Rol, we were told Nintendo would seriously cater to the core. What we saw was a half-assed result.

You're asking the question of why. I don't know. I really don't know. Is it possible that Nintendo hasn't tried hard enough? How is it that Ubisoft shows Splinter Cell as a high profile game on the 360, but not on the more powerful WiiU? What is going on??

It's possible that Ubisoft will never ever want to offer their high-profile games on the WiiU, but then how come we got ACIII?

If you answer this, I'll offer more thoughts.

But remember, I am predisposed to believe that Nintendo has the power to make change, however they are not taking the steps required to lay the foundation to solid, reliable partnerships. Something is stopping them, and from what I expressed about the Iwata asks, project Rainfall and Reggie's uptightness and over-glorifying of useless things ("Netflix will change your life"), I'm not disposed to believe they have taken the fundamental measures in order to be successful in their plan.

Last year Nintendo said they are going to focus more on the hardcore but with Nintendo Land as the grand final at E3 they clearly send a different message...

A source have just informed me that Nintendo has deliberately staged off E3 and decided to hold off on releasing any and all solid info for future announcements. It was decided that in order to keep momentum, they will have sporadic release throughout & until the release of Wii U and up to the next E3. They have stated to please be patient as in time, all questions will be answered, expectations will be met, and all current undisclosed info will all be revealed.

There's no reason getting riled up over nonsense we put ourselves into. Remember, in the end, the universe tends to unfold as it should.

So, what are you saying, that Nintendo needs to sell itself more?

What about the intrinsic compatibility issue Nintendo has with 3rd party publishers. Why do they much prefer make their games on Sony and MS consoles? How do we explain that. I've given my reasons (attitudes we see in the Iwata asks, Reggie's unchangeable ways: project rainfall, and other evidence), how do you explain that part.

I understand the first side of the coin you raise (how Nintendo can prostitute itself to get support), but you don't explain the fundamental reason for the band-aid.

"What gamers want are new and exciting ip's from Nintendo that cater to a Mature audience so to speak. The are flogging the usual dead horse that is mario and now we have nintendoland(Good god). Yes we know everyone likes mario but people want something new and fresh. You know exactly what games are coming out for the Wii U. There are never any surprises from nintendo anymore that excite the "Hardcore" gamer. Yay another 2D mario, Yay another Smash Brothers, Yay another Mario Kart, Yay another Zelda, Yay another Pokemon. It is same old shit year in, year out."

What? Ok, so you have people in this thread demanding more Zelda and Metroid to showcase the graphical power off Wii U, and in the same breath, people DO NOT want to see it because it is just 'rehashes' that have been done before. WTF? What exactly does the hardcore gamer want? 6 pages in this thread and I still do not know what you guys actually want. EA Sports has been on board with Wii U since last year...but no EA sux. Ubisoft is releasing like 6 games...but oh, no Watch Dogs, even though that game has probably been in development longer than Wii U dev kits have been available. For Pete's sake, I could say the same thing about Microsoft!

"Yay another Halo, Yay another Gears, Yay another Forza, Yay another Fable, Yay another Call of Duty demonstration. It is same old shit year in, year out."

What about Japanese companies? I don't know if you guys noticed, but Japan is HANDHELD central. They barely had jackshit for any of the other consoles either. MGS and RE6 were the only memorable games, both multiplat.

Fact of the matter is, you cannot SELL a console with new IPs alone; Nintendo has to provide gamers with something that people can trust first, a la the ports of a dozen highly rated games, a sequel to a game that sold 25m, and a revival that gamers have been begging and BITCHING for for nearly a decade (Pikmin 3). Nintendo Land could sink or swim. If it bombs, Nintendo will be OK. If it takes off, they just once again prove that they have a much better idea of what software to make for a console launch than we do.

How incredible would it have been if reggie anounced a new game akin to the likes of Halo, The last of US or Beyond: two souls with an awesome trailer that gave you goosebumps when the trailer is finished? The conference had none of that.Instead it is same old Mario and CO with trailers that could have been from the Wii for all we know. They need to create some new amazing IP that can rival Mario and Metriod and give the Wii U an identity.

For probably 30 years now, every console has had a game that began development on one system, but carried over to a successor (the beloved Eternal Darkness anyone...which BTW sucked). Pikmin 3 is just going to Wii U for the same reason. If I did not know any better, from reading your post The Last of Us and Beyond are games that ol' Sony just makes on the regular...where is The Last Guardian though. Agent? Who makes sci-fi games? The only two IPs with any popularity are  Halo and Mass Effect; maybe Star Wars but thats a different story. Closest thing Nintendo has is StarFox, but Im sorry thats a rehash. Even if it was announced, people sould still complain that we just got one on the 3DS last year anyway....

Miyamoto stated he was working on a new IP. What that is I do not know...but what I get the sense of is people want Nintendo to have their own Solid Snake/Super Marine to compete with MS or Sony on the "hardcore" front. When I reread that idea in my mind I realize how stupid that really is.

That first bolded part is all opinion. 
Nintendo answered those questions before E3.

I actually see several Sony/MS Fans that thought Wii U looks quite interesting.

The tablet gaming + TV gaming at the same time is a bad idea, because you need to watch the tv and the tablet in order to interact in an efficient way with the game; and would be a pain in the a$$ to look to the tablet, and then look to the TV, the tablet, TV, tablet-TV-tablet-TV-tablet-TV-tablet-TV-tablet-TV-tablet-TV over and over again in order to avoid getting killed while watching the other screen.

I bet this will be a major complain when the console releases. I bet most people will play only with the tablet, because that is the only way you can play without having to watch 2 screens at the same time.

The DS/3DS was not a problem because the screens are very close. It is like a big screen that is foldable. You can see both screens without moving your eyes and head, making a simultaneos view for both screens (or at least you can the other screen with yout peripherical view)

The problem with the WiiU is that you will be looking front (TV), down (Tablet) over and over again, so that you dont gent killed in a game; and that will be a major problem. For example in a game like in Zombi U you will be bussy checking the inventory, and while doing so you will be eaten by a zombie. RE LOL

This console WiiLL FAIL U

Great post right here. Nintendo still has the games to support Wii U and they finally have HD and a "normal" controller so 3rd parties can be lazy and port things over. They'll be fine, just like you said.

Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post, but I must ask. Why is it stupid for people to want something different from Nintendo that appeals to different demographics?

It's stupid to want a Solid Snake style character but it is cool to have Solid Snake in Nintendo titles?

Underlined is fabricated by a Piplup in disguise of a Pikmin