAMES, are "cheap", are also highly suspect. If you are just not a big fan of Nintendo games, come out and say so. But to try and make their games, which even from people who are not big Nintendo fans, are usually regarded highly, seem "cheaply made", or that somehow their design or appeal or gameplay is "cheap", is just pointless. And what's more, you state right in this particular post that you have "played a few Nintendo games".....how much is a few? 3? 4? 7? Your wording insenuates (perhaps by accident) that you actually haven't played all that many Nintendo games at all. And IF that is the case, then your raging criticisms of their games and approach to gaming, doesn't honestly hold a whole lot of merit, does it? I am not a fan of Xbox exclusive franchises, but I would never waste my time or make myself look foolish by starting a huge thread post about how I think Microsoft sucks, and why their games are garbage, EVEN though I have very little experience actually playing their games. It's just not worth the time, nor is it terribly wise.

For what it's worth, Hudson Soft developed 3 Mario games on several Japanese home computers, between 1984 and 1986 (Famicom was released in 1983 in Japan, NES in 1985 in NA, and a year later in EU). The games were Punch Ball Mario Bros, Mario Bros Special, and Super Mario Bros Special. I was going to post a link to an article about them, but there's a link to the roms in there, so I don't think I can...

And since someone already pointed out the Zelda CD-I games, I might as well point out Hotel Mario here. And never speak about them, ever again...

I still don't see any logic behind criticising exclusivity anyway, and I don't understand how said notion doesn't apply to Microsoft and Sony too, but whatever...

I thought you were done "trying" with this thread? It seems you can't resist to drop the argument.

@seiya19; Those Hudson Soft games are also on the Super Mario Wiki (thanks, didn't know about those):

Punch Ball Mario Bros.
Mario Bros. Special
Super Mario Bros. Special

Also, I agree with your post.

Oh, I didn't know about that wiki... Anyway, glad to be of service ^_^ . And thanks for posting the links.

Sure it is relevant. Finally I have examples that I can at least half-count. Although they are not made by Nintendo, they are not just educational software but true videogames. Thanks for your input.

Given the release dates, we can perceive it was in times when Nintendo was about to start the console business. Any games from the 90s onwards produced by Nintendo and launched on the PC or other consoles? If so, then the OP is wrong and I must correct it. If not, then the OP is just fine since it doesn't say that Nintendo has never launched games on other systems, just that they have engaged into such a strategy (at some point).

The logic about criticising Nintendo's exclusivity is not simple but it is explained in the OP. Exclusivity alone would not be that much of a problem but it is part of something bigger. Nintendo has created an integrated and long-term strategy based on exclusivity and elitism to inflate the perceived value of their games:

"As mentioned earlier, Nintendo has always tried to keep the perceived value of their products as high as possible. That could only have been done with a solid and long-term strategy based on exclusivity and elitism. Not letting any of their games to be launched out of their consoles (not even on PC) was a way to tell the consumer that, no matter what, Nintendo games will ever only be played on Nintendo consoles. Not dropping their price (even when pure supply/demand logic would demand it) was a way to tell that a Mario game is worth 50€, today and tomorrow.

This strategy could make them lose some potential sales in the short-term but it was a clever long-term arm-wrestling against gamers. It’s not easy to blackmail the market without a monopoly but Nintendo has always tried really hard to do so. And the most scary thing was that the more control they had over the market, the more control they tried to further get.

When NES had around 90% of market share, Nintendo implemented what they called “inventory management”, which consisted of limiting the amount of software units available at sale in order to keep high demand for games and thus put customers on a short leash. Gamers would buy what Nintendo wanted and at the price they wanted, once customers were concerned about which games were available rather than how much they would have to spend. Being able to buy a Nintendo game was a gift by itself. By design, Nintendo would not fill all of the retailers' orders and kept half or more of its library of games inactive and unavailable. In 1988, for instance, 33 million NES cartridges were sold, but market surveys indicated that upwards of 45 million could have been sold. This was a great attempt to get ultimate control over supply and demand."

This doesn't apply to Microsoft or Sony because they haven't followed this strategy at all. It's pointless to talk about Microsoft on this subject since they also have Windows on PC, but Sony has been releasing many titles outside of the PlayStation ecosystem. Also, they drop the price of their games and have never created such policies as the Nintendo's "inventory management". Sony has been very far from this inflation strategy and PlayStation Now is another proof of that.

You are again circling around the issue instead of going right to the point. You are yet to prove that this part of the OP is a lie:

"Not letting any of their games to be launched out of their consoles (not even on PC) was a way to tell the consumer that, no matter what, Nintendo games will ever only be played on Nintendo consoles."

The argument continues to be valid even with the examples of seiya19 and S.Peelman, which haven't "saved" you at all.

Your attempts to marginalize me show your deep anger. I don't want to debate with someone on that mood. You're not seeking reason, I will get nothing from you.

You say I am circling the issue rather than going right to the point.  However, we have already showed the evidence that Nintendo has let two of their franchises release on PC (a separate system) and they have even said in their recent meeting that they were open to using their IP's on smart phones, even maybe for games.  http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/140130/03.html Here is a place to go as proof.