1. No, 05 was lack of ANY software. This has a number of games announced, even if almost none were playable.

2. What? 06 was before the Wii's launch, and from the timeframe, but since the next system has a six month range, neither E3 before the Wii is really comparable at the moment.

3. No. We know the controller, some basic specs, and even behind the scenes, we were given the rough power of the system. 05 was a lack of almost any information.

4. 05 wasn't confusion. It was loads of speculation of what it would be. Here, the confusion isn't about lack of information. It's confusion about the information GIVEN. People confused the announced system for a handheld because of information STATED, not because of NO information.

Pachter is right.

I talked to a few other high-level analysts at major publishers that were very bearish on the WiiU as well. Pachter is right on the timing as well. WiiU will only have about 1 year to sell on market before other devices are released. That means that it won't have a large amount of time to garner significant market share to allow for a lot of say with the next-gen consoles in terms of game design vs. PS4/X720 or whatever said iterations are named. Comparatively, had it released this year or a year prior, it would of had 2-3 years of breathing room, and able to significantly differentiate itself from next-gen.

I would imagine that due to the release schedule, Sony and Microsoft can maneuver knowing the WiiU specs, resulting with more powerful consoles at a better price-performance ratio, therefore a better value proposition for consumers.

If the Tablet isn't used properly (which I question the viability of), then it will have a significant time differentiating itself from the other products as a good buy in the next wave of consoles - thus hurting it significantly once its a 3-horse race. Furthermore, I am wondering what the cost constraints on the tablets are - I am worried that their cost to build may make the WiiU very expensive compared to the other next-gen systems (remember, the Wii was $50 less than the cheapest Xbox 360 and $250 less than the cheapest PS3 on launch day and came with a great free game).

Add to it many questions about online integration, and Nintendo's poor track record with it, and it will be questionable how well WiiU will perform concerning DLC which will be absolutely critical to next-gen title successes. Development costs will expand significantly next generation, and titles will need to be able to generate more income via more and more DLC once the title has been acertained as a success, and will meet certain goals with the sales of DLC.

Unless something amazing happens that I just can't see it reaching the success of the Wii. I think the WiiU will likely sell between 35 million and 50 million consoles.

At this point it's too soon to say whether WiiU will fail or not.

"I would imagine that due to the release schedule, Sony and Microsoft can maneuver knowing the WiiU specs, resulting with more powerful consoles at a better price-performance ratio, therefore a better value proposition for consumers."

Specs are not value for most gamers. That is a delusion the enthusiasts keep telling themselves. They said it about the PSP versus the DS. Even when the Wii started to falter, it wasn't because people magically realized the specs were too low, it was the games.

I mean, how hard is it to understand that with video game systems, the games are the real value proposition?

Incidentally, the games so far look really uninteresting (I don't care if many are tech demos, they are really dumb ones), and that is the reason to doubt this system, not this stupid myth about console wars being decided by the most powerful system.

You didn`t get my point. What i tried to sat is, in opposition to Pachter, was that power isn`t enough for a console to succeed and win a generation. PS1 and PS2 are good examples of that - even the Wii is. Pachter thinks that going HD won`t help Nintendo, because it`s been done. But in that case, it won`t help MS and Sony because it`s been done for them aswell. And better graphics doesn`t mean you will sell the most. That`s why i mentioned PS1 and PS2. There were more powerful consoles than them, yet, they still outsold the competition.

Yes, it will very likely be inferior the MS and Sony`s next consoles, but no one knows for how much.

About the third parties, Nintendo is really trying the handle that this time.

And the Wii proved that without similar power levels of the other comparable consoles, it won't get the same games. Therefore, system performance does play a part in the scheme of things - if you have a PS4/X720 at similar power levels, and the WiiU at 50 or 60%, I would imagine that developers may pidgeonhole it like they did the Wii. That is why power matters.

since your stuck on 50% number i'll post a quick 50% for you her as well

say ps2 was 1,000 in power

ps3 is 10,000 in power.  Its what 10x or 1,000% more powerful

Lest say the Wii U is ONLY 50% more powerful, even though we have no idea what context that was taken in and what power was measured ect., but lets just assume 50% more

10,000 x 1.5 is what 15,000 power?  so it has 5,000 more power than the ps3.  the ps3 only has 10,000 total. 

and you guys are expecting the ps4 to have 100,000 power?  is that what your saying?

It's a bad sign when Nintendo spent most of it's conference talking about how amazing the tablet controller is and the debates focus on the power.

If it sells it'll sell because of Nintendo first party games and the controller, not the power.

Being able to play HD games and having an online network like PSN are just becoming standard features.

No, developers proved they didn't want to work on the Wii. Again, the specs matter to the enthusiasts (which includes people who make games), not to the mainstream gamers (which counts people that buy GTA and CoD).

Unless that is what you meant, but you implied that developers get to call the shots, and the will of the customers isn't to be taken into account.

The customers chose ever console generation winner, not the developers. And specs only mattered to them when Nintendo wasn't making more powerful systems, as the Playstation 1 and 2 weren't the leader in specs.