aligned the WiiU ratio is 2.3, but keep in mind that ~75% of all US sales came with the Nintendo Land bundle.
But yeah taking digital into account, especially when you hear that a free to play game has over 2m downloads on PS4, it's no surprise that retail sales lag a bit behind. The other "problem" of the PS4 being that it sold too many consoles in a short period of time. (Especially the belated launch in Japan, although Knack was also mandatory bundled there.)

Because the HW is suited to nintendo style games and third party devs have to water their games down to the extent they are not very appealing to play. Even when nintendo do have more powerful hardware, it comes too late and too costly in the generation that XB and PS fans just wait it out until the next XB and PS launch. And then the difference in quality widens again. Same cycle over and over and will continue until nintendo realise they are ineffective in dictating when a new gen should start.
Most people plan their purchases so that they dont end up playing the worst versions of games.

Most of these so called big 3rd party games don't interest Nintendo gamers, maybe that's why they dont sell.

Because Nintendo-versions of 3rd party games aren't a priority and the quality shows that

This!

Also most third party devs/publishers devalue their own products way to fast.  And they have what I call "assembly-line-developing". You know make alot of games as fast as you can without polishing and when they are "good enough" release them.... repeat. (also DLC etc)

Rockstar does not do that. Valve does not do that and Nintendo does not do that and thats why their games usually are better. Blizzard used to be one of them but you know Activision etc......

What do you think most devs/publishers financial situation would look like if they all started implementing Rockstar/Valve/Nintendo-like development cycles. It sucks but most of the Industry couldn't survive on that.

I can tell you what would happen.

This would happen:


Devs would focus on the actual games instead of using all manpower to make things more visually impressive using effects. Most of the money is wasted on visuals that will look like shit in a year or two anyway well and on marketing to promote that "visuals only" product. When the game is good it will work without maketing (Dark Souls)

You know what? I can buy PacificRim for 5 bucks on bluray and have 2hours of entertainment with better visuals than I get from 10  4h games that costs 60 bucks that try to look realistic/impressive together.

There is a reason why I decided to play games and that reason is not mediocre games with great visuals.

So again making actual games with focus on whats important and then adding sufficient visuals will be the result in taking time.

Not every 3rd party game on the Wii U is good, you know! The only 3rd party game on the WiiU that is a must-buy is Rayman Legends in my opinion!

Did Noma (Denmark restaurant) owners eat at Cattleman's Steakhouse (Orlando restaurant)?

What we'd get from longer development cycles is fewer games, that's it. Publishers would bet their money on their biggest franchises even more, but those would then maybe only release every 3 years instead of 1 or 2. The smaller experimental games would become even more rare, because they're a financial risk and with publishers not having their save yearly income from their mega franchises, they're less likely to take such risks.

Also I don't know why you're drifting into the whole visual department, that has nothing really to do with this and I don't see how taking more time = concentrating less on visuals and why would you choose Xenoblade and SotC as examples of this, when both of those games are considered among the best looking on their platform?