You mean fostering, like for example putting out exclusive software out on the console like Platinum games? Cause that worked perfectly like I've said in another post. I have explained myself more than once in this thread and I won't do it again, read what I wrote and if you still disagree with me after that, then so be it.

IMO Nintendo needs time, that's all.

Yes, but like I already stated, big franchises usually start with relatively small sales.  They grow into large franchises by delivering good quality and then sequels that people can later identify with.  This is how to build a customer base.  The only company that has done that on Nintendo consoles is Nintendo.    Platinum has released some great games, but Madworld does not translate to The Wonderful 101 does not translate to Bayonetta 2.  There is no clear linear path for regular consumers to identify with.

3rd parties need to build a loyal fanbase on Nintendo consoles, not just show up at random times with random products and expect them to sell.  It's up to businesses to earn consumers, not the other way around.  I will disagree with any statement to the contrary (your original statement). 

Then take Sega and Sonic for example you can't tell me that the Sonic franchise is new to Nintendo fans, but what did Lost Worlds sell or that Winter Olympics game? Granted those were not very good so they might not be the best example, so lets look at Ubisoft and Warner Bros. They have for the whole first year of the Wii U life supported it and what did they get? Continuously dropping sales. 

Listen, normally I'd agree with you, companies have to get their customers, but with a fanbase as unwilling to even give them any attention as Nintendos' is, how much money do you expect them to burn on the Wii U? Fact is, with the new consoles out third party publishers don't need the Wii U anymore, if Nintendo wants the third party games then they and their fans need to show third parties that they can make money on it. Until that happens the console will get the Nintendo games and the few third party games that actually do decent on it.

It's true, Nintendo fans don't find Sonic to be new, they find it to be mediocre.  Dropping sales?  Compared to what, their successes on the Wii?

Nintendos fanbase is unwilling to give them attention, because for 20 years 3rd party companies treated them like second-class citizens or just ignored them entirely.  They gave terrible support to all of Nintendo's consoles and there is always some excuse for it.  The excuse now is that it's the consumers fault, but that's bogus.  They created an entire demographic that looks down on their games by giving them poor service for decades. 

I'd contend that 3rd parties need as many consumers and as much capital as they can get, consider how many have gone out of business or had to merge to stay alive. 

Consumers spend money to reward a business for delivering a product that they want.  That onus is 100% on the business.  Instead of giving the consumers 'something they want to buy', 3rd parties give them the ultimatum 'buy what we want to give you'.  If 3rd parties want to continue to ignore a relatively large consumer base and it's potential captial, well that's their business (it's just bad business).  If they lack the creative capacity to create games that can compete with Nintendo's IPs, well that's not the consumers fault either. 

Oh right, third parties just shunned Nintendo for no reason at all, it had nothing to do with Nintendo majorly fucking them over in the NES/SNES era. They didn't jump ship because the N64 was horrible to develop for, still used cartridges and had a way smaller userbase than the PS1. It wasn't third parties treating Nintendo like second-class it was the other way round, Nintendo thought they could do anything they wanted with third parties and that bit them in the ass.

And Nintendos fans are just the same, to this day still treating 3rd party games as inherently worse than Nintendos', even going as far as caliing them unable to make something to compete with Nintendos' IPs (see what I did there?).

Also, yeah sure publishers need to make more cash that's true and if they'd make any on Wii U then they'd support it more, but making a Wii U port (which is not free)  and then selling 100.000 copies (if at all) of it, well let's just say I doubt they're making any cash with that. So it's absolutely not bad business for third parties to ignore the Wii U, what would be bad business is investing tons of money into a game that in theory is "something the Wii U fans want to buy", which in turn would probably have alot less appeal (ergo less sales) to the PS/Xbox crowd, just for that game to sell well under expectations on the Wii U, because "third parties treat us bad","I don't know the game","it's not from Nintendo".

Now, Nintendo fans are interested in other types of games than PS/Xbox gamers, but that didn't stop even games that do in theory appeal to the Nintendo crowd from bombing and sure third parties might need some iterations of a game before it really reaches its potential but like you've said they don't exactly have that much money to spare, so they can't risk losing money on 2-3 games before making any profit, not like there is any indication that a risk like that would ever pay off on Wii U.

Why should they try to create a series for Nintendo when they have user base who buys the games they make in PC, Playstation and Xbox? Why should they risk for Nintendo platform? If nintendo wants their platform to be a viable one for every developer then they should do something about it, not the 3rd parties because they have three options but Nintendo only has One option of their exclusive games to sell their hardware.

This guy gets it.  As much as I love Nintendo, they were assholes at one point in time.  They created their own weakness.

*reads OP*

Why do we need so many threads, stating the superiority of titles in a certain time frame. Yes, the Wii U has the strongest lineup this Holiday, but why is that surprising? the console has been out for a year now, so it is bound to have the strongest lineup. The PS4 and Xbox One have barely just released so its not exactly fair to pass judgement on consoles lineup from launch titles. The standard fare of crappy games and some decent (if not uninspiring) ones are kinda expected at a new consoles launch. Also, Sony has all but given up supporting the Vita, and with 3DS absolutely dominating on the mobile gaming front, that console is the go-to platform for third parties (outside of iOS and Android).

There.  Now come back to this thread in a years time and laugh at how silly the argument is. With all 3 console makers expected to deliver their big guns next year - Uncharted, inFAMOUS, The Order 1886, Halo, Titan Fall, Quantum Break, Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart 8 so on and so forth. Not to mention the big multiplatform games in 2014 and beyond.

Being the strongest or weakest console bares no meaning to their success.. but you also can't that say it doesn't matter. Consumers have spoken with their wallets and thus it does impact a publishers/developers decision in targeting a platform for their software. Saying otherwise is disingenuous.

So now it's Nintendo's fault and not the consumers.... and that's fine.  That is more in line with reality at least.  Either way, you're still giving a pass to 3rd parties that they don't deserve.  Third party companies were perfectly capable of making money on the Wii, but that certainly didn't cause them to fully support it (shocker).  What was the excuse for leaving money on the table this time?  That they couldn't make games in HD?

No one said anything about them investing 'tons of money' to make a game Nintendo fans will want.  How much do you think a game like Wii Sports costs to make?  Nobody is expecting 3rd parties to invest in 200M games like GTA 5, designed only for Nintendo fans.  They could have made games on the Wii for a relatively small investment and still reach a very large consumer base.  Most chose not to.  Instead, they continued to full-heartedly support a failing console (at the time) and they released plenty of games to very low sales.  They were perfectly fine with the risk of 'losing money on 2-3 games' then.  I don't remember too many ultimatums being thrown around.  I don't recall the consumers being blamed for the low sales.  It's a double standard and it's bs. 

They make games that bomb on every system.  It's delusional to think otherwise.  You just seem to believe that only some consoles are worth that risk.  They propped up the struggling ps3 and created an environment where the console could succeed.  They invested money fostering a userbase that they could succeed with, that simply wasn't there at the time.  Why is that situation different in your mind?

Half-assed stripped down ports are not a good way to impress potential customers.  It's not like consumers are arbitrarily making the choice to avoid 3rd party games on Nintendo consoles.  They do it for a reason.  They have been condition to think that Nintendo games are better, because on that console - they are.  Yes, third party games have been unable to compete well head to head with Nintendo IPs.  Do you find this statement to be false?

Ignoring an entire demographic of customers, simply because you are not interested in making products that they will find interesting, is in fact 'bad business'.  Spin it however you want, but that is bad business.  What is good business?  Ubisoft making a game like 'Just Dance' for the Wii and cashing in on it hard.  It doesn't take a huge $200M investment to make a game that people will enjoy and purchase.