Plus you have to add: doing new hardware without copying Sony or Microsoft, assuming people and developers for the WiiU, and doing actual games for the WiiU.

The only started 2 new consoles in 2 years, if the lose some money it's a total failure. (sarcasm)

I'm really tired of people talking about Nintendo and never Sony and Microsoft.

PS: Sony having major lossess since the launched the PS3, last year even the other electronic markets have gone wrong, one day of critics and stop. This internet world it's not good anymore.

No need to play the victim card here. Most of the folks in this thread who are critical of Nintendo's business practices find the other two companies' business practices bad too. Worse, actually. But that doesn't mean Nintendo's not made a long series of missteps.

Can you name the last time that Nintendo ran an annual loss? Can you name the last time Nintendo launched two new systems in two years? Can you recall the results of that last attempt?

If your assertion is that professional analysts suck at their jobs, I don't think many here will disagree with you. But that's not the purpose of this thread, so why is it being brought up?

I have a hard time signifying Malstroms article with a response. It is so asinine that I really don't care to or want to go into all of the errors in it. I see many of the forum goers have done a good job showing his article to be full of crap. Sadly consumers don't understand business they don't understand games. They react to games that come out and have absolutely no clue what they want.

So you want more Mario games? Yet millions of gamers have left Nintendo and stopped buying Mario because their is so many of them.

Malstrom simply lacks any ability to look five to ten years from now. Short term profits mean shit if they can't be maintained. Lets look at Activision they destroyed an entire genre giving the gamers what they wanted, they killed Tony Hawk which could be going strong today they are killing CoD.

Sony has done this too. The PS3 was exactly what the customer asked for more power, bluray all of Sony's big properties. The second Sony started listening to its consumers and following their advice bamb Sony starts going down. Today they still haven't realized the consumer doesn't know what they want.

The casual market the Mario market. Casuals come and go they are not loyal customers they are not a reliable market unless they become core consumers.

I'll use personal examples.

My mom owns about four Wii games. WiiFit, WiiFit:Plus, WiiSports, Harvest moon. She has not bought a single new game in years.

My sister another casual consumer owns a Wii and about five games.

My friend from church owns a Wii and two games. My buddies grandma owns one game. Every casual consumer I know owns less then five titles.

Now lets look at myself the core consumer you and Malstrom hate so much. I have nearly 30 Wii games. My buddy has over fifty. My other friends who game have 20-40 games each. Almost all of us owned GameCubes those games that don't sell 20+ million copies help keep us buying games.

Look at it this way would you rather have 16 (5 million sellers) or 4 (20 million sellers). What good are all these sales if they don't lead to more sales?

What good is a casual gamer who buys only 2-5 games if they don't become a hardcore gamer who buys 10-50?

PS CoD is a casual game by definition. A massive amount of the players these days game in 20 minute sessions once a week or two. Personally I know three girls who only own 360's and Live solely to play CoD.

Selling hardware is no good if it doesn't sell software. Selling software is no good if it doesn't lead to selling more software. Is a yearly 2D Mario game going to sell 20-million copies each? Absolutely not. Nintendo games have legs because Nintendo keeps at least a year or two separation between releases even of spin offs.

5th and 6 gen?  They profited throughout those gens.  Nintendo didn't fail at all, they were successful.  Number of units sold doesn't translate to profits.  That's like saying Sony didn't fail this generation because the PS3 did very reasonable.  When in fact, they're still in a loss from the PS3.  For a company, failure and victory translates into profit, not units sold.  Any company sets out so make a profit.

I define fail as in not suceeding in what they set out to do.

If Nintendo only wished to profit, sure, they suceeded. But I think Nintendo had some market strategic goals for those consoles as well.

But they have to actually DO 2 new consoles, you can't possibly believe that with this effort they can go up in money.

And for saying this, that you ignored, you tell me of victim. Yeah, sure, keep believing it.

...why are you acting like that's unprecedented again? This is Nintendo. Ever since they launched the Gameboy and the Super Nintendo within two years of each other, they've routinely released two consoles in a short timespan. Sometimes they've done three within a few years of each other. And they did it while making large amounts of money...until now.

Until recently, Nintendo's business practices didn't resemble those of Sony/Microsoft. They made money early and often. Now they are not. So, what's your point?

Some markets are more dominated by the vocal minority than others, which is very much the case in gaming. In this case, you can't listen to what is said, you have to observe how customers actually act.

Elitist as it may sound, consumers sometimes don't consciously know what they want.

I do agree that Nintendo has always done what they always want to do; but Nintendo has a pretty good record in giving the people something they didn't even know they want. At times, they are good at proving people wrong.
My point still remains on the 3D vs 2D Mario (at the other thread)

You're right, but Nintendo seems to realize that they really screwed up with how they launched the 3ds and had to cut it's price so much that it sells at a loss.  I would hold off on saying they are following Sony and Microsoft's business practices until after Wii U is launched and we see if they lose money again at the end of the year.