Don't do that to yourself. You wouldn't be able to create a logical scenario to justify that belief.
It's going to be priced high because of the controller, that's going to limit adoption. In it's first 1-2 years on the market without next gen competition, it's going to be facing a $149 360 core and $199 PS3 with huge quality back libraries. The visual difference of it's games may not even be that great to PS360. It'll probably be priced 299-399, split the difference call it 349. Then after 1-2 years it's going to face likely much more powerful PS4/XB3 with wow factor. And it's still going to struggle with price no matter where it's at.
And the tablet could hurt or help, I dont know. In the long run it's definitely going to hurt on bill of materials. But I cant see it capturing the zeitgeist of the casuals like Wii motion control did at all. It's almost more hardcore aimed, except that the hardcore are going to go straight for PS4/XB3.
I think it will do okay as long as it's the most powerful thing on the market, which will be 1-2 years. But only OK, nothing great. Then PS4/XB3 will come along and...
Anyway I feel like this is rehashing my longstanding Wii U monologues rather than anything new so I'll drop it.
I feel like Nintendo should have come up with Kinect, that might have been a good way forward for them, where they might have had another gen where they didn't need to compete on power, and I feel sure Kinect would have been much more embraced as a Nintendo technology. Plus if they even were at less of a power deficit than they are this gen, that could have helped a bit too, as long as they had that casual base. But I dont see any casual
or hardcore base in Wii U as currently theorized.
