But why point out Playstation then, when you apparently aren't appealed by any of the major exclusives from the big three? And oh, you like Mass Effect? That's rather mainstream as well. Mass Effect is thus average (Hey, your own reasoning, not mine)

Not to mention that Playstation has a long list of games that weren't/aren't  AAA mainstream games (Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper, Bloodborne, Ico, Shadow of the Collosus, Dreams etc.)

Also what about JRPGS? They're mainstream in Japan but most of them are niche in the west, does that mean JRPGs are average in Japan, but good in the west? No? Aka your logic is flawed.

The stupidity of the probable zero999 alt aside, he was correct on one account. Your original point wasn't good and doesn't hold water.

Nintendo has the strongest and most diverse first party lineup as a quick look at the bestselling games of all time will confirm. No other video game publisher has such a big list of so many different IPs in so many different genres.

Beyond that, there are a few problems with your argument.

1. When it comes to PlayStation, you add third party to prove the diversity in content. That you use the word "PlayStation" instead of "Sony" is a deliberate choice. However, the topic is about first party content.

2. At one time you use sales to gauge the importance of diversity (PlayStation success), but then that flies out of the window when you call this gen Nintendo's biggest effort for more diversity in a long time. Nintendo is falling far short of what they did in the seventh generation. It's also wrong to call Nintendo's approach to game development Japanese-centric because a lot of their IPs are equally or more successful outside of Japan. In fact, no other game publisher has had as much success as Nintendo when it comes to selling games on a global basis, to both genders and across all ages. Such a feat is only possible by having the most diverse portfolio (thus appealing to many different demographics) and the next best publisher is so far behind Nintendo that it shouldn't even be an argument in the first place.

3. I don't see Microsoft having made any strides with the One in comparison to the 360. The case could be made that it's the opposite because they've cut off the Japanese-centric content this generation. Which games in particular do you see as something that Microsoft didn't have a generation ago?

1.  What in the name of god are you talking about.

2.  Your leaps of logic would do you good in politics but Mario selling billions really doesn't equate to Nintendo being the most diverse.

3. Killer Instinct, Sunset Overdrive, Max: The Curse of Brotherhood, Ori and the Blind Forest, and from the cut off Japanese-centric segment, ReCore and Scalebound.

1. Here's Phil Spencer's quote:

"On the Wii U, I think people downplay how many units they've sold," Spencer told Eurogamer. "I've got a Wii U, I think there's some great games on there. I think Splatoon's a really nice game and I don't think there's a first-party out there that has the strength of IP that Nintendo has. They're always a beacon to me when I look at what it means to build a first-party portfolio of products, they've done a great job."

That's what this topic is about.

2. Here's the list of the bestselling games of all time: http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/

There's a lot more from Nintendo than just Mario.

3. That's a very weak list of games, with Killer Instinct probably being the most valuable out of the bunch. Not exactly a strong resume when it comes to building a first party lineup that draws in customers.

2. With this answer your argument is brought to its knees. While you chose to sarcastically acknowledge Nintendo's diversity, you had to acknowledge it nonetheless. You had no choice, because the facts contradict the point of view you tried to push in this thread.

3. What "building a strong first party lineup" means for an executive of a console manufacturer is a portfolio of titles that not only become household names, but also push hardware on a notable level. That's why I am talking about bestselling games, and in the context of this topic, it's really the only viable point of view. IPs that sell less than one million copies are routinely discontinued or put on a long hiatus by console manufacturers and Sony is no exception to this rule.

The core of your argument is flawed, because the topic is about first parties. The quote of Yoshida you provided highlights this again. You continue to mix first and third parties together which you have done from the beginning. That you cut out the first point is not because you don't know what's up, but because you very well know what it's about.

As for this specifically, taken from the above quote:

It stands in direct contradiction with this:

Isn't that cool? Not too long ago you argued the exact opposite when it came to Mario games.

This inconsistency is easily explained by your well-known dislike for Nintendo, so you say whatever suits you best at any given moment. I'd like to use this opportunity to make something official.

Ever since the mod team thread has been locked, my playground is gone. The mods don't want to play games with me anymore. What's worse, Smeags has stepped down from the head mod position, delivering another blow to my ambitions to get things back on track. But I haven't sat idle during the past month and worked on a contingency plan, so I've collected a good amount of your posts to have something to play with in the future. The rules of the game will be simple:

1. If I see you posting nonsense related to Nintendo, I'll look through the posts I have at hand. By the way, your posting history is quite impressive.
2. The game is always initiated by you, so you'll just have to post whenever you want to play.

I consider this a fair set of rules because it leaves a good amount of control in your hands.