no multi-touch does limit what can be done though. For the Wii U it may not be entirely necessary to game with but it does limit its "tablet features". Like surfing the web on it might be really painful.

The problem I have with the Wii U. It isn't a mobile tablet and also how good is this console really going to be (nothing really known). There are some gameplay uses for the Wii U tablet but anything outside having map and inventory on the screen there is not much that can be done because they can;t build a game that limits its features as soon as you stream it to the tablet. I can see why it has a tablet (get into the casual market) but honestly are they going to choose a Wii over higher end tablets with app stores and mobility? Defiantly not.

Nintendo need to release some specs and actual games before I say it will succeed or not.

A little note to the article. Subsidised console? I agree if it cost more than 400 they will have to but it depends really on their investors. It can;t be heavily subsidised without pissing them off (they are quite important).

"The WiiU tablet is a whole different type of gimmick, and Nintendo is hoping they can once again innovate rather than directly compete against the competition, but is it too late for Nintendo?"

-How is this actually innovation? We already have dozens of tablets, with the iPad being the king of them all. How would this appeal to all other people out there who are already satisfied with what their new tablets can offer them?

Some Ninty fans might actually like the shovelware, but I get what you're saying.

The thing is, they created a system that incorporates a tablet - the currently must-have thing in the likes of casuals and many people. Not only is the tablet such as an iPad 2 readily available on the market, but it's also a stand alone product - it is not tethered to a system in order to work; like the Wii U controller is. Plus, casual people can satisfy all their gaming needs with a simple app purchase costing a mere $2.99

So the question is, what is Ninty going to do in order to convince these people to get a Wii U? Also, how are they going to convince the hardcore gamers to move onto the Wii U, or convince them to say buy a multiplat on the Wii U instead of another console??

It's a lot more expensive to do multitouch. If they did multitouch, they would have to put more expensive tech inside the screen to calculate where the person is placing their fingers. For single touch, it's much more simpler and they can use less tech and just triangulate where the person's finger/stylus is.

I also think Nintendo is doing a resistive touchscreen instead of capacitive which would lower the cost even more.

Personally, I would rather it be cheaper if they allow the console to support multiple controllers. Just because I don't want to shed out over $100 just so my friend can play with me...

Actually, I agree. Nintendo has missed out on a BUNCH of opportunities when it comes to things like that.

Remember the Wii channels? Nintendo gave us 2-3 new channels, and that was it. They dropped that system completely.

No system update has actually altered the Wii OS in any way. The only addition was an SD card icon to let you boot games of an SD card.

Sounds like they're gonna get things right though with the Wii U.

The fact that you have ANY disagrees will forever baffle me. And to the (apparent) MAGA contingent that exists on this website, enjoy your 8-9 dollar gas.

Yes, they had better be pissed after Trump told them the way they rip off the USA is over.

That’s what I was thinking, imagine them winning hypothetically, getting a s**t load of money back which they would have lost if they hadn’t raised their prices and it’s business as normal.

It would just mean people paid more for no reason since they got the money back anyway.

A lot of companies partially passed the cost to consumers instead of all of it. They would still have to at least pay that back to gamers, but we know that won't happen. What's also sad is that prices won't come back down after the initial hike caused by tariffs.

People didn't understand the full repercussions of tariffs. That alone should have cost him the presidency if people knew it was a permanent price hike for consumers

Naw they should sue the government for forcing the tax to begin with. No one reasonably expects these companies to absorb the taxes. Many smaller companies tried and were shut down or faced to increase prices to try to maintain their business. The tariffs effect everyone.

The companies were doing what the law required then to do, the tariffs however were illegally implemented. Usually it's criminals we punish, you seem to have different ideas 🤷‍♂️