Okay, so you've established that what happens in Japan affects the rest of the world, and Nintendo always starts their strategies there first.  Therefore if we look at the Wii U being down over 30% YoY in Japan for 2014 what can we surmise?  For some reason I doubt you'd predict the west will follow in Japan's footsteps in being down.

I also don't know how you justify the actions you claim Nintendo has taken.  Multiple times you've extolled Nintendo's power at having a simple paint job skyrocket sales.  Of course you've never said why they've only utilized this that one time with the Wii.  For some reason they intentionally gave up the profitable massive selling Wii so they could push out the unprofitable anemic Wii U.  They also have intentionally had the Wii U sell poorly in order to throw off Microsoft.  Why did Nintendo need to ditch a massively successful product in order to compete with a company that barely even has a presence in what you call the "Capital of the videogame industry"?

So now that 2014 is over, and the Wii U didn't hit 35 million, does that mean you are still holding onto your 60 million prediction for the end of this year?  If so, why do you expect it to do more in 2015 than you initially predicted?

OK. I got a lot of replies to send out so let's go down the line.
Starting with Torillian.

That almost sounds good, Torillian. It's a plausible counter-argument.
But I could find fault with the "just because it never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen in the future" argument in the following statements.

Just because a man couldn't fly by just flapping his arms before doesn't mean that man can't fly by just flapping his arms in the future.

Just because men couldn't get pregnant before doesn't mean that men can't get pregnant in the future.

Just because all empires fell before doesn't mean all empires will fall in the future.

Just because people can't walk through walls today doesn't mean that people can't walk through walls tomorrow.

Just because the wheel shape is best for rolling now doesn't mean the box shape can't be best for rolling later.

There ARE some things that are IMPOSSIBLE.
Even though many things in life were once thought to be impossible & were proven NOT to be, doesn't mean that there are no impossible events.

I take you back to what I said under that Strongest Console NEVER Wins topic.
If it was all about power then THE PC, THE PERSONAL COMPUTER, would be the ONLY platform around. There would BE no consoles.
They don't put PC games behind the shelf or behind the shop counter like they do console games.
Many PC developers have migrated partially or entirely to consoles to make their games.

Yeah yeah I know you're gonna throw out that recent report about PC gaming being bigger than console gaming.
But if that's the case why can't PC games sell prominently in retail? Why have they gone virtually all-digital?
Why are PC game unit sales consistently lower than console game unit sales?
Why are PC developers like Bethesda, Infinity Ward, Crytek, BioWare, & the like not treating the PC as first priority in game releases?
Why aren't they porting to consoles? Why would they bother even making games on the consoles in the first place?
Why bother with consoles at all if PC's where the real money's at?
Why are PC gamers consistently complaining about PC versions of games getting gimped because of console parity?

The only reason that report happened the way it did is because ONE of the Three Console makers have underperformed.
That one being the BIGGEST one: Nintendo. And the cause of that underperformance: the Wii U.
As Wii U turns around it goes back to the normal hierarchy.

The VERY FACT that CONSOLES EVEN EXIST prove my point.
The Videogame Console should not exist today.
And they WOULD not exist today if it wasn't for Nintendo with the Famicom/NES in the 1980s.
PC's have been modded to use all the game controllers the consoles use.
PC's no longer are bound by that solitary one-person monitor now that we can hook a computer game display onto the TV set & gather around.
The prices of decent gaming rigs have come down considerably & are somewhat affordable.
So why do consoles still sell? Why?

The PC can do gaming & everything else you want. It is ALWAYS the most powerful platform available by default.
And it is the most customizable platform available by default.
Online is free & can be maintained by the players themselves for decades to come.
It is such a useful platform IN gaming & BEYOND gaming.
So why do consoles still sell? Why?

All that power means a hill of beans, that's why.
That's why those PC developers left the PC behind & thoughtlessly went to recreate a PC-like market on the consoles—specifically the ones with weak 1st parties that they could push around.
The only one who prominently sells PC games the old-fashioned way on a store shelf is Blizzard.
And EVEN THEY have put some of their games on console!
Blizzard is the only one who truly works from the PC as a market & sells by retail.

Another proof of what I say is the fact that one of the most consistenly high-selling console games last year & early this year was freakin' MINECRAFT!!
A game with blocky SNES/N64 style graphics. A port from PC that is the ANTITHESIS of hardware power.
Notch made his money solely by PC at first & STILL he went to the weaker consoles to make even more.
A low power game that makes EVEN MORE money on a lower-power platform.

POWER DOES NOT SELL CONSOLES.
And the PS4 is not winning this generation.

If the XBox One is able to make people forget about their E3 2013 fiasco IN A YEAR & overcomes the PS4 in America already, then PS4 is already in trouble.
When PS4 was outselling XBox One & Wii U COMBINED for months at a time & now has to fight for top sales spot in America, it's not a good sign for PS4.
ESPECIALLY when they don't have Japan on their side.

What I wrote isn't just a factoid, it's a FACT.
John Lucas

You know what Lucas? You're right about that. Power doesn't sell consoles. It never has. So it's a good thing PS4 isn't selling purely because of power

No, John, it's a factoid, there are good reasons for every other thing you used as an example, you haven't given any such good reasons that the most powerful console can never be the winner other than it hasn't yet happened and power isn't the end all be all for console gaming.  I could give you all kinds of logical reasons that a man flapping his arms won't fly (weight being the largest one, there's a reason birds' bones are hollow), people can't walk through walls because of interactions and repulsions between the electrons in their matter and that of the solid object, the box shape isn't best for rolling because all of it's points are not the same radius from its center, all empires fall in the future because given enough time everything decays and dies even institutions, men can't become pregnant because they don't have the necessary sexual organs to harbor children.  

These all have reasons other than "that's how it's always been" and most of the things you stated have had thousands of years of proof, you're going off of something that hasn't even been proven for a hundred years and saying "that's how it's always been and therefore I don't need any other reason".  What reasons you've come up with are for why power isn't the reason consoles exist and isn't going to make the difference between one console winning and another losing, and I agree with that.  What you haven't proven is why having power is such a detriment that the most powerful console couldn't possibly win.  

Power doesn't not sell consoles, either. The most powerful console has traditionally been a misbegotten product. For the first time ever, that isn't the case. People aren't suddenly going to realize that the PS4 is TOO STRONK and run from it like third parties fleeing a Nintendo system.

I'm pretty sure PS4 outsells Xbone by more than 10:1 on an average week in Japan (by more than 30:1 in the latest Famitsu), so I'm not sure what you mean by Japan not being on the PS4's side. Unless you are talking about the Wii U, which you really shouldn't be as it is a complete non-factor now that it has been handily outsold WW by both of its competitors in less than a year.

So PS4 has Europe locked down, Japan's withered rump of a home console market doesn't much matter anymore, and Xbox had to drop to $50 below the PS4's price to eke out a win in its own home market this holiday. And that's all with Sony having a barren year software wise compared to both of the others, which certainly won't be the case going forward. Game over. Better luck next time.

Not necessarily.
And even IF so it STILL wouldn't stop the "secondary console" from having the software sales advantage.
Much less the obvious hardware advantage.

Let me explain.

A PS4 owner or XOne owner who initially buys a Wii U as "secondary" can easily end up spending more ACTUAL time on Wii U than his/her stated "Main" console.
All Nintendo had to do was to get it in your house. The magic happens when certain games compel a player to play one console over the other.
There are only 24 hours in a day & only a small set of those hours are allocated for personal time (school, work, family obligations, etc.).
Game time WITHIN that personal time is even smaller so gamers are going to devote those precious hours into the most fun experiences they can.

If his/her "Main" console is in a lull or a dry spell, that player may start spending more & more time with his/her "secondary".
Spending more time to the point where you would have to question which one is REALLY his/her "Main" console.
The "secondary" console can EASILY become the de facto "primary" console.
It competes for your time like every other platform & you only have so much time available for the leisure of playing videogames.

Because of this phenomenon, a player may end up buying a lot of games on his/her "secondary".
Can buy as many as he/she would on his/her "primary" making it a de facto "Co-Main" or "Co-Primary".
If a player's positive experience with his/her "secondary" contrasts with increasingly negative experiences with his/her "Main", that player may actually sell away/give away the "Main" & promote the "secondary" to "Main".
It's not fixed in stone, a person's playing preferences.

On the flip side, maybe that "secondary" truly is in "secondary" mode & the player only buys one, two or a handful of games for it.
Doesn't matter because all those "secondary" sales add up with the 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 ratio & STILL give the "secondary" platform the software sales advantage.

Either way, the software advantage favors the one who can sell Two to every One platform, Three to every One platform, Four to every One platform.

As for the powerful at launch argument...

The key with consoles is to remember the "Good Enough" rule.
If the power of a platform is "Good Enough" to show a compelling game, then that's all you need.
It's not the power that sells the consoles. It's the games that sell the consoles.
All power does is give tools to create a certain type of game that's fresh & compelling. A unique experience.
That's what people are buying.

AT ONE TIME power increases DID open up new game design possibilities & experiences.
Resident Evil could not be done on a Atari 2600. Pikmin could not be done on a SNES.
But the purpose of expanding power then WAS to open up GAMEPLAY possibilities.
Not to seek power for its own ends. Not JUST for the gloss & shine.
And in each generation there is a sweet spot of "Good Enough" where overshooting it will not pay off dividends.

It's foolhardy to create fixed consoles as "cutting edge" in horsepower.
The cutting edge always moves & that runs contrary to what a fixed platform is designed for.

I showed you the example of the SNES in the 4th Generation & the SNES was on the LOSING end of much of that generation despite being considered more powerful at launch. Genesis had 65% of the marketshare.
Sega Genesis could have very well won the 4th Generation if Sega didn't screw themselves up at the end (Sega CD, 32X, Neptune, Saturn).
Remember, I'm a Nintendo fan telling you this. SNES was LOSING that generation with all its horsepower.

PS1 vs. Saturn is debateable with Saturn's dual core capabilities.
Dreamcast was considered powerful at launch too until PS2 came along.
And PS2's power was applauded until Gamecube & XBox came along.
'At launch' never tells the whole story because generations aren't fixed in time.
Competition will always react & try to outdo the others.

If 'at launch' mattered so much then the developers would have flocked to the stronger platforms because they outdid the former strongest.
Nope, usually they find that level of "Good Enough" & pin their resources accordingly.

That's why Sony makes no sense with the horsepower rah-rah in the 7th gen.
They beat the others WITHOUT it yet now they were trying to be the biggest strongest around just to outdo Microsoft.
By the 7th gen the horsepower race was moot anyway since game design was almost open-ended thanks to all the tools developed in the past 6 generations.
Which is why Iwata made that famous quote at E3 2004: "The time when horsepower alone made an important difference is over."
All horsepower does anymore is give people more gloss & shine.

Crytek found that out the hard way with Ryse: Son of Rome.

Wii used tech in a DIFFERENT way. It wasn't ABOUT strongest. It was about INCLUSIVE, UNIQUE, & INNOVATIVE.
They used technology not for tech's sake but for the sake of the game & the interaction of the audience.
Motion control was just PART of what Wii was about & most people still don't understand that.

The horsepower races are over. We can always refine tech horsepower but it's not the focal point any longer.
And now in the 8th gen when it is SHOWN not to matter it will come down to who can make the best games.
As we all know, there's only one entity out here who's gonna win that contest.
And that is your Game Awards' 2014 Developer of the Year: Nintendo.

John Lucas

P.S.: If they shine in limitation, what do you think will happen when the shackles are thrust off?

Most of these things can be tested repeatedly with controlled variables.  The only exception is the empire one, and that has far more examples than the most powerful console not winning a generation.  Also a particular console fighting off two competitors for ~6 years is a much different prospect than an empire reigning for the remaining life of the universe.

Your impossibility is more akin to the kind of statements seen in elections.  A Catholic has never won in X district.  A 5 term Senator has never lost an election in Y state.  A governor has never lost reelection and then won while running as a different party.  etc etc  These are statements that are basically made to be broken.  Numerous ones are every election, and new ones will crop up in the next election only to be broken themselves.

I don't know if you are trolling or just so deep in this that you think the PS4 winning the generation is an impossibility comparable to walking through walls.

It's becoming a such a ridiculous soundbite. What he really wants to say is power STOPS your console from WINNING/SELLING.

Obviously that is not true.

I don't really know how Lucas can look at the numbers we have and suggest PS4 is in trouble. It's done more so far than WiiU will likely do in its lifetime, there is absoloutely no change on the horizon for WiiU sales. He couldn't tell you why things will change either, just that they "will"

"The horsepower races are over. We can always refine tech horsepower but it's not the focal point any longer.
And now in the 8th gen when it is SHOWN not to matter it will come down to who can make the best games.
As we all know, there's only one entity out here who's gonna win that contest.
And that is your Game Awards' 2014 Developer of the Year: Nintendo."


Sony had ... barely any worthwhile exclusive this holiday (not trolling, their 2015 line up is killer)
Xbox had Sunset (awesome but niche and didn't sell well :(, Forza and Halo Collection which had its sales cut short from that mess)
WiiU had SMASH, a mainline, incredibly well received interation, along with MK, and Bayonetta, another niche but incredibly well praised game.

And it didn't come close to XB1/PS4 this holiday.

What happens when Gears/Halo/Uncharted/GT/GOW ect hits?

If you seriously think that the PS4 will not win just because it's the most powerful then I don't know what to say. The PS4 might not end up winning the generation, but if it doesn't it won't be because it was the most powerful. It'll be something like the competition having significantly better games or significantly better prices. Since most of PS4's and XBOX's games are the same I don't see games being the deciding factor. Price is possible, MS might lower the price to a point where it starts outselling the PS4 by a big enough margin to close the gap, but that is also unlikely. Wii U needs a miracle to win, maybe Nintendo manages to make that miracle, but that is the most unlikely. It really is ridiculous arguing that a console will not win just because it's the most powerful. That's like saying "The Undertaker will never lose wrestlemania because he never lost" except that record was broken.

Errr dreamcast was more powerful then ps2 when ps2 launched and n64 is definately considered powerfuller then psx then and now