No, he doesn't; historical trends for different Mario franchises indicate differently, and you repeating this falsehood is not going to make it somehow less false.

That it didn't appreciably move hardware in Japan is already acknowledged; that it did not do so anywhere else is impossible to prove. You are beating a dead horse in attempting to prove it.

Actually you prove my point, saying that different Mario franchises merely provesmy point, as 3D mario has a dismal track record worldwide, only Mario 64 did well, and that was more because of the novelty of 3D at the time, 3D Mario has done poorly wordwide in moving hardware, on the GCN and the Wii, 2D and Kart have done extremely well wordlwide, so my point remains unbroken, if Galaxy was capable of moving hardware, we would have seen the movement in Japan as well.

Ssssshhhhh.

First: that wasn't a complete thought. If you want to say something, you have to say it, as opposed to not saying it.

Secondly: the two ideas are not related. You can't strengthen an unrelated point, since it is unrelated. 3D Mario's relative strength has diddly to do with system seller status for Galaxy in Japan vs. Worldwide.

Thirdly: Bringing up GCN and N64 eras are dangerous, since 3D Mario performed almost as well as or better than Mario Kart during those times.

Fourthly: your assertion that the only duty of first-party software is to move hardware is immensely narrow, irresponsible, and flagrantly wrong. You shouldn't even be saying it, but if you find yourself having to say it then at least have the good grace to realize how ridiculous the idea is.

No actually it does, since once again we are showing the effect of other 3D mario games, to show how its a wordwide thing, and not just one region

You're arguing exceptions, Mario Kart in the GCN era was a different formula than its other eras, easily explaining its weak effect, it wasn't the same game type, and as I pointed out already, Mario 64 was a unique case due tothe novely of 3D at the time.

No, its not narrow or wrong, Nintendo is a console maker, they're goal is to get more consoles out to the masses,  people buy consoles for the games, if the games are not getting people to buy consoles, then it is not helping Nintendo.  Ask Iwata if he thinks Nintendo software should not move consoles, he'll laugh at you.

I'm going to ignore your first two paragraphs. You are wrong and have no intention of ceasing to be wrong, so I'm not going to try to convince you, but I think on some level you know how wrong you are concerning the equivalence of Japan with other territories.

But that third paragraph, that gets special treatment.

The problem that it comes down to is this: you have opted to qualify Nintendo as a console maker, which is true, but you have chosen to classify them solely as a console maker, which is wrong and disengenuous. You see, they're in the busienss of selling games. Why is that, you ask, and what does it mean? Allow me to tell you.

First, it should be noted that Nintendo does not create games with the specific intent of selling mroe hardware - Iwata has actually said that, and the biggest contributing reason is that they're never really sure what the next big thing is going to be. Needless to say, Iwata would not laugh at that question but give a thoughtful and protracted answer that is both illuminating and entertaining; I know that because he's done it already.

Now, you call Nintendo a console manufacturer, but that's not quite right. They are a game company.

But that's not quite right either. First and foremost they are a publically traded institution. Their goal is to make money.

Now, obviously the basis of your assertion is that selling more hardware is the best way to make money, but the problem with that assertion is that it's blatantly untrue.

Now I need you to step back from this argument for a moment. Say to yourself, "I will consider the merit of what is being said to me instead of dismissing that out of hand."

Can you do that for me?

I hope so.

Now, your original assertion is that all first party software should be made with the intent of selling mroe hardware, and that if it does not succeed in this task then it is a waste of developer resources. From that, we can assume that first party software should be made to appeal primarily to customers who do not yet own a system.

You can probably see where I'm going with this.

The problem with this model is that Nintendo doesn't make the body of their profit off of hardware, they make it off of software - gobs and gobs and gobs of software. Software doesn't exist to sell hardware - just the opposite! In spite of what being on a sales website where people measure their electronic dicks according to console sales might lead you to believe, hardware exists for the sole purpose of creating an audience for software to sell to. Flagging hardware sales are only really a problem in that they tend to lead to environments where a lack of fresh customers results in less software being sold.

Super Mario Galaxy was made with the intent that it should sell the console, and it failed to do that in Japan (but not provably anywhere else), which is to say that ti would create a market where ti was possible for other games like it to sell. Super Mario Galaxy 2, in point of contrast, was made solely for the purpose of selling on its own merits. So, too, was Metroid: Other M. Super Mario Galaxy 2 succeeded in that aim while Other M failed, but the point is that those two games were created to sell to audiences that would enjoy them, because games are where Nintendo makes most of its money.

How much do you figure Nintendo makes off first-party titles sold separately from the hardware? I don't know. You don't either. In point of fact, it doesn't actually matter exactly how much they make, it just matters that they make money by doing it. Why does it matter, you ask, if you operate off of the assumption that selling systems is the most important and profitable part of the business (which isn't true, but we'll pretend it is for the sake of argument)?

Firstly, Nintendo has limited production capacity at any given time, and will not increase beyong a certain point because they are a very conservative company when it comes to hardware. If every game they made sold primarily to new buyers, we would be in a perpetual Wii shortage with relatively abysmal software sales.

Secondly, software sales are important for a few reasons on their own, too. They are an alternative income stream when compared to hardware! Since not every game can sell hardware (which Iwata firmly established from his own mouth, since they don't know what will and what won't, and neither do you) games have to be made to make money in the first place, so games that are profitable on their own have to have their own niche.

Thirdly, it's important that current buyers be made to feel satisfied with their purchase! Satisfied buyers not only buy mroe games, they create brand loyalty and positive word of mouth, which leads to (gasp) more hardware sales, which leads to more software sales in the longterm. Software made to appeal to current owners, like Super Mario Galaxy 2, or Fire Emblem, or Zelda, or Donkey Kong, perpetuates the brand loyalty that ensures a certain baseline of software and hardware sales. More satisfied customers directly translates into mroe guaranteed sales in future generations for both software and hardware.

Fourthly, Nintendo has to be able to have their teams working on different things at the same time. Remember that Nintendo for a while was the most profitable company in the world per employee - you might argue that they could increase their profit-per-employee by downsizing teams that don't make system-selling software and that's true, but it would harm the absolute value of the company in that Nintendo hardware owners continue to buy games and Nintendo, in their heart of hearts, would prefer to get as many of those software sales for themselves as they can so that they are mroe absolutely profitable instead of having even more ridiculous profit margins. Every team needs to be put to work, and every team needs to be making money as best they can - some breakout hits (Rhythm Heaven) do a lot more than expected, some (Other M) do a lot less, but theintent of all of these game is to make money first.

Fifthly, and this is also important, Nintendo strives to maintain its image as a purveyor of top-grade software that can appeal to current owners and new owners, which means they need to make system-selling games and games that sell on their own merits. It's intrinsic to their image as a company and it's part o what makes many people (myself included) so comfortable about buying their products.

Lastly, and this is probably the most important even if it's slightly redundant, Nintendo needs to be able to experiment both within and outside of its established intellectual properties. It's been re-affirmed, over and over, that Nintendo does not know what games are going to be the biggest monster breakout hits. They can get a pretty good idea of consistent big sellers (Zelda, 3D Mario, et al) but the real monsters, like Pokemon, they're never sure of. Experimenting within their established franchises is what allowed Mario Kart DS and Mario Kart Wii to become the system-selling goliaths that they were, and what allowed them to continue selling long after they stopped moving systems. It's what allowed Metroid Prime to help push the Gamecube while establishing itself as the best-selling games in its own franchise. It's what let Phantom Hourglass outsell Link to the Past. It's how Rhythm Heaven exploded.

There are many reasons for games to sell. Selling hardware is important, but the other stuff is just as important - sometimes even moreso.

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

I have to say that I have never used so many words to say so much to one person who took away so little.

You missed the point where hardware isn't where they make most of their money; software is. And they need to make software to-

You know what

I'm not typing that again

You missed where I pointed out, that its not that easy, first off they sell software on their hardware, so having more hardware is necessary to selling more software, 100 consoles willalmost certainly give more software sales than 1 console.

Secondly, console movers sell more, both to new buyers and existing buyers, NSMB and Wii fit were examples of this, as a result, it is better for Nintendo to produce console sellers.

So my point is that console movers make more money for Nintendo than non-console movers

That's often true, but how can you ignore the point that they never know which games are going to be the break-out ultra hits? Iwata has confirmed that more than once.

And how can you ignore that hardware exists to sell software, not the other way around?

And that limited hardware production capacity necessitates software made specifically to appeal to existing customers, and improve the library on the whole to give long-term hardware boosts that can't be directly linked to a single game?

How do you miss all this?

Certain mistakes are excusable, such as a Wii music, there will always be some games that flop, but companies need to make course changes once failure occurs and avoid making similar games in the future, however there is no excuse for repeated failure, creating multiple 3D mario  games, or making an other M game, or a skyward swrod when it was clear to anyone those would flop, is a horrible blunder by nintendo, and something that should not happen in the future, a waste of resources.

Hardware exists to give a platform upon which to sell software, but without the software, people will not buy the hardware, so its still software that sells the hardware, the hardware is the platform for the games, if no compelling software exists, people will not buy the hardware.

Except hardware moving games do a far better job of giving long term boosts and improving the library than non hardware moving games