This was my first post 

"Everything was fine except reason two the core audience was why the Wii U flopped because that's who they aimed for the NS is back to aiming at a broad audience again."

As you can see it doesn't say they solely catered to them it says that's who they were aiming for in their approach solely catering to and aiming for an audience are two different concepts solely catering is what the Wii did purely focusing on the blue ocean with out any deviation aiming for an audience is what MS and Sony did when they noticed the blue ocean taking off and brought out their add ons. You seem to not understand what flip flopping is either or simply have trouble gauging context as I said when Nintendo realized the Wii userbase didn't migrate because the platform wasn't really aimed at them they panicked to try and adjust the image to it being a platform for everyone and instead ended up not knowing what audience they wanted to focus on and what the console was meant to be this is why the consumer couldn't understand any value in it.

You also didn't prove anything because for one Kimishima's comments back what I said if you read his statement he highlights that Nintendo assumed Wii owners would buy the platform by default this doesn't back your argument in any way as it doesn't say anything about approach in fact it highlights a key factor in why Nintendo dropped the ball as they thought the name alone would sell the name regardless of what they do Kimishima even alludes to this in communicating the value to consumers.

The only quote backing you is Miyamoto's but then this is contradicted by not just Reggie but also the table concept trailer with the Japanese gamer from Nintendo themselves, Miyamoto himself is not without flawed thinking as we saw with his handing of Star Fox 0 and his statements on Pikmin 3 and Pikmin 4 when he announced the former when it wasn't in development and the latter is still mia. So that's only one thing you've really come up with and it's been countered. Also note how you seem to be silent on the power of platform side of it after I highlighted costs of the approach you claim they could do easily.

Wii U failed because it was a copy cat platform aiming for cores that was released under a hugely poor assumption that consumers would be it in mass regardless of approach when in reality the blue ocean saw nothing to appealed to them and the cores saw nothing to entice them to deviate from their choices and in the end we got a platform that didn't know what or where it was in the market due to Nintendo's panic to save it releasing token titles for the market they lost and ultimately it got shelved to make way for a product that actually had proper handling behind it.

This is what you said, implying that the Wii U didn't aim at a "broad" or casual audience.

My response.

Your response, again implying that the WiiU was only focusing on the core crowd and not on casuals.

And again.

There you go again.

Now you're saying yeah they did target both audiences but not really, my first point still stands... So you are anything but consistent and then you keep acting like all of these arguments and flipflops are what you meant from the beginning. I can keep countering and disproving your claims but what's the point when you continue to go around my responses, continue to flip flop, you keep bringing up the PS3 and now how Reggie knows how to run a company lol. Seriously you're just responding for responding sake and don't want to admit that you're wrong all i can say now is... You have tried.

Is English not your first language serious question because what you posted here still doesn't say what you're trying to portray to the point that even the last part shows you selectively taking part of a post to skewer context what's even more ironic is that this is in attempt to reply to a post that addresses all in this very reply already. You literally replied with something that was already clarified and addressed in the post you replied to making it the ultimate irony in that it's you effectively who responded here for the sake of responding. 

If I'm wrong how come you don't have any response to the counter arguments put forward to you all you're throwing out when countered is "Lol Reggie" or you completely go radio silent on the argument all together like the graphical costs one, fact is if you don't like people countering your arguments don't create the thread. Want an example of what I mean you still don't understand why the PS3 and 360 comparison was brought up, Wii wasn't more powerful than prior gen because its focus was pushing a feature to capture the blue ocean Wii U however was more powerful than prior gens because Nintendo were trying to play the power game this was a change in hardware approach in order to try and appeal to cores who they aimed for rather than the blue ocean who don't care for power, you tried saying it was underpowered compared to PS4/X1 then I pointed out Wii U was as powerful as Nintendo could go and highlighted the costs of such an approach by showing what the 360/PS3 incurred during their run against the 10bn you touted that Nintendo had.

I even highlighted that these losses were made while the other companies had things like Live, PSN and such in place which mind you Nintendo didn't have anything of the sort back then, I made this argument to show it being underpowered compared to PS4/X1 wasn't them using the same thinking as they did with the Wii it was them trying to play copy cat in a game they had no right trying to play like McGregor going into boxing. What was your response to this argument made? Nothing which is a problem for you as it debunks a key pillar in your argument you instead go about the part where I highlight Nintendo panicking later on when the Wii userbase didn't migrate over and end up not knowing what to do showing a refusal to grasp context even after it was clarified repeatedly.

It was so successful it doesn't need that other s

Wow you go on and on about power maybe you should get a PC.  Here is a thing.  It doesn't matter how much power you have. You have to make fun games and Nintendo makes fun games.  So get off your power trip.  My graphics card on my PC is bigger than your OG X box one.

Wtf? Not only does this reply makes no sense in any context on what's being debated but I also play on PC, it's like power was the only word you read? I'm even the one saying power isn't what brings them success.

So remind me again what you are bitching about

It's in the post itself, the differences in approach between the Wii U and its predecessor, he earlier said it's underpowered because it followed the same path as Wii however I pointed out Wii U was as powerful as Nintendo could make it in the power game due to the costs of going that route. This is backed by a link I posted earlier that showed the cost inflicted on MS (2.9bn) and Sony (4.9) by their platforms in this approach and they had services like Live and PSN making money for them as well as have a difference licensing structure to Nintendo where third parties don't pay as much plus their (MS/Sony) costs are offset by other ventures in the company so that loss doesn't show the full scale of the costs it would inflict on Nintendo as he earlier said they had 10bn in the bank to do so.

The power talk is highlighting the difference in approach he argues that they went underpowered to copy Wii when they were actually were pushing for power they just got outmatched in a game they should have never played and do what they do best their own thing, Wii was blue ocean focused that audience doesn't care about power so it didn't have a jump in power but a push in a concept to focus on immersion and fun, Wii U tried to play the power game but because Nintendo don't have the size or ventures nor did they have an equivalent service of the other platforms they couldn't come close to the jump their competitors were planning even if you went back in time to 2010 when they started developing Wii U to tell them of the specs their competitors would put out they wouldn't be able to match it due to their business model not being geared to combat companies of that size who can go all in when in a power game.

I don't see where you got the whole notion that only power is important from.

Others here have already giving their different views and opinions and i'm okay with that as that's why i made this thread for, to share my views and for others to share theirs with me whether we agree or disagree on each others points. You however, are the only one who made the claim that Wii U failed for catering only to core gamers and not catering to the casuals which i find absurd and disagreed with because not only would Nintendo be stupid to ignore the audience that made their previous console their best selling home console ever, it's simply not true. So all i basically asked for is proof, which you don't have but you keep acting like you do when most of the points you've brought up are either irrelevant or pure nonsense, Yes, i'm referring to your PS3 and Reggie's comments and running a company as hilarious as it still sounds but yeah you're allowed to counter my arguments but that doesn't mean i have to agree with your points either.

Regarding your latest "trump card" of an argument you have out of the many... It's easy to provide an article that says "PS3 and Xbox 360 has lost Sony and MS billions of dollars" without any context, only wrong predictions, since you again chose to compare the Wii U with and fail to realise that both the PS3 and Xbox360 were sold at a ridiculous loss for having more Ram, bluray/dvd drives, 80-120 GB harddrives, ehternet port etc. Incase you don't know for every console not sold the companies lose a bunch of money, for every console sold the companies still loses money so both Sony and MS suffered years of losses without mentioning all of the hardware failures, price cuts, warranties and court cases for all of the dumb decisions they've made over the years related to their home systems it wasn't until they stripped a bunch of features from their consoles, released good games and made the consoles cheaper that they could make a profit. This is what happens when companies think their product well sell based on previous product's success like Nintendo thought with Wii U. The Wii U was somewhat more powerful than PS360 but it didn't cost nearly as much as a PS3 or Xbox 360 because it was barebones on features which previous generations of consoles had already introduced, yet Nintendo still chose to sell the WiiU at a loss which was a dumb move by Nintendo and made them lose money because Wii U's weren't selling. The PS4 is selling on a profit, the Switch is selling on a profit and it initially cost the same as a Wii U so you saying that Nintendo can't afford a beefier more expensive console is not true, in fact, had Nintendo ditched the gamepad and focused more on the Wii U's specs it would've made a better chance against the PS4 it's just, like i said, Nintendo wants their consoles to be innovative and cheap but they can definitely afford it if they chose to stick to traditional gaming focused on specs and don't make dumb decisions like they did with the Wii U. We've yet to see what the Switch Pro will be like, probably 350 like their Wii U deluxe eidition was.

But after all of this whether English is my first language or not you still don't have anything to prove Wii U was catering to core audiences and stopped with casuals like you claimed... so once again, you've tried.

Yeah i guess i like it that way

That's exactly how i felt reading most of your arguments these days.

Except I do have proof one is the shift in early marketing, two Reggie's comments and a third one is the 2011 E3 Iwata Asks where Iwata himself says the Wii U will focus on deeper experiences than what the Wii offered are you going to say LOL Iwata now as that's now two high ranking people in the company.

Nintendo has never sold hardware at a loss even the ultra cheap GC sold at a tiny profit at its launch price Wii U is the first platform they ever full on sold at a loss with Sony were the ones who came up with that model because they're a bigger company hence the well repeated notion of GC making more money than PS2 the fact you think all companies operate on the same business model is showing the flaws in your thinking Nintendo has always previously taken financially viable tech in their platforms and relied on their software output to sell, Nintendo's business model has always been selling all products at a profit this is why the bare bones Wii U was never going to have much more power as it's a business model that they were never suited for. It cost less than PS3/360 yet still sold at a loss for years also PS4 didn't sell for a profit it sold at a loss:

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/ps4-to-be-sold-at-a-loss-but-launch-day-recoup-expected-from-ps-plus-subs-and-launch-titles-2905846

As you can see PSN subscriptions and their licensing model for games are what makes the profit you know the same things I said offset much of the losses for the 360/PS3 that Nintendo didn't have the PS4 still sells at a loss and thats at a higher price point than what Wii U was, even if Wii U dropped the tablet controller it would go from selling at a loss to just selling at break even they wouldn't be able to magically add more power to challenge the PS4 especially as the platform was developed in 2010 two years before PS4 began development itself in 2012, the costs would have even been higher going this route even with out the tablet due to tech viability. Interestingly enough PS4's loss at being sold were considered small for the company especially compared to PS3 while Wii U's which was said to be comparable to PS4 was a significant loss for Nintendo (going by the figures in 2013 investors report) highlighting how the latter weren't geared for such a strategy.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-08-07-nintendo-still-selling-wii-u-at-a-loss

To top it off year one had the Wii U cause a 387m loss to the whole company over a third of a billion offsetting the profits brought in by the portable dominance they have in gaming now lets compare this to Switch:

https://www.technobuffalo.com/nintendo-switch-sold-at-profit

Day 1 its selling at a profit because they used defunct tech of Nvidia that the said company no longer had any use for so Nintendo were able to work out a deal with them to get it for a good cheap price as well as form a unique partnership where Nvidia creates the tech they need and in return Nvidia once again has a piece of the non PC gaming pie which AMD enjoyed by itself for so long. This is no different to Gunpei Yokoi's instilled philosophy in the company and his handling of the G&W where he took viable tech that no one was really using so the company could execute things more cheaply, Wii did this as well taking viable tech for the execution of their concept the only platform in Nintendo's history that didn't follow this was Wii U because it was trying a different approach.