How do these unemployed and young gamers afford so many games?

See i am of the opposite opinion (well maybe slightly shifted to the side).

I would rather see Zelda be the only launch game and 40 games confirmed in development (from publisher and franchises I know) and showcased obviously, that would see a retail release in 2017. The biggest concern is the future not the short term software at launch.

As a VITA owner I was pissed off with all the ports, at one stage I stopped looking for software on it because of the remasters flooding shelves.

Even when I was 21 and did nothing but drink and play games, I'd still end up having a stack of sealed copies sitting in my closet. That was back in the early 00's when everything was on physical media and the only way to play games was on PC or console. Now, with free games every month via XBL/PS4 and soon to be Switch, ftp mobile games, ftp console games, ftp PC games and indie games on Steam sale.... there's just way too fucking many things out there and if I tried to play everything I wanted (I like every genre of game)... I'd have to sit on my ass playing them 24/7. 

For me, and this goes beyond games, I feel like too much is not good. Too much food, alcohol, TV, internet, sex, games... anything that is consumed too much loses it's luster and shine. Eventually, you're going to get burnt out and the enjoyment is going to die out totally. Christmas would not be fun every day of the year. It's just human biology and nature. 

So, for me? Owning just a Nintendo console and nothing else actually increases my enjoyment of gaming. When you have to wait long stretches without a major release, not only to you completely 100% the games you buy, you also appreciate new ones that much more. 

Because the Nintendo ecosystem does lack diversity and availability generally speaking of a lot of key genre types. Sony consoles generally serve a wider demographic of tastes. 

This was not the case during the NES/SNES eras, Nintendo cornered themselves into the situation. 

It's likely too late to change it now, honestly Nintendo probably never really was *that* great at making consoles. It was easy when it was just Sega to compete against and they had a virtual monopoly on third parties. Ever since Sony showed up, Nintendo's never been able to really have control over the console market, if Sony had made a 16-bit system, who knows maybe they beat Nintendo there too. 

Portable is better for Nintendo because people don't expect as many games and for whatever reason, on a smaller screen people seem more accepting of cartoony style games (this extends to smartphone and iOS games too, most of the hit games are in that vein). 

Really looking a the console market as it exists now and looking at Nintendo, they just don't have it in them to connect with that market has become. Hate to say it, but Sony kinda deserves the console market, they're the most "stable" of the three and make the most straight forward decisions and are most intuned with what the market actually is. 

Generally speaking the "we have less games, but we really have some real good ones" formula has never really worked well in the industry. The Sega Master System had great 1st party games but was easily trounced by the NES. The Saturn and N64 tried this against the Playstation and got trounced. 

The only system in like 40 years of home consoles that went on to sell like gangbusters without really high level third party support is the Wii, and that was on the back of a very unique situation with the controller that I don't think can be replicated (certainly not at the snap of a finger). People just don't want to hear the whole "we have fewer games but ours have this specific quality" arguement, they just tune that right out and go buy a Playstation. 

Next to fewer games, less variety is the worst. Thats were Nintendo is losing me.

This shouldn't have to be said, but yeah. N64 started with very few games, their mantra and damage control was "quality over quantity." And they struck gold with the first good full 3D platformer, a big complex 3D Zelda with contextual buttons, and an FPS with local multiplayer - fresh, new experiences that one had to play. Yet even then they struggled compared to the PS1s far larger (and generally cheaper) library of games, as high quantity does not automatically mean low quality, and vice versa.

This is also why I never understood the hatred some people have against remasters. They don't take much resources, and they get more games on the system, making the game availiable both to people that haven't played it before and those that want to play it again.

Gotta agree, kinda silly when you think about it. Unless I am missing something.

The NS was first acknowledged by Nintendo since way back in 2014 right? Meaning the have been working on this for at least 4 years.Now the WiiU was no doubt a failure. Why didn't Nintendo just make the the switch BC with all WiiU software? But not just that, digitally have available remastered (even if its just a rez and performance bump) versions of all the best selling WiiU games day one?

Obviously there re a LOT of people that hasn't played them being how poorly the wiiU did, so why not?

What is the point of responding to people if you just go on long winded rants that for the most part dont actually dispute what the person you quoted said?

Like I said, the Nintendo ecosystem consists of high quality games in the platformer, RPG, strategy, puzzle, action/adventure, shooter, fighting, racing, simulation, party genres.

From a consumer standpoint? Yep, I totally agree. The more options gamers have, the better. But within limits. I think that Steam is a disgrace nowadays. It's full of shovelware which doesn't deserve anyone's recognition. So, quantity? Yep. But always with quality control. A bare minimum is required. Titanfall 2 for example is, obviously, a well-made game, which people could like or not. But it's definitely a loss. That wouldn't be the case with those Steam "games", for example. That would be a win.