Wii U Controller Limitations to Save on Costs, Says Nintendo

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
7,130
69
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

Elite Member
Legacy
Jun 22, 2020
3,546
5
43
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

Elite Member
Legacy
Jun 22, 2020
3,546
5
43
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.