Topic: Wii U's launch price(s): Is it worth it?

[Pixelated Pixies]

Your kidding yourselves if any of you think a console 2-4 times more powerful than a Wii U will have innovative games. The more money it takes to make a game the less risk the developers can make when it comes to style and innovation. Even if the developers were willing to take risks the publishers won't. Its not just about gaming its about business and if a game doesn't have enough mass market appeal to justify the huge development cost then its not worth making. The only people who can afford to take risks more than anyone else are first party developers.

You'd think with more power in a console it suddenly opens up all these possibilities that were previously closed off but its actually the opposite. I predict the Wii U will be where its at when it comes to innovation.

 
People said the same thing when the Wii came out. That as it was the cheaper and more familiar platform it would be the more appealing system to develop for. That was not borne out. Looking back over the course of the last 6 years, developers were not only able to account for the expense of creating more graphically detailed and grander video games on the other platforms, they were able to flourish.
 
We are now at a stage in the console cycle were there is not much in the way of innovation, but this generation has seen more than it's share of innovations and advancements, most of which I would argue took place on platforms other than Nintendo's. They were perhaps more subtle (and I would argue more substantive) innovations than Nintendo's contribution this generation, i.e. motion control, but they were still necessary steps forward for the medium. This was the generation in which online became a crucial component of consoles, it was an era in which we saw the quality of storytelling raised, it was this generation that saw huge advancements in physics engines, graphics engines, audio design...the list goes on. All of these things are important for the medium and many of them are tied to the capabiltiy of the hardware.
 
Nintendo's 'Withered Technology' theory of hardware design has, however, worked in the past. It's true that innovation does not necessarilly flow from technological advancement. The NES, Gameboy and DS were all able to overcome what were arguably more technologically advanced competitors. The problem for me is that Nintendo's 'withered technology' now actually appears...well...withered.
 
I don't see why I should be excited for a very large and anachronistic touch screen controller. I don't see why I should be excited about Miiverse or digital downloads when Nintendo is simply catching up to it's competitors in regards to online services. No doubt someone will tell me how Nintendo sprinkle pixie dust and sugar on everything they create, and that Nintendo always put a unique spin on these things, but I'm not buying it.
 
The market for video games is not what it was when the NES was released. It is much bigger and broader, and video games as an industry is far more advanced. Yet, the Wii U isn't even out yet and already I think of it as being quaint. Nintendo has proven me wrong before, and I hope it does so again; but I'm not holding my breath.

[NWR_insanolord]

It does open up a ton of possibilities, if you're willing and able to spend the money to realize them. Beyond Activision and EA there really aren't many publishers who could afford to go for that, and they're not exactly known for pushing the envelope with new and innovative ideas.

[TJ Spyke]

For me, it's not worth it. Last Black Friday, I got an XBox 360 with a beefy hard drive (and 2 games I didn't particularly want) for $199.

You are talking about a Black Friday Sale (when things are much lower in price than normal) of a 6 year old system vs. the launch price of a brand new system. That's like asking why the 6 year old DVD you bought at Walmart for $5 is cheaper than the brand new Blu-ray Disc movie that just came out.

[Ian Sane]

Right now the only thing Wii U related that interests me is Pikmin 3 and that's not even a day one title.  I like Pikmin a lot but not so much that I couldn't wait potentially years to buy both it and a Wii U console at bargain bin prices.  One thing that Pikmin really has going for it is that the concept isn't played out.  This is only the third game.  The series is still new enough to have fresh ideas.  I'm not going to buy a Wii U for cookie-cutter Mario or Zelda.  I don't have any confidence at this point that Nintendo will do anything interesting with either series (though they might give them shitty controls; their favourite "innovation" in the Iwata reign).  And if Pikmin 3 is just Pikmin 2 With Waggle, then I don't want it either.

For me the Wii U is not enticing because it's so similar to the Wii.  It has:
- A gimmick controller
- "Wii" in the name
- Miis all over the damn place in Nintendo Land and the Miiverse
- Potentially conservative hardware that won't stand up to it's competitors

What I really want from Nintendo is an "apology" console.  I want them to pretend the last six years never existed and release the logical successor to the hypothetical Gamecube successor I wanted but never got.  Unless the Wii was commercially a huge bomb there was no way Nintendo was going to give me exactly what I want and I understand that.  But at the very least I would like some acknowledgement that things will be different and that isn't there.  If it was we would know the specs and they would impress us.  We wouldn't have some lame ass gimmick controller OR we would have a new controller but it wouldn't come across as a gimmick because Nintendo would instantly sell us on it like they did with the analog stick on the N64.  Nintendo wouldn't be spoon feeding us little bits of info like this is national security.

The Wii U looks like a conventional successor to the Wii.  From a business standpoint I get why Nintendo would go that route.  But for me that's worth like maybe 20 bucks tops.

[Pixelated Pixies]

For me, it's not worth it. Last Black Friday, I got an XBox 360 with a beefy hard drive (and 2 games I didn't particularly want) for $199.

You are talking about a Black Friday Sale (when things are much lower in price than normal) of a 6 year old system vs. the launch price of a brand new system. That's like asking why the 6 year old DVD you bought at Walmart for $5 is cheaper than the brand new Blu-ray Disc movie that just came out.

It's more like asking why the 6 year old DVD you bought at Walmart for $5 is cheaper than the brand new DVD, which despite coming out years later, is actually pretty much comprobable to the one that's been on the market for quite some time.
 
 : :

[ShyGuy]

Ian cracks me up sometimes.

[BlackNMild2k1]

People said the same thing when the Wii came out. That as it was the cheaper and more familiar platform it would be the more appealing system to develop for. That was not borne out. Looking back over the course of the last 6 years, developers were not only able to account for the expense of creating more graphically detailed and grander video games on the other platforms, they were able to flourish.

Games Industry Death Watch

I'm just sayin'.....

[Adrock]

I'm not going to buy a Wii U for cookie-cutter Mario or Zelda.

Then, don't.

We wouldn't have some lame ass gimmick controller OR we would have a new controller but it wouldn't come across as a gimmick because Nintendo would instantly sell us on it like they did with the analog stick on the N64.  Nintendo wouldn't be spoon feeding us little bits of info like this is national security.

Jesus Cripes... the GamePad is the standard, traditional controller you've been saying you wanted for the last 6 years except it has a screen on it. Can you at least use it ONCE before you start trashing it? You're a confusing person. You say you want one thing then turn around say you want something else. You've beaten the I-want-traditional-controls-back horse beyond recognition; it's just bits of bone and guts at this point. Nintendo gives you not one, but TWO traditional controllers and yet it's still not good enough. How is that even possib... What new controller in this day and age wouldn't come across as a gimmick and still manage to instantly sell you on it? What can any company add that you won't curb stomp?

I can understand not being sold on the lineup or Nintendo Network, but the controllers are exactly what you've been huffing and puffing about for over half a decade and Nintendo somehow managed to get that wrong. You crack me up sometimes...

[Pixelated Pixies]

People said the same thing when the Wii came out. That as it was the cheaper and more familiar platform it would be the more appealing system to develop for. That was not borne out. Looking back over the course of the last 6 years, developers were not only able to account for the expense of creating more graphically detailed and grander video games on the other platforms, they were able to flourish.

Games Industry Death Watch

I'm just sayin'.....

I didn't say the stakes didn't become higher. I accept that we've seen huge casualties this generation among developers, but I'd argue that that has as much to do with bad management and a fundamental misunderstanding of the market as it does with the expense of the development process. We would also be naive is we were to ignore the global economic situation during the latter half of these years.
 
Taken as a whole though, I'd still argue that game development did flourish. We do have the Triple A games with huge budgets, but we now also have a healthy indie scene which has sprung up on consoles. There are lots of options out there for developers.
 
 

[Chozo Ghost]

For me the Wii U is not enticing because it's so similar to the Wii.  It has:
- A gimmick controller
- "Wii" in the name
- Miis all over the damn place in Nintendo Land and the Miiverse
- Potentially conservative hardware that won't stand up to it's competitors

These are precisely the reasons why I said I want the Wii U to fail. Only if the Wii U fails will the "Wii" brand die off and we can have any hope of getting the old Nintendo back. If the Wii U is hugely successful or even just does well enough to spur Nintendo into making a Wii U2 or Wii ME or Wii Them 5-6 years from now then that will really suck. Who knows when (or even if) we will ever have the old Nintendo back.

That said, I'm okay with the controller gimmick since it is at its core still a traditional controller, and developers can simply ignore the gimmicky aspects of it. As for the other points, I think if it was just one or two of them I could live with it, but if its going to be all of them plus shitty 3rd party support plus game droughts then that's probably too much for me.

In any case, I already missed the pre-order boat even before I was aware I could pre-order it, and considering its probably going to be sold out continuously for the next several months I probably won't be able to get the Wii U anytime soon even if it were something I were already sold on. I don't need another console that will just sit and collect dust. I need to see what the long term support of this console is going to look like. So its getting ports of 2011 PS360 games? That's well and good, but I can play those on my PS3 right now. What are things going to look like two years from now?

[Chozo Ghost]

Jesus Cripes... the GamePad is the standard, traditional controller you've been saying you wanted for the last 6 years except it has a screen on it. Can you at least use it ONCE before you start trashing it? You're a confusing person. You say you want one thing then turn around say you want something else. You've beaten the I-want-traditional-controls-back horse beyond recognition; it's just bits of bone and guts at this point. Nintendo gives you not one, but TWO traditional controllers and yet it's still not good enough. How is that even possib... What new controller in this day and age wouldn't come across as a gimmick and still manage to instantly sell you on it? What can any company add that you won't curb stomp?

The only downside to the controller is that with it being as costly as it is Nintendo gutted the console itself in order to compensate. When you buy the $300-$350 Wii U, about $100 of that is going into the controller. If Nintendo had opted for a simpler controller without the bells and whistles then they could have beefed up the console specs a good deal more than they did while keeping the MSRP the same. They could have went with a modern CPU, and perhaps double the RAM for example. Then they wouldn't be outclassed in 2 years when the PS420 shows up with beastly hardware.

But I don't think there is anyone who has a problem with a screen built into the controller in and of itself. There's not much downside to it other than the fact that Nintendo is cutting corners in order to shoehorn it in. If we could have the gimmicky controller plus kickass hardware everyone would be happy, but instead of making everyone happy Nintendo decided to appease casual gamers only.

[Stogi]

People said the same thing when the Wii came out. That as it was the cheaper and more familiar platform it would be the more appealing system to develop for. That was not borne out. Looking back over the course of the last 6 years, developers were not only able to account for the expense of creating more graphically detailed and grander video games on the other platforms, they were able to flourish.

Games Industry Death Watch

I'm just sayin'.....

Brilliant.

[Adrock]

They could have went with a modern CPU, and perhaps double the RAM for example. Then they wouldn't be outclassed in 2 years when the PS420 shows up with beastly hardware.

Dude, you really need to let that go because you're not a software developer and you don't know what it means in the context of gane creation.

But I don't think there is anyone who has a problem with a screen built into the controller in and of itself. There's not much downside to it other than the fact that Nintendo is cutting corners in order to shoehorn it in. If we could have the gimmicky controller plus kickass hardware everyone would be happy, but instead of making everyone happy Nintendo decided to appease casual gamers only.

That doesn't make sense for a couple reasons. The GamePad is the exact controller that Nintendo said alienated casual gamers except with a screen on it and somehow, SOMEHOW Nintendo decided to appease casual gamers only? What is this? I don't even...

They're not mutually exclusive. Nintendo didn't cut corners to include the GamePad. In fact, the GamePad was almost cut due to cost concerns. I buy that explanation to a point as it's probably exaggerated for PR purposes. The screen probably adds roughly $30-$40 in raw parts to a standard controller. So, no, sir, the GamePad isn't being included at the expense of the hardware; it's being included in addition to what Nintendo always planned. Besides some tweaking for latency concerns with the GamePad, the Wii U's hardware is right around what Nintendo wanted it to be. You may disagree with the approach, but Nintendo have stated time and again that they will not willingly sell at a loss, certainly not for higher spec hardware.

[broodwars]

But I don't think there is anyone who has a problem with a screen built into the controller in and of itself. There's not much downside to it other than the fact that Nintendo is cutting corners in order to shoehorn it in. If we could have the gimmicky controller plus kickass hardware everyone would be happy, but instead of making everyone happy Nintendo decided to appease casual gamers only.

Don't forget that along with Nintendo basically knee-capping the Wii U by forcing it to process 2 output streams at once (TV, GamePad), there is basic expected functionality that the GamePad just doesn't have: it can't play Virtual Console titles (at least not on the GamePad alone), and it can't play even certain Wii games at all.  By contrast, if I fired up a PS1 or PS2 game on either of my PS3s (my original was a backwards-compatible model), I could just use my Dualshock 3 to play the game.  I didn't need a Dualshock 1 or Dualshock 2 to do it.  If the game appears on my PS3, I can play it with my modern controllers.  It's just that simple.

Now, you can argue that the Dualshocks are all the same basic design, so that's not comparable, but the GamePad is essentially a Classic Controller Pro.  Are you seriously telling me it was out of the realm of possibility to program the Wii or Virtual Console emulators to see the GamePad as a Classic Controller Pro?  Sure, motion control games would be more or less out of the question.  The controllers are just too different.  I understand that.  But surely Nintendo could have worked out a solution where I don't have to drag out my Wiimote and my Classic Controller Pro the next time I feel like playing Xenoblade or frickin' Chrono Trigger on the Wii U.  But they didn't, because it wouldn't be as easy as just locking all Wii U functionality while inside non-Wii U titles and Nintendo's all about the easy route these days.

So yeah, I'm not thrilled at the idea of a $350 console because Nintendo's forcing me to buy an apparently $170 controller I don't want that doesn't even have the functionality I would expect from it while also not really being a "portable Wii U".  And all this to solve a problem I don't have and I'm not sure that many people do: having to share TVs with non-gamers.

[Adrock]

Don't forget that along with Nintendo basically knee-capping the Wii U by forcing it to process 2 output streams at once (TV, GamePad), there is basic expected functionality that the GamePad just doesn't have: it can't play Virtual Console titles (at least not on the GamePad alone), and it can't play even certain Wii games at all.

I wouldn't necessarily call it knee-capping the hardware considering that outputting to both TV and GamePad for gameplay is just a different kind of split-screen. The GamePad displays in 480p so the hardware could be doing less work to render everything then making it up by sending that info to the controller. Rendering in HD then sending that to a screen that can't display in HD seems like a waste of system resources or poor optimization. I don't think we know enough to consider that knee-capping. I imagine that the GamePad's screen isn't a requirement and can be turned off if developers really want the extra power though that kind of misses the point of the console. It'll probably happen, just not often. Smash Bros. is probably one such game, but it's not really the type of game that lends itself to utilizing an extra screen in a meaningful way so it gets a pass (at least as it stands). The 3DS version will likely only use it to conserve space on the top screen.

The other things you mentioned, not playing VC games or controlling Wii games that use the Classic Controller, are admittedly odd choices. It seems lazy, like how only the Wii Remote could navigate the Wii Menu.

[broodwars]

The other things you mentioned, not playing VC games or controlling Wii games that use the Classic Controller, are admittedly odd choices. It seems lazy, like how only the Wii Remote could navigate the Wii Menu.

In all fairness, you can use the Classic Controller on the Wii's Channels menus.  You can use the Right Stick to move the cursor around.  I don't generally use my Classic Controller Pro for that purpose, but you could if you wanted to.

[Ceric]

But I don't think there is anyone who has a problem with a screen built into the controller in and of itself. There's not much downside to it other than the fact that Nintendo is cutting corners in order to shoehorn it in. If we could have the gimmicky controller plus kickass hardware everyone would be happy, but instead of making everyone happy Nintendo decided to appease casual gamers only.

Don't forget that along with Nintendo basically knee-capping the Wii U by forcing it to process 2 output streams at once (TV, GamePad), there is basic expected functionality that the GamePad just doesn't have: it can't play Virtual Console titles (at least not on the GamePad alone), and it can't play even certain Wii games at all.  By contrast, if I fired up a PS1 or PS2 game on either of my PS3s (my original was a backwards-compatible model), I could just use my Dualshock 3 to play the game.  I didn't need a Dualshock 1 or Dualshock 2 to do it.  If the game appears on my PS3, I can play it with my modern controllers.  It's just that simple.

Now, you can argue that the Dualshocks are all the same basic design, so that's not comparable, but the GamePad is essentially a Classic Controller Pro.  Are you seriously telling me it was out of the realm of possibility to program the Wii or Virtual Console emulators to see the GamePad as a Classic Controller Pro?  Sure, motion control games would be more or less out of the question.  The controllers are just too different.  I understand that.  But surely Nintendo could have worked out a solution where I don't have to drag out my Wiimote and my Classic Controller Pro the next time I feel like playing Xenoblade or frickin' Chrono Trigger on the Wii U.  But they didn't, because it wouldn't be as easy as just locking all Wii U functionality while inside non-Wii U titles and Nintendo's all about the easy route these days.

So yeah, I'm not thrilled at the idea of a $350 console because Nintendo's forcing me to buy an apparently $170 controller I don't want that doesn't even have the functionality I would expect from it while also not really being a "portable Wii U".  And all this to solve a problem I don't have and I'm not sure that many people do: having to share TVs with non-gamers.

They have not said you couldn't use the Gamepad as a Classic Controller in Wii mode.  They've only said you couldn't play games on the Gamepad Screen.

At this point we don't know.

Your "modern" controller is a Dualshock.  Sony ditched its original name the Sixaxis because people didn't like that.  Sony caved and instead of giving us what would have been a more ergonomically designed controller they just gave us a Dualshock.

Sony put a WHOLE PS2 in the original PS3.  Memory Serves they put a WHOLE PS1 into the PS2.  You see a trend here.  Then they totally ditched BC when it became slightly hard and they found they could resell the games.

Now lets say I want to you know actually use some of the past hardware I've acquired like DDR Mats or better yet a Controller for a second player on a PS3.  Because a Dualshock 3 is a Dualshock 2 with tilt you should be able to just do that.  Wrong.  You have to buy an adapter to use the controllers you already own or spend the 50-60 bucks for the occasional multiplayer.  Like to transfer you PS2 Memory Cards to work with your PS3.  $20 Transfer Adapter.

I don't really think Nintendo is doing bad at all compared to the Sony Example your going with.

The other things you mentioned, not playing VC games or controlling Wii games that use the Classic Controller, are admittedly odd choices. It seems lazy, like how only the Wii Remote could navigate the Wii Menu.

In all fairness, you can use the Classic Controller on the Wii's Channels menus.  You can use the Right Stick to move the cursor around.  I don't generally use my Classic Controller Pro for that purpose, but you could if you wanted to.

Which is a pain and Glitchy.

[Adrock]

I see. I had no idea. I thought it was the same as the GameCube controller. Whenever Super Smash Bros. Brawl was in, we always used Wavebirds so I would need the Wii Remote to get into the game.

[GoldenPhoenix]

The original Xbox 1 which came out in 2001 had an 8gb internal hard drive.

And Xbox 360 core had no hard drive and the pro model had a 20 GB HDD which is less then the Premium Wii system. Not to mention comparing flash memory to an HDD. So a ridiculous comparison no matter how you slice it. Oh yeah and the other big elephant in the room is for 360 you are paying a premium price for their propriety drive.

[Ian Sane]

My beef with the controller is the same that Chozo and broodwars have.  It's not just a minor addition to the traditional controller.  It's an expensive addition.  Without it the system may have had a lower price or, more importantly, the hardware would be more impressive because Nintendo didn't have to make any compromises to accomodate a very expensive controller.  Adding L+R buttons or the analog stick or clicky triggers were not expensive additions to the controller and had no impact on the "guts" of the machine itself.

My biggest concern about the Wii U is that once again we're getting inferior hardware that won't be able to compete with the other systems.  The reason for Nintendo to be chincy with the hardware is so that their super expensive controller doesn't inflate the price of the system to an unaffordable level.  Well that screen better be fucking worth it and so far I see nothing to suggest it is.  With the Wii the controller was EVERYTHING.  They asked us to essentially stay a generation back in exchange for motion control.  Except motion control sucks so for me that was not worth it at all.  So this gen are they asking us to AGAIN stay a generation back in exchange for a screen?  A concept that Nintendo already did back on the Gamecube and couldn't come up with any ideas for?  But ten years later suddenly the ideas are there, even though they have not shown us any yet?

I like how the controller just builds onto the existing design.  That's good controller design.  It's just the cost of the technology and the potential ripple effect of that that I don't like.  The Wii was gimmick over substance and I will not put up with that again.

[MrPhishfood]

People said the same thing when the Wii came out. That as it was the cheaper and more familiar platform it would be the more appealing system to develop for. That was not borne out. Looking back over the course of the last 6 years, developers were not only able to account for the expense of creating more graphically detailed and grander video games on the other platforms, they were able to flourish.

There's a big difference between then and now.

Warren Spector spoke about this some time ago on next-gen consoles HERE

"I think the power of the platforms is outstripping the size of the audience. We can't charge $150 for a game. And when the best-selling game of all time has sold only 20 million copies, at $60, do the math!

"If you're spending $200 million on a game and you're making $60 on 20 million copies sold, oh wait, you're losing money if you're the best-selling game of all time basically, right? I don't know how the business works anymore, that's the problem."

Note: It may seem like his math is wrong but publishers only get a fraction of that $60. You can read more about it HERE

Penny Arcade Report had a good article on why its so risky working on AAA development HERE

The industry is also narrowing. Fuller points out that in the past there have been 20 studios you could classify as AAA. These days? A dozen to 15. “In a year how many are we going to have? Sure, they’re going to be enormous, but how many will there be?” He joked about a future where there’s a single “AAAAA” developer employing 25,000 people. I didn’t find it funny.

To us the end consumer things don't really seem to change much but to the people working in the industry it has changed dramatically. As all those links have pointed out, developing for PS2 & Xbox is significantly different from developing for 360 & PS3. Games are still costing the same as they did last generation yet developers are spending more money making them and still getting the same cut of the profits. This is why its so important for AAA games this generation to have mass market appeal, they need more sales than ever just to break even.

If I was a developer or even the head of a studio I would want the Wii U to succeed over the competition. I would rather be trying to profit on creativity and ideas rather than profiting on polygons and textures.

EDIT: I would also like to point out even though technology is improving all the time it does not necessarily mean next-gen development will cost the same. The cost isn't measured in the hardware the developers use, its measured in the hours each employee spends making the game. Creating richer and expansive worlds requires more time. As Warren Spector puts it:

"It already takes three years to take a game, when all of a sudden creating assets at an even higher level of quality and animations that are even a higher level of quality, I don't know how we're going to do it. We'll figure it out but right now I'm content where I am."

[Adrock]

It's not just a minor addition to the traditional controller.  It's an expensive addition.  Without it the system may have had a lower price or, more importantly, the hardware would be more impressive because Nintendo didn't have to make any compromises to accomodate a very expensive controller.  Adding L+R buttons or the analog stick or clicky triggers were not expensive additions to the controller and had no impact on the "guts" of the machine itself.

This has already been addressed. The GamePad had no major effect on the hardware besides making sure it functioned as intended. Without it, Nintendo would have launched with basically the same specs. They're not playing by Sony and Microsoft's rules, even if you want them to. Whether or not the Wii U would have been launched at a significantly lower price point is debatable. Who's to say Nintendo wouldn't just pocket the extra? Mind you, I'm not advocating it. I just don't think it's fair to use that against the GamePad.

And define "expensive." In what manner of speaking? The screen itself isn't. Nintendo is marking the GamePad's retail price up which is its own separate discussion. There's research and development. It's not really fair to put recouping that cost entirely on the profits from the console itself.

The rest of your post is just... Wow. I'm not going to try to sell you on the merits of the GamePad. That's not up to me and I don't think anything will anyway. I don't think your assessment of the GamePad is fair or accurate at all, but that's your opinion and I won't argue it. We're all aware that you don't want one so the end.

[broodwars]

They have not said you couldn't use the Gamepad as a Classic Controller in Wii mode.  They've only said you couldn't play games on the Gamepad Screen.

At this point we don't know.

Officially, this is true.  However, we have been told several things that point to Virtual Console games not being playable using the GamePad:

1.  We know the GamePad is shut off while in "Wii mode", where Wii games are playable and only Wii controllers & accessories function.

2.  We know the Wii U is in "Wii mode" when you are playing Virtual Console titles, because that was Nintendo's justification for not allowing Virtual Console games to be displayed on the Gamepad.

Using logic we can thus infer that because the Wii U is in "Wii mode" while it is playing Virtual Console games, only Wii controllers & accessories will function for those games.  Like I said, Nintendo hasn't said this officially, but I think it's a pretty sound deduction.

Now lets say I want to you know actually use some of the past hardware I've acquired like DDR Mats or better yet a Controller for a second player on a PS3.  Because a Dualshock 3 is a Dualshock 2 with tilt you should be able to just do that.  Wrong.  You have to buy an adapter to use the controllers you already own or spend the 50-60 bucks for the occasional multiplayer.  Like to transfer you PS2 Memory Cards to work with your PS3.  $20 Transfer Adapter.

I don't really think Nintendo is doing bad at all compared to the Sony Example your going with.

I really don't see how Nintendo forcing folks to buy a $50 - $170 controller to play Wii U multiplayer for only Wii U games is any better than Sony charging $50 for a new Dualshock 3 that's compatible with everything (non-Move) the PS3 can play anyway. 

As for old accessories, I tend to get rid of my old systems when I buy the new one.  Many of my consoles (my Wii, my now-broken original PS3, and my newer PS1-compatible PS3) will play older-generation games so I can just keep my games and get rid of the hardware I don't have room to store anyway.  That's also money I can put into the purchase of the new console. *shrugs*  I think people wanting to use their old accessories on their new console to play old games is a bit of an edge case, but I agree they should be supported so long as the plugs are compatible.  If not, well...they belong in a museum! 

The other things you mentioned, not playing VC games or controlling Wii games that use the Classic Controller, are admittedly odd choices. It seems lazy, like how only the Wii Remote could navigate the Wii Menu.

In all fairness, you can use the Classic Controller on the Wii's Channels menus.  You can use the Right Stick to move the cursor around.  I don't generally use my Classic Controller Pro for that purpose, but you could if you wanted to.

Which is a pain and Glitchy.

Indeed.  I don't recommend it, but it is an option if you really want it.

[NWR_insanolord]

The reason Virtual Console games can't run on the GamePad is a symptom of decisions Nintendo made six years ago about how the Virtual Console was going to work. They decided that each game should come with its own version of the emulator and would be tested and approved individually. To update them for the Wii U they'd have to update each game individually, which would take a ridiculous amount of time. I think it's going to happen, it's just not going to happen immediately.

[Chozo Ghost]

The GamePad had no major effect on the hardware besides making sure it functioned as intended.

Why do you say that? I think it did have an effect on the hardware because when Nintendo was designing the console they had a target MSRP in mind and so when they were working on the specs of the console they were trying to meet this target. I'm guessing $299.99 was their target, which they managed to meet with the basic model. Now obviously Nintendo likes to profit off every hardware unit sold, so we can expect perhaps $20-$50 of that $300 is pure profit for Nintendo, and then you have a controller which costs how much? $100? So that leaves a budget of only about $150 for the console itself.

So instead of using an internal hard drive, Nintendo went with 8gb flash, and instead of using a modern CPU they went with a low end obsolete chip instead. And instead of going with 4-8gb of RAM like the competition is going to, Nintendo used only 2gb of RAM. All of these cuts were made and these cuts were necessary in order to keep manufacturing costs below that $150 target level. If you took the $100 controller out of the picture then Nintendo could have a budget of $250 for the console and the specs could have been a lot heftier while still meeting that $300 MSRP.

Without it, Nintendo would have launched with basically the same specs.

But not at the same MSRP. Maybe you are right that without the expensive controller Nintendo would have skimped on the console specs exactly the same as they did, but in that case they wouldn't need to be selling it at $300-$350. Perhaps it could have been $249.99 or even $199.99.