Wii U Controller Limitations to Save on Costs, Says Nintendo

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Wii U Controller Limitations to Save on Costs, Says Nintendo


The Wii U could support more than one touch screen controller, says Nintendo, but it would make the console much more expensive.

Nintendo has revealed that its decision to support only Wii U controller per console is motivated by cost. Not just cost to Nintendo though, cost to Nintendo's customers as well. The Wii U can support up to five inputs in total, but the other four are limited to Wii remotes.

The Wii U controller has all the buttons and analog sticks you'd expect to find on a console controller, but it also sports accelerometers and a large touch screen in the middle of it, which can display data streamed from the console. Speaking to Japanese business site Diamond Online [http://diamond.jp/articles/-/12728], Nintendo boss Satoru Iwata said, while the Wii U could technically support multiple controllers, it would raise costs quite considerably. Nintendo wasn't planning to ask its customers to buy more than one controller anyway, Iwata added.

Nintendo seems very keen to keep its profits as high as possible - or its losses as low as possible - on the Wii U. That isn't especially surprising; let's face it, not spending money you don't need to is good business sense, but this seems to be an odd corner to cut. It's like the PS3 only accepting a single Sixaxis controller, and forcing everyone else to play on PS2 pads. Obviously, the Wii U controller is a little more complicated - and thus expensive - than a PS3 controller, but it still seems rather strange all the same.

Multiple controller support isn't the only thing that Nintendo has decided to leave out of the Wii U either. The console also won't be able to play DVDs or Blu-Ray movies [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111048-Wii-U-Wont-Play-Blu-rays-Or-DVDs], because Nintendo didn't want to pay the costs for using the payback technology. Nintendo's rationale was that people already have plenty of devices that play movies, so adding the feature to the Wii U was unnecessary. While that does make a certain amount of sense, it's odd to see Nintendo moving away from the concept of a console as more than just a game machine, while its rival are moving towards it.

Of course, this won't be the first time that Nintendo has made gajillions of dollars doing things that its rivals aren't - or vice versa - so perhaps it will all pay off.

Source: Industry Gamers [http://www.industrygamers.com/news/nintendo-wii-u-only-supports-a-single-controller-due-to-cost/] and Kotaku [http://kotaku.com/5812512/multiple-wii-u-controllers-are-a-cost-issue]


Permalink
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
Guess what? If your controller presents that kind of trouble, don't design it that way to begin with. The decision is stupid, no matter what excuses they trot out.
 

Hungry Donner

Henchman
Mar 19, 2009
1,369
0
0
Not having the option of multiple touchpad controllers seems odd. Although I suppose either games wouldn't take advantage of multiple controllers, so the option would be useless, or some games do allow this and they potentially alienate people who don't want a second 100+ controller.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
So... If I buy a WiiU, I can only use one of the touch pad things, and everything else is the Wii-mote...

Unless this console is going to be $100, thats just stupid, IMHO.
 

8bitmaster

Devourer of pie
Nov 9, 2009
678
0
0
well there goes my plan to buy it to go out the window. I was hoping they were gonna use the controller design to reboot games like crystal chronicles and four swords adventures for gamecube, to reboot the idea of everyone has their own screen kind of thing. Not anymore. Man that saves me a lot of money.
 

XT inc

New member
Jul 29, 2009
992
0
0
Really Nintendo? That is the dumbest thing I ever heard.If you expect your console to sell then other people will have said controller, and they will Bring it over. I mean no one likes buying controllers. It is an investment you have to take up for your friends enjoyment and not your own.
However to flat out reject this option and have only one controller is just dumb.

If your track record of bsing core gamers and catering to kiddies you really think its going to work out to have these little kids fighting over the one good controller ffs.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
Am I the only one who thinks that the controller looks like a crime against humanity? I mean Penny-Arcade once did a comic about how big the original XBox controllers were. But this one just takes the cake. PS3 and 360 controllers are light weight, but I bet this thing weighs a couple pounds. Is there really a need for a touch screen in the controller? I can see it being useful in very few games.
 

DoctorPhil

New member
Apr 25, 2011
262
0
0
What? Only Wii controllers? PleasepleasepleasePLEASE allow gamecube controllers too Nintendo. Don't let me down!
As for the WiiU controller, I don't care, that thing looks pretty unweildy anyway, I'd rather play a competetive multiplayer game like Smash Brothers on a nunchuck+Wiimote than a WiiU thingy.
 

Madmanonfire

New member
Jul 24, 2009
301
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
Nintendo wasn't planning to ask its customers to ask customers to buy more than one controller anyway, Iwata added.
That's good. I wasn't going to ask random fellow customers to buy another controller regardless.

OT: This shouldn't be too bad if the other four players can use classic controllers.
 

Nalgas D. Lemur

New member
Nov 20, 2009
1,318
0
0
8bitmaster said:
well there goes my plan to buy it to go out the window. I was hoping they were gonna use the controller design to reboot games like crystal chronicles and four swords adventures for gamecube, to reboot the idea of everyone has their own screen kind of thing. Not anymore. Man that saves me a lot of money.
Those are exactly the kinds of games I was hoping they'd use the DS connectivity with the Wii for that they dropped the ball on, and the first thing I thought of when they announced the Wii U. Those were so awesome with a room full of people. Oh well. So much for that idea.
 

YunikoYokai5

New member
Jun 16, 2010
100
0
0
I wasn't planning on buying one, but why hasn't Nintendo allowed the option for others to bring their controllers over? It's also going to cause havoc in a family situation: 2-3 kids, all want the fancy controller, there's only 1, who gets it? I feel sorry for the parents...

Edit - Also read in the comments that there isn't going to be Gamecube support? ...Well, I play my GC more than my Wii (thanks to the GB Player) but they won't even support the controllers? I love the GC controller! Its my favourite to date...
 

Dorkmaster Flek

New member
Mar 13, 2008
262
0
0
DoctorPhil said:
What? Only Wii controllers? PleasepleasepleasePLEASE allow gamecube controllers too Nintendo. Don't let me down!
I think they already said they're dropping GameCube support entirely, so that's a no.
 

Abedecain

New member
Jan 15, 2011
54
0
0
So the new controller is not motion sensitive?! Isn't that what the Wii is about... because it defiantly isn't for the fantastilistic graphics and speed, lulz
 

EternalFacepalm

New member
Feb 1, 2011
809
0
0
This is why you should read through your article before posting.

Anyway, I always thought the controller looked insanely uncomfortable anyway. So I don't really see the problem, you still have the Gamecube-controllers, right?
[sub]right?[/sub]

Abedecain said:
So the new controller is not motion sensitive?! Isn't that what the Wii is about... because it defiantly isn't for the fantastilistic graphics and speed, lulz
There was a struggle getting it to have crappy graphics? Wow...
 

XT inc

New member
Jul 29, 2009
992
0
0
Saltyk said:
Am I the only one who thinks that the controller looks like a crime against humanity? I mean Penny-Arcade once did a comic about how big the original XBox controllers were. But this one just takes the cake. PS3 and 360 controllers are light weight, but I bet this thing weighs a couple pounds. Is there really a need for a touch screen in the controller? I can see it being useful in very few games.
To be fair this Wii U one isn't the biggest controller sold.


 

Juan Machado

New member
Apr 18, 2011
3
0
0
I am greatly disappointed by this decision. "Iwata said, while the Wii U could technically support multiple controllers, it would raise costs quite considerably", maybe they could change this limitation after it comes out with a firmware update.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
XT inc said:
Saltyk said:
Am I the only one who thinks that the controller looks like a crime against humanity? I mean Penny-Arcade once did a comic about how big the original XBox controllers were. But this one just takes the cake. PS3 and 360 controllers are light weight, but I bet this thing weighs a couple pounds. Is there really a need for a touch screen in the controller? I can see it being useful in very few games.
To be fair this Wii U one isn't the biggest controller sold.
That is awesome... unwieldy as hell, but awesome
 

Innegativeion

Positively Neutral!
Feb 18, 2011
1,636
0
0
I must say this is a really dumb decision.

What's wrong with the model a lot of games went by on the wii?; Use if the wii remote and nunchuk if you feel like it... or don't, use a gamecube controller.

It just seems like not allowing the option is extremely pointless.

So you don't want to force us to spend more. Fine, make all games compatible with wii remotes as an optional control configuration, but DON'T sever any chance for multiplayer applications of these controllers. Limiting the vast number of things this controller can do to one person is squandering its potential.
 

SilverUchiha

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,604
0
0
Um... but if my friends buy their own consoles as well... wouldn't that sort of solve the problem of them having to buy expensive controllers? Why can't we just have the option of not using the WiiU controller instead of not being able to use 4 all together?

honestly, if you were going to have such a problem, maybe this controller is the wrong idea at this point...

... Also... it's NINTENDO! You have enough money from the Wii to buy a fucking continent. Surely a little loss on controllers won't kill you, especially when you could easily recoup the loss from games (as long as they aren't all shovelware games like on the Wii).
 

Proteus214

Game Developer
Jul 31, 2009
2,270
0
0
Not having to buy 4 controllers at what will probably be $100+ price point each and eat through battery life more than any controller to date?
Cutting the cost of a console by not letting it render and broadcast 4+ wireless video streams while doing everything else a high-end console is supposed to do?
Nintendo wants to deliver a next-gen gaming console at a reasonable price?
Nintendo wants to make a marginal profit off of technology that costs an absurd amount of money to develop, distribute, and support so that they can continue to do business in the future?

I really don't see a problem with any of this.
At all.
 

Scabadus

Wrote Some Words
Jul 16, 2009
869
0
0
With Sony wheeling out the ability for two players to both use the full screen on a Sony TV during a split-screen battle, Nintendo deliberatly not giving each player their own screen seems like a rather hard kick in the balls.... their own balls.

Why not just do what everyone else is doing these days and have three or four different editions, want 4 WiiU controlers? OK. Don't want a DVD player? Fair enough, don't spend the money. Want a decent console made by competant designers? Just buy a damn xbox (OK, OK or a Playstation! Please don't burn my house down...).
 

Pingieking

New member
Sep 19, 2009
1,362
0
0
WanderingFool said:
XT inc said:
Saltyk said:
Am I the only one who thinks that the controller looks like a crime against humanity? I mean Penny-Arcade once did a comic about how big the original XBox controllers were. But this one just takes the cake. PS3 and 360 controllers are light weight, but I bet this thing weighs a couple pounds. Is there really a need for a touch screen in the controller? I can see it being useful in very few games.
To be fair this Wii U one isn't the biggest controller sold.
That is awesome... unwieldy as hell, but awesome
Me. Want. Where can I buy that beast of an input device? If it's stable on a table, I'm going to use that for my PC/PS3 setup (I have the two of them on the same monitor). I can get one of those little num pads for my laptop anyway.

OT: Not exactly surprising. I actually don't care that much, since I rarely game local multiplayer. However, until they change the Wii U controller so that it has TWO FUCKING ANALOG STICKS (right now it uses two of those little nubs on the 3DS), I will not be playing.

Also, the captcha I got was "umbrella corporation" :p
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
XT inc said:
Saltyk said:
Am I the only one who thinks that the controller looks like a crime against humanity? I mean Penny-Arcade once did a comic about how big the original XBox controllers were. But this one just takes the cake. PS3 and 360 controllers are light weight, but I bet this thing weighs a couple pounds. Is there really a need for a touch screen in the controller? I can see it being useful in very few games.
To be fair this Wii U one isn't the biggest controller sold.
Touche, my friend.

But I doubt Sony ever expected you to play every game with that behemoth. Looks like it was intended for certain types of games. If that was the original controller for the PS3, I'd be eating my words right now.
 

GiantRaven

New member
Dec 5, 2010
2,423
0
0
Personally I'm just curious at how developers are going to approach multiplayer and singlepayer on the WiiU, since singleplayer has the option of being focused around this controller whilst the multiplayer doesn't.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Proteus214 said:
Not having to buy 4 controllers at what will probably be $100+ price point each and eat through battery life more than any controller to date?
Cutting the cost of a console by not letting it render and broadcast 4+ wireless video streams while doing everything else a high-end console is supposed to do?
Nintendo wants to deliver a next-gen gaming console at a reasonable price?
Nintendo wants to make a marginal profit off of technology that costs an absurd amount of money to develop, distribute, and support so that they can continue to do business in the future?

I really don't see a problem with any of this.
At all.
^100% this

Eventually the controllers will go down in price anyway, meaning that in the future they will probably sell the console with the standard 2 controllers.

Seriously guys, they are saving us money, why should we complain? Just ask your friends to bring their controllers over, problem solved. (Assuming they have the WiiU...)
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Saltyk said:
XT inc said:
Saltyk said:
Am I the only one who thinks that the controller looks like a crime against humanity? I mean Penny-Arcade once did a comic about how big the original XBox controllers were. But this one just takes the cake. PS3 and 360 controllers are light weight, but I bet this thing weighs a couple pounds. Is there really a need for a touch screen in the controller? I can see it being useful in very few games.
To be fair this Wii U one isn't the biggest controller sold.
Touche, my friend.

But I doubt Sony ever expected you to play every game with that behemoth. Looks like it was intended for certain types of games. If that was the original controller for the PS3, I'd be eating my words right now.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
First off, apologize for two posts in a row (if someone doesnt post before me).
arc1991 said:
Proteus214 said:
Not having to buy 4 controllers at what will probably be $100+ price point each and eat through battery life more than any controller to date?
Cutting the cost of a console by not letting it render and broadcast 4+ wireless video streams while doing everything else a high-end console is supposed to do?
Nintendo wants to deliver a next-gen gaming console at a reasonable price?
Nintendo wants to make a marginal profit off of technology that costs an absurd amount of money to develop, distribute, and support so that they can continue to do business in the future?

I really don't see a problem with any of this.
At all.
^100% this

Eventually the controllers will go down in price anyway, meaning that in the future they will probably sell the console with the standard 2 controllers.

Seriously guys, they are saving us money, why should we complain? Just ask your friends to bring their controllers over, problem solved. (Assuming they have the WiiU...)
From what I read, they are making it so only one of thos touch screen controllers are able to be use on one console. This is not them only selling one contoller per console, this is one controller per console, PERIOD.

Also, did they say how much the WiiU was going to cost? I might have missed that...
 

KarmicToast

New member
Nov 11, 2008
458
0
0
arc1991 said:
Proteus214 said:
Not having to buy 4 controllers at what will probably be $100+ price point each and eat through battery life more than any controller to date?
Cutting the cost of a console by not letting it render and broadcast 4+ wireless video streams while doing everything else a high-end console is supposed to do?
Nintendo wants to deliver a next-gen gaming console at a reasonable price?
Nintendo wants to make a marginal profit off of technology that costs an absurd amount of money to develop, distribute, and support so that they can continue to do business in the future?

I really don't see a problem with any of this.
At all.
^100% this

Eventually the controllers will go down in price anyway, meaning that in the future they will probably sell the console with the standard 2 controllers.

Seriously guys, they are saving us money, why should we complain? Just ask your friends to bring their controllers over, problem solved. (Assuming they have the WiiU...)
Here is the problem with this this.
1. You still have to buy wii-motes plus nunchucks plus wii-motion plus.
2. Your second point isn't a point: Not letting it do something it should because it does everything else it should? And anyway, no, it doesn't. There is no substantive multiplayer network (see XBL or PSN), and it only supports ONE controller that isn't a motion wand.
3. They aren't delivering a next-gen console. They are delivering a current gen console five years late -- WITH a truckload of limitations and a stable of games that are equally old and remakes.
4. Traditionally, Nintendo has been the only system that makes profit off of it's hardware from the beginning. That worked great until the N64. Ever since, in order to keep that dated business model, they've released half-ass consoles.

Of course this is an issue! They are re-selling the wii with graphical and processing powers that should have been there five years ago, along with only one new peripheral device, of which, there can only be one attached at any given point. I mean, come on guys. Nintendo is a day late and a dollar short every year when it comes to being a competitive console developer for actual gamers. They haven't even launched a new successful franchise in years ... they just leech off of the oldies and remake them over and over and over again. They are the freaking Disneyworld of video games.

Also Arc: no, they mean it can only SUPPORT one controller. Even if you owned 4.
 

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
Of course, this won't be the first time that Nintendo has made gajillions of dollars doing things that its rivals aren't - or vice versa - so perhaps it will all pay off.
Nintendo got lucky . . . once. Around the time just before the Wii was released they were basically fighting to even remain relevant. I don't get where this contrived notion that Nintendo has a history of printing money doing off the wall things comes from. They have a history of making stupid ass gimmicks that end up failing miserably. Hell dating all the way back 21 years ago to that stupid ass robot for the NES the Wii, yeah the Wii, was the first truly successful gimmick they were able to get to stick. R.O.B. was a train wreck, the Power Pad failed, the Power Glove was simply atrocious, the Super Scope never took off, words can't say just how bad the Virtual Boy was, the N64 microphone failed, those stupid congas for the Wii were a joke, Wii speak has been all but abandoned, the 3DS is skipping down the path o' mediocrity currently and there's more I know I'm not remembering right now.
 

Lanhavoc

New member
Mar 18, 2011
5
0
0
Nintendo appears to be shooting themselves in the foot, but who knows? There's no limit to what kids will ask for and what parents will buy them most times.
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
arc1991 said:
Proteus214 said:
Not having to buy 4 controllers at what will probably be $100+ price point each and eat through battery life more than any controller to date?
Cutting the cost of a console by not letting it render and broadcast 4+ wireless video streams while doing everything else a high-end console is supposed to do?
Nintendo wants to deliver a next-gen gaming console at a reasonable price?
Nintendo wants to make a marginal profit off of technology that costs an absurd amount of money to develop, distribute, and support so that they can continue to do business in the future?

I really don't see a problem with any of this.
At all.
^100% this

Eventually the controllers will go down in price anyway, meaning that in the future they will probably sell the console with the standard 2 controllers.

Seriously guys, they are saving us money, why should we complain? Just ask your friends to bring their controllers over, problem solved. (Assuming they have the WiiU...)
One controller per console, period. That is one of the reasons a lot of people are mad.
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
There are times and places to cut cost on a product. Nintendo selecting not to support DVD/Blu-Ray on the WiiU because everyone already devices capable of that and to save money not paying royalties to patent owners which saving can then be passed on to paying customers makes sense. However limiting the console on how many of the new controllers to save cost is a dubious decision one that I think might come back and bite Nintendo because I think that limits the potential uses for the controller needlessly. For example the first game I could think of that would make use of multiple WiiU controllers would be a remake of the Zelda Four Swords using the WiiU controllers much like the old GBA link up on the Gamecube, but this looks like would not be possible with the WiiU controller limit.
 

GeorgW

ALL GLORY TO ME!
Aug 27, 2010
4,806
0
0
I have a solution. How about making a classic controller that isn't impossible to hold, and doesn't have to be hooked up to the damn Wii controller. That, or bring back GC controllers.
I can understand that the screen is unnecessary, but like hell if I'm gonna play Smash bros. on Wiimotes.

Also, what happened to the local multiplayer with each player having their own screen that they promised us?
 

ShadowKatt

New member
Mar 19, 2009
1,410
0
0
I hadn't heard this before. This is just fantastic. I could almost agree with nintendo about leaving out the dvd/blu-ray since they have a point there, but only one wii-u controller per console? Yeah, they're right, it's ABSOLUTELY motivated by price. If you want to play 2 player with wii-u controllers then you can buy two consoles. That's a genius plan.

This console is going to go down in flames so hot I can't wait to see it take the rest of the company with it. Sony has their entire electronics division, Microsoft has Windows, Nintendo fucks up their console and their whole business model collapses like a house of cards.

*grabs a bowl of popcorn* This is going to be AWESOME!
 

Gaderael

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,550
0
0
Madmanonfire said:
Logan Westbrook said:
Nintendo wasn't planning to ask its customers to ask customers to buy more than one controller anyway, Iwata added.
That's good. I wasn't going to ask random fellow customers to buy another controller regardless.

OT: This shouldn't be too bad if the other four players can use classic controllers.
That's what I was thinking. Being able to use the Classic Pro, or a gamecube controller.

I bought a Classic Pro to play NHL 2k11 (not so good), but if I can use it to play NHL 12 or 13, or whatever number is out when the WiiU debuts, I'll be happy.
 

Plinglebob

Team Stupid-Face
Nov 11, 2008
1,815
0
0
Personally I'm split over this. The controller is obviously going to be expensive to produce and I think its good that limiting how many the console can support will stop companies making games that assume you have 4 of them thus encouraging people to shell out more money. On the other hand, I'm a big fan of both 4 Swords and Crystal Chronicles and the thought of playing new versions with this tech made me a happy bunny.
 

DoctorPhil

New member
Apr 25, 2011
262
0
0
Who knows, pherhaps if they made the WiiU compatible with 2 WiiU controllers, it might end up costing FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS.
And as we have seen, that's not good for business.
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
that is disappointing

in fact unless they allow at least 2 touchscreen inputs I'm not going to get the console

without multiple touchscreens you can't do fun stuff like four swords style gameplay, or culdcept or even poker where each player has his own hand

I think this is a huge design mistake. It really doesn't fit the Nintendo MO of being the console you play with your real life friends rather than your internet friends.

 

Cpt Corallis

New member
Apr 14, 2009
491
0
0
Why has no-one thus far considered the possibility that nintendo is pursuing a more online focussed multiplayer service? They already suggested it at their E3 conference, and limiting the WiiU controller to one per console suggests that any game using more than one will require an online connection so people can play together. honestly, this was my first thought when I heard this.

This means that you can still have a game where everyone plays with a new controller, It will just be over an internet connection.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 26, 2020
7,126
66
53
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
Xanthious said:
Logan Westbrook said:
Of course, this won't be the first time that Nintendo has made gajillions of dollars doing things that its rivals aren't - or vice versa - so perhaps it will all pay off.
Nintendo got lucky . . . once. Around the time just before the Wii was released they were basically fighting to even remain relevant. I don't get where this contrived notion that Nintendo has a history of printing money doing off the wall things comes from. They have a history of making stupid ass gimmicks that end up failing miserably. Hell dating all the way back 21 years ago to that stupid ass robot for the NES the Wii, yeah the Wii, was the first truly successful gimmick they were able to get to stick. R.O.B. was a train wreck, the Power Pad failed, the Power Glove was simply atrocious, the Super Scope never took off, words can't say just how bad the Virtual Boy was, the N64 microphone failed, those stupid congas for the Wii were a joke, Wii speak has been all but abandoned, the 3DS is skipping down the path o' mediocrity currently and there's more I know I'm not remembering right now.
Someones evidently never heard of the various forms of the Gameboy, Gameboy Advance and DS. If Nintendo fail so much why haven't they gone bust yet?
 

Jumwa

New member
Jun 21, 2010
641
0
0
The lack of Blu-Ray/DVD support doesn't surprise me. Fewer and fewer people are buying movies on physical media anyway, it's all going digital, and the Wii currently supports Netflix anyhow. Everyone who wants one of those players likely already has one, and it'd just be inflating the systems price for everybody needlessly.

However, the one controller limit is a big turn off for me personally. I am a primarily co-op gamer, and on consoles that means I co-op with my partner on the same machine, not online. One controller will likely end up limiting us. So for that reason alone the Wii U will definitely be a "wait and see" purchase for a long, long while.
 

devotedsniper

New member
Dec 28, 2010
752
0
0
I don't see whats the point of limiting the new controller when surely it wouldn't cost any extra to leave out the restriction (i'm assuming both the new and the wii controller use the same wireless protocols and tech here), that way if people want to buy another one they have the option to, and those that don't still have the Wii controllers. While it stops developers designing games that require you to have 3-4 of the new controller which is good, it seems to me that this powerful console isn't really all that powerful and doesnt have enough horsepower to send the info for the screen to more than one controller, and there hiding this fact by saying it's built with price in mind.

Either way people will buy it so not like it matters, although i expect a fair few will buy extra new controllers only to find it doesn't support more than one (cause lets be honest most people don't read the manuals).
 

JUMBO PALACE

I'd Rather Be Squatting
Legacy
Jun 22, 2020
3,544
2
3
Country
USA
Leave it to Nintendo to pull out yet another gimmick with a shitload of limitations. The damn thing is just an HD Wii without DVD or Blue-Ray support, and now we learn you can only use one of the ostentatious new touch screen controllers. I was wondering why they called it the Wii U, and now I know. It's just the Wii 2.
 

deckai

New member
Oct 26, 2009
280
0
0
...and here we go with the Nintendo hate again ...

They had to decide either.. they support the touchscreen for all players, but then they couldn't use the old Wii-motes or they decided on only one touchscreen and the Wii-motes...

In my eyes they made the right decision, especially if they improve the online part, in which case everyone will play with the touchscreen, but for local multiplayer the Wii-motes/classic-controller should be enough.

This might be a businesses decision, but a decision that doesn't put the customer in a disadvantage... the new controller will probably make up a big slice of the price of the WiiU and this way you don't need to spent any more money.. especially if you already have the Wii and 4 Wii-motes...

All this irrational whining about the WiiU really gets on my nerve... I need to avoid these WiiU/Nintendo threads for my own goodwill
 

Towowo2

New member
Feb 6, 2009
133
0
0
Saltyk said:
Am I the only one who thinks that the controller looks like a crime against humanity? I mean Penny-Arcade once did a comic about how big the original XBox controllers were. But this one just takes the cake. PS3 and 360 controllers are light weight, but I bet this thing weighs a couple pounds. Is there really a need for a touch screen in the controller? I can see it being useful in very few games.
The Wii U controller has been described as lightweight and comfortable to use.

[/quote]

This has to be the most flawed diagram I've ever seen, Just had to point that out.
 

JUMBO PALACE

I'd Rather Be Squatting
Legacy
Jun 22, 2020
3,544
2
3
Country
USA
JoJoDeathunter said:
Xanthious said:
Logan Westbrook said:
Of course, this won't be the first time that Nintendo has made gajillions of dollars doing things that its rivals aren't - or vice versa - so perhaps it will all pay off.
Nintendo got lucky . . . once. Around the time just before the Wii was released they were basically fighting to even remain relevant. I don't get where this contrived notion that Nintendo has a history of printing money doing off the wall things comes from. They have a history of making stupid ass gimmicks that end up failing miserably. Hell dating all the way back 21 years ago to that stupid ass robot for the NES the Wii, yeah the Wii, was the first truly successful gimmick they were able to get to stick. R.O.B. was a train wreck, the Power Pad failed, the Power Glove was simply atrocious, the Super Scope never took off, words can't say just how bad the Virtual Boy was, the N64 microphone failed, those stupid congas for the Wii were a joke, Wii speak has been all but abandoned, the 3DS is skipping down the path o' mediocrity currently and there's more I know I'm not remembering right now.
Someones evidently never heard of the various forms of the Gameboy, Gameboy Advance and DS. If Nintendo fail so much why haven't they gone bust yet?
Just because the Gameboy and it's subsequent generations were a hit doesn't mean that all of the things Xanthious said aren't relevant. Nintendo has a history of failed gimmicks and silly notions that can't be ignored.
 

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
JoJoDeathunter said:
Someones evidently never heard of the various forms of the Gameboy, Gameboy Advance and DS. If Nintendo fail so much why haven't they gone bust yet?
Those are all your typical portable consoles with fairly straight forward controls. Not a whole load of gimmicks there with the exception of the DS's two screens. Even with the two screens the DS still has pretty standard controls.

My point was that every time right up until the Wii came out that they attempted some stupid ass gimmick it, without fail, blew up in their face or fizzled quietly away without much notice. The Wii's motion controls were the first big handful of shit that stuck when they threw it at the wall in 21 years of throwing shit at the wall.

As for why they haven't gone bust yet, who the hell knows. However, I would really be curious to see just how tight things were at Nintendo HQ at the tail end of the Gamecube's life cycle before the Wii was released. I'd bet they were pretty damn close to going the Sega route had the Wii not taken off.
 

IndianaJonny

Mysteron Display Team
Jan 6, 2011
813
0
0
WanderingFool said:
Ouch, that's going to give me nightmares.

OT: That's a shame - I found the whole appeal of the new controller to be that everyone had their own 'sneaky' screen; like if you were to play Battleships or something like that.

CAPTCHA: "select steam"... trade bias, no?
 

Arafiro

New member
Mar 26, 2010
272
0
0
Ugh.. Nintendo, what are you doing? I had such high hopes when I sat down to watch E3 but since then it's just gone downhill.

I can't believe this console was even allowed to be developed further than the drawing board. What a joke.
 

BananaGeekLord

New member
May 9, 2011
2
0
0
I understand them looking out for our interest, but why not have it optional? If I cant afford another controller, the I can use a Wii controller I already have. But what about those who can afford it? What about those who would like to see a game where both players use the same controller with the touch screen?
 

Grey Walker

New member
Jul 9, 2010
135
0
0
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet:

Controllers wear out or break. What happens then? If it's one controller per console, then does that mean if the controller breaks (something liable to happen when giving touch screen equipment to a family, likely with young children) that an entirely new CONSOLE needs to be purchased?

How's that for cost to the consumer?

Seriously, Nintendo. Multiple screentrollers is a necessity for this. Friends will bring over their own, families will be able to afford a second one so multiplayer works. You'll get a larger audience by raising the price point and adding the capability then you will by going cheaper.

And for the sake of the oldschool gamer, keep Gamecube support. backwards compatibility has never hurt a console's sales to my knowledge.
 

archabaddon

New member
Jan 8, 2007
210
0
0
So Nintendo creates the Wii, which ended up being one of the biggest party platforms in recent history, and supports up to four motion controls.

Obviously, creating a new controller with a touch screen is going to be cost prohibitive. But heck, if people want to connect more than one to a console for parties, then by all means.

.... wait, they won't even be able to do that?!? Well, then what's the whole point?

Sure, you will be able to use Wii remotes for other players. I might as well jsut have a regular Wii at that point, especially since it will probably cost less than Wii U at launch, and has the same handy "doesn't play DVDs and BluRay" feature, but is still great at parties.

I guess developers can just forget about making multiplayer games that actually use the new technology, unless it's strict multiplayer online. Not so great for parties though, kind of hard to pass the Doritos over the Internet.

Yeah, less and less appealing by the day.
 

Sandytimeman

Brain Freeze...yay!
Jan 14, 2011
729
0
0
wait, so I can't buy multiple controllers or have my friends bring theirs over to play?...that kinda sucks.
 

The.Bard

New member
Jan 7, 2011
402
0
0
arc1991 said:
Proteus214 said:
Not having to buy 4 controllers at what will probably be $100+ price point each and eat through battery life more than any controller to date?
Cutting the cost of a console by not letting it render and broadcast 4+ wireless video streams while doing everything else a high-end console is supposed to do?
Nintendo wants to deliver a next-gen gaming console at a reasonable price?
Nintendo wants to make a marginal profit off of technology that costs an absurd amount of money to develop, distribute, and support so that they can continue to do business in the future?

I really don't see a problem with any of this.
At all.
^100% this

Eventually the controllers will go down in price anyway, meaning that in the future they will probably sell the console with the standard 2 controllers.

Seriously guys, they are saving us money, why should we complain? Just ask your friends to bring their controllers over, problem solved. (Assuming they have the WiiU...)
We should complain because they are NOT saving us money. Well, unless "saving money" means this system is so ass-backwards that nobody will buy it. I suppose in that sense, yes, they are saving us bucket loads of money.

They already played the "cheap out card". It was called the wii. They made a bajillion dollars off of it. Saying "We need to reduce costs" is just treating us like we're stupid. We know the wii printed money, we know they are FULL of cash. If they aren't willing to turn SOME of those bajillion dollars around for development, then congrats, Wii owners. You just got hosed by Nintendo for the 18th time this year.

Of course, they won't admit to being cheap; they make it sound like they're doing us a FAVOR. "We will save you the hassle of dealing with having your account hacked by making WiiU 100% offline only! This saves cost and protects you from swearing 13 yr olds!"

And even if people do suffer brain damage from being hit in the head with a shovel and actually buy this, we must remember that "nextgen" Nintendo console = CurrentGen Console. We are paying $300 for two wiis ducttaped together with an ipad glued to the front. For any gamer interested in Ninja Gaiden 3, you can shell out $300-400 for it on Wiiu.... or $20 when it hits the bargain bin for PS360.

Here are just a few of its "awesome" features:

- Shell out money for a new console with current gen graphics (+/- a little) that will be outdated in less than two years when 720/PS4 release!
- A metric ton of Nintendo sequels you've played 10x already, with the only change being a touchscreen controller gimmick!
- 3rd party support that will vanish after 3 months... just like other Nintendo consoles!
- You can play games on the touch screen while your family plays a dvd on its dvd pl- oh, wait, no media playback... just like other Nintendo consoles!
- Awesome touch screen for all your single player game needs!
- Absolutely no features outside of playing games that are mostly available on systems you already own! YAYYYY!!!

... all for the high high price of $300+ (based on quotes from the Nintendo dudes at E3)

Honestly, aside from being able to throw the original king of underwhelming game consoles- the Wii- out the window, I haven't seen ANYTHING to justify buying this. This is madness.

*voice in the shadows* No. This. is. WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!
 

9thRequiem

New member
Sep 21, 2010
447
0
0
This means that games are going to be dramatically different between single player and multi-player. Either that or player 1 is going to have an advantage. That's just weird.

I guess it comes down to the fact that the controller is just a screen, and the console takes care of all the rendering. Still weird.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Eh... a bit disappointing. The Mario Party games would be epic with everyone being able to use their own touchscreen. A drawing minigame for everyone... but I guess you could pass around that controller for games of the 1v3 variety.

It'll be interesting to see how things could work but unfortunate that this limits options.

It'll come down to what the final price will end up being to see if it was all worth it.

rembrandtqeinstein said:
 

Sougo

New member
Mar 20, 2010
634
0
0
Nintendo shares might just drop off a cliff after this.

I honestly can't think of any announcement that nintendo could have made about the WiiU that could be as bad as this.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 26, 2020
7,126
66
53
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
JUMBO PALACE said:
Just because the Gameboy and it's subsequent generations were a hit doesn't mean that all of the things Xanthious said aren't relevant. Nintendo has a history of failed gimmicks and silly notions that can't be ignored.
Of course Nintendo have failures, which company doesn't (PSmove anyone?), but what the poster was claiming was that the Wii was their only success which isn't true.

Xanthious said:
Those are all your typical portable consoles with fairly straight forward controls. Not a whole load of gimmicks there with the exception of the DS's two screens. Even with the two screens the DS still has pretty standard controls.

My point was that every time right up until the Wii came out that they attempted some stupid ass gimmick it, without fail, blew up in their face or fizzled quietly away without much notice. The Wii's motion controls were the first big handful of shit that stuck when they threw it at the wall in 21 years of throwing shit at the wall.

As for why they haven't gone bust yet, who the hell knows. However, I would really be curious to see just how tight things were at Nintendo HQ at the tail end of the Gamecube's life cycle before the Wii was released. I'd bet they were pretty damn close to going the Sega route had the Wii not taken off.
I'd argue that the touchscreen of the DS is certainly no less of a gimmick than the motion controls of the Wii, many analysts thought that the DS would easily lose out to the PSP. The reason Nintendo haven't gone bust can be found right on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_consoles

3 in the top 5 (and 5 in the top 10) best selling consoles & handhelds, not too shabby.

Towowo2 said:
[/QUOTE]

This has to be the most flawed diagram I've ever seen, Just had to point that out.[/quote]

I agree on that one, the first "question" seems especially biased in favour of one particular crowd.
 

oppp7

New member
Aug 29, 2009
7,045
0
0
...So it's an upgraded Wii? Not buying this trash.

Also I'm back.
 

archabaddon

New member
Jan 8, 2007
210
0
0
oppp7 said:
...So it's an upgraded Wii?
That's all I'm seeing, a Wii that supports one (and only one) fancy new controller. It might have better graphics and processing tech, but you'll only be able to use it on single player or online games.

Don't get me wrong - if they Wii U had the option of adding more controllers - even through add-on hardware - I wouldn't be so critical. But when manufacturers or developers act they're doing me a favor by taking away features, that's laughable :/

WB, BTW :)
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
"The Wii U controller has all the buttons and analog sticks you'd expect to find on a console controller"

Nope.



It only has nub-sliders like the PSP or 3DS. They are cheaper but also much worse, they also cannot do the "click-down" function like RS-to-melee.

Also lacks analogue triggers so no more variable breaking and acceleration.

Overall this controller falls far short of a proper Xbox 360 or PS3 controller, more like the middle ground between a six-axis and a PSP.

In fact even the PSVita is objectively better to control than the Wii U! That's down to:
-true analogue sticks
-multi-touch screen (only 1.2 inch smaller)
-rear camera
-rear touch pad
-lighter/smaller (apparently)

Yeah I have really gone off the WiiU the more I've found out about the controls, it's just not good and anything it can do PSV can probably do as well. And for those with a PS3 already I think getting a PSV is the more economical option than a whole Nintendo Wii U (even on balance with PSV's library vs Wii U's likely library)
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
deckai said:
...and here we go with the Nintendo hate again ...

They had to decide either.. they support the touchscreen for all players, but then they couldn't use the old Wii-motes or they decided on only one touchscreen and the Wii-motes...

In my eyes they made the right decision, especially if they improve the online part, in which case everyone will play with the touchscreen, but for local multiplayer the Wii-motes/classic-controller should be enough.

This might be a businesses decision, but a decision that doesn't put the customer in a disadvantage... the new controller will probably make up a big slice of the price of the WiiU and this way you don't need to spent any more money.. especially if you already have the Wii and 4 Wii-motes...

All this irrational whining about the WiiU really gets on my nerve... I need to avoid these WiiU/Nintendo threads for my own goodwill
The problem is more the implications that this decision is bringing. They haven't released actual tech details, and so stating that it won't support more than one very-high-tech controller comes across to many as showing that it doesn't have quite as new hardware as they were led to believe.

Also, Nintendo's "online" offerings have notoriously been terrible, and I'm not even kidding. I think the PSN is better, and it was hacked and down for a month. The whole point is that Nintendo spent an entire generation of gaming building up "Family-Fun" and local co-op as selling points for their sub-par console, and now they're bringing out a console with hardware specs up to snuff with the other two (Meaning it's on par with six-seven year old tech), but limiting the only gimmick of it and saying nothing about how the online may or may not be improved. So if you want to play local co-op? Well hell, actually, I could see another announcement being made in the future that says the Wii U won't support Local Co-Op. Calling it now.

EDIT: Also, they didn't need to decide between what controllers it would support. Controllers aren't a terribly difficult thing to make backwards compatible in this day and age where everything is wireless. Even wired controllers were compatible with the Wii.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
Well someone just took a shotgun to their legs.
Atleast support connecting multiple fancy controllers, people buying extra controllers is on them but if you put a hardware limit on that you just fucked the console for it's entire lifespan, you can't really be that oblivious to this.
 

wiersmaster

New member
Apr 12, 2010
12
0
0
This decision is actually pretty logical. The costs they are cutting isn't in the order of $20-30. Think closer to $100+. The reason for this is VERY simple: the controllers only draw the image, probably to save both (significant) costs and weight. This means that the WiiU has to do all the heavy lifting: every controller with screen you add increases the requirements for your videocard (rendering of the screen), processing power (compressing the image) and console-controller connection (sending specific information to each controller). Add to that that you want a good response time and framerate, and costs can increase immensely with each extra controller.

Nintendo wants to recreate the Wii's success with this thing. Part of that was "cheap, but with a profit". If you want to be able to have a screen on your controller AND use multiple controllers, you'll either loose cheap or the profit, and most likely both.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
All this Wii U hating isn't going to affect a thing. I like the design personally and I can see why, from a technical standpoint, they have to limit the amount of Wii U controllers to 1.

It's still gonna sell like hotcakes
 

Xman490

Doctorate in Danger
May 29, 2010
1,186
0
0
I can understand how Nintendo felt the need to "innovate", but maybe it shouldn't have just mixed every old innovation together and see if they stick! Now Nintendo is slipping on heavy costs and has to resort to Wii support, which is perfectly fine, but it downplays the innovation if either only one person in the family can have the fancy controller or everyone just has to stay with Wii controllers when they could just get a Wii with Mario Kart for a much cheaper price!
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
You know what would have saved the most money?

If they didn't go for this screen-controller thing as clearly they have been forced to make too many compromises to make it worth it.

They should have just gone for a "Super Wii" as in something that is the same architecture as Wii but just more powerful, give it the ability to play Wii games and render them in HD* - just like the dolphin emulator does.

Stick with the same Wii-Nunchuk and phase in more support for the Wii gamepad.

Here's hoping they sell a console sans-screened-controller for a lower price-point. Because come late Holiday 2012 Xbox and PS3 are going to be very competitively priced and probably trying to make big on their motion controls.

(*HD being just a 720p or 1080p native resolution plus some anti-aliasing.)
 

Doti

New member
Jun 8, 2011
47
0
0
GeorgW said:
... like hell if I'm gonna play Smash bros. on Wiimotes.
Actually, I happen to play SBB much better on a sideways wiimote, NES style. Could be just because I never got Melee, though.

deckai said:
...and here we go with the Nintendo hate again ...

They had to decide either.. they support the touchscreen for all players, but then they couldn't use the old Wii-motes or they decided on only one touchscreen and the Wii-motes...

In my eyes they made the right decision, especially if they improve the online part, in which case everyone will play with the touchscreen, but for local multiplayer the Wii-motes/classic-controller should be enough.

This might be a businesses decision, but a decision that doesn't put the customer in a disadvantage... the new controller will probably make up a big slice of the price of the WiiU and this way you don't need to spent any more money.. especially if you already have the Wii and 4 Wii-motes...

All this irrational whining about the WiiU really gets on my nerve... I need to avoid these WiiU/Nintendo threads for my own goodwill
I disagree. I'm usually the first to jump in to defend the Wii, being my main gaming console, but I just can't get behind this one.

I'll accept that Nintendo will always (not that it SHOULD, but that's a different topic) lag behind Microsoft and Sony in terms of graphical power, so while current gen graphics on a next-gen console is a bit frustrating, I'm not that upset about it.

No DVD/Blu-Ray support? Fine. I don't want those in my gaming console anyway. Waste of space.

But this? You can argue about Online play, but quite frankly, I don't give a damn. The only multiplayer I'm interested in is local, and it's saddening to see consoles moving away from that (yeah, I know it's more profitable to sell 4 games to 4 different people than enabling decent local multiplayer). Plus, if the only way I can play local multiplayer is with Wiimotes, then I ask: What's the actual innovation there? None.

It really is just an updated Wii, coupled with the cover-gimmick of the new controller.

PS: Lack of backwards compatibility is what caused me to buy a PS2 instead of a PS3, and I'm disappointed to see Nintendo abandon the Gamecube completely. They'll still have compatibility with the Wii, because it's essentially and HD version of it.
 

GideonB

New member
Jul 26, 2008
359
0
0
So they are doing a Betson?
Thanks Nintendo and I thought you still had some sense in you.

(For those who don't know Betson basically ruined the DDR arcade scene, and made everyone move to Pump It Up because Betson cutting costs basically meant nothing worked right.)
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,862
836
118
This fucking thing is getting more convoluted the more I hear about. Wave of the future, indeed.
 

JediMB

New member
Oct 25, 2008
3,094
0
0
GiantRaven said:
Personally I'm just curious at how developers are going to approach multiplayer and singlepayer on the WiiU, since singleplayer has the option of being focused around this controller whilst the multiplayer doesn't.
I assume we're going to see some "Pac-Man VS"-style split-screen modes.

Regardless, I don't think I'll mind using the Wiimote + nunchuck or Classic Controller for multiplayer. They're convenient enough, and as far as the Wii U controller goes I'm mostly excited about how it's used in singleplayer or online multiplayer.
 

Saikonate

New member
Nov 20, 2008
41
0
0
Oh, Nintendo.

I defended the Wii to the last. Said it was awesome, it was a great idea, people would do some really cool things with it - then Nintendo made me waggle the stupid controller to make Link swing his sword, and I realized the love affair was over. Then I realized that 99% of the "amazing innovative controls" in place for the Wii amounted to "waggle the stupid controller".

Then I heard about Project Cafe' and I was cautiously optimistic. The rumor mill's "controllers with screens" sounded like a cool idea. Literally every single news bite I have heard since then has disappointed me. Stupid name, one real controller per system, continuing to use garbage like Wiimotes, no DVD/Blu-Ray playback. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they announced they were still using those ridiculous friend codes, and had no plans for a centralized online component.

At this point, I don't think there's any chance I'd want to buy a WiiU. Nintendo's got a whole fucking load of work to do if they want to win me back. Shame, too, because I was a goddamn zealot before the Wii.
 

Micalas

New member
Mar 5, 2011
793
0
0
deckai said:
In my eyes they made the right decision, especially if they improve the online part, in which case everyone will play with the touchscreen, but for local multiplayer the Wii-motes/classic-controller should be enough.
The problem with this logic is that I can guarantee that most gamers over 16 were playing Wii games (except Wii Sports) with a gamecube control. It's not irrational whining when we're getting pigeon-holed into using the wii-mote for local multi-player.
 

Mr. Omega

ANTI-LIFE JUSTIFIES MY HATE!
Jul 1, 2010
3,902
0
0
Dear Nintendo,

Don't worry about the price. If people are willing to buy the PS3 for (everyone together now) FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE US DOLLARS, and over a thousand dollars on a PC specifically made for gaming, they'll buy the WiiU for whatever price it takes. I can understand (and in fact support) the lack of DVD or Blu-Ray. But those were a nice little extra. This is about the controller. A very important part of the console. Perhaps the most important part besides the games. Don't cut corners on the concept of local muliplayer, that's your strength. Exploit the fact that nobody beats Nintendo at real-life, friends-coming-over, everyone-together multiplayer. You made the controller with the standard button layout that everyone's been asking for, and you added your own personal innovation. Don't shoot yourself in the foot by limiting them.
 

Toriver

Lvl 20 Hedgehog Wizard
Jan 25, 2010
1,364
0
0
Now, I'm not one of those people that will be all like, "WAAAAH, it's different from the standard controller and console, it scares me." I do like the Wii and the WiiU's controller does look like something very interesting and fun to try. But why, oh why, Nintendo, are you telling us all these downsides to your console lately? This is a PR nightmare, especially among the nerd community, which is so much like Anonymous, which "never forgives and never forgets". If it's not *PERFECT*, the wolves in sheep's clothing known as "fans" will slaughter your reputation before you even have the chance to compete. And if you only include the capability to allow one WiiU controller to function per console, regardless of the source, that's game-breakingly bad right there. That, I may even say, is indefensible. And the reasoning behind it sounds incredibly dubious, too. Price as your reasoning? Really, Nintendo? Somehow, I don't believe that, and yet I still don't understand this decision. Why wouldn't you at least offer the option to allow multiple WiiU controllers to work with one console, even if you only decide to pack one with each new console sold? That would allow friends to bring controllers over so multiple people can play in the same room together. Isn't that what you want, Nintendo? Isn't that what you specifically marketed the original Wii to be able to do? Now, you decide to only allow one person the ability to have this intriguing new controller technology while others are left with Wii remotes to compete against that one person? What are you thinking? Are you still trying to push Wii-style motion controls on a "hardcore" audience that has given up on them years ago (despite the benefits of motion control)? Honestly, do you not see the potential for awesomeness that in gaming that comes from multiple players being able to manipulate the game, each using one of these devices? Or is this somehow some elaborate trolling mechanism to show us the downside of allowing only one person per console in this day and age to have full access to an account when going online to play multiplayer with friends over playing the game as well (which is BS, at least on the Xbox, that nobody will talk about because it's a "hardcore" console)? Nintendo has done so many things right so far with this new console, why should they ruin that hard work with this crippling hindrance to multiplayer enjoyment? Seriously, what are they thinking?
 

JohnDoey

New member
Jun 30, 2009
416
0
0
Gaderael said:
Madmanonfire said:
Logan Westbrook said:
Nintendo wasn't planning to ask its customers to ask customers to buy more than one controller anyway, Iwata added.
That's good. I wasn't going to ask random fellow customers to buy another controller regardless.

OT: This shouldn't be too bad if the other four players can use classic controllers.
That's what I was thinking. Being able to use the Classic Pro, or a gamecube controller.

I bought a Classic Pro to play NHL 2k11 (not so good), but if I can use it to play NHL 12 or 13, or whatever number is out when the WiiU debuts, I'll be happy.
I think i read they are dropping gc support and you can use any controller that worked with the Wii except the GC.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
Brian Ashcraft? Isn't he the Nintendo hating troll who compared the DS running NSMB to a 3DS running NSMB without actually having one of them running the game and not actually playing the game on the other?

...

Yes. Yes he is the Nintendo hating troll. [http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/02/lets-see-if-ds-games-look-better-on-the-3ds/] And since all the other articles seem to link back to his translation, you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of all this.

But let's assume that we don't know that the guy isn't a Nintendo hater and that this is real. Oh well. Doesn't bother me. I can't remember the last time I needed more than one controller to play any console. I see why other people are upset, but it doesn't bother me at all.

Also, assuming this has any basis in fact (and again, considering the source hates Nintendo, I'm very skeptical), the WiiU doesn't come out until next year. Plenty of time for them to change their minds if backlash is strong enough.
 

zerobudgetgamer

New member
Apr 5, 2011
297
0
0
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
arc1991 said:
Proteus214 said:
Not having to buy 4 controllers at what will probably be $100+ price point each and eat through battery life more than any controller to date?
Cutting the cost of a console by not letting it render and broadcast 4+ wireless video streams while doing everything else a high-end console is supposed to do?
Nintendo wants to deliver a next-gen gaming console at a reasonable price?
Nintendo wants to make a marginal profit off of technology that costs an absurd amount of money to develop, distribute, and support so that they can continue to do business in the future?

I really don't see a problem with any of this.
At all.
^100% this

Eventually the controllers will go down in price anyway, meaning that in the future they will probably sell the console with the standard 2 controllers.

Seriously guys, they are saving us money, why should we complain? Just ask your friends to bring their controllers over, problem solved. (Assuming they have the WiiU...)
One controller per console, period. That is one of the reasons a lot of people are mad.
And considering 90% of all things that have a power outlet or battery to them in this day and age can connect to the Internet obviously means that the WiiU will NEVER see some sort of update to allow support for multiple controllers??

Now, I, for one, am rather curious as to why Iwata said that multiple WiiU controllers would increase the price of the system. Proteus mentioned the rendering/broadcasting that would undoubtedly require a rather bulky bit of hardware, but what of software? I can't imagine the WiiU would be doing all the work, and the controller would obviously have to have some considerable hardware inside of it to do all the things that it's been said to do in the E3 presentation.

All I'm saying is that if their issue is that the cost of multiple controller is what will drive the price up, then while it is a rather strange decision, it's one that can be quickly overturned with a simple system update down the line. If it has more to do with software within the system not being able to multi-task around multiple controllers, then again, system update. BUT, if it's truly a hardware problem, and that the cost to support multiple controllers all goes into increasing the bulk of the machine, not the 0s and 1s within it, then its at least a semi-valid decision to try to keep costs down, and just like they did with the WiiMotion Plus, they'll sell an update a couple years down the line that will provide the necessary support.
 

ZeZZZZevy

New member
Apr 3, 2011
618
0
0
Well that sounds...boring

There was potential to do some awesome stuff with those controllers, but limiting it to one only allows for asymmetrical gameplay. Oh well, wasn't getting this anyway.

But wow, didn't expect Nintendo to do so much just to cut costs. They must be really desperate to compete with the other consoles.
 

shaboinkin

New member
Apr 13, 2008
691
0
0
It they wanted to stream high resolution graphics to 4 different controllers, the amount of horsepower needed would raise the cost of the console considerable I think. It's like AMD Eyefinity stuff. It would take more GPU power to render and output to 6 different monitors than to just one.

From how I understand it, it's the same thing with the WiiU.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
Wait... what?

The multiplayer implications of the new controller was probably the thing I was most excited about.

My interest in buying a Wii U just tanked.

EDIT: I understood all along the level of processing power that would be required to support 4 simultaneous Wii U controllers, but i assumed that the whole point of a 'next-gen' console was to leverage current hardware to accomplish new things. Nintendo, I am disappoint.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
JUMBO PALACE said:
Just because the Gameboy and it's subsequent generations were a hit doesn't mean that all of the things Xanthious said aren't relevant. Nintendo has a history of failed gimmicks and silly notions that can't be ignored.
His point was that the Wii wasn't their first successful 'gimmick.' Sure they've had a lot of failures but their successes have been huge.

Gameboy invented mobile gaming and they have dominated that market for 15 years because of it.

Wii, love or hate motion controls they've been massively successful.

Rumble Pack, been standard on every system since they introduced it on N64. The one time that it wasn't (PS3) there was such and uproar they quickly added it back in.

They even came up with the iPhones gyroscopic tilt controls. Anyone remember Super Mario tennis on the Gameboy Color?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
More I find out about the WiiU controller the less I like it:

http://golgotron.com/2011/06/nintendo-wii-u-tablet-screen-resolution-revealed/

480p screen? Not only will we get a compressed video-stream but it will only be SD resolution. I suppose another reason is HD wireless streaming tech is pretty expensive but SD-video streaming much less so. Especially if they limit it to a mere 30hz refresh rate.

Single touch? This clearly tries to emulate tablet form-factor yet goes for such a simple interface that may save money but cripples it too much, no "pinch to zoom" will be pretty annoying for the screen's possible use as a map-screen.

You know a 480p uni-touch screen doesn't seem worth it if it means giving up:
-proper analogue sticks (them nub sliders)
-good ergonomics (size/shape)
-analogue triggers
-ability to reach d-pad with right thumb.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
It just doesn't make much sense. I am a tech savvy guy and all, but I don't know much about software/hardware design... but there is no reason that I can think of that it couldn't support more than one of those controllers. And it will only complicate game making. How is a company supposed to design a locale multiplayer game around only one person having access to the touch screen. We may just see the most advanced form of Trivial Pursuit EVAR!... which is really lame for a game console.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
gave this some thought since I was last in this thread, and I decided that if they were to drop the Touch-screentroller, I probably would have cared. It would have been a super Wii, which does sound awesome. But owning a Wii already, and having a 360 and soon to own a PS3, I cant for the life of me think of a reason to buy a WiiU. If I want a 3rd party game that multiplatform, ill just buy it for the 360 or PS3. I feel the WiiU is several years too late.

Also, Off-topic, im going to post this in thread about the WiiU I leave a substancial post in:


now im going to rent Kung Pow again...
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
walrusaurus said:
JUMBO PALACE said:
Just because the Gameboy and it's subsequent generations were a hit doesn't mean that all of the things Xanthious said aren't relevant. Nintendo has a history of failed gimmicks and silly notions that can't be ignored.
His point was that the Wii wasn't their first successful 'gimmick.' Sure they've had a lot of failures but their successes have been huge.

Gameboy invented mobile gaming and they have dominated that market for 15 years because of it.

Wii, love or hate motion controls they've been massively successful.

Rumble Pack, been standard on every system since they introduced it on N64. The one time that it wasn't (PS3) there was such and uproar they quickly added it back in.

They even came up with the iPhones gyroscopic tilt controls. Anyone remember Super Mario tennis on the Gameboy Color?
All of these things are true. When it comes down to it, there are really only two things that matter. One is library of available games, and it's nice they won't be lagging behind graphically anymore. The other is price point. Is it going to be cheap enough where people are willing to take a risk in buying it. While the Wii is the console king of the current generation, fiscally speaking, many people are not happy with the games that were available for it. The good games were completely fantastic and worth playing completely, the bad games were not remotely worth anyone's time. The ratio of bad to good games was probably 20:1.... which is not good at all.
 

Guitarmasterx7

Day Pig
Mar 16, 2009
3,872
0
0
The only thing that had me interested in this console was the potential for a new zelda 4 swords. So uh...
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
Baresark said:
All of these things are true. When it comes down to it, there are really only two things that matter. One is library of available games, and it's nice they won't be lagging behind graphically anymore. The other is price point. Is it going to be cheap enough where people are willing to take a risk in buying it. While the Wii is the console king of the current generation, fiscally speaking, many people are not happy with the games that were available for it. The good games were completely fantastic and worth playing completely, the bad games were not remotely worth anyone's time. The ratio of bad to good games was probably 20:1.... which is not good at all.

Agreed. Deep down I'm just a Nintendo fanboy desperate for them to give me a reason to love them again.
 

PureChaos

New member
Aug 16, 2008
4,990
0
0
are we going to have loads of threads about what the Wii U won't do? first no DVD player now this?
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
walrusaurus said:
Baresark said:
All of these things are true. When it comes down to it, there are really only two things that matter. One is library of available games, and it's nice they won't be lagging behind graphically anymore. The other is price point. Is it going to be cheap enough where people are willing to take a risk in buying it. While the Wii is the console king of the current generation, fiscally speaking, many people are not happy with the games that were available for it. The good games were completely fantastic and worth playing completely, the bad games were not remotely worth anyone's time. The ratio of bad to good games was probably 20:1.... which is not good at all.

Agreed. Deep down I'm just a Nintendo fanboy desperate for them to give me a reason to love them again.
Really I think a good deal of us are Nintendo fans just waiting for a chance to love them again...
 

Black Watch

New member
Aug 9, 2010
129
0
0
Eh.. I play with my friends over the internet so this isn't a loss for me. Besides, even in the name they are telling you that the system is made for you. Hence Wii U and not Wii Us.
 

Lucky Chainsaw

New member
Jan 8, 2009
111
0
0
I probably wouldn't have ever bought a second controller, but I can imagine this will be a problem for a lot of other consumers.
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
Old news, there has been at least one good forum thread here on this a long while back. :S
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Black Watch said:
Eh.. I play with my friends over the internet so this isn't a loss for me. Besides, even in the name they are telling you that the system is made for you. Hence Wii U and not Wii Us.
Or rather the...Wii We? C'mon, why wouldn't they want to confuse the French and make the Americans laugh even more than they already are?

Anyway, I've already said what I think about this console. It's basically a Wii with hardware capabilities like the PS360, so if you wanted a Hi-Def Zelda/Kirby/Metroid/Mario/Donkey Kong, then here you go, because lord knows those will be the biggest sellers for it no matter how much 3rd-Party support they get (at first). /opinion
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
walrusaurus said:
Rumble Pack, been standard on every system since they introduced it on N64. The one time that it wasn't (PS3) there was such and uproar they quickly added it back in.
Rumble is popular, it's easy for companies to integrate it in the controller but really how much is it actually appreciated?

What game would just not be the same without rumble?

I've always been disappointed by how after all these years rumble is still used for nothing more than being a poor simulation of gun recoil. It may not be in itself a gimmick but it is only used in gimmicky ways, why can't it do something that sound and camera movement cannot replicate?

I always turn rumble off in every game I can because it adds nothing to the game, and IMO distracts from the immersion reminding me I am holding a controller, not a gun.


Little fact about the history of the analogue thumbstick: Nintendo didn't invent it.

No, I'm not talking semantics of prior art, I'm talking the thumbstick as we know it today did NOT first appear on the N64 controller. That controller had just as Digital control stick with many but discrete inputs for each direction and magnitude.

Now the Playstation Dual Analogue Controller in 1997, that invented the thumbstick that is essentially unchanged even today. In fact that controller design is essentially unchaged today with the 360 controller. Key feature with the thumbstick is that it only has a single moving part, the stick itself, and can detect true analogue input: a continuous magnitude of around a continuous radius. But most importantly I think was the click-down that is absolutely pivotal with todays games where you fingers "home position" is on thumbsticks and the shoulder buttons, those extra 2 buttons mean so much.

I can't imagine playing CoD without RS/R3 to melee. It's such a useful function.

Nintendo is still yet to make a controller with thumbstick that you can click-down.

The Wii U has only nub-slider for inputs rather than true analogue stick, better than D-pad but no where near as good as a stick. And of course a game like CoD on the WiiU, the melee and sprint functions would have to be moved to the touchscreen. Not good.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
So only one of the new cutting edge high tech gimicky controllers that the entire product is built around per system. The rest of you can go wave your wand at it. No hard drive, an *gb memory stick should be good enough for anybody. Why would you want patches or DLC or such? Oh and no DVD or Bluray, you already have enough of those. If you really want another controller you need to drop 300 big ones on our latest handheld... that might work... maybe...

Are you sure this thing is not called the "WiiFU"? Because that really does seem to be what they are saying to the customer base.
 

Gaderael

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,550
0
0
azzxl said:
Gaderael said:
Madmanonfire said:
Logan Westbrook said:
Nintendo wasn't planning to ask its customers to ask customers to buy more than one controller anyway, Iwata added.
That's good. I wasn't going to ask random fellow customers to buy another controller regardless.

OT: This shouldn't be too bad if the other four players can use classic controllers.
That's what I was thinking. Being able to use the Classic Pro, or a gamecube controller.

I bought a Classic Pro to play NHL 2k11 (not so good), but if I can use it to play NHL 12 or 13, or whatever number is out when the WiiU debuts, I'll be happy.
I think i read they are dropping gc support and you can use any controller that worked with the Wii except the GC.
Thanks for the info. Classic Pro Controllers are really inexpensive, so no worries there. I find their layout better then the GC controllers anyway.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Looks like the same-old same-old.. all the "core" gamers here whining because Nintendo isn't catering to them.

Here's the deal guys, once you remember that the Wii-U console is sending entire screens worth of data to the Wii-U remote it doesn't take a genius to realize that the additional processing power the unit would have to have to support more than one Wii-U remote isn't just something you can lightly toss off. It's a bit more than the "rumble" command your xbox controller has, folks.

So every additional Wii-U remote would mean you'd have to add on about 50% of the processing power to support another entirely additional screen. You want to double, triple, or quadruple the processing power this thing has to have to support multiple Wii-U screens? You're looking at prices around the original PS3 mark, and sorry folks, but that ain't gonna sell to Nintendo's target audience who, incidentally, if you didn't buy the Wii, you'e not. Oh sure, a PS3 priced unit might sell to you, but you're a niche audience, and frankly, you don't matter squat when compared to the millions upon millions of new gamers who are wii users who Nintendo really hopes will upgrade.

I mean, they even telegraph that this is what they want to happen by being very clear about it playing all the old Wii games, and using all the old Wii controllers, including the balance board. Unlike the Wii, this isn't a console designed to bring in either the hardcore audience, or the new audience. It's a console designed to get the current wii audience into the idea of upgrading.

So whining about how it should do more than one controller is really just showing how you don't have a clue about what Nintendo is up to.
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
I think a key thing to consider here is that you get to use wiimotes. Does every player in a multiplayer game NEED a miniscreen? Probably not, in 90% of cases. Crystal chronicals didn't really work on the gamecube too well, even when everyone had gameboys.

This is the first instance I'm aware of, where the last gen controller was used as the main controller for the next gen.

GREAT. Fantastic, even. If I get the weeeoooo, i'll already have the complete suite of accessories necessary to do five player games. If games come out that want to use ps3 style controllers-- hey! Code support for the old gamecube controllers! perfect solution.
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
I'll still get it because Nintendo is basically my Zelda/Mario dealer. Zelda is my favorite franchise of all time, nothing from any other medium comes close. Other games come along that I enjoy, but I wouldn't actually buy a console to play them.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
Treblaine said:
Rumble is popular, it's easy for companies to integrate it in the controller but really how much is it actually appreciated?

What game would just not be the same without rumble?
*snip*
I always turn rumble off in every game I can because it adds nothing to the game, and IMO distracts from the immersion reminding me I am holding a controller, not a gun.

Little fact about the history of the analogue thumbstick: Nintendo didn't invent it...

I'm talking the thumbstick as we know it today did NOT first appear on the N64 controller. That controller had just as Digital control stick with many but discrete inputs for each direction and magnitude....

But most importantly I think was the click-down that is absolutely pivotal with todays games where you fingers "home position" is on thumbsticks and the shoulder buttons, those extra 2 buttons mean so much.

I can't imagine playing CoD without RS/R3 to melee. It's such a useful function.
.
1. I never claimed nintendo invented the analog stick, not sure why you brought it up at all since it doesn't really have anything to do with what we were talking about. Analog sticks go all the way back to Atari.

2. Your probably the only person I've ever seen defend L3/R3 as good ideas. Pretty sure their universally disliked as incredibly awkward to use.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
Kwil said:
Looks like the same-old same-old.. all the "core" gamers here whining because Nintendo isn't catering to them.

Here's the deal guys, once you remember that the Wii-U console is sending entire screens worth of data to the Wii-U remote it doesn't take a genius to realize that the additional processing power the unit would have to have to support more than one Wii-U remote isn't just something you can lightly toss off. It's a bit more than the "rumble" command your xbox controller has, folks.

So every additional Wii-U remote would mean you'd have to add on about 50% of the processing power to support another entirely additional screen. You want to double, triple, or quadruple the processing power this thing has to have to support multiple Wii-U screens? You're looking at prices around the original PS3 mark, and sorry folks, but that ain't gonna sell to Nintendo's target audience who, incidentally, if you didn't buy the Wii, you'e not. Oh sure, a PS3 priced unit might sell to you, but you're a niche audience, and frankly, you don't matter squat when compared to the millions upon millions of new gamers who are wii users who Nintendo really hopes will upgrade.

I mean, they even telegraph that this is what they want to happen by being very clear about it playing all the old Wii games, and using all the old Wii controllers, including the balance board. Unlike the Wii, this isn't a console designed to bring in either the hardcore audience, or the new audience. It's a console designed to get the current wii audience into the idea of upgrading.

So whining about how it should do more than one controller is really just showing how you don't have a clue about what Nintendo is up to.
I understood all that from the get go, even as is i don't see how they're gonna sell this thing for less than 400 USD at any kind of meaningful profit.

Just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it can't make us sad.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
walrusaurus said:
I understood all that from the get go, even as is i don't see how they're gonna sell this thing for less than 400 USD at any kind of meaningful profit.

Just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it can't make us sad.
Well, we don't know that they'll be selling it for a profit in any event, in which case, it's even more important for them to keep the cost/unit down.

Be sad if you must, but I prefer to look at it from the point of view that they're going to make my co-workers and relatives into gamers who will look on gaming, and even spending money for upgrading, as perfectly understandable. They're going to make it so that I can have conversations about gaming with more people. That's not sad. That's freakin' cool.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Kwil said:
Looks like the same-old same-old.. all the "core" gamers here whining because Nintendo isn't catering to them.

Here's the deal guys, once you remember that the Wii-U console is sending entire screens worth of data to the Wii-U remote it doesn't take a genius to realize that the additional processing power the unit would have to have to support more than one Wii-U remote isn't just something you can lightly toss off. It's a bit more than the "rumble" command your xbox controller has, folks.

So every additional Wii-U remote would mean you'd have to add on about 50% of the processing power to support another entirely additional screen. You want to double, triple, or quadruple the processing power this thing has to have to support multiple Wii-U screens? You're looking at prices around the original PS3 mark, and sorry folks, but that ain't gonna sell to Nintendo's target audience who, incidentally, if you didn't buy the Wii, you'e not. Oh sure, a PS3 priced unit might sell to you, but you're a niche audience, and frankly, you don't matter squat when compared to the millions upon millions of new gamers who are wii users who Nintendo really hopes will upgrade.

I mean, they even telegraph that this is what they want to happen by being very clear about it playing all the old Wii games, and using all the old Wii controllers, including the balance board. Unlike the Wii, this isn't a console designed to bring in either the hardcore audience, or the new audience. It's a console designed to get the current wii audience into the idea of upgrading.

So whining about how it should do more than one controller is really just showing how you don't have a clue about what Nintendo is up to.
Hey, Mr. Pariah for Nintendo, they're a big company. They've been around for a long time. And unless you're a paid spokesman for them (Which I doubt), they don't need you defending them.

Besides, current processors and GPU's are way more than powerful enough to support 3-4 480p touchscreens, this is Nintendo's way of breaking the news lightly that the Wii-U won't have stellar brand new hardware. Hell, ATI can support what, up to four-five screens at 1080p without any frame dropping at all? Yeah, it's expensive, but it exists.
What they're doing is saying "Hey, all you guys who've been playing the Wii for the last six years? You'll finally get to enjoy everything the PS3 and Xbox 360 have had since 2005!" Yeah, it's upgrading, but not in a meaningful way.

EDIT: Yes, I did mean pariah by the way, despite its meaning. Figure that one out.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
Kwil said:
Oh sure, a PS3 priced unit might sell to you, but you're a niche audience, and frankly, you don't matter squat when compared to the millions upon millions of new gamers who are wii users who Nintendo really hopes will upgrade.
Hey, Mr. Pariah for Nintendo, they're a big company. They've been around for a long time. And unless you're a paid spokesman for them (Which I doubt), they don't need you defending them.

Besides, current processors and GPU's are way more than powerful enough to support 3-4 480p touchscreens, this is Nintendo's way of breaking the news lightly that the Wii-U won't have stellar brand new hardware. Hell, ATI can support what, up to four-five screens at 1080p without any frame dropping at all? Yeah, it's expensive, but it exists.
What they're doing is saying "Hey, all you guys who've been playing the Wii for the last six years? You'll finally get to enjoy everything the PS3 and Xbox 360 have had since 2005!" Yeah, it's upgrading, but not in a meaningful way.
Apparently you had trouble reading more than one paragraph, so I left in the sentence that applies to your line of thinking. It should be easier for you to spot now.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Kwil said:
Apparently you had trouble reading more than one paragraph, so I left in the one that applies to your line of thinking.
Oh no, I read it all just fine. But the fact is with their line-up, Nintendo is trying to sucker in people who like hardcore games AND Nintendo games. My final statement remains relevant. They're saying "You can finally enjoy everything the other two consoles have had for six years!"

EDIT: Also, the other point of my post that I should have made more clear, was that this is Nintendo's way of saying that their console will only have slightly better hardware than the PS360 do. EDIT EDIT: Which is not something to brag about when they were in development eight years ago.
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
Kwil said:
Apparently you had trouble reading more than one paragraph, so I left in the one that applies to your line of thinking.
Oh no, I read it all just fine. But the fact is with their line-up, Nintendo is trying to sucker in people who like hardcore games AND Nintendo games. My final statement remains relevant. They're saying "You can finally enjoy everything the other two consoles have had for six years!"
Except I never really cared about missing "core" games. Ya, it would be cool to have some of them, but most also came out on PC, and I would rather play on PC a lot of the time.
 

Black Watch

New member
Aug 9, 2010
129
0
0
rickthetrick said:
AM I the only one who hears Nintendo whistling as it comes down in flames?
Pretty much. From what I seen at the press conference, I once again have confidence in Nintendo. I just hope developers will be able to use the system to it's full graphical capabilities rather than just have Nintendo putting out the prettiest games on it.
 

Awesome74

New member
Jul 21, 2010
16
0
0
So, it's a high-def Wii. Sure, developers might make some games using the WiiU controller, but this just trows multiplayer right out the window. I'm sure a lot of developers had ideas with using multiple WiiU controllers, but nope.
 

shadic_Z

New member
Jun 26, 2010
3
0
0
the next Nintendo Virtual Boy or 64DD. one of nintendo bigges failures is yet to come...

64 + 64DD =FAIL

wii + wiiU =FAIL

history repeats itself
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
walrusaurus said:
Treblaine said:
Rumble is popular, it's easy for companies to integrate it in the controller but really how much is it actually appreciated?

What game would just not be the same without rumble?
*snip*
I always turn rumble off in every game I can because it adds nothing to the game, and IMO distracts from the immersion reminding me I am holding a controller, not a gun.

Little fact about the history of the analogue thumbstick: Nintendo didn't invent it...

I'm talking the thumbstick as we know it today did NOT first appear on the N64 controller. That controller had just as Digital control stick with many but discrete inputs for each direction and magnitude....

But most importantly I think was the click-down that is absolutely pivotal with todays games where you fingers "home position" is on thumbsticks and the shoulder buttons, those extra 2 buttons mean so much.

I can't imagine playing CoD without RS/R3 to melee. It's such a useful function.
.
1. I never claimed nintendo invented the analog stick, not sure why you brought it up at all since it doesn't really have anything to do with what we were talking about. Analog sticks go all the way back to Atari.

2. Your probably the only person I've ever seen defend L3/R3 as good ideas. Pretty sure their universally disliked as incredibly awkward to use.
I never claimed that you-claimed-they-did. It's "just a little fact" while we were on the subject of Nintendo innovation and pioneering new interfaces and gaming concepts. And I wasn't even talking about analogue-sticks (that is incredibly broad area), I am talking particularly THUMB-sticks integrated into a console gamepad.

I think you are being pretty narrow minded to say I'm the only one to give due praise to thumbstick click-down. The feature is absolutely pivotal for console games that are trying to match the flexibility of PC's mouse + keyboard controls.

It's telling that:
-Nintendo has not implemented a click-down thumbstick, ever
-you are a self confessed nintendo fanboy (post #93 of this thread)
-you assert click-down thumbsticks are "universally disliked"

There has never been the suggestion of removing thumbstick-clickdown, not in almost 15 years, I think everyone takes it for granted so no one feels the need to "defend" them. If you care to find out you'll find many describe their satisfaction at using R3/RS for melee.

I have heard enough people say how the how Wii U will be less appealing precisely for how the controls would be missed, as thumbs are busy controlling aiming/movement they cannot initiate any function, you can only use the 4 shoulder-buttons while on the move.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
And just like that, all of the possibilities racing through my head about how amazing this tech could be and how it could change the face of gaming....all came crashing down.

I'll gladly pay a much higher price for one that can process multiple tablet-controllers, because that tech is actually pretty awesome and could really do some impressive things if you take advantage of it. I'm not the "core audience", I know, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that sentiment. And they could easily recoup any "losses" by sheer virtue of the fact that it's backwards compatible with the Wii and Wii accessories....they can still make a killing on accessories, which should make it easy for them to push for a bit higher budget on the console itself.

You're focusing too heavily on the family core audience again, which worked for you once, but I'm not sure it'll work twice. When the idea was first shown to us, I was thinking that you were selling a console with multi-tablet-controller capabilities, which gives families a reason to buy the new console. But it turns out that you're basically selling them precisely what they already own, but with nicer graphics and a SINGLE tablet-controller, which means that it's not really a large step up from what they own. What reason do they have to trade up, now, if the tablet is a token improvement that only one player can enjoy while everyone else is playing the same sort of system they bought years ago when they got a Wii? They might have been better off just stomaching the higher price tag and lower sales with this one, because the console has just lost the edge that would have given families reason to trade up. Instead, you're expecting them to buy the same thing they already own for a higher price tag. It's amazing how Nintendo took an awesome concept and shot it in the foot.

Oh, it'll still sell. I expect it to. But I'm very disappointed, because this was their chance to really knock our socks off with a cool idea, and they blew it because they wanted to keep the price tag low enough to con extra cash out of families who already have a Wii. Faith is so easily shattered these days, it seems.
 

NickCaligo42

New member
Oct 7, 2007
1,371
0
0
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Guess what? If your controller presents that kind of trouble, don't design it that way to begin with. The decision is stupid, no matter what excuses they trot out.
Agreed.

GeorgW said:
I have a solution. How about making a classic controller that isn't impossible to hold, and doesn't have to be hooked up to the damn Wii controller. That, or bring back GC controllers.
I can understand that the screen is unnecessary, but like hell if I'm gonna play Smash bros. on Wiimotes.

Also, what happened to the local multiplayer with each player having their own screen that they promised us?
Agreed.

This is such a half-assed execution of this console's core concept, I just don't see how they can move it. If it's going to be more expensive for being able to support more than one controller, MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE. This console's success is banking on what that thing can do, and most of the exciting possibilities are couch multiplayer stuff not unlike what you'd see in Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles for the Gamecube. That shit, built in from the ground-up so that developers don't have to get squeamish about experimenting with that kind of tech, and they're telling us they--NINTENDO, the company that made glasses-free 3D in a handheld--can't do it.
 

let's rock

New member
Jun 15, 2011
372
0
0
Really? So I can have my tough screne, my multiplayer friends can't. If a controler has that kind of problem, don't design it like that in the first place. And really, this would be more of a software thing than a hardware thing, can't be too expensive
 

Robbersarb

New member
Feb 9, 2011
9
0
0
I'm not going to bash the controller as it's all been said before however one new controller per system is a big corner to cut. Removing the only reason most people still use a wii (balanced local multiplayer) is a poor idea and doesn't make sense as a business model.
Innovation only works when it's possible for it to work without major compromise and really in this case all most users will be getting is an updated Wii using the same controllers but with a little more power.
So I propose an alternate solution, wait. Wait until the console can support controllers with screens! It's not that the gaming community don't want to move forwards it's that with such limitations on the new ideas it doesn't make sense to!
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Abedecain said:
So the new controller is not motion sensitive?! Isn't that what the Wii is about... because it defiantly isn't for the fantastilistic graphics and speed, lulz
Oh, no. It has a gyroscope and accelerometer as well. Think of it like the end result of taking a Wii remote, motionplus attachment, and classic controller apart, jamming them all into a single casing, then adding a touchscreen as well.

DoctorPhil said:
What? Only Wii controllers? PleasepleasepleasePLEASE allow gamecube controllers too Nintendo. Don't let me down!
As for the WiiU controller, I don't care, that thing looks pretty unweildy anyway, I'd rather play a competetive multiplayer game like Smash Brothers on a nunchuck+Wiimote than a WiiU thingy.
I rather suspect you'd prefer a 'classic controller' over remote + nunchuk if you can't use a gamecube controller anymore.
(It's weird how little awareness people seem to have of the existance of the two 'classic controller' variants - They exist primarily because of the virtual console, so they resemble the result of combining an Snes controller with a gamecube controller.)

KarmicToast said:
arc1991 said:
Proteus214 said:
Not having to buy 4 controllers at what will probably be $100+ price point each and eat through battery life more than any controller to date?
Cutting the cost of a console by not letting it render and broadcast 4+ wireless video streams while doing everything else a high-end console is supposed to do?
Nintendo wants to deliver a next-gen gaming console at a reasonable price?
Nintendo wants to make a marginal profit off of technology that costs an absurd amount of money to develop, distribute, and support so that they can continue to do business in the future?

I really don't see a problem with any of this.
At all.
^100% this

Eventually the controllers will go down in price anyway, meaning that in the future they will probably sell the console with the standard 2 controllers.

Seriously guys, they are saving us money, why should we complain? Just ask your friends to bring their controllers over, problem solved. (Assuming they have the WiiU...)
Here is the problem with this this.
1. You still have to buy wii-motes plus nunchucks plus wii-motion plus.
2. Your second point isn't a point: Not letting it do something it should because it does everything else it should? And anyway, no, it doesn't. There is no substantive multiplayer network (see XBL or PSN), and it only supports ONE controller that isn't a motion wand.
3. They aren't delivering a next-gen console. They are delivering a current gen console five years late -- WITH a truckload of limitations and a stable of games that are equally old and remakes.
4. Traditionally, Nintendo has been the only system that makes profit off of it's hardware from the beginning. That worked great until the N64. Ever since, in order to keep that dated business model, they've released half-ass consoles.

Of course this is an issue! They are re-selling the wii with graphical and processing powers that should have been there five years ago, along with only one new peripheral device, of which, there can only be one attached at any given point. I mean, come on guys. Nintendo is a day late and a dollar short every year when it comes to being a competitive console developer for actual gamers. They haven't even launched a new successful franchise in years ... they just leech off of the oldies and remake them over and over and over again. They are the freaking Disneyworld of video games.

Also Arc: no, they mean it can only SUPPORT one controller. Even if you owned 4.
OK, several points. The Wii classic controller is a traditional gamepad. (hence the name). It's existed as long as the wii has.

Wii remotes AND motionplus are now technically obsolete, having been replaced with the Wii Remote plus (Identical in size and shape to a Wii remote, but contains motionplus built in).
If you think that's insignificant, consider that by the last account I saw, while A wii remote cost about £35, and a motionplus attachment cost £20, the Wii Remote plus now costs the same as an older Wii remote. (eg £35), and 'motionplus' is now free if you didn't already own older remotes.

Speaking of which, anyone that owns a Wii will already have extra controllers... Since the new console is compatible with all the old Wii controllers, that means for anyone upgrading, you may not need to buy extra stuff.

Still, you can argue about the other points... (Though remember just how insanely expensive a PS3 was at launch - despite being sold at a loss, and you might give pause to consider the downside of having the best and greatest technology.)


Xanthious said:
Logan Westbrook said:
Of course, this won't be the first time that Nintendo has made gajillions of dollars doing things that its rivals aren't - or vice versa - so perhaps it will all pay off.
Nintendo got lucky . . . once. Around the time just before the Wii was released they were basically fighting to even remain relevant. I don't get where this contrived notion that Nintendo has a history of printing money doing off the wall things comes from. They have a history of making stupid ass gimmicks that end up failing miserably. Hell dating all the way back 21 years ago to that stupid ass robot for the NES the Wii, yeah the Wii, was the first truly successful gimmick they were able to get to stick. R.O.B. was a train wreck, the Power Pad failed, the Power Glove was simply atrocious, the Super Scope never took off, words can't say just how bad the Virtual Boy was, the N64 microphone failed, those stupid congas for the Wii were a joke, Wii speak has been all but abandoned, the 3DS is skipping down the path o' mediocrity currently and there's more I know I'm not remembering right now.
Yeah... Of course you forget that R.O.B. was an excuse to convince people the NES was a toy.
The video game crash of 1984 had pretty much caused people to conclude it would be impossible to sell a 'game console' in the US.
I don't even think any attempt was ever made to sell R.O.B. units outside of America...

So... Let's see.
The NES dominated the market.

The gameboy and it's smaller variants dominated the handheld market to the extent that meaningful competitors essentially didn't exist.

The powerglove was made by an independent company, and Nintendo didn't exactly give it much support. (It was not exactly well implemented technology either though.)

The SNES essentially had a 50/50 market split with the sega Mega Drive/genesis. (Averaged out over the whole world anyway.)

The N64 was commercially viable but not a success.

The Virtual boy was it's most visible disaster,
but In effect the Playstation was the most damaging disaster. (If you think that sounds weird, remember that the Sony playstation wasn't originally going to be an independent console. It was intended to be an SNES CD addon.)

The GBC and GBA continued Nintendo's essential monopoly on handheld gaming.

The gamecube was again, not very successful, but, like the N64, financially viable. However, since it suggested a downward trend, it was clearly not representative of a good strategy.

The DS and it's variants have outsold the PS2.
For a while, it also repeated the Gameboy's dominance, but sony finally managed the impossible, and gained a small foothold in the handheld gaming market.

The wii... Was a very risky strategy that actually worked.



The overall trend isn't one of a company surviving on gimmicks. It's of a company surviving on the unassailable strength of it's handheld gaming systems, but slowly losing ground in the console space, and trying something radical to turn that trend around.
Which worked.

Although both the 3DS and the WiiU suggest they may have trouble repeating their past success.
 

SoulSalmon

New member
Sep 27, 2010
454
0
0
Ok there seems to be some confusion about what this article means :/

People are saying "So what? I'll get freinds to bring their controllers" but the problem is that you CAN'T!
The entire issue here is that the console will ONLY EVER support ONE WiiU controller, even if you had seventy controllers you could only use one at a time.

For me, that's a deal breaker, the only reason I was considering this was the possibility of multiplayer where everyone has their own personal screen as well as a large shared screen, it could have been a massively more powerful (and less portable) DS, which would be epic...

As it stands I'm only gonna get this if there ends up being a very strong game lineup, my Wii only saw use for 'Super Smash Bros Brawl' and 'Donkey Kong Country Returns' really...
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Hmm, how much load would one screen take?

During E3 there were some intrepid pixel-counters (there are various tricks to do this).

-the pixels were square
-the aspect ratio was 16:9
-most horizontal pixel counts were around 870-830

That strongly indicates a 854x480 resolution, 480p screen, so Standard Def resolution.

This is all very low tech, a 6.2-inch SD screen is not going to cost a lot as these types of screens are mass produced as largely for Digital Photo-Frames and installations for pile-high-sell-cheap.
While wireless streaming of HD-video streams is expensive tech, the SD stuff is at bargain prices. That and those cheap slider nubs.

Overall, each handheld looks to cost much less than an iPad or even a PS-vita. I'd tentatively say as little as $100 per screen-controller.

But the real burden is on the CPU and GPU.

A 480p screen could be rendered separately, it has 40% the pixels of a 720p res and if any anti-aliasing is knocked off then very easily 33% of the GPU must be spent rendering this image. The problem is this feed then has to be compressed and sent wirelessly to the controller, that would take a large burden on the CPU. Guaranteeing performance with 2-3 wireless-screens would demand a hugely redundantly powerful CPU or a dedicated chip to manage the streaming. Dedicated chip = money.

The limit is much more on the "mothership", the main system, how many secondary screens could be supported.

Now this is all "back the the napkin" calculations and we don't know what tricks they have in store.

The more I look into this, the more I understand how concerned the investors are. On the surface this looks like Nintendo announced a Tablet, which are really expensive and not very profitable but this isn't anywhere close to that. They seem to have gone for very moderate specs that won't be noerously expensive.

But they are still going head-to-head with Apple on this

And those nub-sliders aren't even much competition over the Ipad's imput, especially with devices like "Fling joystick" that stick over the iPad. Wait, what is the entry price of an iPad. About $450. Hmm, Nintendo may have screwed up here. All the peeople told:

"Buy a $400 Wii U and have this tablet-like experience in your living room"

against

"Buy an $400 iPad 3 and have this tablet-like experience in your living room, bedroom, garden, work, holiday, wherever"

The more I look at Wii-U the more I see a budget imitation of an Ipad limited to the living room. The shoulder buttons may be killer improvements but after that the iPad is about dead even.
 

Pendragon9

New member
Apr 26, 2009
1,968
0
0
Oh, I'm sorry Nintendo. I guess we shouldn't expect quality from you if it costs too much. After all, you are SWIMMING IN MONEY.

Geez, this is the laziest thing they've ever done. I'm not buying a Wii U just because of it.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
Treblaine said:
I never claimed that you-claimed-they-did. It's "just a little fact" while we were on the subject of Nintendo innovation and pioneering new interfaces and gaming concepts.
Precisely. It was completely irrelevant to the conversation. Its the equivalent of me popping up and saying: "ya those things are all well and good but Nintendo didn't invent the television. Thats been around since the twenties and it has a way bigger impact on gaming than rumble."

I think you are being pretty narrow minded to say I'm the only one to give due praise to thumbstick click-down. The feature is absolutely pivotal for console games that are trying to match the flexibility of PC's mouse + keyboard controls.

It's telling that:
-Nintendo has not implemented a click-down thumbstick, ever
-you are a self confessed nintendo fanboy (post #93 of this thread)
-you assert click-down thumbsticks are "universally disliked"
Ok, I have to admit, you actually made me laugh pretty hard at this one.
The vast majority of gamers love Nintendo from when we were kids, they just hate where the company has been going for the last 8 years. Nearly all of my favorite games growing up were Nintendo's. Thats not some earthshattering revelation.


L3 and R3 have been derided since their inception for being very awkward to use when tilting the stick. Having to use analog click to melee rather than a shoulder button is the thing i hate most about CoD's default control scheme. There's a reason why in 90% of games those buttons do nothing, or something extremely trivial.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
So no local co-op or multiplayer for games that actual use the one unique feature of this console?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
walrusaurus said:
L3 and R3 have been derided since their inception for being very awkward to use when tilting the stick. Having to use analog click to melee rather than a shoulder button is the thing i hate most about CoD's default control scheme. There's a reason why in 90% of games those buttons do nothing, or something extremely trivial.
What is this? 2002? Sure many people USED TO derided thumb-click then when most games had fixed camera angles the right thumb hovered over the 4 face-buttons that were obviously going to be better buttons. But not any more.

But you know what we all hated even more? Shitty camera controls, or more precisely lack of camera controls, with the camera either fixed overhead or following you hopelessly and erratically. Developers have learned how satisfying it is for the players to control precisely where the camera looks and where they are aiming.

This new control standard relegates the face-buttons to similar status as the D-pad, secondary input mainly for small adjustment that raen't so time-critical such as reloading, weapon-select and so on. HERE the thumb-click is appreciated as it is the function you can activate with your thumb at ANY TIME while aiming and moving without having to adjust your fingers that are in comfortable position on the shoulder-buttons.

Look, console games are trying to match the depth and complexity of PC controls, and they can only possibly do that by maximising the ergonomic efficiency of your fingers, that includes making full use of the buttons available.

"(objects to) analogue click to melee rather than a shoulder button"

OK, it is reasonable to move Melee to say Right Bumper, but what about the function that WAS on that shoulder button? Does it disappear? You can't dismiss it so easily. What makes a good button is more than just the quality of it's press but how easy it is to press.

You can press the right or left thumbstick any time, even while using sights (holding L-Trigger) and shooting (R-trigger).

Halo Reach has melee as the Right-bumper, grenade throw is another shoulder button and "use-sights" is down on Right-stick button. It fits the playstyle of Halo, where melee is less time critical, it takes many well aimed hits to kill. In CoD melee is a twitch-response, the first to strike wins and there is little time for a 2nd strike.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
BrotherRool said:
So no local co-op or multiplayer for games that actual use the one unique feature of this console?
Well in a way you can still do it, as you only have one EXTRA screen.

Player A= uses TV
Player B= uses screen controller

The Wii-U's setup would be most uselful for novel multiplayer modes such as where player A (using screen) has to do something while player B can see both his opponent's perspective yet keep his own hidden.

Doesn't seem that amazing, IMHO Pac-Man Versus did it better:


But would people care about something like this? I don't know. But if anyone can sell it, it's Nintendo.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
Treblaine said:
What is this? 2002? Sure many people USED TO derided thumb-click then when most games had fixed camera angles the right thumb hovered over the 4 face-buttons that were obviously going to be better buttons. But not any more.

But you know what we all hated even more? Shitty camera controls, or more precisely lack of camera controls, with the camera either fixed overhead or following you hopelessly and erratically. Developers have learned how satisfying it is for the players to control precisely where the camera looks and where they are aiming.

This new control standard relegates the face-buttons to similar status as the D-pad, secondary input mainly for small adjustment that raen't so time-critical such as reloading, weapon-select and so on. HERE the thumb-click is appreciated as it is the function you can activate with your thumb at ANY TIME while aiming and moving without having to adjust your fingers that are in comfortable position on the shoulder-buttons.

Look, console games are trying to match the depth and complexity of PC controls, and they can only possibly do that by maximising the ergonomic efficiency of your fingers, that includes making full use of the buttons available.

"(objects to) analogue click to melee rather than a shoulder button"

OK, it is reasonable to move Melee to say Right Bumper, but what about the function that WAS on that shoulder button? Does it disappear? You can't dismiss it so easily. What makes a good button is more than just the quality of it's press but how easy it is to press.

You can press the right or left thumbstick any time, even while using sights (holding L-Trigger) and shooting (R-trigger).

Halo Reach has melee as the Right-bumper, grenade throw is another shoulder button and "use-sights" is down on Right-stick button. It fits the playstyle of Halo, where melee is less time critical, it takes many well aimed hits to kill. In CoD melee is a twitch-response, the first to strike wins and there is little time for a 2nd strike.
Wow, ok, where to begin. Your proclivity for wandering way off topic has left you talking about an entirely different topic than what this thread is about. Your vearing further away here with a discussion of camera controls.

Although, it's pretty clear that you play fps' to the exclusion of most everything else. Or at the very least your perspective is wholly focused on FPS'. Every post in this thread you've used CoD as an example, and your assertion that the face buttons have been relegated to d'pad status is--frankly-- ridiculous. Play anything, Assassins creed, Fable, UNcharted, Prototype, Prince of Persia, Soul Calibur, Ratchet and Clank, or God of War just to name a few titles you may have heard of.
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,741
0
0
....And what happenned to the whole local multiplayer thing?

Look, Nintendo. Nothing but love, but AT LEAST ALLOW FOR TWO CONTROLLERS! Only allowing one per console is...well...Stupid. It SEVERELY limits the things you can do with the console, specifically multiplayer.

...AT LEAST allow for two!
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
Treblaine said:
BrotherRool said:
So no local co-op or multiplayer for games that actual use the one unique feature of this console?
Well in a way you can still do it, as you only have one EXTRA screen.

Player A= uses TV
Player B= uses screen controller

The Wii-U's setup would be most uselful for novel multiplayer modes such as where player A (using screen) has to do something while player B can see both his opponent's perspective yet keep his own hidden.
Actually that's really interesting. There can't be any straight up versus modes because only one player would have the touch and there can't be any motion control ones, unless they throw away the new controller already (unless it turns out that it's actually not unwieldy to swing around a large flat touch screen, as opposed to a stick) but you're right, they could do some really interesting asymmetrical co-ops and multiplayers.

It would however require them making game mechanics very different to that of the actual single-player game though.

Even for a multiplatform game, like COD, FiFA or any fighting game, it would require throwing away the touch and just getting out two wii-motes if people wanted a balanced multiplayer match
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
walrusaurus said:
Wow, ok, where to begin. Your proclivity for wandering way off topic has left you talking about an entirely different topic than what this thread is about. Your vearing further away here with a discussion of camera controls.

Although, it's pretty clear that you play fps' to the exclusion of most everything else. Or at the very least your perspective is wholly focused on FPS'. Every post in this thread you've used CoD as an example, and your assertion that the face buttons have been relegated to d'pad status is--frankly-- ridiculous. Play anything, Assassins creed, Fable, UNcharted, Prototype, Prince of Persia, Soul Calibur, Ratchet and Clank, or God of War just to name a few titles you may have heard of.
It's not off topic, it's just you can't accept the truth or relevancy of the matter.

Nintendo are using cheap nub-sliders for Wii-U that have no click-down ability, that is a problem to spite what contrivances you resort to in attempts to dismiss it. Nintendo have screwed up and unless THE FANBASE actually stand up to them and make a fuss then they won't correct it in time!

I use CoD as an example because it is a GOOD example of its use and so many people are familiar with it. I also referenced Halo. It's not just First Person shooters, third person shooters like Uncharted and Gears of War use click down to "activate sights" also Red Dead Redemption uses r-stick button to activate Dead Eye, very important. Other games that depend on stick click-down:
-infamous
-Resistance 1&2
-Batman: Arkham Asylum
-Mass Effect 2

While it may be true that face-buttons aren't ENTIRELY as relegated as the d-pad, you have to admit aren't any were near as important as when people use to complain about analogue-stick buttons. Perhaps I've been too harsh, but I assure you it came after me playing games where you had similar status-change functions (rather than action buttons) mounted to both d-pad and face buttons. I certainly view them similarly: the thumbsticks and shoulder buttons are primary interface, d-pad and face-buttons for selecting items, or change character status, or whatever.

"Play Soul Calibur, or God of War"
Two games with FIXED cameras, right stick is not used, so thumb is on face-buttons.

"Assassins creed, Fable, Prototype, Prince of Persia"
All uses lock-on-targeting for combat, so again right thumb is free of controlling camera to use face-buttons.

You have cherry picked the few games that avoid the main feature of the right-stick to control the camera. Are you saying all action games on Wii-U will require a rock-solid lock-on targeting system or a fixed camera? Because those kinda sucks in games with multiple enemies or with long range. Very limiting.

At least with a fully featured controller like an Xbox 360 gamepad you have the OPTIONS to use a variety of combat types, the Wii-U is undeniably more limited than the established platform Nintendo "claims" they are now directly competing with.

You have to admit that Wii-U's controller has been far too conservative to appeal to "experienced gamers" as Iwata tried to claim.

Really the form factor seems to appeal far more to the iPad crowd who Nintendo seems to think will somehow settle for:
-a smaller screen
-at smaller resolution
-and lower pixel density.
The Wii-U's screen (determined by clever pixel counting tricks at E3) is only 854x480p, against ipad's 1024x768p.

Just compare and contrast Wii-U with an iPad using fling controller:


Look a how similar that Fling-peripheral is in use to Wii-U's nub-slider, yet in use here (on a $400 device) you get overall a far larger viewing area. THIS is a platform and form factor that appeals to both casual and core gamers yet doesn't need to be tethered to a console.

iPad 3 will be out by the time Wii-U comes to market but look what iPad 2 can do already in terms of graphics:

(watch in HD)

I think Nintendo have chosen the wrong fight here. They are not strong enough to take on the Big Apple. Even if they are able to outshine Apple in 2012, the next iteration of iPad will smoke it easily even if not as graphically powerful it will have the devs and market forces behind it to push the potential. And if iPad implements on-live style streaming... Wii-U is up shit creek.

Nintendo seems to have taken a bold idea yet compromised much it is now the worst of all worlds.

They aren't unique and pioneering any more, they are derivative and tacky.
 

holy_secret

New member
Nov 2, 2009
703
0
0
Proteus214 said:
Not having to buy 4 controllers at what will probably be $100+ price point each and eat through battery life more than any controller to date?
Cutting the cost of a console by not letting it render and broadcast 4+ wireless video streams while doing everything else a high-end console is supposed to do?
Nintendo wants to deliver a next-gen gaming console at a reasonable price?
Nintendo wants to make a marginal profit off of technology that costs an absurd amount of money to develop, distribute, and support so that they can continue to do business in the future?

I really don't see a problem with any of this.
At all.
I hope you're not sarcastic.

I agree. What's the big deal?
It's like everyone's forgetting it's. Completely new console. There is the wii u and then the wii u controller. The wii u is more powerful than the current generation consoles. It's not a damn wii.

Jesus Christ peeps. I can bet my arm that people would've complained when they'd seen the price for the controller.
"omg are we supposed to pay this much for the controller to play multiplayer it's insane waaah".
It's a new console. It's a new controller. It can only use one wii u controller at a time.

I ask again. What is the issue?
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
Issues:

- Can't use more than one new controller. Defeats whole purpose of having a special controller that your whole product is based on if only one person gets to use it because the Wii is supposed to be a social gaming device. However, probably should have seen that one coming with the whole "U" thing. If anything, just makes it look like an overpriced peripheral to the same ol console they've had for years that they're just reselling to you.

- Still no actual dual sticks, just a couple sliders. Peeps are dead set on that kind of thing. Of course, these people are also the ones saying "don't make shooter ports because we have other consoles for that" so really we shouldn't listen to those complaints as they're not the target market in the first place and adding them wouldn't really do it any service if they're just going to continue being dicks about it.

- People just want normal controllers. Once again, these are the people who are saying that it's too late to get those people back anyway. So...still, why would they bother to have a normal controller if the people who would have cared say they don't? Whatever.

- Continued lame online support. They need to figure that one out themselves.

- People don't fall for the same thing twice, they're going to need to put some really solid proof of concept out there before anybody's going to bite. Just because the Wii was successful doesn't mean that they came out with enough games to support it afterwards...it just meant that a lot of people believed in them, then were consequently let down and couldn't return their unit to the store. if they don't see anything that they want then they're not going to keep paying money.

yes i know they say it's more powerful but it's not powerful enough to do what they need to do to make this thing fly, if they half-ass it now, they're not going to sell anything and by the time the next gen for the other guys comes around it'll just get buried and everything is ruined again because leaving it to the other two idiots means losing fun forever because those dorks don't got anything new either

price point or not they're just designing it for failure because they're making something people don't care about, and if the cost to make people care is too great, hey maybe take another look at the design because you need to remake it to work better with the market

admit it to yourself

at this point i would prefer if they somehow made a more public demonstration that would get the facts straight about this thing because the rumor mill is shredding them
 

Asuka Soryu

New member
Jun 11, 2010
2,437
0
0
This is nice for me. All my friends live to far away are are to busy with work so I only see them rarely, so I won't need multiplayer.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
Treblaine said:
It's not off topic, it's just you can't accept the truth or relevancy of the matter.
*snip*
Seeing as my post which you originally responded to was debunking the claim that all Nintendo's gimmicks have failed over the last 2 decades, I'd say that, ya, your wall of text about how awesome sticks with click buttons under them are compared to digital sliders, something about ipad, and some other drivel is pretty far afield.

The fact that those games don't use the right stick was the point. I'm not really interested in beating this topic to death. Happy gaming to you sir.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
walrusaurus said:
Treblaine said:
It's not off topic, it's just you can't accept the truth or relevancy of the matter.
*snip*
Seeing as my post which you originally responded to was debunking the claim that all Nintendo's gimmicks have failed over the last 2 decades, I'd say that, ya, your wall of text about how awesome sticks with click buttons under them are compared to digital sliders, something about ipad, and some other drivel is pretty far afield.

The fact that those games don't use the right stick was the point. I'm not really interested in beating this topic to death. Happy gaming to you sir.
Well this THREAD is about the Wii-U cost cutting on components.

I am making the always relevant point that cheap nub-sliders are a big mistake, and use examples to support that.

How about you read my post rather than skimming over and concluding it is "Some drivel about ipads". That is poor forum etiquette calling people's well reasoned posts "drivel" it's a meaningless insult. Part of my argument was how Nintendo's slider-nubs do little to distinguish Wii-U from the iPad where it will inevitably be compared badly. It already would compare badly with PSVita if it tried to fill the same niche thanks to real analogue sticks.

On the subject of Nub sliders, the developers of Alien Freaks From Space seems to have such little faith in them they are using gyro control for aiming instead. Oh god.

So you call my last post a load of drivel then say:

"I'm not really interested in beating this topic to death."

Hmm, so you just felt the need to put the last word in with a snide jab? Utterly disingenuous how you flit from tabloid mockery to be suddenly diplomatic.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
Treblaine said:
Well this THREAD is about the Wii-U cost cutting on components.

I am making the always relevant point that cheap nub-sliders are a big mistake, and use examples to support that.
That's a pretty wafer thin justification. I very seriously doubt that sticks are in any meaningful way more expensive than sliders. Maybe an extra dollar since its got a button built into it, maybe.

I called your iPad comparisons drivel, because everything I've read that rag's on Nintendo for producing an iPad clone, or talks about how iPad is so much better than WiiU has been precisely that: inane bullshit. I didn't read the latter half of your post or watch any of your imbedded video's, so if you've achieved some new level of insight my apologies.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
walrusaurus said:
Treblaine said:
Well this THREAD is about the Wii-U cost cutting on components.

I am making the always relevant point that cheap nub-sliders are a big mistake, and use examples to support that.
That's a pretty wafer thin justification. I very seriously doubt that sticks are in any meaningful way more expensive than sliders. Maybe an extra dollar since its got a button built into it, maybe.

I called your iPad comparisons drivel, because everything I've read that rag's on Nintendo for producing an iPad clone, or talks about how iPad is so much better than WiiU has been precisely that: inane bullshit. I didn't read the latter half of your post or watch any of your imbedded video's, so if you've achieved some new level of insight my apologies.
Huh? It's "Wafer thin justification" to stay on topic? Yeeeeeah, keep telling yourself that, I don't care if you ignore it, that just shows how little faith you have in your own argument. You clearly don't have a leg to stand on with this point that's why you keep desperately trying to say it is not relevant.

You're getting desperate, I've got your goat now and you are lashing out with baseless insults, just calling all unfavourable comparisons "inane bullshit" without any possible explanation.

Then taking the ultimate in immaturity and refusing to read my whole reply... yet you felt the need to respond? If you don't think my post is worth reading why is it worth replying?

I'm sorry these home truths are hard for you to swallow but that's no excuse to resort to such petty fallacies as "I won't read it, LA LA LA LAH! If you can't hear your argument it's not true!".