So does that mean if the Wii U gets cheaper these people will buy the Wii U and those similar games because they like them (assuming they do)?

I don't think he's suggesting that they're in any way exactly the same; just that they're very similar, and the moderate quality difference isn't enough to justify a $300 purchase.

Think of it this way: Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Land are two very similar games. They run on the same engine, feature roughly the same story (King K. Rool steals DK's banana hoard), have exactly the same mechanics and playable characters, etc. One, however, was for the SNES, and the other for the Game Boy.

I would argue (and I think nearly everyone who played the two titles would agree with me) that DKC is easily the better game. The hardware limitations for the Game Boy are evident, the game looks much better on the SNES, the level design is a step up, etc. That said, the two games are quite similar, and I doubt the casual fan would be able to justify a console purchase to play another version of a game they can get (albeit with a moderate drop in quality) on a system they own already.

Totally agree. This current strategy of making HD/Wii U versions of all the games in the 3DS library is foolish. Sure the Wii U ones are generally more expansive and have more content/options and are designed with longer play sessions in mind, but other than that it's just a fresh coat of HD paint...not enough to justify twice the cost for the system and a 50% markup for the games for most consumers.

Why Wii U needs an open-world, 3D Zelda title, games like "X" and Bayonetta 2, and a true single-player epic 3D Mario title...among other things. Wii U games need to offer drastically different experiences than what you can get from 3DS games. Unfortunately 3DS is powerful enough that it allowed them to make the types of games they've gotten so used to making for over a decade...almost any Gamecube or Wii title could run on 3DS...so they made "console-like" games for 3DS, but just altered the gameplay so they would be suitable for short bursts of play (something Sony and the Vita haven't quite figured out...or at least didn't right away). So now, unfortunately just having the same games, but in HD and without the "short bursts of play" alteration, the Wii U games aren't different enough to justify the cost...unless you're a Nintendo loyalist.

I'm not saying 3D Land and 3D World are the same, I'm saying to a non-hardcore-fan looking for a Nintendo fix, they could easily seem too similar to justify the price difference.

If a person came up to me right now and asked "what system should I buy to play Nintendo games?" I would say 3DS.

I agree entirely, for once. The two systems ARE very similar in experience, and I DO see many people not seeing the WiiU's offerings as that much more worthwhile.

The experiences are absolutely still very different, as Jizzbeard said, but you're right - the average consumer doesn't see it that way, and they ARE more similar than any handheld + console combo ever has been.

Maybe to a certain extent, but the console and handheld markets don't exactly overlap. I think there are more pressing factors holding the wii u down than just the potential 3ds cannibalization.

I would have to agree with the assessment that handhelds and consoles have more in common than ever before. The 3DS is capable of rendering advanced 3D worlds for modern gameplay. It may not be as pretty as it is on consoles, but the gameplay is very similar. And everyone knows (deep down) that the gameplay is really what matters.

Why dont handheld and console markets overlap? I hear people say this all the time but have never heard a legitimate reason why they dont.

Nintendo is dividing there market for kids. Who can afford both in this day. Therefor its competing against its self.