Topic: Should I pay a warranty for my Wii U?

Unless Nintendo can get down to business and link your games and such to your account rather than tying them to the system, getting a non-Nintendo warranty is not such a good idea, because if something goes wrong, and you don't let Nintendo handle it, you'll likely lose all your downloaded content.

Wow, almost like it has shock absorbers. Nintendo builds their stuff like tanks, that's for sure.

Nintendo have always made the most reliable gaming hardware in the industry. All Nintendo hardware comes with a 12 month warranty and software with a 24 month warranty. They offer a fantastic out-of-warranty service that gives you another 12 months again when you pay for a repair and its almost always cheaper than 3rd party ones anyway. Don't forget that 3rd parties will just replace the console meaning that at the moment you'll loose any paid for downloaded games, wheras deal with them direct and they'll make sure it all stays regardless... just keep your proof of purchase safe somewhere just in case.

In terms of build quality, Nintendo is no Sony just like Samsung is no Apple. Still the Wii U is a quality product. You should not worry that much of it getting broken.

I seriously hope you're joking. Actually, way more Sony stuff breaks when it comes to game consoles. Sony may build quality stuff overall in more markets than just gaming, but I think comparing those companies is kinda of the wrong attitude, especially when it's not true.
PS3 phats having burned out lasers, the infamous PS1 upside down fix, 'my PS2 fell 2 feet and broke', etc. None of that stuff ever usually happens because of Nintendo if it does happen. It's usually fault of the owner.
Same with with Samsung. They have way more quality products on the market than Apple does. Hell, my oven is a Samsung, and I know Samsung stuff lasts WAY longer than Apple's BS.

That's what he just said.

No it isn't he said Sony products are of a higher build quality, and Apple products are of a higher build quality.

I can definitely agree with the Samsung to Apple comparison, but Nintendo to Sony? Really? In my experience they've always seemed pretty much equal, with maybe Nintendo edging ahead.

You're right. I skipped the 'still'. Got it the wrong way round.

Don't hire me as your bookkeeping accountant

Apologies, SCAR392

I just don't like it when people say stuff that isn't FULLY true.
Nintendo does make more DURABLE consoles than Sony from my experience. GCN will break 10x less under the same circumstances as a PS2, and same goes for every console of Sony's you compare to Nintendo's.
I have personally NEVER seen a Nintendo console break as opposed to PS. I see Vitas frozen and broken at demo kiosks like 100% of the time. I'm not even exaggerating...
They are good comparisons I suppose, but Sony makes WAY better things than PS3 that aren't even gaming related. I've probably said this a million times by now, but I think Sony has the best TVs and A/V receivers, but I will always choose Nintendo for gaming.
As for Apple, there are WAY better smartphones out there. I had an iPad 2, and that thing is a piece of crap compared to other tablets out there IMO.
It's all about preference, but when it comes right down to it, Sony and Apple's devices are not the kind of devices that I would ever say have a better buil quality.
So yes, Nintendo is no Sony, and Samsung is no Apple. That's a compliment for Nintendo and Samsung IMO.

Obviously when someone's says something about build quality of a product he's not talking about the product technical performance but the quality of the build. Let's take for example an Apple iPhone 5 with that of Samsung Galaxy S4. Compared with the iPhone 5, the Galaxy S4 looks & feels flimsy. It's made of cheap plastic & metal housing. The iPhone 5 looks solid with glass inlays & aluminium housing. In terms of build quality, the iPhone 5 in the real winner. In terms of specs the Galaxy S4 is the real winner. It goes the same with the Apple iPad Mini versus the Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0. Tech junkies can all agree that in terms of build quality the Apple product is superior than the competition. In terms of performance, the Galaxy Note 8.0 wins over the competition.

In gaming console it's the same. Sony's products build quality is better than Nintendo. Look closely at the Wii U. The plastic casing looks cheap & flimsy. The product logo will eventually fade if you keep on touching it. The PS3 is the opposite. It looks solid & well built on the outside. Same as the Gamepad. It also looks cheap & flimpsy & made of cheap plastic. Try shaking it & you'll hear something inside. Hold it with your thumb close to the screen & it bends a bet. The touchscreen display is made of cheap resistive LCD. The PS Vita is the is the opposite. Feels solid & heavy. Doesn't bend & made of expensive plastic material. The touchscreen display is made of expensive capacitive LCD. Overall, it's typical of Sony product build quality - rock solid.

In no way I'm saying that PS4 is better than the Wii U. I think the Wii U is better than the PS4 if you factor the innovation. The PS4 is a costly piece of junk if you wanna include the PS Vita to the equation to experience the off TV innovation started on the Wii U. Overall, the Wii U is a lot better.

I'm not talking about the components reliability here but build quality so read carefully.

Again, I've always felt that that Sony and Ninty were about equal for build quality, but I think you knocking the resistive touch screen is a bit much. Saying that it bends a bit under pressure is just inherent to the design, and Nintendo chose a resistive screen purposefully.

Also I have a personal vendetta against capacitive screens. They seem far more inconsistent than resistive. But I'm sure most people prefer capacitive. I'm a minority!

Again, I'm not talking about the components reliability here but build quality so read carefully.

Nintendo chose the resistive screen purposely because it's cheap &/or inexpensive. The higher quality capacitive screen costs more.

If they would have went Wacom(multitouch) like lots of tablets and PCs, the Wii U would have costed $100-200 more. Even iPad doesn't use Wacom.
Microsoft Surface uses Wacom, and that's an automatic win vs. the iPad, along with running actual PC software.
To further my argument, Dualshock is the worst build of controller I've ever seen, and a new i everything comes out once a year with almost nothing improved.
The build quality may be better on the outside in some cases, but someone who actually knows anything about computers would never suggest an iPhone or PS3 over a Galaxy S or Xbox 360 FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE MARKETS.
If we bring in more than just a few companies, they all lose in some ways.

But something costing more does not mean it is a higher quality. The resistive touch screen was chosen from an economical stand point, yes, but it is still a high quality resistive touch screen.

There are other pros and cons, which you are wistfully ignoring.

Actually it's a good thing Nintendo choose the resistive touch screen. It lowers the production cost of the Wii U & it's competitively priced. You can also get the whole package out of the box.