No I'm not wrong about the first two parts, as I did back it up, and you haven't shown where I am wrong, as you calim.
You make a mistake, they sell games in order to sell consoles, the reason is they need consoles out there to have a base, as their hardware is the only hardware that they sell their games on.
In order to make more money, it behooves them to have more consoles out there, as more consoles means more people buying, not to mention any profits on hardware.
As we have seen, software that moves units, also appeals to current owners of a system, NSMB and Wii fit did move hardware, but were also bought by people who arleady owned the system. Indicating, they make more money from games that move hardware than from games that do not. Not to mention, those games do a better job of adding to the value of the console and the library, far more people (even current owners) got excited about NSMB than Galaxy
Putting their resources on games that actually move hardware and sell to existing customers, would be the best option, rather than wasting them on games that don;t move hardware, since as we have seen, the biggest sellers, and money makers do both.
Zelda and 3D mario are not big sellers, the big sellers and money makers have been more experimental games, that were also hardware movers, and designed to move hardware, like Wii fit and games that follow a wildly successful older forumla, such as NSMB.
So your argument does not disprove mine, it merely supports it, they want to move hardware to make money, games that move hardware sell to current as well as potential buyers, and make more money than the non-hardware movers, plus since Nintendo sells at a profit on hardware, every console sold, makes them more money, so arguing that they are in it to make money only proves my point
