Well PES is actually a better soccer game than FIFA and 2KSports (lol)  make much better sports games.  

They could make their own baseball game (Ken Griffey still n64 one of the best out there) as they still own the mariners so i'm sure they could get license for it.

FIFA and NFL are unfortunately the big gun licenses for game console properties. Football is huge in America, and soccer obviously everywhere else in the world, but particularily in Europe.

EA has exclusive rights to both. PES does OK, but its sales are a fraction of FIFA without the official FIFA license. Nintendo would be better off quite frankly just striking a deal with EA.

FIFA and NFL are unfortunately the big gun licenses for game console properties. Football is huge in America, and soccer obviously everywhere else in the world, but particularily in Europe.

EA has exclusive rights to both. PES does OK, but its sales are a fraction of FIFA without the official FIFA license. Nintendo would be better off quite frankly just striking a deal with EA.

Demographics likely play a major part too. Lets be honest, Nintendo doesn't really appeal to the "jock audience". Generally speaking most third party major titles are either A) Violent action games or B) sports/driving simulator. Oh and then you have wacky Japanese action game with girl with giant tits that will have to be censored in the US market causing the 250 people who were planning to buy it to rage out.

But that's kind of a microcosm of the market. Truth be told even in the Super NES days, EA's sports games while they did sell well on the SNES (so did things like NBA Jam) still sold better on the Sega Genesis.

Nintendo isn't "cool" in that way, so they struggle with these types of third party games because they don't attract the audience that buys them.

N64 was probably the last Nintendo system that really had some foothold of appeal to this type of gamer, but this is now almost 20 years ago since GoldenEye (!) and since then Nintendo has probably regressed backwards as a brand to this audience. Gone are things like Perfect Dark, Eternal Darkness, NBA/MLB games, Star Wars games, etc. and as wonderful as Splatoon is, it's not exactly making up for that style of game.

*Maybe* as such Nintendo should perhaps offer to pay for the porting costs of EA titles for the first year or two. Even though EA is far from perfect being completely shut out of the NFL, FIFA, and Star Wars licenses are fairly damaging and plus it will likely cause other big Western developers to back off from providing major support as well. Though Nintendo won't do it, and the results will be somewhat predictable.

They better have an amaze-balls gimmick for the NX and it better be something Sony/MS cannot copy easily, because I gauruntee one of the things MS/Sony would do over about that last gen would be to copy the Wiimote much earlier.

You forgot Nintendo fans end gen: "Where the fuc* are my Nintendo games?" I never really went through the second phase. I just wanted a Metroid....

Why should Nintendo weaken their own ecosystem by putting their premium content on somebody else's console? Your entire argument is incredibly stupid. Even if 80% of Nintendo system owners will have chosen a handheld, it's still better to sell 10m copies of a game on a handheld than on somebody else's console. Not only is Nintendo guaranteed to keep all of the revenue to themselves, but their own hardware will sell better because there are more reasons to own it; that in turn is going to increase overall software sales.

The reason why Nintendo implemented a licensing model is because the video game market crashed in the USA, and because if third parties wanted to make money from Nintendo's customers, it would only be fair that they pay for it. But the Famicom didn't have third party support right out of the gate; that rules out that Nintendo got into the console business to collect royalty fees.

The reason why third parties choose to remain third parties is that paying a royalty fee is a lot less costly and risky than creating their own system.

Still only a small fraction of Nintendo's profits throughout the years.

The other problem is that more third party support would come at a significant cost. Hardware needs to be sold at a loss to satisfy the needs for processing power while staying competitive with similar options in the marketplace. The investment would be greater than the return.

Lastly, if royalty fees were as big of a money maker as some want to believe, then online multiplayer wouldn't be behind a paywall on both PS and Xbox.

You're over complicating this: its simple, Nintendo has a far stronger first party lineup than Sony or Microsoft. Sony fans for example tend to be loyally hardcore more for the companies hardware than software. I'm not even going to explain the gigantic missing front for Microsoft's first party games..... then you have Nintendo, with their Mario Kart, Smash, Zelda, Pokemon, etc.- the point is that that Nintendo, of the hardware manufacturers, by far has the most known and consumer powerful software

Of course its going to be more attractive for an EA or Activision to bring their titles to platforms in which their games are the stars, front and center. Since Nintendo releases so many of its own popular million selling exclusives, they slightly turn off third parties, because the software sales pool is already in a way taken

What comparable IPs are Sony or Micro releasing that distract system owners at the level that Mario Kart or Pokemon do Nintendo owners? Answer: almost none

Nintendo's software success in itself is what has damaged their ties with third parties.. their own IPs sell too well for an EA to feel comfortable investing a lot in releases (that and arguably demographic issues)