Well, Nintendo has already made it clear the system will be at least $300, and based on what we know I think that is understandable.
No, they didn't...
They
did emphasize that it should be expected to be higher than past consoles, which since Wii launched at $250, could
seem like a confirmation of at least $300 under other circumstances... BUT, they made this comment in the very wake of their recovery from the initial price problem that held back the 3DS. You have to factor-in that they're going to be
extra cautious on how they price to avoid that again... What better strategy than to prepare you for the worst, only to surprise you with something not as bad?
Take a look at what 360 and PS3 are currently going for, and keep in mind the Wii U hardware is going be only slightly more advanced than that. Those consoles launched at higher prices because they were overpowered to what the mainstream market was ready for (and they still sold at losses to boot), while Wii was more suitably powered for the time (and still sold for a profit). It's only now, six years later, that the mainstream market is ready for HD systems and they are finally outpacing Wii. You have to figure Wii U's price will likely be closer to what PS3 and 360 are
currently selling for, rather than when they launched.
Also consider that in Japan, where it didn't come bundled with Wii Sports, Wii launched closer to the equivalent of $200, so the extra $50 we paid in the West was for the game-- the REAL price was $200.
I'd say there's still a very good possibility of $250 (assuming it doesn't come bundled with a game). If they did that, it would only be $50 higher than Wii was in Japan, and would
appear the same as Wii everywhere else.
Remember, unlike with the 3DS (which was aimed at the more hardcore audience since mobile phones have stolen the casual market on the portable front), Nintendo is still aiming to hook the casual crowd with Wii U. So, they're still going to keep the price low as possible. Honestly, I think $300 is the absolute
highest to expect, not the lowest.