Ur statement saying that Windows still does well implies that Apple failed because the weren't able to take windows our of the game. If that's not what u meant, than what was ur point?

Sega is an excellent example, before and after Genesis, Sega consoles sold roughly 10 million each and had barely any marketshare. With the right marketing and an effective strategy, they were able to get Genesis to sell 40 million and get over 40% marketshare. Again who cares that is sold less than SNES, once again u are using the mentality that it has to be first in order to be successful.

"Cool" is something that can be marketed and changed. Depends on how good your marketing department is. 

People actually don't give Sega a lot of credit. What they did with the Genesis is the greatest marketing campaign in the history of video gaming IMO. People I don't think really understand how big of an underdog Sega was in those days -- they couldn't even get major chains like Wal-Mart to carry the Genesis at the time. 

That marketing campaign was so successful that Yamauchi basically ripped his own son-in-law (Arakawa) in Japan's biggest newspaper and threatened to fire him, incensed that he had allowed Sega to paint Nintendo as a child's toy, lol. 

After that is when Nintendo turned the tide by marketing more heavily to the MTV audience and uncensoring Mortal Kombat 2. 

But image is what you make it. Candy Crush is considered cool and hip and trendy. It's on Jimmy Fallon. That's not a violent action game. Even the Wii early on was cool and hip for a while. A lot of times what's "cool" doesn't make any sense, look at the music industry there's always some break out artist that doesn't seem to fit what the current trend is. Bruno Mars is a throwback to James Brown/Michael Jackson style R&B funk, but that wasn't really popular a few years ago, but he's even more popular because he comes off as being unique. 

Your marketing focus matters, and really what's Nintendo got to lose? Sega had nothing to lose, that's why they went for it, I'm just I'd try a similar tactic. Women actually do tend to like the Nintendo brand anyway, so why not push it as something for the "cool kids" and paint MS/Sony for dorky enthusiasts, implying they never get laid. Of course do it in a funny way, but I'd have given it a shot. We don't graduate high school as much as we think, what the "hot girls in school" think is cool is always automatically cool. 

this. 

again you're trying to put words in my mouth. I never implied that Apple failed. UNLESS they were tryting to push Windows out completly which im sure they are not trying to do. Comment on stuff i actually said.

Naw im using the metality that ONE system doesnt really mean overall success. Genesis did fine, but what of every system after that? Hell one could argue they just got lucky since they failed more times than succedded

This is a good example but i would argue that this is exactly why Ninty SHOULDNT chase the whole cool thing. It is an uphill battle and they have two competitors who are doing a better job, hell they dont even HAVE to do that job. They should focus on their strengths, that aint one of them

No I'm not, Soudwave said Apple found success by slandering Windows, rebuttal was "windows still does well", that implies Apple did not find success based on the fact that Windows does well. Either that is what u meant or I misinterpreted (in which case, my last post asked what u meant and u chose not to answer) or it was a worthless statement with no meaning. It's one of those 3 things, which is it?

Simply stating they got lucky is the laziest excuse ever. The fact is, and its well documented, that Sega came up with a good strategy and executed it well. Near the end of the Genesis era and beyond they started making very bad choices, which again is well documented. Things like releasing expensive add-ons that got little support started to anger dedicated fans, releasing the next console way over the price of the competitors, making a hard to develop for console making 3rd parties shy away, surprise launch that angered retailers that werent involved and angered 3rd parties who were developing launch titles and got screwed over in the process, also not releasing their biggest franchise on the console, ending support 3 years after launch as well. They did alot of things right with Dreamcast but by then consumer confidence in Sega was low and mostly they simply couldn't afford to continue supporting Dreamcast.

Simply stating they got lucky is just plain dumb, it's not luck when u come up with a good plan and execute it well.

then i should have made myself more clear. I dont think Apple found success by "slandering" Windows. I dont think their success had anything to do with that. Simply put they found success but it had little to do with "slandering" of any kind.

Oh im not saying they were lucky. Im saying if one made that argument it is sound considering the one hit wonder status of their console business. Now with that being said, yes they found a strategy that worked...ONCE. IMHO that is not a good strategy for Ninty to use cause it is in no way gaurantees success. Because something worked once, more than a decade ago for someone else doesnt mean they should do it. Ninty has a kiddie reputation and IMHO they have earned it over the years, the only time they tried to shake it was with N64 with mild success. They are not going to get rid of that stigma overnight. They have to establish consumer confindence first and as we can see with WIi U they havent, they need to get that in order first before they even think about taking Sony and MS head on. Thats just my opinon

Assuming Nintendo could recreate that success in the first place. With the Wii it was released in the right time, before mobile games, and appealed to all casuals and basically everyone, but because of that no-one thought it was a console, but just a bowling simulator, as an example, my parents, who have lived way before game consoles and honestly don't like me playing games, wanted the Wii, because it appealed to them. However, as a result Nintendo really didn't cater to their more dedicated fanbase, so at that time a lot of them jump off the Nintendo train, so when the Wii U came, not only were casuals drawn away by mobile games, and really didn't have any company loyalty so went anyway, but some of the more dedicated fans didn't want a Nintendo console anymore.

But that's what i just think, please don't give me flak >.< (and sorry for the crappy structuring of the paragraph, wrote it a bit too quickly)

Probably I haven't explained myself, I didn't mean a console with those feature would have sold as much as the Wii, my point was about what strategy could have been optimal to try replicate the Wii success. We can't know of course how many units it would have sold (maybe about 30m, maybe more), but still likely much more than the actual WiiU. Even if they were late in some department, with a competitive console they would have had still 1st party quality software ad an advantage.

About the "expansion" part. What they are doing with Hyrule Warriors, Bayo and Mario Maker is quite different to what I meant before. The WiiU wasn't designed to offer a more varied offer of smaller 1st party titles, it wasn't their intention. The WiiU was designed with the attempt of getting X360/Ps3 3rd party support (needless to say it failed miserably), those games you mention are just the result of a later makeshift made when they realized no one wanted to support the console. Also those games are not made with the intention of expanding the offer, they're targeted to loyal customers of enstablished brands (a Zelda spinoff is targeted to Zelda fans, as well as Mario Maker is targeted to Mario fans). Bayonetta is a bit of an oddball, I don't see any strategy behind it, my opinion is that they just took an occasion to get some good publicity from the media (an occasion that was just under their noses, since they had been working with Platinum on W101 in the same period Sega scrapped Bayo2). Splatoon is really the only game that can be considered a true attempt to expand their offer, it's just a single game.

Plus, as I mentioned in previous posts, it's very important (for any company) to create a coherent market proposition, these games you metion are the perfect example of this principle. If the WiiU, as a product, was coherent (and with coherent I mean it being designed in every specific aspect with the same goal in mind) than, in order to expand the 1st party game library and offer more variety, it would have need a very strong focus on digital delivery, with lower game prices. For a customer, spending 20$ for a new (unknown) game or IP is much less risky than paying 40 or 50$. Also, from the developer perspective if you plan to make a wide range of smaller titles you can't have the same budgets of AAA games; if you sell games at 60$ than the customer expects the AAA kind of quality, if you offer games for 20$ the customer doesn't have the same expectations. Now, since the WiiU was not really designed with that goal in mind, their efforts to expand the libary can't be very effective since it's incoherent. With phisical copies at 40$ to 60$, customers are expecting higher production values and are less willing to risk on new IPs. 

The motion control thing was a fad. That much is clear. That much was kind of always clear.

HOWEVER, having said that, there isn't much at all different that they should have done with Wii U, except MARKET it better, from the get go. That has been their biggest failure, is commercials and marketing. The system itself, and it's games, are great. And the third party devs would have stuck around, if the system was selling better. Which it likely would have been, had NoA marketed the damn thing better.

It's really not rocket science. And this thread concept is hardly anything at all new. In fact it's been discussed endlessly since the thing's launch.