Gamecube

The Gamecube didn't have the Wii series, nor did it have 2D Mario or an (by the masses) acceptable 3D Mario title. Simply calling it Wii U will move lots of systems due to brand popularity, while the Wii also promoted the Nintendo IPs above previous recognition levels.

Still, your entire argument is contradicted by the fact that Gamecube was relevant and possibly even turned a profit (not sure if Gameboy was the sole or part reason to their profit during those years).

The games I bought the Wii for, Mario Galaxy, Zelda, and Metroid are motion control only. That is what I was talking about. Nintendo forced me to play Mario, Zelda and Metroid with motion controls. It still bothers me I couldn't play Zelda SS with a standard controler.

I fully expect Nintendo to force us to use tablet controls in Mario, Zelda and Metroid just like they did with motion controls. I don't care how Nintendo believes it "enhances" their games, I don't want anything more than a stardard controller.

you know, this is my bad.  the first time i read your post i took away a feeling of doubt from you words that really isn't there.  I was just posting to reaffirm what you had already said.

the gamecube was not only profitable, i think it made more money thn the ps2 or xbox. Not sure on that but i believe it did. nintedo sells their hardware at a profit usually (or a very little loss) versus sony and ms who have loss leading products and make money up on software.

These are my thoughts exactly.  I owned the Wii for a couple of years and had fun with the mini games and party games that took good advantage of the the remote's motion controls.  I never bought a single big name Nintendo game, including the ones you named off.  Motion controls take all the fun away from those experiences.  I want to play those games to be immersed, and forget that I'm holding onto a controller.  But the moment I have to waggle it around unnecessarily, it's all ruined.

The Wii U will no doubt do the same, as you've said.  This will be the first Nintendo console I don't buy, and that's a discouraging thought.  If I could buy the console with the Pro Controller packed in, I would consider it.  But the tablet will be required, along with its touch-screen and motion capabilities for in-game controls.

I will no doubt be skipping any other console, as well, that attempts to force these gimmicks into every game.

I also agree that these new VR units have me more enthused about gaming than anything I can remember.  Games progress by creating more immersive experiences, and there's no better way than to feel like you are there (granted, with high enough resolution).  When the game is displayed to take up your entire peripheral vision, it's something I can't wait to explore.  I'll just be patient enough to wait for further iterations of these devices with a standard of HD resolution. 

What do you guys want those consoles to cost? Surface or Vita would cost more or less the same than the WiiU, it seems you guys want that the PS4 and the next XBox cost the same than a NeoGeo, with those 150$ joysticks? Imagine the cost of a PS4 and 4 Vitas...

In my opinion it was essential that the Wii U support at least 2 tablet controllers and have ways to support at least 4 players in local multiplayer, but I don't think having more than 2 tablets controllers adds much value ...

With the Wii I noticed that most games that used the nunchuck in multiplayer tended to only be played by 2 people, while most 4 player games tended to only use the Wiimote. Having the touch screen in local multiplayer seems essential to a lot of games (like Madden) when playing against another person, but as the numbers of players increases it becomes less important and you really just need accessible ways to get more people having fun.

No, because people don't buy consoles for controllers, they buy them for GAMES. I thought this would be common sense by now..

As long as the Wii U has Nintendo franchises it will live on. That's the main appeal of the Wii U, not the controller.