Topic: Switchmas Eve Rumors and Speculations Thread

[Stogi]

Even if it's motion plus version 2 on both the right and left halves of the controller?

[BranDonk Kong]

Tegra X1 is pretty strong, but over a year old now and can't compete with Xbone or PS4. I have a Shield Android TV with the X1.

[nickmitch]

Even if it's motion plus version 2 on both the right and left halves of the controller?

Honestly, I'd rather have the screen make a return than a controller that splits in half for motion controls. Even if we get an improved WM+ in both halves.

[Adrock]

No reason why we can't have both. The components for Motion Plus are super cheap now that it can be sold on the side with little to no fanfare just for Virtual Console support. If it's appropriate for a game, I'd rather it be there than not. Motion controls have played such a big part in Nintendo's history that they'll always be a thing though I wouldn't shocked if certain games were retro-fitted with a traditional controls option just so Nintendo can sell more Virtual Console games. Super Mario Galaxy comes to mind.

I'd probably buy an NX Remote/Nunchuk just to have it.

[Kairon]

Nintendo is abandoning optical media as it's no longer a viable storage solution for video games. The sheer amount of data of most modern games cannot be read fast enough from an optical disc to display on a screen. This solves a couple of issues. No disc drive cuts cost and no discs mean no installations. Shared library games can be scaled up, but a better solution would be to have the higher resolution textures on the game card and the hardware detects which to display. 540p scales to 1080p easier so expect the handheld screen(s) to be 540p. I suspect digital versions will simply include the texture pack you need depending on the hardware you're playing on. No need to have the larger, higher resolution textures on the handheld.

I can see the sense in this. I'm just still coming to terms with the idea. Not because I'm opposed to it, but because it just never entered my mind as a possibility before.

Tegra X1 is pretty strong, but over a year old now and can't compete with Xbone or PS4. I have a Shield Android TV with the X1.

I thought the idea was that the Tegra X1 would go in the handheld, and a more powerful chipset of similar architecture would make it into the home console itself?

So am I alone in hoping that motion controls return?

I'm in for continued support of Wii Remotes for motion controls. Was playing Just Dance 2016 only a couple hours ago!

And my speculation has the Handheld becoming a "screened" controller such that there is no longer a dedicated GamePad unit, but a Handheld that switches function to act like a Wii U GamePad.

[Spak-Spang]

I would rather double down in motion controls and forget the double screen strategy.

[Kairon]

I would rather double down in motion controls and forget the double screen strategy.

That's why I like the idea of putting the Handheld console in "slave" mode to imitate a GamePad. It means you can still support Dual-screen gameplay but without blocking any other avenues of support.

[Stogi]

Right. And in that way, you could explore both avenues of gameplay. There are still so many good ideas for games that could use a handheld screen or motion controls or both. I'd still like to play madden against my friend where I can draw up plays on the fly or a card game where my hand is hidden. I'd also like to explore ambidextrous motion controlled gameplay, where one hand needs to move in a different way than the other, ie patting your head and rubbing your stomach. There is potential for some really innovated games. And if both halves of the controller also have IR sensors, eg. dual reticules in FPS's, that would be interesting as well.

[Kairon]

I'd also like to explore ambidextrous motion controlled gameplay, where one hand needs to move in a different way than the other, ie patting your head and rubbing your stomach. There is potential for some really innovated games. And if both halves of the controller also have IR sensors, eg. dual reticules in FPS's, that would be interesting as well.

I wouldn't think this would require two halves of a controller... just two Wii Remotes.

[nickmitch]

No reason why we can't have both.

I think there is.  Having both raises the question of whether you make a game for one input, the other, or both simultaneously.  It also means packaging both, unless you can make one controller that envelopes both concepts.  But if you're going with the former, you enter a situation where you could have 5+ input methods for a console, like the Wii U.  I don't think that's an ideal situation.

I would rather double down in motion controls and forget the double screen strategy.

That's why I like the idea of putting the Handheld console in "slave" mode to imitate a GamePad. It means you can still support Dual-screen gameplay but without blocking any other avenues of support.

I disagree.  I think this puts you in a GBA/GC situation where the console supports this functionality, but the asking price is far too high (need both systems, multiple handhelds for multiplayer) to be practical for the consumer, and too niche for a developer to make games for.  I don't think it's viable for Nintendo to half-ass any feature.  They have to double down on one or the other.

[Stogi]

I'd also like to explore ambidextrous motion controlled gameplay, where one hand needs to move in a different way than the other, ie patting your head and rubbing your stomach. There is potential for some really innovated games. And if both halves of the controller also have IR sensors, eg. dual reticules in FPS's, that would be interesting as well.

I wouldn't think this would require two halves of a controller... just two Wii Remotes.

If you bring back Wiimotes or even an advanced new version, you'd run into the same problem as the Wii where you had several accessories. It's a clumsy solution.

But if you were to make a controller that looks like a broken PS4 controller, then you'd be able to play every game (more comfortably I might add) without the need for extra hardware. Plus, maybe the game doesn't call for motion controls often, but when it does, it's with both hands. You wouldn't swap controllers then and so you've essentially told developers to never do that.

No reason why we can't have both.

I think there is.  Having both raises the question of whether you make a game for one input, the other, or both simultaneously.  It also means packaging both, unless you can make one controller that envelopes both concepts.  But if you're going with the former, you enter a situation where you could have 5+ input methods for a console, like the Wii U.  I don't think that's an ideal situation.

I would rather double down in motion controls and forget the double screen strategy.

That's why I like the idea of putting the Handheld console in "slave" mode to imitate a GamePad. It means you can still support Dual-screen gameplay but without blocking any other avenues of support.

I disagree.  I think this puts you in a GBA/GC situation where the console supports this functionality, but the asking price is far too high (need both systems, multiple handhelds for multiplayer) to be practical for the consumer, and too niche for a developer to make games for.  I don't think it's viable for Nintendo to half-ass any feature.  They have to double down on one or the other.

Point taken. But wasn't you that mentioned the VC? You would need that type of support regardless of if a developer would take advantage of it.


More importantly, if NX is a platform, than it would be very strange for the hardware it resides on to not communicate with one another.

[nickmitch]

Point taken. But wasn't you that mentioned the VC? You would need that type of support regardless of if a developer would take advantage of it.


More importantly, if NX is a platform, than it would be very strange for the hardware it resides on to not communicate with one another.

You don't need motion controls for a VC that goes from the NES through the GC/DS.  You do, however, forfeit Wii backwards compatibility, but that may be worth losing in order to reduce the controller options to a practical number.


Plus, if the NX has a handheld and a console aspect, and the two talk to eachother; that plays 100% into the gamepad concept and 0% into dual motion controls.  No handheld will be two pieces, so the only way to have games work on both is to double down on the gamepad.  Plus, a handheld with a touch screen more easily acts as a controller for a console that has a controller with a touch screen than a console with a two piece controller with motion controls.

[Stogi]

You think the main console controller is going to have a touchscreen? I was betting it wouldn't. And if it doesn't, then the only reason not to have motion controls would be for parity with the handheld games, which is likely the focus of NX as a whole.

But this is a situation where you can have your cake and eat it too. Remember it is the console that has the severe droughts and lack of support, not the handheld. So games are more likely to be ported from the handheld to the console and not the other way around. This is assuming, of course, that game versions are sold separately. And if that's the case and depending on how much motion controls cost, it might be worth it to include with the console.

You'd be able to give developers who want to focus on the console the ability to make something unique, something different from the handheld/console game hybrids. You'd get to add many more games to the VC. You'd have much more experience with motion controls. And it would still be used to play all the handheld ports as it can be used as a regular controller.

So TLDR if the main controller for the console doesn't have a screen and if game versions are sold separately, then there is no downside to providing motion controls other than the cost to implement them into the controller. The upsides are three-fold. 1, you make the console unique, ie handheld has portability, the console has motion controls. 2, you could add Wii games to the VC. 3, Nintendo can use the already learned experience to make better motion control games.

[Spak-Spang]

Here is what I think.  I have said this repeatedly but I will say it again.

Nintendo hit on something special with the Wii...and instead of following up with the next innovative step truly fulfilling the motion control vision, they tried to hit another homerun with a new interface.  That new interface failed for SO many reasons.

1) It was expensive
2) It couldn't be used as multiple controllers
3) It sent a mix message with too many accessories (Wii motes, Classic Controller Pro, Wii U Game Pad)  It was just confusing.

I want to simplify it again and diversify.  Double down on being different, but perfect your difference.  IF you can get motion control without need for calibration and perfect it's movement recognition and response times and be able to add a few more buttons to make the Remote part function as comfortable and competent SNES controller then you would be set.
  I could see something like the Microsoft Pro Controller where you could change and have a second analog stick attacked.  Then that could be interesting. 

I believe Nintendo had a good thing going when it was the go to secondary console to own because it offered a quality unique experience you couldn't get on other consoles.  I think they lost that some with the Wii U.   

[ThePerm]

When I bought the Wii I got the original one. I bought an extra controller, and then a bunch of classic controllers. Eventually I had to buy a wii motion plus adapter. I play my wii u games all the time. Any wii game takes additional setup and is annoying. Starfox Zero is kinda annoying. I don't have a special seat at my current place to sit directly in front of the tv. I'm not standing up like I would for wii sports. Bleh. Around mid-wii generation I stopped playing because I was annoyed with the whole setup. I was just uncomfortable playing games. The games I ended up liking the most didn't even use precision motion controls, it was more waggle. When WiiU came out it brought me more traditional games and I could sit and play comfortably. Nintendo's implementation of the wii menu sucks too. I want to access it without having to use a wii remote. My solution, I just repurchased most of the games on wii u(luckily there was a discount for doing so) Even better I share a living room with someone who watches fucking real housewives all the time and I can play Mario Maker at the same time. Going back to motion controls seems a step backwards. I still think you should be able to play with wii controllers, after all this is all bluetooth. If I can connect my wii controller to my ouya then I should be able to connect it to my nx. Certain games may benefit from the wii controller, but that is a different direction.

[Stogi]

Nintendo is a position to double down on both ideas. It really comes down to cost.

If Nintendo can sell both the handheld and console for $400, I can see them pushing themselves to make interesting console/handheld games that require both. If, however, the bundle is $500, then it would be wise to wait and see how it sells before making unique games.

Now if Nintendo could make the console and handheld cost $400 without providing motion controls and $500 if they did, I would go with the cheaper cost for now. Later in the NX's cycle, however, I would roll out a motion control game/controller bundle (Metroid? Wii Circus? New IP?) and eventually a console/handheld/controller/game bundle. This would allow me to double down on both ideas, provide yet another reason to purchase an NX if you already haven't, and gain exposure.


Pre-EDIT: Perm, what mid-wii generation games did you find uncomfortable? And did you like how Skyward Sword controlled/

[supermario2k]

I don't think Nintendo will improve if they go back to being too different like Wii. They need to get all the third party support back they can and motion controls limits the games your system can have. I think it would be in their best interest to wipe Wii from their memories. I understand the fans of Wii-Games like Wii Sports and the like won't like that but I think the Wii brand image is to tarnished for Nintendo to embrace it. At least with Game Cube there was a cool factor and now there is the retro factor. Wii will have a retro factor for some but I liken it to the split between Car Robots and Beast Wars in the Transformers universe. The number of people who responded to Beast Wars was large, at first, but dwindled over time. Same with Motion controls the people who responded favorable were large numbers at first because it hit a fad everyone was into. Once the fad wore off they showed their true colors and all but the really devoted remained interested.

I never liked them at all. I was sold on the concept before hand but in practice they don't add anything useful they distract you. The ONLY way motion controls fit in now, B/C be damned I say, the only way they fit in now is if NX implements VR. And then it needs to be something akind to an actual glove where you can still have our fingers pressing imaginary buttons if that is what makes you comfortable.

Either way no matter what they do it needs a traditional controller as the pack in option not as some expensive accessory on top of the fad controller. But my dislike of Motion controls is my own problem I am not sure how the market as a whole feels outside the constant trash talking people do of the Wii these days.

[Stogi]

I don't think you understood. The controller would be exactly like a traditional controller, just split into halves. One-half would have a joystick, d-pad, and two triggers. The other half would have another joystick, four buttons, and two triggers. That way it can play any port from the handheld as well as the PS4 and XBone, and it can also play motion games. It's a best of both worlds scenario.

Furthermore, as I said above, if the bundle for both console and handheld is affordable, they can play around with the second screen idea as well.

It really comes down to what graphic output they are willing to be okay with. If it's PS4 level for the console and X1 for the handheld, this will get expensive fast. But if it's a more-capable Wii U console and a Wii level handheld, then costs could be mass market friendly, allowing for there to be a focus on interaction and controls.

[nickmitch]

I don't think Nintendo could make a stand-alone handheld and console bundle affordable.  That's just too much tech/effort.  Plus, what would you do for extra controllers for people who want to use the extra screen?  Is that now the cost of a new Handheld?  How much is it for people who just want one or the other?  If the second system/screen controller is $200+, then you're back in the GBA/GC situation where devs assume no one has it, so it goes unsupported.  Doing both ideas means either half-assing one or adding yet another accessory/controller option.

You can double down on motion controls, but that means no Wii U BC.  Or you can double down on the gamepad and forfeit Wii VC.  Both have downsides, but c'est la vie.

[Stogi]

You're working off the assumption that the console controller will have a screen. I don't think that will be the case.

Also, I'm working off the assumption that Nintendo's handheld won't exceed $200 and their console won't exceed $300, and I base that number on their history, hence why I said the bundle could cost a maximum of $500. I actually think the maximum will be cheaper due to the nature of bundles, but it's a good maximum regardless.

[KeyBilly]

I am conflicted on the question of motion control and screens.  In some ways, these feel like failed experiments that never caught on with developers, similar to Kinect.  But, they are also ideas that could evolve well and it would be a shame to lose either of them, unless there is a new technology to replace them.  That is the big question... does Nintendo have a great new innovation, or is the hybrid idea that they've been hinting at for years "it?"

The breakapart controller is a good idea.  Also, remember that whole perspective shifting with head position patent, to make it seem as if we are looking through a window.  That would be an answer to VR that doesn't require extra processing power or much expense.

I agree with the thinking that a hybrid will fail to work if it is just a console and portable that work together.  We've had that before in a couple forms and, while interesting, it is just too much to ask from the users and the fragmented user base makes it unattractive for developers.  If anything, Nintendo needs to be unifying their platforms.

That could work in a few ways, with the most obvious being a system that is essentially a portable console, apart from being able to stream video to a TV and accept Bluetooth controllers.  Even most cheap cell phones can do this, and Nintendo has the proprietary lag-free streaming tech.  Sitting in a cradle might add some hardware muscle, similar to the Surface Book Pro having a discrete GPU in the base.  Still, I don't know if that is really worth the engineering effort if a mobile GPU is good enough for decent 1080p graphics.  Developing for just one configuration would be simpler, too.  Scaling down textures and turning off effects could be a quick fix, but the entire game would need to be tested in both configurations.

[supermario2k]

The easiest and simplest solution is do away with the console entirely and stick to their guns with a handheld. BUT to satisfy the console crowd, give it HDMI output and allow it to connect additional controllers for the end user to use it as a true hybrid. Then they can throw all their support at one machine. Or a dedicated gaming tablet that has buttons with HDMI out and support for additional controllers but that is too far-fetched to work.

[Stogi]

You guys are forgetting who actually buys Nintendo handhelds in droves; parents for their children. It needs to be durable and not that expensive. And one simple way to raise the price is to make it graphically advanced, and one simple way to raise the anxiety of it breaking is by raising the price. Neither is a good idea.

I've been calling for cheap systems with a unified platform from the beginning. It makes the most sense given the climate of the industry today. But that's neither here nor there. Still...Do I have to search for the Wall of Shame?

With cheap hardware, you need a hook. And that hook is a unified gaming platform. Nintendo could put out a perfect third-party console and it still wouldn't receive any major support. So in the short term, they need to support themselves. This is their solution.

My main concern is why would anyone buy the console? No, think about it. If the entire point is to unify the development platform, then why would anyone choose the console when you'd most likely be able to play the same games, for cheaper, anywhere. For better graphics? Is that why some people proposed a base that acts like a console? It could work, allowing you to use your TV and possibly get a graphics boost, but that solution hardly seems worth it for Nintendo. They'd be axing one revenue stream, and even though the Wii U was a failure, forfeiting their (albeit small) territory isn't a smart business strategy.

And it's for that reason that I proposed motion controllers. It gives the console a reason to exist. It draws in a unique game library separate from the handheld and it gives developers the best compromise...use it but only if you'd like to.

PS:
I understand the hesitation regarding the high cost of hardware and the ill-fated GBA/GC experience when considering to do it all over again with the NX, but what is so wrong with that, other than developers not supporting it? The main draw is porting from handheld to console. The main draw is solving third party support. But the option still exists if anyone would like to pursue it (and some might after learning about the handheld/console attachment rate or if bundles are for sale out of the gate).

[nickmitch]

You're working off the assumption that the console controller will have a screen. I don't think that will be the case.

Also, I'm working off the assumption that Nintendo's handheld won't exceed $200 and their console won't exceed $300, and I base that number on their history, hence why I said the bundle could cost a maximum of $500. I actually think the maximum will be cheaper due to the nature of bundles, but it's a good maximum regardless.

My argument is that if you have a handheld that acts as a controller, you're still only playing around with the GBA/GC concept.  ~$200 systems aren't going to make for good second (,or 3rd, or 4th,. . .) controllers. Which is not doubling down on the Wii U concept.  That is taking a step back.  You can have one or the other, but not both.

To summarize, if Nintendo doubles down on motion controls, they have to drop the gamepad concept and vice versa.

[Wah]

Another problem
Guys my age see Nintendo as the derpy #nomlgpro console.
I don't but many do, I don't know how but Nintendo needs to change this "pro's" ideas so they will buy their product. (and go away from shitty games like CoD)