$150 Gets you this...

+ Not multi-touch

+ 480p Display

+ Not a self contained unit (No processing hardware of its own)

+ Can't take it outside (not portable)

$200 Gets you this..

(Nexus 7)

+ Multi-touch display

+ 800p IPS display

+ Self Contained unit

+ Wireless internet access

+ Portable

+ Much more flexible OS utility function

Problem Nintendo?

You realize that this comparison makes zero sense, right?

Why are you comparing a controller to a tablet?

@DeF said:

You realize that this comparison makes zero sense, right?

Why are you comparing a controller to a tablet?

Sure, pretend the consumer is not going to actively compare the WiiU to an ipad, Kindle HD, or Nexus 7. Especially when the tablet-look alike controller that really isn't a tablet is A. Confusing, and B. costs $150.

It wasn't that long that a similar argument with phones and portable gaming systems was ridiculous. Look at where we are today.

@insanejedi: it doesn't even cost $150 because it's not for sale separately in the west yet. Only in Japan. That's their price.

The comparison remains pointless.

@insanejedi:

But can the Nexus 7 play Nintendo games?

What's the data plan like for the WiiU?

Oh, wait...

@gladspooky said:

What's the data plan like for the WiiU?

Oh, wait...

Oh wait what? I don't get the point you're trying to make here.

The WiiU has the exact same data plan as my iPad.

I think the main problem is I cant detach the screen and look after my chao on the go

Your using a WiiU pad thingy in conjunction with the WiiU, you kind of have to add the WiiU in the equation when your comparing this, no one is only going to own a Wii U Tablet purely on its own.

Unless your a crazy person.

I'm gonna buy both ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@insanejedi said:

@DeF said:

You realize that this comparison makes zero sense, right?

Why are you comparing a controller to a tablet?

Sure, pretend the consumer is not going to actively compare the WiiU to an ipad, Kindle HD, or Nexus 7. Especially when the tablet-look alike controller that really isn't a tablet is A. Confusing, and B. costs $150.

It wasn't that long that a similar argument with phones and portable gaming systems was ridiculous. Look at where we are today.

Not only was your original post's comparison silly, but now you're putting smartphones in the same bracket as the 3DS and Vita?

You're comparing apples and oranges, these are products meant for different things.

150$ for a controller is fucking steep. Holy damn

The whole thing is dumb.

@TeflonBilly said:

Not only was your original post's comparison silly, but now you're putting smartphones in the same bracket as the 3DS and Vita?

You're comparing apples and oranges, these are products meant for different things.

That sentiment really couldn't matter less to the consumer, Nintendo, and Sony. Fact is that parents are buying their kids iPod Touches and iPads instead of PSV's and 3Ds.

@insanejedi said:

That sentiment really couldn't matter less to the consumer, Nintendo, and Sony. Fact is that parents are buying their kids iPod Touches and iPads instead of PSV's and 3Ds.

You're right, why buy a $170 device for your kid when you could instead buy him a tablet costing at least double. And if you're going to make a comparison with iPads and iPod touches here, why didn't in your original post?

They're two different things. You're literally comparing Apple to Oranges here. Might as well say "well why would people buy XBoxes or Playstations when they could just buy an iPad or iPod" because it's the same damn argument.

@MAGZine said:

You're right, why buy a $170 device for your kid when you could instead buy him a tablet costing at least double. And if you're going to make a comparison with iPads and iPod touches here, why didn't in your original post?

They're two different things. You're literally comparing Apple to Oranges here. Might as well say "well why would people buy XBoxes or Playstations when they could just buy an iPad or iPod" because it's the same damn argument.

@insanejedi

$200 Gets you this..

(Nexus 7)

+ Multi-touch display

+ 800p IPS display

+ Self Contained unit

+ Wireless internet access

+ Portable

+ Much more flexible OS utility function

I'm confused here

@DeF said:

You realize that this comparison makes zero sense, right?

Why are you comparing a controller to a tablet?

It makes total sense in the context of demonstrating that Nintendo can't justify the prices they're charging for the controller.

If I squint real hard, I guess I can kinda see an argument that in terms of the value Nintendo isn't cramming much into the controller itself--that is, for about the same price, phones cram in quite a few more features. Although it's worth pointing out that the high price of data plans often subsidizes what would otherwise be more expensive hardware. So yeah, Nintendo could have offered multitouch, higher resolutions, etc. in its controller.

On the other hand, complaining that it's not portable, that it is not in itself a gaming system, etc. is actually a silly argument. It's not a full tablet, not marketed as a tablet, and not available as a tablet. It's a controller. You can make the argument that Nintendo isn't quite offering the features it ought to in the tablet, but saying that it sucks because it's not this completely different thing--well then I'm with everyone else in saying this is a dumb comparison.

@wewantsthering said:

@DeF said:

You realize that this comparison makes zero sense, right?

Why are you comparing a controller to a tablet?

It makes total sense in the context of demonstrating that Nintendo can't justify the prices they're charging for the controller.

The comparison is idiotic. It's like comparing a power cable to a hair dryer. Both draw power. One is a necessary accessory that can be purchased separately, the other is a full on standalone product.

Also, the point still stands that the thing isn't even sold anywhere until sometime next year and no prices outside of Japan have been announced. And you only need it for specific titles that support two of them. It's an additional peripheral.

@DeF said:

@wewantsthering said:

@DeF said:

You realize that this comparison makes zero sense, right?

Why are you comparing a controller to a tablet?

It makes total sense in the context of demonstrating that Nintendo can't justify the prices they're charging for the controller.

The comparison is idiotic. It's like comparing a power cable to a hair dryer. Both draw power. One is a necessary accessory that can be purchased separately, the other is a full on standalone product.

Also, the point still stands that the thing isn't even sold anywhere until sometime next year and no prices outside of Japan have been announced. And you only need it for specific titles that support two of them. It's an additional peripheral.

The comparison is not idiotic. Both are tablets. Using a power cable and hair dryer as an example of how idiotic the original comparison is in fact idiotic. The comparison is not to demonstrate that an actual tablet is better than the Wii U tablet. The point is that they're charging inflated prices for what the tablet is for the total price of the Wii U and when they sell the controller separately, it will be that much money. They both have similar tablet parts, but the Wii U is made out of the cheapest components possible, yet that's why they are getting away with charging so much for the dated Wii U hardware.

@wewantsthering said:

@DeF said:

@wewantsthering said:

@DeF said:

You realize that this comparison makes zero sense, right?

Why are you comparing a controller to a tablet?

It makes total sense in the context of demonstrating that Nintendo can't justify the prices they're charging for the controller.

The comparison is idiotic. It's like comparing a power cable to a hair dryer. Both draw power. One is a necessary accessory that can be purchased separately, the other is a full on standalone product.

Also, the point still stands that the thing isn't even sold anywhere until sometime next year and no prices outside of Japan have been announced. And you only need it for specific titles that support two of them. It's an additional peripheral.

The comparison is not idiotic. Both are tablets. Using a power cable and hair dryer as an example of how idiotic the original comparison is in fact idiotic. The comparison is not to demonstrate that an actual tablet is better than the Wii U tablet. The point is that they're charging inflated prices for what the tablet is for the total price of the Wii U and when they sell the controller separately, it will be that much money. They both have similar tablet parts, but the Wii U is made out of the cheapest components possible, yet that's why they are getting away with charging so much for the dated Wii U hardware.

The Wii U Gamepad is, in fact, not a tablet. It's a controller. A tablet is a standalone, portable device. The gamepad is a gaming controller with a built-in touch screen which is exactly why the original comparison is idiotic. You don't use this thing to play angry birds on it and check your twitter feed and read some PDFs, you're using it to enhance your gaming experience and how you interface with the main console.

Adding to that, the Wii U hardware is not "dated." While it may be conservative in terms of processing power, it uses modern hardware with modern features.

@DeF said:

@wewantsthering said:

@DeF said:

@wewantsthering said:

@DeF said:

You realize that this comparison makes zero sense, right?

Why are you comparing a controller to a tablet?

It makes total sense in the context of demonstrating that Nintendo can't justify the prices they're charging for the controller.

The comparison is idiotic. It's like comparing a power cable to a hair dryer. Both draw power. One is a necessary accessory that can be purchased separately, the other is a full on standalone product.

Also, the point still stands that the thing isn't even sold anywhere until sometime next year and no prices outside of Japan have been announced. And you only need it for specific titles that support two of them. It's an additional peripheral.

The comparison is not idiotic. Both are tablets. Using a power cable and hair dryer as an example of how idiotic the original comparison is in fact idiotic. The comparison is not to demonstrate that an actual tablet is better than the Wii U tablet. The point is that they're charging inflated prices for what the tablet is for the total price of the Wii U and when they sell the controller separately, it will be that much money. They both have similar tablet parts, but the Wii U is made out of the cheapest components possible, yet that's why they are getting away with charging so much for the dated Wii U hardware.

The Wii U Gamepad is, in fact, not a tablet. It's a controller. A tablet is a standalone, portable device. The gamepad is a gaming controller with a built-in touch screen which is exactly why the original comparison is idiotic. You don't use this thing to play angry birds on it and check your twitter feed and read some PDFs, you're using it to enhance your gaming experience and how you interface with the main console.

Adding to that, the Wii U hardware is not "dated." While it may be conservative in terms of processing power, it uses modern hardware with modern features.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it's both a tablet and a controller in one. It may not have every single part that a normal tablet has, but it has many of the same parts inside. I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. If you break down the parts inside the Wii U controller and break out the parts from a Nexus 7, you will see that there are a lot of similar components. When you do a cost analysis on those parts, it is clear that the Wii U controller's price is quite inflated compared to the market of those parts. LCD, touch interface, etc.

A parent who buys their child a game controller without the corresponding system has failed. Someone like that probably wouldn't even recognize Nexus 7 as a quality product. Maybe they'd buy a Coby tablet which would disappoint the child just as much as a Wii U GamePad.

I really don't see this as a realistic comparison that people will make.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure I've read that it's speculated (maybe confirmed by now) the Nexus 7 is so competitively priced that Google is actually losing some money with each unit sold. So that tablet is an underpriced product.

@wewantsthering said:

@DeF said:

@wewantsthering said:

@DeF said:

@wewantsthering said:

@DeF said:

You realize that this comparison makes zero sense, right?

Why are you comparing a controller to a tablet?

It makes total sense in the context of demonstrating that Nintendo can't justify the prices they're charging for the controller.

The comparison is idiotic. It's like comparing a power cable to a hair dryer. Both draw power. One is a necessary accessory that can be purchased separately, the other is a full on standalone product.

Also, the point still stands that the thing isn't even sold anywhere until sometime next year and no prices outside of Japan have been announced. And you only need it for specific titles that support two of them. It's an additional peripheral.

The comparison is not idiotic. Both are tablets. Using a power cable and hair dryer as an example of how idiotic the original comparison is in fact idiotic. The comparison is not to demonstrate that an actual tablet is better than the Wii U tablet. The point is that they're charging inflated prices for what the tablet is for the total price of the Wii U and when they sell the controller separately, it will be that much money. They both have similar tablet parts, but the Wii U is made out of the cheapest components possible, yet that's why they are getting away with charging so much for the dated Wii U hardware.

The Wii U Gamepad is, in fact, not a tablet. It's a controller. A tablet is a standalone, portable device. The gamepad is a gaming controller with a built-in touch screen which is exactly why the original comparison is idiotic. You don't use this thing to play angry birds on it and check your twitter feed and read some PDFs, you're using it to enhance your gaming experience and how you interface with the main console.

Adding to that, the Wii U hardware is not "dated." While it may be conservative in terms of processing power, it uses modern hardware with modern features.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it's both a tablet and a controller in one. It may not have every single part that a normal tablet has, but it has many of the same parts inside. I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. If you break down the parts inside the Wii U controller and break out the parts from a Nexus 7, you will see that there are a lot of similar components. When you do a cost analysis on those parts, it is clear that the Wii U controller's price is quite inflated compared to the market of those parts. LCD, touch interface, etc.

It isn't. It's using features that are found in a tablet, yes. Does that make it a tablet? Is a 3DS a tablet now too because it has the exact same features (camera, mic, gyro, touch, lcd screen)? Just because everyone keeps calling it a tablet due to its form factor doesn't mean that's what it is.

It's no use arguing against a price that is solely based on conversion from the Japanese price since the thing may end up costing less in the west ultimately. As for the whole package, you're not just paying for a bunch of single parts glued together, there's also all the fine tuning in terms of firmware and latency reduction to consider, again, something that has nothing to do with the world of tablets. The price in Yen for an additional, optional standalone controller is very high, yes. There's no argument against that. There is no need to buy one of them since one comes packed in with the console and two-pad games haven't been announced yet. You can't do anything with that controller on its own, which is why the comparison remains pointless.