Wii U to retail for around $300 [Rumor]

How much are you willing to pay for Nintendo's Wii U? According to a source associated with Nintendo's manufacturing and distribution, fans would do well to save at least $300 for the forthcoming Wii successor.

The unnamed insider quoted the number to the Canadian blog Forget the Box, claiming the Wii U's total of goods – minus packaging, software, and other related items – is pegged at $180, with the Wii U's tablet controller eating roughly $50 of the cost. The source also indicated Nintendo is opting for an “economical GPU and CPU” that will bring the system in step with the current PS3 and Xbox 360 consoles without breaking the bank.

“They are cutting costs in the Wii U's hardware to build back confidence in investors,” said the source, adding, “There is a bigger focus on downloadable content, applications, video content, digital distribution, and services to create a stream of revenue. Investors will be ecstatic with the news."

Investors, sure. But players? That's up to personal preference. This isn't the first time we've hear rumors of the Wii U's underwhelming specs. Just last week, an anonymous developer claimed the Wii U will in fact be weaker than PS3 and Xbox 360. True, a $300 price tag is enticing, but the idea that Nintendo's next console will finally catch up to the competition just as Sony and Microsoft are gearing up for their own next-gen consoles may be concerning to fans expecting a larger leap in technology.

For its part, Nintendo has consistently said it isn't as preoccupied with graphics as its competitors. In a recent chat with Digital Trends following the latest tech rumors, a Nintendo rep repeated the sentiment, stating, “We do not focus on technology specs. We understand that people like to dissect graphics and processing power, but the experience of playing will always be more important than raw numbers.”

How does $300 sound to you? Would you pay more if it meant better tech?


Nintendo Wii Wii U


  • markshell - April 10, 2012 1:13 p.m.

    Whatever. Nintendo will always focus on Nintendo fans and non-gamers. To me the only complaint about Nintendo is their decision on letting the Wii linger on this much. Wii U should have been released a year or two ago. Not a single HD Nintendo game ever released at this point in 2012 is absolutely mind-boggling. I didn't even want to play Skyward Sword because it looks like crap on my hdtv. And it IS a beautiful game. It's not even a matter of graphics, but of completely outdated output technology. Like releasing a game boy looking game on an IPhone. I mean, seriously? Give me Mario Galaxy in HD. That's all I want right now.
  • Nikku7 - April 10, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    Man, F*CK Nintendo and all their shitty trying to innovate and what not! Why can't they be just like f*cking everyone else and release all the same shit as them and make normal games that need to be patched on day one just like EVERYONE ELSE??!! What the F*CK???!!! These rumors all have the exact same comments on them. How close minded can they get?
  • Darkwun - April 10, 2012 6:56 a.m.

    If this si true... fuck you Nintendo. You've let me down again.
  • nai1210 - April 9, 2012 4:10 p.m.

    I would want it too be slightly above ps3/360 and for the technology of the controller stream from the console to be perfect and the game's running constant at 60fps whilst doing this,but i have heard the technology they are using is too cheap to pull it off properly,but then again it's all just rumours,finger's crossed nintendo does not balls this up and definatley don't like the bit about more of a focus on digital distribution and digital downloads,hopefully nintendo won't start charging for dlc that would normally be unlocked as bonuses ie pay more to play as luigi in mario galaxy 3 or pay more for mario kart mirror tracks.
  • FireIceEarth - April 9, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    I know graphics aren't everything, storytelling is vital, but graphics do contribute heavily to the "wow" factor of a game, especially when trying to attract interest in a new franchise; you need something which grabs the attention of people instantly, whereas great story etc. takes time to show. It's fine for old franchises like Zelda and Mario: people know that they're probably going to be interesting, so take the time to read the reviews etc, but new franchises? You need to hook people, and amazing graphics are an easy way to do that. I also find it heavily detracts from my enjoyment of a game if I have recently played something on my PS3 or PC, and then play on Wii, you can't help but think... "is this it?!" As for computing power, that also really plays a big role; how are Nintendo going to lure potential customers away from the PS4 and the Xbox 720, especially 360 and PS3 owners, who have come to expect huge draw distances, (relatively) low loading times, and detailed graphics if the WiiU can't compete with them? I don't know about you, but when talking with my friends about great games like Skyward Sword and the Mario Galaxies, there would always be at least one person who would say "I think it's really good... for a Wii game." That qualifier was ALWAYS there! It looked/played good... for a Wii game, the graphics etc were fantastic! Better than all the other games! ...on Wii. Also, I think if I were to shell out £300 (what with the 1:1 currency conversion of GBP and USD), and the graphics and computing power were sub-PS3 (I don't own an Xbox), then I would feel somewhat cheated.
  • shawksta - April 9, 2012 2:44 p.m.

    People keep underminning it. As for Graphics, the Zelda Tech Demo shows awesome graphics, even if its just an interactable Tech Demo, its just as great as a high end PS3 game's CGI, i dont see what else people want, isnt that what they keep b*tching about Nintendo on, better Graphics? Its really sad that people are paying TOO much attention to the Tec rather than the reason the Wii U will score big, and its the Tablet Controller that has huge potential in gameplay that 3rd Parties and Nintendo can Implement, but people want ignore that core reason and start blabbing about its tec. You cant trust anybody, some say its weaker than 360/PS3, some say its RAM is much better, it can display 1080 easily and so on, im not biting neither Good nor bad Rumors. In My personal Opinion, Better Tec isnt gonna cut it Next gen, the Wii U's Potential can open gameplay possiblities, and if PS4/720 are just gonna have better graphics and Tec, they arnt gonna hold up till they have that something special to make gaming better.
  • ParagonT - April 9, 2012 5:03 p.m.

    I understand some of your points about it, but in all honesty, Nintendo has gotten "out of touch" with it's more "hardcore" audience. It's also a little weird how you mentioned people paying too much attention to the "Tec" when you mention a peripheral. Anyways, that's not my point, my point is that Nintendo is banking on this new tablet idea to pull them through, but people are not comfortable purchasing a console under Nintendo, who is gaining a long record of undermining the "hardcore" audience in favor of family oriented games may I mind you, who is gambling on this new idea. It's not that people do not see potential with the new controller, it's just that they don't want to risk investment on an untested, and perhaps in the future, unsupported idea. Not to say that it won't be great and supported by Nintendo, but it's easily understandable with the horrors of Kinect in my personal opinion.
  • cokelogic - April 9, 2012 1:58 p.m.

    It can't be more than $300. History has dictated that any console above the $300 price is perceived as 'too much money'.
  • Net_Bastard - April 9, 2012 1:23 p.m.

    Well, this is going to fail. God dammit Nintendo you're killing yourselves.
  • rxb - April 9, 2012 1:19 p.m.

    I know my opinion doesnt count for much but I doubt the Wii U can repeat the wii's sucess. I think there is only so much gimmicks you can sell to casual gamers before they move on to the next fad.
  • KnowYourPokemon - April 9, 2012 2:05 p.m.

    I don't see how adding touch screens to console gaming is a "gimmick." Unlike motion controls where there's limited things you can really do with it at the moment adding a tablet to consoles is theoretically adding the convenience of a keyboard into your hands with the analog sticks and other buttons of a controller. Imagine actually being able to hotkey weapons on a console version of an elder scrolls game! Sure I play most games on PC these days but I see more promise with this addition than I do gimmicks.
  • Jesse1066 - April 9, 2012 12:42 p.m.

    I'm a PC gamer first and foremost, and I own a PS2 and a 360 (for exclusives), but the only next-gen console I'm considering buying is the Wii U. I'm not interested in buying a console that requires a constant internet connection and won't play borrowed, used, or rented games.
  • shawksta - April 9, 2012 12:14 p.m.

    Considering today in economic stance, the price seems very fair, especially at a time like this very high prices for tech can be a very bad idea financially and for investers, even Sony and Microsoft doesnt want to be too expensive in their next systems, they know it.
  • KnowYourPokemon - April 9, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    $300 for a next gen console? (I say next gen because A: it will have next gen games, B: Graphics aren't everything, the Wii proved that, and if the WiiU can have current PS3 graphics and play at above 30fps? YES PLEASE!) I'm willing to put my money down on saying the next Playstation and XBox will cost more than that. Hell, the wifi only PSV costs $300 after taxes with a decent sized memory card...
  • Redeater - April 9, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    This will go over well when PS3's and 360 drop another $50-80 after E3. I get that these are rumors but I'll be looking forward to buying a shiny new PS3 for around $150 plus cleaning up on used games. $10-$15 for Metal Gear 4,GOW and all the Uncharteds? Yes Please!
  • Cyberninja - April 9, 2012 12:05 p.m.

    Sony is smart enough not to make Vita cost twice as much as a ps3
  • db1331 - April 9, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    That's $300 more than I am willing to pay.
  • Moondoggie1157 - April 9, 2012 11:01 a.m.

    “There is a bigger focus on downloadable content, applications, video content, digital distribution, and services to create a stream of revenue..." I really hope this doesn't mean Nintendo is turning away from games as their focus, that would be shitty. The quality of graphics in a game aren't a dealbreaker with me, as long as there are many great games to make up for it. I can't see NIntendo pulling this off, twice. I miss a time when these companies would focus on gaming and not the filler... was a simpler time. Ah well... Won't be picking one up regardless.
  • shawksta - April 9, 2012 12:16 p.m.

    hardly, Nintendo's not about that, its already been said that they dont want to be the best on online, their willing to give Sony and Microsoft that headline cause they only care about games. They're gonna atleast provide decent off-gaming qualities, cause then people will keep backlashing them for not having them, so they can focus on games more.
  • FireIceEarth - April 9, 2012 1:30 p.m.

    Maybe they just mean that they're going to do multiplayer, patches and DLC, in which case woooooow, way to push the envelope.

Showing 1-20 of 27 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000