This in HD. That in HD.

I don't care if it's in HD or whatever. Nor do I care that Pikmin 3 will be in HD. I just want to play Pikmin 3 D:

And any new game Nintendo brings out.

No smart one it's the fact that it wouldn't cost them much to make so there would be no reason to overprice it. A cheaper price is more reasonable. I mean look how much a Vita cost to make and how much their charging you.

Wii U Controller - $59.99

_{Right now} PS3 Controller - $54.99

Now why did you have to be condescending? What is the cheapest touch screen technology on the market today? As for your example of the Vita; it is estimated that is cost over $150 to manufacture then you have R&D, labor costs, retailers profit margin, marketing and distributing on top of that. All of that add's up pretty quickly.

Let’s just say the Wii U MSRP is $70. The average gross profit margin is 30% therefore Nintendo would be selling this to retailers at around $49.00 each. $49.00 to manufacture a 6.2” touch screen controller with a camera, rechargeable battery, and gyroscope among other tings? You don't think it will cost at least that? Man, I hope an additional Wii U controller will only be $70.00!

Actually no it wouldn't a single vita with all the add on you mention would still not equal the 250 or 300 depending on which one you get and on top of that in the masses no they would still not come out to being equal because where would the profit come from? These people aren't stupid, what cost let’s say roughly 150 to make the Vita 3g plus everything else would not equal to 300 and the Wi-Fi only will cost even less to make. Remember most things that go into these high tech systems are cheap to manufacture. I am 100% that they'll charger 70 maybe 65 but my point is they could charge less but they won't because it's the profit they want. I mean if people are willing to pay 50 to 60 on the other remotes than of course it'd be reasonable for Nintendo to charge 70 for a remote with a screen but it could be cheaper. And sorry about the comment, wasn't my intentions to come off as if I think I’m superior. But I mean at the end of the day it's quantity over quality. But yes I could see them selling it at a 70 mark.

I don't think people can expect to be getting the Wii U Tablet Controller for $70. My guess is $110, and I reckon that's the lowest they'll go. I could easily see them being $150, maybe even nearer $200, but I can't see the Wii U selling very well at all if the controller's end up costing any more than $150.

That's way toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. That'd be like paying for a handheld or a probably half the the system. Nintendo is no Microsoft and after the failure with 3ds launch I know they won't make that mistake.

Apology accepted, now let's be friends. Here's the thing simplified, say the suggested retail price is $300 for the Vita and stores on average make around 30% profit on electronics. To make the 30% that means the store bought that $300 Vita from Sony or the distributor for $210. Sony is not seeing pofits of 50% (that would come from Sony selling Vita for $300 directly to the end user). It's not even going to see 30% profits after additional costs beyond the manufacturing are included in the final costs. Now to foucus back on the Wii U controller where in my previous post I briefly expressed how I thought Nintendo cannot sell a 6.2" touch screen multifunctional controller for that low of a price in which you suggested. It appears that you seem to think it is nearly just another controller and in that we just strongly disagree with one another.

If the Wii U controller is under $150, I'm going to be VERY concerned about quality. An HD touchscreen (hopefully multitouch, PLEASE be multitouch) with a microphone, IR sensor, camera, usb and sd capabilities should cost A LOT to make. If it didn't cost a lot to make, then there should be some giant red flags. Ever since the Wii U's reveal I've been awfully scared that the Wii U is going to be a touch screen in the same way that the bottom half of a DS is a touch screen...which is to say the same way that the LeapPad tablet for toddlers is a touch screen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgOPIuYErL4

It was confirmed that the Wii U controller has a resistive touch screen (i.e. the same as the DS's bottom screen).
http://wiiu.nintendolife.com/news/2011/06/wii_u_touch_screen_...

It sucks, I know :/

I'm gonna say that the tablet is probably going to be somewhere between $70 and $80. I know that might seem a bit optimistic, but I assume that the Wii U will have one packed in, and since there aren't any intentions that I know of, there won't be any games that utilize two Wii U tablets for a couple of months. After that, I'd say that 70-80 seems very fair, since people won't need to buy multiple controllers. As for the console itself, I can imagine it selling for probably $350 or even $400 if there is a pack in game (I'd love to have a new Mario or Pikmin 3 as the pack in game, but that's just me)

Always nice to make friends You know I'm no marketing genius but I'm sure Sony has done everything to make sure the minimum profit will be 30%. Now of course I can't deny nor claim this is true as I know nothing of what Sony thinks on how it's going to make the money. I mean think if the Vita bombs like it is in Japan when it releases this February then we will see a big price drop to a more reasonable price. We'll see but as for the WiiU the screen is actually cheap. It's a resistive touchscreen, LCD WVGA (don't know much about this) but many complain because all of this material for the screen is cheap and that they should use what Apple uses for there Ipads (but at the end of the day everyone says the WiiU screen looks better than that of the Ipad). It is more than just a controller it really is, I mean the tech going in it is impressive but buying in the masses it is cheap. Now I'm not trying to attack the Wii U, I has a fan of Nintendo will go out and purchases one on launch day and will support. I mean I can sit here and say that's too much but looked I payed for the 3ds at launch price. Just wishing for a more reasonable price not only for me but in hopes that it attracts more customers. I mean I rather pay 70 than 110 or 150 like that fellow user thinks up there.

Oh man, I can just see Nintendo releasing something like a Touch Screen Pro within a year of the launch. 30% brighter and now with a capacitive screen! Haha...

It's resistive which isn't bad at all and no it isn't an HD screen either. The screen doesn't have the power to be HD and I mean it isn't bad either. Everyone whose covered the WiiU and tried it out has said that the screen looks better than an Ipad and I don't see what's bad about a screen that is resistive works better than a capacitive. You'll get use to it like nothing

Would love to see Mario or Pikmin in there too but I know they won't do that

@zapdinos: At least we agree that Metroid is awesome! Anyway, I am just trying to look at the pricing realistically
and not what I would like to pay. I am a strong believer in you get what you pay for and I would rather pay a premium than pay for something cheap and underwhelming.

Eff Yeah! Best series in my opinion but I'm mad at Nintendo. They focus too much last year on Zelda and forgot Samus 25th but hey loyal fans stick by her. And I agree with you there realistically I could see it drop at least by 10. I mean regardless I know they'll give a great system/controller and like I said I'll complain about the price but I'll pay it. As a consumer I'm entitled that but hey I can agree with you though I'd rather pay more for something that will be great.

Welp...this makes me sad. I've actually been foregoing getting a tablet because I was waiting on the Wii U instead. With the rumors of them having their own robust App store and Ereader capabilities I really was hoping the Wii U controller would indeed act as a tablet. I'm aware that Nintendo did not advertise Wii U as a tablet during E3 and has stayed away from that name, but I was hoping that was just to emphasize its primary functionality as a controller. When on the couch I seem to be juggling my phone (using apps) and the 3DS. It would be ingenious if I could just pause Mario and on the same screen update my social networks, quickly check the internet or send an e-mail. I think Nintendo could really gain back all the casual gamers they lost to App - games by becoming an App medium. It may be a little hard to navigate apps with a resistive screen though.....: / so now I'm kinda unsure about these rumors.

Also @zapdinos, what do you mean the screen doesn't have the power to be HD? I thought it produced 1080p images.

Streaming quality can limit it. Hopefully at least 720p. Who needs apps? Angry Birds, Bejewled, and Plants VS Zombies aren't everything. I use them for some gaming, but not nearly all.

That's the thing though, I'm definitely not a fan of app games. When it comes to handheld gaming I turn to my 3DS because those are quality games that I want to experience. The other apps, however, are what I do want on the tablet. A comic reading app on the Wii U tablet? Yes please. I think Skype has to be on there because of the camera. Apps that are social network and media tools are what the real draw to tablets are. And I think these are definitely beneficial things that could help Nintendo win back those casual gamers that put their Wii on the shelf for Angry Birds.