1. Can you name a specific example of a port that wasn't either poorly done, released more than 3 months late, or otherwise handicapped going in (like Rayman Legends with the massive, cynical public delay, or Black Ops 2 with it blatant that it wouldn't get support post-launch)? I don't care about what you "believe", I care about facts.

2. Mature titles sell fine on Nintendo consoles, when they're well-made. On the Wii, you had titles such as Call of Duty 3, Resident Evil 4 (and Umbrella Chronicles), Goldeneye, No More Heroes, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, and Monster Hunter Tri all demonstrate that (in the case of NMH, it's relative to typical Suda51, and comparison with PS3/360 version sales), as do Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword. Can you name a "mature" title that was released on the Wii, that wasn't low quality or otherwise handicapped, that didn't sell at least decently-well?

3. I addressed the "casual game" case in the previous paragraph: "When they had a big casual hit, such as Just Dance or Carnival Games, they started pumping more and more of them out with lower quality and less value, to pump as much out of it before it died, rather than trying to cultivate a long-term audience. And if a casual title didn't sell huge numbers, they simply cut and ran." Casual titles work differently. But more than that, you're actually making my point for me. Third parties frequently LITERALLY said that it's hard to compete against Nintendo... but when they actually tried, they didn't have any trouble. Remember, I'm not describing the ACTUAL situation in that paragraph, I'm describing third party attitudes.

4. I listed four examples. They demonstrate that Nintendo has a broad and open market. And you think that proves me wrong? These games sold well BECAUSE the developer and publisher put in the effort. Did they put in the effort with Dead Space? Nope. Did they put in the effort with Grand Theft Auto? Nope, didn't even put it on the system. Final Fantasy? Nope. Call of Duty? Nope (publisher-specific, here - I have no qualms with Treyarch). Assassin's Creed? Nope. The Batman Arkham games? Nope. Any EA sports title except the Tiger Woods ones (which were never big-sellers)? Nope. Battlefield? Mass Effect? Far Cry? Crysis? Street Fighter? Mortal Kombat? BioShock? None of them. Shall I continue?

As for the examples themselves. Activision did put all of their shooters on the Wii following... except that nothing changed. They continued to be lacking in features (not talking about stuff the Wii couldn't handle, but stuff the Wii was completely capable of handling), unsupported after release, with no attention given to the Wii version prior to release either. Suda 51, I have no qualms with - understand, I'm not making sweeping "every developer does it" statements, I'm talking about the major publishers (Suda 51 tends to work with Marvelous, who have been quite good, and can't really be called a "major publisher") - incidentally, The Silver Case was never released for DS, and it was just a port of a 1999 game.

Sonic has almost always had a place on Nintendo consoles - it's undoubtedly a special case. Sonic Lost World and Sonic Boom were from a Nintendo/Sega deal, though, so you really can't count those. And notice that they're all the spinoff Sonic titles; the "real" ones - Sonic Generations and Sonic 4 - didn't really get proper representation, with Sonic Generations skipping the Wii and Sonic 4 Episode 2 never making it to any Nintendo system.

TT Games, I have no problems at all with - they've been fine, have given proper support to Nintendo systems, and put real effort into every release. The LEGO games have been on-point, as they say nowadays.

5. "Bad ports" aren't about the quality of the graphics. They're about glitchiness, missing features that aren't particularly hard to implement, and more generally inferior quality of game. Would Resident Evil 5 on Wii have looked as good as it would on the other systems? No. But other than the graphical downgrade, is there anything in the game that would fail to work on the Wii? Not that I've seen, at least.

Modern Warfare 2 is a different situation entirely - it was missed because Infinity Ward didn't want to make their games for Wii, so Treyarch had to argue with Activision for the opportunity to port the IW games to Wii. They ported Modern Warfare 1 two years late (because World at War proved that there was at least some market), and despite not really getting much support from Activision, they managed to make a decent game with more features than were found in World at War. As I've said, I have no problem with Treyarch; Infinity Ward and Activision are to blame for the state of CoD on Nintendo systems. But MW2 didn't get missed because it would be a "downgrade", it got missed because they skipped MW1 originally, and they were basically trying to catch up. By MW3, they realised they were better off porting the current game, and so MW2 never happened.

World at War proved a market for shooters well before Goldeneye. Call of Duty 3 proved it even earlier - sold almost as much as the 360 version, and more than the PS3 version, despite lacking online entirely (another thing I don't blame anybody for - online wasn't fully prepared on Wii until a few months after CoD3 released).

Not sure what your point is regarding the "top 15" part, but let me ask you think - can you think of a Wii FPS title that wasn't gimped in terms of functionality, and that sold well on other systems? Goldeneye proved that Wii FPS titles can do well, but where was the follow-up attempt to make a Wii FPS? The closest is The Conduit, and while High Voltage Software were skilled at making a game engine, they sucked at game design.

6. Who said anything about forcing motion controls? Many genres have no need for such things on Wii, with Wiimote+Nunchuk buttons being more than sufficient. Others would have explicitly benefited from the Wii's controls. Where was the big turn-based RPG series? The RTS or Tactical RPG series? These would have used motion controls perfectly. Where were the big Survival Horror titles, considering that Resident Evil 4 did quite well and Silent Hill: Shattered Memories was the best-selling Silent Hill title of the generation (for one platform)? Every other survival horror title was either Nintendo-published (Fatal Frame), actually an on-rails shooter (RE Chronicles games, Dead Space, House of the Dead), completely missing the point of the original (Dead Rising), or published by a minor publisher (Cursed Mountain).

Something to think about - the Wii got both a Soulcalibur game and a Castlevania game. The Soulcalibur game was an adventure title and the Castlevania game was a fighter. Both franchises got normal titles on the other systems, and neither one got a game from their normal genre on the Wii. What does this tell us?

7. I'm not asserting a conspiracy. That implies organised intent. I'm suggesting the exact same kind of human behaviour that saw Square Enix refuse to work with Nintendo in the N64 era due to policies that were, by that time, defunct. I'm suggesting the exact same kind of behaviour that saw EA stop development on the Wii U before they had any real idea of how well it would sell, with just about everyone identifying it as a "falling out" - to such an extent that EA refused to allow a practically-finished Crysis 3 (according to the developers) to be released on the Wii U because there was "a lack of business support" from EA.

And again, I don't care what you "believe". And again, you can't use the "if there's money" argument - Crysis 3 could have been released on the eShop for nearly nothing; EA still wouldn't allow it. There have been other titles, along the way, that have been cancelled at the last minute for Nintendo systems. And "money" doesn't counteract any of my other points, which you have conveniently left off your summary of my post.

8. Monkeys aren't businesses, and a closer analogy would be the monkey going to the basket that they can SEE fruit in rather than a closed basket that might have more fruit... and refusing to ever go over to the closed basket because there's no current evidence that it contains fruit.

1: Thank god I can just use copy/paste on this one as I agree this specific kind of "discussion" takes too damn long time XD

"You criticize 3rd parties for not putting games like Resident Evil 5 and COD: Modern Warfare 2 on Wii in spite of the Wii being the market leader. I believe this was purely based on the Wii's weaker hardware specs. You don't want bad ports. Well, I think RE5 and MW2 would've run pretty bad on Wii's hardware. Additionally, I listed the top 15 best selling 3rd party Wii games and there's not a single game like RE5 or MW2. Besides, MW2 was in development before GoldenEye 007 showed Activision that Wii had a market for shooters.

You can't just force motion controls into all those never attempted games you speak of. You could argue that the Wii had a "classic" controller but then the argument about biggest install base wouldn't be valid. Again, those big franchises wouldn't necessarily be big successes on Wii."

2: So basically it's like this?
3rd parties: "You did it first."
Rol (and others): "No, you did first!"
3rd parties: "Nuh uh!"
Rol (and others): "Yuh huh!"
etc.

XD Sorry. Yeah. Let's leave it. I guess I'll just have to live with some conspiracy theories.

In point 7 we're so close to finding a middle ground when you say that 3rd parties aren't conspiring against Nintendo but I'm not 100% sure that you understand that Square Enix's decision was based on financial logic rather than bias. Why the hell should they be biased against Nintendo?

Regarding everything else:

No offense but it'd just lead to an endless babbling from the both of us

At $350 they would get quite a capable console, one to match and probably even surpass the current iterations of X1 and PS4 and for $400 the NX would be as powerful as the Neo and Scorpio (or close enough). And besides, they could make a home console for $300 and then have it up to the consumer to buy the handheld and link them together to boost the power, if the patents are to be believed. And regarding the graphical differences between the home console and the portable, why couldn't the games be scalable? The PC have managed that trick for years now, and by the sound of it, it seems like the NEo and Scorpio are heading that way too.

The problem with being the one and only choice for "casuals" is that they might not get a home console at all. Nintendo might be forced to invent a new gimmick each and every generation to keep them coming back. And we all know how that went down the last two times they tried it... I wanna make two points about this:

1) There isn't a big difference between the DS and 3DS, not really. The 3DS is a more powerful DS with 3D capabilities, more or less. So why didn't it sell as well as the DS? Or close to it? We could argue that the initial price point were too steep, but why haven't that been ratified since Nintendo cut the price? Why aren't the 3DS close to 100m? It's not like it has an entirely new controll mechanism, like Wii U. It's not like the entire market for handhelds disappeared, since it's still selling. Was it the 3D that scared them away? Well, that could easily be turned off, and is entirely misisng on the 2DS - which is the cheapest iteration of the 3DS, and yet, has sold the least. Or is it that the market simply moved on? Why buy a gaming device, and the games for it, when you can play for free.

2) The "casuals" are quite fickle and moved on from Wii and DS en masse. Sure, you can argue that Nintendo failed to sustain the Wii with quality games after 2010, but how about the transition from the DS to the 3DS I talked about? And what's to stop the "casuals" from moving on from the NX once they grow tired of it? The "core" gaming audience are more reliable that way, although, even that market share is having trouble retainen people these days, and I'm just speculating here; that could be because core gamers are turning to PC instead. If Nintendo made a "core" console they could win people back from the PC, since their games aren't playable anywhere else - but Nintendo would have to have strong 3rd party support for that to work.

What I'm saying is that the NX should be a place for ALL gamers to meet and play, casuals AND core. That's the argument I'm putting forth. A console strong enough to lure back 3rd parties, and thus the core gaming audience, but having the extraordinary IP's and creativity Nintendo has, they'd also bring casuals into the fold.

First, I mostly game on Nintendo hardware, but I do also game on PC. But thanks for suggesting that I must be "in the extreme minority". Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? I'm looking for facts, so you'd better have a study or something similar to back up your claim. Otherwise I'll just assume you're full of it.

I don't mind ACIII having some technical imperfections. I *do* mind them not advertising the Wii U version. And I do mind Blacklist having major glitches. But ultimately, those aren't the issue. I'm not arguing that ACIII should have been better, I'm arguing that they're not solid arguments for why third parties shouldn't support the Wii U. They're franchises that are new to the console, inferior to the other versions, and yet people point at them as proof that there's no market for that franchise on the system.

The logical thing to do would be to build on the market established by those titles, use the lessons from development to make a tighter port, and push the title harder. Instead, there was no followup to Blacklist at all, while ACIV lacked any DLC support that the other versions had, had some major framerate issues, and no attempt was made to seriously push the game on the Wii U (but hey, at least the ads had the Wii U logo, albeit rather small, at the end). Markets have to be built for each franchise, they don't just magically materialise.

Meanwhile, I do like how you tried to sneak in that blatant attack on the Wii U with the implication that the Wii U's hardware is weaker than the PS3 and 360 - facts that just don't hold up.

Mind you, if it weren't for continuing attitudes by third parties, the issues I've listed about ACIII and ACIV probably wouldn't have stopped the games selling well. But when you're used to being skeptical of the quality of a third party title, you're a lot less likely to be satisfied with "almost comparable" quality. And that's the point I'm making - if you have a choice between buying a third party title and a first party title, and you know the first party title will be good, you're going to need the third party title to actually give you reason to look at it. And "we've almost reached comparable quality with the other versions" looks more like "we couldn't be bothered to put in the resources to get the game up to scratch".

And I've done that repeatedly, so I'm not misrepresenting things at all. About three quarters of my Wii library is third-party titles, covering everything from Red Steel (I really wanted a real sequel to that game), to No More Heroes, to Dewy's Adventure. I bought Call of Duty: World at War, because I saw Treyarch's effort even despite Activision's treatment. And again, I bought Black Ops, because I saw Treyarch's efforts. But as the Wii generation went on, I became more and more cautious about buying non-Nintendo games, because multiple times I'd ended up with games that just didn't live up to what they should have been; a problem I almost never have had with Nintendo games.

Nowadays, I tend to go with more independent titles, because most of them put passion and effort into every game they release, on every platform the game is released on. I'm itching for a Dynasty Warriors on my console because I love the Hyrule Warriors titles and want more of that gameplay... yet no such title is on the way, as far as I can see. I've bought multiple third party titles only to be kicked in the gut, colloquially speaking, each time, this generation.

I buy good games. There are only a few types of games I just don't like (not a fan of the "Horror" titles, because I don't get enjoyment out of games trying to scare me, whether they succeed or not), and otherwise, if a good game is made, I'll pretty much certainly buy it.

I buy Nintendo consoles because I know there will be enough good games to satisfy me. Nintendo games are pretty much guaranteed to be good games. But I'd love to have more good games, and I've prioritised third party titles over first-party titles multiple times, where there's been good reason to do so (Rayman Legends, for example).

But it's funny - people like you like to refer to "Nintendo-only gamer", as though that's a thing. What? They buy Nintendo consoles and not the PS/Xbox systems? They must only like Nintendo games, right?

So basically, "middle ground", to you, is me agreeing with your view.

As for Square Enix - even Square's own president admitted that they refused to release for Nintendo systems because of pride. Here's a direct quote from an interview in a Nikkei newspaper:

"Our true enemy," he admitted, "was our pride". This was pride that resulted from the heady years of the original PlayStation. When Square originally announced back in 1997 that the Final Fantasy series would be PlayStation exclusive from now on, Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi treated the affront lightly, saying that the console selection "couldn't be helped." Suzuki responded by publicly bashing the N64 and convincing Enix to join the PS camp along with them, which, looking back at it now, he realizes wasn't an incredibly smart move. The little grudge match between them that resulted was the main reason Square failed in their bid for a Nintendo license earlier this year.

But hey, it must be my imagination and "financial logic rather than bias", right?

I've only read the first sentence because thats all I really need to know.  You are championing a silly cause, you have the ability to experience the best way to play said 3rd party games and you refuse for...reasons?  They are the cheapest, have the best graphics, are fully advertised, have all DLC, tend to have fewer glitches and these are all based on what you want to spend on the PC itself.

Instead of continaully writing about how 3rd party (multiplat especially) games should be on Nintendo consoles (which is the worst way to play them because of various situations), you should focus on telling people the best way to, especially if you feel that the games are worth playing.  

You seem to have a reply to every argument, don't you? ;)

I'm actually quite eager to hear your thoughts on these latest rumours from Eurogamer. I see that you're not buying in to it, but let's just say that if this were true... How do you think it would fare?

What would you have greenlit then? What kind of a console would you make?

All I'm seeing is the lack of Western 3rd party support... I'm not saying it's a bad concept, it would probably be more successful than what I've argued for here, but the lack of processing power would probably hinder it somewhat