i think this goes hand in hand with the fact that most people are in denial about the fact that a lot of Wii U owners own more than one system.

GTA would sell. Not as much as on MS and Sony consoles, but it would be profitable.

Well that and "topping Wii U software sales" for a release month isn't exactly an impressive feat. Bayonetta 2 sold 70k in month one, and that's with the first game thrown in for free to boot. 

Being the number 1 selling Wii U in a month like that is like bragging that you beat the fat kid in gym class at hurdles. 

It was never going to sell well, but we are kidding ourselves if we think the delay didn't make a huge impact on the sales for people with PC, PS3s and X360s already in the house alongside their WiiUs.

The thing you don't want to admit to yourself is the Wii U/3DS IS part of the Wii/DS cycle. It's simply the other side of it. 

There's nothing inherintely wrong with this business philosophy, it's fine. But you have to be prepared for high highs and some low freaking lows. 

That's the inherint nature of position yourself in a "trying to catch lightning in a bottle" formula. There are ups and downs to it. We're just seeing the down side to it. 

Microsoft is doing OK, they made a mistake (similar to Nintendo) of betting too heavily on a gimmick. Had they not done this they would be fairly close, perhaps even leading Sony in North America and Europe right now because Sony's first year of software has been sh*t quite frankly. 

There's nothing special that Sony did, they just watched the other two implode on themselves by banking on gimmicks. 

Having said that though I notice you don't want to touch any part of the Apple part of the equation here. I don't care how novel Wii Sports was, even if Nintendo came up with 50 of those games today, they would run into a brick wall called smartphones/tablets. Nobody needs a Wii today ... it was neccessary when the only thing a casual could play games on was a PS2/XBox/GameCube and there were no games being made for their needs at all. 

Today there are hundreds of accessible games as simple or even simpler than Wii Sports to play available in everyone's pocket all day long for free. As such the Wii's original "mission" has been taken to its logical endpoint, it just so happened that Nintendo couldn't take it all the way there. They never would have the forsight to make a phone like Apple did and get the jump on that before anyone else. It was always Apple that was going to win the race, no matter what Nintendo did. 

The GameCube didn't have a gimmick, but it had plenty of bad execution, like I dunno, who's genius idea was it to make a PURPLE lunchbox as the design? Who was that supposed to appeal to? The gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) Ikea-chic art house crowd? Just because you don't rely on gimmicks doesn't mean you can abandon common sense. 

I guess but it thats not really the point of what he was talking about.

Call a game mediocre because it was released later to your platform of choise is Mediocre IMO.

On the other hand, I absolutely agree with Nintendo fans decision not to buy the game because of the treatment they got from Ubisoft.

What are you two even discussing lol.

The snes was purple too....you are discussing the risk of market adoption with hindsight as your evidence to prove that Nintendo made bad decisions. 

Yet you state that it is ultimately a gamble....so?????

All these companies gamble as you state thus is the way of business. However, i would state that looking at the track record of Nintendo, they have remained relevant and profitable for the entire time theyve been in this industry, which is over 30 years. No one else can claim this. And that is impressive especially in entertainment.

 Its honestly the price. if they released this for 40 dollars it wouldnt even be a talking point.