The chaotic roar of a thousand armchair quarterbacks rings loud throughout the Gamesverse.

Like an episode of Stargate S.G.1, the cascading waves of opinion have hit every habitable planet. The inhabitants of these planets have stood agog, eyes on the sky wondering what - if anything is going to happen in regards to the "Nintendo problem" as a lot loud mouthed elitists see it.

The answer? Smartphones.

Yes smartphones. Can I ask what kind of gaming company do you want Nintendo to be? Let's face it, you're never going to see a game like Twilight Princess or Super Mario 3D World on tablets anytime soon. And even if there was, the required investment vs return against which people expect Tablet games to be priced at means they would likely be unfeasible anyway.

Breaking down logistically how you take many games built for dpads, shoulder buttons and diamond button layouts and put them on touchscreen only devices is another problem. How does 2D mario even play on a touchscreen? Of course you can pair a controller with a smartphone or tablet, but how many people are willing to prop up their smartphone on a high enough table, or cradle to play these games?

Not to mention most current tablets can't match the visuals Wii U can currently put out now. What would happen to a Nintendo whose main bread and butter would come from tablets? Do you want Nintendo games to regress? Do you want free to play, shorter, cheaper more rubbish and profit focused games? Do you want microtransactions in everything? Do I want to go into the shop in Animal Crossing only to have the game ask me for real world money to buy a green table? Or 50p for a Mario fireflower?

What happens when Nintendo can't sell a tablet game for £40 and instead has to make a game that sells at £5, or even worse - £2.50?

The other more commonly held view from "hardcore" gamers (the kind who don't bat an eyelid buying Call of Duty every year) is that Nintendo should just go 3rd party and sell games on rival systems (so they don't have to buy those pesky Nintendo devices). They want Zelda, but they don't want to pay for the platform that has Zelda.

It's hard to get past the hypocrisy here, with every platform holder having a slew of exclusive content, any platform owner could say the same thing about any company - I want Halo on my Playstation.

On the other hand if they think that Nintendo is going to go the Sega route, throw in the towel and just make games, it shows a very real lack of understanding about Nintendo as a company. Months ago, Iwata said that the day Nintendo doesn't make hardware is the day they go out of business. Hardware is ingrained in Nintendo, it's a core facet of the company and what they do, their exclusiveness to themselves. And they are really the only company who can largely support their platforms almost by themselves - to an extent.

So being Nintendo imagine the call from gamers "Why not just make a console as powerful as PS4?" all problems solved! Welcome back! By God you've GOT it! All is well! Pats on the back all round!

No. Nintendo as a company will look at that option, as an expensive and risky proposition with no guarantee of 3rd party support. Making an even, more expensive box, risking that it might not sell anyway, an option like that would be seen as something like a back breaker for them. Maybe in the next cycle, but if anyone is expecting a quick turnaround, shelving U and getting something new up and running in the next couple of years, it's not that likely.

And then there is the pricing issue. From Nintendo's perspective, they had to cut the price of the 3DS before sales started taking off and they had to cut the price of the Wii U, selling both at a loss which of course impacts profits because every sales is a loss. The message they are getting back from the market is that gamers wont buy expensive Nintendo hardware. That people will only buy Nintendo products as a low cost companion device. That 3rd parties simply wont support them, not even on a successful platform like 3DS (which most western devs ignore). Yet their most succesful hardware, the Wii sold like gangbusters at a lower price. People forget how radical the Wii was and the base theory behind it: make something completey different for $99.

It was only the cost of miniturisation and gyrometers at the time that made the Wii a more expensive proposition.

A Nintendo faced with these sales and price cuts might actually regress. This could spectacularly backfire on gamers.

Are they getting any third party support? Nope, pretty much being blacklisted on Wii U after two months and barely any 3rd party support on the 3DS outside of a few Japanese stalwarts. A Nintendo faced with this might swing in completely the opposite way from what the gaming hardcores want. They might actually make a microconsole instead. Something so cheap and inoffensive that it will sell to everybody, regardless of what next gen wallet sucker you already own.

It might not even have a disc drive and it might not even be able to pump out Wii U level visuals. It might be.... Vita TV.

And what then would become of Nintendos' major frachises? Would you ever see a game made to the level of perfection of Super Mario 3D World? With that kind of polish, inventiveness and attention to detail? Would you ever see them waste time and money on something as lavish and sprawling as an HD Zelda?

This relentless cycle of Nintendoom that has run for 2 and a half years (before the Wii U ever launched) might not bring about the change you actually want. In fact it could very well do the opposite and make Nintendo the Casual King. Lord of all cheap downloadble games. They could turn into a company less interested in making great games and more interested in pleasing investors -  just to shut Michael Pacters clueless gob.

So say goodbye, make your peace, farewell epic Zelda, farewell amazingly designed Metroid. Hello cheapness, you've finally made your own bed, internet. Now we can all very well sit in it. Achievement, unlocked.

Let's look forward to more touch screen Zeldas of Spirit tracks quality.