It's actually a pain to read so many fallacies and illogical thinking in every single post you made in this thread.

Maths aren't your forte, aren't they?

The Wii failure rate is not a factor as it's insignificant. Insignificant of the type that is ignored. So uh, yes we can ignore it. More Wii in the market times (not plus) longer time = more insignificant value of failure.

Your one failure is insignificant faced to 30 millions consoles sold. Let's says there are 1000 Wii dead among 30 millions. If in one year you see another and Wii is at 60 millions, your 1001 Wii dead will be even more insignificant than before.

So you say it is a fact there are people that bought fewer games, and also a fact that there are people that bought more. You cite this with your anecdotal evidence. Now let me use my anecdotal evidence that you and me share: a lot of hardcore gamers from last gen are among the ones that bought very few game for their Wii, when it's not collecting dust. I see A LOT of them. Most say the Wii isn't worth anything and has no games worth it. That means most of these people buy few Wii games. Then it's a fact that only the new gamers of the expanded market that Wii brought, are buying more games than hardcore gamers of last gen. So Nintendo is really successful in expanding their audience. Isn't that amazing? It also completely contradicts your points: Nintendo is actually bringing in an expanded audience that buys more games than the hardcore. Shocking news!

The irony is that the failure rate becomes more significant as time goes by.  Every year a console is in the hands of a consumer, the likelihood of a problem goes up.  This is why many warranties (especially on electronic devices) are not lifetime ones.  Nintendo grants the buyer of a new Wii a warranty for only 12 months for this reason.  For one year, Nintendo says you will have a working console and for one year Nintendo will repair it for free if it has a problem.  Going on 2 full years on the market (this November), many warranties have already expired meaning that Wii owners will either need to pay for Nintendo to repair their Wii or buy a new one.  The increased likelihood of the Wii's hardware failing over time as well as the warranty's expiration both reinforce my belief that repurchases will only become more likely in the future.   In fact, we probably won't start seeing the full effects until the 3rd year at which point we will have well over 30 million Wiis on the market with no warranty remaining and at least a year of use.  That being the case, any Wii failure percentage we see right now will more likely be a measure of product line defects and not durability over time.

So you're arguing that the demographic least likely to buy the Wii in the first place (the so-called "hardcore") is going to have a profound effect in counterbalancing folks like you and I who buy a lot of Wii games?  In your haste to insult the viewpoint I am presenting, I don't think you've entirely thought out your own.

Next time, please attempt to present your position without being condescending and insulting.  I notice a lot of hostility in your posts and I think your arguments would greatly benefit were you to focus less on attacking the other person and more on the topic itself.

So I destroyed your argument and now you revert to "attacking the other person" like you say.
I thought you would put a better fight than that.
It was easy because I used the exact same fallacies as yours.
BTW, I know perfectly that I never attacked you but only your arguments. If you felt offended, perhaps you shouldn't write fallacies upon fallacies.

And I'll point out how wrong your argument is again with your failure rate. It just shows you're very bad at some maths problems, or it's a big fallacy made on purpose, that people may miss.
It's simple really, your premise is already wrong, so everything that follows in your argument just fails hard.
Your premise is that, I cite, "The irony is that the failure rate becomes more significant as time goes by". Of course, this is plain wrong. What's becoming more significant as time goes by is the failure probability, not the failure rate.
It was very easy to spot. And nearly every one of your posts actually start on a premise that is plain false like this one.
The failure probability of a product gives us the failure rate. Of course, we can't know it beforehand, so we calculate the failure probability based on real world data which is the failure rate.
Basically, failure rate is not a function of time, failure probability is.

And as every console has a failure probability, hell, every product has one, this argument is just a red herring. Because this won't affect a newcomer more than on other consoles. People expect products to have defects, just not on the level of the X360. If it had been this console in place of the Wii, yes, newcomers would have a very bad first experience with videogame consoles.
Fortunately, the Wii has one of the lowest failure rate.
So basically, you tried again to make a weakness off one of Wii's strength.

How could this ever happen? That's why I call you on the numerous illogical things you said in this only thread, it's just amazing how someone can manage to get wrong with sth that goes against common sense, so many times in one thread, sometimes in one post.

Used it this morning...

Nobody is debating that there are people who own fewer games than you or other people. In fact the very post you're replying to is making that point.  You've either missed the point of my post completely or you're simply trying to toy with me.

There are a number of reasons we don't need to consider the failure rate but for the sake of ending the argument,  if you can find solid data on the failure rates I see no reason not to add it. Honestly, if you can find solid data on the failure rates I'd be interested in seeing it for my own edification.

Now the conversation has gotten fuzzy, and I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make because you seem to have changed positions without notice when it suits you.  Given your admittance to doing such things already in this thread perhaps you should define the position you're trying to defend and what it is you object to in what I've said so we can clarify the situation going forward.