Dont most of the HD hard core games out there nowadays only offer a one person per console multiplayer experience anyhow?

If you can switch off the tv output when dad wants to watch the ball game, one TV but multiple Wii U console LAN parties would be pretty easy. (if the game supports it I guess)

My gut is telling me that One Console - One Controller, mostly because of the technological reasons you mentioned (other than the price, what else could it be?). It's truly a shame if true, simply from a logistics stand point. That means every single local multiplayer game has to utilize both the Upad and Wimotes or simply Wiimotes only.

Gone are simple ideas such as picking your play in Madden or playing a FPS without sharing a screen. Gone are more complex ideas of playing two different VC games at once.

There is hope though. During an interview with Danny Bilson from THQ fame, he mentions playing a FPS without sharing a screen and how that might increase the competitiveness during local play. He may just be referring to the controller and the TV, but if someone is playing on the TV, the person using the Upad would still be able to see the other player's position unless they are playing in a completely separate area.

But wait, they talked about stealth play selection in Madden during the Nintendo press conference!


http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/07/nintendo-e3-keynote/


"10:10AM Showing off Madden, picking plays stealthily on your touchscreen."

That doesn't make a lot of sense if only ONE player can do that in a local multiplayer setting.

There wouldn't be any requirement in this case that it be done simultaneously-the offensive player could choose a play first, pass the controller, then let the defensive player choose. Not ideal, but possible.

Oh god, passing the controller around? That sounds incredibly irritating.

Unfortunately, browsing through e3.nintendo.com seems to indicate that this is indeed the case.

For example, this image: http://e3.nintendo.com/_ui/img/hw/playstyle/6.jpg

And this page: http://e3.nintendo.com/hw/#/about

Mentions the ability to connect up to 4 Wii remotes, but has no indication of being able to connect more than 1 Wii U controller.

I'm starting to think it's pretty well confirmed - one Wii U controller per system, max.

In sports titles like Madden, that may require passing the screen controller to the player on offense. (Edit: someone beat me to this...)

As I said in another thread, the console needs to be capable of supporting at least 2 screen controllers so multiplayer is even possible with those sweet, sweet screen controllers. Preferably, I'd like to see 4 player support but I'd be happy with 2 on a single console.

Here's an important question that NEEDS to be answered, if they don't sell the Wii U controller separate then what do you do if the one that came with the console breaks, (worst case scenario with the warranty and service plan expired)? Am I supposed to go out and buy a NEW Wii U system if that happens? Sorry, but it really needs to support multiple Wii U controls.

You probably have to buy it straight from Nintendo through their website. My one cat chewed through the wire of my sensor bar so I bought one from Nintendo since they don't sell official ones in stores. It was $15. I ended up just getting a wireless sensor bar by Nyko anyway to prevent anymore cat-related mishaps.

Go to Store.Nintendo.com.  That's where you can get the weird-ish stuff right know that needs replacement.

Stealing my Glory :P

On the bright side we no longer have to worry about spending $100 on extra controllers. Just sayin'...

On the down side, this is going to kill local multiplayer, which was one of the key features of the Wii. I guess the Wii-U name says it best. This console is for YOU and YOU alone. It only does single player.

Not true at all, they're showing off loads of local multiplayer at E3. It's just all asymmetrical.

I could deal with the shitty name, but if I can only use one Wii-U controller per Wii-U console then that's it... I've made up my mind I'm not getting this piece of crap console.

Bookmarked.

I'm gonna quote myself from the other thread

2 uScreens would be the acceptable. 1 uScreen is questionable.
Nintendo still has a year to work this out as 1 uScreen doesn't make the most sense, and passing a controller around is not something that should need to be done.

Well, it looks like the truth did set one of us free... Tell me, how's that crow tasting so far?

This statement I can completely understand.

So what happens with Smash Bros in the future? I refuse to use the Wiimotes at all when playing. I want all my friends at my house to have a tablet, it doesn't have to stream whats on the screen just let us use the comfortable controller. I really don't feel like getting any more classic controller pros.

You were right. I had faith that Nintendo wouldn't be this dumb... so yeah I was wrong. These continuous disappointments from Nintendo are chipping away at my Fanboyism and I'm gradually becoming more and more Ianized.


We all know Sony is going to rip this off at some point like they always do. Maybe when Sony rips it off they will do it right and allow more than one controller at a time. Its too bad the Wii is dead in the water, because Nintendo needs a new console like yesterday, so they have to rush something out ASAP. If it weren't for the Wii being dead I'd say they should wait until they can get this right before they release it, even if it means delaying it for another year. A delayed console is good eventually, but a rushed console is terrible forever.

The three things I'm hating about this console so far are:

1) The name
2) Only 8GB storage capacity
3) Only one controller per console capability

Well, the name is probably a trivial thing I admit, but the other two things are going to severely impact the support it gets from both developers and from consumers. Even casuals are going to have a problem with number 3 I think.

As the demonstrations clearly illustrated, Wii Remotes will still be supported, especially during multiplayer-- meaning both Classic Controllers and the Wii Remote on its side will still be possible. Sadly, the lack of GameCube support means no returning GCN controls...  but that's a whole other topic.

When I read this from BlackNMild I fears are calmed a bit. "Multiple display support" assures me that it is possible for more than one tablet to be used at a time per console. No article I have read yet outright denies that possibility.

I always understood the word "Multiple" to mean anything greater than single, so it could be as low as just 2 and a TV screen plus one controller counts as 2. So I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet.

I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about it. There's still a decent chance that the will still be capable of supporting two 'U Tablets' locally, if a developer chooses support that method. It's just more economical to design around the assumption of one since additional ones would likely cost at least $100 each. Nintendo probably won't design games to use that design, but third parties might... as long as the hardware can support it.

I really don't want to burst your bubble but I think you should at least realize that 1 TV+1 'U Tablet'= multiple displays.

Nintendo always has to fuck something up and it looks like so far this is it.

We can never have everything. But we can hold out hope that 3DS connectivity will be the solution to our problem... an expensive solution, but one only made possible by the processing abilities of the 3DS. It's not an ideal solution since the 3DS is missing an analog and 2 triggers, but it will be better than nothing.

Really though, 2 uScreens should be what they are aiming for power wise. because you are outright killing local multiplayer if you turn the TV off otherwise.

Not entirely. You could still play Chess or as seen in the video, Othello.

Not as cool...I know...

I could be mistaken since I'm more focused on Nintendo news... but didn't Sony already announce this with PSV to PS3 connectivity?

What I'm hoping now is that Nintendo will offer some screenless blue-tooth enabled Wavebird type controllers, so local multiplayer may be possible with that. It sucks if not everyone can get their own screen, but console gaming has gotten along fine up until this point without it. Yes, I know there is the classic controller, but that doesn't cut it in my opinion because for one thing it is tethered to the Wiimote, and for another thing I would prefer to see the GC controller layout return.

Developers won't be supporting that method if it's impossible to even purchase a second Wii U controller by itself: http://www.maxconsole.net/content.php?46023-Wii-U-Controller-and-Console-must-be-purchased-together

I'm wondering if the idea of Smash Bros is that one person will be on the U pad (what DO we call this thing?) and three other players are using the 3DS as a controller.

All the rumored video chipsets support multiple displays and the processor is going to have multiple cores. I'm guessing it wouldnt be possible with every game, but I dont see why they couldn't have more than one controller.

If you're willing to accept that, what's wrong with Wii remotes? I know they have fewer buttons but most local multiplayer is just fine on the Wii without shoulder buttons etc (imo.)

The problem is that with the Gamecube-GBA connectivity Nintendo was all about multiplayer.  They've kind of trained us to immediately think of Four Swords when we think of a screen in a controller.  And now this can't even do that sort of game?  I honestly think the appeal of this controller just went way downhill.  All I can really give us now is the same thing the DS was giving us years ago.

Of course we always figured the price would be a big problem and this is a way to get around it.  But it's like either way there's a big con.  Either we have to pay an insane price for controllers or we're limited to single player usage only for the screen controller.  Either way, this thing better be worth it and they better have some better ideas than Wii Series casual fare.  The idea requires so many compromises that it HAS to deliver.  It would be ridiculous if three years from now our screen controller is in the closet while we all play with Wii remotes and classic controllers because the big idea that dominated the controller was a dud.

I think Nintendo felt they needed a new gimmick to sell this console and struggled to come up with something.  The problem with the Wii's business model is that they caught lightning in a bottle and that was never going to be something they could easily do again.  Ideas like that come along once a generation and I mean HUMAN generation, not videogame.  You can't do that every time and if your target audience requires you to do so, you're going to lose them.

The Wii remote had some OBVIOUS appeal.  People saw that the character on screen moved as they moved.  HOLY SHIT!  I think it's a limited idea but it's a kneejerk gut feeling idea.  People always asked for the ability to do something like that.  What they really want is virtual reality and motion control has been the closest we've gotten to that.

Who is asking for this?  Where is the obvious instinctive desire to have a seperate screen on the controller?  It doesn't have that same obvious appeal so it feels forced.  And what I find really weird is that it does not continue in the direction of virtual reality.  They haven't expanded on motion control, the very thing that sold Wiis in the first place, and just did something else.  It's not at all the natural progression of it.

I hate waggle, and also the Wiimote lacks dual analog sticks. I also hate the ergonomics of it, and I feel like an idiot playing a video game with what appears to be a TV remote.

I find local 2 player co-op/splitscreen to be far more desirable anyway. Besides party games like Wii Sports, it tends to get cramped once 4 players become involved. For more players, online is definitely the way to go and you wouldn't have to worry about additional tablet controllers. 2 tablet controllers for local multiplayer is a must and I would gladly pay a little extra if Nintendo had to bump up the specs to make it happen.

Yeah, but if people are bitching about "$100" controllers, what do you think they are gonna say about $250 PSV's? It's already similar to what they did with PSP, which was a more advanced connectivity than the GBA->GC.

If it doesn't come standard it likely won't get much support as it will just be too expensive to be used regularly by anyone. PSV-PS3/4 connectivity will just be a nice extra. Although Wuu making it standard does help the PSV->PS3 idea out a little since devs will already be doing it for Wuu.

Ian, that's what confuses me the most - instead of doubling down on motion control, which I think everyone assumed they would do, they pulled a 180 (or a 90, or something) and went in yet another totally strange direction. Since the vast majority of my console gameplay is single player, I'm not too bothered by this whole single-controller issue, and I'm very open to seeing them come up with cool gameplay ideas using this screen, but it's definitely a head-scratcher so far.

For the guys who already hate the tablet then classic controller pros will be right up their ally. For me I want 4 of those tablets just to be greedy.

See I was under the impression that we would get new Crystal Cronicle and 4 swords type games with this controller. I'm sure we will, but I want it localy in my living room. I hate playing FPSs and Racing games on split screen now so one tablet for that is just fine. I just feel like 2d local side scrollers like DKC, Mario Bros, Sonic, and 4Swords type games can potentially suffer with out an extra couple tablets. But after processing it a bit more maybe 4Swords and Cronicles will suffer and the others wont. I'm conflicted.

Not necessarily, since friends could still bring over the 'U Tab' that came from their console. If they can, someone likely will at least support the option... they just won't design their game around it.

Perhaps, but the operating system still needs to be designed to allow multiple video streams to multiple controllers. Even if the hardware is capable of it, that doesn't guarantee that it's something developers can implement.

I don't think the specs are completely fixed or released yet, so there is still wiggle room for two controllers with real time video. The limiting factor right now has to be wireless bandwidth. While I am sure there are better wireless setups out there, currently with most home solutions don't have the bandwidth or stability to stream an AVI/MP4 file in SD resolutions to watch in real time. This is a compressed stream. Now you have to send Full/HD video wirelessly, in realtime, in a near/lossless manner that either require little or no processing to decode by the controller to save battery power. I can't speculate as to how the technical wizardry behind this, but considering the number of prerequisites, it's fairly bleeding edge.

A quick search turns this place up. It might not be the same tech, but the idea is related.

However, what hasn't been discounted is the use of two or more WiiU controllers at the same time with the screen in some fashion. It maybe possible to have some sort of interface on two controllers, but they may no longer display real time video with acceptable lag or some drastic cut in resolution. That would still allow for all the Madden plays and what not between two teams.

The possibilities of local asymmetric gameplay could be very cool. Imagine if you could play D&D with the DM messing with you on the tablet. No more dealing with piles of rule books. Or team games where one person plays as the coach/team leader passing out orders or airstrikes from orbit.

Currently almost all multiplayer games are symmetrical save a few like Zombie Panic. Asymmetric should prove very interesting if nothing else it is pretty fresh territory that has barely been explored.

I kept trying to warn people not to get their hopes set on that idea... instead I got attacked.

You never got attacked. It was a civil debate on what people thought would be revealed. You were wrong about most of it and got one aspect of it correct. But the over all image you were trying to paint is more accurate than the individual statements you were making.

So what happens if you accidentally break your controller?  You have to buy a whole new system?

Well if developers can't use it, then I'd classify that as having the same as meaning as 'not being capable of it'. But I wouldn't necessarily expect Nintendo to restrict its use unless it puts some kind of strain on the hardware. Then again, I wouldn't entirely rule out them doing that either...

Instead of the Wireless streaming bandwidth being the bottleneck I think it might actually be the GPU/CPU processing and streaming 2-4 separate screens at once when the TV is off. Peoples ideas were to have one person playing an HD game while the other uses the extra controller to to Netflix or Angry Birds. Others had ideas to do even crazier things than that. That will require some very serious processing power as we already know it's possible to wirelessly stream to upto 6 devices at once relatively lag free.

Now I don't have a TOP of line PC with a TOP of the line GPU, but when I turn on an HD game with as many effects as possible and expect it to run at a decent framerate, I'm not sure my computer could handle streaming a Netflix movie to my TV at the same time with out severely lowing the quality and framerate of both the game and the show.
Maybe if they went with a strong dual GPU (I think the 4850 is a 4770x2) solution and a beefy POWER7 CPU (minimum 4 core), and that may still be possible, but then we probably wouldn't be seeing the small form factor they showed us yesterday and likely not at a price tag we would be willing to pay.

Maybe not by you, but I was attacked by some.

No, I was pretty much entirely correct. Pretty much everything you tried to claim as me getting wrong was either twisted into being something it wasn't, or over some irrelevant bit of detail that didn't really relate to the debate at. So, you either just misunderstood what I meant, or simply chose to put words in my mouth in attempts to discredit me (I never said the tablet wouldn't be focus of the new console-- I was saying we needed to keep an open mind and not assume it was the main or only control input and suggested that it could  take the backseat other control methods-- which, depending how you look at it, it apparently will on occasion). As far as overall premise goes, I was 100% right.

Here is my guess: The Wii U will ship with a screen controller and a wiimote with motion plus. The pack in game will be a new incarnation of the Wii Sports as evidenced by the trailer:

single player golf using the wiimote as the club and the screen as the tee.
multiplayer baseball with the pitcher using the screen and the batter using the wiimote.

Nintendo is going to still push the wiiremote as the main local multiplayer controller.

You were saying...?

Upon reading your posy BlackNmild, I ran a little experiment on my computer.

I started up a FullHD video broadcast from Freeview which I know uses up one core on my Core2Quad. I then started up and played some L4D2 since that is the newest game I have access to at this time on OSX that requires heavy GPU usage and multicore. I didn't have a second monitor to display the video feed while I play and one day I have to get around to testing my GFX card to see if it can do dual monitor.

While there was some stuttering caused by the game and OS reclaiming memory to use from closed apps, loading things on the fly etc, it was quite playable and the video in the background didn't miss a beat. With a reboot and doing this clean, it would more closely match what might happen on a console. If I check I probably still have a core to spare.

Now my machine isn't the newest thing on the block C2Q 9550 @ 2.83GHZ, N9800GT 512MB, 4GB RAM, but I more than expect the WiiU is have more power than I do, both CPU and GPU with a more streamlined OS meaning the bottle neck isn't going to be processing power.

The question then becomes, why would Nintendo waste an entire core on a mutlicore(This is a sure thing) processor just so it can do something non-gaming during gaming? It would be a waste of silicone completely lock off a core to do system tasks in which most of the time will be idle. This is a games machine, not a media hub.

Um... whose side are you trying to back up with these quotes? I'm certainly not seeing any inconsistency.

It clearly isn't designed around the multiplayer model you were supporting... So how was I wrong there?

Secondly, since I was keeping an open mind about the possibility of there also being a new remote, which could have been considered the main control method in that scenario, and since even now, one could still argue that it serves more auxiliary purposes at times, especially since its uses are going to vary... that part was hardly wrong either.

Also, if you read it properly, you'll see I never disputed the tablet wouldn't still be the main focus point of the console (the tablet being the main focus of the console never meant it still had to be the main controller-- just the part that set it apart from its predecessor).

No matter how you're to trying to interpret it to make yourself feel right, I know what I said, I know what I meant, and I think it's equally clear to any objective observers.

The irony here is the more you keep trying to break my analysis apart, the more you actually seem to be proving it to be accurate in the first place. So, you're really only making yourself look foolish.

Seriously... let it go.

OK look at this. Again I say it is possible for at least 2 which thinking about it now is fine by me. 4 tablets sounds like it is not going to happen.

http://kotaku.com/5809706/nintendo-looking-into-games-that-support-two-new-controllers

Now this I would be happy with!!

2 player head to head with out the other player seeing exactly what you ar doing/choosing because it's on your personal screen. How was that not one of their first thoughts when they came up with this? How could they have been in talks with EA and no one brought this up for Madden?

or maybe they just aren't talking about it because they didn't have any games using it or concepts using at this time to show.

We all know Nintendo is gonna cut some corner somewhere that everyone is gonna and up bitching about somewhere down the line, but 2 player local uScreen should not be that place. Online might be it, but it will hopefully be due to extraneous features (facebook, blah blah blah) and not core elements.

You can redefine your comments and talk in circles all you want. I quoted and highlighted them and I think they stand on their own. If you don't see what was wrong then I'm not gonna continue to keep pointing it out. What was said was said, and what it means versus what you want it to mean is entirely up to you. 
If someone else thinks I misunderstood something you were saying, then I hope they point it out, but I really don't want to argue over it.

Yes let the hopes rise again!

Don't worry. Trust Nintendo. They will get it right.

That sounds...strangely religious..

I'm thinking bluetooth's seven device limit is the reason for one :siren: controller per console.  Four remotes, one balance board, and one :siren: controller makes six.  I'm actually kind of surprised the thing doesn't have to plug into a remote, but that would prevent several of the tech demos from working.

lol nice gif.

But 4 wiimote + 1 balance board + 2 uScreens = 7
so why would a 7 item limit stop a second screen?

Is it 7 Registered Devices or 7 Devices going?

In his example, the UuuuWiii would be the seventh.

I'm sure it was a joke just so he had an excuse to post the sirens, but the Wuu is providing the bluetooth therefore wouldn't be one of the devices right?

And even if it was, who would use 4 wiimotes and 1 balance board plus 2 uScreens all at the same time? I couldn't imagine the CrAzY ass game that would support/use/require that.

The Vitality Sensor will fill the remaining slot.

I think this time next year, we'll see more details on the multiple U-Controllers on one console. It doesn't make sense to have a controller for one person. The Wii was always meant to be a community affair, sometime to enjoy together. You can't have that with a center point being for only one person. It's possible, with the console obviously being in beta (and the controller) that Nintendo didn't feel like they could show that yet because maybe it's not ready to be shown.

I agree. However, Nintendo does a lot of things that don't make sense. 1 slide pad on 3DS? /never-ending facepalm

My hope is that Nintendo figures this out somehow even if it means spending millions to have IBM and AMD modify the chipsets. In the longrun, Nintendo stands to make that up that money and then some. They absolutely must be able to support 2 tablet controllers. I think most people can live with 2 tablet controllers per console, especially with online multiplayer at the same time.

I'd forgotten about that.  I think it's seven active devices, but I don't recall all the details on the spec.

I had been wanting to break out the siren since learning the name, but it wasn't just a joke.  In Wii Sports, you'd want everyone to have a remote for a club or bat or other human-ball-interface device.  With four players, it would be impossible for everyone to have their own remote and Wii U pad.

I get the name now.
Wii controls, or U control.
For split screen, u have Wii remotes, and for one player, U controler
OK, still stupid but it all comes together.
Or just ask and if they refuse to answer then we can assume only
one WiiU controler at a time.

It's at least 2 Utablets or bust.

The system isn't coming out for a while and it looked pretty early into the design stage, I mean they didn't even have any actual games to show. So I think that as Nintendo starts to create games for the system, they will considering adding support for another screen controller. I don't know if they'll make it be up to four, but probably will allow for two once all is said and done.

I predict there is going to be a lot of fighting among players over that one tablet controller. Only player can have it and everyone is going to covet it, so its going to lead to tug-a-war scenarios where people are going to get hurt and things are going to get broken. The Wii was all about families getting together, but the Wii-U is all about ME ME ME!!!!!! which is going to break families apart and lead to higher divorce rates and suicides.

LOFL

I was bringing up what I think is a serious point which so far I haven't seen anyone else really touch on. People are going to fight over that one controller, especially kids who don't like to share with their siblings... bad stuff WILL happen because of this. If parents could buy additional tablets so every kid could have their own everything would be peachy, but that's not going to be possible on this console. The topic of buying replacement controllers has been discussed, and if you figure people are going to be fighting over it the likelihood of it getting broken and needing to be replaced goes up exponentially. Nintendo may even face lawsuits from people getting hurt fighting for control over it.

Other players can use the wiimote, but realistically, how many players are going to be content with that while someone else is hogging the cool uber control?

Microsoft had the red ring of death to drive up 360 sales to the same customer, Wii U will have the broken tablets.

Streaming content to an additional controller is more of a hardware issue. Nintendo needs to make that decision sooner rather than later because there's only so much time for IBM and AMD to alter their designs. Microsoft did something similar with 360 when they doubled the RAM at the 11th hour. The problem is that eventually these chips need to start being manufactured so Nintendo really has to get on the ball. Additionally, it allows 3rd parties to plan their games around it.

This report from the second roundtable gives us our answer I guess

Considering there are no actual games being played, it's still too early to call. That is, unless Nintendo flat-out says it won't support 2 tablet controllers at all. At that point, I would expect the shit storm to descendeth upon Nintendo. That might actually convince them to make the change.

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, this is complete fucking nonsense.

The WiiU controller isn't going to use Bluetooth, for video, it doesn't remotely provide enough bandwidth even with the newest revision that piggybacks on 802.11. 802.11g could provide more bandwidth with 802.11n matching 100base ethernet cable although in practice as far as I have seen, not even close, due to the environment.

But we will have to wait and see to find out the exact bottle neck it's facing.

One controller. One player.

Nintendo Wii U®. Half the multiplayer of a Magnavox Odyssey!

Wii U® : Go play 'Wii U' self!™

In all seriousness, leading up to the E3 press conference, the one idea I could think of for a 'tablet gamepad' was the final realization of Miyamoto's decade long dream for "connectivity," the private/public gameplay model with multiple player private screens plus the TV. The notion that the final realization of this is "built in" but impossible... it somehow depresses me even beyond the issue itself. I just almost can't accept a punchline that cruel and that long in the making.

(edit: I realize there are numerous multiplayer options with Wiimotes, classics, 3DS, etc. But that's what they were calling asymmetric gaming. Hardly universally applicable.)

Okay, here is the definitive answer from Miyamoto himself:

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/nintendos-shigeru-miyamoto-explains-the-new-wii-u/story-e6frfrt9-1226071923070#ixzz1OlVEeIO5

I still don't see how Nintendo comes up with the idea for this uScreen controller and doesn't immediately think at minimum 2 player local multi.

Especially after having talked with EA and Take 2 (football and basketball).

We on the NWR forums alone have had so many ideas for 4 touch screen controllers (no split screen multi; everyone has their own screen) that it just baffles me that Nintendo apparently never even thought of it until recently.

It would work beautifully for Mario Kart, multiplayer Pokemon Snap, 4 swords, NSMB, Starfox and countless other 3rd party games that it just doesn't make sense to only have 1 per console.

Oo! Ooo! How about... how about... Nintendo pushes the hardware just to the point of allowing 2 of the new controllers. Get the hardware to do at least that. Then if people connect 3 or 4 in total, reduce the resolution on the screens to compensate. Like, if you connect 3, it drops the quality of all the feeds a bit, so that they're not as pretty as they should be, but still pretty good. Then, if you connect 4, you can really notice the drop, but all the things you need to be able to do with it can still be done. Just make sure the text is readable, etc.

They.......... would never do this, would they......?.......

I expect if you want 4 screens, 3 of those will be 3ds screens

Yeah, I expect that's true, too. But a 3DS would be more expensive than a uScreen pad. Sigh... I'll just try to wait for official details... Time to, um, wait for next E3.

One thing, though. If it's truly a single pad thing, then Nintendo's online had. better. be. *perfect*. Because that's where third-party multiplayer will be invariably pushed towards. It needs to be as robust as the best of this current generation, and it needs to be simple enough for Nintendo's audience. I've always thought it was increasingly important for N to get online right eventually, but now, with this controller ordeal, 3rd parties will demand competent online interactions.

Miyamoto's explanation doesn't make any sense and it's typical Nintendo circular reasoning. How is gathering over $500 worth of hardware for local multiplayer on WiiU more convenient? Or is he suggesting that the WiiU mutliplayer title requiring 2 or more tablet controllers just be made for 3DS instead? Either way, that's a total logic fail. /never-ending facepalm

One thing Miyamoto didn't really clear up was whether WiiU hardware as it currently stands can even support more than 1 tablet controller without latency issues. In that case, I wonder if Nintendo knowingly chose to employ lesser hardware thinking that 1 tablet controller per console is something people would have no qualms about. That does sound like something Nintendo would do. Deliberate or not, it's silly that they even thought this was acceptable and it's even sillier that they think using a 3DS is viable or close to the same thing. It doesn't have a right analog stick. 1st person shooter fail.

Actually, assuming that someone didn't have a 3DS already it would be over $750 to get 4-player out of three 3DS's.

But they've presumably got over a year to fix this. I hope developers, gamers, websites, magazines and all of their dogs raise hell about it. I hope the stock price drop helps convince. Whatever it takes.

I for one was hugely impressed by everything I saw up until this revelation. I love the controller. I love the concepts. I love the graphical detail and the supposed publisher backing. But now, even if I want to, I can't even get excited about that stuff. This is just that blinding.

(But I'm 30, why am I so obsessed with something like this?!)

lol
Here in US of A that has a large likability of happening.  People don't want to take responsibilities for themselves and want a Pay Day but, mostly lawyers need something to do and Class Action are very lucrative to lawyers, no one else gets anything from it.

@Dozy Boy - Well, if you want to be a stickler for details, $750 is still "over $500" like I suggested so you didn't actually correct my statement, you just made it more specific. Also, the question posed to Miyamoto was whether 2 tablet controllers could be used and with tax 2 3DS'sesses would be "over $500". I live in NJ and most states have sales tax so that was mainly what I was getting at. Additionally, throughout this thread, a few of us have stated that we would be happy if WiiU was capable of supporting at least 2 tablet controllers at one time. Sorry if there was any confusion.

At this point, I would be happy with 2, too, no doubt.

Please show me a precedent of a lawsuit against a company on the grounds that their product is so popular that kids fight over it.

The player is the minimum acceptable.

but a Wuu (~$300+)
and a 3DS ($250)
= $500+ for just a 2 player with a screen

Problem is that the 3DS lacks the 2nd analog stick and 2 shoulder buttons.
It may still work, but it's not ideal and much more expensive.

I would guess that I could buy 3 more uScreens for about the same cost as a single 3DS
($80 x3 = $240), SO I would much prefer a multi uScreen option anyway.

The Sad part is NINTENDO had all these ideas with GCN-GBA Connectivity.  They SAW why it failed.  I can't believe that they didn't original plan for 4 uMotes but didn't find Tech to Pursue it that didn't cost to Much but, they Needed something NOW to combat the 360/PS3 and they had backed themselves into a corner of not being able to release a new system with a CCPro/Wavebird style controller and Live better Online without adding something.  This whole system sounds like something that if it could have been would have been baked for another generation but it can't.  Nintendo knows this. 

They already mistepped with the 3DS pricing it at $250 because the Vita is being Priced at $250 and the gaming and non-gaming world is seeing that as a steal because of the tech it has and comparison to a smart phone.  The console needs to emphasize its role as the at home local multi king. 

Mark my words if consoles keep wanting to be single player experiences then next gen we won't have consoles.  We will have all in one Portable uMote style devices that will stream vy a Wireless adapter or cradle to our TVs and talk wirelessly to all the different accessories.  If I was Sony THAT would be the PS4.

All the Wiimote lawsuits of controllers being launched from kids hands.  Some of those are fighting based.
We have the McD's Happy Meal, Hot Coffee, and Pickle lawsuits for goodness sakes.
Do I think it will go anywhere probably not but I do thing someone would try it and it would happen.

Which ones? Regardless, the Wiimote lawsuits were based on the wrist straps not being strong enough. That doesn't apply to the uPad. Kids fight over jillions of toys, all day every day, and I have never heard of a lawsuit resulting from it.

I've noticed that BlackNMild2k1 and I have been saying basically the same thing lately. I'm beginning to think he's (my less attractive and charming) doppleganger (who posts more gifs). This is weird. Stop trying to steal my identity, you fraud.

The feedback from gamers is going to be largely negative to the one controller set up, so hopefully that is enough to convince Nintendo to do 2. Hey, if Sony could ditch those ridiculous boomerang controllers, Nintendo can give us at least two for the WiiU.

I liked the Boomerang.

I was actually correcting you about the needing 2 3DS' to play 2 player on Wuu

And, I'm pretty sure that everything you think I am saying after you I've probably already said in another thread before you. So that means that you have been copying me!!!


~All my post are subliminal~

If this was any other company I would be surprised.  It seems like such an obvious thing to at least think of and yet we suggest it and their response is "Hey! I never thought of that!"  But because it's Nintendo I'm not surprised.  Nintendo comes across as a very isolated company.  Probably all the higher ups think the same way and outside ideas rarely penetrate their walls.  Thus they miss obvious stuff.

But Nintendo has always been a huge supporter of local multiplayer. They were the first to introduce 4 standard controller ports on a system with the N64, and they've made games like the Mario Party series, Mario Kart, Wii Sports, and so on which revolve heavily on local multiplayer. You can play these games in single player, but that's not where these games shine. They've always been about local multiplayer. This move by Nintendo is surprising and you should be surprised by it too, because it is a 180 turn from what they've always done in the past.

But doesn't being isolated mean that you get in set in your ways and don't change? This is a change. Losing local multiplayer is a BIG change. Its just not a change for the better.

Maybe what happened is this is finally the console where Nintendo goes online in a significant way so maybe their thinking was that since they have now developed a state of the art online system, they no longer need to worry about local multiplayer. We've been asking for online like the competition has had for years, and now that its finally being added we're losing something which we've always taken for granted in a gaming system.

@Chozo - I don't think that's the case. We keep seeing up to 5 people playing WiiU, one with the tablet controller and 4 with Wii remotes. They're clearly pushing local multiplayer. If Nintendo sticks with the single tablet controller per console route, it will be seen as a major oversight by everyone but Nintendo. It's literally inexcusable.

There actually is method to (what at least on the surface may appear to be) their madness:

As I tried to explain even before the unveiling, because the Wii was was an overwhelming success, and since the multiplayer model (party-type games) was the main source of that success, it made the most sense not to significantly change it.

The thing they needed to address this time around was the lack of serious single-player experiences from third parties, who instead flocked to Sony's and Microsoft's condoles since their traditional controllers didn't force them to make special accommodations for each game, and their HD capabilities meant they wouldn't have to take the extra effort having squeeze more from less visual-wise.

Even though Nintendo found ways to make the uTab appeal to the casual crowd as well, the overall concept seems focused around single player experiences. Since it's far more practical to gather four players in front of a TV for short group sessions than for a single person for several hours, a tablet that can stream away from a TV makes the most sense for that purpose. Nintendo even acknowledged this with the name:

Wii "We" (plural)-- the multiplayer focus
  +
U "You" (singular)-- the single player focus

If I had to guess, I'd say Nintendo's official names for the hardware included in the box will be the following: 1 "U Tablet", 1 "Wii Remote", and the "Wii U console" (as it will be supporting the two controllers).

Focusing multiplayer to use more traditional controllers with buttons and dual analog wouldn't have been practical (plus, I'm not even sure the technology for four-screen streaming is even feasible yet).

Don't get too bent out of shape about it. Even though it seems ridiculous now, people said the same thing when they first revealed name "Wii" five years ago. Just like you, those people were not only looking at it from a hardcore gamer's perspective, but also with the preconceived notion of the name "Revolution"... And look how badly it hurt Nintendo in the end (sarcasm).

Mark my words, this is the exact same situation-- Five years from now you'll barely remember ever being bothered by it...

Nope, Still bothered by Wii.  Anyways, I throw in a Nunchuk as well.  If their can only be one then it will be a single player oriented system in that regards.

But it isn't losing local multiplayer because you can still use remotes for the other players.  At least that's how Nintendo would see it.  What I imagine is that Miyamoto comes up with this idea for having a screen controller, never suggests using more than one, presents the idea to the rest of the higher-ups with the idea of the screen being the "main" controller for multiplayer and because they all think the same sort of way no one thinks about using multiple screen controllers.

I think of the "isolated" excuse more for just the general Nintendo pattern of being completely oblivious to incredibly obvious ideas that all of us think of five seconds after getting the details.  Why didn't Nintendo think of this incredibly obvious idea?  Because they're all like-minded individuals and don't seek outside opinions.  Thus dumb ideas and stupid oversights get the green light all the time.

I'm still not quite sure why this was addressed to me. You begin by explaining the name which I don't recall suggesting I was confused about. Then, you tell me not to get bent out of shape over the name which doesn't have anything to do with the post you quoted. If this is referring to other topics, I've stated several times that I'm okay with the name. I think it's silly but it doesn't change how I view the console. I flat-out liked what I was during E3. None of the conferences blew me away, including Nintendo's and I completely accepted tje WiiU reveal for what it was, a simple console announcement. A stupid sounding name isn't the problem. A lot of things sound stupid the first time you here them. My only worry with the WiiU name was if it would confuse general consumers which include casual gamers. I originally brought it up as a point of discussion, to move the conversation away from "Ugh, the name is stupid" to "The name might actually affect sales and here's why."

I plan on buying WiiU eventually. I don't think Nintendo is changing the name though I think we'll see some minor tweaks to the controller before launch and the console may be a placeholder (nothing major). However, I think the WiiU name put more pressure on Nintendo to market the console as new hardware as opposed to something for the Wii.

Actually, I was telling you not to get bent out of shape over the single uTab issue. The parts about the name were meant as something else entirely...

I was actually trying to explain how their design with the single uTab does make sense when you look at what its real intended purpose apparently was (single-players in the first place). I was using the name breakdown to demonstrate their separate plans for each control method.

Secondly, I was pointing out how the original Wii's name resulted in an initial backlash at first (especially since fans had preconceived notions of the name "Revolution"), but it still did work out and fans quickly forgot about it. In comparison, you're upset because you had the preconceived notion of multi-screens at once and are now claiming it's "literally inexcusable".

Admittedly though, I did go off on a tangent so I can't entirely blame you for getting confused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

reposting link again

I can see where more than one controller of this type may not be necessary. They should make a "classic controller" that can stand on it own. Though I can't currently find the quote but Nintendo is looking into two or more of the new controllers. (sigh... since when do we need to name the controllers..... ;p)

But with the advent of network play the need for localized multi-player seems to be on the way out. Nintendo does allow for the use of the Wiimote/classic controller combo with the new system (which is unwieldly which is why they should come out with a wireless classic)

What if, in 2005, when Nintendo announced the Wii remote, they also said that only one remote per console was possible? How pissed off would people have been? Think of how that would have changed the landscape of the Wii and the last 4 and a half years of this console cycle. Sure, you can play Wii Sports by passing around 1 remote, but that's fucking lame and annoying.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason behind it wasn't because they never thought of it-- just the opposite. They did foresee people expecting and wanting multi-screen concepts but knew the technology limitations would make two at a time a challenge-- let alone four.

Nintendo apparently designed the tablet specifically to cater to specialized single player experiences (to win over the 3rd party devs and hardcore gamers the original Wii failed to do) but knew people would automatically want to use the tablets for multiplayer purposes-- especially since it resembled the GBA-GCN concept so closely-- and wouldn't easily understand that they couldn't. Not offering separate tablets in the first place is a much easier way of preventing those unaware of the limitation from automatically buying up multiple tablets only to find out they couldn't use them.

Does anyone know from the revealed features of the Wii U controller (like that photo in the press conference with all the features outlined) whether a 3DS even has the same level of motion control built in? Anyone can see that the lack of a second circle pad on the 3DS is a huge problem for some games like FPS. But in regard to motion, even for Nintendo's own local multiplayer concepts that may utilize 3DS for makeshift controllers, can that hardware do the same kinds of things? Looking around in relation to the screen and all that. Sure, the 3DS has motion, but is it the exact same type? Do you think it would work?

Yowza! It's times like this that I realize how much I miss the forums. So much wonderful heated discussion!

Anyways, I thinks it's silly to suppose that nintendo didn't "think" of two tablet controllers together. I bet that was the second thing they tried once they got it working!

No, I think they're still working against technical limitations in their streaming graphics technology. I don't have any proof at all, but my hunch is that their current tech CAN stream screen data to two controllers at once... If those two controllers show the exact same image. The controllers they have now probably don't have the cpu guts to do anything but throw exactly what they receive up on the screen, for price, power consumption, but probably performance reasons: any amount of processing would introduce lag.

I wonder what could be done? Make the Wii U broadcast on two completely separate wireless channels, pretending that it's actually two consoles in one? Maybe bite the redesign costs() and manufacturing costs and hardwire some specific chip logic to enable controllers to cut out individual player 1 and player 2 data out of the same, single signal? Heck, WIRE a second tablet right to the console itself?

Assuming the tech works like Broadcasting TV then an arbitrary number of controllers could be connected to a single Video Stream and the of course multiple controller inputs and outputs could be connected at one time.  Yeah finding channels would be interesting.

I figure how the hole thing pretty much work is all the two way communication is handled like the Wiimote and the actual picture on the screen is just a broadcast.

I wonder what kind of wireless technology they are using for the streaming. Somebody said it would be too much bandwidth for bluetooth. Somebody speculated IR but that doesn't seem likely. I think its probably a modified, closed network wireless N connection.

Why is a second circle pad terrible for FPS games, just program the dpad as the strafing, looking up and down buttons...and or the touch screen, and the touch screen and or the buttons as the item select. Either way is Win.

AMD has streaming tech. I've linked to it several times in the rumor thread.

I'll see if I can find it, but there are basically 2 kinds of wireless HD streaming tech (that I know about) going for mainstream right now.

One is WirelessHD and the other is AMD's tech.


edit:

& http://www.wirelesshd.org/


Wireless HD is a little expensive and AMD is making Nintendo's GPU, so it would only make sense that AMD would use their own tech.

Even if they can't get two at once for this gen, technology does keep improving in the meantime. At the very least, ten years from now, we will be playing with four at once on our new 'Aii Wii ahn U' console.




(I wee on you)

Actually I think if they took a GPU capable of doing 1080p graphics with majority of effects at 60 FPS and then down graded all the visuals to just at or slightly below 720p and streamed the content out to the controllers, they should be alright, depending on what their streaming bandwidth is.

I don't know all the technical numbers, but we are talking about 4 player split screen being divided up among 4 separate tablets and a full screen TV rendering being done at the same time.

the 4 tablets obviously being rendered at less that HD so lets say it was a 720p screen divided into 4 sections and then streamed out PLUS another 720p screen displayed up on the TV.

Are there any tech people out here that would know the numbers and do the math on something like that?

Wait a minute... Why would any of the processing have to be in the tablets themselves during a multi-tablet scenario but not need it in the single-tablet scenario? The console should be powerful enough to do all the processing and then just send it back to each tablet on individual signals regardless. All the individual tablets would still have to do is display the image from its designated signal just as in the single-tablet scenario. I'm not getting why you'd think multiple tablets would change that.

It's not a processing limitation, it's a limitation on the bandwidth available for streaming the video to the controller.

Exactly... Processing in the tablet wouldn't have anything to do with it in either scenario.

Sending the same video to both controllers might work, if they find a way to get both of them receiving the same signal. More likely, they'd have to cut the resolution of the video it's sending out to be able to stream to multiple devices.

That's exactly the thing... I'm guessing that right now is that whatever technology they're using is only ONE signal at the moment. If they already had multiple signals you'd think they'd already have the multiple controller thing figured out, so I'm guessing that it's got to be some really dastardly caveat with whatever tech they're using.

This is likely the tech that AMD is customizing for Nintendo
http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/hd-content-streaming-2011feb16.aspx
here is a video of it in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF8omefUZik

The problem is exactly as you explain and it's that the tech was designed to stream a songle stream (a single video) to multiple devices. So if Nintendo were having the tech customized for them, then it's likely not a matter of streaming to multiple uScreens, but streaming different content to multiple uScreens at once.

The competing tech:
Wireless HD - http://www.wirelesshd.org/about/technology/ &
WiDi - http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/technology/wirelessdisplay.htm
both potentially have the same problem... That they are designed to stream the same content to every connected device. Atleast that is the only function being talked about for each of them.

That may be why Nintendo didn't really think about having multiple uScreens per console before hand, but the truth is, if AMD can solve this problem, then their product really stands out against the other competing techs for functionality.

I couldn't find too much info on the AMD tech other than it's based on WirelessN, Adobe flash and some proprietary software from both ViVu & AMD, so I''m not sure if they would need multiple "WirelessTV' transmitters where each one would connect to each individual uScreen or just a matter of the the GPU just sending different content to each connected device like each computer connected to a network can do their own thing (I'm also not sure if that would require some local processing in each uScreen either).

I'm sure they thought of it. It's the first thing anyone thinks of. Nintendo was going to include the tech whether AMD (or whoever) could come up with a viable workaround to this issue. Makes sense. It's a really great feature that has never been done like this before. I would say the screen has more potential than motion controls specifically for the social aspect of it.

The pressure is on to find a way to make this work. If Microsoft or Sony manage to have this technology work on multiple controllers, Nintendo is in a very unfavorable position. As previously stated by a number of us, Nintendo needs to be able to support 2 tablet controllers. Even if the competition can tout support for 4, being able to do 2 player local multiplayer makes a world of difference.

Here's a bit of info I picked up from Ubisoft: http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/impressions/26757

To be fair, if U-B-I-soft is using the AMD streaming tech, it's not even gonna be ready till later this year, so they are likely still using a Alpha/Beta version of whatever custom version of the tech is being made just for Nintendo.

I guess "didn't think of" is probably the wrong way to put it, but more "didn't plan on using" would fit better.

The design of the tech is probably why Nintendo didn't initially plan on using or didn't plan on showing off at this point in time as AMD is probably still working on developing the proper tech behind it.

Well, it's been a few days since people actively talked about this, but I was saying before in this thread that if Nintendo got the technology in the console just high enough to support 2 Hi-Def controller feeds, then they could conceivably cut the resolution but allow up to 4 uScreens. Just cut the rez in half and double the two pads to four pads. That would be great.

But now here's Kotaku reporting that Game Impress Watch, a Japanese website, hints at up to four uScreens in Standard Definition!

http://ca.kotaku.com/5812014/some-details-on-the-wii-us-graphics-chip

Quote:
"It'll also support Direct X 10.1, and interestingly considering the "two screens maybe" line being trotted out at E3, is capable of beaming up to four standard definition streams of the console's content."

Just... let this be true!

It's sounding more and more likely that the graphics card is NOT the problem. I mean, AMD already has PC graphics cards out there that support SIX connected monitors. So the difference in this case is...

Yeah, that's right, I'm looking at you wireless lag-free graphics-streaming mystery tech!

I'll just repeat what I've been saying on the topic.

Based on the tech, streaming 4 uScreens was never the problem, as the tech is designed to send the exact same signal out to up to 6 screens at once, so that is obviously not the problem.
The problem is that they need to figure out how to send different video streams out to 5 different devices all at once.

So really all the GPU would have to do is render 2 different screens at once to support 4 uScreens. Two 1080p signals; One for the TV and One split into 4 section (think 4 player split screen - 4x540p) for the controllers.

The real issue is having a device that can send those 4 split screens out to 4 separate devices all at once. So I agree that yes it comes down to the AMD WirelessTV tech since Eyefinity already has multi-screened display taken care of.

I hope the streaming transmitters aren't expensive, just in case it comes down to them having to include one per extra controller they want to support.