Ah, but you see Microsoft and Sony aren't in the business to make money, so their model isn't broken, therefore their leadership is just bitchin'.

He favors Microsoft and Sony selling consoles at a loss to gain market share.
He is currently favoring Sony, who are developing a super-expensive console aimed at a core market.
He is currently favoring Microsoft based on Skype and TV experiences.

Nintendo started with the Wii U selling it at a loss to gain market share. Their initial launch lineup was aimed at the core market. The Wii U launched with a video chat program pre-installed, and was later updated with TVii, which allows you to simultaneously search for content on 4 different video services plus your local service provider.

Why are Sony/Microsoft not getting the same treatment from him as Nintendo?

What if PS4/Durango come out and stall just as bad as the Wii U did? Would that make Iwata a good CEO, or would it make Hirai and Ballmer bad CEO's as well? Or would Patcher introduce some other kind of metric in order to, once again, single out Nintendo?

So you think a CEO should be fired after 2 dry spells after having two of the biggest consumer electronics ever released?

Iwata's Wii and DS sold more than Yamauchi's NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, and GBA combined. And made more money off of them to boot. No CEO is perfect. Even Bill Gates, head of one of the biggest electronic giants in the world, released Windows ME and Windows Vista.

He's right.

I wonder if there was anyone foolish enough to hold onto their nintendo stock from waaaaaay back in 2007.

Nintendo were not lucky with the Wii, and it was not an unknown market.

Ok, lets say we have two people in a forest trying to find some moss. They are looking North, and thus can only see the south side of the trees. They cannot find any moss.

One person says to the other, there clearly isn't any moss in this forest.

The other man thinks about moss, knowing that it requires damp conditions, and that the sun will dry up water. Only the north side of the trees is likely to have moss. He suggests that they turn around and look at the north side of the trees.

The first man says "You are so lucky, you managed to fluke your way into an unknown market of moss."

You can clearly see that this is ridiculous. The casual market was known about by anyone with the brains to see, hell, it's how the PS2 did so well. Nintendo were the first to recognise and capitalise on a new market, that is a textbook example of having good business sense.

As for the 3DS doing well because of lots of games coming out, I suppose it's good that it has a whole lot more good games coming out this year then.

So you now know that the Wii succeeded because of Nintendo's brilliant business strategy.

You already acknowledged that the DS succeeded because of Nintendo's ability to produce popular hardware at a mass market price, and because of their ability to develop great games.

You already have, or soon will acknowledge that the 3DS will succeed due to Nintendo's ability to produce popular hardware at a mass market price, and because of their ability to develop great games.

We can come back to the topic of the WiiU at Christmas, I can understand how it's a little unclear at the moment.

So Nintendo's track record in recent times is, as you now see, either 3/3, 3/4 or 4/4.

I agree with what you said about the 3 month drought but what does that have to do with what Michael Pacter said? Pacter didnt call him a poor CEO because there were no games for 3 months he was saying they are no longer makking profits on HARDWARE and they should stop making HARDWARE and be like SEGA. Basically he was commenting from an investor standpoint and argueing that Nintendo would not be able to make a profit anymore which is nonsense. Please make sense of what you just typed and explain what that has to do with this particular article? You agree with Pacter without even knowing what he was talking about?.......wait.....you actually agree with Pacter? smh

It seems like you basically contradicted yourself. "But the price drop and games helped." And you don't think that'll help Wii U? 20 Million consoles is a complete understatement.

It might seem like the Wii U is going to crash and fall. But didn't people also say that about the 3DS?

So where is all this market research then? How did they know motion controls was going to be able to sell yet the eyetoy did average at best? It was unknown and it was luck. Where are the CEO comments about how casual is the new market?

how many familes and mums bought the PS2? None.

The PS2 sold because it was targeted at all ages, from 10 to 40, not that it was casual.

The DS was low power, cheap components which sold due to the games and no competition.

This, as I have said before, is not the case for the 3DS. The market is changing. You, and others, deny this. Why? Only time will tell on how this pans out.

The WiiU on the other hand, has major competition, few games (and big titles still seem to not be moving it), and a confused target. At Christams everyone will be buying Iphones, tablets, TVs, PS4s and Nextboxes, but not the WiiU. Why? Because it already flopped this Christmas!

They said they won't drop the price.

The games that sell the DS series is different to the console. So far we have seen and heard nothing, and it looks grim. The 5th best selling game on the Wii has fallen flat on the WiiU. The only thing that will help shift it would be a new SSBB, but if we consider that only sold 10 million on the Wii that has shifted 100m units, we're looking at either a spike followed by stagnation at 10m consoles at best.

That's dire.

Thejimbo. This shall be my last post on the matter, because you (and I don't intend to be rude here) do not know enough about the sales patterns of the past to have a reasonable discussion about the future. I do not say this in a mean way, you probably know more than I did when I'd been on this site for the same amount of time.

Regarding big games not pushing hardware, look at the dates that big games released on the WiiU, look at hardware sales then, and look at hardware sales during the lull. I assure you, the big games DID push WiiU sales a lot.

Regarding the PS2 being 'aimed at all audiences' and the Wii being 'casual', that is just nonsense and I shall have no more part in such a discussion.

As for competition for the 3DS, I assume you aren't meaning Vita? You refer of course to the 'smartphones are going to kill off handhelds' bollocks? That is about as reasonable as assuming that the Wii expanding the gaming audience would somehow kill of the audience for more traditional games.What's better, 50% share of a market of 200 million? or 25% share of a market of 1 billion? More gamers is a good thing, the market is big enough for handhelds and phones.

The eyetoy did poorly because of the lack of software, and because alternative control schemes have to be bundled with the console, or very cheap in order to do well - otherwise developers don't make games for them as it reduces the userbase considerably. As for "where are the CEO comments about the new expanded market, they are here 'www.google.com', there are a LOT of them, please read some, you might learn a bit about why the Wii succeeded.

Sony? What? If you're referring to the PSP, it was a totally different market, as"handheld gamers" are far less fickle than console owners and go for very specific games and nothing else.

Erm, you mean Wii right? The WiiU has not had any big games, nor big jumps in sales. 

And you're in denial and running away -  http://www.computerandvideogames.com/346121/nintendo-plans-to-attract-core-gamers-before-casual-with-wii-u/#  The Wii was for casual, and it wasn't intended. That proves you wrong on both accounts. Getting that market was an accident, and it was casual gaming.

I've clealry stated that the competition for the 3DS is the smartphone and tablet market...unless you have people playing handhelds at home and defeating the point of a handheld.....

Ha! If you had googled it, you would see how you were wrong about your casual gaming comment.

I don't see how this situation is dire. If the Wii U continued on for pretty much a year (like the Vita) with horrible sales, then I would categorize it as dire. A few months on the market with a not so great weekly number? I call that natural. (Most Consoles fall "flat" for a while after release. They only start picking up once their big games hit, which hasn't happened to the Wii U, yet.)

The fact that you act like NSMB can't pull in more sales than that is funny. When the console isn't selling all too well, the games won't either.