Considering they struggle to release those games on their platforms, I don't they should do it. Their current strategy is the best one.

1. Yes thank you.I meant PS+.And while yes, the number from PS3 to PS4 of subscribers has skyrockets because of online play(which is anti costumer to make in my opinion), imagine if you had a subscription for PC like it was on PS3.If the PS3 managed to have 4 million with an installed base of 80 millions, imagine an installed base of 1 billion+ PCs.I dont see how it isnt possible assuming they do things right.

2.To be quite honest, you could apply that logic to every company.Sony, Microsoft and even PC exclusives titles are always limiting themselves when they make exclusive titles to a paltform.Im sure that Halo would sell double if it was available for Sony, Nintendo and PC(Who would imagine this one is actually possible to happen on PC).The same can be said for Uncharted or God Of War.In the ideal world, we would have only one machine.But as we all know, that aint happening.So I find quite silly using this argument.

3.Yet Mario Kart 8 managed to have a 60% attach rate give or take, in a failing system.The only thing holding it back is the comercial failure of this system.And as you pointed out, Mario Kart Wii sold 36 millions.Mario Kart 7 sold more than 12 millions(vgchartz is not loading pages at the moment, so cant check the number).Mario Kart on the DS sold around 24 millions.But saying that Nintendo should develop their first party games to other platforms just because of one bad generation is silly at the very least.I mean, while the PS3 was commercially successful, it was a financial catasthrophe.If you were to aplly your logic and just go third party because of one bad generation that cost the company money, Sony wouldnt have now a absurdely commercial and financial success with the PS4.If Nintendo was in the edge of going bankrupt, or at least losing money to the point that it would threaten their bussiness, I would agree with you.As things stand now, Nintendo is profitable.And it will make even more with its mini games on mobile.So I wouldnt worry about Nintendo having their bussiness shut down for the next 5 years, and thats being pessimistic.

4.Thats not completely true.While they would release their games when they want, and all those things, they wouldnt have control over console lifespan or revisions.And thats especially bad in this generations with their PS NEOs and Scorpios.I mean, having to develop to a different machine, to adapt to the extra power or OS, in case that happens, would not only raise the cost of the development, but also the time to develop, which could be used to make other games.But if Nintendo made their own hardware, that wouldnt happen, because well, they call the shots.Even if they wanted to make that, they would be well aware of it and take precautions.It may seem like a minor thing, but its still that goes against third party companies

5.And thats again not true.I mean, just look at Uncharted 4 for as the example.Its probably the most gorgeus game we have, that also has an excellent gameplay.And Naughty Dog went on to say that they could have done better, and will implement what they learned in the next game and make it even prettier.That just happens because they have inside knowledge of the PS4, probably because they were more time with the machine than the others, and since they know how the machine and its coding works, they can implement more tricks to make the games better.(Plus Naughty Dog has a brilliant employers.Damn those guys are talented).The same can be said about Nintendo games.While the power difference is noticiable, they make wonders with the Wii U for example.Imagine if the NX had better specs?And before you say that Nintendo dosent go for power, the Gamecube and Nintendo 64 were extremely powerful when they released, more so than Sony consoles.

6.Never said that they werent interested in profit.I just said that they had a bigger priority of making better games than most companies.I mean, they dont release broken games, that need gigantic patches after, and their games are polished to the last polygon(general rule.Of course there is one bad game here and there, but in general they are at leats very good).Thats what I meant.

Every single companie has more potential, and thus make more money, if they made their titles more acessible.While thats especially true for Nintendo, since their IPs have no equal, it dosent mean that it wouldnt also be true for other companies.Yet, Sony is making a killing this gen,and even its first party games are selling extremely well(with of course some exceptions) and Nintendo was the one doing the killing last gen.So I always thought this argument of Nintendo going third party just to make a few extra bucks(which in my opinion has no advantage in the long term) very weak.They just had a bad generation in which they did bad decisions.Thats all.

1. Over 1 Billion PC users does not mean there are 1 Billion PC gamers. With older games being sold at ridiculously low prices on PC a subscription service like PS+ could not work on PC.

2. No because unlike Nintendo, Sony make a BIG chunk of their money from Third Party Software and Subscriptions. They are limiting their first party software, but they are using that to attract people to their platform to make revenue from other areas.

3. You're absolutely right, if the NX is a sales success then Nintendo has no need to go third party. Except that if they would sell just as many units without having to go through the bother of developing, manufacturing and marketing hardware then what's the point if they don't have third party support or a subscription service.

4. The time and resources used to develop hardware could be used to develop more games though, If it wasn't for the WiiU failing and Nintendo having to develop a new console to replace it so early Nintendo's recent games output would have been higher.

5. Third Party's can make incredibly good looking games for systems, and since when was graphics so important? Especially for nintendo games.

If the NX isn't a commercial success or doesn't get third party support or a subscription service I see no relevance in Nintendo being in the home console hardware business.

It would make Nintendo quite a bit of money, as they could charge more than most companies on brand name alone. But I don't think Nintendo wants people to struggle with crappy touch screen controls and take away a bad impression.

No, that's one reason less for owning Nintendo hardware.

Yeah I don't think it'd be wise to release the likes of Super Mario Bros 3 on mobile. They're best sticking to old games that would work on Mobile and developing software specificaly for mobile.

All of the old Animal Crossing Titles would work great, Tomodachi Life, Nintendogs, Paper Mario, Mario vs Donkey Kong, Fire Emblem.

And why does Nintendo want you to own Nintendo Hardware other than to sell their games anyway?

Before I begin, I wanted to say about argument number 1:Even if only 1% of the installed base subscribed to the PS Plus, it would still be 1% of 1 billion.And if the problem is the atractiveness, they could always offer a bit more games(like 4 games every month), plus having extra perks, like being able to watch the Powers tv shows, extra discounts for renting games on PS Now, and many more.And if that isnt enough, its not always that old games are on sale on PC and especially on Steam, so they could simply take advantage of those slower months.Plus they could also offer new games once in a while on it, like they did with Rocket League.There is so many ways to sell the service, more than you are making ti seem like.

All your arguments for why Nintendo needs to go third party boils down to having a failing console.I think its overly premature to, as stated before, simply exit the hardware business just because of one bad generation.Every company has bad years.Microsoft had them, Sony had them not long ago.Its just Nintendos turn now.This line of thinking would be correct if Nintendo had multiple bad generations and, more importantly, constant loss of money, which isnt even happening anymore.Not only that, but how can you even say that a hardware cant have just first party games to be successful?I mean, while the Wii had third party, what sold the console were Nintendo games, by far.If the hardware is selling well, and first party are selling like crazy, with no third party on it, how can you argue that they should just go third party?And at the same time they would sell each unit at a higher point.I mean, Mario Kart Wii would certainly sell a bit more if available on all consoles, but not enough to justify it.Not to mention that keeping it exclusive would make Nintendo get profit over each hardware sold, and acessories since they would themselves produce them.And what if it is the console gimmick thats selling the games, just like the Wii?Wii Sports went on to sell over 80 million and was heavily based on the motion controls, something that you simply couldnt do in other platforms.

There is a balance betwenn making profits and having power over what you want to do.As long as you are having enough profit, its more important to have the decision to do whatever you want next without either having to answer to someone or waiting someone to make the next big thing.One argument that I used before that you simply passed over and ignored is that the PS3 simply crashed and burned financially speaking.If the whole point of having a hardware is to profit over a subscription fee and third party royalties, I guess its most important is to actually have profit over it.So why didnt they drop out of the race?Because they knew that the Playstation brand, just as much as Nintendo, as a hardware brand is really strong, and thus had a bigger chance to make more money as a platform holder than a third partyAnd that the PS3 was a failure due to multiple mistakes thry made, and not that the brand itself was losing popularity.The same can be said for Nintendo.

Plus there is also always the creative dignity.I trully believe one of the reasons that Nintendo wants to keep being a hardware manufacture is that they love what they do,that the innovations that they do is because they trully believe they are making gaming better, and that its not always a decision over what can be most profitable.This may not win any points for me in the discussion, but I trully find those people that wish that Nintendo should just quit the console race are making gaming worse.I mean, Nintendo saved the console industry back in the 80s, then invented the analog stick, then went to make the motion controls, which are now also used by Sony with the PS Move and important for VR.And that is something neither Sony nor Microsoft can say they have under their belt.

And just one last thing.In argument 5., you twisted what I said.I never said that graphics are most important, nor that third parties cant make good looking games.I just gave you an easy example that some of the best looking games also comes out of first party games, and its not an insignificant number compared to third party, which you seemed to imply.

Nintendo making money on hardware also, and if you buy Nintendo hardware most likely you will buy plenty of Nintendo games for that same hardware.

Same could say why Nintendo won't release games on Sony and MS consoles or why Sony won't release own games on Nintendo and MS consoles.

Nintendo already sort of does this with the Virtual Console on their home systems and they make a lottt of cash from that. I don't see them going full mobile like that because its unlikely they could potentially get more from strictly mobile games than they could from Virtual Console + home console sales + other software sales + accessories, etc. 

They don't want to kill their console market (and going fully into mobile WOULD kill it)