Bonerstorm if true. Bonerstorm.

Not surprising if it's true. Nintendo said they would support two Wii U Controllers if they could make it work.

I'd be pretty surprised if Nintendo pulled it off and launched at $300. If they were struggling to get 2 tablet controllers to work before, they probably had to tweak the chipset. I expected Nintendo to launch at $350 without knowing if they could get 2 tablet controllers per console working. If anything, i would have expected the price to go up from my guess. I'll gladly save $50 instead.

I think I would have been willing to pay as high as $399.99 as long as it was a beast of a console and the price was justified. $300 is certainly better on my wallet though, but the question still remains of how powerful is this thing going to be? I'm hoping Nintendo is only breaking even on this, or even selling it at a loss. If I find out they are making a considerable profit on each unit sold I might hold off on buying this until the inevitable price cuts.

At $300 the only reaction I have is... "Shut up and take my money!"

I don't think they can go any higher then 300 USD if its released as a stand alone. Or with a Wii sports title. HOWEVER if they release it with Mario then can go up $50 and if they release some kind of bundle where you get more stuff. (i.e. Classic controller, wii motionplus controller, zapper, etc) i can see it going for 400 smackers. But they NEED  to have a cheaper $300 model to compete with aging cheaper systems.*cough* 99 dollar 360 *cough*

although i am a firm believer in the old saying  "you get what you pay for "

I'm just curious about what kind of remote bundles it'll have.  I know I'm a bit of an exception, but I have many, many Wii Remotes already and would be thrilled to have the system a little cheaper without having to pay for yet another Wii Remote.

These surveys serve as a blind control group study. The price could be higher or lower (not likely lower, but possible). As for the two controllers, I never doubted Nintendo could make it work--the technology is available.


My concern is over the price of the tablets. In previous statements, Nintendo claimed the Wii U would only use one tablet due to the prohibitively high cost of such a device. I don't want $100+ controllers. It's obscene enough paying $40 for a Wiimote and $20 for a nunchuck, much like paying $60 for a PS3 controller.


If the controllers are expensive enough to discourage owning more than one, developers will be hesitant to develop titles that require multiple tablets. An unused feature is a useless feature (for example the modem for the Gamecube or the component cables for the Gamecube).


E3 will give us a better idea of what we are facing.

Am I the only one who doesn't want >1 tablet capability?

A) I don't want to pay for a 2nd one.  I doubt they're cheap.

B) Given item "A," I don't want to have an expensive piece of hardware sitting around barely getting used.  You see, if two or more tablets come in the original box, developers can make games with that in mind.  But if not, developers will be gun shy about it.  Just as they ignore every other non-packed-in peripheral on the market (motion plus, balance board, move, kinect).

Why are we begging Nintendo to put us and developers in that uncomfortable position?

yes, you are the only one.

I agree with BnM.  I want multiple tablets. :D

Gimme 4 tablets. :D

You don't have to buy an extra controller or use that capability. Its no skin off your teeth if its there. Just don't use it if you don't want to.

I don't wanna sound like a negative Nancy, but that looks like a WiiMote in the picture. The picture almost goes out of its way to show the uPad, but the other shows little depth and looks like the guy is only holding it with two fingers, not gripping it with his hands.

But there is no trigger underneath what could be the wiimote, not that the tablet has a lot of detail but still.

I think the main tell is the screen. The other pics at the source link (which may need to be fixed) show you the screen on the uPad in every pic. It'd be odd to leave it out there.

I know people like to use the "you don't have to buy ____ if you don't want to" excuse to justify almost anything (DLC, adequately sized proprietary memory cards, etc.), but it doesn't apply here.

If the Wii U supports multiple tablets, then Game Developer X may decide Local Multiplayer Game Y's control scheme is "best suited" for everyone using a tablet controller.  In which case, I have to either pony up the cash or miss out on the full experience.

However, if Game Developer X knows they have to build the experience around a maximum of 1 tablet and 4 wiimotes then we either get everyone on the level wiimote playing field or some kind of asymetric game design.

In other words, if the option of more controllers isn't there, games won't be designed where people have to fight over who gets to use the tablet because it would be idiotic to design games where that experience had an advantage in local multiplayer.

Now, IF the tablet controllers were each, say, $40 bucks??? Sure, tablets for everybody!! But I don't see that happening... do you?

So, basically, you want game developers to be forced to program substandard games to meet artificial hardware requirements?

That's worked out well for Nintendo this generation.

So we should all miss out on better local multi-player because you are too cheap to buy a second controller?

"and" is the key work you should be looking, not "or"
Why can't we have and expect both options to be possible at the same time?

If they were already going to design for asymetrical multi, then it will still be there. But they can also do more with symetrical  tablet play too.

Madden 2013, each player has their own private screen for picking plays, calling audibles, and creating plays on the fly..

Starcraft 2, each player is able to manage their own site on the touch screen while game data such as stats and other game related info displays on the TV.

Resident Evil 6.5, both players up on the TV, inventory and player data down on their own personal screens.

Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3, 2 players each with their characters move set, special move combos & backup player info down on the touch screen

and those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure you could come up with even better examples had you put some thought into it.

The problem with the asymmetrical idea is that there are 2 cool things you can do with the controller: what Nintendo showed us, and what BNM just mentioned. Being able to call plays in secret gives one player a clear advantage in a game like Madden. Now, the asymmetry is giving one player an unfair advantage in a game where the two should be on equal playing fields. This is also a good reason for Nintendo to design another "classic" controller. Something more Wavebird-y that I don't need to plug in to a WiiMote and has motion controls, maybe an extra Z-button too. Hint, hint. (I know you're reading this, Nintendo.)

@UncleBob

It would only be for local multiplayer.  1P and online multiplayer wouldn't be impacted at all.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass when I ask: what do you think is so bad about just using the wiimote/nunchuk/CC for local multiplayer?

I mean, wouldn't it even make sense for people to all be looking at the same screen (the TV) unless there is some kind of asymetric gameplay?

Is no one going to address the issue of cost I've raised?*

I've been on overdrive for several days straight now and I'm extraordinarily tired so, if I've said something foolish... I'll correct it later.  :) Until then, I stand by my long-held 1-tablet opinion.

@BnM

*Your post showed up as I was submitting.  I guess you addressed the cost issue ... by calling me cheap. =P

---

Bottom line: I think support for 16 tablet controllers could do some cool things.  I just don't think those things would be worth the cost to the consumer and the pussy footing that I can say with confidence will be done by developers.  Again, unless they all come in the box from the start .... which they won't.

Does no one remember how few games supported motion plus or the balance board? It wasn't because WM+ was inferior to the wiimote, it's because developers didn't want to risk limiting their market!

... now I need sleep.  I'm supposed to walk across a stage and get something put around my neck in a few hours..... (note: I'm not being executed  ;D ..... unless only wanting 1 tablet is a capital offense... hmmm)..... Zzzzzzzz

Well, in many cases buying additional controllers may not be necessary because every Wii U owner will have the one that came bundled with their system, so if they went over to a friend's house for some local multiplayer gaming they could just bring along their bundled tablet.

So it won't always be necessary to buy additional separate tablets in order to enjoy this functionality. Its true that a lot of people won't own a Wii U so this won't always be the case, but if that's the case maybe they should at least pitch in half of the additional controller's cost.

I also don't think the tablet is going to be $100. $80 would probably be the high end, but it could also possibly be only $60. Its in Nintendo's best interest to get as many controllers into as many hands as possible so there is no reason for them to try profiting off the tablets. So I don't think Nintendo will price those higher than they have to.

Also, don't forget that the 3DS will be able to double as a tablet controller, so even if you have friends who don't have a Wii U as long as they have that everything should be fine. Or they could borrow yours if you have one.

Plus, support for two is all anyone is asking for. I bought 3 WiiMotes, and two games for the M+s that came with them. THEN I got two WM+s (though for like $8 each). Having to buy only one more uPad still brings the cost of being fully equipped down.

NinSage - it doesn't matter what a developer chooses to use it for - I'm saying that I support the developer being given the OPTION to use it.  That's it.

If they don't, fine... no sweat off my back.  If they do, and do it well, then awesome!

Developers like options.  They might use them to make a stand out, awesome game, or they might ignore them in order to have a wider user base.  That choice, however, should be up to the developer - not up to some artificial hardware limitation created because someone might not want to buy a second controller.

I'm thankful your mindset hasn't been in charge of development at some point.  We would have never gotten the 4-Score for the NES, the Multi-Tap for the SNES (and thus, no four player Bomberman!), no Four Swords on the Game Cube, no fun at all.

What are they doing in the last picture.. controlling Netflix while watching Batman Begins and.. something with baseball.. but what? Watching highlighs during the game and seeing stats?

Ya pretty much nailed it...using the tab as a controller to browse Netflix or view movie info while the movie continues uninterrupted on the main screen; watching baseball while viewing auxiliary information on the tab screen (I hear sports venues give ticket purchasers this ability on their mobiles as well).
I don't really believe the value proposition of offering multi-tablet streaming is high enough to overcome cost barrier for a large percentage of the market...and admittedly I feel actual gameplay Usage would be relegated to small side tasks, again a cool extra feature but perhaps not worth that cost (preliminary estimates place tablet production around $60...factor in gross margin for both Nintendo and retailer...not to mention the cost of creating retail skus for a relatively expensive risky item) and forking of the system's rendering capabilities.


But ya know what, the outcry for this feature has been quite loud and of course in a vacuum we would rather have the ability than not. Coupled with stories describing the ATi graphics card as being able to support the additional stream(s) I actually expect Nintendo to cave on this!

Nintendo "Caving in" wouldn't be the words I would use. It's more of a "No Brainer". It made too much sense not to have the feature. This no doubt has paralleled the Wii Motion+ which should have have been there day one, but was cut for monetary, non-gameplay reasons when there was still space in the costings for the feature, which is pretty much the story for the Wii. Penny Pinching.

The irony is that penny-pinching has probably cost Nintendo more money in the long run. When the newness of the Wii Remote wore off, Nintendo was left with a controller that was severely limiting creatively. It just couldn't do the things everyone wanted it to do. Motion Plus, however, could. However, its reach was limited considering it was not only an extra cost but it was introduced 3 years too late.

One has to wonder if Nintendo has learned from this. Go big or go home.

I think $300 is Nintendo’s sweet spot. One tablet and one RemotePlus right out of the box, that way developers don’t have to worry about making a game that requires an add-on. I could see a bundle with two tablet controllers approaching $400 that would also sell well. The biggest question is, even if the system can handle two controllers, will Nintendo sell them separately, and for what cost?

Food for thought - Will the Wii U support regular Wii Remotes without Motion Plus?

Even assuming that is a second tablet (even though it looks like a remote to me) it actually doesn't change anything since the possibility of will simultaneous tablet play was never ruled out by Nintendo. All they said was that additional tablets wouldn't be sold separately. There was always the possibility that the system could support two at once if someone brought over the one from their own system.

I think that should Nintendo allow multi uMote play, and these tablets cost around $79.99 retail, then they should give you a rebate on price if you bought the 2nd uMote at launch and on the same receipt as your system (and possibly with a multi-player game).
A sort of Manufacturers bundle.

The reason for this is it will put multi uMotes capability into as many homes as possible on day1 by encouraging consumers to purchase that extra controller on day1, then there will be no reason for devs to not support Wii U with more TuMote games outside the initial launch window. We want a high adoption rate right from the start.
This will avoid the scenario that Adrock was referring to where it's too little too late and then we end up with too many games that don't support TuMote properly if at all.

p.s. tuMote®/TuMote® is a registered trademark of BNM Inc.

No doubt it still will during backward compatibility with Wii software. It's not as likely for Wii U-specific software, though it definitely would be possible if the specific game didn't use any MotionPlus features.

Since it would appear that a Wii Remote Plus will come included with the system, MotionPlus will be a standard feature all Wii U owners will be expected to have access to. It will probably just depend on the specific developer of the game if they bother specifically supporting older Wii Remotes without dongles attached or not. After all, pretty much any Wii game that supported the Classic Controller, could have also supported the GameCube controller, yet not all did.

No, he's not. I'm not only with him, but I even predicted it might only support a single tablet even before they revealed it last year (I'm pretty sure you're the one I had a big debate over it with).

Frankly, I think most people are needlessly getting bent-out-of-shape over how many uTablets will be supported largely because they're just misinterpreting Nintendo's intentions with the Wii U's controls in the first place.

The way I see it, Nintendo isn't planning on making the system focused primarily around the tablet (though I'm sure a lot of games will focus around it, particularly 3rd party ones). I'm quite certain Nintendo intends to equally incorporate continued use of the Wii Remotes and in many instances the uTablet will largely serve auxiliary purposes-- such as being propped up and used as a DS-styled map screen for all to see, or directly attaching to the remote during single-player games (both of which were demonstrated in videos at last year's E3).

The way I'm picturing it, most games will be designed in a way in which you won't need more than one tablet anyway, so it won't be an issue.

Remember people, games that use 2 tablets simultaneously, will be displaying a lot less processor-intensive stuff on the controller screens.


Don't expect simultaneous multiplayer CoD Black Ops 2 only using the controller screens to play. Think more along the lines of touch screen menu's when playing a split screen game or a fighting game.
In fact I'd be surprised if some games didn't allow for more tablets if they're just displaying super basic stuff, or maybe just mirroring stuff on the other controllers.


I'd fully expect most 4-player games to support Wiimotes and CC Pro in addition to the tablet, no one should worry about that.

Wha??

Am I the only one who found this incomprehensible? What are uMotes and TuMotes supposed to be? Are they the same thing or two different things? Are you referring to the tablet or the Wii Remote? I can't tell what you're trying to refer to.

A "uMote" sounds like it would be a Wii U-specific remote. Perhaps things will have since changed from last year, and the WiiMotePlus will be replaced with a new Wii U-specific remote, but as of what we know at this point, the Wii U's standard controls will consist of the uTablet and the WiimotePlus.

Do us all a favor and try speaking the same language as the rest of us so we can all understand you.

I thought someone from Nintendo said it wouldn't. In any case, Wii U will probably support regular Wii Remotes for backwards compatibility. Weighing the pros and cons, I still think it would be better if Nintendo didn't support past peripherals even for backwards compatibility. Cost for consumers is an issue but I feel like confusion is a bigger issue. This would be Nintendo basically saying, "Use these controllers for everything" instead of trying to explain that this works with that and that works with this. It's a major inconvenience for backwards compatibility but it significantly simplifies how people view Wii U. However, Nintendo should be looking forward and, despite some cons, it's for the best.

I don't expect this to be a popular opinion. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE saving money and I already have 2 Wii Remote Plus controllers so this would only cost me money. Objectively speaking, this is a simplier option. Of course, this is assuming they improve the Wii Remote Plus in some way which is likely at least in terms of adding a rechargeable battery. I just think that having 2 main controllers (Wii U Plus Remote/Nunchuck and Tablet Controller) saves a lot of people a lot of headaches.

The way I expected this to work would be the controllers would act in place of split-screen and the TV would display support info like who has the most kills, time left etc.

Beat me too it.  Though in multiplayer like CoD would you really want anything else on the main screen?

I'm going to go ahead and say yes.

Maybe if you read more than just talkback, you would know the language and terms used on the forums.
I've been referring to the Wii U remotes as the uMote since day one...or day two, but who's keeping track.

tuMote would just be my new way of saying 2 uMotes. So now that you are all caught up...

I would expect simultaneous multi only using the controllers if the TV was used to show stats, maps, online player info or objectives.
What we shouldn't expect is some crazy 3d graphical display on the TV and some different yet equally complex 3d Graphical stuff to also be happening on both remotes at the same time too.

Again, that's still needlessly confusing since there is no Wii U-specific remote. While it's certainly subject to change, as of now, the Wii U will use the same WiiMotes as Wii does. Everyone knows what "WiiMote" means and that Wii U will be using it so there's no reason to call it anything else. Maybe if you didn't expect everyone else to adapt to you, you'd get your points across clearer.

Support of multiple Wii U tablet controllers would be great.  I remember having a lot of fun playing Crystal Chronicles and Four Swords with friends using our GBAs back in the Cube days.

That said, to me, the picture looks like a Wii U controller and a Wii controller, not two Wii U controllers.  And it's hard to imagine a $300 machine having the power to simultaneously send decent displays to an HD TV and multiple touch screens.  But I've been wrong before, and would happily be wrong again.

I hope you're wrong too. :)

I think it can be done. If the main action is on the TV, the hardware isn't taxing itself sending ancillary information to 1 or more controllers. If the action is on multiple controllers, not only is the hardware not taxing itself by displaying anything major on the TV but the controller can't display in HD therefore the hardware isn't rendering in HD so shouldn't that ease the load on the hardware?

:moonface:

I'm not talking about wiimotes (why is this so difficult?).

I'm talking about The Wii U Controller aka DRC aka uMote aka uPad aka Touch Screen Controller.
you know, the Wii U specific remote that has a 6.2" touch screen in the middle of it.

That's precisely my point. You're making it difficult because you seem intent on using your own nonsensical terminology defying own conventional logic. When people see the Wii U touch screen controller, they see either a 'tablet', 'pad', or 'screen'. When they see the Wii controller they see a remote. Few people would associate the tablet-shaped controller as a "remote". Especially considering the Wii U also supports the Wii REMOTE.

I have uMote references on the forum from all the way back to June 8, 2011.  I know at one point when the Wii U was announced we had a debate on what to call the tablet and uMote had parity with a few other choices.  Its just so much faster then saying Wii U Tablet Thing (WUTT)

I know personally I constantly shift between umote and upad and everyone knows exactly what I mean every time. I don't know where T comes in with the Tumote name, but it only takes a 5th of a second to at least know what product he is  talking about, especially considering the topic of discussion and it still doesn't have an official name.


Edit: oh tablet...

Tempest, meet teapot
Sorry Bman, you really are the only one with the problem. "uMote" says all you need to know. Maybe read more slowly, more carefuly?

I would like to see:
1. A basic package with one uMote
2. An option to buy a second uMote for $80 (no more than that)
3. General support for multi uMote play.
That is all.

I can't decide which is more important to me right now, multi tablet controller play or  Unreal Engine 4 support...

Heh, my personal terminology (that just hasn't caught on T-T) is "Tablet Controller".

I just type Wii U controller since that is the name, I have never been a fan of made-up names like Wiimote or umote or uPad or whatever.

I don't see what the big deal is. Two Wii U Controllers give devs more options to make more interesting games. How does that hurt anyone again?

If it's because of the added cost or it being unnecessary, then why did we ever think having four controllers on a system was a good idea? Not everyone is going to buy four Wii Remotes/four GameCube controllers/four N64 controllers.

I feel that the Wii U won't be able to live up to the full potential of that sweet little screen if it's limited to just one per console. Also, that means all local multiplayer experiences will either be exactly what was on the Wii, or stuff like Killer Freaks/Rayman Legends. Those implemantations are cool, but it's a limited focus.

Here's what I think.
How many times did I get together with friends and play local multiplayer DS games? To be honest, not many. I find that part of the fun in local multiplayer is sharing a screen. I've been to a couple LAN parties. The low lights, blank faces, pyramids of Mt Dew cans and mist of body oder were enough to convice me that a couch, a buddy, one TV and Rayman Origins is the kind of multiplayer I'm after. I don't think that will be quite as fun if both players are darting back and forth from tablet to TV. Won't I just want to keep my eyes on one or the other? And speculation aside, I _know_ that the power to stream to the tablet takes away from the ability to render on the TV. Ya wanna know what I really want in local multiplayer? A couple wireless Classic Controllers and a stunning new version of Mario Galaxy, Rayman Origins 2 (yeah, I saw the trailer... the tablet sections looked slow, lame, and utilitarian. Also perfunctory). And make it a Diet Coke, thank you.

I'm gonna out myself now... I really hate the term "wiimote"... Like, with a passion.

So do I, especially when a gaming "journalist" uses the term. That should be something any decent editor will not let happen.

I honestly think that was a missed opportunity for Nintendo Marketing.  Wii Remote is just so utilitarian for non-utilitarian piece of equipment.

Wii Remote .... remote..... wiimote.

Nintendo really should have trademarked that.

as far as my own made up term for multiple uMotes (since only Bman doesn't seem to get it)

Wii U Remote Controller... Wii U Remote.... Wii UMote... uMote
2 uMotes.... two uMotes.... twoMotes... tuMote.

now was that really so hard to figure out?

I've been calling it tablet controller too. /Internet high five

But the abbreviated TabCon doesn't sound good.

and here is that "Wii U Touchscreen Controller" naming thread someone mentioned earlier.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=34754.msg680111#msg680111

Until we get a better name, it's the Wii U Controller in our NWR Style Guide. I don't like the uMote because, well, it's not a remote. It ain't the Classic Remote, it's the Classic Controller. Hell, it's not even just a tablet. I guess tablet controller is the closest and best description for it.

We could go with the patent description: terminal device :-p

since I've been digging through old link all morning, I came across this article from waaay back sometime last year.

Nintendo saying that Wii U should have the ability to use 2 uMotes/Tablet Controllers/ or whatever you want to call it

http://www.examiner.com/article/nintendo-talks-upcoming-wii-games-friday-launches-wii-u-anniversaries-more

"Let me correct something that is a misconception," Ryan began. "We said that the Wii U system will come with one Wii U controller, but we haven't said that you can only use one Wii U controller. The fact is that if the developer makes a game or an experience that uses more than one, then anything is possible."

"What we've also talked about is to imagine taking some of the experiences you've had at your own home, putting them on your Wii U controller, and taking that with you somewhere else. That would again get rid of that myth and misconception that only one can be used. So, the possibility is there, but the system will only come with one at this point."

I attended the TabCon (the convention for Tab cola enthusiasts) in Tallahassee two summers ago. Good times.

They still make Tab? and it has a convention?


themoreyouknow.gif

Knew they still made it.... can't tell if serious about the convention comment.

On a related note, I do hope I can go by the World of Coke in Atlanta this week... I sooooo want to try Beverly.

Yeah! Oh man! /Internet high five

If they do not have 2 tablet controllers, it will be a huge mistake.  There can never be true head to head competition because there will be a much different and presumably better game play experience for someone with the tablet controller.  Two controller support is my main hope for E3.

I think it's better for Nintendo to allow multiple controllers and let developers choose whether or not to use them then to not even give the choice.

Yeah, unnecessary self-imposed restrictions has always been one of Nintendo's major problems. The single circle pad being the latest example. Let 3rd parties decide what they want to use.

It will be interesting to know the % processor power is used for powering a fully 3D rendered game engine (versus just a menu) on the Wii U controller.

Reminds me of the FF games on DS pushing all power from both processors to the top screen.
Although it would be kind of boring just having a black blank screen on the Wii U controller.
But if that lets them run the next-gen level of games, why not!

As much as I like the idea of asynchronous multiplayer, there's so much more they could do with even just one more uMote. Options are a good thing, in almost any scenario involving a game system.

Am I the ONLY ONE who sees the McLarge Huge dose of sweet, dripping irony that this post involves due to its authorship? Please tell me I'm not.

Yes, you are. Care to explain?

I believe he's referring to the fact that, for once, NinSage is being negative about what Nintendo appears to be doing, while everyone else is happy and supportive of it.

Ah.

So in other words NinSage is the anti-Ian Sane? He's like Ian Sane's arch nemesis?

If you think about it, the names Ian Sane and NinSage are almost anagrams of each other. The only problem is Ian Sane is missing a G.

Should we fit with with an avatar of the Joker?

The Joker has to be flipping the bird, though. That would make it the opposite of Ian's avatar where Batman is giving a peace sign.

haha, those last few messages are pretty funny!

Unfortunately, Halbred mistakes my desire for equality as one-sided positivity.  I emphasize the positive and challenge the negative, yes, but only because the negative usually makes up about 90% of all gamer communication.  I've explained this many times but people would rather write me off as a blind fanboy.  Thus, the illusion of irony.

I participated in Operation Rainfall rather heavily... I just didn't go around b*tching about it.
I even penned this (rather unflattering to Reggie) comic strip about it: http://www.nintemple.com/images/comics/HighDem-006.png

I am still wondering WHY THE F*CK Club Nintendo hasn't restocked their 3DS Game Case since I've been wanting to buy it for months(?) now!! I just don't go around b*tching about it.

I think multi-tablet support would ultimately be a lose-lose for gamers and developers.  But possibly a win for Nintendo because ANY additional tablet sales would obviously be more profitable than no additional tablet sales.  So, again, I don't comment with Nintendo's interests in mind, just ours.  A gaming community that spends more time enjoying games than griping about them is in our best interests.

But now I'm just repeating what I've said again and again ... who will choose to listen this time?  Will it be ... you!?

PS - The positive/negative balance on the front page has been stellar lately.  I've tried to stick a supportive word in when I can but between a dissertation defense, 48 hours to make corrections, and yesterday's commencement, party, and late-night Mario Kart tourney on Negative World? There has been no time ... I'll play catch up this week!!

PPS - Speaking of catch up: Greg's leaving?  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :Q :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

I've read your past posts and no offense, I still cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can think this is true. I don't like paying for things either but that's the nature of consumerism.

I don't really see how this could possibly be bad for developers. They could choose to ignore the tablet controller. Your assertion that developers didn't support Motion Plus due to limited market saturation is only half true. Motion Plus wasn't the standard. The tablet controller is. It's the entire point of the Wii U. Had Motion Plus been available from launch, no one would be wishing it wasn't there due to the extra cost because ultimately, it's better technology and provided more options.

At least in the beginning, if simultaneous tablet controller play is available, I doubt any 3rd parties will require the tablet controller for multiplayer. The Classic Controller affords them that option. They could, in theory, port games as is from 360/PS3 though let's certainly hope not since that misses the point of the new hardware entirely. Additionally, that still requires that consumers to spend at least $60 (if prices today hold) or to have spent $60 at some point. It's important to give people options. I like options. You're basically supporting a No-Soup-For-You mentality.

@Adrock

It's a simple difference of opinion.  I see multiple tablet support as creating a fragmented market that will be difficult for both users and developers to navigate.  While others (like yourself) don't think it will be hard to navigate and thus see no need for unnecessary limits.

None of us can predict the future, so right now I doubt anyone can convince anyone else that their opinion is right or wrong, correct?

When the time is right, Nintendo will bundle the next Wii Play with a tablet and then all will be good.
Everyone will buy it, just like Wii fit before it, and then adoption rate won't be an issue. hopefully that time is at launch and it's the only way to buy a 2nd tablet for the first few months.

I'm always in favor of gamers having as many options as possible for how they want to play their games.  I personally wouldn't have use for a second tablet controller since I rarely play multiplayer games anymore (most online multiplayer games just aren't that fun to me, and Smash Bros. is boring without local multiplayer friends), but other gamers do want to play multi with a second tablet controller and it's good that we could both be accommodated.

Nintendo's big problem with the Wii wasn't that they fragmented the market with accessories like the Classic Controllers or the Motion+.  Their problem was that they fragmented the market and then rarely supported these additional controller options.  And because they didn't support them as the platform holder and the one making the games most gamers bought, 3rd parties rarely supported them as well.  Had Nintendo actually supported the Motion+ (outside of what...3 games?  Skyward Sword, Wii Sports Resort, and Zangeki no Reginleiv?), we probably would have seen a much wider adoption rate for it both by gamers and developers.  And you could say that for most of the Wii's accessories.

Clearly. Pointing that out is superfluous. However, I'm not trying to convince you that you are right or wrong. I just legitimately don't understand your opinion. I may not agree but I can still understand where you're coming from. As it stands, I don't.

@broodwars

We both see WM+ and the Balance Board as being under-supported and fragmenting the market.  That we agree on.  Fragmenting the market is unavoidable since some people will have these devices and some won't.

The only part where we differ is feeling anyone deserves blame.  You place it on Nintendo saying they did not support these items properly, while I believe they did the best they could and undersupport is just the nature of the beast in a fragmented market.

Look at the PERCENTAGE of first party games that supported WM+ and the BB.  Now what games from the remaining percentage would you like to have seen Nintendo use those accessories with?

WM+ for Kirby's Epic Yarn? for DKCR? for NSMBWii?
BB for Other M? SMG2? Skyward Sword?

What the heck else were they supposed to do to support these? Create another franchise with sword-play just to have an excuse for another game with a sword slash mechanic?  Make a THIRD installment in the Wii Fit franchise for the BB?

I would have loved to see more games like Red Steel 2 and Horizon Riders from third parties.  But it's risky for them and they want to minimize risk.

Also, as much as I love Horizon Riders and its concept, the balance board is really best suited as a fitness device.  And plenty of first and third party games took advantage of that.  There just weren't many developers taking a risk on a traditional game style with that device.

@Adrock

Yea, and I'm not trying to convince you. I just legitimately don't understand your opinion.  I can see how it would make sense given certain assumptions.  I just believe those assumptions to be false.

So, I offered that we just agree to disagree and to just see what plays out in the future, right? =)

Well only some people will have multiple Wii Remotes, or Classic Controllers; should Nintendo not support those either because of the fragmented market?

No, the Classic Controller (+ Pro) should have been supported in Kirby's Epic Yarn, DKCR, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii.  Sakamoto's maternal fanfic (Other M) and the Mario Galaxy $50 Expansion Pack (I liked it, but it was so unnecessary IMO) shouldn't have existed.  ;)    But if those games just had to exist, they should have supported the Classic Controller as well, especially the Galaxy series with that godawful tacked-on motion control spin attack that should have been a button to begin with.

YES.  For the love of all that is good and holy, YES.  By all means I'd love to see Nintendo actually create a new IP based around more involved (and realistic, which Zelda certainly wasn't) sword combat (whereas Zelda is more of a puzzle game these days than straight-out action), rather than some of these other games they made for Wii.  From what I've heard, that's sort of what Zangeki no Reginleiv was like, but we never got that here in the States.

And Nintendo wouldn't have to make a sword-based game, either.  From my own experience with the Tiger Woods series on Wii, the difference between the Motion+ controls and the Wiimote-only controls is staggering.  The fact that Nintendo only created it for swordplay and Wii Sports mini-games shows just how little imagination they have.  If they never intended to support Motion+ with actual games, we'd almost be better off if it never existed.  As it stands it barely exists now.

Resurrect Project H.A.M.M.E.R. with Motion+ controls!

Also, Galaxy 2 is an amazing game, and I don't care how unnecessary something is, if you can pull it off that well you get a pass on it. Apart from that I'm with you, broodwars.

Mario Golf. With Wii Motion +. 'Nuff said.

There's no excuse for DKCR, Kirby, and Other M not having at least the OPTION of Classic Controller support. It must not be hard to do, because virtually every VC game supports it.

There was also FlingSmash and Wii Play Motion. Yes, I realize these don't help at all, but they exist.

I brought it up earlier in the thread, but by the logic of multiple controller fragmenting the market, why would any developer ever make a local multiplayer game? After all, not everyone will have four controllers. And why would anyone do multiplayer games that include the Nunchuk. I mean, that's like $180 more to play four-player multiplayer.

Does that mean Nintendo should only make Mario Kart and Smash Bros a one-player game, because not everyone will have four controllers. Obviously there is a single-player component to those games, but I would assume Wii U games that would support two tablet controllers (props to Carmine and co.) would likely have a single-player aspect that supports one.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the logic of one controller being positive and okay, but all it does to me is cut down a lot of possibilities. I think the confirmation of one tablet controller support at E3 would go right alongside Nintendo saying you can't bring your WiiWare/VC with you to Wii U as one of the announcements that would have me supremely doubting Nintendo and Wii U.

Well now those last few posts were quite frustrating.  It's ok if folks gang up on me for differences of opinion.  But it's not cool for people to do so without bothering to understand what I'm saying.

Let's take a look at a line I should apparently have bolded from my second post in this thread ...

THAT is why I think in THIS case the fragmentation would be problematic.

So ...

Can we imagine these posts never happened?

@broodwars

You made some good points.  I'm half watching a movie with some friends now but I would like to address them when I have some more time either later tonight or tomorrow.

One thing first though, I AGREE that that there is no excuse for not having CC(P) support for a whole host of games (first party and otherwise).  Let me say that again, I completely agree with you on that and I can't fathom why more developers (1st + 3rd) have not included CC(P) support!!

But we really have to leave the CC(P) out of this conversation because it is not different enough as an INPUT DEVICE that it would NECESSITATE a fragmentation in design.  Know what I mean?  For the sake of keeping this conversation clear in focus we should keep it to peripherals that truly have unique inputs.

The CC(P) is basically a WM+NC that is not being shaken.  Agreed?

No, it is a completely different input device from a Wiimote + Nunchuk.  There are more buttons (and an extra stick, which sane developers use for the camera in modern games and Nintendo used for attacks in Smash Bros. as well), they are in a completely different layout, and they are differently named.  The CC and it's CCP successor offer a completely different playing experience from merely the Wiimote and the Nunchuk.  Nintendo's lack of support for the CCP is completely relevant to this discussion since it's a device that outside of the Virtual Console and some WiiWare has barely been supported by Nintendo (Smash Bros. Brawl and Xenoblade being the two most notable exceptions I can think of).

By your logic, it would be Motion+ that would be completely irrelevant here since all it does is merely make the Wiimote do what Nintendo promised it would at launch.

... the layout and naming of the buttons make ergonomic difference but not much game design difference.  My bottom line is that there aren't too many things you can do with a CCP that you can't do with a wm+nc.

And no, my logic doesn't say that AT ALL.  The WM+ can do things the WM literally cannot.  The 2nd stick on the CCP is snazzy, but you can still use the wiimote dpad for very similar functions.  Extra buttons? Yea, that WOULD be an issue if said game REQUIRED that many buttons, but, quite plainly, not many games on Nintendo platforms do - and that's by design.

So, it's gonna keep this conversation leaning more towards cluster eff levels of included variables, but, if you insist....

Also, can you stop saying Nintendo when you talk about support? The third parties make games too.  Assuming these peripherals are worth using (which is the assumption you would have to make if you're arguing for MORE support), don't act like the third parties shouldn't try to deliver better play experiences too.

For anyone licking their chops at my admission of a Nintendo shortcoming, let me remind you again about my above statements regarding finding fault in Nintendo and overall CC support.

3rd parties don't make Nintendo's peripherals, so it's not their responsibility to support them when Nintendo does not.  And on Nintendo consoles, how Nintendo drives up interest in their peripherals with their games determines whether 3rd parties think it's worth their time to support them as well.  Nintendo's responsible for the things they make, not 3rd parties.  If Nintendo was supporting the Classic Controller/Wii Motion+/etc. in their games and 3rd parties weren't you'd have a point.  But more often than not it's the other way around.

$180 is required to get three Wii Remotes and Nunchuks. I would assume that an additional tablet would be less than that total. The tablet controller might not be $40, but it's not going to be $180.

I did see your earlier point, but since it's not feasible for that thing to be $40, it didn't factor into that my posts.


Also, I agree that four tablet controllers would fragment the market, because let's face it, we're looking at like $70-$100 for each tablet. That's a huge barrier for entry. I'm not arguing for four, though. I'm arguing for two.


So yea, I'd like to pretend my posts happen, thankyouverymuch.

Side note: I don't say those things about you say, whether you meant that to be harsh or not, it came off like my opinion didn't matter. You do that often to people, and then rage when people do it to you. Remember that.

Why develop a game for the Wii U at all?

You're going to fragment your market place between those who have a Wii U and those who only have a Wii.  Wouldn't it be better to make a single player Wii game, then all Wii and Wii U owners could play - it'd have lower development costs, lower costs to the consumer (used Wiis are like $75!) and no market fragmentation!  Win-win-win for all around!

@broodwars

So you only care about peripheral support from the sales perspective? See, I thought you cared because you felt the right peripheral added to the game experience - the responsibility of the developer.  Now I see your point, why would third parties want to give a better experience if its not their wallet getting lined, right?  ::)

Again, if you want to work out that percentage of 1st party games and prove that Nintendo doesn't support their stuff, go on ahead.  I believe Nintendo does support their peripherals... in fact, haven't people complained over this past generation that Nintendo focused too much on games that used peripherals?

And hey, I'd love it too if they could just keep making new IPs and more and more types of games (as long as they kept the same level of quality).  But Nintendo does not have infinite time or staff and it does try not to spread itself too thin for the sake of quantity over quality.  So, what we get is what we get ... it's funny to hear someone say Nintendo isn't imaginative  :P: : haha  ;D

@Neal

You are mistaken if you thought my point was guessing the price of the tablet at $40, and thus ignored it.  My point was the EXPENSE of the controller being a unique barrier in this circumstance.

Then you compare the cost of 1 extra tablet to 3 sets of WM+NC and you don't think that's apples and oranges?  You admit the total cost of 3 tablets would cost more, so, what's your point in bringing up that price?

People keep going using extreme examples (why even have controllers at all, NinSage!?).  We have to be reasonable to have a reasonable discussion.

I was not trying to dismiss what you said.  I was trying to save face for some folks by "pretending it didn't happen" that you ignored my point.  Also, you talk about rage... look around the threads.  Am I really being more impolite? Or does it just seem that way when my opinions differ from everyone else's (who is talking).

@UncleBob

Well that didn't help the discussion any but it was funny! So, thanks for contributing comedy.  That has its place here too.

Seriously though, what you said is actually true and all companies would love to do that.  Consumers might also enjoy not spending top dollar.  However, the reason that doesn't happen is simply because of competition.  Some company blinks first and once that happens consumers have a taste for something new, the old stuff becomes less desirable by comparison and everyone has to move on.

That's not what I said.  At all.  I said that Nintendo has to establish an environment where these peripherals are supported, and it is their responsibility to do so with their own games because these are their peripherals.  And if Nintendo can't be bothered to support their own peripherals, why should 3rd parties do their work for them?  I'm happy when they do use controllers like the Classic Controller Pro while Nintendo is busy forcing less-optimal control methods into their games, but from an objective standpoint I can't blame them if they don't when Nintendo ensures that their audience don't use certain hardware by not supporting it.

No.  I'm not playing your little game and wasting time I'd much rather be putting into Starhawk right now (yes, yes...I know.  Irony.  I'm playing a multiplayer-centric game when I just said I rarely play multiplayer games.  What can I say?  Starhawk is the best non-Robotech Robotech game I've ever played, and I do love my Robotech.  :cool; )  You want to justify your point with "proof" rather than just acting like your opinion is a truism?  Go right ahead.

Not quite.  The complaint is that Nintendo has focused on making 1 or 2 peripheral-focused games for a single peripheral and then summarily abandoning it, which is pretty much what Nintendo has done since at least the N64 era.

I am a proud owner of a Super Scope. And a Mario Paint Mouse Pad.

As I said, "since at least the N64 era."  ;)

It's not my "little game" to have a discussion based on evidence.  I provide links and data whenever people want.  It's not an insult to go do some research to augment our points, right?

I'll gladly provide that percentage withing 24 hours if it means you'll stop thinking I'm overly demanding in the future when I request the same level of fact-based arguments.  Do we have a deal?

My argument is that, yes, Nintendo makes a few games showing off what a peripheral can do, but then they make OTHER games.  Again, they don't have infinite resources.  They can't supply a library of games for each peripheral.  Especially since you are also complaining that they don't branch out enough with new ideas.  I mean, I like Nintendo, but they aren't gods.  :)

So, while you see making 1 or 2 games and then "abandoning," I see ... sensible game design.  NSMBWii doesn't need to use a balance board or WM+.  Should it use the CC? Yes, but we've been over that.  So, I for one am glad they made that game instead of Wii Fit 3 or a third Wii Sports game.

They showed off what their devices can do which opens the door for future first AND third parties to make enticing products.  I don't see what's so bad about that.

~~~

Yay, Robotech!  I played that PS2 game, BattleCry was it? It was ok.  I also modded my PSX back in the day so I could play an import copy of some Macross game.  It was also pretty good but I couldn't understand a lot of what I was being told to do  :P: :

Honest to god, I met a guy named Rick Hunter a few weeks ago.  He is in to gaming, which means he runs in circles that include geeks, so he says he's had the conversation about his name and Robotech several times and has a veritech (sp?) on his desk at home.  I told him I had the Skull One on mine  ;D

I find myself agreeing with much of what is said here. To me however, these are "micro-concerns" to the macro-concern that Nintendo pretty much in general failed to support the Wii adequately over the last couple of years. Yeah, I know the pattern pretty much follows Nintendo's M.O. but its hard not to shake my head when the platform holder fails so badly to support the most popular system with adequate software.
However, and this is nitpicking, I disagree with Broodwars when he says Galaxy 2 felt unnecessary...inline with your other arguments that Motion+ should have seen more support, that system as a whole deserved more content. I am a believer that it is not the Wii's graphics that undid its momentum the past couple of years it was the lack of new content.

I agree with you that the question should not be "would multi-tab support be a good thing" because as many including yourself already stated, more options for developers shouldn't hurt (at least post-launch frame when publishers may demand controller specific features be CRAMMed in to a game).
Looking at these comments concerning the price of a standalone tablet controller however, my question is rather how feasible it would be for Nintendo to pursue this feature. From a business sense, I can't help but think it would be very difficult to put these out on retail shelves...following the purchase of a $300 console, the $50-60 new game that supports multi-tab and then this second controller...man, it is a lot to expect enough willing customers to make multi-tab development worthwhile.

The price of the controller may well be the major barrier; anyone care to break this down? For the record, like Neal I figure above $60-70 is pretty much no-mans land for such a device.

Just for fun, my super-juvenile attempt:
(referencing rumoured production cost figures from forgetthebox.net)
Early Bill of Materials estimate: ~$50
Manufacturing cost (Foxconn): ~$3
Packaging and Distro: ~$4
Retailer margin: %20 (conservative? they would want sweet returns esp. for this shelf hog!)
Publisher margin: %20 (ditto)
Hackneyed Conclusion: Looks awfully close to $90-100. Nintendo might elect to take a haircut on their margin to get it out there but...I doubt they would want to do that.

Again, this is based on rumoured BOM and inferred figures that ultimately came from U-Know-Where. Would love it if anyone with a better grasp of the costs could enlighten us!

NinSage - Now who's the one not listening to the other?

As I said, I'm not saying it should have four tablet controller support. I'm saying it should have two. I think four would fragment the market. I think two wouldn't anymore than four controllers do.

@Neal

Dude, you're trying to take this high horse like I'm so impolite when I am bending over backwards to yield meaningful discussion.  At the same time, you're constantly inventing scenarios to make me look bad.

You don't want four controllers, I got that, but you talked about the cost of 4 total sets of WM+NC.  So, in order for your argument to make any sense at all, you have to compare it to 4 tablets.  So how the hell was I in the wrong there?

If you didn't want to compare apples to oranges, fine.  But you did, so I brought some more apples.  Simple as that.

If I missed something or misunderstood something, I apologize and feel free to clarify (not such a bad thing, right?).  Other than that, please stop accusing me of things I'm trying very hard not to do just for the sake of some "OH SNAP!" comment.  It didn't work for Halbred earlier and it's not working for you now.

@broodwars

The offer on those figures still stands.  Just say the word ... also feel free to respond to the Robotech stuff.  I think we're allowed to not take things personally and still have light-hearted conversations here, right?  :)

@Uncle_Optimus

Stellar post.  Very well thought out and reasoned.

My guess for the tablet controller is also in the $80 to $100 range if they sell it separately.  And again, I'm not saying multi-tab support wouldn't lead to more fun game OPTIONS.  I just think the financial barrier would be too big to leave the audience and developers in anything but a tight spot.

NinSage - I'm not trying to take the high horse or anything. You're just twisting what I'm saying.

I'm not comparing 4 Wii Remotes/Nunchuks to 4 Wii U controllers because, to me, I don't think 4 Wii U controllers are feasible. That's all. I agree with you that 4 Wii U controllers would fragment the market severely. That's why I'm saying 2 would be awesome, because I don't think it'll fragment the market, because it's not any different than the barrier for entry for four players using Wii Remotes/Nunchuks.

I'm not going for a "gotcha!" moment. I'm not trying to say you're being impolite. I'm just trying to make my point clear because, from your writing, it doesn't seem like you're getting what I'm saying. I might be doing the same thing, making us both at fault for a little. On that same note, you've done the "gotcha!" moment to me a few times, trying to make me look bad.

Disagree.  Hit us with some quotes if you want.

Agree!! I think we finally understand each other since you clarified with this ...

Now I see how you made a case for a situation where apples could be viewed as oranges.  Now I get it and, in this sense, we're not really saying such different things.  I'm sorry it took so long and I appreciate you acknowledging that while I could have comprehended better you could have been more clear.

I don't know how I would feel about a limit of TWO tablet controllers as support.  I guess that would be a good middle ground.  Not such a HUGE barrier to really fragment the audience but also gives people more options.

However, would other people in this thread be satisfied with a LIMIT of two tablets?

~~~

Good post, Neal.  Thank you!

Ninsage, many here are suspicious that the Wii U will ultimately only support one stream...IF E3 announces 2 tablet capability there WILL be backflips and high fives and pink lemonade :D


...until the time comes to pony up for one. I can't help but foresee Nintendo being in a "damned if they do and damned if they don't" scenario.... if they do it, a vocal component may ultimately conclude they dropped the ball and did not utilize the feature enough (in this case, the reason would likely be that not enough people bought extra tablets to spend additional development resources implementing and balancing multi-tablet functionality). If they don't, they will be dogged for the entire life cycle of the platform for "what could and should have been".
I don't envy them this situation (but I do envy all their Pokemon-begotten money bins)

At Wii Launch I brought home four total Wii Remotes and four total nunchuks day one. Nintendo, do your worst. I dare you.

I think I will side with NinSage just for kicks.

I will gladly pay for a second tablet controller. I know not everyone will or wants to but that's not something I can control. If Nintendo makes it work, I want to support it. 2 controllers is probably where I draw the line because I typically only buy 1 extra controller, for my brother or a friend (I rarely ever have more than 1 person over who wants to play videogames). I have a pretty large TV and I plan on getting an even larger TV in the next year or 2. However, I still don't really like split screen beyond 2 players.

I like options though I think having so many different compatible controllers may be problematic for Nintendo. I suppose they're at the mercy of what developers actually support. I can't see many publishers trying to market a game that limited itself to 1 option so I expect 3 options for the vast majority of games: Wii Remote Plus with Nunchuck, Classic Controller, and Tablet Controller. Of course, there would be a brave publisher who would absolutely requires say tablet controllers for multiplayer (my guess would be Square-Enix) but that would be the exception, not the rule.

We don't yet know what controllers will cost but this being Nintendo, I can't imagine they will be more than $70. If the part cost rumour is anywhere near accurate, it could even be $60, which is the same as the Wiimote and Nunchuk. Parts costs also go down as time goes on, and although we didn't see the Wii's controllers drop in price, we probably would see the tablet controller drop in price if it's more than $40.

It's pretty much a given that whatever Microsoft and Sony's next system are going to be, they will have more powerful hardware than the Wii U. The tablet controller will be its main reason for existing just as the Wiimote and Nunchuk were with the Wii, so you can bet I want support for 4 of them. I know that's not going to happen though, which will make multiplayer games pretty much a Wii with better graphics. That may be fine for most people but I want more than that.

But it's all speculation for now and it's anyone's guess what will end up happening. Whatever it is, it should be interesting to see.

As far as Nintendo's peripherals are concerned, I don't believe they were ever made for more than one game in mind. For example, the Balance Board, I don't think Nintendo ever intended to use this with any game other than Wii Fit, which is why the board is bundled with Wii Fit and you can't buy it separately. Same with the wheel, it was just for Mario Kart, though it was sold separately but that's because Mario Kart is a multiplayer game. Nintendo didn't pledge more support for these accessories so they were not misrepresented, and I have no problem with them existing solely for the one game for which they were created.

The only complicated accessory is the Wii Motion Plus. Not only was the accessory quickly bundled with all Wiimotes and Wii systems, but it was soon built into the Wiimote itself at no extra cost. It seems like Nintendo pushed hard to make this the new standard, but haven't released all that many games for it (though still more than their intended one-off accessories). However, since the Wii U will use Wiimotes, I don't think we've seen the last of the Motion Plus. Who knows, maybe part of the reason they made it the new standard is because they knew it would be a primary controller on the Wii U and wanted people to have them.

@Uncle_Optimus

+1000

@ShyGuy

+1.  Thanks, bud.  :)

Exactly.

I do believe WM+ will be the standard for all Wii U games (not in place of the tablet mind you, in place of the plain wiimote).  I give Nintendo a ton of credit for sticking with the wiimote into this next gen.  I think that will work out well for us, developers and Nintendo.

@UncleBob

Never said that's what I wanted.

I was just explaining how what you said, however comically, was actually rooted in sense.

So... you do or don't want Nintendo to put a 1-Tablet limit on the system?

That? Yes.  The thing I elaborated on from your prior post? No.

And what would stop Sony or Microsoft from introducung a multi-tablet system?  Obviously, there's a significant portion of gamers and some developers who want to see it happen.

um, the same thing that stops any company from copying another? Nothing.

But that doesn't mean it makes any difference.  Kinect and Move tried pretty hard to "improve" on the Wii ... neither one even matched the Wii in terms of units sold or library of games, let alone surpass it.

In other words, number of tablets supported will not be the deciding factor in Wii U's success or lack there of.

Sony already has multi tablet compatible HD console(s) on the market, it's just they don't currently communicate with each other, or have any software.

NEW Sony Multi Tablet Console - comes packed in with 2x PSV controllers, for the low low price of $750! ;-P

Actually...put that way... hmmmmm...

Yet the 360 is getting some major Kinect titles we're not getting on the Wii. And the 360 has been outselling the Wii of late...

For some perspective, the Kinect has been out for a year and a half and has already surpassed the lifetime sales of the GameCube and possibly the Xbox.

Hasn't the 3DS also surpassed the GameCube, or was that just in Japan? Point being, that's not that high of a bar. I mean, I loved that system, but it really did not sell well.

Yeah, I really loved the GameCube. Such an underrated console. I played so many great games on it. Probably my second favorite home console after SNES.

You also have to remember the gaming market was a lot smaller 10 years ago, so what the Gamecube did sell back then, while not great, isn't as bad as it seems by today's standards.

@ChozoGhost

Yea, but the unexpanded audience didn't hurt the PS2 much, now did it?  :)


@UncleBob

I don't pay attention to specific Kinect titles.  Let alone "major" ones.  What are they gettin'?

And what do you think is the bigger reason, Kinect or 1st/3rd party focus on the 3DS and Wii U (as opposed to the Wii)?

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't understand your answer here. YES, you want a one-tablet limit; or YES, you do support multiple-tablet support?

@Halbred

You're not stupid.  But, if you were to guess, what do you think my stance is?

Dude, just...which one?

The PS2 also had about 90% market share, which is something none of the 3 consoles today have come close to grabbing (well, maybe the Wii in the early years, but the Wii's market share has since then shrunk drastically). The market 10 years ago was a lot smaller than it is today, but the PS2 had almost all of it to itself.

The unexpanded market didn't hurt the PS2, but if there was a system today which had 90% market share that would be like 200+ million units sold compared to the 100 million or so with the PS2.

Also consider the example of the NES which like the PS2 also had a near monopoly of the market in its era. But the NES only sold 60 million or so, and that's like half that of the PS2. So it shows how much the market has grown over the last 20 or so years. Apparently in the late 80s 60 million represented pretty much the entirety of the gaming market as it existed at that time. During the PS2's period it was about twice that... and now its about twice that of the PS2 era.

10 years from now the gaming market will probably have grown again to double what it is today.

If we're using total sales as the only indication of market size, then the market hasn't grown much since the last generation.

PS2: 154.4 million
XBox: ~24 million
GameCube: 21.74 million
Total: 201.14 million

Wii: 95.85
XBox 360: 67.2
PS3: 63.9 million
Total: 226.95

I'm not good at figuring out percentages, but I want to say that a 25 million increase is around 12.5%. Certainly not "a lot larger" than the previous generation, nor does it make the GameCube's low numbers seem any better. Conversely, I'm not convinced that "casual" gamers didn't exist before the Wii, they just had a PS2.

Of course, this doesn't factor handhelds into the equation. The DS and PSP combined sold over 200 million units, so when you combine that with home consoles, the market has definitely increased. But the home console market isn't much larger than it was last generation.

@Halbred

@Mop it up

Bingo!

A growth of 25 million isn't a lot? Also, how much of that PS2 sales occurred after that generation ended? Because its still selling even now. Also, this generation isn't technically over yet either. I'm not sure when you can call this generation officially over, but it would at least have to wait until the Wii U is out.

@Mop It Up while this makes for an interesting comparison, we must keep in mind that sales totals are still changing. For instance, we just received Sony's (very bad and sad) fiscal year earnings report and their projections for the next fiscal year. First of all, the last-gen PS2 continues to sell with Sony's revised total at 155.1 million.
At the same time of course this year will see significant unit sales of PS3, and while Sony combines PS2+PS3 projections! It is safe to say that they anticipate and hope for about 15.5 million PS3s sold.


Nintendo meanwhile has also rolled their console projections together estimating 10.5 million...of that we have to guess the split between Wii and WiiU. It is probably conservative to say around 6 million Wii will be sold.


Finally, Microsoft is on a different fiscal reporting schedule than it's Japanese competitors and they are due to report in July. However, given that they their sales totals are fairly in-line with the PS3 worldwide, we can conservatively estimate now that they would also project 14+ million units sold over this next year. Plus they now have that super-sweet $99 360 bundle to drive sales, Amirite?!


Anyway, it still too early to compare these console generations definitively, but I would say the final total will reflect significant industry growth and a large part of that has been due to the humble Wii.


Now the $100 billion challenge for the industry is to figure out if it can maintain their growth from this gen, much less make it grow further in the next cycle!


(numbers from the Internet)


Edit: my point has been USURPED by C. Ghost in FAR fewer words !!!!!!!1

We have to be careful about something here.  If I'm not mistaken, we're trying to use consoles sold as a reflection of total audience size, right?

That's good if you want to look at big picture numbers and say, "yes, the audience has definitely expanded."  Especially since the PS2, then of course the huge handheld market (mostly (3)DS).

However, we mustn't split hairs or risk losing the point of the conversation.  Yes, the PS2 is still selling, but how many of those are new customers?  How many of those are people replacing broken systems? How many of those are old customers upgrading to the sleek, sexy, and space-efficient PS2 slim?

What about the 360? How many of those are re-purchases from RRODs?

What about for the Gamecube? How many of those were purchased after its generation and duct-taped together to form the Wii?  :P: : ;D  ahhh see? A sense of humor is good.


Anyway, what I'm getting at is, there are too many variables (as Optimus was beginning to summarize) so if we want to look at the big picture? Fine.  But beyond that it's very shaky ground.

Is the industry growing? Especially since the PS2? Based on my observations: yes.

Can it grow beyond this point? I believe it will eventually, but I think it will be more due to gamers getting older and new generations joining them.  I don't think we will see another "expanded audience" like we did with the PS2 and Wii anytime soon.

Well, the point that was originally brought up was that the gaming industry has grown, so the GameCube's sales aren't as bad as they seem because the market was smaller then.

So let's assume that when all is said and done, this generation will have 20% more systems sold than the previous generation. 20% of the GameCube's sales is around 4 million, so let's say that the GameCube would sell 25 million systems if the market were as large as it is today. Is 25 million systems really any better than 21 million, especially given the PS2's 150 million+ sales (which would be 180 million+ with a 20% increase)? To me, that's just as poor.

That is a good point, but it is cancelled out by the fact that the PS2 also had a fairly high failure rate, so of those 150 or so million sold, a good chunk of those were actually replacement systems and not actually an indication of the install base growing.

@Mop it up

Well said.

@ChozoGhost

Good point.

... is it weird that I do kinda want a sleek and sexy PS2 slim?  ;D I just can't justify it while my PS2 can still (eventually) read discs just fine.  And I would never root for a console to die... that's just mean.

From what I understand the Slim PS2s are mostly inferior to the one you already have. With the slim Sony stripped everything out to a bare minimum in order to reduce costs. This means it can't use things like the hard drive, for example, so the games which depend on that won't work with it.

If you want a PS2 to play games, then the Slim is just fine.

Weren't there barely a handful of games that used the PS2 hard drive?  And what are the odds of finding one of those hard drives at this point anyway?

Yeah, it was like Final Fantasy XI and. . .uh. . .something else. . .probably

Yeah, IMO you can play all the best games on the PS2 right now without the HDD, at least when it comes to its extensive list of RPGs.  And it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to go back and get a PS2 to play something other than the RPGs, especially with Sony having PS3 HD versions of pretty much all the notable PS2 non-RPGs.  As for the Slim, that was the model I owned back when I had a PS2 and it's a fine machine.

But wasn't RPGs the exact sort of games which DID require the HDD? Wasn't the HDD even bundled with a certain version of FF?

Yeah, FF XI, the MMO.  And unless you really want to play a PS2 MMO, I think you can skip it.  I owned probably most of what I'd consider the best RPGs on PS2, and they all worked fine without a hard drive.  You'll just need to make sure you have a memory card.

If someone wanted to go back and play FFXI, assuming the servers are even still up, there are better ways to do so.

Like the Xbox 360 or PC versions of the game. And I believe the servers are still up.