The PS3 did worse than expected, but then again their marketshare was cut in half by the Xbox 360 which offers to the same crowd of gamers. Nintendos issue is a little different. For Nintendo to be dominant they need to grow to make casual/core content on level. They should've kept the Wiimotes, dropped the price and made another Wii Sports resort. The controller need only apply for the core.

I think its more that 90% of your posts have been in Wii U threads posting negativity than anything.

Negative? How are any of my posts negative? All I have been saying that the perceived value for general customer does not meet the rrp... and that is negative?

You said yourself in another thread that the console wouldn't be worth buying unless it was $150 or less.  That's financial suicide here.  Nintendo isn't a huge company like Sony or Microsoft where they have other departments to take up the losses like the first few years of the PS3, the entirity of the orginal Xbox, or the start of the 360.

You expect them to take a +$150 loss per Wii U and that not to be seen as negative?

We're talking about a system that is overall more powerful than the previous systems (even as small as it is), that is very effienct in power consumption compared to even the newer models of the PS3/360, that basically has a Wii built inside it as well, with an insanely customized GPU (so much so that people are still unsure of its specfic real world performance), and with a expensive controller.

How is my perceived value of the console a negative thing? That is the price I would be considering buying the product, you know? We were not discussing Nintendo's financials, we were discussing the sales of the console. Try to grasp the difference.

Mmmk. 

I misinterpted, I thought that you thought that was its production cost and needed to be sold as such.  My bad.

The 360 sold slowly because of supply issues. So the retailers were happy if they even got some systems they could sell. It didn't eat up any space in stores. The Wii U takes up valueable space while not selling at all. If something doesn't sell for weeks, retailers will get rid of it, even if it means they'll make a loss. But space in stores is too important to fill it up with stuff the consumer doesn't want. 

It's a major problem and Nintendo has to deal with it as fast as they can. It's totally normal, they are also giving Wonderbook away around here for 10 € because nobody wanted that damn thing. But if a console itself loses space in stores, you are in serious trouble. If the Wii U vanishes from stores completely, Nintendo will have a hard time in convincing retailers to buy systems once again. They are losing trust in Nintendo and that is very dangerous. Because if the Wii U is not present at local stores, people will even more forget about it. 

That's why releasing games sometime in the far future isn't enough. Nintendo has to do something fast. What would that be? I don't know and thankfully it's not my problem. But if Nintendo just sits around and does nothing, the Wii U will die faster than anyone expected. 

I don't know if it's the same elsewhere, and I know there are other problems, but a big obstacle for Wii U I noticed is that retailers, at least in my town, do absolutely NOTHING to make their clients realise that it's a new product, not just an expensive version of Wii. During the Xmas season, at my town's MediaWorld Wii U's, instead of having their own distinct pile, occupied a portion of the Wii's pile, why on earth should uninformed customers have thought it wasn't just another Wii? 'Nuff said.

It's not the job of the retailers to inform people about the functionality of Wii U. That is up to Nintendo and they missed the chance to inform consumers by advertising. The current situation can't be blamed on retailers. The Wii U will be placed in the area of video games, that's enoug. Shop space is very valueable, you don't just waste a lot of free space for some new console. Every new console get's only a small chunk right next to its predecessor, that was no different with PS2 and PS3. It was different with Gamecube and Xbox, because their sections got cleared before the new consoles arrived. 

A new smartphone will be placed somewhere in the smartphone section. A new laptop will be placed alongside all those other laptops. And a new vacuum cleaner also doesn'tget a special place. You get the idea. The companies behind those products have to make sure people know about their stuff and acutally want to buy it. With high demand, products will automatically be better placed, as most people will look for it. But if something doesn't sell, it won't get a better spot. It will instead vanish completely. 

You'd be right normally, but even in crammed shelf space you can usually tell where a console ends and the other begins, what I saw was different: PS3, XB360, PSP, PSV, DS, 3DS had each one their own distinct shelf section, plus, for DS and PSP, their own bargain bins and metal wire crates, and for PS3 and XB360 their own distinct pile (PS3 actually had a pile, a shelf section for bundles, two whole shelves reserved to its games and one for PS Move and other peripherals and the biggest demo space, with a 50" 3D TV, PS Move and some 3D glasses). Heck, even some old Wii bundles, like the red Wii, had their own distinct shelf section! Wii U instead was different: they had piled it up in the same pile of Wii, with the Wii U occupying a thin slice on the right. As the best selling competing products had each one their own distinct pile, it was easy for the uninformed user to conclude Wii U was just a new version of the same old Wii. Obviously Ninty has its part of fault in not advertising Wii U well enough, but retailers just made things worse, in a way they didn't with competing products. And it's not an anti-Ninty conspiracy, as DS and 3DS weren't treated this way and 3DS had actually more space than PSV and in a better position.