Why WiiU is the only viable strategy for Nintendo

[AnthonyW86]

''Suppose Nintendo had beefed up their specs to the point of the X-Box 720 and PS4. How much do you suppose that would cost them? Let's say... 70 dollars. Would that be a fair estimate? First parties make about 7 dollars per third party game sold. So, Nintendo would have to sell 10 third party games to make up the added cost. The attach rate for a system is, on average, about 10. So... the odds of Nintendo winning out on this would be slim. Of course this is an oversimplification as other factors come into play, but financially a more powerful system would not likely work.''

That argument is completely flawed. It assumes that the price of the console will stay the same with more expensive specs, and that the more expensive parts would have to be earned back with software sales. Nintendo doesn't like to lose money on it's hardware so they would have added $70 on top of the price. That means that it doesn't impact profitebility of the system at all. The question is would people buy a $400 Nintendo console?

''The other option would be eliminating the tablet and using that money to beef up specs. If they did that, we'd have a Wii U that would be an X-Box 720/PS4 but with the added benefit of Nintendo first party software. THIS would be the equivalent of a Gamecube, and that strategy would work out poorly. If Nintendo aimed at the same market as Microsoft and Sony do, they'd lose. Unless Nintendo radically changed their development strategy and alienated their fanbase AND did a 180 in terms of marketing, they'd struggle very mightily to tear Call of Duty fans away from their console of choice.''

That's not true either, they could have sold it with a improved Wii mote and a decent ''hardcore'' controller instead of the tablet controller. The motion controls made the Wii sell like it did, and the tablet controller is a step backwards.