What if Nintendo wants to continue experimenting gameplay with the type of tech such as HD Rumble and such? They are experimenters for pete's sake. They want to try different gameplay experiences with different uses of the controller. They've done it for decades. From ROB, to The Super Scope, from playing multiplayer on gamecube using multiple GBAs, to touch screens and motion controls. They don't want to restrict themselves with traditional controls all the time. If you want them to go third party, you would have to reconcile with the possibility of them wanting to experiment with stuff like Kinect, the touch pad on the DS4, the Move, etc.  They're not shy (outside of VR) to try something different.

Kinect is dead, they aren't going anywhere near that thing.  Not even MS is.  It's mainly for voice/vid chat, now.  And using the touchpad for simple things or even just as an extra button isn't that bad.  Of course, the majority of the games don't use it for much, nor do I think Nintendo would.

AS for previous gimmicks, Rob only worked for a couple of games.  It failed and Nintendo gave up on it.  The Super Scope isn't anything new.  They just took a light gun and made it look like a bazooka.  Whoopity doo.  Again, how many games did GBA multiplayer support?  Sadly, unlike the previous ones, Nintendo hasn't seemed to learn that controller gimmicks aren't appealing anymore, unless used in minor and interesting ways.  Even then, devs usually allow you to choose between a more traditional way of doing that action. 

Towards the end of last gen, it was obvious, as devs stopped using them for PS3/360, and the Wii was failing to continue selling even remotely close to its glory days.  This gen should have cemented it into people's brains.  The tablet/Wiimote gimmick failed the Wii U.  And trying to be appeal to casuals, MS bundled the Kinect with the XBO, which only brought weak sales.

Things have changed.  The people who were even into motion controls, casuals, have moved onto mobile games.  And even those games have moved aways from motion control, most just use touch control.  Something they can get out of a $150-$200 10.1" 1080p+ tablet from Walmart.

lets be honest, quality was dipping before they went 3rd party. Look at that 32x library and to a certain extent Saturn

sales tell a different story

its funny how people get so sensitive about one person's opinion over games. sadilarious. We have to wait to see what the Switch does sales wise. Even if it doesnt do good (IMHO not good is below 50mil sold as this is going to be there ONLY HW) then they might have to consider doing something else. I like the Switch thing myself. It makes it easier on them as its clear that they cant support two devices and their home consoles have been meh since SNES (imo) and It was getting sad watching them get trounced in the home console arena. I hope their is enough interest in Switch where they dont have to have that convo because they wont go 3rd party, with their pride they would just never make another game again before they do that.

ANd this whole revenue argument, i get it but...who cares? As a gamer most people dont care about all that. Its not like they have stock in Ninty and all that money Ninty made and we still got a slow start to 3ds and one of the biggest flops in recent HW history? They might as well have no money, hell they supposdely doing better than Sony and MS but people are actually buying their systems

Developers need a userbase.  PS4 and XB1 are doing what it takes to build that, by having broad appeal.  How can you criticize the formula when it's resonated with so many players and with developers, while Nintendo's last attempt at a console crashed and burned so badly?

It's all nice and all that Nintendo is taking risks, but they've been nichey for a while now.  3DS's main differential - the "3D" - wasn't what people eventually bought the 3DS for, it's the games.

With the Switch it's the same.  People are not that hyped about the hardware, and certainly not about the retry at motion controls.  Quality as a home console is highly compromised.  People are hyped about playing the games: Zelda, MK, Splatoon, Mario... and there is absolutely nothing special about Nintendo's console that enables these games.  They could all be also on PS4/XB1/PC.

I don't really care having to buy another console, but many folks do.  These aren't that cheap, especially with online subscriptiions; if you want to play games on multiple consoles it's a pricey hobby.  What I care is, the Switch is not going to play the games in the best possible way.  I'll have the Switch dock that can play Zelda at 900p with no antialiasing, and right next to it a PS4 Pro that could run the game in 4k HDR, and it's such a waste.

I agree about the pride thing, that probably has something to do with it. Me, I just want this to happen for selfish reasons. I want all my games, friends, and online subs (Nintendo has one now) on one machine.

I guess I'll admit, one downside for me is: there's less chance of some cool new thing, like how cool Wii was. I loved playing motion games with friends.

Regarding those games: I don't know/care if they're among the best mobile games, but I do know I don't like them. I tried to get into Pokemon Go, Miitomo, and also checked out videos of Mario Run. They're not for me, nor is mobile gaming in general. I dunno how that relates to this topic, though. And yeah, Nintendo is in a much better position that Sega was.

1. Exactly Sega was far more suited to being a third party developer than Nintendo. Sega had far more genre versatility. Nintendo's style and business model far more centered around them building a platform around their games. Sega had no such crutch. Sega's issue was that they had poor management that couldn't manage to sell some of the best games in the industry. They continued to fail to do so as a third party developer and now they aren't arguably the best developer in the industry anymore. They aren't even top 10.

2.If you think present day Sega is fine. You didn't see Sega in there prime. The Sega of today is shell of it's former self. Does the Sega of today make a top notch JRPGs, Racing Games, Action Game, Puzzle Games, Sports Game, etc? Sega of today is a run of a mill publisher with the ocassional gem. Sega in it's prime produced more gems than a diamond mine. The made great games in every genre.

Success is irrelevant to what I said. I said it looks fun, and would not be replicable on the other two consoles. Success doesn't matter. The Dreamcast wasn't a success yet was an amazing console filled to the brim with quality, innovative software. I am sure the latest Britney Spears album is a success, yet I'll still gladly say no thanks.

Wii U failed because of software and marketing, not gimmicks. Either way, not relevant to how fun the game looks or how possible it might be utilizing niche, optional extra hardware on other platforms.

They can make great games without gimmicks on their own platforms. They have each gen, no reason they won't this gen.

jesus, no they shouldn't...

the gaming industry would be half as good with Nintendo 3rd party