"If you tell a lie enough times, people eventually come to believe it's actually true. Lots of "hardcore gamers" and industry professionals said that Nintendo left behind core games and core players with Wii, but if you take a look at the actual data, it's clear that's a big fat falsehood.

In April of last year, Satoru Iwata claimed that one of the issues faced by Wii was that the new gamers Wii attracted didn’t translate into profitable customers. Because of this, Nintendo decided to step back from the priority they had placed on these new gamers with Wii when creating Wii U, instead focusing on the more “core” gamer, who he says felt alienated by Wii.

This idea that Wii lost core gamers while focusing too much on casuals is pretty widespread…but it’s also totally false! The fact of the matter is that Wii had a stronger core gamer audience than any other Nintendo console in history – and I’ve got the data to prove it."

REASONS: (You obviously have to go to the source and read them)

Myth #1: Wii Didn’t Offer Many Core Titles

Myth #2: Wii Attracted Fewer Core Gamers

Myth #3: Wii Was Most Popular With Casuals

From Gengame.net

Well...what do you think?

The list of hardcore games is totally up to opinion (and ignores third parties entirely- who actually put out some great stuff on GC and N64).

What does "core" gamers refer to with Nintendo? Gamecube fans?

any gamer who doesnt buy nintendo consoles apperantly

Everything seems to be correct and in order.

The myth states that the Wii "lost" core gamers, implying that Nintendo had more core gamers before the Wii. Who are these people? Gamecube fans?

i understood that but i was trying to be sarcastic. but to answer your question, i assume they are the gamers who grew up on the NES/SNES and played the nintendo 64, then moved on to either PS, Xbox or PC. the adults now who were old enough to have been gaming during the NES/SNES era. 

I read it, but ill read it again when i have more time. THe problem I see of the bat, is that it only talks about FIRST party games, which is very limiting, fact is Ninty made the same games they always made with WIi but added more, like your WIiSPorts. Speaking of which, I cant see how myth 3 is wrong, fact of the matter is those non core games DID the best, period. Thats not to say that the core offerings, Nintys games, did bad, they just didnt do was good. Again he ignores 3rd party core games which didnt do anywhere near as good as surprise, the more casual fare like JD, Zumba Carnival games and the like, cant see how someone could look at those number and not say it was more popular with the casuals. 3rd and 1st party casual games did better. Thats not to mention that 3rd party multiplat games were more popular on the other two.

Speaking of other two, Wii doesnt exist in a vacuum, why ignore their impact on WIi.

Myth 2, I sorta agree with, however. I will say, they definately left as time went on or they got another system, again looking at the sales for multiplat core games from the start you can see the numbers go down for WIi while the numbers got bigger for 360 and PS3 in particular, there was a time when Wii version would at least beat the PS3 version but that was years ago, despite the WIi having a much bigger install base.

Myth 1 Wii offered alot of core titles, BUT were any of them worth a damn? Thats the big question. IMHO the competition for the most part offered better alternatives to the Wii's core games or something similar, but mostly better. Again, just look at sales data.

The article is flawed becaue it ignores 3rd party games for the most part. YOu cant do that, 3rd party makes up generally 90% of any systems library. That is a large part to ignore.

The thing is, if one does a quick check of multiplat "core" games from the beginning (Dead Rising?, Bully SE, SW FU) they have always sold better on 360 anyway, so I would venture that they never had them, or they never had most of them. That honor has always gone to 360

ive been sleeping well every night ;)