This reply fails to even address any point made and simply side steps which highlights a lack of either understanding on the topic you were attempting to argue or a case of you just trying to argue it for the sake of being negative or maybe even both. Pepsi don't have anywhere near as much market share as Coke with the latter having almost 70% of their market but the former have more then enough to go on and that's because the quality of the products are good which is why they consistently maintain a market share that sustains them and their share holders, highlighting that their products maintain quality is good for investors in the long run espcially as each generation for consoles is a reset.

I don't have to know you I just have to read what you post, when I do trades for investors in shares and so on which is relevant in this case I give them 5 clear reasons why they should buy into the company and enter the position. Yeah the are a lot of stupid investors out there but if you look at the top dogs and serious punters they look at multiple aspects on why they keep hold of positions in the long run, sales is flawed in what you're arguing because Nintendo has turned a profit and made more money off lower hardware sales consistently for years then their competitors so what you're arguing about sales and money is also calling your ownself out.

Nothing wrong with being proud of the Metacritic scores of your games. However, when you start including a metric as frivolous as user scores and you set arbitrary boundaries for quality like 8.5+, then it's silly to start stating that you have more quality games then other platforms.

This has been made a big deal out of, just because it's Nintendo. If Sony were the ones acknowledging the Metacritic scores, most gamers and media would be screaming "SONY DOMINATIOOOON!".

2014 was the year when Metacritic scores got their "boom", suddenly everyone wanted to know how the reviews were going and what the average was, because if it wasn't "green", it wasn't good or worth buying... But then the beloved western developers and publishers began to practice their shady tactics and the quality of their games went down, Nintendo the struggling and unpopular kiddy company delivered (as usual) high quality games that deserved those Metacritic scores... But they mean nothing to the community anymore because they're not naughty dog or rockstar.

I say good for Nintendo, if there's something that can't be denied is that they have one of the most consistent group of developers in the business, and their games usually reflect that.

You cannot compare Pepsi with Nintendo, despite they have a good result on their sales report, every video game market is affected by smart device like , mobile phone and gaming tab, Staying quite is not a wise decision to stay on the same position, while Nintendo may satisfied with their current market and income statement, bigger threat is comming and one of them is from their own loyal fans, you know their games is only cater for the veteran and small avid gamer who like their type of games, and within  a time, many will grew up, getting old and not playing their game anymore, while Nintendo keeping the same formula again and again.

and off course there is no denying Nintendo making a lot of profit, but is it enough to warant Nintendo from staying in the Industry?

Exactly, couldnt said it better :)

Nintendo Love Meta Critic  but they hate hate critics?............no they love critics but some of their fans  hate it, some of their fans dont want to see Nintendo going forward.

It's amusing that as soon as Nintendo is doing poorly, sales  don't matter and reviews are all that matters.

You think Pepsi has no threats of their own? They have more threats then any dedicated gaming company and more competitors as well, I'll give you a good tip with value investing and looking into a company, when investing you look at key things other companies can't replicate, in Nintendo's case their brand has powerful IPs that not only have stood the test of time but are only equalled by franchises that are huge. No mobile device, other platform or tablet is going to have Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Mario, Mario Kart Zelda etc... and these games will always generate a minimum commercial performance at the end of the gen for their platforms. It may surprise you that a lot of Nintendo's fans are actually older and many have grown up which is why they're still fans they don't take the mainstream at face value, each installment of their games is different which is why they're still going even after 30 years.

The main threat for Nintendo is their own marketing, each gen the marketing department behaves randomly, GC they were terrible, Wii they were brilliant and this gen they're missing in action. Mobile devices will never shift consoles or handhelds because firstly their interface is limited, secondly it would require full heavy weight support as in games on the level of MH4 and so on not ports of older games, mini games and publishers putting wayward games declaring it as support. This isn't like PCs to consoles, it's more like back in the PS2 days where it was the rise of Facebook games and people were saying it's a threat when in the long run it isn't because the are still significant differences that one can never replace the other.

Nintendo isn't content with their position, they already have plans for future gens which were outlined to investors last year, all platform holders are doing this, these plans are long term and aren't just executed over night. These plans for example include ideas like their unified softwar platform that links their hardware together meaning future platforms will always have the features of previous platforms or be compatible with previous peripherals.

And you did statistical research to come to this conclusion?

Touche, at least some segment of the Nintendo fandom is responsible there. Although first party software is doing well sales-wise, given the terrible hardware sales on the Wii U side and the niche status of some of these titles.