Wii U Controller Limitations to Save on Costs, Says Nintendo

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.