and see thats my problem right there. People keep saying new expeirences, but noboday is saying how. So again i ask what they should have done? Because im sure this same conversation happened at HQ. Maybe just maybe they dont know themselves, so what were they supposed to do when they realize they got nothing? Just sit the gen out? Actually maybe that wouldnt be bad.

The problem is that Nintendo is overflowing with new ideas. You don't need one singular new idea to dominate a console, you can build your console to accept multiple new ideas: that was the genius of the Wiimote, not that it was just a waggle wand, but could be used as a lightgun pointer, tilted on its side to run like an NES controller or a cheap substitute for a steering wheel, while still getting closer to the real deal than anything aside from those expensive actual wheel controllers you can buy (with force feedback and all), or modulated with a nunchuk to function much like a "traditional" controller. Nintendo then made a bunch of different new games to flow in with these new ideas. Some were good, some... less so (say what you will about Other M, but it was certainly a "new" take on Metroid). The Zelda games for DS are often poorly regarded, but they were certainly "new", and very distinct from any Zeldas that came before. A lot of times Nintendo's new ideas don't stick, but a lot of the crazier games they make show that they certainly aren't without them.

The console doesn't need to be as bold as the Wii to do "new" things, however. It just needs to be flexible.

The problem is you've romanticized this notion to a degree that you can no longer see the actual market realities of today. I mean I get it, wasn't it wonderful that Nintendo had discovered this new magic formula that allowed them to have such tremendous success? It was sweet to watch Sony/MS sputter in response, surely it could've lasted longer? It's easy to take that and think of it as dogma, kind of like a guy who has success with a pick-up line once and then assumes that it should work on every girl, every time he tries it again.

Smartphones don't need to exactly mimic Wii Sports to get the same (actually larger) audience. In fact it's an asset that they don't, the casual audience wants new/different types of experiences, Angry Birds is successful because it's Angry Birds, not Bird Sports. The ecosystem offer by the smartphone/tablet business offers them a flood of constant new software. What smartphones/tablets DO ape (very successfully) from the Touch Generation/Wii line is the same basic foundation though of easy-to-play arcadey games that any casual or novice player can get into quickly. It's no coincidence either that most of the successful iPhone/Android games feature non-threatening cartoony/simple graphics (ahem right out of Nintendo's playbook), not realistic graphics of the Playstation/XBox ilk. 

The novelty of the control input is less important, what's important is the control interface is suitably user friendly and intuitive. No button multitouch fits the bill as well (maybe even better) than waving a wand around. People don't want controller novelties for novelty sake alone, otherwise Nintendo would just introduce a dozen weird controllers like maybe a game machine that's controlled by bouncing a ball (which would likely flop). Consumers aren't *that* stupid, they would eventually see that strategy for what it is -- desperation. 

Explain to us what "a console like Wii" means specifically. 

Is a console that uses the Wiimote, looks like the Wii, has the Wii brand, has Wii Fit, has Wii Sports, has New Super Mario Bros. U, has Wii Party, has half of its Nintendo lineup based around mini-game/party compilations, and all the marketing is aimed at the family audience not "Wii" enough? OK we get it, it wasn't "Wii" enough for you, but I think you're missing the bigger picture here. 

Hell, when inflation is taken into account, the Wii U wasn't even that much more expensive than the Wii and it saves money by really not requiring an extra controller as most people have a Wiimote in their home already. Wii was really $300+ after you had to buy a second Wiimote + nunchaku.

The problem wasn't any of that. The problem is there's no audience for simple-to-play/quick fix gaming on a console anymore. Why? Because a smartphone aped that formula away from Nintendo and started offering it at a price Nintendo could not compete with. THAT is the big picture. Nintendo did correctly realize that there was a large potential audience of people who simply wanted to play simply/easy to pick up games for short periods of time and the way to get them was easy to use control interfaces. 

And it was great ... for a while. Then Apple/Android took that concept and ran over Nintendo (and Blackberry and Microsoft and about a dozen other proud companies) in the process. 

Nintendo Land is a game that would've been a monstrous success for Nintendo had it been released in say 2008 instead of 2012. That audience that wanted easy to pick up and play/arcade-style games would've been all over it in 2008, but by 2012 the world had changed. 

There's just no denying it, look at the difference between these two Pope inagurations:

In 2005, no one had a smartphone/tablet ... in 2013 ... everyone has one, making a Wii or DS a much less desirable commodity even if Nintendo followed the *exact* same formula to a tee. 

So explain to me exactly what would've been a blue ocean strategy for the Wii successor? Because it seems like a vague, magical maguffin.

Spell it out exactly and explain to me why a person who can get their  casual-centric/easy-to-play/intuitive interface gaming fix for free or for $1 a pop would chose to run to a store and buy the Nintendo alternative to what they have already in their pocket at all times. 

I think any strategy undertaken by Nintendo to aim at casuals this generation was simply going to be a dead end no matter what. There was no controller invention that would change that because the hold of Apple/Android on the potential market for a machine that relies on people who prefer casual/bright + colorful/easy to play games was such that nothing could shake it by the time 2010 dawned. 

Apple and Android not only ruined Nintendo's blue ocean by turning it blood run, they took a giant sh*t in the middle of it too making it red-brown, lol, by destryoing the business model that Nintendo relied on. Once you could get games for 99 cents/free, suddenly Nintendo's proposition, whatever it was was always going to fall on deaf ears. That was something Sony/MS never did, they may have "beat" Nintendo, but they always agreed upon Nintendo's rules in doing so. Apple/Android are much more of a stab through Nintendo's heart. 

Not to say that the opposite would've been much easier of a path for Nintendo, but then again, in real life, there's no gauruntee of an "easy path", perhaps the reality is Nintendo had two hard paths this generation, and it was going to be hard for them either way. 

Like I already said in this thread, Sony ceased to compete because Move had failed to gain any traction and Microsoft's Kinect was destined to be a fad like the PS2 EyeToy; it wouldn't take long until the limitations became apparent; aside from minigame compilations, dancing and fitness, there's really nothing else that can be done with controller-free gaming; on the other hand, the Wii was versatile as Mr Khan explained in a post in this thread, it's not limited to motion gaming or only one type of controller. Plus third parties would neither support Sony's or Microsoft's devices which would create a battle between first party talent; a battle that plays strongly in favor of Nintendo. As for smartphones and tablets, they have no motion controller and no local multiplayer on the same screen. Put all of this together and you are looking at a situation where Nintendo gets a lot of market space on their own.

Why would people who play free games pay for Nintendo products? For the same reason they bought a Wii, even though flash game portals on the PC were already a popular thing before the launch of the Wii. The PC didn't offer what the Wii did, so the Wii was worth buying. You still have trouble to grasp that not everything you label as casual games is equal. Maybe it begins to click when I tell you that not every hardcore gamer plays FPS games and JRPGs, not everyone likes both. Or what if I tell you that playing one kind of game doesn't rule out playing another kind of game? Would it also be so hard to believe that people can play games on more than one device?

But since this response will inevitably lead to you screaming about how people didn't buy the Wii U despite the console having all that Wii stuff, let me once again point out that the Wii U is the Gamepad. People don't want it. And beyond that, the Wii U doesn't scream upgrade over the Wii; the Wiimotes and Nunchuks are the same, sequels were more often than not phoned in; that kind of treatment doesn't send the message that the Wii gamer is valuable to Nintendo. Take Wii Sports: It was the biggest IP on the Wii; on the Wii U it got relegated to a remake that was released in pieces as a digital-only title to test a new pricing model. That's not how you handle a flagship game. Imagine Microsoft breaking Halo down like that, or Sony doing the same to Gran Turismo; they would be called nuts for doing such an insane thing, but when it comes to Nintendo, the blame gets directed at the lowly casuals for not putting up with that shit.

I think the idea to you that the game industry is only Microsoft-Sony-Nintendo and there is nothing else to it other than that is kind of a comfortable box that you like, but sadly I don't think it's the reality of the business. 

Smartphones/tablets have impacted the industry far more than flash games on the PC. Which blockbuster IP originated from the flash browser market?

Candy Crush Saga, Angry Birds, Plants Vs. Zombies, and many others are worldwide phenemons from the smartphone market. We can't deny smartphone games have had phenomonal success. 

And you're right some people do play different types of games, however the problem still is still this ... for "core" games like the COD that they enjoy they buy a PS4 for that. But for the casual gaming fix, simple, arcade games ... why buy a seperate console for that? Smartphones/tablets have filled that consumer need. And for people who don't care about 'core' games period, even moreso. 

The formula of a game relying on A) intuitive controls to snare a wide audience base B) simple, easy to play gameplay harkening back in many ways to the NES/Atari era or even simpler is simply not a blue ocean anymore by any definition. It doesn't matter if Sony/MS are doing something different or not, they triopoly of these three companies being the be all, end all of the gaming universe has been broken whether people want to admit it or not.