People keep saying that Nintendo haven't had a game to show what the pad can do. These same people haven't played Nintendo land then. It amazes me that the people criticizing the Wii U are those who have very little to no experience with it. As a Wii U owner, I'm very happy with it and glad Nintendo went the direction they did.

Another thing that gets me is those saying they rather the pro controller. It's just a pad without the screen and the benefits.

They could have done something like this:

Pack A: Console, Pro Controller (with trigger shoulder buttons), Wiimote, Nunchuck, New Super Mario Bros U at 250$
Pack B: Console, Tablet, Wiimote, Nunchuck, Nintendo Land at 350$

ask me again after this holiday... 

Hmm, just think if Nintendo had kept the SNES style controller, added joysticks and a 2nd L & R button. Oh wait... Sony did that instead, calls it the dual shock and has remained almost unchanged ever since. 

No. I'm not sure the second screen works as well for console as it does for handhelds, but as long as Sony/MS still offer a traditional gamepad as the primary input, I have no problem with Nintendo experimenting with different control schemes.

Yes I would prefer that because

1) Nintendo's SOFTWARE alone would make their platform unique to the XBox One and PS4. Do you confuse the SNES with the Genesis even though most third party games were multi-plat? Not even close, each system had a very distinct personality. It's because Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island, Star Fox, DKC, Zelda: LttP, Super Metroid, etc. are very different from anything on the Genesis. Games define hardware, not controllers or screen technology.

2.) It would save me roughly $400-$500+ (when controllers and such are factored in) from having to buy a PS4/XB1 for third party content. $400-$500 that I could then use to buy actual games with. I like the Uncharted and Halo franchises, but I can live without them if it saves me that kind of cash. I think many Nintendo fans would be in the same boat, we've been held hostage the last 3 console generations having to buy other consoles to get a full diet of balanced gaming, it gets annoying (and expensive) after a while.

3.) Nintendo overestimates Sony and MS. They don't need to run away and not compete or try to hide behind controller novelties to be relevant in the game business. They should rather just make the system third parties want and not cripple the appeal of the system by making it too child-ish. Mario alone ensures the system will always have a nice amount of family appeal, but take a page from Disney did in the 1990s onwards, and don't pigeon-hole oneself as a "family company" only.

4.) You could still make Nintendo Land + the tablet controller. Just bundle it together like Wii Fit + Balance Board and encourage third parties to use of the off-TV feature. It doesn't have to be sold with the console though if most games aren't going to make use of it or if developers really have to stretch game concepts to figure out how to integrate the controller into the gameplay in a meaningful way.

5.) I don't think the tablet screen actually improves the gameplay experience tangibly enough in the majority of software titles to justify eating up so much of the hardware budget. It's trying to be different for the sake of being different, rather than being different for the sake of a real need. In other words -- it's a forced idea rather than one that naturally encourages game innovation.

6.) Most all Nintendo software titles would benefit from better hardware even in a small way without a massive increase in budget. Games like Pikmin 3 and NSMBU could be rendered in 1080p versus 720p for better visual clarity and have better anti-aliasing thrown in. Zelda could have more characters on screen and/or a larger draw distance. Metroid could have more realistic lighting, etc. etc.

7.) They need to get over the GameCube. The GameCube failed because Nintendo didn't market it well enough, made many design errors with the hardware (purple lunchbox design, no DVD playback for the time), didn't "bring it" with their 1st/2nd party software, and gave Sony way too long of a headstart.

They need their point of difference, so I don't agree with just beefing up the power and selling it with a pro controller. That said, I don't know what the answer is. They can't take Microsoft and Sony head on.

With a full year head start and a better software lineup and good marketing I disagree. One of MS or Sony would be the odd man out, with Nintendo pretty much assured at least a solid no.2 spot.

It's fine to be different where it makes sense, but forcing that by trying to adhere to some kind of ridiculous "we have to make a new wacky controller every time and sell the console around that" is a silly strategy. It works if there is a real need for that type of industry change, like the Wiimote did, but if its not that, then it's just putting all your eggs in the basket of a gimmick.

And that's insanely risky.

Like I said, the SNES was very different from the Genesis, even after Sega copied the six button controller and made it standard on the Genesis. You still wouldn't confuse one console for the other. It's because Nintendo consoles will always inherintely be unique by default because you can't play Mario/Zelda/DKC/Pikmin/etc. on other platforms.

No. Then we would have three systems that are almost exactly the same. I don't think the market would support such a situation. I'd be willing to bet you would end up with a situation like the PS2 gen, one console dominating and 2 'also-rans'.

A Gamecube like console would be ideal for the hardcore gamer but Nintendo already tried that.

The PS2 is kinda unique, because it existed in the age of console exclusives.

Today, third parties can't afford to make many titles exclusive. Things like Titanfall are extreme exceptions and even there it sounds like that's a timed exclusive at best.

If the GameCube had Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Grand Theft Auto 3, and launched roughly the same time as the PS2 and Nintendo didn't make divisive design choices with Mario/Zelda ... I think you're talking a whole different ball game that generation.

Full marks to Sony for taking full advantage of a year headstart, creating a lot of hype behind the console, and tying up most of the big name 3rd party games exclusive though, but in today's market, a lot of these advatanges they leaned on that console cycle would be rendered moot.

The equivalent today to that would be the PS4 having Call of Duty, Destiny, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc. exclusive and a full year headstart ... of course they'd trample Nintendo and MS.