10% off the digital games that is tied to a single console you mean?

Wind Waker HD vs thousands of dollars of content from plus....

As stated, Nintendo policies are very anti-consumer (I own a Wii U and a 3DS btw)

Digital on Nintendo platforms is a joke since it only works on one console.

Cross buy is a good start but Sony has been doing that for ages. 

I stand by what I said, MS and Sony treat their consumers far better than Nintendo. 

Nintendo has overpriced hardware, does not invest in new ideas very often, and does not reduce software prices. 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sony+e3+2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXicnwHgss

Let me rephrase that - 3rd parties are fading away because console game development is too high risk/cost. Studios have been disappearing in droves over the past 2 generations due to the rising costs of development. Only the few big 3rd party publishers find it worthwhile. The innovative indie devs are finding better success and a more faithful fanbase on Steam. That leaves console gamers with very limited options, and mostly sequels of the same game ad nauseum. Innovation lies within the new blood, and little of that is trickling down to the console market.

Factor that in with the logic that this generation of consoles will not as a whole, be as lucrative as the last generation, and we will start seeing investors looking for different answers. Cloud based gaming, portable gaming, etc are all paths investors are looking towards. High powered consoles will start to fade into the niche market it once grew from.

So, I'm expecting the lineup to be like this:

May - Splatoon
June - Empty
July - Empty
August - Yoshi
Sept - Mario Maker
October - Xenoblade X
November - Star Fox

2016
Devil's Third
Fatal Frame (delayed)
Persona U x AnimU

I have not been psoting on VG Chartz for a while now, but I saw certain things in your posts that I did want to respond to.

Firstly, as a long time Nintendo owner and current 3DS and Wii U owner (an overall happy one at that I might say) I want to start by saying that I agree whole heartdly agree that Nintendo has to incorporate third-parties in their strategy (and that does mean they have to talk to them when they are designing their consoles, and yes even pay them for exclusives, etc). I also agree with you when you stated that Nintendo needs to compeletly reform the way their digital system works, I am not really going to go into detail on how (I think everyone knows what needs to be done) but a promotions program, account not being tied to hardware, more cross-play,etc are all important steps that must be taken.

I do however believe that you are giving far too much credit to Sony and MS. I have an Xbox One and in terms of hit software I would say it is not doing much better than Wii U (there are more consistent releases than Wii U but it is lagging far behind PS4, although I do not have a PS4 but I am just looking at what is being released for both systems). Secondly, as a PS Vita owner, I can honestly say I am more dissapointed with Sony than Nintendo at this point. At the very least Nintendo is providing first-party  game support for the Wii U, we are not really getting first-party or third-party support on Vita (because the system is doing okay in Japan there is the odd localization of a gem title from there, but beyond that it has become an indie machine with a small backlog of gems and nothing really to look forward to, which is a great shame because it is a great system and it was initially advertised at being a PS3 in your pocket). Beyond that there have also been other questionable practices with the Vita; for example, using the extremely slow non-proprietory memory cards and overpricing them, or having the original PS Vita with an upscaler and the capability to output to a TV but never enabling it and instead releasing the same hardware as a microconsole (I do not mind them doing that, but if they were not going to support the feature from the beginning they should not have included the upscaler and additional components).

I would also like to add that like MS and Sony, Nintendo sold both the 3DS (after its price cut) and the Wii U at a loss; 3DS sold for a loss for about a year and Wii U became profitable as of mid-last year. Nintendo has lost a lot of money selling Wii U and 3DS at a loss over the past three-four years. By the way you might think this selling hardware at a loss is to give customers a break but it is not, I am pretty sure that if Sony and MS decided not the sell the system at a loss they would not have had a lot of people purchasing the system. With that being said I agree the Wii U was and is way too expensive to be reachable by the mass market, but Nintendo should not sell the system at a loss but rather they need to design the system in a smarter manner to be able to sell at a lower price. Also, for the record, I am compeletely against this entire idea of selling hardware at a loss and trying to recoup the money with software. This strategy very rarely works (unless the console maker has a huge market share, and even then the returns are meager), it did not work with Sega Saturn, Dreamcast, any of the Xboxs, PS3, and it has certianly not worked for Wii U and PS Vita. Big hardware companies like Apple, Samsung, and yes even Sony during their glory days as the number #1 brand name for electronics did not make their fortunes selling hardware at a loss. I personally believe that you have to build the hardware with a price in mind for customers and a decent profit margin for your business, if you are selling hardware at a loss then you have done something wrong.

Eventually ninty could adapt also its pricing model to new market situations, but it will do it as usually very prudently, following its plans, and always trying to offer something different and exclusive, that gamers can't find elsewhere.

i dont see why many ppl think the wii u will die soon.

The will release 200 ccm on mario kart 8 on wii u.

If they want to bring a new console very very soon, they wouldnt do that. they would use this feature do advertise the next mario kart.

It was actually SCE that "innovated" the razor blade business model for game consoles with the PS1 and it worked. They established the trend with the PS2 and it worked even better.

The PS1, which was cheaper to manufacture than its primary competition, the Sega Saturn, was created after Sony's Play Station CD drive for the Super Nintendo was cancelled at a time when Nintendo arguably had the strongest hold on third party developers. Sony, chose to undercut the Saturn in price and aggressively courted third party developers to support their new Playstation console by providing more favorable relations and support than Nintendo. The Playstation SDK was designed to help developers as much as possible rather than simply treat them as competition who were being allowed to publish games for their platform. Sony realized the more licensed software they could release, the larger the potential consumer base due to having the greatest volume and variety of games. 

It worked. 

They doubled down on the PS2 with the same initial $299 MSRP and that remains the greatest console success to date. By launching the PS2 at $299, Sega was unable to compete as they again had hardware that cost more to manufacture than the PS2 ($399 Dreamcast) while Sony again had the strongest third party support. In short, the PS2 killed Sega as a hardware/platform manufacturer with a $299 PS2. Nintendo's third party support can be summed up with the words Game Cube. In the Game Cube's defense, it was cheap to manufacture and the primary sellers for the platform were Nintendo's own titles, making it profitable, just not the market leader by volume. 

It really wasn't until Sony, apparently drunk off over ten years of industry dominance, decided they could literally double down on the PS3 with a $599 MSRP while still losing a monumental (estimated) $230 per unit based on the BoM to MSRP price, that the razor blade model showed its flaws due to the rising costs of game development. The $10 increase in retail titles from $50 to $60 didn't help enough to keep many studios in business after one commercial failure on a protracted development pipeline. Higher risk involved in development with no increase in potential reward.  

It really wasn't until the surge in independent development, supported by the online distribution platform (saving on retail costs, manufacturing, shipping/distribution) that smaller studios could do streamlined productions once again that don't command $60 retail prices, but also won't bankrupt a developer if their title underperforms. 

In the meantime, Sony went from losing $230 per unit on debut to about breaking even on the BoM to MSRP cost, which still counts as selling at an initial loss (the PS4 is no longer being sold at a loss), but it's a massive difference from losing $230 off an initial $599 MSRP. 

Dreamcast launched at $199, not $399. Other than that, good analysis.