The one word counter-argument I can think of to this is "graphics". While I am certain many here on the Escapist are not so unsophisticated as to let graphics be the sole (or even the most significant) criterion by which to judge a game or game system, it is, unfortunately, the primary criterion by which a fairly large segment of the general gamer community does judge a game or game system. It is the single property that is first and most expounded upon by the gaming journalists. It is the single property that often attracts people to the game in the first place or piques interest. It is the one property that is most shown-off in shows and screenshots. A lot of emphasis, unfortunately, even after all this time, is still placed on the graphics, first and foremost, even over gameplay, playability, fun-factor, and replay-value (as an aside, I consider replay-value to be measured by how much you want to play a game again purely for the pleasure of experiencing it again, not by the number of achievements and unlocks in the game; to me, that stuff is just tedious busy-work, like chores). Consequently, it ends up being the graphical prowess of gaming systems that people use to judge the quality and worth of the gaming systems. If the Wii U does not match the graphical prowess of the systems from Sony and Microsoft, then, despite the known wisdom that graphics do no make the game, the larger population of gamers will probably not invest much in the Wii U, especially in light of Nintendo's attitude and actions regarding the Wii.