Insecurity much ? LOL

Just don't try.  Apparently if the Wii U doesn't do well his dad will die of cancer...

Yeah sure whatever :) if you wanna live in a fantasy world and see things thats not there go ahead and do that :) I guess reality will be waiting for you whenever you wanna return

It sounds like your in neverland living in denial LMAO.

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."

To truly understand the quality of a consoles game library, we also need to know how many games were made and released on it. Sahing that PS2 had 100 1m sellers isnt saying much if 1000 games were released on the system, where as the Wii had 80 1m sellers but only 500 games in total for the system. Then it becomes quite apparent that the Wii indeed did have better quality. ;)

It sounds like your in neverland living in denial LMAO.

I still believe that the total software sales of each platform lead us to a more accurate conclusion than a more restrictive criteria. And I tell you why. Seeing the number that aggregates everything (games that sold well, medium and poorly) allow us to see the big picture and not ignoring any game. After all, all games have merit (even when it's low, it's something there), and if the sales are equally low then the criteria is fine. Limiting the games by a number (for example, 1M units sold) makes all the 0.99M, all the 0.98M (...and so forth) to count nothing. That's unfair. On the other hand, games that sold 10M will count as much as the ones that sold 1M. Again, that's unfair. Same thing for a 20M criteria (or any other of this kind).

Therefore, your focus on the ratio between number of million sellers and total number of games makes even less sense to me. But even if we engage into that logic, the Wii wouldn't be the best console. Your numbers need to be revised. Here are the VG Chartz numbers:

PS2: 325 million sellers out of 3544 games (9.2%) - 1661.95M games sold

Wii: 146 million sellers out of 2745 games (5.3%) - 908.08M games sold

As you can see, the PS2 has more games, more million sellers, higher ratio and even more total games sold (this would be my criteria).