No, it definitely shouldn't sound like I'm saying, "Nintendo should just buy the entire CoD rights and make a CoD game themselves".

I'm asking, why is Nintendo ignoring the FPS genre, when it's the most popular genre in its most important home console market?

Black Ops II was on the Wii U at launch, yes, I have it and played it a lot and thought it was fantastic. It might be my most played Wii U game? I should check. I don't really care about DLC, though I know some do, so for me I didn't care.

Also, the DLC issue on the Wii U was a legitimate issue with the number of players that owned the games. This is where I think Nintendo could/should have stepped in, and made the DLC "free" for all the Wii U owners, that way it didn't split the already small base, but it would have shown Activision/Treyarch that Nintendo did care somewhat about the FPS base on the system(s) and been a slight, "Thanks for supporting our system." type statement.

On the marketing side if you remember though, Microsoft was making "exclusivity" deals left/right/center, initial Black Ops II DLC was one of those deals. Sony now has it though.

How did Sony get the deal away from Microsoft?

I played Call of Duty: World at War on the Wii like crazy. Online. Single-player. All of it. Thought it was a great effort by the team, considering the power of the console. They worked well within the system.

The reason the Wii got the Call of Duty titles I believe, was the install base and sales just kept going up, even though the sales of the Call of Duty titles on the Wii weren't like the sales of PS3/360 versions, they were making money.

I don't blame Treyarch, or Activision, for not fostering the multiplayer FPS gamers on the Wii and Wii U. They worked with the tech they had, the install base/sales they had, and the budget they were given, and Black Ops II was a great launch title for the Wii U that used the Wii U GamePad and other controller options, day one.

It was even Activision that pitched GoldenEye on the Wii to Nintendo. So, if anybody tried to help Nintendo with the FPS genre, it was Activision I do believe.

Call of Duty is the biggest multiplayer FPS series on the market right now, even when the last version lost about 50% of its early physical sales from the year before, it was the number one selling game for the year? Think about that. A game series has initial sales down 50% from the previous year, and it was still a number one seller for the month, and number one seller for the year? Why wouldn't Nintendo be actively gong after that market?

"On the Wii, it is understandable that Activision couldn't give 110% because the Wii just wasn't capable barely being more powerful than sixth generation systems."

The Wii U was the same story though, and now the Switch is also, regarding power and generations of systems, because of the PS4/Xbox One. The Wii U was not as powerful as the PS4/Xbox One, and the Wii U released at the end of the PS3/360 days, and just a year before the others? The Switch is a slight upgrade to the Wii U, but not at the Xbox One/PS4 levels, and we are seeing that with companies like EA creating a special engine to port FIFA over?

My first FPS I ever bought and played was GoldenEye 64. I loved it. Played it like crazy by myself, and with my friends. I bought Perfect Dark day one as well. I enjoy the FPS genre, and don't understand why Nintendo doesn't have a staple game series in that genre.

What I do think is that Nintendo should approach Activision and offer to pay them (Treyarch, or maybe they already have and it's Beenox working on one?) to develop a Call of Duty game for the Switch to release this holiday season at the latest.

Maybe the Switch is going to get the GoldenEye 007: Reloaded game? I could see that happening as well at this point. Any PS3/360 game, I think is up to be ported to the Switch.

My point is:

Sony has the Killzone series.

Microsoft has Halo.

Nintendo has?