happydolphin said:
Ultimately the question boils down to, was the saved expense of the ethernet port less valuable than the option? If the item costs a few cents, is the cost to offer the option valid? Does it improve the console's image for the more performance-conscious or tech-savy crowd? If so, a few cents would have been worth the cost. It also seems that Nintendo wanted to keep the ports to a minimum to avoid requiring more space used on the U's exterior. That could be a possibility, but much easier to disprove if someone could bring up a good image of a U. Oh, here's one:
|
That is indeed the question. The very question that nintendo must surely have ask themselves.
They obviously thought it wasn't.
I do understand what you are saying. For a few more cents we won't be having this discussion but instead be critising something else about the console, like the fact it doesn't make coffee.
Nintendo made the decision not to have onboard ethernet and give you the option of an add-on ethernet.
In all honesty I think the vast majority of people (including myself ) won't care about an ethernet port. If they lose 200,000 sales because it lacks a port, I am sure they won't lose any sleep over it.
The wii's lack of HD was predicted to result in horrid sales (some prophesied less than the gamecube) because it lacked ( as you so eloquently put it ) the image for the more performance-conscious or tech-savy crowd? Yet it is still the market leader and will die before being overthrown.
You couldn't add HD to the wii but you can add ethernet to the wii u.
IT IS PRETTY SIMPLE, IF YOU WANT A WII U YOU WILL BUY ONE AND SOMETHING AS INSIGNIFICANT AS AN ETHERNET PORT WILL NOT DISUADE YOU. You will simply buy the add-on - which I doubt very many people will.
