But it will result in losses,  necesary ones. Have they gone with the casual route and leave the core as it is would be a short term success, as they recognized casuals dont stick themselves with games for too long, might lead to another wii case. So trying to regain the hardcore market could ensure them better sales in a long term period specially if they expand to the masses after that. yet the problem here is Ninty getting the "hardcore" market, they have to fix an image with them and that will come with a cost.

Necessary losses?  How does that work?

Are you telling me that Nintendo will have to start posting more losses in order to appeal to the hardcore since that's what Sony has been doing?

This is under my impression that even with ninty pushing the core games, the core market wont suddenly move with them, will be a somewhat slow transition than what they could expect. The 3ds loss was neccesary, it could have been avoided if software and a decent price was  set since launch. Can they avoid it with the wiiU while still aiming for the core? yes, but there's a limit in my faith in nintendo.

Sorry, I don't believe in pyyrhic victories.  Taking three steps backward does not usually lead to four steps being taken forward.  Abandoning your fanbase in order to attract another group never ever is a good thing.  

Whilst this is clearly a divergence from the Wii strategy, this doesn't sound like the strategy that gave us the Gamecube to me. I've pointed it out before, but I ditched that purple thing after just 2 years, and I would have no problem in doing the same again if the Wii U follows the same path.

The Gamecube was an all out attempt at the core market. There was little in the way of casual oriented titles outside of those they have that blur the lines (there were certainly very few all out casual titles like the Wii ___ series). So if Nintendo are targeting both eventually, then it can't be like the Gamecube strategy.

A core + casual approach sounds more like the PS2 strategy, which had the big games like GTA, but then it had stuff like Eye Toy and Buzz. The trouble is I don't think the market is currently in a position to present another PS2 like situation for anybody, and we've seen this gen (and in those prior to it) that third parties certainly won't be helping Nintendo be the company to prove that theory wrong any time soon.

The same can be said for any game, ranging from chess to tic tac toe.

If your fanabase is barely buying games you then you do 2 things. A) Try to make more games for them  B) change fanbase. The casual are very volatile and wont stick that long as said and its not like they didnt forget its fanabse already at the beggining of the gen, they will try to regain it. The casuals are a amrket that can be recovered more easily. Anyway going by their definition of core and the games that represent this, casuals will still be here for some time, they wont simply abandon it.

Sorry, I was away from my computer.

This is a legitimate concern, but it's got a few holes to fill. For one, the sales of the 3DS are fine, it's the profits that are hurt. The reason the profits are hurt have little to do with the games, Nintendo does not easily sell handhelds for more than 200$. What happened is that Nintendo included features in the hardware (3D) which the consumers weren' willing to pay for. They had to absorb the costs in a contingency measure. Pretty simple.

The strategy is the same with the WiiU, so sales should be fine, so long as the pricepoint is sound. Now you'll argue that the 3DS strategy was lacking since it didn't include NSMB2. Let's say for a second that I conceded that point (I don't, but let's say). Well, the WiiU is almost without a shadow of a doubt getting  NSMBU for launch.

So what are you worried about?

But the fanbase was buying a lot of games.  The problem was that they did not do A in your above statement.  They did the exact opposite and stopped making games for the system all together.

I have a question for you?  If the casual market can be captured so easily, then why is it that MS and Sony had such a hard time doing it this past generation?  

It's not because Sony went loss-leading that it's a pre-requisite in order to be graphically relevant. The cube was able to offer very good graphics for its generation at a reasonabale price. So what is the issue really?