not to mention its silly to compare it to PS3 early years in the first place, we should be comparing it to PS3 in the CURRENT day, since that is the market Wii U is sharing.

Why not compare a tablet to a tablet? Even if one is tethered to a console and the other is free it still invites a comparison. 27% of households will own tablets by the end of this year and smartphones are over 50% pentration. The idea that one can get the same utility from an app as from a built in device shouldn't be shocking for anyone.

So how can you look at that and say it isn't in the same league of integration as the Wii U Tablet? This is something completely extensible to games as well as other interactive media so whilst it isn't completely integrated it also has some other benefits such as being independant of the console.

How do I judge Nintendo Land as weaker? Simply because absolutely noone is talking about it in comparison to Wii Sports. Remember when people walked past the PS3 displays to line up to see the Wii? It was to play Wii Sports, has that happened for the Wii U?

I agree that Squilliam is early on calling Nintendo Land a weak pack-in title.  We just don't know yet.  It looks pretty stong to me.

However, I think we can all agree that Wii Sports is easily one of the top two pack-in titles ever.  A very good arguement could be made that it is the best ever pack-in title.  It will be difficult to top.  So, the Wii likely has some advantage over the Wii U on that front.

If it is not packed in the box, developers will not take advantage of the functionality.  There are countless examples of under utilized peripherals.  Look at the Wii Balance Board, Wii Motion Plus, Gamecube to Gameboy Advance connectivity, N64 Expansion Pak, SNES Super Scope, and NES Zapper just to name some Nintendo examples off the top of my head.

The fact that it is an app is not going to change that.  There will not be enough tablets out there, and a smart phone's screen is far too small to be useful in game.  The big difference with the Wii U controller is that the screen is built right in.  No one is going to want to try to operate both a standard controller and separate tablet at the same time in game.  When it is constantly there just inches from your fingers it is a different story completely.

It is more a service which is offered within pre-existing hardware and software/networking ecosystems, think the success of Netflix/Hulu etc on consoles. Adding peripherals has not been successful however given the fact that the design parameters are already built into the games,  adding support for additional platforms could easily be mandated for all games which port to the Wii U as well as other systems from Sony and Microsoft. People are never far from a tablet or mobile phone and dual screening is becoming a very common phenomenom, hence the reason the Wii U screen exists in the first place.

I definitely don't see anyone in that vid playing an XBox game through SmartGlass.

Seriously, the GamePad is not a tablet. It may look like a tablet. It may be used similarly to a tablet in certain circumstances. But it does not walk like a duck OR quack like a duck.

The GamePad vs tablet debate has been retread so many times it confounds me how the difference could still elude someone who hangs around video game forums. Go check out some previews, because journalists have covered this well enough that I won't waste my time explaining it.

Comparing Nintendo Land to Wii Sports on the basis of a single event (E3 2006, by the way) is ludicrous. The console hasn't even been released yet, but I'll remind you that the deluxe bundle including Nintendo Land sold out almost immediately upon being available for pre-order.

But that is not the draw for the touch screen!  It is the games!

Smart Glass could very well see features ported over from the Wii U.  But it will only be because of the central nature of the Wii U touch screen to the Wii U console.  Trying to play on two controllers at once will be much more cumbersome than one though.

Okay. We can compare it to today too. It is 50 dollars more (the basic model) than the xbox 360 and PS3, which is 7 year old tech. Gee, I wonder what the consumer will want to get if they had to choose between saving fifty dollars or getting a next generation console.

probably go with the cheaper option, that has a much larger library of games, history has shown that the cheaper systems usually sell better.

and for a 100 dollars less you can get a 360 that comes with nothing, which is comparable to the basic Wii u set that comes with pretty much nothing.