More revenue doesn't mean much or anything when it doesn't lead to more profits.

I don't have much to rebute when you already do it yourself. "Everything is better now, except this and that which is much worse than in the past", yeah...

Plus it's pretty easy to make the case that all the things that made gaming more respected have to be credited to Nintendo and, to a lesser extent, companies that make smartphone games. Because the image of gaming that PlayStation populated is one of going through a city and mowing down hookers; this didn't really change on the PS and Xbox side of gaming since then, because developers (first and third parties alike) doubled down on that kind of software output; it's an image of immaturity.

By the way, what is your overall argument anyway? Is it about what is better for gamers or what is better for the industry? Because it should be pretty obvious that these two things are very different.

Lol! Yes, I misread!

Dangit! Tekken released two months after, BUT with additional content. And looking at Rayman on PS4, releasing afterwards doesn't neccesserily mean less sales.

PS4's instal base was 5.9m at the time of Rayman's release, not a HUGE number. Wii U at the same period had 5.8m.

RE4 was a port on BOTH PS2 and Wii, and it still sold better on PS2.

No, their games are RATED E for everyone, but they're not making a wide range of games. They're all mostly E, maybe a few Teen rated games here and there. How many Mature games do they release a year? When I said that they don't offer something to everyone I meant to say that they're not widely diversive. Yes, they're making games over a wide section of genres, but they all tend to be rated quite similarly. Being diversive doesn't only mean you make a lot of different genre, it also means you make games for different age groups as well.

Yes, I agree that 3rd parties could and should have supported Wii a lot more. The last gen porting of GTA was a great example! BUT, you gotta remember the stigma of the Wii; it was a console for casuals. For soccer moms and grandma's. Does that sound like a healthy enviroment for a GTA port? No. But the truth is that RE4 did quite well, so GTA probably would have to. But that's what I'm talking about, had Nintendo lead the way and created these kind of games themselves maybe 3rd parties would have tried to release more mature games on the console. But let's not forget the mature games 3rd party publishers actually released; No More Heroes and Red Steel. Neither franchises sold very well. They did respectful numbers, but considering the instal base they could have done much better.

Like I've said again and again, Nintendo needs to lead the way for 3rd parties if those games are to sell well on Nintendo consoles. Nintendo needs to try and get other gamers other than Nintendo fans to buy their consoles. I think they made the right call launching the Wii with the "darkest" Zelda with it. They need to do it again. I'm not talking about making a Mature Zelda. No. Make another Teen Zelda (note that I'm talking about Ratings here) and launch it with the next home console, or have it ready for the 2nd holiday. That's a great start. Make a sequel to Eternal Darkness and a "darker" Metroid, a la Prime, and maybe a few new IP's. Support 3rd party developers in making more "adult" games for their console. Make sure to have Bayo 3 ready within the first year. That's the kind of things that'll drive gamers to Nintendo, and not only the good old faithfuls. Nintendo cannot survive on the fans alone.

Indies would be even bigger on PC and the same reasoning applies for those gamers who seek "mature" content. PC gaming would have been more popular, because if you didn't notice, the primary thing that PlayStation and Xbox do is draw games from the PC on their own machines. So in an alternate reality, the content wouldn't change, merely it's location. And with the location being changed to an open platform instead of the closed environments of PS and Xbox, that sort of gaming would most likely be better. Things like mods, lack of payments for online multiplayer; that's pretty basic stuff to highlight a couple of clear advantages.

I think there's an argument to be made that there's a limit to how big PC can get, since it's more expansive with a PC compared to a console, and it needs a lot more maintance, or that's how it's seen anyways, and it's also a common conception that it's simply easier to get a console; you have all you need to start gaming right away. Well.... up until this gen that is :/ But yes, PC would be bigger, but HOW much bigger? The "casual" (hardcore) gamers would probably not bother. And let's remember that it wasn't until quite recently PC got a control method OTHER than keyboard/mouse (a widespread one at least). And if this hypothesis of yours holds true, the PC scene must have been pretty big right before PS1 launched, since that's where most "mature" games would have been and therefore that crowed as well. Did PC rival console gaming in 1994-95?

You did indeed imply that hardcore gamers determine the image and you did so by bringing up that Nintendo games are called kiddie. That's straight from the playbook of hardcore gamers. As for the Wii, it lacked a lasting effect because Nintendo stopped continuing it. Not only did they prematurely reduce and stop Wii support, they also shelved the philosophy that gave birth to the Wii. The Wii U doesn't do more than carrying on the name, but it's pretty easy to see through the facade when one takes a litte bit of time to examine the console (no motion controller, no new IPs to draw in new crowds, high price).

I also said that doesn't mean they're immature, and that Nintendo promote their games as something FUN, further implying that this is part of their "kiddie" image. And maybe kiddie is the wrong word altogether; family friendly would be a better word(s). But family friendly, something that can be enjoyed by EVERYONE, is often seen as a bit... kiddie. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Frozen, Big Hero 6 - all movies and characters that can be enjoyed by everyone, but are mostly seen as "kiddie", or made for kids at the very least. And the same thing goes for Nintendo and their games. No none gaming adult would call Super Mario for an adult piece of entertainment, but that doesn't mean they think it can't be ENJOYED by adults.

As for the key point (final paragraph), there's no demand from other gamers to play multiplatform games on a Nintendo console either. Because, you see, what they really want is that Nintendo games are brought to PS and Xbox. I will tell you how things would play out if Nintendo launched a powerful console, proper third party support, a more diverse lineup (I am assuming you mean Nintendo themselves making some M-rated games here, because proper third party support would otherwise already cover diversity and make this redundant as a separate point) and an image of being for every gamer.

1. Sony and Microsoft would launch the same PR as always, refer to Nintendo as inferior, point to some colorful games and call it the same Nintendo as always. Impressionable gamers gobble it up as always, so Nintendo's image is instantly kiddie again and the console becomes a no-buy. Truth through repetition does the rest. I mean, come on. After over 20 years you must have noticed the pattern that Nintendo's unfavorable image in gamer circles doesn't come from Nintendo's software output, but Nintendo's competitors. During the Wii era Nintendo got branded with a casual image, because kiddie simply doesn't work when it's well-known that adults are buying the system in droves. The entire point of slapping such an image on Nintendo is to make them an inferior option.

2. With this image being established before the launch of the system, initial sales are also sluggish due to a high price (you wanted the system to be powerful, after all). As a result of underperforming hardware sales, software sells below expectations as well. Since Nintendo fans will gravitate towards Nintendo games (the best titles on the system) and third party exclusives (if any are available), and since other gamers won't buy the system to begin with (see point 1), multiplatform games will be hit the hardest. Kiss proper third party support goodbye, because Nintendo won't be given any room for error; third parties don't have that patience.

3. Not much left for the console at this point, so Nintendo has a failure on their hands and needs to try to salvage the situation somehow. In the middle of this, DanneSandin will tell me that a powerful console with proper third party support and a good image could actually work, so we go back to point 1 and the cycle repeats.

I think a lot of that can be avoided if Nintendo successfully advertise their "mature" games, and does so heavily, and even launches a counter-smearing campaign. They don't have to smear Sony or MS, but rather counter the "kiddie"-campaign launched by them with even MORE "mature" games in the pipe line.

Now the only option to break this cycle is not acceptance of ever-declining revenue for Nintendo. What can also be done is redefining what it means to be a video game console. While Sony and Microsoft will still launch a smear campaign against Nintendo, it won't matter because PS and Xbox do not work as substitute for the Nintendo system. And while other gamers still won't buy such a Nintendo system for multiplatform games (because there won't be many to begin with), they might just buy it because it is different from everything else. Lastly, there's the added effect that people who aren't interested in PS and Xbox will buy the Nintendo system precisely because it isn't like PS and Xbox. In the sum this means that Nintendo fans will buy earlier (system is affordable due to ignoring stinking third parties), more other gamers will buy (view the system as a supplement to their PS and/or Xbox), and people who are currently not invested into the console market will buy. Result: Growth for Nintendo as a manufacturer of dedicated video game hardware.

Can you please explain to me how this should be done? How do you redefine what a console is? If you're gonna make something "different" that means it has a new controller or someother gimmick attached to it. And what people would prefer Nintendo over PS or XB, except Nintendo fans? The casuals? I think they're pretty content with mobile gaming. And if this were true, Wii U would have sold better, no matter if it has "Wii" or not. Maybe those people would just buy a PC instead? And we see right now that Nintendo fans aren't buying earlier than others; Wii U wasn't front loaded all that much. And if people aren't interested in console gaming, why would they buy Nintendo's console? Redefining what it means to be a console. So you think Nintendo should re-create a new Wii every generation? How easy do you think that is?

And in case you didn't notice, neither Sony or Microsoft ever managed to get all gamers onboard either. It's a feat that cannot be accomplished.

Ps4's base quickly grew, and rayman is the kind of game that sells with time. notice how it took a long time to pass wii u's version.

Re 4 was a moderately recent port on ps2, wich had a huge installed base. It is the most natural thing in the world to outsell the wii version, where it was a very late last gen port and still sold a lot.

Yes, but one of the points I made was that it doesn't really matter if a port is late; it can still sell quite well. And ports on Wii U don't.

"they're not widely diversive. Yes, they're making games over a wide section of genres, but they all tend to be rated quite similarly."

that sounds very contradictory. forget ratings and 'mature". nintendo makes games of many genrer and most of them requires actual thinking to beat, more than most "mature" games out there.

Mmmm yes, I tried to explain it in a none-contradictive way, but I'll try it again. They make games for a lot of genres, and are diversive in that respect. But most of their games tend to be rated E through Teen, with only a few Teen games every year. A lot of gamers today want "mature" titles, which Nintendo doesn't have many of at all. Sony on the other hand have offering from E to M... that's the kind of diversivity I meant. Candy Crush Saga also requires thinking... Just saying.

"BUT, you gotta remember the stigma of the Wii; it was a console for casuals. For soccer moms and grandma's. Does that sound like a healthy enviroment for a GTA port?"

This stigma only "exists" due to haters. The wii was selling lot's of hardware and software from all kinds of genres but thirds wasted the opportunity. also, take two ported Bully, a game as "politically wrong" as GTA and it sold a lot on wii. imagine what GTA would do. I'm talking about this to show that even when nintendo get's a big installed base, thirds find an excuse to ignore it, meaning there are behind the scenes problems.

I wouldn't call 500k a lot. The best selling "mature" 3rd party games are the 53rd best selling game on Wii; CoD3 with 2.23m, then at nr 56 Monster Hunter Tri (published by Nintendo) with 2.21m sold and RE4 at 57 with 2.21m units sold. I wouldn't describe that as stellar, and I understand if 3rd parties didn't bother with more mature games if that's all the sales they could get out of 100m+ Wii's.

"No More Heroes and Red Steel. Neither franchises sold very well. They did respectful numbers, but considering the instal base they could have done much better." Those games aren't really amazing, they sold for their quality.

Red Steel 2 got 80 at metacritic. Is that BAD? No More Heroes 1 and to got 83 and 84, respectively. They sold for their quality?

For your last paragraph: As explained before, it doesn't matter if nintendo atracts the gamers or not, the 3rd parties tend to simply insult the gamers by ignoring the system. Getting a bigger installed base off the bat is helpfull to give the 3rds less of an excuse to ignore the system, but is no miracle.

If Nintendo attracted more none-Nintendo gamers to their systems, 3rd parties would notice that their games sold better on said system, leading to more effort and ports.