I remember around the time Xenoblade came out in America that the Google search queries for "xenoblade ps3" went up quite a bit and I thought "Huh, I don't know what to make of this. Are people that stupid or misinformed? Or is it something else?". Also that recent (and hilarious, I think) Bayonetta 2 spat really shed the light on the idea of certain games and franchises must be on certain platform or else it's treason or automatically a bad business decision or the world will end or something. Basically what I mean is that sometimes platform doesn't matter. Xenoblade would've been amazing on a GameCube, Wii U, or any platform capable of realizing its vision. Yet I see people thinking as if it has to be available for a certain something in order to be, at the least, worth purchasing.

How does that relate to Xenoblade's sales? Not at all, really. Nor do I think Xenoblade is the shining example of everything the Wii can do. It's just more evidence that a great game can be developed for it. To answer the question, Xenoblade's sales tell me very little. It's as popular as Mother in Japan, supposedly, but sales don't reflect that. It's the highest-rated RPG to come out of Japan in a long time, but sales don't reflect that. I find that, in the grand scheme of things, sales paint no more than a vague picture. In Xenoblade's case, it's the picture of over 700,000 people across the world who have gained possession of a game I really like. It tells me that I'm not alone in my knowledge of the game's quality, even in the face of games I like significantly less sell 20 billion copies. What does all of this tell me about consumers? Every individual counts. If you're trying to make a point about how it would sell of the HD twins, don't bother. There's no point of comparision.

Now back to continuing from the first paragraph and tying it in with the topic. Some of the best Wii games are entirely possible on other consoles, but definitely not all. The willingness to market a unique, Wii-specific game stems from the assumption that consumers might like something different from the norm, as if the Wii is to be treated like a grounds for more experimental gameplay than a publisher would normally attempt with an established property. Marketing would have to revolve around the ideas implemented in the Wii version that aren't available in others (though the others would obviously have their own ideas relevant to the platform they are on). It's nothing more or less than doing what the Wii was originally intended to do - be a device where the best ideas, not graphics, succeed. Unfortunately somewhere down the line the experiment didn't go as originally envisioned. "What went wrong?" is the ultimate question.

The answer: A lot.

Can the situation be fixed?

The answer: Not without a time machiene.

What does this mean for the future of Nintendo and third-party support?

The answer: Hopefully, a better start (less mistakes) in the next generation.