Yes and no.

The R&D is more expensive, but when it comes to making the bits it is cheaper (maybe not from the very beginning but soon enough).

Look at the MCM, the chip with both the CPU and GPU. As Nintendo said in the Iwata Ask about the console, going with a combined die with both chips ment more work and troubles, making the development more expensive. But when the manufacturing starts it's cheaper because you "only" have to buy 3 parts instead of 4 and during the manufacturing process is only 1 chip to be installed instead of 2, making it faster and therefore cheaper .

Also making the console smaller makes them save money in the long run. Small and simple case = cheaper (just a few cents, but we are talking about millions of consoles), but it also makes shipping costs go down. That's why we see revisions that are smaller than the original models.

Missed the part about Japan only, but I thought I saw a listing for the Euro pricing as well.

I never argued that it adds $150/$100, I argued it added $50, which aparently is just like Kinect. Either way, whether it is $50 or lower, it adds more cost to the console than a typical controller would. So despite anyone trying to argue what the system should cost according to its hardware specs, the controller adds more cost than it would "normally". Though if they are still taking a loss on the $350 model, there is a good chance replacing the gamepad for a standard controller wouldn't prevent the Wii U from selling at a loss. While the controller is more expensive, it isn't contributing crazy amounts to the overall cost of the system.

This shouldn't really even be an issue. The Wii U is essentially a one gamepad device. It has Wii Motes and the pro controller, it's fine. Besides running two gamepads has proven way too demanding. The trade offs to using two might not be worth the trouble in a good majority of games, or atleast ones that want to utilize graphical fidelity and complexity. Nintendo's reaction to the additional gamepad demand rumours was kind of knee-jerk. They should have just pushed their pro controller instead of instilling dev rumours about frame rate drops. People just need to realize that Wii U games (hopefully) can be played just fine without the gamepad at all.

So Reggie is wrong and you're right?

Lol sorry ain't buying that. Nintendo are not good at core games - from the mouth of Reggie. They obviously don't cater for every demographic if that is what he said. Unless you think he's wrong and you're right...

...

let me repeat it so your mind can grasp it:

Your link doesn't say otherwise. If you read your own link, you'd see Reggie says something about, "active player who loves Metroid or Zelda".

He is talking about getting the kind of core games that Nintendo doesn't make, like GTA, AC, Bioshock or whatever.

Active gamers = Core gamers

A quote of Reggie's from an interview: “So we’ll continue to have all the family-friendly fare like Nintendo Land and New Super Mario Brothers U… but in addition, we’re going to have more active gamer content, which was something that was missing from Wii other than from Nintendo’s first party titles.

LINK

Get it? I didn't contradict Reggie. Active gamers is Nintendo's way of saying core gamers and Nintendo first party games like 3D Mario, Donkey Kong, Smash Bros, Zelda, Metroid are core games.

But my point wasn't about core games on the WiiU...it's about the lack of core games on the Wii means that they have lost customer retention from core gamers, and therefore lost a large part of the market as these people are now invested in the franchises and online communties of other consoles. 

First of all, You said Nintendo caters to just casual gamers and not everyone. I was arguing against that.

Secondly, Wii had first party core titles. It's 3rd party core titles that it lacked.

In that same Link Reggie talks about WIi customers who started out with games like Wii sports and broadened their gaming experiences to Mario Kart/ NSMB then moved to even broader games like DKCR and Zelda SS.

Nintendo sees games like mario Kart and SMB as bridge titles that can offer a broad but still simplified experience to casual gamers and help them move to even deeper experiences.

Alot of kids who started gaming with Wii are now teens. Some adults who got into gaming with wii are now playing deeper games. Both these groups favor the Nintendo and Wii brand. Nintendo has to try to get them to upgrade to Wii U.

What Nintendo needs to attract  the rest of the core market to WiiU is the games they want and a good online system that differentiates itself from the competition.

Nintendo did cater for casual gamers. Reggie stated this. The Wii U may be different but my point remains - with the wii hacing catered for casuals, they lost customer retention.
Wii did not have first part core titles - Reggie also states this:

""The fact of the matter is we know we create great content for younger consumers, we know we've got great content for more casual players [...] and we also recognize that we don't create that type of content ourselves".

The wii lost it's grip on core gamers and therefore have lost a lot of gamers to either MS or Sony. If you think the Wii was a core gaming console, well you are arguing with Reggie on that one, not with me, and I'm going to have to take Reggie's opinion on this over yours. 

I don't disagree that Nintendo catered to casual gamers with Wii but alot of their first party Wii output also catered to core gamers.

I literally JUST argued against that same point an hour ago and you come back with the exact same shit while ignoring what I said?If you want my answer, just go back up and re-read my posts. I'm done wasting my time.

Not according to Reggie. Again, I'm going to go with what Reggie has to say on this subject. 
You think you know better then Reggie. I doubt you do. That is all. 

Sorry if somebody else alredy posted it, but:

Ninty copying Sony again?