Please, people... just switch to Ultron. (Make sure to update your Adobe Reader).
Let's address these one at a time...
The hardware is weak, but the market has spoken and to them at least, it doesn't matter. If it DID matter, people wouldn't buy them. Why would Nintendo spend the extra money when consumers have already decided they're going to buy it in droves anyway? So they can spend more on manufacturing and make less profit? Yes, they wanted easy cash. What responsible company doesn't? It doesn't make any sense to spend a dime more on producing a product than what your customers demand. The limitations of the Switch are the fault of consumers who buy it, not Nintendo's. If Microsoft could sell the same number of units Nintendo can by making a game system that cost $50 to manufacture and ran on 386, you can be damn sure they would too. I completely understand your anger - I've had to spend the last 20 years watching flocks of people buy inferior, overpriced Apple products and rave about how great they are. But like Nintendo, Apple only does it because the consumers let them get away with it. Your complaint is misdirected when it should be targeted at the customer base. But good luck teaching happy people who don't know any better that the thing they like is bad. It's not a great use of your time.
All of your other problems are perfectly reasonable, but if you think Microsoft's plan if they buy Nintendo is to drop everything and start porting old titles or working on a new Starfox game, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Like Disney buying Star Wars, get ready for annual, mediocre entries in your favorite series cranked out by a revolving door of existing teams to maximize output. After a couple years of half-baked Mario and Zelda games, they'll stop selling in the numbers Microsoft wants, and after the golden goose is dead, they'll dissolve any remaining Nintendo assets into their larger acquisitions structure, lay off a bunch, and put the name in the vault while they look for something else to cannibalize.
Yeah, and it's sold more units than the PS5 and all iterations of the current XBox combined, at a profit on every unit. Nobody's out there holding a gun to people's heads to buy the Switch, but they sell FAR more than either of their competitors in both hardware AND software. It sounds to me like you're not actually angry at Nintendo, but angry at the majority of customers in the game industry that don't share your disdain for less powerful hardware.
They already tried to acquire them once and were laughed out of the meeting.
https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-wanted-to-buy-nintendo-145746874.html
Sure, buying Nintendo would be a win for Microsoft, but Nintendo would gain absolutely nothing from the deal. Sure, there are people like myself who loudly and rightfully complain about Nintendo's business practices, but at the end of the day, it took until THIS year for Playstation 5 to finally outsell them in a single year, and they're not even CLOSE to matching total unit sales, and Xbox is doing worse than THAT. Add to that Nintendo's software attach rate, and as much as I don't like HOW they do their business, they're WILDLY successful at it and making more money as a function of their costs than anyone else in the industry, so they can't be faulted for continuing to do what is working.
I honestly don't know what Phil Spencer thinks would be different than the previous meeting in another sales proposal today, especially given Microsoft's INCREDIBLY weakened industry market position compared to Nintendo's. Microsoft is only able to approach the idea from a position of power based on its market capitalization funded by its other businesses - in the gaming industry, Nintendo simply occupies the more advantageous market position.
Saying it doesn't make sense doesn't make it true. It's a perfectly valid English sentence and if the well understood ambiguities of the English language are giving you trouble, I don't know what to tell you. The sentence only makes sense by understanding "them" to be platforms. It's not my fault if YOU decided to read it differently.
"The cat hates the chair because it's made of leather."
"How can a cat be made of leather? This doesn't make any sense! What the fuck does that even mean?"
Completely demolish THE PLATFORM. The sentence can be read with two potential targets of the pronoun "them" if you take a moment to think about it before skipping straight to angrily commenting with self-righteous indignation.
Hell, I live in Japan, which people hold up as a gold standard for transportation, and let me tell you... the moment you're outside of a suburb of a major city, even HERE everyone drives. The reasons are different... as opposed to there not being good public transportation, once you're outside of the city, the public transportation is actually more expensive than owning a car for daily commutes - the result of privatization and fragmentation of most of the country's public transportation. But if the countryside no more than 2 hours outside of a major city in one of the most population dense countries in the world is filled with people who need cars, the idea of completely getting rid of them is dead in the water. Reduction and smarter planning to support that reduction is the realistic and more beneficial move.
The benefits to a car are self-evident. Ability to go anywhere you like on the schedule you like without need for excessive advance planning.
I'm absolutely a "fuckcars" advocate, but pretending there's NO benefits to owning one is insane. The problem isn't the cars themselves - it's that the REQUIREMENT of cars for basic life is AWFUL and as much as possible a car should be a special occasion, recreational use vehicle that you might use say, a few times a year for road trips, or maybe on weekends for personal exploration. The commute culture is how we get ridiculous traffic, excessive road construction, and most of the other unpleasant aspects of cars we hate in society.
But if say, 90% of the current drivers didn't have to do ANY daily driving and could walk or take public transportation instead, only using a car, say, once a week or less exclusively at their leisure rather than as a requirement? Car ownership would be MUCH more pleasant.
To put it more simply, a world where you MUST use a car all the time to go everywhere is incredibly inconvenient.
But by the same token, a world where you CAN'T use a car EVER to go ANYWHERE is ALSO incredibly inconvenient (Yes, I know plenty of people who will disagree with this, but usually even a cursory asking of places they've gone and things they've seen will reveal they're either cheating on the purity of their vision and getting rides somewhere, or there's a bunch of places they'd LIKE to go that they've just given up on, or desperately hope will SOMEDAY become viable destinations).
The best answer lies somewhere in-between - a car as an occasionally used recreational vehicle that complements a basic foundational lifestyle of walking, bikes, and a mix of public transportation.
Nah, I'm an idiot who happens to be an English teacher for foreign language speakers. Nitpicking bad language rule explanations is my job.
It SAYS that, but regardless of the source, don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Will and would are both modal auxiliary verbs, and as such, don't actually have a past tense in the sense other verbs do. They don't have participles either. You don't have "woulding" or "woulded", and neither has a present or past tense either. Even if you wanted to argue it, what's the past tense of other modal auxiliaries? What's the past tense of "may"? Or "should"? And before you say "May have" or "should have", then why isn't the past tense of "will" "will have?"
The same is true of "can" and "could". Could is NOT the past tense of "can" because a past tense for a modal auxiliary verb is nonsensical. What they MEAN when they write that is "could is a verb that can be used in place of can in some situations to refer to the ability to do something having taken place in the past", but they are different words that happen to share related usage.
In the case of "will"/"would", not even THIS makes sense. Will is used as an indicator to shift the following verb's action into the future. The past tense of shifting something into the future means... what? Making something hypothetical?
While calling these verbs "past tense" is a functional shorthand for explaining their function, the reality is modal auxiliaries do not have tenses or other forms, and it's disappointing to see the British council screw this up.