You're not explaining your logic to me, which is making it hard for me to understand your position. You're advocating for a company to not lead its hardware launch with its best foot forward, when the last two console launches have been anemic-at-best because of their weak launches. Do you have any data to support your position that consoles do better with weaker launch lineups?

You're asking people to believe that it's better to give customers a crappy appetizer so they'll still have an apetite for the main course, notwithstanding that people have historically been more prone to buy systems and software when induced by a killer app. Do you have any data to indicate that a six-month wait for a killer app is more beneficial than a launch date release?

You're equating a series that sells 8-million with a series that sells 20+ million, on a evergreen basis, and then wondering why we don't follow your reasoning. You give no basis for this assertion. Do you have any?

You say it's because you're afraid of droughts, as if droughts are an inevitable effect of a strong launch and not just the result of poor planning. It's like arguing that a bird in the bush is worth two in the hand. Do you have anything to support the idea that a strong launch will create a drought?

You're willing to space out the Mario game, but you can't do the same with other games if you actually need to? Do you realize that you're advocating replacing one Mario game in the launch with no fewer than four separate first-party titles? Assuming you're diagnosing the danger of gaps correctly, if you want to space games out to avoid droughts, wouldn't it be more logical to start with the tentpole title, and then space the other four out to plug any gaps in the lineup?

And do you not recognize the irony in saying that "Nintendo needs a strong line up and Mario only hinders that" when you immediately follow it up with "Mario is far too powerful to he wasted at launch" (sic)?

This doesn't even make any sense. How could a game do that? Maybe Mario is having growing pains, or might even not have a future (though I'm pretty sure it does). Nintendo is doing fine, despite not appealing to me this generation. Unless Wii U doesn't do well, that might be tough for them.

Please tell me you're not using critical acclaim in a sales discussion. You've been here long enough to know why that's weak data at best.

This conversation is somewhat tangential to the main point, but I'm intrigued enough to continue. But before we continue, I need you to engage me more. You're making naked assertions.

"WiiSports was not the biggest game on Wii. It was however The best way to show off the Wii hardware. Everybody wanting to try out the Wiimote used WiiSports to do so. I am not in any way calling it weak. WiiU will also have a bundled tech demo compilation their is no reason to say that WiiSports was the thing that single handed saved Wii."

These are assertions. There are no facts at all given to support anything you wrote here. Provide me with your proof. I have sales figures, news reports, widespread pop culture penetration, and more to support the contrary. Give me something beyond "joelcool7 believes" to support this assertion.

You made an effort with the following paragraph, but unfortunately for you only one Wii title outsold Wii Sports in Japan. As an aside, I want you to guess which game that was. I then want you to explain why "Japanese sales over all (being) weaker then the west" proves that Wii Sports wasn't a driving force for the system, when Japan is the one region where the game was not bundled with the system, i.e. a forced demonstration to hardware customers of what the system can offer. And why, pray tell, does Wii Sports, a launch title, not count as part of the launch lineup?

Finally, and I may just have missed it because it's late here, but who here is assuming that the WiiU's bundled software "is going to suck"? And what does that have to do with the discussion?

I don't mean this in a mean or condescending way, but I literally am not sure what you mean in your first paragraph.

Your second paragraph alarms me, though. What amazing tech demo software does Nintendo have at the WiiU's launch? How does it stack up to the amazing bundled tech demo software of the 3DS? What makes it a better hardware seller than Wii Sports? If Wii Sports was very important, why does it not matter? If Nintendo needs a lot of software, why shouldn't their traditional coup de grace be part of it? And why would Mario do them more harm than good?

If I follow correctly, the argument is this: small indie games with a bunch of DLC is the future. Nintendo can not do anything without relying heavily on Mario. Mario is incompatible with small indie games and DLC. I can not read Japanese, so I have no idea what support any of the above statements have, let alone how the dots are connected. Sorry!

You know you can beat the original super mario in a matter of minutes, right?

Besides, I'm sceptical about you completing Galaxy in 8 hours. You mean you went through it with Mario and Luigi, collected all the bonus bits and unlocked the final level and completed it?

Nintendo have made loads of new IPs, or have revived long dead ones as well as pumping out Mario. It's pretty obvious.

Lots of people bought Wii's exclusiving because of Wii Sports and other fitness games. Look at the attachment rates of the top 10 Wii games and notice other than Mario games what else pretty much exclusively fills the ranks.

Wii Sports was the console seller, and even if you disregard it because it was bundled with the Wii you still have wii sports resort and wii play. Mario kart only just barely trump them.

lol leading with Nintendo's best foot forward. Nintendo's most successful home console in history did not have Mario in the launch window. It had Zelda and a new IP a new IP WiiSports and whether your like me who gives more credit to the other launch titles and Nintendo's loyal user base or whether you credit WiiSports with Wii's success. Either way you have to acknowledge Mario did shit to make Wii successful during its launch window and with Galaxy selling under ten mill it doesn't appear it had much to do with Wii's over all success. Mario Kart and 2D Mario did not make the Wii a success.

Now what everyone is suggesting is Nintendo use Mario to launch Tue platform despite Nintendo's two most successful platforms launched without a new Mario game in the launch window.

DS launched with a port and Wii did not have Mario. Mario did little to help N64 and less to help GameCube. Nintendo had less success on GBA a console swimming with Mario then DS a console with far less Mario. Given the life cycle.

So I ask you since Mario has not launched a successful platform since the 90's early 90's why does anyone think Nintendo needs Mario at launch.

I'll put it another way if Mario was a day one launch title lets say Nintendo led Wii with Mario bundling it with Wii instead of WiiSports. Would WiiSports have become big? Would the Wii's hardware sell any better? No it wouldn't the Wii was sold out everywhere for its first year and that was without Mario.

So why kill off new IP and over shadow the next potential WiiSports or Mario or Pokemon by launching a Mario title. This is basic knowledge in the industry. Ubisoft gave a great reason new hardware is the best time to launch new IP saving the established IP for a later date. In fact Epic to has given a lot of credit to 360 being a new platform to Gears success. Heck many of the biggest video game IP are new IP from this past generation.

I am not suggesting Nintendo leave Mario out of the launch year. I am suggesting Nintendo launch Mario in 6+ months from consoles release.

Mario is a sure thing but Nintendo knows that Mario is not enough to succeed. Miyamoto and Nintendo have said several times they need another major game.

I am getting a little screwed up. But I find it funny that Nintendo's strongest consoles did not have Mario at launch. The last two consoles to have Mario at launch (New) GameCube and N64 both failed to compete. Nintendo was not successful using Mario as their flagship title.

What good could Mario have done at Wii's launch? Tell me one positive that could have come from it at launch? It could not have increased sales of hardware! It would have over shadowed WiiSports, Zelda, Red Steel and every other launch window title.

Mario would have done tons of damage and hurt Wii's launch in a big way.

Use logic please when you only have four million hardware units to sell during the holiday season what good does a 20+ million title do? What? It could only anger consumers who can't play it because the hardware is not available. The first six months see at best what 15-million units what benefit does a 20+ million seller do? If their are two first party 4-8 million sellers a WiiSports style bundled game. A 1- million + Pikmin title another Miyamoto new IP capable of selling 20+ million but no worse.then a million. A new Retro IP another multimillionaire seller. A Sonic game another multimillion selling title. CoD a huge seller capable of 8-10 million copies on a solid platform. All of THQ and UbiSofts major titles. EA's big games Sega's...etc...etc...

What benefit does Mario do with that kind of line up? Their won't even be enough hardware to meet 2D Mario's potential. Then Mario 3D is in fact barely stronger then DK's potential.

The simple answer to your question Joelcool7 is that when Nintendo launches a new system they need Mario or they need a killer app like Wii Sports.

Zelda did not sell the Wii, flat out, no.

Wii had instead a killer app in Wii Sports. Without that killer app, and because of no Mario, Wii would have had a much different launch.

It's would be a risky thing for Nintendo to launch without Mario because then they'd have to rely on that killer app which _is not guaranteed_ to work. Early adopters, AKA people who like Nintendo already, are the core, and expect certain things from their purchase will think twice about buying at launch or in the early months unless there is something compelling.

Very little other than Mario and to a much lesser extent Zelda appeals to this core in any great number.

Dhar look over that list! Firstly WiiSports has an extremely low attach rate considering it was bundled in most of the world. That is horrible it shows nearly 20% of Wii owners opted out of software they shouldn't have even been able to opt out of.

Then WiiSports Resort bundled with Motion+ and consumers wanted to try it out. WiiPlay bundled with controllers when nobody could find controllers I personally had two copies and a friend had three because we couldn't find controllers without it. So look at the sequel to WiiPlay the one without bundled hardware. It bombed look at WiiMusic it bombed. WiiSports was an amazing revolution it was amazing can't argue there.

What your list shows take out the hardware bundles and your left with tons of titles that are non Mario and non Wii related. I have no idea how these games would do without the hardware bundles. I suspect WiiSports would sell about ten million copies assuming Mario wasn't present at launch. WiiPlay may have struggled to break 6 million. Just guessing but based on those I know who bought WiiPlay and the success of the sequel I have doubts it could have competed.