Wii sold mainly for the smartphone shovelware crowd.People who hardly played videogames before and didn't have smartphone/tablet at that time(2006) to play with.That's why the "gimmick" resonated so well with the demographic.For gamers(with the exception,of course,of the hardcore nintendo fan) Wii was a secondary console that they would buy only after pick a PS3/360/PC.
Y'know, I sometimes get the impression that most gamers, especially those who aren't fans of Nintendo, just accept it as self-evident that the Wii sold primarily to non-gamers. I've yet to see any real evidence supporting this, such as market studies or surveys. It's simply considered axiomatic that the vast majority of Wii sales (perhaps around three quarters at least, considering the GameCube sold 24 million while the Wii sold over 100 million) were from soccer moms, old folks, and others who aren't "core" or "traditional" gamers. However, I think there are some crucial pieces of evidence that suggest otherwise. First off is the delayed peak of the 360 and PS3. It's normal for a system to peak by two or less commonly three years after launch. However, the 360 and PS3 didn't peak until 2011 in the U.S., while in Europe the 360 peaked in 2010 and the PS3 in 2011. For years the only other exception was the Sega Genesis, which didn't peak in North America until 1993, its fourth full calendar year. The Genesis was released in 1989, which was around the height of the NES's popularity, and despite being more powerful it just couldn't compete. It wasn't until the 16-bit era was in full swing that the Genesis started to take off. Incidentally, the Genesis got Sonic the Hedgehog, its first true blockbuster, around the same time the SNES came out. I find it interesting that the 360 and PS3 had a delayed peak just like the Genesis. Perhaps just like how releasing against the massively popular NES stunted the Genesis' sales, so too did the massive success of the Wii stymie sales growth for its more powerful rivals. Combined sales of the PS3 and 360 experienced relatively slow growth, and said growth didn't start to accelerate until after the Wii peaked and began its rapid decline. In fact, looking at U.S. sales at least, if you factor in sales of the PS2, which had strong legs and still did well even in 2007, sales of "traditional/core" consoles remained relatively flat, declining very slightly from 2007 to 2009 and growing slightly in 2010 and 2011. It isn't until you factor in the Wii that combined yearly sales of all platforms follow a normal bell-shaped curve. Now, it is possible that the relatively high initial price of the 360 and especially PS3 were a contributing factor as well, but I don't think the popularity of the Wii can be ignored as a factor as well. Incidentally, the DS was also released at a point when the GBA was still doing extraordinarily well in the U.S., and it wasn't until the GBA fell off the sales map that the DS started to grow rapidly. So, the delayed peak of the PS3 and 360 doesn't seem to be a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, as we have two other systems that did not peak until later in life than is the norm.
Another point is the Japanese market. Combined sales of seventh-gen systems as of the end of 2013 are just over 24 million, which is down from the nearly 29 million units all the sixth-gen systems sold, which in turn is down from just over 33 million fifth-gen systems sold. However, the Wii represents roughly 60% of all seventh-gen market share in Japan. Unless one is willing to concede that either A) over half of the Japanese console-buying market has always been "casuals" or non-gamers, or B) the Japanese console market lost 17.5 million core gamers in the span of a single generation, then it's apparent that the Wii was driven primarily or nearly exclusively by "core" console gamers. Also, as in the U.S., combined annual sales of all platforms look extremely anomalous if you remove the Wii from the equation, but look perfectly normal when one counts the Wii.
Of course, other people have their own arguments as to why they too feel that the "Wii casuals" are largely a myth, but I think hardware sales data alone is enough to cast serious doubts upon if not outright debunk this "Blue Ocean" hypothesis that Wii sales were driven primarily by "casuals" and non-gamers. I am willing to concede that some portion of Wii sales were due to people who otherwise would never buy a console, but I think said portion isn't very significant, perhaps less than 5% and certainly no greater than 10%. I simply think that the Wii offered something new and something fresh at an affordable price, and that the system had brilliant marketing that sold gamers on Nintendo's vision. Motion gaming had been attempted on many occasions, but it never worked as advertised. The Power Glove, one of the earliest examples of note, certainly wasn't as cool or as functional as The Wizard made it out to be (it really was "So bad," and not in the 80s sense of "bad"). It wasn't until the Wii that motion gaming was done right, and I think a lot of gamers were looking for something new. Even if it wasn't everyone's primary system, at the very least it was a secondary system, and I think the number of multi-console homes probably went up quite a bit last generation.