It would probably serve me better if I respond to you in parts:

The Wii was the 'market' leader for the generation with the most consoles sold and was Nintendo's highest-selling console that they ever made. There was skepticism for the Wii's launch as well, with some analysts predicting it would peter out below 40m consoles sold. Perception for the Wii U is no different, if not worse, despite the fact that is a successor to a market leader. Rereading your post, the first 3 or so lines could just well apply to Nintendo now.

You are right here with your points. My point is that now Nintendo are going for a different demographic than which won them this current gen (which is kind of why I mentioned the GC). And that means catering to the current gen trends i.e. FPSes, and maybe Action adventure and RPGs (to a lesser extent). And these are games that generally havent come to the Wii (and may not come to the Wii U - tho things change and this may happen).

The trends of 1995 should not take precedence in this case over which software should be created for the new console. The biggest issue I'm having right now is that you think it did not see a lot of 3rd party sales. The Wii had great-selling 3rd party sales, but not in genres like shooters/action adventures/FPS...but that is because none were made outside of Call of Duty and the ambitious 'The Conduit'. If I have said it once on this website, I have said it a thousand times; you cannot sell videogames that do not exist.

When I was talking about 3rd party support, I was talking about the "hardcore" games such FPSes, AA and rpgs (as I have mentioned above). Yes, some 3rd party games have been very successful on the Wii but the majority of them have been casual - dance, party, minigames titles that really a "hardcore"gamer wouldnt care about. As for the hardcore titles you mentioned below, RE5 didnt come to the Wii  perhaps because of lower sales or hassle to make a lower spec version for the wii (which is what I think they had to do for RE4). As for COD, the latest (MW3) has only sold 450k so far, less than half of PC sales (let alone ps3/xbox) inspite of having an install base larger than either ps3 or xbox. This does not really encourage developers to bring hardcore games to the console - no Skyrim, GTA4, no Batman:AA/AC (tho I know AC is coming to Wii U). For 3rd party developers to support it fully, they will probably want to see evidence that hardcore gamers will be buying the console. Yes there will likely be large initial sales from nintendo fans but nintendo have to do more to bring more players to the consoles. I think a large price cut may very well the way to go, looking at the 3DS.

I just do not know what there is to doubt when it comes to Wii U...

Ubisoft hit the gold mine with Just Dance as a series on Wii, which I believe has sold like 7+9+9= 25 million copies. Rabbids were consistent too, so at least Ubi of all people has their act together....

Sega had their biggest selling game ever with Sonic at the Olympic Games? All the other Sonic titles either  surpassed 1m or got really close.

Square Enix made nothing of note outside of Dragon Quest. A Kingdom Hearts 1+2 & Chain of Memories Collection would have been wise...

Capcom...they went very quirky due to hardware 'limitations'. Their efforts were the true definition of hit or miss. However, 'core' games of 'quality' like RE4 & MH3 hit 2m+. Their on-rails test games also averaged 1m.

Activision had COD consistently hit 1m, and that was with wack online and poor graphics...with Wii Ultra being of AT LEAST equal parity, there is absolutely no conscionable excuse why a Call of Duty game should not be on there. Therefore, if the largest third party series of the entire generation can still find te time to be created on the Wii U, all the other companies bleeding red ink have no excuse.

Ask THQ. Look at what their idiocy got them:

"THQ claims that they have not had a fiscal year where they finished in the black in "the last five fiscal years" and that they have had to restructure their operations to meet those losses. They are also in danger of losing their listing on the Nasdaq because their stock has placed below the required $1 per share minimum for more than 30 days in a fiscal year and could be removed if they can't keep the stock price above $1 for more than 10 consecutive business days by July 23. The icing on this tragic cake is its cash flow problem. Not only do they have a problem finding additional capital to fund their operations, but they also "may not be able to refinance or generate sufficient cash to service and/pay our convertible senior notes."

So instead of pretending the Wii and Xbox had the same market, realise they didn't.

You're nitpicking.

good tracks, same solid gameplay with a new touch, nice online and pretty fun. Yeah , i still think is a quality game

You lost me. I have tons of friends who have both a Wii and an XBox. Friends who play both Mario Kart and Skyrim, Call of Duty and Kinect Star Wars. Zelda and Wii Play. Smash Bros and Wii Sports Resort. Kirby's Epic Yarn and Mass Effect.

Sometimes it's convenient to simplify the market into distinct groups. Sometimes it's just easier to say, "This game is designed to appeal more to casual gamers," than to specify exactly what that means. But it's a shortcut. Male and female, Australian and French, under 13 and over 50 -- those are demographics. There is no simple division between "core" and "casual" gamers, and the existence of such demographics is an illusion. A single person cannot be both 15 and 34, and a single person (excepting rarities) cannot be both male and female. But it is extremely common for people to play a wide variety of games, including those labeled both "core" and "casual."

Audiophiles have nothing to do with what we're talking about. They need not be elitist, but I'm calling YOU an elitist because you clearly believe that your tastes are somehow more valuable than those of other consumers. ("Games and consoles shouldn't be focused on [casual gamers].") It's like you don't want the industry to make free money. You would dismiss as gimmicks some of the best-selling video games of all time. What do you care if tens of millions of people love playing Wii Sports Resort? By dismissing their tastes, you're effectively telling them that they're wrong for enjoying a certain product, and you're telling Nintendo that they were wrong for creating that product. Meanwhile, Nintendo looks at their financial reports, and sees that their "casual"-oriented games are among their best-selling.

Again, the so-called "casual" market has actually proven to be more sustainable than the "core" market you describe. That's because "casual" games, by their nature, have wider appeal than "core" games, which are often considered niche. Compare the appeal of Super Mario Bros or Call of Duty to that of Darksiders or Infamous. Of course the "casual" games sell better -- their target demographic is enormous. And they will always sell better, because developers aren't going to change their "core" games to appeal to that wider audience, and that's exactly how it should be. Some games will be blockbusters, some games won't. It works pretty similarly in the film industry.

The "casual" market has been around much longer than you think it has. The NES managed to succeed in America basically because of that audience -- it was marketed as an entertainment system, not just as a game console. It appealed even to people who weren't terribly interested in video games. This happened again 15 years later when a whole bunch of people bought a console called the PlayStation 2 just because it was the cheapest DVD player on the market, regardless of whether or not they cared about video games. Like it or not, the "casual" market has been saving this industry's ass on a regular basis for the past 26 years.

"I don't want a single publisher thinking that I'll pay twice for the same game." -- that's a shame, because many publishers already KNOW they can squeeze significantly more money out of their consumers through DLC. You may not be buying a single game twice, but you're paying double for one game, and isn't that just as bad?

Stop kidding yourself. Casual gamers don't have the nature of repeat purchase because they don't care about quality or technical innovations, they care about the most shallow of things so to get them to upgrade is nearly impossible unless you can sell your item on the premis that it is cool.

Seriously, are you trolling? I have to know whether anyone can actually be this closed-minded about other people's tastes. You are really being the most stereotypical "core" gamer you could possibly be, by grouping the majority of video game consumers into a single entity and making grand, downright offensive generalizations about their tastes ("Casual gamers don't care about quality"). You're also flat-out ignoring all evidence to the contrary -- evidence I have provided.

I also don't believe you've ever played a Mario Kart game before, or you would know that purposely staying in last place until the final lap is NOT an effective strategy. Staying in second, close behind the player in first, might be an effective strategy -- but at that point, there isn't really any difference between a blue shell and a red shell -- or, for that matter, drafting.

You're either trolling or you're dead set in your bias. Either way there's no point continuing this discussion.

How else can you explain the demise of Zynga or the boom & bust sales of Kinect?
All the evidence points towards a very volitile market that clearly doesn't care about graphics etc. What evidence have you provided??

IAll the evidence shows casual gamers are very temperamental. Show me some evidence that suggests otherwise.