Ok... why did you say this then?

I know whoever made this list is stupid (really, 3DS at #10?!) , but not that stupid.

I feel like the list was made just to make Nintendo look bad. While some might argue that saying that is a typical Nintendo fan thing to say, the fact that the 3DS and Gunpei are on it at all shows that they're grasping at straws.

Thank you...thank you.  The first sin was including such a statement in the article.  The second was taking the time to relay such information without condemnation of the source.  Just saying "that's what it said...I was just just linking to it" is such an example of the lack of responsibility people take these days.  If you're going to say something, say it.  If not...don't back peddle when people call you on it.  That's the basis of integrity.

"The Nintendo 64 had so many things wrong with it that it would take a completely separate article to have a hope of touching on them all"

They got this part right at least

Just another trashy article grasping straws.

Surprised they didn't put Wii U as number 1.

Seems accurate to me

They're incorrect about the 3DS - it sold 40% less than the DS so far and not 30%.

Oh, and he apparently has a response to the 3DS part:
"Simply because a company has sold a large number of units does not make that product a financial success, what with the significant overhead to consider. And comparing the sales of one product to another and claiming that one is a success because it has sold more is equally as fallacious."

He says more, but this is the important part since the rest of it isn't really saying anything.

But his reason for putting the 3DS on there basically comes down to the 3DS didn't sell as well as the DS, and it didn't blow everyone away. This, therefore, makes it a major failure. He claims that a lot of 3DS games are just DS ports ("wealth of games which don’t take advantage of the 3D option due to being direct ports from the more successful DS line make it a failure") but ignores a lot of what actually makes the 3DS sell as much as it does in the current market.

He acts like he is somehow more knowledgeable than those who argue against his list. In reality, he's just a pseudo-intellectual who doesn't understand the very thing he's arguing in the first place.

Sony wanted to make an add-on for the SNES, so they teamed up with Nintendo to make it. However if Nintendo had gone through with it, Sony would get the majority of the profits from games sold on it. Nintendo realised this and secretly teamed up with Philips. So Sony made the Playstation instead.

While it may seem stupid now, I don't think anyone knew at the time what would have happened.  If Sony ended up not being successful and Nintendo's secret partnership with Philips were to somehow have been fruitful, the way people treat it would probably be much different.  Though in the end, what Nintendo did here isn't honest and it's not easy to sympathize with them.  The reason why they did it may be understandeable, but in the end Nintendo probably should have not broken any promises.