Of course the Wii U is great value, you get superior remote play out of the box without the need to shell out a fortune for a handheld.

So big corporations were the good guys all along!

I would love to play dark spiders 2 lol

Their forecasts indicate that they do not expect to sell Wii Us.

Wasn't the Wii Mini released after the Wii was dead anyway? How many people brought it?... Maybe 10? Yet, the Wii U is still a new system. There IS still confusion about the Wii U being a tablet controller for Wii, i don't think we need to complicate things ever further by saying to customers that you require an accessory to play most of it's game. The GamePad is fine and dropping it wouldn't help sales either way. Also, i don't think it's so expensive to produce as people say it is. It's basically a wireless controller with a low-res resistive single touch screen attached to it. It uses decade old technology...

As you said, Amiibo is a pretty huge success for Nintendo, so getting rid of the GamePad would make them totally useless. They would be reduced to overpriced action figures no one would buy.

No you're renting the games. Not getting them for free. Get with it. Cancel your plus subscription and those games go into the wind. Unlike the occasional game that VALVE actually gives me. Also the ability to sell ingame items I earn for real cash. Which gives me more option to buy games. Steam is far superior to any consoles online.

Yeah ok error, I'm renting 72 games a year that I keep as long as I'm subscribed and just keeps growing every year. Even If I ubsub I can just come back and have all those games still. That's the best renting service I've ever seen. Trying to make it seem bad compared to Steam is really funny. I've been a Steam user since 2007 and They barely give out any free games and if they do it's usually really old. The ingame items stuff isn't for me because it seems useless, annoying and just horribly made in general. If you think that is far superior to 72 games a year and 3gb cloud storage that's fine but it just puzzles me how little it offers in comparison.

PS: I just realized that what you said and what I replied with has nothing to do with the Wii U and the whole argument in the first place. The late reply to the thread confused me.

Seems Nintendo knows exactly what to expect, since Wii U is on track to meet their expectations (3.6 Million projected this financial year).

"Zekkyou" said this: "Doesn't change the fact your original comment is nonsense. The estimated lifetime (5~ years) energy cost of an X1 is about $150." I'm glad he knows how much energy a system uses over a 5 year time span when he's assuming how much time someone is gonna spend on a console gaming per day (which he didn't even specify) when everybody's gaming time varies by an incredible amount of time especially over a 5 year time span. The majority of X-box and Playstation owners are probably teenagers from 13-20 who have loads of free time on their hands and love online gaming for the most part like COD and Halo and now GTA5. I would say owners of those consoles average 3-6 hours a day at least givin that amount of time per day over 5 years i'm thinking it would be more than $150 but who knows because nobody knows how much it costs to run consoles unless you never turn a light on and the only thing you run is your game console and even then you have to have your TV on and your internet running to play online games. But to tell someone their comment is "nonsense" and then to state the cost of a consoles energy consumption over a 5 year timespan (not even knowing how many hours per day the console is on using electricity) like it's a fact in my opinion is "nonsense."