It's a business, isn't it? Wii got the most business, most sales, most profit, most new customers, etc. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Sony/MS would've sold their souls to see the success that Wii got, and they spent most of the generation trying to replicate it.
Tell that to Atari. The 2600 was the most popular system of its generation. Any company would kill for that kind of sales/attention/exposure.
The only problem is that the 2600 did what the Wii did, it poisoned their own well. It went from very popular to very unpopular in the minds of most gamers.
As such, the successors of the 2600 and the Wii failed in the market.
Do you think Microsoft right now envies Nintendo's position?
Let's imagine for a second that this is Generation 4. We have SNES and Genesis and Neo Geo or Turbo Grafx as a third (take your pick).
Imagine that the NeoGeo/Turbo Graphx sold 100 million units and Keith Courage was the best selling game ever (like Wii Sports is).
Now imagine that the SNES and Genesis both sold 60 million units.
Clearly NeoGeo/Turbo Grafx won the generation in terms of sales....
But looks what happens after. The gamers that played SNES/Genesis continue to define the culture of console gaming. More games are coming out that are similar to the games released for that system. No more Bonk or Samurai Showdown.
What would our conclusion be? Yes, absolutely NeoGeo/Turbo Grafx won the generation, but so what? If the content for those systems die and remain in that generation and become unpopular in future generations, what kind of victory is that?
1) Considering that the discussion here is simply "winning the generation", and not "corporate know-how to bank off that success", then the Wii won. Period.
2) Although I see what you were trying to relate to, the companies that made NeoGeo and Turbo Grafx did not release two best selling consoles from previous generations and have an install base. Nintendo's not a one-hit wonder company.
Again, not denying they botched the success of the Wii, but that's a different conversation.
If we're brining BC into this doesn't that support Wii being the victor as it is currently the only system properly supported by a current gen system? Wii U plays Wii games, PS4 and XBone don't play their direct predecessors' games. Their lineage was cut whereas the Wii still lives! It is the branch that did not snap!
Not to mention your digital library carries over. Whatever you got digitally for PS360 is stuck to those consoles. I bet Sony and MS couldn've made PS4/XBO back-compatible but it's easier/more profitable to just sell PS360s.
IMO Nintendo made the right choice with BC, but at the same time it's going to become underrated because most stores I've been to no longer have a large stock of Wii titles. Obviously it's different with web buying, but the mainstream exposure is vanishing.
and I don't trust streaming BC. I'd rather just own the game.
Care to clarify besides blithely stating people are moving goalposts or whatever else you think my evil agenda is? I don't own Sony or MS consoles for the record.
Where did I say you were the one making the argument? You can't go a single page in this thread without seeing at least one poster making the argument that you claimed was a red herring by Nintendo zealous fans. That's blatantly not true. It's zealous haters creating the argument and rational people arguing against a very real statement. I've never understood why console haters exist to begin with, but they do and they're completely insufferable.
Adorable. I like the way you immediately jump into attacking me and associating me with these zealous fans that are apparently just throwing out preposterous arguments. Allow me to link you to my first post in this asinine thread:
It's not a competition. It's three different companies with three different products competing for marketshare... but it's not a competition. It isn't like Sony has a meeting after releasing the PS3 and are like "Okay guys, next time we need to do something that beats Nintendo's next console!"
They try to make profit, they try to drive sales, they don't try to "win".
Wii U plays all Wii games and even uses the same inputs, the games even play similarly.
PS3 sales were shared with the 360 which mimicked the content. So the PS3 was successful but could not become the sales winner because of that.
N64 and GameCube are not similar, but their similarity to each other does not matter because neither were similar to the mainline trunk.
This has nothing to do with mobile as all we are doing is comparing consoles to each other in a vacuum, relative to other consoles.
You know, when your ostensibly universal "assumptions about decades of history" have to have this many exceptions and qualifications to explain why this example doesn't count or why this other factor makes them not apply anymore, chances are the assumptions you made were never valid in the first place.
Tell that to Atari. The 2600 was the most popular system of its generation. Any company would kill for that kind of sales/attention/exposure.
The only problem is that the 2600 did what the Wii did, it poisoned their own well. It went from very popular to very unpopular in the minds of most gamers.
As such, the successors of the 2600 and the Wii failed in the market.
Do you think Microsoft right now envies Nintendo's position?
That's interesting, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the Wii console's success during the previous generation. The Atari 2600 clearly won the 2nd generation, and by that measure the Wii won the 7th generation.
Exactly. There isn't a single major company that relies solely on "our numbers are bigger," disregarding everything else, to make bold claims that it's winning at anything. When was the last time Amazon had net profit? Never? It's the most successful online retailer. They know they're in this for the longhaul. What is Apple's smartphone marketshare compared to Google Android's? A fraction of the latter, yet Apple is still considered the influential market leader and trendsetter.
For fucks' sake. Do some of you think the industry hinges overall success on the child-like mentality that rock beats scissors, or 5 is more than 4 therefore we win?
Looks like i was right earlier in this thread when I said PS360 had already outsold Wii on the software side; at least PS3 has, but I assume 360 has, too. This means both consoles have a better attach rate than Wii.
1) Considering that the discussion here is simply "winning the generation", and not "corporate know-how to bank off that success", then the Wii won. Period.
2) Although I see what you were trying to relate to, the companies that made NeoGeo and Turbo Grafx did not release two best selling consoles from previous generations and have an install base. Nintendo's not a one-hit wonder company.
Again, not denying they botched the success of the Wii, but that's a different conversation.
I forgot to add the prediction that if NeoGeo or Turbografx had a successor it too would have failed like the Wii U has (in that thought experiment). It doesn't matter how successful you are in a vacuum if the gaming culture either turns on you or does not accept your approach.
From the look of things, gamers have adopted the PS360 approach, which also translates very well to PC (as some have pointed out those same games get released on the PC as well). So Nintendo can either go the XBox 360 route, release early and mimic what the culture wants, or go it alone and probably fail again as long as the other two remain true to what they have been doing previously.
To follow up on this (it's rather amusing he made much the same comment I had after attacking my position) companies use this rhetoric as a marketing device. Yes they say these things, but it's for the appeal of share holders, media, etc. They do not strategize their products with the intent to "win" but rather just to be successful.
Seriously, it's either this or sales. Any other metric is either subjective (games library) or too fluid to matter ("Popular opinion of the brand", aka "I didn't pay any attention to what happened to Microsoft's brand in the space of a few months").
And as said before, it's hard to call a "winner" when the companies' sales don't depend on their competitors' failures.
Care to clarify besides blithely stating people are moving goalposts or whatever else you think my evil agenda is? I don't own Sony or MS consoles for the record. I have no personal interest in seeing any of these companies "win" like you do.
Exactly. There isn't a single major company that relies solely on "our numbers are bigger," disregarding everything else, to make bold claims that it's winning at anything. When was the last time Amazon had net profit? Never? It's the most successful online retailer. They know they're in this for the longhaul. What is Apple's smartphone marketshare compared to Google Android's? A fraction of the latter, yet Apple is still considered the influential market leader and trendsetter.
For fucks' sake. Do some of you think the industry hinges overall success on the child-like mentality that rock beats scissors, or 5 is more than 4 therefore we win?
That's interesting, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the Wii console's success during the previous generation. The Atari 2600 clearly won the 2nd generation, and by that measure the Wii won the 7th generation.
The Wii had the goal of selling millions of units and succeeded in selling millions of units. That is the goal of every console release. Nintendo didn't release the Wii U saying "Eh let's sit this generation out. They are failing at their goal of selling millions of consoles.
They were successful with the Wii but at a certain cost. The success did not exist in a vacuum. Nintendo invested time into features such as Motion controls that are now largely gone. They fore went HD development and became complacent with poor third party relations, OS functionality and more. Nintendo never had to try last generation once the system took off. And that bit them in the ass.
Lumping the systems together is due to their similarity. Systems with very similar content usually share the same sales/fate. While Xbox and PS2 had some of the same games, it came too late to enter gamers consciousness as a similar alternative.
Because PS2 dominated its generation, the PS3 was the successor. Microsoft did something smart by making the 360 similar to the PS3 in content before it was released, therefore piggy-backing onto it and intertwining its fate with it. Whether Microsoft was trying to mimic the PS3 in terms of content or the other way around, it worked.
W...wait... You're arguing for how similar the libraries were by mentioning MS moneyhatting exclusives early on? What? The only meaningful multiplatform game that they might not have got before hand was FFXIII.
Generation 8 will play out similarly to Gen 7 as long as the two systems (PS4 and Xbox One) remain similar. They are both accepted by the mainline gaming culture (that is to say most console gamers as a whole).
If PS? or the next XBox disentangle themselves, gamers will have to choose between them. If that happens, Nintendo has an opening, but until that time, they are being muscled out as long as Nintendo tries to be different.
Tell that to Atari. The 2600 was the most popular system of its generation. Any company would kill for that kind of sales/attention/exposure.
The only problem is that the 2600 did what the Wii did, it poisoned their own well. It went from very popular to very unpopular in the minds of most gamers.
As such, the successors of the 2600 and the Wii failed in the market.
Do you think Microsoft right now envies Nintendo's position?
The funny part about this is that it's not true. The Atari 2600 didn't poison the well, the well that was the Atari 5200 was a horrible system with a hilariously bad controller that didn't have enough to offer customers.
And that's what happened with the Wii U. Nintendo had a strong public brand with the Wii, they did a terrible job of giving people a reason to buy its successor.
The point is sales are the only metric that's not subjective. Maybe it's your opinion that that alone is not a good enough metric to determine a winner, but if gamers don't come to a consensus that can be quantitatively measured, you end up with thousands of posts of stupid arguments... kind of like this thread. So it's best to just go by the one thing that opinion doesn't influence aka facts.
LOL, bet OP wasn't expecting this thread to blow up the way it did. I mean, damn. What the hell did Nintendo do to people?! Next Ninty related thread needs to examine the source of this deep seated hate. It's time we heal. And, yes, by all measurable metrics, Nintendo "won".
Where did I say you were the one making the argument? You can't go a single page in this thread without seeing at least one poster making the argument that you claimed was a red herring by Nintendo zealous fans. That's blatantly not true. It's zealous haters creating the argument and rational people arguing against a very real statement. I've never understood why console haters exist to begin with, but they do and they're completely insufferable.
Adorable. I like the way you immediately jump into attacking me and associating me with these zealous fans that are apparently just throwing out preposterous arguments. Allow me to link you to my first post in this asinine thread:
If I say that the PS3's marketing strategy success was unlike the Wii's short-lived success at simply selling hardware, and one says "well then by that metric PS2 was a failure LOL," then that person is full of shit and setting up fallacious arguments. That's happening in this very thread. If you had a theoretical checklist of how the Wii succeeded, you would have to leave at least half the boxes empty. It was no smashing success like the PS2.
There are also a contingent of posters with the strawman argument that "the Wii U's failure doesn't retroactively make the Wii a failure, then that means the entire line of PlayStations failed due to the PS3 only selling 80 million." This is infuriating because no one has made any such inane comparisons.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing that it was a Pyyrhic victory? I definitely think it was due to valid reasons outlined in just the last few pages alone.
No one is talking about company press releases. Apple is the smartphone and tablet market leader with a fraction of total sales. They don't put out PR garbage to make such claims. It's simply accepted as fact. No one outside of gaming forums think that the Nintendo/Wii was a smashing success and a powerful industry leader post-2009. Someone earlier mentioned the Wii being mentioned in his econ(?) book, to which I say that book would need updating to reflect reality of 2010 onward.
If I say that the PS3's marketing strategy success was unlike the Wii's short-lived success at simply selling hardware, and one says "well then by that metric PS2 was a failure LOL," then that person is full of shit and setting up fallacious arguments. That's happening in this very thread. If you had a theoretical checklist of how the Wii succeeded, you would have to leave at least half the boxes empty. It was no smashing success like the PS2.
There are also a contingent of posters with the strawman argument that "the Wii U's failure doesn't retroactively make the Wii a failure, then that means the entire line of PlayStations failed due to the PS3 only selling 80 million." This is infuriating because no one has made any such inane comparisons.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing that it was a Pyyrhic victory? I definitely think it was due to valid reasons outlined in just the last few pages alone.
It wasn't a Pyyrhic [sic] victory, because the definition of a Pyrrhic victory is one that exhausts your resources, making further warfare impossible. A Pyrrhic victory in the game world would be something like if the PS3 had won, but Sony spent so much money getting the sales and mindshare that they couldn't put out a PS4, or they were forced to put out an inferior machine because they couldn't loss-lead.
You can say that Nintendo learned the wrong lessons from Wii's success, but that is a different issue entirely, based around the decisions that lead to the Wii U.
The funny thing is, I don't remember any of this salt when Sega, Sony, and Microsoft each tried to make gaming "cool and hip" to appeal to previous non-gamers. Were nerds this up in arms about the people who bullied them entering gaming to play sports games?
The funny thing is, I don't remember any of this salt when Sega, Sony, and Microsoft each tried to make gaming "cool and hip" to appeal to previous non-gamers. Were nerds this up in arms about the people who bullied them entering gaming to play sports games?
The funny part about this is that it's not true. The Atari 2600 didn't poison the well, the well that was the Atari 5200 was a horrible system with a hilariously bad controller that didn't have enough to offer customers.
And that's what happened with the Wii U. Nintendo had a strong public brand with the Wii, they did a terrible job of giving people a reason to buy its successor.
I disagree with the bolded part, after my experience with the Wii, I will never buy another Nintendo console, not even if they brought out a Zelda to rival Ocarina Of Time. The Wii left a really bad taste in my mouth.
I actually think the Wii U deserves more sales than it's getting, but after the N64 (not so much), GameCube and then the Wii, I'm done with Nintendo.
It wasn't a Pyyrhic [sic] victory, because the definition of a Pyrrhic victory is one that exhausts your resources, making further warfare impossible. A Pyrrhic victory in the game world would be something like if the PS3 had won, but Sony spent so much money getting the sales and mindshare that they couldn't put out a PS4.
There are also a contingent of posters with the strawman argument that "the Wii U's failure doesn't retroactively make the Wii a failure, then that means the entire line of PlayStations failed due to the PS3 only selling 80 million." This is infuriating because no one has made any such inane comparisons.
Honestly, I'm really happy for you that you have not encountered these inane comparisons. I really am. I also, very unfortunately, am here to inform you they have happened with such startling prevalence I don't know how you missed them, which was the only point I ever directed your way. I ask that you don't search for them for the sake of your sanity, and hopefully being able to keep some of your ability to reason.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing that it was a Pyyrhic victory? I definitely think it was due to valid reasons outlined in just the last few pages alone.
The point is it doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. The only keyword in that post that related to the question presented in the title is "victory". People can throw qualifiers, different metrics, subjective opinions etc. out there all they want... and they have... for 30-something pages. But it doesn't matter. The only quantifiable, solid non subjective basis we have at ALL to depend on for an inane question such as this that actually doesn't matter in the slightest bit to anyone but console warriors says that... yes, the Wii won last generation.
edit:
If you absolutely have to know I agree it was a pyyrhic victory. But that doesn't change a damn thing.
The funny thing is, I don't remember any of this salt when Sega, Sony, and Microsoft each tried to make gaming "cool and hip" to appeal to previous non-gamers. Were nerds this up in arms about the people who bullied them entering gaming to play sports games?
If we start adding what are essentially opinions and non quantifiable subjective preferences then what's stopping me to say that the Mega Drive won 16bit generation and that the Vita is kicking the 3DS?
Because by most objective metrics, it did and that is what "really matters"
Honestly, I'm really happy for you that you have not encountered these inane comparisons. I really am. I also, very unfortunately, am here to inform you they have happened with such startling prevalence I don't know how you missed them, which was the only point I ever directed your way. I ask that you don't search for them for the sake of your sanity, and hopefully being able to keep some of your ability to reason.
The point is it doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. The only keyword in that post that related to the question presented in the title is "victory". People can throw qualifiers, different metrics, subjective opinions etc. out there all they want... and they have... for 30-something pages. But it doesn't matter. The only quantifiable, solid non subjective basis we have at ALL to depend on for an inane question such as this that actually doesn't matter in the slightest bit to anyone but console warriors... is that yes, the Wii won last generation.
edit:
If you absolutely have to know I agree it was a pyyrhic victory. But that doesn't change a damn thing.
The overall winner of last gen in my eyes was us, it was one of the best gens ever and I for one loved it. I hope new gen builds on that and takes it to even greater heights.
Have you read the OP? Just because we can twist the general discussion into intelligent discourse doesn't change the fact that this thread was started by console warrior bullshit, it's been filled with console warrior bullshit, and hey, what do you know, it's basically just another thread filled with people who have so much pent up vitriol for Nintendo they just have to spew worthless opinions about it's library, creating back and forth arguments that never end between haters lovers and the very occasional rational poster. If all threads were like this?
I am chill. Just letting you know that unless someone is typing indecipherable gibberish, the Grammar Nazi nonsense ran its course in the mid 2000s, especially with people now using the web on smartphones and tablets.
A quick search. From wisegeek:
The term Pyrrhic victory has since moved from the military world into the business, legal and social worlds. In business, a company could leverage so much of its assets to acquire another company that the resulting merger sinks it financially. While the company can still claim ownership of a high-profile new division, the resultant costs in terms of employee attrition or available capital could make it a Pyrrhic victory. History is filled with examples of companies which have been crippled or damaged by investing too much money to acquire too little benefit, or those who have pursued expensive legal battles with little hope of a financial recovery through a favorable judgment.
Have you read the OP? Just because we can twist the general discussion into intelligent discourse doesn't change the fact that this thread was started by console warrior bullshit, it's been filled with console warrior bullshit, and hey, what do you know, it's basically just another thread filled with people who have so much pent up vitriol for Nintendo they just have to spew worthless opinions about it's library, creating back and forth arguments that never end between haters lovers and the very occasional rational poster. If all threads were like this?
More than a few people have contributed to answering the main question without resorting to console war bullshit. You should be a little more level-headed and not assume everyone is in it to troll or bash Nintendo or Sony or whoever. I don't agree all discussion should be stifled because some people can't handle this topic maturely.
I am chill. Just letting you know that unless someone is typing indecipherable gibberish, the Grammar Nazi nonsense ran its course in the mid 2000s, especially with people now using the web on smartphones and tablets.
A quick search. From wisegeek:
An empty victory, big losses, etc. It applies to Nintendo so well.
More than a few people have contributed to answering the main question without resorting to console war bullshit. You should be a little more level-headed and not assume everyone is in it to troll or bash Nintendo or Sony or whoever.
Sorry, It was irritating and unnecessary, you're right. I just couldn't help it as the term is the centerpiece of your argument.
I'm not contesting that the term can apply to the business world, I'm contesting that it applies here. Again, the bit you quoted refers to spending way too much capital, exhausting themselves, losing talent, etc. directly due to a nominal victory. None of these apply to the Wii situation. It was a resounding success by measures of business.
You what mate? I'm sorry, but no. Big losses? You're gonna have to elaborate. The Wii was nothing but pure gains. That part you bolded, just don't make sense to me.
They were successful with the Wii but at a certain cost. The success did not exist in a vacuum. Nintendo invested time into features such as Motion controls that are now largely gone. They fore went HD development and became complacent with poor third party relations, OS functionality and more. Nintendo never had to try last generation once the system took off. And that bit them in the ass.
Nintendo has only had good third party support when they strong-armed devs. They've been hemorrhaging third parties since N64, so that is not something specific to the Wii -> Wii U transition. I remember people bemoaning the Gamecube's lack of third parties, and that situation was generous compare to the dire state of Wii U.
The larger issue is that many people see those Wii console sales as sales to "Casuals"- people who play board games and wii sports and such. Since "casuals" bought Wii, those sales somehow don't count.
I contend that the primary difference between casual and hardcore is number of games bought/ hours played per year, so the wii fit moms and the annual Madden/CoD/GTA bros are all in that "Casual" grouping. Most people who buy consoles don't consume games at the rate of most gaffers. Heck, I don't even consume games at the rate of most gaffers.
Bottom line is sales are the only consistent, objective metric when measuring this. If you want to argue influential console of the generation, that's fine, but Wii won last generation, just as PS2 won the generation before that.
Pyrrhus destroys a Roman army in battle. Total victory. Then:
A) A storm kills all his men on the way back to Greece. (c.f. smartphone market disruption)
B) Pyrrhus goes mad and tells all of his men to kill themselves as thanks to the gods for their great victory. (c.f. terrible leadership decisions post-Wii)
Neither of these events retroactively make the battle itself a terrible, damaging event. (In my opinion, anyway).
I think it's too simple a solution to just look at sales and say the Wii won the generation. Here you have 3 consoles, two of which were much more expensive compared to the Wii, and for much of the generation they were twice the cost. In terms of sales in dollar amounts, the Xbox and PS3 both outsold the Wii.
If someone came up and said that Honda won the 2013 automobile wars because their Civic outsold the Mercedes S-Class 5-to-4, I would think that was just a stupid comparison, they are too different to make it so simple like that.
What about total software sales? Scores, hardware reliability, whether or not anybody actually plays the machine or just bought it on a whim (as is true with anyone I know with a wii), etc. etc.
I don't really care either way, it just seems like a silly argument to me. Unless there is a complete blowout (5-4 is not) I'd say it's too close to call.
I think it's too simple a solution to just look at sales and say the Wii won the generation. Here you have 3 consoles, two of which were much more expensive compared to the Wii, and for much of the generation they were twice the cost. In terms of sales in dollar amounts, the Xbox and PS3 both outsold the Wii.
If someone came up and said that Honda won the 2013 automobile wars because their Civic outsold the Mercedes S-Class 5-to-4, I would think that was just a stupid comparison, they are too different to make it so simple like that.
What about total software sales? Scores, hardware reliability, whether or not anybody actually plays the machine or just bought it on a whim (as is true with anyone I know with a wii), etc. etc.
I don't really care either way, it just seems like a silly argument to me. Unless there is a complete blowout (5-4 is not) I'd say it's too close to call.
I see what you're saying, but I don't think the luxury:economy car comparison holds up. There were literally only 3 home consoles this generation, and the price difference was rarely more than ~$100 spread between them. Also, cars (in the US anyway) are basically an essential expense, whereas video game consoles are not.
I think it's too simple a solution to just look at sales and say the Wii won the generation. Here you have 3 consoles, two of which were much more expensive compared to the Wii, and for much of the generation they were twice the cost. In terms of sales in dollar amounts, the Xbox and PS3 both outsold the Wii.
If someone came up and said that Honda won the 2013 automobile wars because their Civic outsold the Mercedes S-Class 5-to-4, I would think that was just a stupid comparison, they are too different to make it so simple like that.
What about total software sales? Scores, hardware reliability, whether or not anybody actually plays the machine or just bought it on a whim (as is true with anyone I know with a wii), etc. etc.
I don't really care either way, it just seems like a silly argument to me. Unless there is a complete blowout (5-4 is not) I'd say it's too close to call.
They were ahead in hardware sales, overall software sales, and overwhelmingly the winner in profits. You can do whatever math makes you feel better but the result will be the same. Frankly, it wasn't even a close race which is why this thread has provided so much entertainment.
I forgot to add the prediction that if NeoGeo or Turbografx had a successor it too would have failed like the Wii U has (in that thought experiment). It doesn't matter how successful you are in a vacuum if the gaming culture either turns on you or does not accept your approach.
From the look of things, gamers have adopted the PS360 approach, which also translates very well to PC (as some have pointed out those same games get released on the PC as well). So Nintendo can either go the XBox 360 route, release early and mimic what the culture wants, or go it alone and probably fail again as long as the other two remain true to what they have been doing previously.
Actually, I was referring to the predecessor, in that the Wii wasn't a fluke as Nintendo has dominated previous generations. The failure of sustainability and transition to the current gen is a whole different ballgame (which I am agreeing with you on).
I think it's too simple a solution to just look at sales and say the Wii won the generation. Here you have 3 consoles, two of which were much more expensive compared to the Wii, and for much of the generation they were twice the cost. In terms of sales in dollar amounts, the Xbox and PS3 both outsold the Wii.
If I say that the PS3's marketing strategy success was unlike the Wii's short-lived success at simply selling hardware, and one says "well then by that metric PS2 was a failure LOL," then that person is full of shit and setting up fallacious arguments. That's happening in this very thread. If you had a theoretical checklist of how the Wii succeeded, you would have to leave at least half the boxes empty. It was no smashing success like the PS2.
why do you need to have a checklist of other arbitrary points rather than the simple metric we have used for 25 years of sales for every other console generation? I just don't see how anything else matters when that's the only thing we've counted, certainly nobody goes back to previous generations and takes the prior and successor hardware and company strategy into account as well, we just count boxes. I really don't see how 100m sales and their best selling home console ever wasn't a 'smashing success' for Nintendo when it was a success they and everybody else immediately tried to emulate in one way, shape or form with motion controls. It might not have been a wonderful product for the people who preferred the games range elsewhere, and obviously today's HD Playstation and Xbox games take the lead from their own predecessors, but in both sales and profits the Wii was the very definition of a 'smashing success', I don't really see how you can argue otherwise. Does 'smashing success' in videogames require an ongoing influence down through future generations? I'm not sure that it does, I'm pretty sure companies just care about money.
Also, you keep saying the Wii was short-lived over and over again. It was short-lived compared to the PS3/360, but the Wii wasn't designed with a ten year life-cycle in mind: Nintendo consoles have pretty much always lasted 5 years, every Nintendo console I have owned since the NES has pretty much been replaced after 5 years. Of course it was their failure to not have a successor ready when the Wii was ready to bow out in 2011, but why do you keep mentioning it as if it's a failure of Nintendo to not stick to another companies stated hardware strategy when they never claimed they would do the same? Selling 100m consoles in half the time it takes your competitors to do the same isn't a bad thing. There's plenty enough to mock Nintendo for without claiming they have failed by a metric they never set out to meet, I'm not sure how you can accuse others of choosing strawman arguments while using it.
The Wii had an almost completely exclusive games range. Lots of people didn't think it was for them, and that's OK, but it doesn't mean it wasn't one of the videogame industry's big success stories.
