*Checks join date*
Ahhh... a youngin.

Vita say hello lol

It's not a leap to a conlucsion. Iwata himself said it.

??

Iwata also didn't go into the same level of detail about how Wii U online purchases would work, saying only that all games will be sold both in stores and as a download on day one for the new console.

Reached for comment this morning, Nintendo of America officials declined to address whether the Wii U's online purchases would be tied to the console, but reiterated the importance of this shift in sales.

source

Keep looking.  Also, don't look to NOA if you're looking for Iwata statements.

How about a better means of considering it?  If each console can have multiple user accounts, why would they tie the software to the console?  It wouldn't make sense to have multiple user accounts if the software is hardware locked instead of account locked. 

I don't understand that logic, so if you could let me see that clearer I'd really appreciate it. This is how I see it:

1) Physical.

Physical copies cost more to produce. By the time retailers like GameStop get these copies, they hardly make a profit out of selling them. Instead, they make most of their profit by re-buying them cheaply from consumers and then selling them for a higher used price back to other consumers. When GameStop sells a new copy of a game for $50 dollars, they probably make less than $8 on it (I think i'm being generous, but I genuinely don't know).

2) Digital.

Retailers pay only Nintendo's basic fee for having digital copies, as there are no other costs involved. Retailers simply have codes and they can sell them at whatever price they want. If Nintendo takes even $20 for each digital copy sold, that leaves GameStop with every single extra penny as profit. That means if GameStop sells it for $50, they gain $30 profit! And they don't have to worry about supply constraints or shelf space.

Now, can you tell me where my logic is wrong and how this is bad for retailers? I'm confused.