Just because you buy a game, it doesn't mean that you consider it a quality game. People buy games because they are fun, because their friends bought them, because they look cool (graphics, trailer) etc. I bought Pokemon Y and I think it's a good game, but not as good as Gravity Rush. I also bought wii sports and I don't think it's a good game. It was fun at first, but then it got old.  

Again, just because you bought a game, it doesn't mean you think that game is good. Quality has nothing to do with it. No one cared about Picasso and suddendly his works are the most expensive works ever. Did they magically become better after his death? NO. Lack of interest in them or in a game, has no correlation with its quality. There's a reason Shadow of the Colossus is considered one of the best games ever made and wii play simply terrible. Tons of people bought it, but most don't think it's any good. 

That's the point of a GAME! You buy a game to simply have FUN. Why should the masses not declare the game as quality when they had fun with it ? 

People did care about Picasso's work at the time! They did not SUDDENLY just became valuable, it became valuable DURING his time as an artist. Much like shakespeare's work. A lack of interest does have correlation to quality. Tell me why shadow of the colossus is considered one of the best games. How do you know that the masses thought WII Play wasn't any good ? 

Is Nintendo making it mandatory for all devs to make use of the gamepad or can it be up to the devs decision?

Cause if the gamepad is really holding devs back from making games for the Wii U, why don't they just be like "Sure I'll make games for the Wii U but f**k the gamepad, we'll aim for gamers to use the Wii U pro controller instead"

If masses buy the game because it's fun, then the game is FUN to them, But not necessarily a quality game. It might be a stupid game of no quality which is fun, but not highly regarded. Why use the word quality in the first place, when some people play certain games just for fun. Aren't all games supposed to be fun? Not really. I play Dark Souls because it's challenging, not fun. I play Diablo 3 with friends because it's fun to play with friends, but for me it's by no means a quality game. 

As for wii play, apart from checking user scores and reading comments by internet people, I don't have any evidence to support that. As a matter of fact, there is no concrete evidence for any game ever released that the masses think it's great or bad. So, it's silly to ask for concrete evidence for that in the first place.Then why use that argument in the first place? Simply because there's a general consensus on games. Super Mario Brothers 3 is ones of the most loved games of all time. Super Mario Bros 2 is not. 

Edit: Also, haven't you heard of the term guilty pleasure? Is a guilty pleasure something of quality? Or something you enjoy while knowing damn well how bad it is?

who said that? Also you can simple use gamepad as mirror screen. There is no problem for devs here

don't worry: Wii Play is horrible, but can fun... sometimes

Tell me how it is not necessarily a quality game then ? I can that quality and sales are linked because people have to give something of value in exchange for a product. If a game were truly of higher quality then why do the masses reject it ? It's really clear that they don't see any quality in it whatsoever so they will not shell out another $60 just to get. How can something of irrelevance have any meaningful quality ? 

Oh but there is evidence that will tell what the masses see as quality and that is through sales. Once again the masses just like gamers have to give something of value once again in order to obtain a product. If the masses don't buy a game then it's obvious that they think it's a bad game because they don't see any value whatsoever. The reason I used the argument in the first place is a way to define quality. Each and everytime some form of art in a certain part of entertainment keeps redefining what quality means. What is considered quality music today would be incompatible with what quality was defined back then among the critics. 

@Bold How do the masses know what they are doing is bad ? How do you know that it is "gulity pleasure" ? Ever heard of the term "customers never lie about what they want" ? How can you consider a game to be bad ? If you mean bad by critics and forum lurkers and the like around here then that is laughable at best. It's really clear most critics are fake. 

Again the best indicator to quality is sales.

My take on the problem is:

1) Hardcore fans - It's not just that there's not enough games, but the Wii U just doesn't have that one game that gets people excited about a console. For example, Titanfall on the Xbox One, inFamous 2 on the PS4, or Watch Dogs for both consoles. Basically, lack of hype. And people like to say hype is always bad. Well, I think lack of hype is also an indicator of bad marketing.

I mean, a fucking Dynasty Warrior game or some shit like that for Zelda? How about an actual Zelda game? Bayonetta 2 isn't out yet, and I'm not sure if that's really something that gets people excited enough to buy a console.

It also doesn't help that Nintendo doesn't participate in E3 to actually show off the games for the platform and get people EXCITED. Again, people really rail against hype, but hype is an essential component of marketing in my opinion. We're talking about entertainment hardware selling for hundreds of dollars. You don't want people to be calm with their disposable income.

2) Casual fans - Three things with them. One, the fad's over. My mom isn't going to buy a Wii U like she did with the Wii (which is just collecting dust) because everyone else is.

But that's not it. I think Nintendo's really failed to push an image of the Nintendo console being the de facto console for local multiplayer. While it's definitely possible to imagine a bunch of boys or guys playing local multiplayer of a shooter while eating Doritos and chugging Mtn Dew, I feel like a game like Super Smash Bros or Mario Party is a lot flexible when it comes to who can pick up and play the game, and how fun it is to just watch other people play. They're more accessible and more about face to face social interaction (I feel like that's the case for a lot of Japanese games actually).

Finally, and this is more of an open question for me, how are they doing with kids? Are they successfully targeting them? Or are eight year olds really playing CoD these days?

Ultimately, it's all about associating the Wii U with some kind of benefit or identity.

PS4 is all about the gamers. Xbox One is all about everything in one box. Wii U is... About the gamepad? If so, that's not very appealing to both the hardcore and casual fans. Local multiplayer? Needs to be pushed more.

Personally, I would try to push for something closer to nostalgia, since it could be flexed into a different message for different target customers.

Nostalgia for the old time Nintendo fans.
Nostalgia for hardcore gamers that are much more critical about the gaming industry these days (Sony is trying to play this angle with their indie developer support).
Nostalgia for casuals who feel like children are playing more violent video games early on and there's less family activity.

Ok, this once again seems to be going nowhere. But, please explain to me if you can, what happens when someone buys Diablo 3 to play co-op with friends only because there are no other local co op games that they all like and they think the game is fun, but not good. In other words, not well made.

Think of the movie Sharknado. My friends and I decided to pay money to rent it from itunes over other movies, NOT because it's a good movie, but because it's a bad movie and it's fun to watch it and play drinking games. It has some value in that it provides entertainment, but it's clearly not a quality product to any of us (or the critics). Also, you haven't explained what happens when you buy a game and you end up hating it. Is that a quality game just cause you bought it? I played Wii play for an hour and regret it. How is my purchase any indication of its quality?

Following the logic of sales = quality, and quality = sales, why spend money on marketing? If a game is bad, it's not gonna sell and if it's good it will sell well on its own. The reality is massively different from that. The best example is probably Dead Island which had one of the best trailers ever made, people bought the game and then regretted their decision. Are fps games better than jrps just cause they sell better, or do they sell better because it's a more popular genre? How can jrps sell well in Japan and not in the US/Europe when it's the same games we're talking about? Does quality change from country to country? Recently Western games and especially COD have been doing well in Japan. Was COD 4 terrible and Ghosts a masterpiece and that's why it sold so well or are there more factors that need to be taken into account to explain its success?