Yeah. My question of "wut" still stands. Everyone is going to be confused when this thing launches. Aneconda would have been a less confusing and more marketable option.

1. Positive reveal/execution of an appealing concept. This lead to really good word of mouth and a positive buzz.

2. Launched with one of the best games if all time supplemented by a steady stream of great software.

The 3DS initially cost the same as a Nintendo Wii which could be considered pricey for a handheld device but when you compare it to the Vita's initial price of 300 and 250 dollars or high end tablets of the time it's not expensive at all for a then modern dedicated gaming handheld.

That is what i've been saying the whole time and the same applies to Wii U.

Yup that's what i've been trying to tell you.

You can keep saying that but the Wii U's competitors were PS4 and Xone not PS360. So it was not surprising at all for the WiiU to be more powerful than 7th generation consoles however it couldn't compete with PS4One, the same scenario with the Wii.

Sorry, but Miyamoto was involved on Wii U's development, Reggie wasn't. And regarding Reggie's comments on the Wii U... What is that supposed to mean? It can be interpreted in multiple ways honestly, nothing that indicates that it was aimed at core gamers like you said first. Anything Reggie said about the Wii U was purely for PR. 

It's a successor that tried to replicate the Wii's success. The article's i've provided you clearly say so.

So first, you said Wii U failed for aiming solely on Core gamers now you say Wii U failed for not knowing who it's target audience were. The articles i gave you clearly say otherwise.

- Vita having a higher price doesn't debunk the point as for one Vita was never aimed at the blue ocean so the was different thinking behind its pricing and the fact the 3DS' inital price wasn't far off from it highlights how far from the blue ocean 3DS was in handling.

- WiiU's performance to 360/PS3 is relevant because it highlights the difference in approach down to the hardware, PS4 and X1 were more powerful because they are from bigger companies delving in other industries, you thinking WiiU was underpowered by choice in comparison to them is flawed as that's as powerful as Nintendo could go for in order to remain profitable with their business model and being a gaming only company.

- Yet Reggie is the one who the concept of the platform is explained to as he has to convey this to consumers hence why he had to unveil it, want to know what he said means it means the same thing I pointed out to you earlier in WiiU focusing on the player's personal experience it's pretty easy to figure out what he is saying.

- Replicating success and doing the same approach are not the same thing that's the major flaw in your thinking here neither of these two platforms followed the same path your only claim to saying otherwise is people thinking that because it has the brand name on it that it's the same approach when that is far from the truth. Everything from the hardware choices to the type of games promoted changed WiiU is a successor but not a continuation it was a jump right back into the same red ocean they left behind.

- Yes it failed for aiming at the core audience that's why they handled the platform in a wayward manner the articles you've posted only show Nintendo assumed Wii owners would automatically by WiiU with out them trying they don't debunk what you've been told or back what you claim when Nintendo saw the Wii userbase didn't automatically jump on board they panicked and didn't know how to shift gear. The result was down the line the not being a clear message of who the platform was for as they had geared up to aim at the core but had no contingency plan for if the blue ocean never followed through

It's not just the price, the Vita is twice or more as powerful as 3DS so even though the 3DS eventually recovered and won the battle it was underpowered compared to it's competition. So again it's the same strategy Nintendo took with the DS, Wii and Wii U so yes, your point is debunked.

No, nope and seriously what are you even typing. Wii U vs PS360 is not relevant, PS4X1 are it's competitors and it failed to make an impact. Sony and MS are indeed bigger companies with more resources but the SNES was more powerful than Sega Genesis, N64 was more powerful than PS1 and Gamecube was more powerful than PS2 and on par with Xbox, ever since the Iwata era Nintendo went blue ocean and it worked at first then it failed with the Wii U. Nintendo has over 10 billion dollars in the bank, there's no reason why Nintendo couldn't produce hardware with similar specs to their competitors other than Nintendo not wanting to take any risks and keep their systems affordable for families. Sure, Nintendo systems are more innovative than they used to be and this goes well with their gaming philosophy but they have been making severely underpowered systems since the Wii.

That's because Reggie was the President of NoA... He's supposed to unveil it and make it sound as cool as possible. As far as the technical side of things, Reggie probably didn't knew shit about what the Wii U was capable of. Miyamoto knows the ins and outs of Nintendo systems so no, Reggies remarks on the Wii U doesn't tell us anything other than it's another Nintendo console, and personal experiences doesn't mean that it's solely aimed at core gamers like you've claimed.

The Wii U tried to follow the Wii's path with a different approach, that approach was a new gimmick and targeting both casual and core gamers and it failed.

The articles clearly say that Wii U was designed with both audiences in mind, not just one so your argument falls apart as soon as that was stated and especially since you're now just flip flopping.

Zelda BOTW also played a huge role that gave a positive outlook of the system launch line up after being rated as the highest rated game on Metacritic and subsequently fired up switch momentum right of the bat.

- You basically said nothing here on the point presented.

- Nope it's very relevant you just don't want it to be because it's a point you can't debunk as it highlights the change in approach to hardware which further shows they had a different approach to the Wii. Nintendo had 10bn in the bank and do you know the total cost the approach you're championing cost MS and Sony with the 360/PS3? 8bn (link below), 2.9bn for MS who had Live making money from the start of the gen and 4.9bn for Sony who had an expensive platform and that is with both platforms selling 80m plus this backs fully what I'm saying in that WiiU was as powerful as Nintendo could afford it to be had Nintendo gone this route the platform would have been more expensive and they had no way to offset losses like Sony and MS who also use a different licensing model.

https://www.mcvuk.com/8bn-the-total-losses-made-by-xbox-360-and-ps3/

- Or maybe just maybe it's because he's the President of NOA that he has the concept explained to him so he gets and idea of how the company wants to handle it in order to sell to the consumer Reggie after all knows the ins and outs of running a company better than Miyamoto which makes your claim comical not to mention Nintendo themselves backed what Reggie said with their concept demonstration video with the Japenese gamer which solely focused on personal experience.

- Wii U didn't follow the path of Wii in anyway this is shown on all levels and backed by objective factors sharing a similar name is not having the same approach so far only arguments that has fallen apart are your own as they've been debunk.

"Cousins uses the data to argue that consoles as we know it are nearing extinction."

I must say that this prediction is hilarious, seven years later.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/173011/Ngmocos_Cousins_predicts_the_death_of_consoles_within_510_years.php

It was in 2012, the next generation was in 2013.

"I believe Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo won't produce dedicated hardware past the next generation. ... Further, I believe traditional game companies like EA will be purchased by existing digital companies, or close entirely."

LOL.

For the Wii U, look at the Wii first: beaten by the X360 in the US, by the PS3 in Europe and ROTW and only better in Japan, where the gamers were buying handheld devices (DS+PSP) and the overall sales for PS3/X360/Wii were low. This a good hint: the audience was wide without a specific target. Having Wii Sports included is another hint.

And then they launched the Wii U. Of course the marketting was bad, but even if we forget about it: who was the target?

The console was more powerful than a PS3/X360, but it was a clusterfuck for the devs. So many games looked similar to what a PS3/X360 has to offer. Why buy a Wii U if the games are not looking better? If the console offers something different. Oh, and the PS4/XOne was already announced, about 10 times more powerful than the PS3/X360.

Ok, the Game Pad can be a great addition (the second screen can be great -> DS) but if you don't use it, the Pad is too big. And this isn't something new like the Wiimote. They tried to promote the asymetrical gameplay, but the games weren't as fun as when we were moving like idiots, playing Wii Sports.

The games:

https://techcrunch.com/2012/09/26/here-are-the-23-nintendo-wii-u-launch-titles/

Quite weak. And I don't see who was the target. So, if you liked the Wii for the innovation, the Wii U isn't for you. If you like good looking games, the Wii U isn't for you. And the console tanked.

- He's actually not wrong as the way consoles are handled today is very different to back then with game pass, PS Now etc... the are factors in play that are used to mitigate the costs like Live and PSN make more money than the sales of the platform now. MS are even spreading their userbase across different devices so although what he said about the migration to PCs was incorrect he was right about the model consoles using needing to change.

- X1 and PS4 were announced but their specs weren't PS4 specs weren't known until the unveiling in February 10 months before launch, X1 wasn't know until the pre-E3 event roughly 6 months before launch it's no different to know where we don't know the specs of the PS5 and XSX.

- That's kind of the point here the OP says it was casuals who were the audience but the games and handling say otherwise, Nintendo tried to go for more cores and neglected the blue ocean when you look at that line up we see more of games you see else where compared to Wii where we had more of Wii Sports. Nintendo's thinking was that Wii owners would automatically come on board so didn't focus on them and instead had token releases instead of proper ground up pushes to cater to them.

An example of a token release is look at Brain Training on Switch a token release and look at Ring Fit, the latter is performing well because it's not just tossing a bone to the blue ocean crowd it's something with the same effort as games aimed at other crowds. This is why the consumer was confused on who the Wii U was aimed at as it was a poor copy cat platform that got stuck between audiences, it was marketed poorly at cores and later claimed to be for everyone when the Wii userbase didn't come on board.

You keep straying further and further from the discussion. First you claimed that Wii U failed for catering solely to core gamers then you said it failed for not knowing who it's target audience were, now you're back to flip flopping. You bring up articles, data, quotes and a bunch of unrelated stuff none of which prove anything of everyting you've claimed.

I've already provided you articles which quotes come directly from Miyamoto and Kimishima explaining how they were targeting both audiences and believed the Wii U would be succesful based on Wii's success meanwhile you keep comparing the Wii U to PS3 and how Reggie knows how to run a company... Baseless and irrelevant information with no proof to support your claims whatsoever.

Yup, ironically a Wii U game saved the Switch's launch and became the best game of the decade.