The lights are on
All these naysayers are bugging me so here are my thoughts.
"Its just another gimmick."
How so? The controler has the motion sensing of the Wii motion+, the touch screen of a tablet, and the tradtional controls of of the 360/PS3 all in one. Its not some gimmicky hardware meant to revelutionize gaming. Its a versitile tool for developers to make any kind of game they want be it hardcore, casual or something artsy and in-between (think flower). I think this is exactly what the doctor ordered. The system can give the hardcore the games they want without completely alienating the casual market that Nintendo created.
"Where are the system specs/first-party games/online details?"
All things considered we have goten a crazy ammount of iformation for being so far from its release. Remember at this point in the Wii's life cycle even third-party devs were in the dark. Outside of Nintendo few if any new more than what is shown in this video.
"The graphics aren't better than what we have now. Why buy the system for games I can already Play on 360/PS3?"
So first off, all rumors/leaked info said it would barely be more powerful than the PS3, and as it has been proven many times this generation a less powerful system will run/look better when the software is optimized for it. Not to mention this system is alway going to be rendering at least 2 screens.
Secondly porting last gen games to current gen consoles is nothing new several early 360 titles were PS2/Gamecube ports.
Finally even though it sucks for a lot of reasons, with todays production costs very few third-party devs can afford to make exclusives and the ones that can usually don't cause they can make more money doing multi-platform. This means even if the Wii U can handle better graphics we won't see them (at least from third-party) until the PS4 and next Xbox come out.
"PS4 and the next Xbox are going to blow this away in 2014 and Nintendo will be obslete again."
Anything is possible, but I highly doubt that for many reasons. It might sound like it makes sense, but the facts don't support this theory at all. First off I have my doubts that the next jump in graphics is even going to be noticable. More power still means better graphics but we've hit a ceiling point where it takes a lot bigger of a jump in hardware to make a diference and the time/costs it takes to make those graphics are more than ever before.
Secondly though for two console generations the inferior console that launched first was the most succesful. The PS2 came out before the Gamecube/Xbox and was less powerfull, but it got more exclusive games and all multi-platform games were dumbed down enough to run on its weaker hardware, which in turn sold more systems. The Xbox 360 was the same way launching a year early with inferior hardware it got way more exclusives and multi-platform games were dumbed down and sometimes even optimized for it. The reason for this is the huge head start they got on install base. The development comunity will flock to the system that has the largest install base in order to make back their money. Once they had that head start they got more games which sold more systems which in turn got them more games cause a snowball effect.
If history repeats itself the Wii U will go the way of the PS2/360 and become the standard for the next generation.
"But the tech demo looked terrible, The Samaritan looked way better!"
This one make me laugh a little bit because when I show people side by side comparisons from that tech demo of new tech on/off they're pretty much never able to tell me which is supposedly better without captions telling them. So I don't even believe The Samaritan is that much better, but lets assume it is. That tech demo was running on not one but three extremely high end PC video cards. It could be a while before even one of those cards is affordable enough to avoid putting out a $600-$700 system much less three of them.
Microsoft beat out Sony console sale with a less powerful system that was $100 cheaper and Nintendo beat them with a system that was $250 cheaper than that. And the economy didn't suck as bad back then. I imagine all three companies are being very cautious about the prices of their next systems. To be fair many of us kinda got tricked by Nintendo back then and we've gotten smarter now, but I still think people are over estimating how big the next jump will be.
"How much is that controler gonna cost? It looks expensive."
Yes it does at that. Though it isn't much more tech than a Wii Remote+ with a nunchuck (just a touch screen and battery) it still could be a bit pricy. What worries me more though is that the price of additional conrtolers might not be an issue. While reading the transcript of the latest Iwata Asks something stood out to me. After combing through marketing materials and press coverage of the tech demos I realized there's a lot of evidence suggesting that the Wii U can only handle one of its new controlers at a time and will require Wii Remotes for multiplayer games.
"The name is horrible."
Yes it is. Not only does it sound stupid, its causing tons of brand confusion amoungst hardcore gamers. If gamers can't even get this stuff straight can you imagine how bad it will be for the casual consumers that Nintendo is trying to hold onto?
There are my thoughts. I remain optimistic at this point, but back in 2005 I was excited for a system called the Revelution and we all know how that turned out.