Dude there is saying with the degree I got that goes along the lines of "don't jump to wild conclusions". Something to do with statistical analysis, possibly from the module I did on statistical analysis...

Don't patronise me; my reply shows I'm looking at the big picture whereas you are clearly biased and refusing to look at the entire picture. 

I thought Disgaea 4 was for PS3? And every other game you mention is first party. Like I said, their old franchises aren't enough, as was proven by the sales of the Gamecube. Don't get me wrong, I have both a Gamecube and Wii and love the first party games, but I don't like the way Nintendo consoles are useless for anything other than Nintendo games. I'm not sure I can bring myself to get a Wii U as why should I support them when it feels like they have given up competing directly with Microsoft and Sony?

I wonder if anyone in here has been banned yet.

OT:They'll survive, but the gen after this one could kill them if they fail.

You have shown this whole thread that you are biased - your remarks in other threads have shown the same thing time and again. You only start to look at the bigger picture when pushed to do so (as when I asked what constitute a system seller when you said NSMBw wasn't one), and some times you still fail to see it (as with the failure/success of PS3).

I said SSBB wasn't a system seller. How am I being biased saying that a handful of games won't sell a system? When have they ever? 

The PS3 isn't a failure just yet. If bluray + profit results in net profit, then it can't be a failure financially. You just want to look at sales with a very, very basic understanding and say "it hasn't made money therefore it's a failure!" It's a lot more complex than that. 

You would like to limit the inquiry down to next to nothing wouldn't you, but your logic is flawed out of the gate, because there are true console exclusives, and there are games that are effectively exclusives. Even if a game is available on both the other platforms. What matters for the purpose of this discussion is that game isn't on the Nintendo platform. You didn't disprove any of my arguments by the way. You just tried to change the subject. The Wii didn't have anywhere near enough really good games consistently to keep honest gamers happy.

All of two games a year isn't near enough, and 360 and PS3 owners weren't compelled to go digging through the garbage for games to play, and they didn't have to settle on games they probably didn't want. A paltry handful of games throughout an entire generation isn't any kind of rational justification for paying a premium for a console. Twenty or thirty games without a doubt it is money well spent, but four or five is just wasteful. At best it is an argument to pick a console up five or six years down the line used no less. When even those games could have been gotted for a song.

Perhaps the most damning evidence that what I am saying is true has to be the fact that the GameCube had eleven more titles that scored over ninety percent, and the 64 actually had a few more then the Wii in a much more professional, and much harsher reviewing environment. Reviewers back then had far fewer titles to review, and more time to do their reviews. So flaws didn't go overlooked, because someone only spent seven or eight hours with a game. Whether you want to believe it or not Nintendo games have seen a noticeable decline in quality generation over generation. In fact if you had the time to average out all of the games they brought to their platforms you would probably see that the Wii averaged far below either of those two predecessors.

Nintendo being about the only supplier of good games on their platforms. Needed to maintain a high level of excellence, because it wasn't going to come out of third parties. They didn't and the fans noticed the mistreatment on the part of Nintendo. Every casual game wasn't just one less core franchise game made. It was also less time spent on each core franchise installment. Which does bring us to the problem of Nintendo dialing in their games. A game like Halo doesn't justify the behavior on the part of Nintendo. In fact it highlights their disdain for their fans.

Halo sees more improvements from installment to installment. Which is usually all of one or even two years apart. Then gamers have seen in Mariokart in all of fifteen plus years. If anything the improvements should be more profound. Videogames aren't like board games, or even sports. There is always some serious room for improvement, and developers should want to be creating those improvements. Making their games so much better then the one that came before. Nintendo doesn't do that. They aren't trying to exceed expectations. The company literally wants to put in the least amount of effort possible. Be recreating the same game over and over again.

By and large, you're the only one claiming SSBB not being a system seller... All I ever see you say about Nintendo is negative things, so that kinda makes me think you are indeed bias.

Let's take a look at what PS3 succeeded with, and what it failed at, shall we?

Bluray hasn't become the standard format. Yet. Failure/Success? Pending; You say blurays will overtake DVD as leading format in 2015, and while this might be true, the digital format might be the most common format then.

The use and development of Cell. F/S? Failure; Cell cost Sony a shit ton of money developing it and in the end lead to the xbox becoming the leading platform for developers, AND Sony abandoned the cell when making the PS4, so there wasn't any technical gains made and nothing that carried on to next gen.

Market share increase/decrease. F/S? Failure: Sony lost market share, allowing Nintendo and MS to outsell the PS3 and ending up in the 3rd place.

Financial gains? F/S? Failure: Overall the PS3 has lost Sony more money than it has gain, or at the very best has made a very (VERY) modest profit, but not enough to deem it a success.

So, looking at these facts it's VERY clear that the PS3 wasn't a stunning success. Maybe, and just maybe, it could be considered a MODEST success - but that's really stretching it. Sony IS the big loser this gen.

Not at all ....unless they take a constant $257 million loss every year....and with that they will survive until 2052.

Yes because THE FIGURES SHOW IT ONLY SELLS AT MOST 1 MILLION UNITS. And that was for a much more popular console! As I said, looking at it, no game really sells a system - multiple games combined sell systems. 

Bluray is a successful format. Are you really going to tell me 350 million blurays sold in 2010 alone is somehow a "failure"?  No. Your understanding of buisness and tech is terrible. Something doesn't have to "beat the other one" to be successful. HD-DVD wasn't successful. Bluray is because it is THE HD format and is shifting very respectable amounts. Again your failing here I think comes down to a lack of buisness understanding on your side. Is anyone going to say the Wii was a failure because it didn't beat the PS2? No, so please, stop saying this as it's a misunderstanding of buisness from yourself.

Yes the cell was a failure - it didn't take off. One mistake doesn't make a whole product a failure though. Who has said the iphone 4 was a failure due to the antenna posistion? No one. 

Losing market share =/= failure. Still retaining a third of the market is pretty good, especially when released a year after the competition at a much higher price. 

Financial gains so far has been  a failure BUT does the game division include bluray sales as I'm guessing you didn't know that Sony own one of the only bluray disc foundrys in the world. This is again a failing to understand buisness on your behalf - please research gross and net profit. 

Your entire argument is simply wrong, it's a black and white fallacy - you think loss = failure which is far, far from the truth.

Sony is the biggest loser this gen and yet has almost outsold the xbox 360 after having been released a year later, at a higher price and has helped Sony secure the HD format....You've never studied business have you?

Ultimately if you think kicking out more of the same franchise titles will save the Wii U, ask why didn't it save the GC? Or N64? What makes these games so much more different from the Nintendo-franchise-orientated consoles of the past that all sold not particuarly well?

Asking for burden of proof on whether Brawl pushed Wiis is like asking for burden of proof that the sun rises in the east. If you understand Nintendo's player base, if you were in touch with this side of gaming at the time, the fact that it did is painfully self-evident.

The casuals will buy SSB when the system drops in price. The hardcore SSB gamers, of which there is a huge amount, will happily grab a console for it, especially since by then the system will have many other games they want to play.