I respect your opinion but seriously everything on the PS4 is just a prettier version of a PS360 game. But even if you buy a PS4 it makes more sense than an XB1. The console performs worse than PS4 and has no exclusives yet it still seems to be doing good. Wii U has some killer games like Mario Kart 8, Pikmin 3, 3D World, WindWaker HD, and even more to look forward to.

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.

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.

I didn't argue against other games at any point in this, so why are you bringing that up?

DarkRPGamer started this part of the discussion with "... seriously everything on the PS4 is just a prettier version of a PS360 game."

I'm pretty sure you are aware of that claim.