I wasn`t speaking about commercials. But now that you mention, if there`s a Wii U port why not also put the logo on the commercial?

What i was saying is that more than once, in the case of COD, the Nintendo home console is the last version to be announced (it takes some time to do such thing); images only seen when the release date is approaching fast. For example, what did Activision publicly revealed of Ghosts for Wii U in terms of images or videos? The first ones to brake out was on neogaf from someone who got a copy and shared it online.

Why didn`t Nintendo reveal it at it`s E3? I`m sure it was not because it didn`t want to.
Other 3rd party games aren`t really given the same treatment as the Sony and MS versions and when not even Nintendo doesn`t do it, it`s a bit strange. Again, i am sure that if it was up to Nintendo they would give a lot of attention to them... as they always do with most 3rd party games.

It's his problem if he chooses to eat spagetti instead of healthy McDonalds food.

Raw power was NOT the deciding factor for 3rd party developers with the N64. The architecture was stupidly design meaning developers had far more work to do.

The system utilizes cartridges, an aspect that would come under scrutiny and also lost Nintendo a good chunk of their third party developers. This is due mainly in fact to the amount of memory a CD can hold versus a cartridge (700 MB vs 32 MB), the fact that games could be spread across numerous discs (since they could be swapped without damaging them) and the fact that cartridges cost more than CDs

Good god. Who came up with this crap?

This is very well said.  Sony did court 3rd parties by clearly buying into their development of games for their system at a great cost to themselves.  Sony "networked" much more effectively than Nintendo, while Nintendo stayed in its own corner doing what it does best.  It's sort of like the best artists: the most elaborate works of art came from shut-ins.  Nintendo doesn't get out, but what they manage to create from their corner is anything but the best the industry has to offer.

However, I think Nintendo has a 3rd option: buy up 3rd party developers into 2nd party developers.  I believe they've already begun, as I've already read two articles of them buying two indie developers.  Nintendo doesn't need to join the arms race and face constant losses and risky ROIs, all they need to do is buy the developers that make the "3rd party" games.  Bam, problem solved.  You now have such a variety of exclusives that you carve yourself out a spot without an equal "twin" you have to compete with.  You only compete with yourself, so your hardware can be whatever you want it to be.

Nintendo was getting under third parties skin even when they had them. You can blame Sony for doing what Nintendo should've always done, but Sony has always been more open minded to outsider opinion, which is why every generation they go through some sort of growth.

1- N64 CPU was most powerful back then, more RAM, N64 was... a 64 bits console, PS1 was 32 bits one. But like you said PS utilises CD as its game media

2- GT4 is, indeed, a beautiful game, but is not the best. I think here is a matter of opinion. But to me Rogue Squadron 2 is superior to GT4 and GCN version  of Splinter Cell

3- And no Wii U is 8th. Is weaker than PS4/X1? Yes, of course. But power =/= generation

I wouldnt blame Sony for that. Sony is just playing by the rules set by the competition. I would blame Microsoft.

But, in Japan they dont even realise Xbox exists so the guilty party is Sony. xD

You may be right and I never said anything against it. I just said that power was and will ever be a driver in the videogaming market. I know it's not the only one. Price is another one for sure and there may be 1 or 2 more. And even if power is the most important of them all, it may very well not be the deciding factor in a certain case. The 5th generation was very balanced in terms of power and thus the war was decided in other fields, so your assessment is probably right.

1 - How much more powerful? More RAM can be a little more or much more, you need to quantify. Same for the CPU. And the 64 bit was just twice more the 32 bit. Those kind of differences are very small when we talk about hardware. For something that evolves exponentially, anything less than 5 times more is not significant. Moreover, you're not talking about all the paremeters, just some, which proves very little (even if we're only talking about which one is more powerful).

So I'm still waiting for proof about the "way more powerful" N64 against PS1 and Game Cube against PS2.

2 - Then please tell me your opinion about which one of these has the most impressive graphics (hint: there is one that's from a "way less powerful" console):

3 - For me generations are defined through power. I don't put Zeebo in the same generation as X360 or XOne. I don't put Wii in the same generation as PS3. And I don't put Wii U in the same generation as PS4. But the main point is: Wii U is 7th gen tech and that's why it's not selling.