A) Those exclusive games are niche, when the likes of Mario Kart fail to raise the baseline significantly and sustain it, Splatoon ect won't help.

B) Multiplats will help XB1 more than those WIiU exclusives wiil help WiiU.

C) Price won't go back up.

A) maybe true. But mario kart was alone for like 4 months, its good but one game would not turn the fortunes around. But this time ninendo promised one game a month. It dosent have to be as big as mario kart, just has to do something untill the next one arrives and a month is not a long time.

B)  If you cont out the ps4 maybe. But when all those multyplats look better on ps4 and all those ps4 exclusive just blow the eyes out of your sockets people will line up for a ps4. Cus evolve + witcher + batman 900p is not that great of a sales pinch compared to evolve+witcher+batman+the order+bloodborne+everithing else+ all 1080p.

C) with this I agree.

Your number of 100k is entirely arbitrary and has no economic or fiscal basis (as are many of the claims on this site from both ends.) The important thing for Nintendo's survival and whether or not Wii U is successful for them is net profit and growth**. Period! You can argue that having sales fewer than 100k /weekly means it will spiral down in sales, thereby affecting their profitability, but there is nothing to say that 100k is the special number they need to maintain the momentum of their platform and maximize more profitable sales at the end of its life. Your choice was arbitrarily take from the number base-system we use 10^2=100k. It could easily be 64k (8^2), 81k(9^2), 144k (12^2), or 56k (just some random number.) Furthermore, it is very much likely that the number of consoles Wii U needs to sell per week in order to maintain a profitable baseline until its (hopefully artificial) retirement is very different from the XBOne's (for starters XBOne players demand more online interaction, and a larger weekly addition to its userbase helps with that. XBOne also competes more directly with the PS4 and that means a sooner saturation point. Wii U is a much more local console.) But nevertheless it is clear to me that more (in demand) games is what will keep a system relevant and profitable, not whether it has sold more or less than 100k the previous year - weekly. In fact, fewer sales now just means there is larger potential until it reaches its saturation point (see: Wii for the reversed situation.) If this potential is coupled with more games, regardless of the sales now, the console can sell well in the future. This is called cross elasticity of demand. All Nintendo needs to do is guesstimate the equilibrium price for maximum profits. More (in-demand) game releases imply a greater profit because the quantity demanded increases for each-given price (the demand curve shifts rightward.) Because of relative inelacity on the consumers end (it is harder to replace the product with something else with each unique game release) it is unlikely for this to change rapidly. 

**Remember Nintendo is not competing with Sony and Microsoft in the competition to "control the living room." They are competing; however, as a profit-seeking video-game company. 

Yeesh, give the guy a break. He's obviously sad that the Xbox One passed the Wii U.

Lots of good points here. While the previous post about the 100K does kinda make sense, it's still arbitrary. If new games can cause higher weekly baseline then yes, the fortunes have changed. It might not be as much as some would wish, but they have still changed.

If they can manage to do decent business with the Wii U (as well as the 3DS and remain relatively profitable) and grab some more 2nd party developers along the way (Retro do great work, and Platinum aren't exclusive but at least they've already had a few exclusives for the Wii U), then they will be fine. 

Keep pumping out quality titles, make your money, and research for the next generation of consoles.