I wouldn't want Nintendo so suck up to third parties. The reason why is because third parties are such aceholes towards Nintendo. I mean, dammit, third parties if you're going to go in on Nintendo, do it with all the gusto you can muster. It seems when third parties join in the Nintendo band wagon, they're doing it out of lip service and all their triple A stuff is actually going towards the other two main consoles. Looking at you EA, you Ubi, you Activision, etc. When third parties get involve, they give Nintendo just the stuff they know are going to fail, or at least it seems that way.

And I know it would be good business not to burn bridges with third parties, but sometimes I wish Nintendo could just say; suck a D and go F yourselves.

Well if there not going to then maybe your next thread should be why Nintendo should not make hardware and be 3rd party them selves.

If no 3rd party games are a for gone conclusion then there is no point to a platform that missing majority of games in the market each year. Might as well take the few great game they got and spread them out on an ocean of platforms of their choosing.

If they don't directly compete with MS and Sony then whats the point exactly ? struggling by on 15/20 million console sales a gen ?

3rd partys are vital to the existence of a console. You just need important multi platform games like Far Cry 4, No Man's Sky, Skyrim and GTA to be relevant to the market.

3rd party's are not biased against Nintendo. They just had to learn by loosing a lot of money, that it is much harder to make any profit with the tiny user base and very strong 1st party competition.

Thankfully, the design is close to the Xbox 360 so ports are easy to make once you find ways to compensate the weaker CPU with the stronger GPU.

Nintendo needs to find creative ways ways to get all important 3rd partys full on board, even if it means reducing or even cutting license fees to reduce development risk or investing in 3rdd party publishers by buying a portion of the shares.

Just in case someone decides to question point #1:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=174711&page=1

Statement seems a little contradictory to me.  Imo, most of the best games are third party, not Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft.  If you were to buy systems to play the best games, then you'd probably buy a system with good third party support. 

Except for the Vita and Wii U(which I don't own a Wii U yet, but I'm interested in very few third parties since I own them on other consoles) on every console I own, i own at minimum three times more quality third party titles than first party titles.  This includes Nintendo consoles.  There's also more great third party titles than great first party titles.

This is precisely why I want to see Nintendo partner with certain specific studios to bring their level of quality to genres and styles of games that are currently popular on the other platforms. I honestly think that a WWII FPS shooter with a Nintendo spin would actually be a massively popular title. If you think I just mean an "army shooter", think again - I mean WWII shooter, the genre that was popular 7-8 years ago and fell out of favour, with the "modern shooter" taking its place.

Publishers proclaim that they can't compete with Nintendo when they barely compete in the same genres? Let's see what happens when Nintendo decides to show them how it's done in the genres that are their bread and butter.

Yeah another "nintendo have the best games,third parties are peasants" thread.

1# - Third parties are not biased against nintendo.They just know what everybody already knows.Nintendo consoles sells nintendo games(or at least nintendo-like games).Games like rayman and skylanders sell great because they are colorful/cartoonish platformers like some of nintendo softwares.

2# - Best games? for you? or this is some kind of universal truth?! Believe you or not,there is a lot of people waiting for The Witcher 3,Arkham knight,Kingdom Hearts 3 and Destiny(games that are not coming for WiiU) as much as you probably waits ZeldaU.Been an exclusive or been a nintendo game doesn't make a game better than others.This is pure elitism.

3# - Xbox one is not selling that well but at least multiplatform sells great on that machine(it's not the same situation of WiiU).The OG Xbox sold a little more than gamecube but the attach rate was amazing.The reason why xbox one is selling bad is a combination of bad PR + strong competition.Plus,look at PS4! right now the third party games are making much more inpact on that console HW sales that any exclusive that nintendo released on WiiU.PS4 still won may NPD and probably will won june NPD again.

Nintendo tried to partner with EA, and that turned out to be dog shit.

I like what they are doing now with the collaboration titles, win-win situations for both companies

While I don't fully agree with the reasoning, I definitely agree with the thesis statement. Nintendo, in my opinion, should continue to go its own way. I already have four platforms on which to play multiplatform games; I don't need another. I'd much rather Nintendo design its systems for its own games and with its own design philosophy in mind. This industry needs something different. I don't want all three hardware manufacturers creating overpowered, expensive systems that share the same games.

Does this mean Nintendo will continue to lose marketshare? Maybe. But as long as the company is profitable and continues to create amazing games and new gaming experiences, then I don't really mind.

that last sentence is golden.