If Wind Waker HD counts, so should TLOU: R. Besides I don't understand how direct sequels have different mechanics. Sequels usually only build over the mechanics of the previous game, not create new ones.

While I like some Nin franchises I always wonder some people they say things liike what Dark just stated. Every game he names is indeed just a prettier version of the games you mentioned. It is like a double standard are something. Maybe I am just tripping or something....

I'm explicitly not counting Wind Waker (notice the ())... so no, TLOU:R does not count, either.

The difference between opinion and fact is that fact is a provable statement irregardless of its truth value. An opinion is not provable because it is subjective.  So whether or not investing in 3rd parties is good for buisness is subjective. However, it is a fact that money that is not used to purchase more capital or in other words invest does not and cannot contribute to the continued profit of an entity. Once, it is cashed, it is out of the system.

As for 1). Nintendo is at fault for putting them in this situation. They didn't invest in software, they didn't invest in userbase, they didn't invest in relations, so they have no choice but to invest directly. The Wii was in the exact same situation as the Wii U with the sole difference being that its userbase was strong enough to convince 3rd parties to even try.

2. It doesn't matter what you know or beleive, that's what constitutes a fact. A fact is a fact because it is objective, not because it might be true or false. And FYI, my facts are true. 

3. You seem to think that I give a damn about any other activity on this forum outside of this thread. I don't. I'm addressing you not anyone else. I do not care what you personally believe about the Wii U. I do not care that you have the opinion that PS4 only has more software sales because Sony was willing to sell more. What I disagree with is you attempting to use "factual evidence" to show how investing in 3rd parties constitues a loss greater than the gain, which is completely untrue. Also making further allegations, that Sony and Microsoft are paying for access to 3rd parties, and this is partly the reason why Wii U is lacking in that department, despite the fact that this is completely unsubstantiated at best and "Some sort of sick wishful thinking" at worst.

4. Notice, I have never accused Nintendo of not addressing the problem, at least in this thread. Which should be and is the only scope, I am considering in this discussion. I am addressing you, and I am responding to you, because this "Well, a business exists to make money, does it not? If Nintendo is paying off exclusives, they aren't making money. Both Sony and Microsoft can attest to this." is an extremely naive way of understanding how any buisness operates, and upon further thought completely wrong and biased interpretation of the situation. Buisness do not create Money out of thin air.

5. To continue off of 4, the statement: "Well, a business exists to make money, does it not? If Nintendo is paying off exclusives, they aren't making money. Both Sony and Microsoft can attest to this."

Is clearly biased and cheerleading for Nintendo. Let me explain how.

The first preposition "a business exists to make money" is a self affirming proposition citing a colloqualism that is not a fact but an opinion. It is an opinion because it is subjective. From person A's point of view, it might be the case that it holds true, but person A can rationally argue that the formation of a buisness was for another reason entirely. Some buisness exist to hold money, some to save money, launder funds, transport resources, consolidate other entities (such as holding companies), etc. Thus this proposition that you have based your statement on can be both true and false, therefore its not a fact.

The following bi-conditional: "If Nintendo is paying off exclusives, {then}they aren't making money. " or in other words p -> q, where p is the hypothesis, the condition of Nintendo paying off exclusives, and q is the conclusion, money being lost, is riddled with subjective undefined terms.

What is "paying off exclusives" defined as? Can you rationally prove that for instance providing finacial support to Platinum in their development of Bayonetta 2 is not paying off exclusives? No, you can't because finacial support was provided and exclusive support was returned. This means there is already one counterexample, which already renders the antecdent/hypothesis false.

"they aren't making money. " assumes that any loss is equivalent to overall loss. This is also false because loss does not include profit while overall loss does namely: l(q) =/= f(q), f(q) == p(q), where l(q) is any arbitrary loss of the subset of Expenses, f(q) is overall loss and p(q) is actual profit. Notice overall loss is equivalent to profit, they are the same thing. Which means your conclusion is also false.

Hell we can also disprove it by contradiction:

Assume your proposition is true that "If Nintendo is paying off exclusives, {then}they aren't making money. ", essentially says if money is lost, then money is not gained. Consider that employee buys a 5$ coffee from Starbucks causing the company to suffer a 5$ expense. Therefore, the company makes no profit because it has a loss. In reality, whether or not the company profits or not is unrelated to the 5$ coffee expense.

Lastly, the statement "Both Sony and Microsoft can attest to this." assumes the former reasoning to imply the conclusion that Sony and Microsoft are not making money, because they have expenses {paying off exclusives} or rather the contrapositive of the statement p -> q, which is !q -> !p read as not Q implies not P. 

Not only that but you are completely ignoring, the fact that Nintendo has at least one occurence of doing the exact same thing you seem to chastise its competitors for doing. This is biased, because you are treating Nintendo differently then the other two companies for whatever reason.

Realize, that yes these are different companies, but they are all amoral because they are companies, an downplaying an objective fact such as the title, by suggesting a false biased claim that the various reasons such a fact is true is because money was lost to do so is ridiculous.

Because PS4 has the best games.

Mario Kart 8, Pikmin 3, Super Mario 3D World, WindWaker HD and Donkey Kong: Tropical Freeze are all great fun and I have every one of them... but I really can't see much changes in their game mechanics compared to their predecessors. Pikmin 3 perhaps, since I haven't played Pikmin 1 & 2.

The difference will be close to 7 times as much when the PS4 has brought out it's last game. Truly a beast of a console.

MK8 changed up item mechanics significantly, the cars were changed in how they work exactly (in Wii the bikes were always better). The tracks are highly changed as well if only in just how they function because of the gravity mechanism.

3D World has so many different level designs, that it goes from the feel of an almost linear platformer to Galaxy levels of design. That is one game that is so mechanics and content rich, that I can't possibly understand saying anything like "it only looks better". Toad levels alone were isometric puzzles that have rarely been done in games in general.

I said Wind Waker was obviously NOT a game with updated mechanics.

If these minor adjustments count as "changes in the game mechanics", then inFamous: Second Son (totally different "powers"), Dead Rising 3 (more open world, changed focus to more use of vehicles), and most other third or first party game have them too.

Dude can you stop writing everything in bold? Why do you do that, other than childish attention seeking or something?

As for your points in this thread:

1) My thread about total SW sales of current gen consoles. Period. A very reasonable thing to discuss in a sales forum. If you don't like it create your own thread with your own criteria.

2) You say it's unfair to compare sales because PS4 gets more multiplats. Well, Wii U has twice as many games released as PS4, so that's irrelevant, the average total sales per game are still much lower on Wii U.

3) Let's say that not having the multiplats is actually a relevant point. Then we can compare the multiplats that are actually on both systems, like AC4. That's fair, right? But then the Wii U is in an even worse position...

So yeah, go create a thread about first party tie ratios or something that fits what you're looking for and stop crying about the "fairness" of this thread's very valid comparison.