I think it's fair to expect a more sizable leap than what the Wii U is offering. 2GB of DDR3 isn't great, should've been 4GB given the dirt cheap cost of RAM these days.

The Dreamcast was 3 years younger than the N64, yet it immediately showed a sizable increase in graphics performance. There was no mistaking Soul Calibur with anything on the PS1/N64.

Nintendo-published on Wii, January-September: 8 (Released in February, April, April, June, June, June, August, September, respectively)

Nintendo-published on WiiU, January-September: 6 (Released in March, March, July, July, August, September, respectively)

As you can see, while the Wii did have 2 more titles released, it hardly had an overwhelming advantage to account for its massively better sales. So, I think, we can safely say that the slack there was picked up by Wii Sports, no?

Also, 3DS sold at a loss when the price dropped to $170, US, while the DSi sold for a profit at $125. So the difference in hardware pricing was at least $50. And I doubt the circle-pad or the minor increase in system capability led to that. We can assume, then, that the 3D accounted for a good deal of that. And no, you can actually look at the charts and see that 3DS sales jumped after the price cut, well before the games you're talking about arrived.

And let's compare again:

3rd-party games published on Wii, January-September: 56

3rd-party games published on WiiU, January-September: 10

As you can see, third-parties did embrace the Wii to a far greater degree than they did the Wii U.

You're just looking at number of games and not what games. Wii's launch window and the months following had, besides WiiSports, Wii Play, LOZ TP, Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime Corruption in NA, supported by some smaller titles. It wasn't like Wii which launched with two real system movers, NSMBU and NL. There wasn't a steady release of the kind of games to keep up momentum, like Wii had.

DSI was a DS version which released years after DS' launch though.

The 3DS sales increased after the price cut, but the games were still not really there. Once the 3DLand and Mk8 released, it really exploded.

3rd party support one the Wii U is not how it is because of the gamepad. I haven't seen any devs give the gamepad as a reason why they are not supporting it. In fact, I tried to find the Gearbox interview where they said they couldn't think of what to do with the gamepad, Like you said, and all I could find was articles of them saying they liked it.

That comment came from Ubisoft, I found, Wii u's biggest 3rd party supporter and when they said it, it wasn't in a negative way.

Wii Play? A system seller? That's...highly questionable. The fact the game came free with stand-alone Wiimotes had a lot more to do with its "sales" than the game itself. And you've gone from "steady release of first-party titles" to "steady release of first-party system sellers." I'm not going to debate a point with someone who keeps moving the goalpost.

And, regarding the DSi, what does that have to do with anything?

For the 3DS sales, outside of the holiday season (which is completely inappropriate as a point of comparison with sales during the rest of the year) sales remained basically flat. After the holidays season, sales were right back where they were before.

And here. It took me all of ten seconds to find it. The point is, developers aren't able to easily integrate the Wii U gamepad with their current offerings, which discourages them from porting games. And because of the added expense, along with the notably smaller audience on the Wii U, there isn't much incentive to do so.

The Wii was sold out for that first year pretty much everywhere and that was mostly on the back of Wii Sports. The other games were largely inconsequential, Wii Sports was the "gotta have it" thing for 2006/2007. The "second wave" of Wii hits really didn't start until Mario Galaxy in November 2007 leading into the much bigger boom period of Wii Fit + Mario Kart Wii.

Things like Super Paper Mario and Metroid Prime 3 probably did dick all in selling Wii systems. They just were along for the wild ride.

Third parties are not supporting because of the game pad per se. If Wii U was closer to the XB1/PS4 in power with a 1 year head start, it probably would get more third party support. Because it's closer to the 360/PS3 though there's far less incentive to make games for it -- you already have 150 million owners of those consoles, so the Wii's 3.5 million owners by comparision isn't a big deal.

Wii play sold  28 million. Don't know what you're going on about. Something doesn't sell that much just because it was bundled with a controller.

I guess i should have pointed out to you that a steady release of first  games in a consoles' first year needs to include system sellers among them since it seems you actually couldn't figure that out yourself.

What does DSi being a DS version that released  after DS had been on the market for a while have to do with anything? Need I point out thatlater iteratio can be made cheaper because besides they can cut costs in certain areas? Look at the upcoming 2DS for example.

I'm not even going to bother wasting my time going on about 3DS sales with you.

Congratulations, you found an article where two devs said they couldn't figure out what to do with the gamepad. It surely shows that Wii U is not getting big third party support from a large number of devs  because of the gamepad. You even posted about how Wii had more support in the same timeframe than Wii. So apparently the Wii's totally new controller, was easier for devs to use than the gamepad whch is basically a standard controller with a screen. Wii U is getting the kind of support it's getting for the same reason as any past Nintendo consoles. Having a standard controller wouldn't have changed anything. 

But it's obvious you wont see sense regarding this issue, so hey, keep desperately pointing to the gamepad as the Wii's main problem like people who pointed to 3DS' 3D then sut up once that was proven not to really be the case.

Saying that Wii-Play sold well is like saying that Wii Sports sold well. It was bought as part of a package. It came bundled with the stand-alone controller available most anywhere the system was sold.

What is the difference between a system-selling first-party game and a first-party game? Degrees of success. Because the systems with the most system sellers are generally the most successful. But if your system is unappealing, it doesn't matter that you have amazing games, they won't be system sellers. The Gamecube wasn't lacking in excellent games, but because the system wasn't appealing, those games didn't become what we typically call system sellers. So your argument that the Wii U lacks system sellers is hollow, because good games won't sell a "bad" system any more than bad games will sell a "good" system.

Actually, that's not true, since the DSi actually expanded the features of the DS, rather than subtracted, but the point still remains. The very minor increase in system power, combined with a single new analog control, did not add more than $50 to the production cost of the system.

And I would certainly hope you wouldn't waste time on that, since just looking at the chart should have told you that what I said was true.

And there you go, moving the goalpost again. Because you went from "I haven't seen any devs" to "well there's only two" when I disproved that notion and provided the evidence you claimed you couldn't find.

At least four of Ninty's top seven were bundled in tens million numbers (Wii Fit and Wii Fit + were bundled mainly with Balance Board, but also in quite high numbers in console plus balance board bundles) and the reamining three had special bundles that were sold for far longer periods and in higher numbers than special bundles for PS3 or XB360, particularly Mario Kart Wii. I don't think Sony will ever bundle GT or Uncharted in tens million consoles. I can imagine it bundling them in very high mumbers, but at most millions, not tens million. This is the difference I wanted to point out. Also, despite heavy game bundling, Ninty usually sells HW at a profit since the start, while Sony and MS follow a loss leader strategy for HW during the first two years (although this went out of control for different reasons for PS3, XB and XB360, making them stop losing money on HW far later than desired).