What a yawn fest.

But indeed, Nintendo didn't change, which is why third parties left and right migrated to a place where business was better for them. 

More like mid-2000s Sony, who was arrogant and somewhat difficult to worth with. Many games jumped from Sony to 360 those first couple of years.

How was Sony hard to work with? The PS3 had potential that was hard/complicated to tap. But Sony being hard to work with from a third party stand point? That's the first time I ever heard of that. Care to elaborate and provide a source?

I mentioned events that are the same, but you are unable to admit it because you are too fixated on putting blame on Nintendo in a situation where no responsibility can be assigned to Nintendo, because deals such as the one between Squaresoft and Sony are made behind closed doors where nobody else gets invited to have any say, let alone attempt a bid on their own.

Sony couldn't do anything to prevent Tales of Vesperia going to the Xbox 360 because Sony didn't even know that a deal between Microsoft and Bandai-Namco was in the works. That's why assigning any sort of blame to Sony in this instance would be stupid. It's the same with the deal between Sony and Squaresoft because Nintendo only learned about the deal after it had already been made. When Nintendo learned about it, that is when Squaresoft was told by Yamauchi that they don't need to come back after the deal has expired. This tidbit of the story is then framed in a way as if Nintendo was the evil entity in that specific constellation when even the slightest trace of objectivity should lead to the conclusion that Squaresoft let themselves be paid off by Sony, so it was Squaresoft who really hurt the relationship between them and Nintendo, not the other way around.

Another example is the deal between Nintendo and Capcom to make Monster Hunter exclusive to Nintendo consoles for several years. Who is the first company you would blame for that to happen? Is it Sony?

So you are denying the fact that Nintendo asked third parties a bigger share for putting games on their platforms, and, coupled with the restrictive storage medium, is what lead Squaresoft to seek a better deal?

You say I'm too fixated on putting the blame on Nintendo. You do the same when it comes to Sony. And with you, Nintendo is never to blame for third parties seeking a better deal elsewhere. They're a poor victim of an industry widespread conspiracy against them. 
 

When everyone is acting a certain way towards you, it's fair to assume it's not the entire world that needs to correct its ways.

Thats not Nintendos fault either. Nintendo went the direction that always worked for them aswell as the devs as history proir to them leaving shows. In this case, companies left Nintendo for even more greed and dropped the platform that made them super successful.

No wonder Nintendo was pissed.

I am denying your assertion, because what you think is a fact is not a fact. What led Squaresoft to making said deal with Sony is that Sony approached Squaresoft with a very generous offer. As Squaresoft's CEO said, the deal that Sony gave them was the best one that Sony gave to any third party publisher on the PS1. You didn't answer the simple Monster Hunter question in my previous post, but you really should because it would greatly help you to understand how these things work.

Your closing statement is something that you should think about. When today's AAA publishers mostly shun the highly successful Switch console while indie developers embrace it, then a supposed conspiracy is actually not so unrealistic anymore. When Nintendo can seemingly never do it right for AAA publishers, but Sony sees continued support during the PS3 era despite third parties making all-time high losses due to PS3 game development, then you should ask yourself the question why such a discrepancy exists.

When you think in more general terms and actually consider all the things that have been held against Nintendo, then it should become apparent that the possibility that the industry played gamers like a fiddle is very real. Nintendo's allegedly draconian third party policies include things such as the NES's lockout chip and a royalty business model, but apparently third parties have always been fine with Nintendo's competitors doing the exact same things. Final Fantasy VII's business history provides a new factual context that had not been confirmed for ~20 years. With Sony shopping around in the mid to late 1990s and paying off various big third parties, said third parties trying to convince other third parties to put Sony above Nintendo, then why would it be farfetched that a public narrative was forged over the years that Nintendo is extremely hard to work with? But behind closed doors it was always first and foremost just the simple difference that Sony (and later Microsoft) paid off third parties while Nintendo did not. Of course it's more beneficial for a third party to receive extraordinary monetary benefits, but does a lack of payments make a console manufacturer evil?

One thing that history has taught us is that AAA publishers at large are very much like whores who provide their service to the highest bidder. Another thing is that console manufacturers only pay for games they see value in, so unsurprisingly it's rare that small developers get deals. That's basically why indie developers have a very different attitude towards Nintendo than AAA publishers do, because the vast majority of indie developers doesn't get any deals, so they have no business interest in fueling a narrative where Nintendo is bad and everyone would be better off if Nintendo stopped making consoles.

In any case, don't forget to respond to the Monster Hunter question.

"One thing that history has taught us is that AAA publishers at large are very much like whores who provide their service to the highest bidder. Another thing is that console manufacturers only pay for games they see value in, so unsurprisingly it's rare that small developers get deals. That's basically why indie developers have a very different attitude towards Nintendo than AAA publishers do, because the vast majority of indie developers doesn't get any deals, so they have no business interest in fueling a narrative where Nintendo is bad and everyone would be better off if Nintendo stopped making consoles."

Even if you agree with nothing else, you have to at least acknowledge this.

So will you concede that Nintendo broke that honor more and before when they broke a signed contract for the development of the CD? Or imaginary contracts have more value on your head?

How is Nintendo breaking that honor code by sticking with what works for them at the time? Just because others went CD doesnt mean they needed to change, i for one am glad they stuck with cartridges. Nintendo of course were experimenting with CDs but decided cartridges were better for there buisness model.

Remember Nintendo before CD gaming was king and companies like Square made there success off Nintendo. Lets not pretend the NES and SNES existed.