Topic: What's the criteria for a New Nintendo IP?

I laughed way to hard at this

Very true, I told the OP in a different thread he may just want to get a Blog, especially since he doesn't really seem to participate in the discussions.

I don't know the exact reasons why Smash U is unpolished, but some of the things could probably be attributed to the huge work involved with getting a product ready for release for the Holiday 2014 season. Some examples:

• The user can't edit the shape of placed objects in the stage editor. The user can only draw, or erase+draw again.
• The menus don't work with the Gamepad touch screen. What's making this even more confusing is that at a few places, the Gamepad touch screen navigation actually works.
• The quality of the trophies differ a lot. Some trophy models are highly detailed, while some others are extremely low-poly models.
• All online aspects except regular Smash online are just features promised for a future update (including tourneys, tournaments, shareable stages, the Miiverse stage).

In regards to the OP's question, the definition of a Nintendo IP is the same as for other companies' IPs. If it can be legally protected as an IP (regarding copyrights, patents, etc), it's an IP. Regardless of what the Internet thinks.

Excellent question for these folks who always want to dismiss new Nintendo IPs.

But yeah, a new Nintendo IP is a new Nintendo IP. People like to say Nintendo hasn't made a new IP in ages but look at games Sakurai Samurai, Pushmo/Pullblox games and the Dillion Rolling Western games. Yes, all of these are only on 3DS or Wii U eShops, but they're still new IPs from Nintendo.

I'd rather have new gameplay ideas within established IP than old gameplay ideas hiding behind a new name.

But yeah, this.

Nintendo has 50+ new IPs since the Gamecube era. They just Don't Count™.

I would disagree. Nintendo is selling Splatoon for a full 60 dollars. I think it's going to have a lot of content in it's singleplayer alone.

Let's guess why these are only digital releases. Because they don't have the name Mario, Zelda, or Pokémon in them. So Nintendo "fans" won't buy them.

Id say if it exists in a new game universe and has original characters, its a new IP. i once saw a guy who insisted that Toad treasure tracker was a new IP. even thougj it has classic mario characters, gameplay based on the 3D world minigame and canonically exists in the universe of 3D world. he swore up and down it was a new IP without even giving arguments as to why. that said, i might consider cross-overs to be a semi new ip, like hyrule warriors

They're digital-only games because they're budget-sized. There's digital-only Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon games too. They're also budget-sized. For full retail new IP within the last few years, see Xenoblade, Wonderful 101, and Splatoon.

And no need to put "fans" in quotations to imply that people aren't real fans if they don't buy products that don't interest them.

They don't have so many IPs because they present most of their new ideas in old IP outfits.
Games like Mario Galaxy and A Link Between Worlds had core gameplay mechanics that distinguished them from the rest of their series. They could've easily created new characters for those games (and made ALBW less Hyrule shaped) and made them just as good.
Should they do such a thing the negative is that the first entries wouldn't sell as well.
The positive is that they'd probably be more likely to make more based on that mechanic. (As I imagine splatoon will get a sequel but Mario Sunshine didn't)