I think Nintendo has the most room to grow and they have their interesting new architecture that they're introducing in a couple of years with their next platforms. This is also a way, it seems to me, for Nintendo to survive and even thrive with the way that they do business. Given that third parties do not seem to be coming back to support Nintendo consoles, Nintendo needs to come up with more ways to keep providing lots of content for their platforms if they want to continue in the consoles business.

I never said anything about selling hardware, but I think it potentially could actually. A console with a steady stream of quality Nintendo console with new games and old games being constantly supported would be very attractive imo. It might be a somewhat slower buildup, although if they could launch the console with a few of their major franchises at the same time and continue to support them while bringing out new games that could be a big system seller in and of itself.

As far as your example, I think Pikmin 3's DLC is pretty half-assed. I think that a more substantial expansion to the single-player campaign plus extra missions and other things on top of that would make more people interested in it, especially people that already own the console. What are the sales of Pikmin 3? Less than 1 million? There's still 5 million people who already own wii u's that haven't bought pikmin 3? I think that over time it would a lot of value to each of their titles that even among people who already own the consoles you could increase sales quite a bit for every title.

Have you been messing with my mind? Because I've been having that same idea for quite some time now. :p

It all clicked when Mr. Iwata mentioned on an investors meeting that he was trying to redefine the concept of a platform. It doesn't necessarily need to be the hardware itself, but rather a source of entertainment content. Let me explain:

Take Art Academy for example. Is it wise to fracture you software across 4 different consoles, all with different content, lessons, tools, backgrounds, templates, etc.? Of course not. Software like these should be a "platform" in on itself and have standardized tools, lessons, templates, etc. across all consoles. And when you do have a solid base, start selling expansion packs (aka DLC nowadays) such as Pokemon Art Academy. The potential is there for Mario, Zelda, and every other Nintendo franchise. The downfall is that they have no base to build upon, so development costs are over the top.

Nintendo has been trying to do this with Wii Fit, but so far has failed miserably with its most recent installment. This kind of software wasn't made for yearly releases like Plus and U. They should have stick with the base game and build upon it through expansions instead of charging full price every time they want sell another Wii Fit cash-grab. The Fit Meter is another example of pure wasted potential. Wii Fit on the go with Nintendo 3DS could perfectly be a great substitute for the Fit Meter for those who already own the console, and by doing that Nintendo would further enrich the Nintendo ecosystem.

And like you said, Mario Kart 7 and 8 were understandably resource vampires but with tons of wasted potential. Why not expand on the base game with new characters (real ones, not Pink Gold Peach) and a full back catalog of retro stages? There are 9 million MK7 owners and over 2 million MK8 onwers out there, so there's tons of potential to monetize here.

Yes exactly. There is a ton of room to monetize while providing a big value to your customers at the same time. I think Nintendo could really "innovate" in this area. They would have to be careful about how they do it and be willing to adjust their prices if the community seems to think that a particular add-on is too expensive or something, but they could really bring a huge amount of value for all of their titles.

Expansions to Zelda? Are you mad or just plain insane in the membrane?

DLC for Mario Kart is already happening

Besides, I do not want my games cut up so bad like Bethesda cuts content from Elder Scrolls games to sell to you later at ridiculous prices. Don't even get me started on Battlefield and CoD....

Actually Bethesda does not do that. Bethesda titles have some of the most content of any game out there, the DLC is more content that they start after the game is already put out. If you expect them to put every little piece of content that they can think of into the base game then you would never see an Elder Scrolls game release.

Yes DLC for Mario Kart is happening, but how long will it last? How much will they add to it over time? The DLC you're talking about is that Mercedes Benz thing right? Or is there more?

CoD and Battlefield are good examples of companies doing it wrong IMO. Map packs should be free while larger DLC would be what you would charge for.

Yes this thread is about that. This wouldn't reduce the number of game releases either. It would increase them while also increasing the amount of overall content they release as well. Please read everything that I've said.

Bethesda does that, don't defend their buggy hell hole of a mess. I want a strong base game that keeps me coming back to it (Which Skyrim has no solid base, litterally. I fell through the game when I started it). What you are suggesting is "A whole new world" approach which is just stupid for something like Zelda.  It's almost like the people who moan and complain and ask for co-op in console Zelda titles. That's fine on pen and paper, but when the average Zelda player starts up the game they don't want to deal with paying for a new dungeon, or another costume or a sword or even a new stead, or even having another person there throwing bombs at them. You have to think really objectively with Nintendo IPs, you can't apply all ideas to them. Any minor change at this point has a HUGE effect on the majority of the gameplay. Cranky practically breaks Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze if you can use him right. 

I've always had the idea of a modular Mario game in the style of Super Mario 3. People create new areas and levels, share them on a massive globe. Have many art styles (NSMBU, 8-bit, Paper, SNES, Yoshi, SMW, etc) for the game. Take that play create share idea that Sony totes about. People play through a base game, but the game doesn't end there. You can go on and beat "Sally's World" or "Mega Death Moutain Trials" or "Super Castle Adventure Time".

Anyways, I'm agains't changing anything in the main games heavily. Either make a new side game or don't bother. We wouldn't have gotten Majoras Mask because this same outside thinking (then again It would have been a 64DD title). 

Bugginess is a whole different thing from cutting out content on purpose to sell as DLC. Nintendo games would be buggier too if they were as complex as Bethesda open world RPGs. All of the other stuff you're talking about is just balance and gameplay issues that can easily be fixed, irrelevant to this conversation.

Majora's Mask is actually a really good example. That was something reusing assets from OoT and was really much easier to produce than an all new Zelda game. That could've easily been an expansion if the infrastructure were there.

On top of that Elder Scrolls games are some of the longest lived games out there due to the modding community. Take that and apply it to Nintendo and you could have some really great content and long lived games.

Ok so with DLC you take some people off of each team that is correct. But who says you only get 3 more games out of the remaining people? Not only that but all games will be on both platforms in the future so you can combine the handheld output with the current console output as well. Not to mention the added value to existing games and you get a lot more content and games all around.

I was thinking more of, say 100 people work on a game and then 20 of them break off to work on DLC for that game and the rest work on something else. 80 people are still perfectly capable of making a game, they might need to be more efficient but with a good base engine and efficiency they should be able to make another game in about the same amount of time. By the time they get to a team too small to produce games quickly enough you'd be on a new game cycle.