You gotta love Nintendo for the consistent mistranslations lol. It never fails that nobody knows what they actually say lol. That being said, this has to just be the big budget games.

2 million to be a success or 2 million to break even? If it's the first, I don't doubt it, if it's the second, there's probably been a mistake somewhere here.

Keep in mind though that Nintendo is known to pay their developers quite abit above the average pay for game devs in Japan, so it shouldn't be suprising that their budgets are higher than what is normal for Japanese games of similar scale.

You can take average to mean big game in this case.

The last time Nintendo made a comment like this they said most games need to sell 1 million to be profitable (this was before Wii U came out)

Even with a marketing budget that tripled the overall budget Splatoon likely didn't need 2 million. Or perhaps more fittingly put, Nintendo knew before it shelled out for marketing that the game was going to perform well, so it doubled down. Not that that detracts from your point or anything of course. 

Splatoon had such a paltry development budget even after all the extra maps and such are accounted for, people are starting to forget that. Remember this was a game that was claimed to sell as well as W101 because of how little content it had. 

Well Nintendo do have problems with HD development so that could explain it.

Not sure what the average Nintendo game is, but I'm pretty sure that's not required for most of their games :/

Judging by the delays and how long it took to release star Fox Zero I'd say we are as near as ever. 

So in other words its costs Nintendo $140 million to develop and market each game? Ya ok. Just for reference it cost $137 million to develop GTAV.

This is very hard to believe imo.

Pretty surethey were reffering to console games-  handhelds def cost less to make-  Also re FE i think they needed it to sell 250k in North America so the total number world wide would naturally be larger