So Xbox One and WiiU, their perceived negatives being very similar in a lot of ways. Price being too high, an accessory that shouldn't be bundled with every system ect.

Nintendo have chosen the route of stubborness, deciding not to ditch the gamepad, and not give a meaningful price cut (debuted at $300, it's still $300 ....) whilst Microsoft are releasing a Kinectless sku and dropping the price $100 along with it.

Now obviously when talking sales, Microsoft is making the wise decision. But for the user ecosystem and what makes these systems what they are, who is making the right choice?

IMO, MS is. I have an XB1 and like it, but don't even like the Kinect. I feel they are continuing down the right path that started with the pre-release 180. I also don't hold grudges against people or companies for past choices, when they make the right decisions going forward.

nintendo is doing it right for the gamer. the gamepad is just nice.

Why not both? (In this case I didn't vote)

Microsoft is smart for dropping an optional feature that has few applications.

Nintendo is smart for not abandoning the core aspect of their system that sets it apart from the other systems.

Pretty much.

Gamepad is more essential to its respective platform than Kinect as well.

Microsoft, though to be fair to nintendo, for better or worse I don't know what the wii u's identity would be without the gamepad.

Answer is obvious. It Microsoft. Nintendo is really stubborn in this regard.

Rubbish. If this was true, then why is it selling so little that it is not even being stocked at some major retailers?!

It needs a price cut or something. Doing nothing is suicide.

The way I see it as MS are dividing their userbase. If 50% of people have a Kinect, and the other 50% don't, their potential market for Kinect games has halved.

MS easily.

I'll hold on to my answer until Nintendo has shown their "titles made possible with the GamePad" at E3.