How exactly do you come to this conclusion?  Since you didn't know the shipment number, presumably you were comparing sell-through to sell-through, and likely assumed the Wii shipment number was something higher.  Frankly if you didn't know the Wii shipment number I don't know how you could compare the Wii U to it and claim they are on target for their shipments, but no matter.  The Wii U needs to ship 94.2% of Wii to hit its shipment target.  Since according to you it is supply constrained, that means it also needs to sell a similar percentage.  How exactly does finding out the Wii's shipment figure bring it any closer to that number?

Do you not remember all your arguing about 1% and number of people who "want" a Wii U?  The implication there was that demand vastly outweighed supply, not that demand was roughly in line with supply week to week.  Remember, you argued demand was at a minimum 1.5 million units in Europe (you  also threw out numbers like 1-2 million, 10%, 50%, but lets go with this.).  Now why, with that much demand are they taking a leisurely pace with actually buying the systems?  The Wii U is at ~470k in Europe as of the 29th.  With such legions chomping at the bit to buy one surely it should be almost perpetually sold out?  Especially if 53,638 is really all the supply they could provide last week.

Of course that all goes back to the claim you've been making for weeks that they could supply 400k per week (with 100k a week for Europe).  Now a week has gone by where they didn't sell 400k.  How do you reconcile that with the supply constraint argument?  Have pirates taken all of Europe's Wii U's in the Gulf of Aden?

I just knew you would reply, that is nice. I like when people try to stick with their argument.

That sounds good. Let's not take anything out of context. When you do that, you will notice that there is no strawman argument from me, I have merely replied to one of your "points". Let's argue that one and I will go step by step so that you keep the goalposts still.

Starting with the part of your post:

Here is my original reply to you:

Which you replied:

Reply from me:

Then you decided to change the goalpost by:

and when I confronted you about moving goalposts, you put two of your arguments together:

When the original argument was about wii games being good for some group, you have a small job now.

As I know that you like to move the goalposts, I'll make this simple as possible. Which of Wii games meet the following criteria:

1) It has to appease a graphic whore. As I am a fair person, I will set the par with a  2006 game. You know, the wii launch year. I will also be fair and leave out pc gaming. For a console graphic whore in 2006, Gears of war would be something they liked. From 2006 to 2013, any wii game that is on par with gears will do.

2) As a techwhore, those people are also interested in games which will use the tech as advertised.No dumb waggle controls which only replace a button.

So the good games should meet those two criteria by your definition. What are those good games for the gamer group you defined?

Protip: "it looks good for a wii game" will not do.

*cues the crickets*

Nintendo has made countless revisions to their hardware and software projection during their earnings periods, that’s what companies do when they feel current sales will not match their expectations.  They can easily change their projection for the March quarter this month, like they did the 3DS in October.  Most Nintendo fans put emphasis on the PS360 comparison because that’s the only one in which the Wii U doesn’t look horrible, the gaming environment in 2005/6 is different from the one today and I expect the next gen PS360 to have substantially higher launch number than the PS360 and Wii U.  

Gamestop is the largest independent videogame retailer so what they say matters a great deal in the videogame world.  They have a report coming out on January 8^th about their holiday sales and I’m sure it will shed a lot of light on what this analyst is saying about gamestop own internal Wii U projections for the holiday period. I don’t know many people who poo-poo a company who bring in 10 billion dollars a year in new and used videogame merchandise.

And for someone "crying" and letting Nintendo fans bother me, your emotional tirade doesn’t make you look too good.  It’s a sales site, why wouldn’t a person be interested in that?

Since the vita is doing so bad, Sony fans have to make themselves feel better somehow. Btw is already pass Christmas so I guess is already time to judge the Vita, who will start the thread? 

I said that to bananaking about a month ago.  I think that has a lot to do with it too.

This is only slightly better than the GAF topic. Seriously, this is just to get views for article writers and reactions out of enthusiast. We have no idea what said anaylst expectations were nor do we know the numbers he is referring to. It could very well be that the Wii U is doing well and his expectations are too high. It could be doing incredibly poorly. NPD and the Japanese Data suggest that it is doing well unless it suddenly tanked, but we just don't know yet.

Wait until December NPD and Japanese data before going into a panic. If the Wii U did sub 600k in US that isn't good. If it did sub 80K in Japan that isn't good. We have to wait and see though.

1) Please explain how tech obsessed gamers is a different group than graphic whore gamers

2) Stop with the Straw Man argument and answer the question, are these tech obsessed gamers and graphic whore gamers buying the Wii U at a similar rate that they bought the Wii at?

You can't win this argument so you're focused at trying to win an insignificant point, that is called a straw man. Graphics whores are tech obsessed because they don't care for artistic style or merit, it is simply about which game uses the most advanced technology; and the tech obsessed gamers are graphics whores because they don't care about any technical advancement outside of producing more realistic graphics and effects. They are the same group.

Edit: If Graphics whores cared about style, they would have loved the look of Super Mario Galaxy or Kirby's Epic Yarn but instead they were thrilled by the generic brown "realistic" HD graphics. If tech obsessed gamers were interested in advancement outside of graphics they wouldn't be talking about how the Wii U was a "previous generation" console because rushed ports of previous generation games looked like previous generation games, and they would be interested in the technological advancement the Wii U tablet represents

1) We are going with your definitions, first you defined a group called "graphic whores" and then you made up a group who bought wii for wiimote. Those are 2 different things.

2) I have never argued that nor even commented on that. You on the other hand made a comment about people who whined about lack of good games and haven't answered that. I even helped you with your own definitions and still no answer. Then you ask a question which makes no sense whatsoever on the context our exchange and expect me to answer it?

The crickets are getting tired, maybe I should call the tumbleweed? The games, please?

1) Going back to my first post:

If you notice, I'm talking about a group of gamers who bought into the Wii due to the Wiimote (because it was cool technology at the time) and were unhappy with the graphical technology and capabilities. How is this different then technology obsessed people who bought the Wii to try the Wiimote because it was cool technology at the time and were unhappy with the graphical technology and capabilities?

Please try not to refer to someone's complaints as crying in the future.  I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't like it if someone did the same to you.