Nintendo actually kept the Wii above the $199 USD price point for a longer period than Sony kept the PS2 above $199.

in addition,

Sony sold around 11 Million PS2s in the NA region before it dropped to $199, it ended up selling 50 Million plus there.  

So close to 80% of PS2 sold in that region were sold for $199 or less.

to compare,

Nintendo sold ~26 Million Wii in the America region before it dropped to $199, it ended up selling 48 Million plus there.  

So less than 50% of Wii sold in that region were sold for $199 or less.

Aren't Xenoblade Chronicles X, Bayonetta 2 and Zelda U all large AAA projects whatever people call them? Anyways, I hate the way people use the term AAA, I have played many a big budget cinematic game that has turned out to be shit. To me AAA should only be used for flawless highly rated games like The last of us or super mario galaxy.

I think that eventually nintendo will get loads of AAA third party games.........

once iwata and the other stubborn mules are booted. 

I mainly wanted to post so I can tag this thread so I can read it and keep up with it. 

This is how I feel about this thread.

bullshit

I disagree. Nintendo can have the 3rd party games whenever they want as long as they get a more powerful console for those publishers to work on and pay them for the games.

The real question is what we call an AAA 3rd party game.
AC Unity which was a disaster at its launch. Is it AAA? Batman which is unplayable on PC. Is it PC AAA 3rd party blockbuster? Etc etc.

When has metacritic scores ever had anything to do with whether a game is 'AAA'? AAA is to do with game budget and resourcing, not its metacritic score. Towerfall has a metacritic of 87, no one who consider that game AAA. 

People saying 3rd parties will come if the sales are there are forgetting what happened to the Wii. Massive sales, huge success, but did it get GTA, Assassins Creed, Fallout, Skyrim, Call of Duty (all of them)? No, so why? Because AAA means high budget and therefore high risk, if it doesn't sell well the publisher stands to lose a LOT of money, and the Wii (And Wii U) demonstrated early on that Nintendo gamers aren't interested in those style of big budget games, so it doesn't make sense to port them across. 

Now don't take the above to mean anything about the quality of Nintendo games or a slight against Nintendo. Nintendo make awesome games, and if their output is enough to satisfy Nintendo gamers then thats awesome. But the OP is arguing why a Nintendo console won't see the full gamet of AAA games that the other consoles receive, and none of you have really countered that with a plausible argument. 

Nintendo doesn't need them. they don't make Mario games. Ninty can handle itself.

Hmm, seems like some people have been doing that lately. Just not understanding terminology or not wanting to stick to a meaning that's inconvenient.

I think that most are mainly arguing against the "never" part. Many are offering possible ways it could change.

Nintendo is screwed for the rest of the gen with third party, but their lack of third party is majorly their own fault. The sooner you understand that they COULD work with third party and allow third party to realize their vision for their own games life would go much easier for them, but they dont. Western developers dont go by the same code as eastern ones so politically the they have to find a middle ground. Nintendo is known for being hard headed though.