[jerf]

"I think you are hugely underestimating the difference in possible use cases between the Dreamcast's 32 x 48 pixel, black and white, non-backlit, non-touchscreen display and the Wii U's 6.2" HD color motion-sensing touchscreen."

I would agree, if I had not just spent the rest of my argument making points that apply equally to both screens. If anything the Dreamcast screen by virtue of being simpler is easier to acquire. Use cases don't matter if the entire idea of a screen in your hands is fundamentally unusable, a violation of Fitt's law suitably modified.

Also, broadly speaking, the further you have to reach for a suitable use of the controller, the more likely it is not to really work. Again, I've seen craploads of innovative ideas like that, and they look a lot more interesting in your imagination or YouTube videos (where details like "being fun for more than 30 seconds" can be easily glossed over) than they do in real life .

"The screen also allows you to continue playing when someone else wants to use the television."

This, by the way, is a really stupid use case in 2011, at least in the US. For the same reason that screens are cheap enough to put in your controller in the first place, screen contention is already not a very significant problem and over the lifespan of the console will effectively go away. When it would have been helpful was when we were all fighting over the family 26" tube TV. The fact that this is even used as justification is another smell to me that this isn't really that great an idea, if that's in the list of "best arguments".