The two systems had comparable time on the market ('84-'90 for the NES, '90-'96). There were an abundance of systems to rival the NES; you haven't heard of most of them though because the NES was so dominant. The SNES base unit is largely considered to be inferior in terms of graphical power to the Genesis. And the point, or at least my point, was not that the most powerful console always loses.

So the goal post goes back 1 of the 4 titles and you ignore it.   You bring up the fact that Ubisoft already supported Wii but don't give them the benefit of the doubt on that title.  And you fail to realize that the 2013 line up beyond the launch window has been announced at all.  

Can we say that GTAV may not be coming to the PS3 and X360 because it hasn't been announced for them?

Look, I'm not trying to tell you those titles are coming to Wii U.  What I'm trying to get you to understand that is just because those titles have not been announced for it yet doesn't mean they won't be.   Nor does it have any implications on other not yet announced titles.

Currently, the Wii U has a vastly improved 3rd party support over the Wii and you're pushing every negative angle you can think of it bring it down.  Why?

SuperNES kicked the mega drive's ass in graphics and don't tell me that mega drive had a faster processor it doesn't matter most MD graphics were dull in comparison with SNES exclusives and multiplats most of the time looked better on SNES.

You said:  "The N64.

I thought they eventually learned their lesson on that one, though."  

A lesson about releasing the most powerful console of the generation I suppose and I gave the example of the SNES that not always the most powerful console loses the console war.

Also NES came out in 1983 and it was still getting games and support almost through the mid 90's (Ninja Gaiden 3, Batman Returns, Duck Tales 2).

"There were an abundance of systems to rival the NES; you haven't heard of most of them though because the NES was so dominant."

You said it yourself NES was so dominant that I didn't even heard about all those other consoles, NES didn't have that much competition until Sega came up with the MD and Sonic.

Regarding your first paragraph, your individual subjective opinion is duly noted. Regarding the second point, that's not what the lesson was at all. Since you're not the only person in this thread who misunderstood me, I'll admit the error is on me for not being more clear. I think I tackled it in a later post, though.

Regarding the last portions, the NES had an extra year on the SNES before its successor released; I don't think that alters the point much. More importantly is the rest of your post, which (I believe) rather supports my argument.

You are comparing games coming out to a console with an established install base when you should be comparing games that came out at the time. Compare this to 360 and ps3 when they came out rather then what they have coming out next year.

Like I said at the time support this is nintendo's best third party support ever. Maybe if you bought games on wii u as an option when they are given to you we would start getting somewhere. I'm disappointed tomb raider and bioshock aren't on wii u but others have had no such denial they are on there. Its obvious nintendo isn't going to make the same mistake again. If they say they are making sure it gets supported that means what they say.

They are already acting upon their feedback and its obvious. Once again = that is the best third party lineup for the first four months nintendo have ever had. Nintendo have more of a say in it then you seem to think. They will end up publishing the games themselves if they have to (see bayonetta 2 as an example). When wii u gets 6 years down the line then you can compare this lineup to wii u. Until then wii u is being treated no differently to every other system that comes out. Arguably its being treated better.

Right now I'd be more concerned with third party support for vita because from what I hear not a single game has sold 1 million copies yet. As opposed to street fighter iv which sold 1 million not long after it came out on 3ds.

The combined sales of the 360 and the PS3 amount to more sales than the Wii. You could explain that with new models coming out and poor system reliability, but let's say even cut out a quarter of the total volume sold due to that. It's on par with Wii sales.

In other words it isn't small ball, it's in the same league as the Wii. I'm not sure how you don't see that. That market that the Wii doesn't have is not small ball, it is just as big as the Wii's. And if SW sales are the question, their tie ratios are higher.

Sony also had a better relationship with third parties. Nintendo had some but nowhere near the amount they needed to be considered a viable option. 

Are you positing that every 360 and PS3 sale was to the traditional market? Especially in light of the Kinect and Move?

Far more importantly, you're assuming that The Market is exclusively made up folks who have already bought in, i.e. if you haven't purchased a gaming system you're never going to buy a gaming system. That's a fallacy that I'm attempting to address. It's a rare person who doesn't spend money on entertainment. The question the videogame industry should be asking, the question that Nintendo briefly asked, is "so why is it that the bulk of our customers fall in the same small section of the general public? And how do we break out of this insular rut?"

I submit that the Wii and DS are excellent evidence that a market for videogames exists beyond the narrow band that has bought in during previous generations. I further submit that that market puts less emphasis on (expensive, resource-consuming) graphical output than it does on a wide variety of other factors. And I finally submit that a console that properly and continuously harnesses the values that the general public prefers in its entertainment will do at least as well as the DS, with the potential to do even greater. By contrast, even after attempting to devour the "new" market created by the Wii, the graphically-intensive, super-cutting-edge HD consoles are each petering out short of what even the outdated, gimmicky, SD Wii managed to do in a shorter timespan.

That's what I'm getting at. There are obviously millions of people who drool over bleeding-edge tech. The internet is full of them. And there are extremely few, if any, people who would turn away from better graphics (assuming they don't have to pay for them!). But at the end of the day, the group that demands a console that costs its manufacturer around $1,000 per unit at launch is relatively small and, more importantly, unable to singularly maintain a healthy console. A first-party would be much better served focusing its resources on other fronts.

Had is the keyword *looks at Vita*.

Who cares about the Vita? Im talking about the main consoles and the third parties are still higher there. You know it lilbroex...you always try to mess with my mind but it wont work this time.