No one really even wants that $299.99 basic Wii U anyway (apparently readily easy to find even on Black Friday), and things look dubious as to the Wii U repeating the original Wii's success as a purely casual gaming craze. So why not have gone with a $349/$399 split on consoles and pumped an extra $50 into the system performance?
A beefier CPU/GPU + bump up that eDRAM to 48-64MB, increase the speed of the general RAM, and that would've given IMO Nintendo definitevely better versions of all the big multi-plats, whether it was BLOPS2 or Assassin's Creed 3.
That could've built a real foothold with core gamers, and then third parties wouldn't really have a choice in ignoring the system for games like GTAV and BioShock Infinite. Star Wars 1313 and Watch Dogs would be locks, not "maybes". And I don't think it would've hurt with non-gaming functionality such as Nintendo TVii or Miiverse either, more power = better multitasking, web browsing, etc. all around.
I think developers are hungry for a new platform, and don't neccessarily need a 10x leap from the PS3/360 as that would be too costly in development costs. But Wii U simply doesn't represent enough of a jump. A sweet spot probably could've been reached here by Nintendo, but I think they really missed an oppurtunity by making a system far too close to two active systems already on the market.
It could've developed a nice following I think even with Western devs wary of rising development costs and looking for a something to sell on now as the PS3/360 have grown tired. Instead we got basically a straight PS3/360 port box ... and not really even a good one so far. Give these devs are no-brainer, more powerful machine and they'll use it, but enough of this "well, maybe it's more powerful if you really tweak it" nonsense. It's 7 years younger than the 360. It should easily blow it out of the water without much fuss.
