Gamecube was absolutely profitable. Don't equate sales with profit. Gamecube was profitable while (I believe) PS2 was not. Nintendo sold Gamecube at a profit and obviously made profit off their games. Just because it only sold about 20 million systems doesn't mean it wasn't profitable, it was just far less profitable than their better selling systems. No aspect of the Gamecube pipeline was unprofitable.

Do you have any proof of this?

That is a good point. Both Nintendo's systems that launched at the start of this gen had central features that were basically entirely unnecessary, increasing the price of the systems when instead that could have gone to increasing specs or decreasing price. And they both came on the heels of Nintendo's most successful home and portable consoles. It seems after massive success of Wii and DS Nintendo made bad decisions on all fronts. Maybe they got lazy due to success?

3D was clearly a fad in movies and TVs even as the fad was going on, so while the 3D feature is cool to play with, it doesn't make games any better and hurts processing power of the system and increases cost of the system.

The Wii U tablet is the same story: increases cost, decreasing specs, unnecessary feature. It was based around being able to play your game when the TV is being used, and I guess also trying to replicate some of the 2-screen success of the DS. That is a rather niche concept to base an entire system around - there are lots of people who have more than one tv, lots of people who don't live in families, which means this central selling point of the Wii U was only even somewhat relevant to a small portion of gamers. And it meant resources and retail price were compromised for a not super good feature. Seems like maybe Nintendo just didn't know what to do after the success of the Wii and DS and they just threw stuff out there hoping it would stick.

A Wii 2 that was simply a more powerful version of the Wii probably would have sold alright (maybe XboxOne numbers), certainly better than the Wii U. Imagine a much more powerful Wii (more powerful than Wii U), with HD, more advanced motion controls, at $250. Hell maybe even with a pack-in pro controller in addition to a motion controller for $300. More powerful console, cheaper, less awkward, no weird single tablet play schemes, and more focused on what made the Wii a success.

Do you have proof it wasn't? Again, sales don't equate to profit. Your statement is the only time I've ever heard anyone suggest the Gamecube wasn't profitable, and you offer no proof, so don't mind if I don't take you seriously.

Anyway, I would say the proof is that Gamecube always sold at a profit, controllers are sold at a profit, Nintendo games always make Nintendo a ton of money, and first party games are huge for Nintendo which obviously brings in more money than third party games that the other two companies rely much more heavily on. Where exactly do you think there is a huge loss in the Gamecube that negates all of these things.

The only time Nintendo wasn't profitable overall was in the wake of the Wii U and 3DS launches. Wii U was the first time a Nintendo system launched at a loss for them, and the 3DS was obviously sold at a loss after they cut the price by a third just half a year after launch. From 2012 through 2014 they had a mix of gains and losses, the losses stopped by late 2014 and they've only had a single losing quarter since then (in 2016). Only 2012 and 2014 were unprofitable years for them. So even when selling two systems at a loss, with one of those systems doing significantly worse than Gamecube, they still only lost a small amount over this 3 year period from late 2011 to late 2014.

Nintendo's business model has always been to make a profit no matter what, which means selling systems for a profit from day 1. The only time they didn't sell systems for profit was the Wii U and the 3DS after the huge price cut. Gamecube was business as usual for Nintendo, which means making a profit on it.

Well not just Wii U but also 3DS should have had some minor changes so I'll go over both.

3D was clearly a bad choice, it was an unwanted gimmick and inflated the price. On top of that it had a terrible post-launch drought so this is what I would have done.

Name-Super DS
Date-June 2011
Price-$169.99

Major launch games would still be Nintendogs+Cats, Street Fighter 4 & Professor Layton but pushing the launch back a few months allows for Ocarina of Time to become a launch title and round out the lineup.

Post-launch lineup
July-Pilotwings Resort
August-Steel Diver
September-Star Fox 64
October-Pokemon Rumble Blast
November-Super Mario 3D Land
December-Monster Hunter 3G (Japan)

None of the summer-fall titles are major hits but they would be enough to keep momentum steady until Mario in the holidays. Mario Kart 7 was rushed to make holiday 2011 but with a more straight forward name, lower price and no drought it would instead release in spring 2012 to give it extra time and give 2012 another big game to help momentum.

With steady sales the XL would release a bit later as well, in March 2013 alongside Luigi's Mansion 2 at $169.99 while the original model dropped to $139.99

Since there is no 3D, there is no need for a 2DS and the next revisions would be Super DSi & Super DSi XL in early 2015 at the same price as the older models, which get phased out.

Overall sales wouldnt be massively different but with better software pacing, price and name we see momentum stay more consistent than 3DS had which had droughts in 2011/2012 and constantly needed revisions to keep interest up.

Lifetime sales-~90 million


Now on to Wii U, many of the same things apply like changing the name, launch date, price and dropping the unnecessary gimmick.

Name-Super Wii
Date-November 2011
Price-$249.99

Hardware would remain basically the same but instead of the Gamepad they would go with improved Wii Remotes that have all the standard inputs like the Joy-Cons do. This allows them to launch at a lower price.

One other big change I would do is release it one year earlier. Nintendo tried pushing the fact that it could run PS3/360 ports but releasing when PS4/XBO were right around the corner was too little, too late and the extra year could have given 3rd party games a bit more chance to succeed.

Launch titles would be Skyward Sword as a cross-gen title and Wii Play: Motion would have been pushed back as a SWii title that came bundled with a pair of controllers. 3rd party aunch window titles would be Skylanders, Just Dance, Modern Warfare 3, Assassins Creed, Resident Evil 4 HD, Madden, FIFA, NBA, Sonic Generations, Mortal Kombat, Mario & Sonic Olympics, Rayman Origins, NFS: The Run, Arkham City.

2012 1st/2nd party releases would mostly be late Wii titles that switched to SWii late in development. Project Rainfall titles would be justified for releasing so late in the west because of this.

2012 lineup
Feb-Kirby Return to Dreamland
March-Mario Party 9
April-Xenoblade Chronicles
June-Rhythm Heaven Fever
Aug-The Last Story
September-PokePark 2
Oct-Zombie (ZombiU)
Oct-Nintendo Land
Nov-Super Mario Maker (team does this instead of NSMBU and becomes a big system seller)

2013 lineup would mostly be the same but spread out a bit more evenly with Rayman Legends remaining a Q1 exclusive and Pandora's Tower coming to Swii instead of Wii in the west.

2013 lineup
Feb-Rayman Legends
March-Lego City Undercover
April-Pandora's Tower
June-Game & Wario
July-Pikmin 3
August-Wonderful 101
Sept-Wind Waker HD
Oct-Wii Party 2
Nov-Super Mario 3D Land
Dec-Wii Fit 3

2014 onward would be pretty much remain the same with a price cut to $199.99 in May alongside Mario Kart 8. Since Mario Maker already released in 2012, we would see a traditional 2D Mario release in its place in 2015. 3rd party sales still wouldnt be great but better than Wii U and enough for some to continue giving moderate support beyond just the first year.

Overall sales still wouldn't be great but would be a big improvement over Wii U, perhaps 35 million.



Super DS+Super Wii (~125 million) would be a moderate improvement over 3DS+Wii U (~90 million) but still a huge drop compared to DS+Wii (~255 million) and simultaneous HD development between DS 3 & Wii 3 would be nearly impossible so Nintendo would still go with Switch as is in 2017.

Being able to play a select few titles on the Gamepad, while still being in your own house does not make it a portable system or a hybrid. 

Something can be a stepping stone without being the actual thing it is transitioning into. For example: A gliding mammal is often a transitional species to a bat. But it still isn't a bat, because bats have powered flight. 

Right. "A hybrid console is a console that can be played both connected to the T.V. and out in the world running on its own battery power, without the need for a plug-in or TV connection. " Therefore Switch isn't a hybrid? That's a complete non-sequitur. My argument (bolded above) had nothing to do with a T.V. display output disqualifying something from being a hybrid. In fact my argument was the complete opposite. Having a T.V. display output is a key feature of a hybrid console. 

You are correct that certain Android Tablets and phones with T.V. display output would technically qualify as hybrids. But they are terrible ones for obvious reasons that I won't get into here. 

Yes, Switch Lite is a portable, and not a hybrid. That's irrelevant though. 

It's semi portable as I can walk around several rooms and game without being tied to any physical cord.

Aka. Hybrid.

Correct.

The WiiU has a TV display output as well, which is a key feature of a hybrid console.

No. All perfectly relevant.

Either way, Switch is a console with a heavier emphasis on being a portable gaming device, where-as the WiiU has a heavier emphasis on being a fixed home console.

I own both.

They can both be portable (With one being a little more restricted) and they can both be a fixed console. - They are both hybrids with differing caveats.

In response to the OP, two things

Make the System a Wii HD: There was no reason to try and do something with the Gamepad. All Nintendo did was confuse or alienate its customers. The Gamepad never brought any value, and consumers always saw Wii as "motion controls". The Wii was already a success, it didn't need a new gimmick. Essentially, Nintendo should have just make a Wii 2. Call it the Super Wii or Wii HD. Consumers would quickly understand the point of the system and would have hopped on board if it had better versions of the games they liked, such as a Super Wii Sports or a Super Wii Fit. 

Release the Console in 2013: Iwata wasn't great at this whole business thing but there was no good reason to release the system in 2012. All Nintendo did was cut off the Wii too early. It was cheap enough that it was at a prime price point and would have still kept selling. In FY 2012 the system still sold 9 million units worldwide. This was after the Wii U was announce, so had Nintendo held off and even released some smaller, cheaper games on the system, they could have seen even better numbers. The rush to market really hurt them because they were one-upped by Sony and Microsoft a year later and didn't have enough software to launch with. If the Wii HD had a game like Nintendo Land, New Super Mario Bros, Wario Ware and Pikmin at launch, it would have done a lot better and attracted more 3rd party support. 

Yup. Even though the Wii was experiencing a drop-off, sales from the newly-released 3DS and the DS would be enough to make up for it. Nintendo did nothing with a year head-start.

The 3DS was rushed out, too. Why not wait until June to launch it with the eShop and Ocarina of Time 3D? The Switch was really rushed too, as the JoyCon Drift indicates. Not to mention the Wii U was discontinued before the Switch even released. That's crazy, even for a flop. 

There are other times were Nintendo released new hardware too early, but those stick out the most.

Yeah I still feel that pulling the plug on the Wii in 2011 was one of Nintendo's more egregious blunders. They had one of the best selling consoles in history and they cut its legs off after just 4 years.

This tends to happen with console manufacturers in general; Sony got arrogant and complacent after the PS2, MS after the 360, Nintendo after Wii/DS.