The key is that Nintendo does not have it in them to build a red-ocean console. The core idea for the Wii U was sound: we crushed numerically with Wii but got none of the third party support. Let's remove the excuse *and* continue to provide the kinds of games that made Wii excel. The problem with that is how Nintendo was shooting for the PS3 and 360 as the "parity" target, knowing full well that those were on the way out, but part of it was their obsession with form factor and power consumption. The continued embrace of Yokoi's "lateral thinking with withered technology" mantra is not necessarily a bad thing, but if Nintendo really wanted to make a console that'll get all the third parties, they will have to chuck that mantra out the window. That was what kicked them in the teeth with GameCube, too, they wanted to make a console that could be a viable alternative for PlayStation to get back what they lost to the PS, but again, their engineers just didn't have it in them to make a PS2 with a Nintendo label, and while GameCube was strong, the need for lateral thinking in its design helped sideline it in other ways.

Basically, they either need to go all-in and fight Microsoft and Sony on their terms (which is a terrible idea in the long-run, but would get them the support they need in the short run as long as the box had power parity), or go back to the mentality that birthed the Wii where they go all-in on chucking aside any pretension of competing with Sony and Microsoft, and thereby proceed to beat the pants off of them.

The key is that Nintendo does not have it in them to build a red-ocean console. The core idea for the Wii U was sound: we crushed numerically with Wii but got none of the third party support. Let's remove the excuse *and* continue to provide the kinds of games that made Wii excel. The problem with that is how Nintendo was shooting for the PS3 and 360 as the "parity" target, knowing full well that those were on the way out, but part of it was their obsession with form factor and power consumption. The continued embrace of Yokoi's "lateral thinking with withered technology" mantra is not necessarily a bad thing, but if Nintendo really wanted to make a console that'll get all the third parties, they will have to chuck that mantra out the window. That was what kicked them in the teeth with GameCube, too, they wanted to make a console that could be a viable alternative for PlayStation to get back what they lost to the PS, but again, their engineers just didn't have it in them to make a PS2 with a Nintendo label, and while GameCube was strong, the need for lateral thinking in its design helped sideline it in other ways.

Basically, they either need to go all-in and fight Microsoft and Sony on their terms (which is a terrible idea in the long-run, but would get them the support they need in the short run as long as the box had power parity), or go back to the mentality that birthed the Wii where they go all-in on chucking aside any pretension of competing with Sony and Microsoft, and thereby proceed to beat the pants off of them.

So you're saying you wouldn't care at all if a great Ubisoft exclusive game got delayed for 7 months just so it could release simultaneously on the PS3 and XBOX360. After that they delayed a multiplat game just for your console.

Please don't be a hypocrite, if Ubisoft did this to PS3 or XBOX360 userbase they would've stormed Ubisoft's main office by now. 

I love how the word "hypocrite" gets thrown around here.

As for your points: no I would not care. I have way too many games to play (big enough backlog to game for years) and little time to do so, so any game getting delayed does not affect me at all. I game on multiple devices (psvita, ps3, pc, 3ds), so even when the psvita wasn't getting many games, I played more games on my ps3. I also almost never buy any game day one. So any delay does not affect me at all. I also like to believe that I think rationally, so even if a game was announced as an exclusive for psvita, was delayed for 7 months and became multiplat, I'd still buy it if it was good.

Ps360 fanbse would have done probably nothing, since they have too many good games to play, while the wiiu needed an exclusive, especially considering the incredibly long drought. They complained about Bayonetta because it won't be released on ms/ps consoles. I don't think there would have been a big deal if it was delayed and released on wiiu too. (Edit: Just remembered how upset ps3 gamers got with final fantasy 13 being delayed and going multiplat, so maybe things would get ridiculous again.) Even if Sony/ms fans complained, I don't see how that would make me a hypocrite, as I personally wouldn't care. A good game is a good game no matter when it's released. I'll probably buy The Last Guardian in 2018 if I have to.

Just an idea: before name calling, think.

If it looks like a hypocrite and sounds like a hypocrite... It's a hypocrite. That's not name calling as hypocrite hardly qualifies as an insult. 

I'm still going to buy Rayman Legends despite it being multiplat. It's however no surprise the game sold poorly when it was delayed for 7 months for a silly reason. It also released in a time period where good exclusives were hitting the Wii U. And it doesn't matter how good your game is, it's not going to compete with Zelda or Mario. I fail to see how this is an excuse. Besides, it's not like the PS3/XBOX360 games sold well. A good game released during a drought is always going to sell better than a good game released alongside Zelda: Wind Waker HD, Super Mario 3D World and Pikmin 3. It's called common sense and not an excuse as you seem to "think". 

I don't have a huge backlog simply because I don't  buy games I'm not playing. When I buy a game, it's to play it, not to sit there for a couple of months. Some people value their money and don't buy a 100 games in a year(or flat out can't afford it). 

I guess some people are also just more picky with the games they buy. More refined tastes perhaps. ;) 

As for me personally, I don't like first person shooters, third person shooters, sports games and realistic racing games. So the PS3/XBOX360 have very little to offer me because they're not that varied as some of you like to think.

Games like Infamous, God of War, The Last of Us and the Batman games made by Rocksteady I would enjoy however. And I'll gladly borrow my friend's PS3 to play them. ;) 

The people that complain on the net obviously don't mean much though. Ubisoft and all the third party publishers need to find genres that thrive on the WiiU. Assassins Creed, Zombi U and Splinter Cell obviously aren't those franchises. They now have two options:

1. Give up trying and concentrate on what they know sells on the other platforms

2. Try other genres and see if they find an audience (like Just Dance on the Wii)

Option 1 is a lot easier than option 2, but that doesn't mean there isn't a large untapped market on the Wii U. They won't find them in the core genres though.

That's quite risky though and I'm sure they thought they had something that could do both when they designed the Wii U. It's not like the original Wii didn't have good third-party support, it just wasn't in the core genres that posters on here passionately discuss. If they'd spent more time marketing those genres and franchises that had been sucessful on the Wii (dance, sport, fitness, party, LEGO) rather than making such a big push for the PS3/360 audience, they might have had more success.

Anyway, my point was it's difficult to revolutionise the market with each console and I doubt Nintendo will be the next to do so (or Sony and Microsoft for that matter). Personally, I think Occulus Rift is going to be the next big thing.