Can't be arsed to read much further. I give you claimed features of the system and you write them off as pure marketing. You should just leave because you have nothing useful to contribute to this thread if that's your attitude.

If you can't see the advantage of cross-game data compared to something like Skylanders then you're blind.

They sure don't which is why we know the PS4 isn't coming anywhere close to the Wii or PS2 in sales.  Let's say for the sake of argument by the time the holiday season is over the PS4 is at 11 million.  Even if the PS4 stays on the market for 7 years and sold 11 million every year that would still only put it in the category of the PS3 sales totals.  The Wii and PS2 caught fire because they brought in a whole new audience to gaming.  The Wii because of motion-control, the PS2 because of a cheap DVD player.  No such condition exists in this current generation.  

Reinvent every genre? What in the blue hell are you talking about? If you mean Splatoon that's one genre, and hardly "reinventing" it.

All Wii U games have underperformed and it's no coincidence. Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you deny so vehemently that the Wii U is nothing like the Wii, even though you commonly say that the PS3 and 360 work as substitute for the Wii U (happened in this thread too). If the Wii U were like the Wii, such a comparison would not be applicable. The Wii couldn't be substituted with a PS3 or 360. Or a PS2, Xbox or GC, if you want to bring processing power into this.

Wii was its own thing. Wii U is not. Once you acknowledge that, the entire premise you argue changes (across all of your threads). Wii U doesn't fail because it followed in the footsteps of the Wii, it's failing because it didn't.

How are amiibo like trophies? That's what I want to know.

This question in and of itself is totally inane for many reasons.

1.  Nintendo doesn't lose money on hardware.  The Gamecube sold at a profit, the Wii sold at a profit from day one. The DS sold at a profit, the 3DS sells at a profit, and the Wii U sells at a profit. 

2. No company 'needs' a console to make quality games.  Nintendo, Microsoft, OR Sony.  So that is neither here nor there.

3. Out of the 8 generations there have been Nintendo has won 4 or them including the last one and again Nintendo DOES NOT LOSE MONEY ON HARDWARE.

Add to that the fact that overall Nintendo has made the most money in software sales as well per generation.  It makes absolutely no sense to Nintendo to stop making consoles.  No logical sense and certainly no financial sense.   If any company is goign to "drop-out" of the console race it will be Sony simply because they are too far in the whole as a corporation.  Not just the gaming division, but the ENTIRE coporation of Sony.  Even with the PS4 selling as well as it is and selling at a profit, none of that money is going into the bank because they are so far in debt.  It's like shoveling dirt into the Grand Canyon. 

Microsoft on the other hand has more than enough money, but the higher-ups at Microsoft are not too keen on the XBOX brand and while the new CEO has pledged to keep supporting it, Phil Spencer is pretty much on his own in terms of making the brand grow.  He has very limited funds to deal with.

The sad part about all this is how so many people claim the Wii U "has no games"  (in actuality it has 173 but why bother people with the facts eh?) and that they aren't interested in Nintendo games, yet want Nintendo to go 3rd party so that they can have those SAME GAMES they claim that they DIDN'T WANT on the Wii U available on the PS4 (and I say PS4 because it is mostly ponies saying stuff like this.)    If it wasn't so sad to see people in such a dilapidated state it would be hilarious. 

Give me the days where people could go and purchase the consoles they choose to and enjoy them without all this console war BS.   Nintendo has several billion dollars CASH in the bank and coudl lose 257 million dollars a year for 30 years and STILL not go bankrupt.  Even after all that, Nintendo could just sell off a few of their IPs and they would be right back in business.  You don't think a company like Disney would pay billions for the Mario IP?  They gave George Lucas 4 billion cash for Lucasfilm. 

Nintendo is going nowhere folks.  They aren't going to stop making consoles, they aren't going 3rd party, they don't NEED 3rd party support either.  Sony needs 3rd party support. The entire PlayStation brand was built on 3rd party support of companies migrating from Nintendo because of the Code Red issued by Square.  Sony 1st party IPs do NOT make money. Look at the sales of Sony 1st party games and compare them to bothe Nintendo and Microsoft.  It doesn't even come close.  The top 5 Wii games EACH sold more than 27 million a piece.  The best-selling 1st party IPs on both the XBOX 360 and PS3 COMBINED don't even equal that.  Even right now the Wii U has the best-selling games this generation.  Nintendo's 1st party titles are outselling AAA multiplats on the PS4 and XB1.  Without 3rd party support, there would be no Sony.  Period.  Microsoft COULD do okay but I doubt the new CEO would keep the brand going without the 3rd party support it gets.  Particularly timed exclusives from companies like Capcom, Activision, and EA. 

All this anti-Nintendo propaganda is the absolute WORST thing that the industry could do because it has forced Nintendo to start doing the one thing people said that they should have done an dthat is beef-up 2nd-party support.  All throughout E3 watching the Treehouse I listened to developer after developer talk about how Nintendo just allows them to do whatever they want developing the game and sign the checks.  These developers are playing with house money.  For instance, if Bayonetta 2 tanks, oh well.  No skin off the back of Platinum Games.  They didn't lose anything cause they got paid up front.  Same goes for Devil's Third.  That game to me has ZombiU written all over it.  A game that was designed for the 360 and was port over to the Wii U.  The visuals look last-gen, and the animation is herky-jerky, but it's a shooter and it's exclsuive to the Wii U.  If the game goes bad, no big deal again.  Itagaki was left twisting in the wind after THQ closed down.  Nintendo picked up the tab.  Maybe it'll find a niche audience, who knows.  The point is that combined with the fact that the Wii U sells at a profit, the software sales are at the top, Nintendo has a growing pool of 2nd-party developers making exclusive games for the console, the Wii U is going nowhere. 

To close this out left me leave you with some comments from Shin'en Multimedia's Manfred Linzner about the power of the Wii U

"We know that people really want to see the game. It’s just so that you can show a game only once for the first time. While developing we knew there was so much more possible on Wii U than anyone showed so far. So we decided to really explore and push the hardware. We hope people will appreciate our efforts."

This is coming from an actual developer with an actual dev kit working on a actual game that they are actually building from the ground-up on the Wii U telling you that there is MUCH MORE possible on Wii U than ANYONE (this even includes Nintendo themselves) has shown so far.  This is the same company that said that they are using 8x anisotropic filtering on their next games for the Wii U, the same company that said that Nano Assault NEO only uses ONE CORE of the Tri-Core PowerPC750 (to put into perspective Resogun for the PS4 which looks identical uses 50% of the PS4 CPU.)   Slightly Mad Studios has made similar claims.  It is really a starttling contrast to listen to developer using the Wii U the way it was meant to be designed versus those how slap unoptimized garbage ports on the Wii U and blame Nintendo and/or the so-called hardware limitations on their games not selling.  Sooner or later the truth will come out and no amount of fanboyism or biased jounalism will be able ot cover it up any longer. 

There is room for all three consoles to exist and flourish if 3rd paries understand that visuals may get people in the door, but gameplay is what keeps them coming back.   If I want hyper-realism, I'll go outside.  

I need to find the link, but the idea put out from someone at Nintendo was:

Say you have a Mario amiibo. A developer wants to make a game where you can give super powers to Mario based off of your amiibo data. So it checks your amiibo for data and certain feats in games to base what powers your Mario has in this new hypothetical game.

So it's like trophies in that it rewards your accomplishing of feats. The reward just happens to be used in games instead of just ego, making the concept more apealing to people like me that don't care about trophies because they're functionally useless.

They have, people usually just complain because they see the same characters over and over again, but those characters are always backed by completely new concepts and ideas for their genres.  You can't find two zelda games or mario games without a huge revolution in their gameplay mechanics.  

I only have data going back to June 2001 ... but this is the PS2's summer 2001:

June: 345k

July: 352k

August: 322k

September: 343k

It's sales actually accelerated after the GameCube and XBox came out, those were no detterant at all. 

I'm just saying, don't assume things so easily. Not only was the PS2 a *beast* on top of these numbers it was also putting up big numbers in Japan, it will be very, very difficult for the PS4 to realistically keep pace.