Sales over a million per game, over 2 million in cases, are good (and profitable) sales, you cannot achieve such numbers a "tiny" core userbase. If the "true gamers" were really "extremely minor" they would have sold 200k a pop.

NO console developer made their systems while consulting any third party development studio in the past. Not Microsoft, not Sony, not Nintendo, not anyone. This is the first generation any of them have ever truly done so, and for the record, Nintendo did in fact do so at least a bit, which is why you see the console have more traditional controls, why has a MUCH better online structure, why they are really bending over backwards to work with indie developers, and why, even though it's not "on par" with the PS4, the console (still) has fairly powerful HD hardware to work with. Sure, at the end of the day, Nintendo "did their own thing", and honestly good for them. If I wanted a home console that acted like a PC, I'd just play my PC. But Nintendo worked with third parties very heavily early on. The support was there, as seen in their launch. It is simply the fact that third party support dropped off quite a bit after the months-long drought, which is a double edged sword. Some companies like EA claim that Nintendo needs to sell the system better with their own games, before they bring back strong support. And yet, the argument can also absolutely be made that the Wii U software drought wouldn't have been nearly as bad, if for example EA had a game or two that released in the first half of the year, or if Ubisoft had not gone mental and still released Rayman Legends in Feb. like they were supposed to, etc.

It really does work both ways. Yes, Nintendo does need to get their own games out there to sell their own system. But on the other hand, if third party devs would support Wii U more strongly with games like Resident Evil, Madden, WWE, Battlefield, GTA, etc., it would help the console to look all the more attractive to potential buyers. It has never been the case that third party games aren't important on Nintendo consoles. It's just that Nintendo themselves make such good games (usually) that they are always the "main attraction" on their systems. Then again, on some level you could argue that exclusives on ANY console are the main attraction. Nintendo is finally getting the "big guns" rolling out to help their console sell, and the price drop and Zelda bundle will help immensely. But more companies need to step up like Ubisoft or Warner Bros., and still offer strong support to the console, to offer a larger, more varied amount of software for potential Wii U buyers to have available to them. Like I said, it works both ways.

If someone who never made a game on a Sony platform made these comments about PS4, the people lining up to agree with them wouldn't be doing so now.

How anyone can suggest a company that has never released games on a Nintendo platform, probably never owned a dev kit etc, knows what they are talking about is beyond me other than it goes along with their hate of anything Nintendo.

You don't know the audience isn't there if you never released a game on it to see.
If you don't own a dev kit you don't know how powerful the console is because you never worked on it.

I use to play a lot of Bethesda  years ago but all they do is release the same game with a different setting and it got old fast. Borderlands was good but that is all I know of Gearbox.
Of course whether or not what they say has any real merit, many will jump on this as complete fact simply because it goes along with their personal feelings about them. They hate Nintendo and take anything they can to use against them. Its sad but some people really are that pathetic that they will believe anything as long as its negative.

A few devs have said this and then when they actually got a hold of the hardware realized how wrong they were and made comments saying the opposite.

Like Activision and Ubisoft just found out, correct? In terms of next gen expectations, they are not incorrect. In terms of current gen they are assholes to not think the Wii U is more than capable. Nintendo did not consult devs about the next generation of gaming. They only sought to come after the current gen and try to act like they were the biggest guy on campus, then Sony and MS took the rug out from under them from the february to may period.

Well since both of those companies are still making Wii U games I dont see how you can make such a claim but you have an obvious bias against them so you will say whatever you can to make them look bad even if you have to make it up to do so.

To suggest that both companies are upset with sales when they have not cancelled support is beyond me.

You must not know that in the first year of PS3 release Activision actually threatened to pull support completely because games were selling so bad. Forward 6 years and you pull up sales of games on a platform with 80 million console sold to make a console with 4 million sold look bad.

To suggest 4 million Wii U owners should be buying more games than 80 million gamers really makes no logical sense in any way. Then again you haters rarely use logic

NO console developer made their systems while consulting any third party development studio in the past. Not Microsoft, not Sony, not Nintendo, not anyone. This is the first generation any of them have ever truly done so, and for the record, Nintendo did in fact do so at least a bit, which is why you see the console have more traditional controls, why has a MUCH better online structure, why they are really bending over backwards to work with indie developers, and why, even though it's not "on par" with the PS4, the console (still) has fairly powerful HD hardware to work with. Sure, at the end of the day, Nintendo "did their own thing", and honestly good for them. If I wanted a home console that acted like a PC, I'd just play my PC. But Nintendo worked with third parties very heavily early on. The support was there, as seen in their launch. It is simply the fact that third party support dropped off quite a bit after the months-long drought, which is a double edged sword. Some companies like EA claim that Nintendo needs to sell the system better with their own games, before they bring back strong support. And yet, the argument can also absolutely be made that the Wii U software drought wouldn't have been nearly as bad, if for example EA had a game or two that released in the first half of the year, or if Ubisoft had not gone mental and still released Rayman Legends in Feb. like they were supposed to, etc.

It really does work both ways. Yes, Nintendo does need to get their own games out there to sell their own system. But on the other hand, if third party devs would support Wii U more strongly with games like Resident Evil, Madden, WWE, Battlefield, GTA, etc., it would help the console to look all the more attractive to potential buyers. It has never been the case that third party games aren't important on Nintendo consoles. It's just that Nintendo themselves make such good games (usually) that they are always the "main attraction" on their systems. Then again, on some level you could argue that exclusives on ANY console are the main attraction. Nintendo is finally getting the "big guns" rolling out to help their console sell, and the price drop and Zelda bundle will help immensely. But more companies need to step up like Ubisoft or Warner Bros., and still offer strong support to the console, to offer a larger, more varied amount of software for potential Wii U buyers to have available to them. Like I said, it works both ways.