wii + ds = 250 M

ps2 = 150 M

Yes, try telling to people that PS2 has better library.

It all comes down to personal taste. It's obvious there are more people out there that enjoyed wii fit, than tlou. That doesn't speak for the nature or quality of those games.

(TLOU is my goty 2013 btw)

Im with you 100%

The title of this thread is 'Why Nintendo's software can no longer carry their home consoles'.

You opened with: (Quote) SImply put, they have been innovating in the software department less and less every generation. (Unquote)

You backed this statement up with a list of IPs for each generation, based on rules you chose yourself: (Quote) To be on my list a game had to be 1) New or a complete evolution of a series, and 2) Highly praised.(Unquote) - This, you didn't reveal until about the 18th page of this thread, and led to people proving to the contrary. (W101 - completely new series, metacritic rating 78 being one example not included on your list).

So, you have cited the lack of new IP with each coming generation based on your own criteria as being the main reason why Nintendo's software can no longer carry their home consoles.

For the most part, people have disagreed with this, and the sales figures of tried and tested formulae such as  Mario Kart, New Super Mario Bros. Wii etc. back them up. Nintendo's familiar franchises help sell home consoles. That's not to say that new IP can't sell hardware, it's just more difficult, because (as we've seen with Luigi's Mansion) it can take a while to catch on.

But we can see how new IP CAN sell a home console, as long as the new IP is relevant to that console's features. The success of the Wii and Wii Sports, Wii Fit and so on, demonstrating motion control show that. Those games were made for that console, and really did sell it, but the concept of the console and the message it was marketed with are also what sold those games.

Your argument is flawed from the start, and has been changing. It has gone from stating that the reason why the software can no longer carry the home console is because they've been innovating less and less with each generation, to stating that the reason is because (and I quote) "Nintendo's games are not good enough to make up for their exceedingly sub par hardware anymore."

So, finally, we get to the crux of the matter. This is all about the Wii U, isn't it? It can't be about the Wii, because that's  been a proven success.

The Wii was always going to be a hard act to follow, in terms of innovation. The jump from 4-player wii-mote motion control to asymetric play/offscreen play with the gamepad is not as huge as the jump from 4-player tethered controllers (Gamecube) to 4-player wii-mote motion control.

The new IP demonstrating the Wii U's capabilities is out there, but unlike the Wii, the console itself has suffered from confused or zero marketing.  If the message from the console's marketing is giving confused vibes, (e.g. Wii U is a Wii peripheral, or What's a Wii U?) then that's not going to help the new IP, however original and highly praised it might be. Even the tried and tested franchises won't sell so well without the right marketing - a fact that applies right across the industry.

Nintendo's software is as capable of carrying its own home consoles now, as it ever has been. The success of familiar franchises as well as new IPs from past generations has proved that. But they cannot do it alone. What can't seem to carry Nintendo's home consoles any more is the marketing. Fix that, and I think we'd have a very different story.

I know it sold the least, but you don't need to be "saved" from being in last place when you're still profitable, and they'd have been a lot worse off without games like Mario Kart Double Dash!!, so the game did not fail at doing good for its platform.

Your post was not baseless, but it does fall in line with quite many others that vastly blow out of proportion how abysmal the GameCube's situation was.

Im quoting this because... wow, just wow, you nailed it! Theres nothing further to add.

Captain Tom, just have this thread locked to save yourself from further embaressment.

Games are judged by it's game, definitely I agree with that but a console is judged by it's games in TOTAL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PlayStation_2_video_games

The WII may have had the best games but the PS2 games in general presented a higher quality seeing as how it has more games that sold over 1+ million.

Quoting your initial definition of quality: "If we define quality as sales then everything becomes simple. We can infer quality from sales and vice versa. I can say that that quality and sales are one in the same because people go out of there way to give something of value in exchange for a product. The market is always looking for quality in a product and quality is once again defined by the market."

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. By your definition, then, fluctuations in sales from one year to the next for a game would indicate fluctuations in quality, which is nonsensical.

Quoting you again: "Their software has become irrelevant for the most part and the quality dwindled as well with it." By your definition, the quality of software, and therefore sales have been dwindling. 27 million New Super Mario Bros. Wii, 34 million Mario Kart Wii, 8.6 million Pokemon X/Y (in 9 weeks) says no.

You say "Tell me, if their software is truly valuable as people speak of them to be then why is nobody buying their titles ? " - the above figures say people are buying Nintendo's titles.

Quality is one of the many factors that influence sales, but the level of quality cannot be determined by sales. This is because sales are influenced by a great number of factors. A few examples include advertising, hype, critial reviews, pricing, availability, competition, as well as economic factors such as how much money the consumer has to spend, versus production costs and retail prices.

One of the biggest sales drivers is the consumer's perception of value for money, which is why we see price-drops and pack-ins appearing in order to boost sales. By your definition, a boost in sales due to a price-drop would mean a boost in quality.

Take the 3DS for example. It took a while to get off the ground because of various factors - two of which were not enough games, and a fair bit of skepticism about paying all that extra money for the 3D element. Articles abounded on the internet in 2011 about how the Vita would anihilate the 3DS. Since its release the 3DS has received a price cut and a great library of games, more and more of which are showing what the 3D feature is capable of. The quality of the console hasn't changed, but the sales have soared, and it's now dominating the handheld market.

In the context of this thread then, which is discussing the claim that Nintendo's software is no longer able to carry its (to quote Captain Tom) "exceedingly sub par hardware" (unquote), for you to suggest that the relatively low level of sales of the Wii U's software is directly related to their quality is ridiculous.

With NSMBU, SM3DW, Nintendoland and W101 receiving metacritic ratings of 84, 94, 77 and 78 respectively, its clear that these are considered by the critics to be high quality, polished games. What has hurt their sales is nothing to do with their quality. It is a combination of confused marketing for the Wii U, a lack of games during the console's first year, the consumers holding out for more price cuts on the Wii U, and more recently, the competition from the XOne and PS4.

Oh and how about W101, NSMBU, Pikmin 3, and SM3DW ? I thought so ... This would make it alot easier if you knew that I was referring in the console space. BTW alot of those examples came from last genertion so yes their software has become irrelevant for the most part. 

Oh and how about W101, NSMBU, Pikmin 3, and SM3DW ? I thought so ... This would make it alot easier if you knew that I was referring in the console space. BTW alot of those examples came from last genertion so yes their software has become irrelevant for the most part. 

Ah, now I see the problem. You don't understand the definition of quality. You think that the quality of a product is variable, determined after it has been made, by the number of units sold.

No, quality is the result of what goes into making the product. It cannot be changed by sales. For example, a gold ring set with a diamond is higher quality than a gold ring set with something that looks like a diamond. But the sales will be driven by what the customer thinks is value for money.

Some customers will go for the higher quality because they can afford it. Some customers will even take out a mortgage to pay for it because of how much it means to them. Some customers will go for the low quality one because they can't afford the high quality one. Some customers might choose to buy the low quality one because they don't think the high quality one is worth the price.

Often, the lower quality version will have the higher sales because it is cheaper. Customers' perception of value may vary, but sales cannot be used to measure, determine or change the quality of the diamond, or the quality of the diamond look-alike.

Likewise, sales cannot be used to measure, determine or change the quality of a single game or a single console, since its quality was determined at the point when it was made. Consumer perception can change. Consumer perception (and ultimately, sales) is influenced by advertising, hype, critical reviews, news articles etc.

A company can make the highest quality consoles and games in the world, but if they're not pitched and marketed properly, they won't sell.

That's why your statement is irrelevant.

(edited for clarity)

It's both.  The hardware is bad, and the games aren't new enough to make up for it.