I'm not assuming that's what you're talking about.  I'm saying that the markets are related.  For instance, there was huge overlap between the DS and Wii market that helped each grow and succeed.  Furthermore, explaining why strategies that are working on the 3DS are not working on the Wii U is also a part of the puzzle.  I understand your argument is focusing on the home console market, but the industry is more complicated than that. 

I also understand that you're saying that the Wii appealed to a different market, but first off, I think you're severely underestimating the overlap between those markets.  For instance, consider that Guitar Hero was incredibly popular on the PS2, but the Wii wound up being the most popular next gen console for Guitar Hero 3 and beyond.  Consider that Eye Toy sold 4.2 million units. DDR is another great example.   There is certainly an overlap.  At the same time, people are discounting any success Wii had in the hardcore sector. Smash, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Goldeneye, Resident Evil 4, Xenoblade, and Mario Kart didn't just sell to soccer moms. 

Secondly, if you're not counting the market the Wii did appeal to, what exactly are you trying to prove?  That Sony consoles sell better among Sony fans than Nintendo consoles?  I mean, I could have told you that.

The Wii is actually evidence that hardware isn't as significant as marketshare is when concerning multiplat support. The PS2 is further support of this claim.

Ehhhh... I don't agree with that.  The Wii actually had relatively poor third party support compared to its market share.  The PS2 was really close to other consoles in terms of specs, certain closer than Wii or Wii U were.

And a lot better third party support than its specs should have allowed.

And I am not saying discounting that the Wii sold to gamers as well as non gamers. In fact, I'm saying we can't divorce the too we simply don't have that information.

Instead, I use the 5th (30 mill) and 6th (20 mill) generations and compare that against the Wii (100 mill). That's at the very least 50 million non-gamers as rough low estimate.

Isn't divorcing the two what you're doing here?  Actually, 0 non-gamers bought the Wii, unless they didn't play it.  But, out of the 50 million previous "non-gamers",  how many of those were previously playstation gamers?  How many of those were simply new gamers who later bought a 360, PS3, or PS4?

At least a 300% difference in overall sales, just by changing the primary addressed market.

I've already defined gamers as gaming enthusiasts/hobbyists versus non-gamers who typically didn't play games before hand. As for the question about how many were previously playstation gamers, we don't have any information on any of that nor any information on the demographics of those who were non-gamers. The only thing we have is how much each gen of Nintendo's consoles have sold.

Thus, its simply as this Post-PlayStation, when Nintendo adresses a non-traditional market, traditional defined as people who have gaming as a hobby on home consoles, they succeed. This is because Nintendo is no longer compatible with the new standard which favors PlayStation and Xbox. I consider Handhelds as non standard because Nintendo succeeds in it, but thus far it hasn't helped the home consoles. It could have helped the Wii, but we have no solid information on its effects, similar how we don't know what the GBA did.

Then what is the difference between the handheld market and the home console market OR the difference between Nintendo's strategy on those systems?  That's a big part of the puzzle you can't simply ignore. 

There is little to no difference between Nintendo's strategy for handhelds and home consoles. This is the Issue, and why I can divorce the markets because they sell for different reasons not because of different strategies. In other words, Nintendo's has one strategy, that works for handhelds but doesn't work for home consoles.

Calling anything the "standard" is a weird proposition.  I'm not sure what you mean exactly, and I'm not sure exactly what your point is.  I mean... Nintendo's obviously not competing well in the market right now, but we didn't exactly need a thread for that.  But to say Nintendo can't succeed in that market is a bit of a jump that you don't really provide evidence for.  Nintendo isn't really trying to compete in this market, and even claiming that it tried to during the Gamecube era would be a tough claim to make.  Rather, I would say Nintendo has always tried to appeal to the market that the Wii succeeded in, but the Wii is just the first time it clicked as it did.

There is no point in arguing semantics. Standard is just another word for Traditional, and the traditional market is the one of primary focus for the industry. That is without a doubt the home console industry. As for the necessity of this thread, that argument is pointless. I wanted to make this thread, so I did. I don't care about its necessity or whatever. The 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th gen current are evidence for Nintendo failing to compete in the traditional market. My argument is that the Market has changed, but it is built on the foundation that this is true and the subsequent generations up to know are the evidence that back that up.

It is impossible to say that Nintendo has tried to appeal to the market that the Wii did, because there is no evidence to support it. The performance of the Wii U has is contrary to that claim as well.

That was not Sony's doing. Games like Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Doom, etc were already starting to appear on SNES/Genisis/PC. Sony was just there at the right place and the right time and cannibalized on Sega and Nintendo's mistakes.