No offense, but these "Is Nintendo still relevant"/"Will Nintendo be relevant" threads are beyond old.

3rd parites used Wii for shovelware sales to prop up their PS360 game development raising costs. That is how they used the Wii not to give te core gamers great games. None of that profit ever went int a blockbuster game on Wii.

Look at Rockstar used carnival games to save themselves and used that money to finish of GTA4. They were on the brink of bankrupcy due to how much they spent on GTA4 kind of like a lot of great devs that backed the PS3 early on and spent HUGE money thinkign the PS3 would ell like the PS2. RIP Free Radicals and Factor 5 to name a couple great devs.

Relevant? Sonic is dead. Masterchief Collection has sold less than 2 million. Sony, again, have no identifiable star platform seller. Try and define the word relevant please.

Nintendo have collaborated with more Japanese developers than Sony has this gen, so they have indicated to the Japanese at least, they want 3rd Parties. Maybe what is most concerning to you is the lack of Western Support? Why? Do not forget it was Western 3rd Parties who pushed Microsoft to introduce anti-consumer measures like no used games in the first place.

Also, dk how old you are, but judging by the Japanese measurement alone, they can obviously keep handhelds as a market in Japan, and likely keep surviving. You know the handheld component has kept them operating for a long time, through a lot of under performing home console generations.

As for glass houses, both MS and Sony have short and long-term financial concerns that are fundamentally changing the market for Operating Systems, Mobiles, and Sony's home electronics market.

Outside of forums gaming isn't really that relevant.  Let's pretend every single console sold last generation was to a unique person - that's what, <.04% of the human population?

I could apply that logic to the NES/SNES days. Nintendo was a hell of a lot more relevant back then. You talk to the average person today about what system they own and what games they play and it'll most likey be Sony or Microsoft. Its just the nature of the beast.

If you talk to the average person today about what system they own or what games they play, the answer will likely be 'none'.  Unless you are only talking to the .04% of the population that are into console gaming.   Hence, all gaming companies are irrelevant when you arbitrarily decide to exclude people that are passionate about games (forum dwellers).  

Of course what you said is true if you are talking to people ON forums.  The majority will say Sony or Microsoft.  Even so, Nintendo is still hugely relevant to the gaming industry and that is unlikely to change unless they decide to leave.  It's just the nature of the beast.

One of definitions of relevant - meaningful or purposeful in current society or culture.

For example, plasma TVs are, arguably, superior than any LCD technology...but they are mostly irrelevant in today's society.

Sony, arguably, makes better TVs than Samsung - but nowdays they have, more or less, become irrelevant in TV business.

WiiU, arguably, currently has better first party exclusives than PS/XBO - but, considering sales, that's almost completely irrelevant to most console gamers.

And so on...

Then what's the problem? Third parties supposedly don't like Nintendo, apparently Nintendo fans don't like third parties, so you got what you wanted ... a system with no third party games. 

This is like the guy who complains that he doesn't have a girlfriend, maybe approaches one in a bar once a month, gets shot down, and then decides it's the fault of women for not seeing what an awesome guy he is or that girls only want guys with money. 

Sony doesn't pay for the majority of ports. The reason they are prioritized by third party developers is because Sony put in *effort* to make sure they market to the audience that buys third party games and also makes games themselves like Uncharted and God of War which appeal to the same demographic third parties are trying to get to. 

Third parties know that there's an audience for them on Sony and MS machines and that those two companies listen to them and prioritize around them starting with the actual design of the system right on down to marketing. 

Hence those types of games sell great on their platform. Same for Microsoft. Not so great for Nintendo. 

Of course it's subjective. What Nintendo produce isn't inherently more of an 'actual' gaming experiences than stuff like Bloodborne, Dragon Age or Forza. You may not personally enjoy them as much, but you aren't the basis of an objective fact. Unless you have hard non-personal data to back up that claim (without which something becomes based on personal consideration, thus subjective), i don't see how you can't see the flaw in that claim.

Heck, it's so subjective that there isn't even a formal definition for the term 'actual gaming' vs a relative. As long as there's a degree of interactivity involving the electronic manipulation of computer images (to take the oxford definition), it's a video game. There are no sub-conditions attached. Anything tacked on afterwards is down to the individual (thus, again, subjective).

 I thought it was already established that Mewtwo and Lucas started developement AFTER the game was completed due to big fan response? I would have thought that was okay, but no, all DLC is evil and money-grubbing. And Mii Costumes are completely harmless, dude. The Monkey one is pretty funny. Wish that they added costumes for regular characters instead, though.

I can see frustration with clones, (Dark PIt can burn in hell) but there really is no harm in them being there. Sakurai said himself that since they took no time at all to add in, so why not right?

And you really need to lower the hostility here. People talk about this stuff like it's going to effect how much they're going to get paid this week. No need to be an ass.