Kinect is an add-on that MS said was like 'relaunching' the 360. It's not the main controller for a system.

so add on = overprice but main controller = fair price??? from Nintendo who sell their games full price for the length of a generation, what make you think Nintendo will not price it the same as kinect, if they cost roughtly the same to make

They won't.

Kinect's biggest merit ("controllerless play") meant that users would only have to buy one unit ever, barring broken hardware. Naturally, as something that was marketed extensively (a well known $500 million budget which does factor into initial pricing) as a "new" way to play, MS was going to price it to recover their initial investment as soon as possible from the standpoint that they would only be selling one Kinect per console at best. 

This is why comparisons with Move as revenue/profit generators tend to fall a bit short; they take both to be controllers (replaceable items that are typically bought multiple times between extras for more players or regular replacements over the life cycle of a console) where as Kinect is a one time purchase.

I think just about any reasonable, well-informed individual would agree that if Nintendo priced Wii U controllers "similarly" to Kinect ($149), they were out of touch with their consumer base and that the Wii U as a platform would be in jeopardy as a potential general consumer game console.

Even at $99, they would have to bundle it with something more than just a Wii Play or Link's Crossbow Training level game.

As for Nintendo's game pricing (which now includes a "Nintendo Selects" collection of budget priced first party back catalog titles, same as "Player's Choice" or "Platinum Hits"), prices on their first party titles are rarely reduced as there is a limited secondary market for those releases for the simple reason that those who keep playing their Nintendo consoles rarely trade in/sell those games.

99$ with Wii Paint

The iPad 2 costs considerably more than $70. The original entry level iPad (WiFi, 16 GB) was an estimated $259.60 including manufacturing costs.

But any comparisons between an iPad and a Wii U controller really need to be thrown out the window immediately as one is a standalone device (the equivalent of a Wii U that had no "base console" as the actual core of the platform) whereas the Wii U controllers, if all of past Nintendo history is taken into account, will use matured components all around in the interest of cutting costs and will likely use the absolute cheapest LCD panel (which is allegedly as low as 480p res) they can source while still maintaining Nintendo's high standards of quality.

The BOM on Kinect is only $56.

Your eyes must have tricked you, Reggie confirmed that its not multi-touch right now

If the original Wiimote cost $10 to manufacture in 2006, and was sold at $40, I just really hate Nintendo for not going with motion-plus from day one. Greedy bastards.

Just think about how little the $50 PS3 and XBox 360 controllers cost to manufacture ...

I don't think it's the same... My point was actually based on something that has been discussed in earlier threads about Wii. If it had motion-plus from day one, chances are we would have seen more games that fulfilled its initial promise, and possibly some better support, too. Things would have looked very differently for Wii gamers if that happened...

And thats why I wouldnt be surprised if the Wii U controller will be priced +$100.  Just imagine if/when Nintendo makes multiplayer games that required 4 Wii U controllers lol