Sphinx

I was with you until you said gimmicky motion controls. Every console, controller, and game is a gimmick. Consoles (great power, beautiful graphics, DVD/Blu-ray, and online capabilities) are a gimmick. Controllers(buttons, pad, sticks, motion, and touchscreen) are a gimmick. Games (FPS, RPG, Platformer, Movie based, storytelling, and action/adventure) are gimmicks. The talk of third party support makes no sense. All consoles have third party support or all games would be by first party and the rare second party companies. It isn't whether Third party support will be on the Wii U but what kind of third party support.

I'm sorry that you don't like my terminology, but that's really beside the point. What I was getting at is that motion controls  tend to not really enhance the core experience. The WiiU on the other hand the potential to add depth to a variety of genres in ways that we've never seen.

I respect your point, but I really gotta disagree with you on this one... the 1st party content appeals to a certain type of gamer (mostly, the kind that was perfectly happy with the Wii, as well), but not to the audience of gamers currently on other systems, or about ready to go to other systems - both those that have left the Wii because they felt it ignored them, and those that never took Nintendo seriously in the first place.

The real problem is this.  With the much lower install base of a newly launched system, and the recent memory of abysmally low sales for 3rd party games on the Wii, developers will, naturally, be hesitant to make anything truly original for the WiiU.  3rd parties need either big sales numbers or big Nintendo support to justify design risks.  If all that the WiiU gets from 3rd parties is bland ports of games available on other systems, the WiiU may be looking at a repeat of the Wii situation, where 3rd party support evaporates and Nintendo is left with the only content on the system.  Cross-platform games are okay... but they don't help the system itself succeed if there's no wide install base to buy them.

This is what Nintendo needs the 3rd party exclusives for.  3rd party exclusives draw wider ranges of new people to a system - get them in the door - and that allows all cross-platform games to sell well.  If you can make a Sony fanboy break down and buy a WiiU for those two or three cool exclusives (like I bought an Xbox for Mass Effect and Gears of War), then you've got them for the cross-platforms, too.  If you don't have them, then the cross-platforms don't sell at all.

The people who are all OMG'ing for a new Animal Crossing are NOT the same ones obsessing over the latest COD zombie mode DLC.  The difference makes a big difference in a systems financial viability...

If Nintendo wanted to make those types of games exclusive to the Wii U then they would hire a renowned studio and publish the games themselves. The original Mass Effect was exclusive to the Xbox 360 only because Microsoft was the publisher, and the same goes for the Gears of War trilogy. There's a reason why third party exclusives are practically non existent on the PS3 and Xbox 360. You can't expect third party publishers independently to spend millions upon millions of dollars to create exclusive games for a system and therefore miss out on a TON of potential revenue.

What needs to set the Wii U apart is its control scheme. Third parties should enhance multi-platform games sold for the Wii U by incorporating the uniqueness of the touchscreen, and the potential it holds. That would set the Wii U apart from the PS3 and 360, and would give gamers a reason to purchase a Wii U. The situation with the Wii is much different for 2 primary reasons: 1.) The system is significantly less powerful and therefore unable to handle most third party content. 2.) The motion controls are much more gimmicky then the Wii U's touch screen, and didn't do much to enhance the core experience.

It would be a smart move if it were showcased as a release title. Even some of the biggest Nintendo haters can admit that Smash Bros. is a great series.

Exactly how did they learn that "fact" from this generation? By selling out every single console shipped for the first few months of production like they both did? By the 50+ Million consoles sold? The 360 sold over 10 million copies within it's first two years (only using the first two years because after that you need to start taking larger drops in price into consideration due to price cuts) the PS3 did the same, selling over 10 million units within it's first two years.

You truly believe Microsoft and Sony weren't/aren't happy with over 10 million sold in the first two years and over 50 million sold to date? Sure the Wii has sold more but since we're talking about price lets say the "average" price of every Wii sold was $200 and the average price of every PS3 and 360 sold was $300, in reality the Wii number is likely a bit lower and the PS3/360 number a bit higher but this will provide a fine example. Now, go ahead and do the math 70 Million Wii's x $200, 50 Million PS3's or 360's x $300. You may be surprised by just how small the difference in revenue is. Now factor in the fact that everything for the consoles right down to games and peripherals have those same price differences and you start to understand that while the Wii has sold more, it doesn't necessarily mean it's earned higher revenues.

And as far as this mythological shifted market, it's a complete fallacy. What proves it? Slower sales causing console price drops years after they are released just like every other console generation has had? Surely your not referring to the argument industry "experts" claim that Iphone games are replacing console games, no one is leaving their Wii, 360, or PS3 for Iphone games...your simply seeing people that would never normally get into console games playing Iphone games because they are so cheap and a good way to pass time wherever you are. Iphone apps will NEVER directly cut into the console market, personally I highly doubt they'll ever even cut into the handheld market.

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. Sony's Playstation division was operating at a loss during their 2006-2009 fiscal years. Their losses were pretty atrocious, and would've been much worse had it not been for the resilience of the PS2 and continued success of the PSP. Also, your Wii numbers are not correct. The Wii has sold approximately 85 million worldwide, not 70 million.

The shifted market I'm referring to is increased consumer demand for cheaper and inferior gaming that emphasizes innovation over processing power. No one would have guessed in 2006 that the Wii would take nearly 50% of the console market share, because no one believed that gamers would be attracted to the Wii's lackluster technical specs and performance. Personally, I'm not happy with the market shift myself, but it most certainly exists nonetheless.  

This is another statement already proven wrong by the current generation of consoles. Were Move and Kinect not extremely obvious "me too" products to capitalize on what Nintendo started with Motion gaming? How bout the implementation of Netflix into all three consoles after seeing it debut on one? Were trophies not a direct answer to achievements? These companies could care less if people thing they are "ripping off the competition", if it will improve their consoles, thus improving their sales, you can bet they'll gladly rip anyone off. That's not even something that only applies to the gaming world, it applies to literally every industry and is commonplace, once a company establishes "innovation" it WILL be copied by their competitors.

Kinect was most definitely not a "me too" product, and instead offered a unique experience. Playstation Move on the other hand did not sell well at all because it offered nothing new, and bundling it with the Playstation 3 increased the price to nearly $400. People don't buy products that they can easily purchase for a much lower price.

Netflix on the other hand is a service that doesn't require millions of dollars in research and development, manufacturing costs, etc., so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, this ties in to the first statement and the last statement but to elaborate further, people said the same thing about the PS3, there was no way at $600 it would be sell at the same level as the 360, go ahead and look up the numbers of the 360 from '05 to '07 (it's first two years) and the PS3 from '06-'08 (again, it's first two years). You might be a bit surprised that the console outrageously priced $200 higher (the PS3) than it's closest competitor (the 360) was stride for stride with the 360 during the two consoles first two years on the market respectively.

You also need to look back at the previous generation. The Playstation 2 sold nearly 140 millions units, while the Xbox sold a mere 20 million or so. The Xbox userbase was tiny, and gamers trusted the Playstation brand. The fact that the Xbox 360 sold at the same level as the Playstation 3 is actually a testament to the DRAMATIC shift in market share between the two companies that resulted from the Playstation 3's lackluster performance and high price. Sony was dominating the market from 1996-2006, but they completely blew it during the Playstation 3's first few years.

If your asking yourself why I always leave the Wii out of the PS3/360 discussion it's because the PS3 and 360 do NOT target the same core demographic and thus are NOT direct competitors with the Wii, just because they are all video game companies doesn't mean they view them as direct competition. The PS2 and Xbox did not contend directly with the Gamecube, the 360 and PS3 do not contend directly with the Wii and the 720 and PS4 will not contend directly with Project Cafe.

That's ridiculous. If the PS3 and 360 weren't competing with the Wii then they never would have released Move or Kinect in order to attract the casual market.

The same is true in the video game world and has been for over a decade now, Nintendo took the role of the cheaper company that produced the cheaper product starting with the Gamecube and Sony and Microsoft take the role of the "luxury" manufacturer making the fancy high end models starting with the PS2 and Xbox respectively. Don't forget that Sony ALWAYS priced themselves $100 ahead of Nintendo ever since entering the market with the original PS and the PS2 debuting at $299 (higher than the Wii at it's launch) while still managing to dominate both generations.

The very key difference is that back then the Gamecube offered absolutely nothing innovative. It was merely an inferior product that didn't catch the consumer's eye.

Hopefully all of this helps illustrate the point that being priced significantly higher than Cafe would mean squat for Sony and Microsoft, even with higher prices and lower sales revenues can be even and gamers have already proven they are willing to pay for the bells and whistles.

Except revenues have NOT been even. I don't know where you're getting your info from.

Most multiplatform games are FPS, and if I ever wanted to play such a "hardcore" FPS, and the Wii version wouldn't be dumbed down, I would buy it for my Wii - because I can't stand dual analog controls.

Also, how can third parties complain about bad selling games if they dumb them down themselves?
I understand that developers like Capcom have every right in the world to complain about Okami selling bad, but most devs you're talking about already made dumbed down versions from the beginning. They didn't realize over time that they don't get revenue for their games, most of them didn't even try to make them good - or didn't make games for Wii at all.

This isn't due to the inferiority of the Wii compared to PS360, but only due to their laziness. Don't forget that there still are some devs who don't ignore the Wii. After all, games like Okami, Monster Hunter Tri, The Conduit, Red Steel 2 and Epic Mickey are some examples of good Wii-exclusive games that weren't made by Nintendo. These games might sell less than Crap Call of Duty, but they show that it's easily possible to make amazing games for the Wii.

Most multiplatform games are not just FPS. Yes, there are a lot of FPS games on the market due to the genre's popularity, but some of the best racing games (Need for Speed), sports games (NCAA Football), action RPG games (Mass Effect 2), open world games (Red Dead Redemption), action-adventure games (Assassin's Creed), fighting games (Super Street Fighter IV), etc are multi-platform third-party games.

Third-parties have to dumb down their games on the Wii due to the Wii's limitations. Graphics and online play are both inferior on the Wii, and third-parties have to spend a ton of money redesigning the game, making the game Wii compatible, and so on. When they decide to not publish a game on the Wii, they factor in a cost-benefit analysis. They ask themselves whether or not publishing a game on the Wii is profitable, and many third parties have come to the conclusion that it is not. Multi-billion dollar companies don't make these decisions because they're "lazy", they make them based upon very complex business models.

The fact is that a third-party like Rockstar doesn't see a point in publishing a game like Red Dead Redemption on the Wii. This is because they know that the type of people who play Red Dead Redemption want great graphics and great online competitive play, which the Wii simply doesn't offer. As a gamer, I still can't comprehend how Nintendo keeps screwing up its online play. The Wii's online capability isn't even comparable to the original Xbox Live back in 2003. Friend codes are a joke, and games like Super Smash Bros. Brawl lag far too much online. I'm optimistic for the future though because Nintendo has admitted their mistakes, and is planning on hiring other companies to manage their networking and online development. If Project Cafe can reach the level that Xbox Live is currently at, they'll win back a ton of hardcore gamers.

And yes, there are some good third-party Wii titles. But, the list you mentioned is miniscule compared to the amount of third-party games that are exclusive to the HD consoles and not available on the Wii.

I agree that Call of Duty is crap. Battlefield Bad Company 2 owns it.