Wii U Designed for One WII U pad. Why Nintendo Why?

Sometimes i dont really understand nintendo.why do a prefect game console and controller and limit it to a console.i dont care if its graphics and power is lower than the PS4 and Xbox720(which i dought) and far as i get Mario,Zelda,Metriod,F-Zero and donkey kong in full HD im ok,only to limit its power to only one controller.Only to make sony steal this idea and make it up to 4 controllers support for each consoles.Nintendo stocks took another hit today and they wonder why.Its beecause of the name WTF is WII U.why not name it Nintendo Stream of even Nintendo U stream or Nintendo U play.People dont like the WII U name because its seems to be a add on to the WII.

How Nintendo can make this right:

Change the Name.

Make the console support up to 2 or 4 Controllers for Co-op and mutiplay.

Make a New Motion controller more advance than the PS move to work alond side the new controller.

Also stop the Whole region lock thing.

Please let me know what you think.

Its doesnt come out till next year..Plenty time

I can't tell if you're actually saying that Nintendo's stocks dropped around 9% because the console is named "Wii U".

They've said that the reason why the controller limit was imposed was because the Wii U does all the processing and just transmits a video feed to the controller, and as such supporting multiple controllers would commensurately increase the strain on the console.

As for a better motion controller... it's called the Wii Remote Plus. It's been out for years. The original Wii remotes without Wii Motion Plus don't even function with the Wii U.

One of the biggest concerns I've been reading from user comments is the cost of new Wii U controllers for the system. Now that it seems that you won't have to be purchasing three additional Wii U controllers that may or may not be pricey, people STILL want to complain?

Is there any scenario where Nintendo isn't vilified for making bold design choices or economically sound console decisions?

Changing the Wii name would be bad for business, the stock dropped because they seemed to have moved away from what was money in the bank for the Wii. And if the console can only handle one, it can only handle one. Sepewrath

yea... stockholders saw they went back to the hardcore and figured it will sell less like the gamecube.

Changing the Wii name would be bad for business, the stock dropped because they seemed to have moved away from what was money in the bank for the Wii. And if the console can only handle one, it can only handle one. Sepewrath

One of the biggest concerns I've been reading from user comments is the cost of new Wii U controllers for the system. Now that it seems that you won't have to be purchasing three additional Wii U controllers that may or may not be pricey, people STILL want to complain?

Is there any scenario where Nintendo isn't vilified for making bold design choices or economically sound console decisions?

FFCYAN

Its not really that expensive. LCD screensare piss-cheap. Its an oversized DS screen with better PQ and resolution. Combine that with a few cents worth of plastic and innards and it's still cheap. You can get an Android tablet with a 7" screen for less than 100 bucks. Nintendo could make and sell these for around 60 bucks imo since it lacks any real processing innards.

The original Wii remotes without Wii Motion Plus don't even function with the Wii U.

GabuEx

Link?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The original Wii remotes without Wii Motion Plus don't even function with the Wii U.

goblaa

Link?

Nintendo's Wii U console will not support original models of the Wii controller without a MotionPlus attachment, according to comments made by Shigeru Miyamoto.

Not a big problem to me as its been years since I've played with friends on the same console, I just play online and you WILL be able to buy the new controller in the shops as your console will be pretty useless if your controller breaks.

They're playing it off like it's "Only made for one" because they know they'll get a bad rep for being the company that is "selling $100 controllers". Although they know that to make a new system, they had to make a new experience. I guess we'll be using Wii remotes (and classic controls I assume?) for a lot of multiplayer games. This news does concern me alittle and makes me feel alittle weird... :/

They're playing it off like it's "Only made for one" because they know they'll get a bad rep for being the company that is "selling $100 controllers".

ii20JcM05ii

The original Wii remotes without Wii Motion Plus don't even function with the Wii U.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]The original Wii remotes without Wii Motion Plus don't even function with the Wii U.

Rod90

But the regular Wii Remote does function with Wii U it just can't be used for Wii U games.

[QUOTE="FFCYAN"]

One of the biggest concerns I've been reading from user comments is the cost of new Wii U controllers for the system. Now that it seems that you won't have to be purchasing three additional Wii U controllers that may or may not be pricey, people STILL want to complain?

Is there any scenario where Nintendo isn't vilified for making bold design choices or economically sound console decisions?

ChubbyGuy40

Its not really that expensive. LCD screensare piss-cheap. Its an oversized DS screen with better PQ and resolution. Combine that with a few cents worth of plastic and innards and it's still cheap. You can get an Android tablet with a 7" screen for less than 100 bucks. Nintendo could make and sell these for around 60 bucks imo since it lacks any real processing innards.

I did state the controller may not be expensive, which I highlighted in green. It won't likely happen due to the fact that streaming all that data wirelessly without lag will required (too much?) processing power from the Wii U console.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]The original Wii remotes without Wii Motion Plus don't even function with the Wii U.

Rod90

They want Wii Motion Plus to be the standard for Wii U. If they supported the original controllers then it would only be an option, and most games wouldn't support it. It's not really hard to see why they would do that.

[QUOTE="ii20JcM05ii"]

They're playing it off like it's "Only made for one" because they know they'll get a bad rep for being the company that is "selling $100 controllers".

Wintry_Flutist

It's especially stupid since that's not how much the controller would sell for. You know how much an iPad 2 replacement screen is? $40. And that's selling it for a large profit. It costs about $15 to make an iPad 2 screen, and those screens are higher resolution and larger than the Wii U controller's screen. So the Wii U controller's screen would be more like $10 to make. And Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 controllers all cost under $10 to make, but they're all sold for $50. So add the $10 screen and the $10 controller components and that's $20. Then theres the camera costs, which webcams seriously cost $2 to make, so $22. Add whatever else would possibly go in there and that's probably $30 or so. Nintendo can sell a $30 controller for $60 no problem.

It seems indeed people don't get sending images to two controllers means rendering the game twice. Not counting what's being rendered on TV. Four controllers then... It would take a behemoth of a machine to do that. Even if Nintendo finally decides to support more than one Upad by console, expect games supporting such kind of multiplayer to look worse.Wintry_Flutist

Exactly - the vast majority of computing power required for video games is dedicated to rendering the visuals, and since the controllers have no processing ability, that means that four controllers would basically require the Wii U to do four times as much work. In other words, the only games that would be viable for four-player multiplayer would be those that only used a quarter of the Wii U's capabilities. Then everyone would be all over how terrible the game looks.

This is the problem that comes with being a consumer of technology who doesn't understand fundamental limitations therein. :P

Coop mode in online only for gaming ... if that ... Nintendo this is fail

When hasn't a system had the ability to use multiple controllers ?!?!?! It has been a long time I'd say.

DeViLzzz

Its to be expected. Here is an example. Im going to use the Rumored GTA V in developement for the Wii U as an example.

Lets say that for some reason the game had local multiplayer (I hope it does) and instead of only being 2 player, lets say its 4 player. Here it goes:

You start the game and find an area where local multiplayer starts at, you and your 3 buds all have Wii U controllers (letssay that the Wii U does indeed allow more than one Wii Ucontroller). You start the local multiplayer and at first, all of you are on the big HD TV, the Wii U controllers are currently being used for the menus and map. You guys go around causing trouble and chaos, and then, you 4 deside to split up, but wait! That isnt possible, you couldnt do that in GTA SA, if you tried to split up, you would run into an invisible wall after awhile. But now, the Wii U is very powerful, so now, when you guys split up, it allows you to do this, you all go in different directs btw. When you all get too far away from each other on the TV to the point where you "would hit an invisible wall" the TV suddenly becomes the map and menues and the controller becomes the screens. Eventually you 4 all get to different areas of the map where you cant hear, harm, or see each other. Everything is completely rendered, there is little to no noticeable frame rate drops, objects dont take forever to load, and all animations of characters/cars/ and other things still look as natural as can be. Looking at what I said above, its something (that if you even liked the local multiplayer in GTA SA) that would be truely great. But sadly, lets be realalistic here. The Wii U is powerful, I have no doubt about that, but it is not going to be powerful enough where it can send 4 completely different video feeds. This is one reason probably to why GTA IV didnt have local multiplayer. Since with online multiplayer, YOUR console isnt the one rendering the game for everyone. Everyone's individual console is rendering the game for them. That makes more sense then trying to kill your console be rendering 4 completely different things in real time.

Sorry for the wall of text, something tells me that didnt make much sense. But what Im trying to say, is that I doubt that 4 WiiUablets (Im calling the tablet controller for the Wii U that) will be possible for the console, especially at launch when no one, not even Nintendo, knows all the ins and outs of the systems capabilities. Maybe 4 controllers will be possible later in in the life of the Wii U, but I doubt at launch, although... 2 Wii Uablets might be possible. Besides, Miyamoto did say during this years E3 at some point that they were still looking at all the possible things that they could/ should do. That means that more than one WiiUablet is still very possible.

They've said that the reason why the controller limit was imposed was because the Wii U does all the processing and just transmits a video feed to the controller, and as such supporting multiple controllers would commensurately increase the strain on the console.

GabuEx

Well, there goes my hopes and dreams for Madden. Good thing I don't play that game anymore.

[QUOTE="Sepewrath"]Changing the Wii name would be bad for business, the stock dropped because they seemed to have moved away from what was money in the bank for the Wii. And if the console can only handle one, it can only handle one. Wintry_Flutist

The stock dropped because investors simply don't like uncertainty, and Nintendo gave us a lot of it at this year's press conference.

I think 2 WiiPads per console is pretty ideal. Four seems a bit unreasonable and expensive (and just too many accessories to be lying under my TV). One seems a bit too limiting, though. With 2 WiiPads and 4 remotes, that's six-player local multiplayer. Sounds pretty awesome to me.

That all said, I'm pretty sure Nintendo hasn't made up its mind on this one just yet.

[QUOTE="Wintry_Flutist"]It seems indeed people don't get sending images to two controllers means rendering the game twice. Not counting what's being rendered on TV. Four controllers then... It would take a behemoth of a machine to do that. Even if Nintendo finally decides to support more than one Upad by console, expect games supporting such kind of multiplayer to look worse.GabuEx

Exactly - the vast majority of computing power required for video games is dedicated to rendering the visuals, and since the controllers have no processing ability, that means that four controllers would basically require the Wii U to do four times as much work. In other words, the only games that would be viable for four-player multiplayer would be those that only used a quarter of the Wii U's capabilities. Then everyone would be all over how terrible the game looks.

This is the problem that comes with being a consumer of technology who doesn't understand fundamental limitations therein. :P

If it's not, then it becomes a question of being able to have more than one wireless stream going out at once. Also, I would guess that devs could be creative and only stream simple things to the controllers' screens, like stats or an items screen, but that honestly makes it seem kind of pointless in the context of multiplayer.

Sometimes i dont really understand nintendo.why do a prefect game console and controller and limit it to a console.i dont care if its graphics and power is lower than the PS4 and Xbox720(which i dought) and far as i get Mario,Zelda,Metriod,F-Zero and donkey kong in full HD im ok,only to limit its power to only one controller.Only to make sony steal this idea and make it up to 4 controllers support for each consoles.Nintendo stocks took another hit today and they wonder why.Its beecause of the name WTF is WII U.why not name it Nintendo Stream of even Nintendo U stream or Nintendo U play.People dont like the WII U name because its seems to be a add on to the WII.

How Nintendo can make this right:

Change the Name.

Make the console support up to 2 or 4 Controllers for Co-op and mutiplay.

Make a New Motion controller more advance than the PS move to work alond side the new controller.

Also stop the Whole region lock thing.

Please let me know what you think.

gastof

it still hasn't come out yet, there's still plenty of time left. they just might make it able to support 4 controllers.

Someone brought this up in another thread, though: Games have been doing four-part splitscreen for a long time, and it seems to me like that's rendering the game four times. The visuals are often downgraded, but it still works. Do you know if that's any different from what the WiiU would be doing?

JordanElek

Miyamoto says it might be easier if they use their 3DS as a second controller if they already have one.

News.com.au posed that same question to Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto, who replied that he believes it may be more convenient for people to simply use their Nintendo 3DSes as secondary controllers if they happen to own them.

http://www.siliconera.com/2011/06/09/nintendo-considering-using-nintendo-3ds-as-a-second-wii-u-controller/

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Wintry_Flutist"]It seems indeed people don't get sending images to two controllers means rendering the game twice. Not counting what's being rendered on TV. Four controllers then... It would take a behemoth of a machine to do that. Even if Nintendo finally decides to support more than one Upad by console, expect games supporting such kind of multiplayer to look worse.JordanElek

Exactly - the vast majority of computing power required for video games is dedicated to rendering the visuals, and since the controllers have no processing ability, that means that four controllers would basically require the Wii U to do four times as much work. In other words, the only games that would be viable for four-player multiplayer would be those that only used a quarter of the Wii U's capabilities. Then everyone would be all over how terrible the game looks.

This is the problem that comes with being a consumer of technology who doesn't understand fundamental limitations therein. :P

If it's not, then it becomes a question of being able to have more than one wireless stream going out at once. Also, I would guess that devs could be creative and only stream simple things to the controllers' screens, like stats or an items screen, but that honestly makes it seem kind of pointless in the context of multiplayer.

Well, the thing about four-part splitscreen is that the resolution of each "screen" is much less, since combined the four screens take up only one TV screen. As such, it's not really doing the work for single-player mode four times (it is more, which is why graphics do tend to be a little degraded for splitscreen, but not that much more). With the Wii U, however, since it's got entirely separate screens, every single controller would be receiving full-screen output, which would make it literally four times as much work.

It seems indeed people don't get sending images to two controllers means rendering the game twice. Not counting what's being rendered on TV. Four controllers then... It would take a behemoth of a machine to do that. Even if Nintendo finally decides to support more than one Upad by console, expect games supporting such kind of multiplayer to look worse.Wintry_Flutist

I'm no tech whiz but can't they just essentially do split screen and beam the quarter of the screen to the relevant controller? I'd take a hit on graphics to have something like this. It was pretty much the first feature I thought of when I saw the controller.

The console will support 4 Upads. I can't see Nintendo killing simulataneous local multiplayer. In what context will depend purely on the game. I can't see Nintendo not offering that kind of support at least in a minimal sense. Will we get 4 separate video streams of the actual game? Doubt it. But at least menu, maps, or item screens.

That said, the Upad is a standard controller in terms of design (not including the touchscreen). To play local multiplayer, is Nintendo going to release a standard controller so that the other 3 players can also play with a "standard controller" similar to the Upad instead of playing with the WiiM+ remote? I guess we could use the c.l.a.s.s.i.c controller. Hopefully Nintendo offers something else if they don't want to give us 4 Upads at once.

The console will support 4 Upads. I can't see Nintendo killing simulataneous local multiplayer. In what context will depend purely on the game. I can't see Nintendo not offering that kind of support at least in a minimal sense. Will we get 4 separate video streams of the actual game? Doubt it. But at least menu, maps, or item screens.

That said, the Upad is a standard controller in terms of design (not including the touchscreen). To play local multiplayer, is Nintendo going to release a standard controller so that the other 3 players can also play with a "standard controller" similar to the Upad instead of playing with the WiiM+ remote? I guess we could use the c.l.a.s.s.i.c controller. Hopefully Nintendo offers something else if they don't want to give us 4 Upads at once.

sonic_spark

[QUOTE="Wintry_Flutist"]It seems indeed people don't get sending images to two controllers means rendering the game twice. Not counting what's being rendered on TV. Four controllers then... It would take a behemoth of a machine to do that. Even if Nintendo finally decides to support more than one Upad by console, expect games supporting such kind of multiplayer to look worse.Leaky_Taps_Man

I'm no tech whiz but can't they just essentially do split screen and beam the quarter of the screen to the relevant controller? I'd take a hit on graphics to have something like this. It was pretty much the first feature I thought of when I saw the controller.

[QUOTE="sonic_spark"]

The console will support 4 Upads. I can't see Nintendo killing simulataneous local multiplayer. In what context will depend purely on the game. I can't see Nintendo not offering that kind of support at least in a minimal sense. Will we get 4 separate video streams of the actual game? Doubt it. But at least menu, maps, or item screens.

That said, the Upad is a standard controller in terms of design (not including the touchscreen). To play local multiplayer, is Nintendo going to release a standard controller so that the other 3 players can also play with a "standard controller" similar to the Upad instead of playing with the WiiM+ remote? I guess we could use the c.l.a.s.s.i.c controller. Hopefully Nintendo offers something else if they don't want to give us 4 Upads at once.

riariases

Hopefully they will change their minds and make it support more than one Wii U pad at a time.

Well, the thing about four-part splitscreen is that the resolution of each "screen" is much less, since combined the four screens take up only one TV screen. As such, it's not really doing the work for single-player mode four times (it is more, which is why graphics do tend to be a little degraded for splitscreen, but not that much more). With the Wii U, however, since it's got entirely separate screens, every single controller would be receiving full-screen output, which would make it literally four times as much work.GabuEx

At the very least, the fact that Nintendo has even said anything about this means that it's difficult to do more than one WiiU controller. The only reservation I have is that Nintendo is just saying they'll limit it to one controller for cost issues, not technical issues, on the part of the consumer. They might choose to declare a one-controller standard so that people (and therefore developers) won't be turned off by the ridiculous cost of local multiplayer.

But I assume the resolution of the controller is much less than the TV anyway, so there's that.

JordanElek

True. I don't know; I'm not a hardware expert. :P

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

But I assume the resolution of the controller is much less than the TV anyway, so there's that.

GabuEx

True. I don't know; I'm not a hardware expert. :P

At least I don't care either way. One controller has just as much potential as four, in my opinion. Creative things can come out of it regardless.

Even though the Wii U has been unveiled by Nintendo this week at E3, it is still considered a prototype? After all, the specifications have yet to be finalized and it is possible that future research by Nintendo may allow more than one tablet.

I wonder whether there will be technical issues of streaming video to multiple tablets at the same time. At least the Wii U will not go on sale until sometime next year.

It isn't final yet and even if it doesn't end up being able to support only one then i think there is a very good chance that they will release wireless controllers similar to the of the classic controller pro.