Well, in real terms, Wii U was selling 12K per week in the US in April. Give them a week at 400% of that, it's still just 48K. That sales level (a) is not high and (b) is not sustainable for the platform. Let's say just for argument that it recedes to 24000 in week 2. 18000 week 3. Would you argue that this is an unreasonable regression? Even if it settles in and remains at such an "elevated" level, it does not change the fact (and this is particularly relevant to the post originally replied to) that the Wii U would not be competitive or even particularly relevant.
Now, to go one step further, it is of course my expectation that sales will ultimately settle back in at the previous levels, as I believe firmly that a known single game does not matter. If a platform sold poorly before, it will continue to sell poorly (not long) after. But take my expectation out of it, reality is already portraying that whatever Wii U's boost is, it's not meaningful.
While I don't see the value in playing fortune teller and predicting the future, I will debate the relevance of a boost (or even no boost).
Wii U selling at ~100K worldwide per month, while anemic, has still put Nintendo in a position where they have developed and continue to develop quality titles for it. Obviously games like Mario 3D World, Pikmin 3, and even like Smash Bros and Mario Kart 8, were in development long before the horrible sales of the console would be solidified as fact. However as we just saw from E3, there are games, quality games, that likely started actual coding development after Nintendo saw the cards they had dealt themselves. Splatoon, Kirby Canvas Curse sequel, Mario Maker, Wooly Yoshi, (to a lesser extent zelda, but obviously there isn't much need to go into that). And others coming out soon that were likely started after the same fact (Pushmo World comes to mind).
I guess the point is.. what is the real goal of your sales goals (or their inability to hit them)? Is it just a number that you will condone the console being a success or not? Or a number that you believe others agree with as to if it's a success or not?
Because none of what I'm talking about relates to any of that. Under "sales of ~100K per month" or so, Nintendo still managed to put out an E3 that was unexpected and easy to get excited for. So my only expectation with sales... is that with "sales of ~100K
or more" they will continue to do the same.
Likewise at minimum, all the installed base really means is the potential for software units to hit. Now one could try to extrapolate what the Wii U's current install base might mean for some of those franchises.. but
as Polygon found out, that's a pretty dangerous game to play.
So anyway.. we can go back and forth on where we think sales will land and how poorly we think the system will do against the other two all day.. in the end it's two guys on a forum talking through their ass hoping that their selective demonstration of past performance holds up to put sales where they say. Or we can just go "whatever happens hopefully it's good enough to Nintendo to put out more E3 events like they did this year, and give us game lineups like they have planned for fall 2014 and into 2015".
I choose the latter and seriously, that's my only hope in sales.. that they're enough to allow them to do that. Beyond that, I really don't give a shit how a system performs in sales.
That audience is gone. Not sure how much more clear that can get. Those sales numbers were anamolies.
while I agree (the wii audience being gone) sales of those titles were still VERY successful on the GCN.. an audience which assuredly is not necessarily "gone" like the flash in the pan casual audience of the Wii.