I was expecting $350 with NintendoLand packed in, so if that price also includes NintendoLand I'll be pleasantly surprised.
What if it turns out $60 worth of specs were stripped out in order to accommodate Nintendoland? Would that still be a pleasant surprise?
I hope at $300 we are getting hardware that is close to if not $300 in value. I don't want to pay $300 and get $200 worth of hardware and a $50-$60 game with the remainder being pure markup. If Nintendo is offering Nintendoland as a freebie out of their pocket which in no way factors into the cost of the Wii U then I'm perfectly fine with that, but in all honesty if its a casual mini-game collection like Wii Sports I would probably only play it for about 15 minutes and then it would just sit unused from that point on.
The bottom line is if NintendoLand were a stand alone game I would not spend $60 in it, so why should I be forced to pay for it in the price of the console? I would rather be able to just buy the console and then choose my own game, like perhaps Zombie U for example. You know, a game I would actually play as opposed to one that would just be a waste of money for me.
What gets me is weren't you and Adrock defending Nintendo's decision not to include an AC adapter in the 3DS XL because that saves people money by not forcing them to buy something they don't need? Well, why are you guys taking a 180 position here? Its the same principle. Not everyone is going to care about NintendoLand or want it, so why should they have no choice but to buy it in order to buy the console? At least with the AC adapter it was something you actually need for the system to run, but a game? Well you need a game I guess, but why not let consumers make their own decision?
Or at the very least, there should be two SKUs as an option. One with Nintendoland for $299, and then another one without it for $249. That way everyone is happy. Choice is never a bad thing.