Nintendo must meet consumers' expectations. When people buy Nintendo hardware, they don't do so to play ports of PC games (which nowadays is almost all of the major third party support that still exists). Getting such ports is not only a futile effort for Nintendo (because third parties will come up with excuses all the time), but designing such a system will incredibly compromise what consumers want from a Nintendo console.

Let's put it in other words:

1) The Nintendo-first consumer buys Nintendo hardware for Nintendo games and exclusive third party content. PC gaming is either of low to no value or done properly on the PC.

2) The multiconsole owner buys Nintendo hardware for Nintendo games and exclusive third party content. Multiplatform games are shunned, because third parties usually cut corners. As a result, the multiconsole owner buys multiplatform games for their non-Nintendo hardware.

That's how it is, people. What this means is that Nintendo doesn't need ports, because consumers don't want them (aside from a negligible minority). Note that this isn't the same as saying that consumers don't want third party content.

This in turn means that it's perfectly reasonable for Nintendo to design their system for their needs. This also means that potentially successful Nintendo hardware will not be anything like PlayStation or Xbox hardware. This also means that unique, and thus exclusive, third party content will arrive, provided the system sells. And all of that means that Nintendo is on track to meet consumer expectations.

That leaves the question how does Nintendo hardware sell in the first place. The answer is obviously first party content, but just like there are differences between various third party content, there are differences in first party software too. I already mentioned that consumers aren't interested in a PC experience when they buy Nintendo hardware. When you go back in gaming history, you'll find that there were two forms of gaming that have always co-existed. One form is PC gaming, the other form originated in the arcades.

Consoles came originally into existence to play arcade games at home; and that's the DNA that has to be in Nintendo games. Reflex-based gameplay that is understood within seconds. That's why Wii Sports, the Wiimote and the Wii succeeded. That's why a dual analog controller as the standard input is poisonous as it runs counterproductive to the very core of how consumers define Nintendo. Consequently, that's why the Wii U failed; because it rejected the ideals of the Wii.

The Wii U's only saving grace was New Super Mario Bros. U which had sold at an attach rate of about 60% before it became bundled with the hardware. Ignoring the bundled Nintendo Land, the next best-selling games were exclusive third party titles (Zombi U, Lego City Undercover, Monster Hunter Tri Ultimate). Meanwhile, the ports of PC games universally tanked. That pattern is no coincidence, so it's time that people start to put two and two together.

RolStoppable said:

Consoles came originally into existence to play arcade games at home; and that's the DNA that has to be in Nintendo games. Reflex-based gameplay that is understood within seconds. That's why Wii Sports, the Wiimote and the Wii succeeded. That's why a dual analog controller as the standard input is poisonous as it runs counterproductive to the very core of how consumers define Nintendo. Consequently, that's why the Wii U failed; because it rejected the ideals of the Wii.

Interesting perspective. Do you think Iwata and his board can create a new Nintendo home console next gen that recaptures the arcade/Wii ideals? Or is it too early to say?

And do you think Nintendo can never make a console that captures arcade/Wii ideals and PC like gaming that can sale more than 100 million?

They could release a next generation console with no competitors lol

Moderated,

-Mr Khan

one could make the argument that these ideals have already been met...by tablets and smart phones