You forget the Wii U Pro controller. I'm interested in seeing how developers will respond towards the Wii U and its variety of peripherals.

Call of Duty can be played casually and so can Just Dance but thats just the point to be created so many gamers will try to get their hands on it regardless of their level. Unlike Just Dance though Call of Dutys "pick up and play" approach prepares casuals for the more competitive world of FPS, much like Super Mario prepares gamers for more complex challenges in Platformers. Mario would be considered a "baby step" as it was for me any many others who still love it. That prepared me for harder platformers like Donkey Kong which was a bit harder then Aladdin and then Contra and others on the SNES. People who play Call of Duty will eventually fall into the Halo, Battlefield realm and then once they hit PC, Counter-strike, UT, etc. Hardcore games are for gamers who like challenges. For instance a casual says Just Dance, Hardcore dance gamers say Dance, Dance Revolution. Second of all Just Dance cannot hold a candle to Dance Central because with that you use your whole body.

From what I've seen theres two types of casuals, the typical casual who doesn't like a complex challenge with a typical gamerpad (Those are the ones who were drawn to the Wii/Kinect). Then theres the casual who likes gaming and had the aptitude for harder games but doesn't have time for it or just doesn't want to focus their energy on it.

The Wii U pro controller has the exact same buttons as the classic controlle and classic controller pro. It will be used the exact same way they were. That controller is nothing new. Its just a slightly different the button layout

That's not my point. The classic controller pro for the Wii was in a different situation in that the Wii did not have much third party support, so the classic controller did not see much need outside of first party games. With the Wii U, the suggestion is that all Wii U games will use the tablet, but will this be the case for third party developers? Especially when the Wii U pro controller is available for them as a control option? I already know the button layout is not much different. But Nintendo wants the Wii U in a position to gain massive third party support and it'll only work out for them if the tablet can bring in new experiences for every game not found on Sony and Microsoft platforms. The pro controller could possibly drive away the potential of these new experiences.

What you need to notice about the Upro controller is that it's the same layout as the Upad, just without the touchscreen. Even if you're going to play using the Upro, the Upad will still be active. What this means is that ported games will still make use of the Upad, and the Upro will mean that games designed around four-player "traditional" controls will be able to be played in that manner on the Wii U, too.

No developer is stupid enough to make it so that you have to use the Upro to play their game. Of course, there will be gimmick uses of the Upad as well, but essentially, what the Upro does is open up the platform to all sorts of games, rather than being at all limited.

Indeed. It seems that this is impossible for some people to see. That or they just don't to. If I remember correctly, the primary use for the Wii U's screen is you can play with it even when the house TV is in use.

Most games are still going to actually play like they do with a normal controller.

I wouldn't say "most games". There'll be four main categories of games (not counting, for instance, Balance Board games):

1. Games using the Upad as a key form of input. These games will use the touchscreen in a significant way, and will rarely be able to be used in TV-substitute mode. These won't really work with Upro or Wiimote (or at least, not exclusively with those - Upad will be necessary).

2. Games using the Upad as a second display. These games, which will likely use Upad's buttons, but may also allow use of either Upro or Wiimote, are much more likely to work in TV-substitute mode, but certainly not guaranteed.

3. Games that are designed around motion, and thus use Wiimote as a primary input. These are the games that will continue on from Wii. They'll be there.

4. Games that are essentially straight ports of 360/PS3 titles. These will use Upro or the Upro-equivalent Upad controls, and if the Upad screen is used at all, it'll be used in a very bland and ordinary manner. These will almost certainly work in TV-substitute mode. Hopefully, most of these will at least also provide a Wiimote control scheme, or a Upad touchscreen usage, to show that it wasn't just an ordinary direct port. I don't have a lot of faith in the industry on that front, though.

Personally, I look forward to the few quality FPSes that I'll be able to play with full features using a Wiimote. I suck at playing FPS using dual analog (and keyboard/mouse is frustrating for me, too), but thoroughly enjoy Wiimote-controlled FPS - the problem being, most Wii FPSes were lacking in features, mostly because developers couldn't be bothered to try to get everything in. That's why I support Treyarch so much - they actually put the effort it, and if they were to leave Activision, I'd very much support the move (Activision pretty much ignored Wii versions of CoD titles - try to find a mention of the Wii in the MW3 press releases (not counting the "trademarks" generic thing at the end of releases), I dare you). Developers will no longer have an excuse for leaving features out.

Unfortunately they don't have money to do such a thing.

You do know that we're talking Nintendo, right? Not Sony?

Nintendo has massive coffers. They had their first *ever* annual loss last year, and it was a fairly small one. At the end of their last financial year (March 2012), Nintendo had a total equity of 1.19 trillion yen (US$15.08 billion), from a low of 1.14 trillion yen half a year earlier, and down from its high of 1.28 trillion yen at the end of the previous financial year.

For comparison, Sony's total equity is currently 2.51 trillion yen... down from 2.8 trillion yen half a year ago, and down from 2.96 trillion yen a year ago (and down from 3.22 trillion yen a year and a half ago).

Let me put it this way - even ignoring the change in trend with Nintendo's equity in the last half-year, Nintendo would require more than 12 years at the current annual loss rate to end up with zero equity. At the current rate, Sony will have zero equity in a little over 4 years, and the rate has accelerated recently. Sony can't afford to be buying PS3/PS4 exclusive titles, Nintendo has plenty of space to do so.

Of course, Sony includes much more than gaming, so I'm not claiming that it's the PS Vita or PS3 that are the cause of the problem. I just wanted to make that clear.

Side note: Microsoft has even more money to play with. Its total equity (as of March) is US$68 billion (compared to US$15 billion for Nintendo), and that's an increase of more than US$15 billion since the same time last year. Again, though, this isn't because of Xbox division.

Interestingly, it seems that one thing Nintendo has done to reduce its loss of equity is to significantly cut back its liabilities - indeed, its "Total Current Liabilities" has been better than halved. Its Total Assets has also decreased, although its Long Term Assets have actually increased. There's probably some sort of behind-the-scenes restructuring going on.

Anyway, this was all just an aside to the point - Nintendo can easily afford to "buy" exclusives, if they want to. They just don't want to, and for good reason - Microsoft can easily outbid them on any exclusive, and Nintendo would rather offer exclusive functionality and install base than to simply moneyhat publishers and developers. It's better business, in the long run.

So basically you are admitting that the GamePad doesn't add anything substantial because it's just a pro controller with a touchscreen? What I'm saying is since the pro controller is available for third party developers, it's possible that they won't even consider developing for the tablet, especially since Sony and MS platforms don't utilize the same type of technology. And people should want a Wii U to play their games with the tablet in new and interesting ways, if Nintendo even wants this thing to be a success.

@bolded: I've never heard of this before. In fact, I heard the controller charges by USB, so it makes me think that it doesn't connect the same way the classic controller for Wii did.