I think the real complaint is that a lot of the posts that are trying to make a point are doing so poorly, almost as if they haven't absorbed any of the reasoning from the preceeding posts. It can be a bit frustrating to read responses with very little coherent arguments, just a lot of venting about personal opinions. Personal opinions and impressions do not make for compelling rhetoric.
One person says "I didn't like the Wii, or the games that were released for it. Therefore it was a bad video game system that was not successful."
Another person points out, "That's your personal opinion. It may not have been successful for you, because you personally didn't like it. However, by every metric outside of your personal tastes, the system was objectively successful. It sold well, made lots of money, and garnered widespread critical praise and cultural acceptance."
Conflating personal impressions with facts isn't persuasive. We've all been there, and we've all done that. So anyone with any common sense can see such reasoning for what it is.
Take Rome's statements as an example. He points out that Sony was able to turn things around for the PS3, and eventually sell a decent number of them, thanks to the previous success of the PS2. He posits that Nintendo won't be able to succeed with the Switch because the Wii U failed, and "turning around" a system like this requires that its predecessor be successful. But this reasoning doesn't hold water. The PS1 succeeded, even though it was Sony's first system, and they had no console experience prior. The Wii succeeded, despite the fact that the GameCube had sold less than either the PS2, or the XBox, itself a new competitor in the market. (and the GameCube sold less than the N64) So what has occurred in the past does not support his reasoning.
Thank you, Mr. Kain for coming here and saving us. I'm glad you think you must be the only one who has any sense of reason.
I don't even know where to begin with the level of arrogance in this post. Your comment about my apparent lack of reasoning in suggesting the PS2's success was a factor in the PS3's leaves me to conclude that you may simply be unable to grasp the rather rudimentary concept of using past history to analyze events. It's, well, one of the fundamental ways we examine many actions.
You must also know nothing about advertising or brands. As someone who works in the game industry, and in particular, was charged with managing parts of Nintendo Gamecube's marketing initiatives (among other clients), I can assure you how a company manages its brands with customers affects future performance. I can assure you the vast success of the brand, Sony PlayStation, helped the company dig itself out of the almost-fiasco that was its successor, PlayStation 3. I can assure you the vast network of third parties that Sony PlayStation catered to, generously embraced, and active supported, appreciated the PlayStation brand, such that they continued to support the console during difficult times because the brand carried a legitimacy and hipness inside the industry.
The Nintendo brand is - like any other brand - a sum of the company's successes, failures, and decisions. I never said past failure mandates future failure. That's asinine. What past failures do is harm a brand; it makes consumers doubt the company's future actions. In that sense, it results in making future success less likely. If you find that illogical, then I'm unsure you understand what logic actually is. I recommend you stay away from law school.
By your reasoning, there is apparently no basis to judge anything based on past actions because there is supposedly an exception. Couldn't it be that the PS1 succeeded because Nintendo made serious miscalculations with the N64? Or because Sony had worked with Nintendo on the console, and had studied what Nintendo had done and not done, and then leaned on those technologies Nintendo (wrongly) ignored? Nintendo's inability to accept and embrace the benefits of CD-ROMs could be seen as a failure to better analyze the past disadvantages of cartridges, and what gaming customers were looking for (i.e. voice acting, cinema-like cutscenes - elements that were hard to deliver on expensive, data limited cartridges).
My reasoning about the Switch's tough road ahead is based on Nintendo's repeat failures to understand its past actions, and a seemingly tone-deaf approach to analyzing their decisions - good and bad - in the context of where the industry is headed. The Wii was successful because Nintendo had a good pulse on a casual gaming community that had not yet been exposed to smartphones and free mobile games. The Wii U failed for a host of reasons. Ultimately, it was because Nintendo failed to understand why the Wii was successful, and failed to understand that success in the context of the industry as a whole.
if you're suggesting the Gamecube failed, that's an incorrect assumption. Nintendo made money on every Gamecube sold; and while it may not have sold as well as PS2 and Xbox, keep in mind Microsoft lost millions on the Xbox to try to establish its brand. I doubt you'll find many at Microsoft who would necessarily declare the Xbox a success. MS was willing to burn millions to get into the gaming industry because - guess what - they looked at the history of the market, saw an opening, and analyzed the past to project the industry's direction.
So excuse me if I take offense that you think my thoughts lack reasoning. I think the arrogance in your tone shows a blatant lack of sophistication, and frankly, the responses you offer lack any understanding of the facts or events of that time. You give no indication that you know anything about videogame history. You don't seem to know Sony and Nintendo jointly made the PlayStation. You don't seem to know that Microsoft rushed to the 360 because the OG Xbox was in fact a fiscal fiasco even Gates retrospectively suggested was too high a price for MS to have paid just to get a brand in the door.
You don't seem to understand at all the industry forces that Nintendo is again ignoring with the Switch, or how any of the decisions that it has made may be fatal given it is now releasing mid-cycle as opposed to start-cycle like it did with the Gamecube, Wii, or Wii U. All the dynamics and risks that are at play now given what the past tells us -- your comments either ignore them or show you have no grasp of them.
So before you go on and accuse someone of lacking reason, I would check to make sure you know enough about the subject. In my view, you sound like a fanboy desperate to pretend like you're the superior mind around here, but without any actual knowledge of the facts, history, and nuances around them. If you're so much better at persuading others, then I'd like to see a better grasp of the facts and the analysis in your skin-deep examples.
ing video games. 
