Ok, you want a fair explanation why you're wrong, I'll help you out.

"They don't complain about hardware capability of their system and its price to performance ratio."
Actually, they do. Wii U's $350 price tag wasn't well received at all, nor was the 3DS's $250. If you think the Switch is too expensive because you can get a PS4 for less, you're not taking in consideration that it's a freaking 6-inch tablet.

Still the 3DS was incredibly expensive considering its hardware after the price cut, same goes for the Wii U. Both have weak hardware but still get praised by Nintendo fans.

"They don't complain about lack of big AAA third party games on their Nintendo platform and are willing to spend more on another entirely different platform for that rather than wanting everything on that one platform."
I'm pretty sure everyone likes games to be on the same platform. I've never seen a Nintendo fan complain about them actually getting 3rd party games, but either way, still a pretty extreme generalization.

My wording is wrong. They want everything on their platform but don't mind getting another platform for third party games and would still consider getting a Nintendo platform even if they have to buy another platform to play third party games. No the case for most PlayStation and Xbox gamers.

"They don't mind having only a few new games to play every year."
They don't have only a few new games to play every year.

In 2014 all Wii U had was DKC TF, Mario Kart 8, Super Smash Bros, Bayonetta 2 and Captain Toad Treasure Tracker. PS and Xbox typically have three to four times as many AAA games even in a not so filled with games year. And that was one of the better years for Wii U gamers.

"They don't mind paying for ports of Nintendo games that are three years old and that they already own. (This could apply to PlayStation fans as well but only in case of Naughty Dog games)"
What? Dude the best selling game this generation as far as I know is GTA V, guess what, a 7th gen port that came out only a year after its original release. People buy games they like, ports of good games are always bound to sell well, regardless of fanbase.

Point taken.

"They are highly excited for almost any game that is made by Nintendo because its made by Nintendo and looks fairly decent."
I don't see a lot of people going crazy over the recent announcements of Yoshi and Kirby... or Sushi Striker, for that matter. Either way, people are right to get excited about Nintendo games in general, because Nintendo is a great developer with a fantastic track record.

They also have a track record of many not so great games and the games they get excited for are something I personally would never buy and that's why I don't think they are worth getting hyped for.

"They like portable gaming as much as gaming on a TV or monitor."
Generalization.

This would't be applicable to all, as will any of these, all are generalisations I think is applicable to most.

"They don't mind a lack of content, or don't perceive a less than 50 hour long game as a short game."
So you believe every game that doesn't have a 50-hour long campaign is short? Damn that's some pretty ridiculous standards you have. Just because a game is short doesn't mean it lacks content, in fact a lot of times a longer game is longer just because it has loads of filler (Skyward Sword gets plenty of hate for that), and when they do lack content (such as Star Fox Zero), they also get deserved criticism.

PlayStation, Xbox and PC gamers usually do this and I hate that. I don't mind if a game is even 5 houurs long, its all about the quality of the experience for me. But many others do and I've seen that happen, say, with Rise of the Tomb Raider and Fallout 4, that was their reason to not buy Rise of the Tomb Raider even though its a far superior game.

"They prefer PIXAR like graphics over realistic graphics."
I'm pretty sure no Nintendo game looks like it was made by Pixar, but if that's the only definition you have for "not realistic", whatever.

I think they look like PIXAR animations for some reason.

"They prefer gameplay simplicity and accessibility over depth."
No. Just no. Nintendo games are usually simple and accessible, yes, but not at the cost of depth, and that's what makes them so great. If you believe games like Smash, Splatoon, Fire Emblem, Pokémon and others have no depth, you simply have absolutely no idea what you're talking about (and it shows). If anything they certainly have more depth than the myriad of QTE-filled games we're getting today.

Mario Kart 8 has little depth in my opinion compared to any simulation racing game and even many arcade racing games on the market. Also I saw how receptive their fans were to the addition to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe that made playing the game a lot simpler. That's not what would happen if such an addition is made to PlayStation and Xbox games.

Also platformers in general don't have the depth of game like Devil May Cry 3 and many other popular games on other platforms not present on Nintendo platforms.

Look at the popularity of Super Smash Bros versus the fighting games popular on other platforms which have much more in depth fighting mechanics. Also the failre of games with deep mechanics to sell on Nintendo platforms like Bayonetta 2 and Wonderful 101.

"They are less critical of their company of choice over any issue and the criticism that comes from them for their preferred company is more constructive and doesn't consist of blanket statements."
Generalization.

Yes.

"They like playing retro games more than others."
As it only makes sense because PlayStation games can only get as old as 1995, never mind Microsoft.

Could be, I'm not going into reason here.

"They almost only discuss Nintendo games and not any third party games even when they do have other platforms to play most third party games that they say they bought to play those third party games."
Generalization.

Yes, that's what I've seen.

No, he isn't receptive with everything that Nintendo do

Well that dies make you a fan doesn't it. I am a Sony fan since its the only system at the moment I want to buy games for and pc, but I need more money for my rig. But he seriously has never played a Zelda game before. Even I have played most Zelda games since WW. He needs to get a Switch ASAP.

And that is true. Kirby is in Super Smash Bros., but not in other fighting games

Now this is a good reply. My reply to you in bold.

You honestly believe the Wii U, probably the 3rd worst selling home console of all time, got praised? Really? The Wii U?

Okay, I'm not going to pretend Mario Kart 8 is a deep game, but think back about what you're saying here. Deluxe got some dumb-proof modes added for 3-year olds to be able to have fun without falling down every pit, just because people accept having these options it means Nintendo fans don't like depth? Dude pretty much any modern racing sim has these dumb-proof options too, in fact they usually take it farther by having auto-brake options, and little pathways on the ground showing you where you should be at all times. I'm not saying games like Forza or Gran Turismo aren't deeper than Mario Kart, but they have as many (if not more) options to make it stupid easy.

Then you mention Devil May Cry 3 as a kind of game not present on Nintendo platforms... and mention Bayonetta 2 right after. Gotcha.

And about Smash, you seriously have no idea what you're talking about. Smash is just as deep as any other fighting game, in fact I would say it's deeper than most, because it adds a lot of different elements to the core gameplay that other fighting games just don't have - traditional fighters are just about life bars, Smash has the % mechanic which means you can't beat an opponent with any random move, and it also means you need to learn different combos for different %s, as well as also meaning you have to keep in mind when and where you have to hit an opponent with any given move to get a guaranteed kill. It also has a lot of other things other fighting games don't have, such as DI, techs, and plenty of ridiculous advanced techniques it's no use getting into. I'm not sure you realize Smash is one of the biggest competitive fighting games in the world, but there is a reason for that.

As for Bayonetta 2 and Wonderful 101 failing to sell well, it's not because they're deep, it's because they're hard to learn. Any kid can pick up Smash and have fun, it doesn't mean the game is shallow - meanwhile, Wonderful 101 is a complete clusterfuck where nothing makes sense and I can say from experience it was never any fun during my few hours with the game. I'm sure if I invest more time into understanding it, I could enjoy it, but it just doesn't feel good, not at all. Bayonetta 2 I've never played, but I'm sure it's a more logically understandable game, and that's why it has found an audience, albeit admittedly a modest one.

Also, where the hell are you taking these prices from?