Nope, Imo it's the changing of the gimmick that hurt them, they went from focusing on motion control to tablet control and you can clearly see it's way less appealing than what motion control was, Nintendo should have been pushing a better version of kinect or even better virtual reality if they wanted to get the same success.

I think it would have been better off without the Wii brand (I love the Wii brand but to the general consumer, that fad is over)

I think the people pressing the issue that people think the Wii U isn't even a different console are just looking to make excuses for the lack of sales.

As much as major local broadcast news stations have covered the Wii U, signs that are plastered in every Gamestop, Walmart, Target, etc, and if that by some chance isn't enough, there is the Wii U logo on every game plain as day, just like the PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, 3DS, DS, Vita, and PSP are displayed at the top or side of the box. There are very few people wiho lack the common sense to tell that the Wii U is a new console. There's been enough media cover and advertising around to point people that the Wii U is not just a Wii accessory.

This is the same as when the 3DS wasn't selling as much as people assumed it would. Nintendo fans were clamoring that people just assumed it was the same as the DS, but once the price drop hit and the 3DS started selling by the truckload, people stopped using that excuse.  I guess people magically found out the 3DS was a different system as soon as that price drop hit.  Well maybe the Wii U needs a price drop to make that sink in.

there weren't any games that were great. Not at launch and not 6 months after. I''m tired of this shit talking about what nintendo did wrong. I play games a long time and enjoy any console with great games. From the snes till now. I want a wii-u because of great games that are coming out. X, mario 3d, ssb, and so on. I wanted a ps3 for that reason and so on. Thats it.

Yes, nintendo has its own policy, and thats crap, but they make great games an will do in the future.

Marketing, putting a game together takes too long, no third party support, not as powerful and so on. No problem! I want my games and there coming. Just wait a little longer.

Oh yeah, i want TERRANIGMA 2. If nintendo does that!! wow.

Because the core gamers who bought the Wii had a different taste in core games (Mario vs COD), didn't want to buy crappy versions of 3rd party franchises, or had a different system to play those games on which would offer a better version.

As far as the larger user base, the Wii had a larger one and it's popular titles sold more.  I don't see how that's relevant.  

I think the core problem is this system simply isn't different enough from the 360/PS3 which most people already have.

It's another PS3/360 system with a touch screen on the controller that isn't even used by 80% of the games in any real interesting way.

Off-screen play simply isn't a feature people are going to pay $300 for.

I agree with this pretth much, while they could improve marketing, price, use of gamepad, etc. none of those things mattet if theres no quality games. if Pikmin, W101, Rayman, Wii Fit, Wii Party, Game & Wario had all come out in Q1-Q2 like originally planned then we would see Wii U in a much better situation.

so you dont think some of those games had overlap? They must have if people were opting to buy the non crap versions on either of the HDs or PC.

On Metacritic, NMH on PS3 is at 72, with the Wii version at 83. Haze is at 55. Just one site rated NMH on PS3 less than 50%, and that was 1UP - which gave it a 42, and Haze a 33. 13 sites gave Haze a rating under 50%, with two giving a 25% score. Only one site gave Haze a rating over 75%, and that was Games Master UK. 17 sites gave NMH a rating over 75%, including PALGN, Game Informer, Eurogamer, and IGN.

In terms of user reviews on metacritic, NMH is at 7.2, while Haze is at 6.7.

In short, it's not ME that says that NMH is better than Haze, it's the videogame community.

And the fact that it sold better because FPS is more popular is PROVING MY POINT. Gamers will be much more likely to play even a bad game if it's an FPS... and gamers have the audacity to call out the mainstream for playing so-called "casual games"?

At this point I don't see that you are making a point any longer.