The thing is that things are a little bit more complicated than that. You see, there is a lot of people who just like games and don't care much about which console they're in. And when you want to play games available on different consoles, that's when PRICE comes in as a differenciator factor.

I'll put myself as an example:

On the Wii U I want to play Zelda U, Zelda WWHD, SM3DW, MK8, Super SMash Bros U, Bayonetta 2,  Zombie U, Lego City Undercover, Mario Galaxy series, Zelda SS and other Wii games.

On the X1 I want to play Killer Instinct, Tomb Raider, AC:Unity, Far Cry, Shadow of Mordor, DA: Inquisition, Halo: MCC, Halo 5, GTA V, COD Advanced Warfare, Titanfall, Mortal Kombat, etc, etc, etc.

Now even though I'm not planning to buy any of those consoles this year, if I was going  to, as things stand today, I would've chosen the X1 over the Wii U, BUT if there was a MK8 (plus another game) bundle for $250, then my decision would be a lot tougher.

So.. to wrap things up, yes, Price can be a differenciator factor.

Oh ok, yet both games are local multiplayer experiences right? How does that work?

Userbase means a lot more for MS, who depends on royalties from third party game sales, than Nintendo, who depends much more on first party. People are locked in to their chosen console's ecosytem at this point. A couple million more Wii U's out there won't take a significant portion of the COD crowd away from the competition, and most who own a Wii U and PS4/X1 aren't choosing the Wii U version of third party games. A $50 price cut doesn't change preferences and buying habits.

I see, so you just assumed then? Ha! I knew you didn't play it. Basically, for single player, its required, for local multiplayer, one person must be using the gamepad.

and how has that anything to do with what MS is doing ?

at the end of the gen, people will own more than 10 (physical) games for X1. Not even counting MS own developed or published games (which would generate much more revenue), all of them will give MS a profit in royalties.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html
Approx. over 10% of the selling price. If all those games were sold at $60, that means $70 in pure profits. More realistically the average price is probably closer to $40, still $47 dollar in total profits.

+ additional money from buying MS exclusives (Halo, Gears, Fable, Forza etc.)
+ royalties from digital games
+ royalties from DLCs
+ money from peripherals (Kinect, headset, 2nd (3rd, 4th) controller, play and charge kit etc.)
+ money from Xbox Live subscriptions (~50% of XBL members have a gold account)


Sure some of these new owners won't buy enough to make it worthwhile for MS, but the vast majority will. That's (probably) not going to happen within the first year, but easily over the whole generation. That's why it's important to build a high userbase at the beginning of the gen rather than at the end.

Nintendo is not crazy. They are prioritizing profit per unit and relying upon a high attach rate per installed unit for their own software titles.

Nintendo cannot compete with MS or Sony on price alone by gutting profits; they simply don't have the same 3rd party licensing clout to fall back on.

No but I didn't literally mean they didn't use it, I had seen reviews and knew that they used it in menial ways and the games obviously work with them but I didn't know it was required for play as well although that could easily be patched (presumably powerups and maps are displayed at on the second screen?).

3D World most definitely couldn't. There were parts of certain levels that required the gamepad's touchscreen to get through. Regardless, the kind of patch necessary wouldn't just be for a single game. It would take a massive overhaul to the interface, and then a patch for every game they wanted to make compatible. Do you even own a Wii U?

No of course not, otherwise I would have at least one of those games lol

The wii u should be $150