@curl-6

You do realize of coarse that your lists amount to about two really good games per year. That qualifies as starvation. While the other platforms average six or more per year. That qualifies as being well fed. Not to mention the fact that Nintendo was never consistent in delivery. They would leave players hanging for months on end without anything, but casual crap. I think it also needs to be said that your eye for quality is quite obviously atrocious. Either that or you were trying to pad your list.

A good number of titles on your list did not achieve a meta score of over ninety. Excite Truck, Super Paper Mario, both of the Kirby Games, one of the Metroids, Mario Kart, and none of the Donkey Kong games qualify as fantastic console exclusives. Ruminate on this for a moment. The Wii had all of fourteen games with a meta rating of ninety or higher. While the 360 had fifty, and the PS3 had forty five. There just isn't any comparison. The Wii was just plain bereft of really good games.

It isn't my imagination. It is yours for actually thinking the platform had a lot of fantastic first party titles. Which it plainly did not. Which wasn't always the case with Nintendo platforms. On my N64 I could count on a great core game once every two to three months, and if Nintendo wasn't supplying the game then Rare was. Two games sometimes coming all of twelve months apart. Sticking with the Wii demanded some insane sacrifices on the part of gamers. Most couldn't live on the Wii alone, or were forced to relocate just to have enough games to satisfy their hobby. That is Nintendo for you. By any chance is any of this story at all sounding similiar to what is currently going on with the current console?

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.

Did you really just mix physics with buisness analytics?

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?

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.

Did you really just miss the point of such an obvious metaphor?

I think this is actually the first point you've made I can agree on: "no game really sells a system - multiple games combined sell systems." Very, VERY few games can sell a system by themselves - but SSB is that sort of game that makes you pick up the console if you have one or two other games you want to play as well.

Bluray isn't a total failure because it didn't achieve market dominance, just like X360 or PS3 wasn't total failures just because they didn't win. And therefore we can't consider Wii U a failure if it ends up selling only 20m consoles; if it makes Nintendo money and makes them stay in business it has been a relative success, and not a total failure - something you have tried to make it out to be this entire thread, no?

Sony as a whole company is a failure for the last couple of years since they're losing shit ton of money every year - and I'm not just talking about their gaming division (which has been able to make some profit, but still has lost more in the long run that its made).

All of this just shows how biased you are. Sony is losing money, is in 3rd place, lost market share etc, and Wii U (and Nintendo) is a failure just because Wii U isn't selling too well right now? Biased.

And you really seem to not understand that it was Nintendo's franchises that saved them in the N64 and GC days. And the same franchises will save them this time around. You have just stated that you don't have to dominate a market to be considered successful, which means that GC was successful in the sense that it allowed Nintendo to hang in there and make a strong come back. Can Sony or MS rely on their franchises to save them like Nintendo's games have saved them? No. MSony are too reliant on 3rd party support.

Biased.