Kind of a redundant question. Most people would want to buy the game for the "hot new console" vs. the "dead" console, even IF there were no real differences (resolution, draw distance) between them. I still think the Wii U version will sell pretty well, because not everyone is going to be able to afford to get a Switch at launch, or even wants to.

Art and graphics are 2 totally different things...

Okami as an example still has an awesome art even today, but its graphics are really bad. 

Art-style and colors against polygons and textures, art VS computer science... It's a really common difference, what's the problem here?

1.7m? lmao, I can't believe this predictions are actually serious.

I highly doubt BoTW sells less than 7m on Switch, WiiU version will probably sell 1-2m

Any multiplatform game that comes out is automatically preferable to play on the Switch IMO b/c of portability. So Sonic Mania and Stardew Valley are pretty much "Switch games" for me. Snipperclips and Splatoon 2 are definitely day one buys for me. And then we finish out 2017 with a new Mario and then have a new Fire Emblem to look forward to in 2018? Sounds pretty rad to me.

If you have fun with your PC and Wii U version of Zelda then I'm very happy for you. Everyone should do what works out best for them. I just think this whole "sending a message" thing is kind of silly.

I absolutely wish that the Wii U had gotten more support, but from the way I look at it, I played about ten outstanding games on the system with a handful of other good ones. I got good value from the system. Even if it had gotten another six or seven 4 star games, that wouldn't really change the value equation all that much for me. 

Another day another silly thread about Nintendo/Switch from @Geralt.

Probably trying to figure out what is this "very bad graphics" that he is talking about in BoTW, not PS4ish enough for his tastes?

If I had pre-ordered a Switch to be honest the only game I would buy of the launch titles is Zelda. Nothing else is worth the asking price for me. As it is I have pre-ordered for wii u.

There will probably be a sizeable chunk of people running the wii u version as a pirate copy in 4k on pc via emulation and that technically may be the best way of running it. That will be the cleanest most beautiful graphics. I'm looking forward to seeing some screengrabs of it like that.

Do you already own the game? Pls do a review thread

In that regard it is true that Zelda is graphically lower than Witcher 3. Though art-styles can be used to compensate for polygon and texture lows. If not in appeal which is subjective, in cost. 

To use Witcher 3 as an example again, the number 81 million U.S dollars is commonly thrown out as how much it cost to make, which is surprisingly cheap for a AAA game. Perhaps the Polish just bloat less than others. Anyway according to a Forbes Article I found (and the site is not a Nintendo biased location), the game needs to sell about 2 million copies to break even. Even the lowest estimates here lean that way quite heavy. 

As a 1st party game, Nintendo gets about 39 dollars per game at minimum, with digital increasing that number. That rougly coorelates to about 7.8 million in production costs. One coulds scale it up with digital sales as the per game cost, but I have no idea how much that is expected of the purchased title. I'd break down Witcher, but Witcher has a pretty big PC playerbase as it is and I have no idea if Valve gets the Console Maker and Retailer bits of the pie or not, plus PC's fragmented and rapidly cheapening marketplaces.

Also graphics age. I won't argue that Ocarina and Twilight Princess are ugly. Realism ages a lot faster, meaning that Wild will look better in, say, 10 years than Witcher. 

Still at the moment it is true that Witcher is greater graphically than Zelda is. How far that goes is up to the individual though.

Yeah, because running a Wii U emulator at high settings of the most ambitious nintendo game ever must be a simple task, pretty acessable.