Topic: Why should Nintendo drop the GamePad?

[tendoboy1984]

What's with people wanting Nintendo to get rid of the GamePad? People made this same complaint about the Wii Remote, yet Nintendo didn't drop it because it was required by many games. The GamePad is also required by many games, and dropping it would render those games useless.

If Nintendo sold the GamePad separately, no one would buy it because it would be too expensive. It's better to include it with the console so everyone has one and it's universally supported by developers. And $300 for the Wii U is a much better price than $500 for an Xbox One.

Another thing, people actually want Nintendo to bring back casual gamers? Do people not remember the backlash Nintendo received for making to many casual games? Sony and Microsoft do just fine without the casuals, so why does Nintendo suddenly need them again?

[Kytim89]

The Wii U gamepad controller is so ingrained into the identity of the console that it would make more sense to forgo the entire system rather than simply discontinue the controller. The amount of work it would take to rebuild the OS of the system to negate the gamepad would be a waste of time and resources on Nintendo's part. I would rather they devote as much of their effort towards software, universal system account, and the Virtual Console as possible. Besides, without the gimmick the Wii U is nothing more than a cheap imitation of older consoles.

As for Nintendo's casual titles, Nintendo needs ten more hard core titles that are just a good, if not better, than X and Bayonetta 2.

[lolmonade]

Let's set aside the truth that the Wii U can't be separated from the gamepad, and just work-out the theoretical question "Why do people want a gamepad-less Wii U?".


I think Nintendo could have leveraged the large install base of smartphones & tablets, and instead of designing their own controller/tablet frankenstein, released an app that allowed you to use it for off-tv play if you have a wifi connection.  The gamepad's 2nd screen functionality hasn't been leveraged much other than for this reason so far (a few exceptions, obviously), so why include that added cost in the controller itself and hamstring yourself compared to Sony/Microsoft if you can divert that cost into future proofing your console a bit better?


On your second point, who specifically is requesting Nintendo appeal more to casual gamers, other than maybe investors?  Most people on this website and other state their biggest issue with Nintendo is that they don't get the big 3rd party exclusive games.  It's the investors that are clamoring for Nintendo to release their games on iPhone/android devices on a free-to-play model, but you have to bear in mind that they care less about the longevity of the company and more about how much they can get their stock value to rise and higher dividends on their shares.

[NWR_insanolord]

Most games really only benefit from the GamePad in terms of off-TV play, which isn't a very important feature for some people. People would stop suggesting dropping the GamePad if more games used it in interesting ways.

[ShyGuy]

Gamepad is worth it for Miiverse alone.

[Luigi Dude]

Iwata already said in January after they gave their Q3 results that they'll be revealing some games that use the GamePad more at E3 so it's pretty much here to stay.  They're not going to reveal games that require it if they were planning on dropping the thing. 

[ymeegod]

Fans think the WII U needs an hardware boost and the fastest way to do that is an price drop so either Nintendo drops the gamepad or reducing the WII U price and eating the loss themselves.  I don't think an price reduction is going change the NA market--at best the price reduction will sell to families and maybe a few hardcore players but that's about it.

Also, those $500 Xbox Ones isn't selling neither.   

-------------------

[Nile Boogie Returns]

I love, love, LOVE the GamePad. I have a bunch of kids, nieces and nephews. (there are always kids in the house) My young ones wanna watch Disney Jr, I wanna play Super Punch-out. GAMEPAD. They wanna Youtube, I wanna watch Counting Cars. GAMEPAD. Wife watches those god-awful wedding shows, I wanna shoot myself or someone else. GAMEPAD. Nintendo looked into my blackened, torched soul and created this system for me.




I hope that the Mech controls for the next Star Fox game are on the GamePad like a cockpit view. I wanna be able to hack and modulate shield frequencies on the GamePad on the fly while still dodging enemy fire. so yeah GAMEPAD

[alegoicoe]

Personally i like the gamepad, it has its pro and cons but overall is a good piece of hardware, but Nintendo should sell an SKU without it and with a warning that some game features will be missing without it and if they wish to upgrade then so be it.

[Adrock]

That sounds like a nightmare. Again, one of those missing features would be the entire eshop which Nintendo would have to redo just to release a SKU that doesn't require the GamePad. It's too much of a hassle to try to un-GamePad Wii U.

[NWR_insanolord]

Dropping the GamePad as something everyone has would be a whole lot of work for Nintendo, and honestly it probably wouldn't sell enough extra Wii Us to be worth it.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Let's set aside the truth that the Wii U can't be separated from the gamepad, and just work-out the theoretical question "Why do people want a gamepad-less Wii U?".


I think Nintendo could have leveraged the large install base of smartphones & tablets, and instead of designing their own controller/tablet frankenstein, released an app that allowed you to use it for off-tv play if you have a wifi connection.  The gamepad's 2nd screen functionality hasn't been leveraged much other than for this reason so far (a few exceptions, obviously), so why include that added cost in the controller itself and hamstring yourself compared to Sony/Microsoft if you can divert that cost into future proofing your console a bit better?

you forget to mention that the Wii U & Gamepad use a proprietary WiFi protocol that is not present or supported in current smartphones and tablets on the market.

And while they could make it work w/o it, it would be much slower in it's execution and more like a PS4/Vita connection, which most people wouldn't notice or probably even care.

[tendoboy1984]

Also, the $500 Xbox One isn't selling either.   

-------------------

It's selling more than the 360 did at the same time period. Since when was a 3 million sales gap considered failure? When the PS3 was released the 360 had a 10 million sales lead, but the PS3 quickly caught up after the Slim was released at a lower price.

I hate how fanboys (not you) assume a console is "winning" or "failing" after only 4 months on the market; it's way to early to announce a winner. A console's success should never be judged on early sales figures; sales can change in an instant.

[Mop it up]

I don't think Nintendo should drop the GamePad, but they should probably release a smaller, sleeker redesigned version. The GamePad is a monstrosity, it's simply too big. I became convinced of this when I witnessed my six-year-old nephew attempt to play NSMBU using the thing. He couldn't come close to gripping the controller or reaching all the buttons, and I doubt he's the only kid who has trouble with it. He just ended up using Boost Mode and I controlled Mario with a Wiimote, and he did so by setting the pad in his lap.

Myself, I have trouble with the top pair of shoulder buttons, and don't find it to be comfortable to hold.

I always thought Japan liked smaller controllers as well, which is a part of the reason the Nintendo 64 didn't do well there is because the controller was huge. I think there should be a GamePad that is shaped more like the Classic or Pro controller, but just with a screen in the middle. It certainly needs handles of some kind. I would probably buy a GamePad redesign to get a more comfortable controller.

[Stratos]

I enjoy the gamepad myself. If anything that could be a plus for the 'casual' market so someone can watch TV and another can play games. That was probably their line of thinking when they designed it.

[Kytim89]

I don't think Nintendo should drop the GamePad, but they should probably release a smaller, sleeker redesigned version. The GamePad is a monstrosity, it's simply too big. I became convinced of this when I witnessed my six-year-old nephew attempt to play NSMBU using the thing. He couldn't come close to gripping the controller or reaching all the buttons, and I doubt he's the only kid who has trouble with it. He just ended up using Boost Mode and I controlled Mario with a Wiimote, and he did so by setting the pad in his lap.

Myself, I have trouble with the top pair of shoulder buttons, and don't find it to be comfortable to hold.

I always thought Japan liked smaller controllers as well, which is a part of the reason the Nintendo 64 didn't do well there is because the controller was huge. I think there should be a GamePad that is shaped more like the Classic or Pro controller, but just with a screen in the middle. It certainly needs handles of some kind. I would probably buy a GamePad redesign to get a more comfortable controller.

I have been saying it until I am blue in the face that there needs to be a Game pad revision. Something that iis about the size of a PS Vita but with handles (accessory) that retails for about $99.99 and is more ergonomic in the hands. This is might boost Wii U sales in Japan because it would look more like a handheld rather than a tablet.   

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

Also, the $500 Xbox One isn't selling either.   

-------------------

It's selling more than the 360 did at the same time period. Since when was a 3 million sales gap considered failure? When the PS3 was released the 360 had a 10 million sales lead, but the PS3 quickly caught up after the Slim was released at a lower price.

I hate how fanboys (not you) assume a console is "winning" or "failing" after only 4 months on the market; it's way to early to announce a winner. A console's success should never be judged on early sales figures; sales can change in an instant.

The early sales DO matter though, if early sales are too low and companies lose money on releasing games for the system they drop support for it, Wii U sales were pretty good up front too but they dropped off.

[BranDonk Kong]

They should drop having to use the Gamepad in the eShop. There is no reason for that.

[tendoboy1984]

Also, the $500 Xbox One isn't selling either.   

-------------------

It's selling more than the 360 did at the same time period. Since when was a 3 million sales gap considered failure? When the PS3 was released the 360 had a 10 million sales lead, but the PS3 quickly caught up after the Slim was released at a lower price.

I hate how fanboys (not you) assume a console is "winning" or "failing" after only 4 months on the market; it's way to early to announce a winner. A console's success should never be judged on early sales figures; sales can change in an instant.

The early sales DO matter though, if early sales are too low and companies lose money on releasing games for the system they drop support for it, Wii U sales were pretty good up front too but they dropped off.

The original Xbox sold slightly worse than the GameCube, yet it got tons of developer support. The Xbox One will not fail like the Wii U did because the brand is popular with "core" gamers and developers. PS4 and Xbox One will get the same amount of games because developers tend to treat those platforms equally.

[BranDonk Kong]

The original Xbox sold slightly worse than the GameCube, yet it got tons of developer support. The Xbox One will not fail like the Wii U did because the brand is popular with "core" gamers and developers. PS4 and Xbox One will get the same amount of games because developers tend to treat those platforms equally.

In your crazy world is 24 million less than 22 million?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(sixth_generation)#Worldwide_sales_standings

[NWR_insanolord]

As Brandogg points out, the Xbox did a bit better than the GameCube, and that's with it possibly selling in negative numbers in Japan. It significantly outsold the GameCube in the west, and that, combined with the PC-like hardware western developers were familiar with, is why it got support.

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

Here is my takeon dropping the Game Pad, it could be done and it could work out good too, everyone talks about the 5 million users that would be offended and the handful of games that would be affected but here is the thing, if Nintendo dropped the Game Pad and cut say an extra hundred bucks off the cost of the console and sold it as an optional upgrade it would just be viewed as having packed in an accessory for a period of time and then removing it, they could patch any games that would be broken or just require those games to have the Game Pad anyways. Nintendo has done this before believe it or not, the NES came standard with the Zapper and launched with a game packed in that required the Zapper, after the machine took of they made the Zapper optional and sold separately and slowly support faded but sales of the console grew.


Suppose Nintendo drops the Game Pad, something that is a turn off to many, and sales triple over night, then software sales increase and support comes back, more games get made and everybody wins, the game pad remains an option for those who want it and they just re-package those games that use it as compatible with Game Pad and let the gamer decide which control scheme they prefer, they can do a motion controls only bundle that is akin to Wii Mini that they target to the casuals and pack it in with a new Wii Sports and an updated Wii Fit or something and get some of that market back, then they have a cheaper entry level system for those who want the machine but don't want the high price tag. Can they completely bury the Game Pad and forget about it, no but they can remove it as an mandatory bundle pretty easily and the games that require it can be labeled as such and the gamer who cares enough for that feature or game will buy it, like the people who buy the Balance Board or the Microphones or Kinect or PS Move, etc.

[Stratos]

The problem is that support will not come back, even in the best scenario possible. This is Nintendo. Historically 3rd parties are skeptical of Nintendo from the get-go. Those birds have flown the coop and will not be returning. The best hope is to weather the course and make the most with what they have at present. They can try again next generation. If anything we learned that developers are willing to give Nintendo a shot at the start of a console.

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

Maybe not the best but it will improve if sales pick up. It silly to think otherwise, even the Game Cube made a slight bounce back after the price drop and sales boost. It didn't amount to much but they managed to hang in there where Wii U will be doing Dreamcast levels of sales and Sega CD levels of support if they keep doing what they are.

[rlse9]

I think it'd be silly to drop the gamepad.  It's the only thing about the hardware that's unique in any way.  While there haven't been as many games that use it in creative ways as I'd like to see, hopefully Nintendo putting an increased emphasis will result in more unique uses.  Another problem is that they've had enough problems with confusion about what the Wii U is already without further confusing the market.  And while they could drop the price some by removing the gamepad, they'd also have to include a different controller (I'd imagine the pro controller) and I'm assuming the price to manufacture the gamepad has come down compared to when the system has first released, so I don't think removing it would automatically result in a $100 price drop like many think.

3rd party support is all but gone from major publishers and for the most part isn't coming back.  The difference between the Gamecube and Wii U is that the Gamecube was on basically the same level of hardware as the competitors so porting games wasn't a problem.  With the Wii U, games made for the other systems would need to be changed significantly to run on it.  And to make an exclusive for the system when there's a smaller number of users and those users are known for buying mostly games made by Nintendo, it just doesn't make financial sense.  So many people get mad at 3rd parties for not supporting the system, but why would they?  Generally, the people who own only a Wii U aren't likely to buy their games and the people who own another system are going to buy it on another system anyway.

Nintendo's only hope is to continue to attract lots of independent developers since that's the one area they are getting good support, it seems like a fair amount of the titles are successful, and many of the games appeal to Nintendo fans.  Beyond that, keep making partnerships like the Hyrule Warriors game using their IPs and keep the first party releases strong enough to satisfy Wii U owners so that there's a chance those owners will buy their next system.

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

First of all it's so much they should as they could that I was pointing out, second of all dropping the price drastically would bring back support if they casual market returned in droves, the market Nintendo needs to stay profitable, third, it's not JUST third party support that will drop Nintendo themselves will stop investing in it if it's not profitable to do so, they CAN NOT afford to take another loss like they did, unlike Sony and MS they have nothing of value to sell off to hide losses, they can't bleed money forever and that's that they are doing right now. They also can not afford to drop the price but the market is demanding that hence why retailers are doing despite Nintendo doing it, that's a reality the machine is over priced for the market. Last, for godssakes Nintendo is NOT competing with MS or Sony anyways so those are not the types of games they will ever attract that segment of the market will never buy outdated hardware no matter WHAT fancy controller they give it, and even die hard Nintendo fans are losing interest because Nintendo themselves are losing interest. I doubt dropping the game pad will turn it into a Wii success but it could bring back a lot of the Wii Fit type of fans who are on a tight budget and won't buy a PS4 anyways. They could do N64 levels of sales and make a profit, Game Cube barely made a profit and so far Wii U is losing money and it's losing so much it offsets what the 3DS makes, that is not good business.


Also it really goes back to what you mean by 3rd party support, DUH the major cross platform games won't make it anymore, but they should have been able to for at least another year, you can't really believe that if Wii U was doing better being superior to PS3 it wouldn't at least be getting the SAME GAMES the PS3 is getting? Hell right now the Wii U has better games than PS4 but that is not stopping the best games from coming to last gen hardware right now so why is it stopping those SAME GAMES from coming to Wii U? SALES period.

I forgot to mention in that last part that the third party support that will come back would be the kind tailored for the Nintendo crowd anyways like what Wii had.

[Wah]

They should drop the gamepad and focus on handhelds, because lets face it they suck at home consoles (excluding the origanals). And nobody does handhelds better then nintendo.
PSP Blah doesn't even come close to the ds, (and plus they suck and have no good games).
So yes if they want to do consoles....Drop the gamepad.

[rlse9]

How is it that Nintendo can't afford to lose money but Microsoft and Sony can?  Aren't Nintendo the ones with enough money in the bank to lose money for 50 years or something like that at the current pace and still have money?  Sony's the company that has several divisions bleeding money and Microsoft is the company with tons of people saying they need to spin off several divisions of their company.  Nintendo can survive a few rough years if they need to.  Not that it's ideal, but they're not Sega with the Dreamcast.

At what price could the Wii U start selling large amounts of hardware?  I don't think it's $250, there's been enough deals with gift cards that the system has been available for close to that without an increase in sales.  $200 maybe?  Even if they eliminated the gamepad, they'd be taking even more of a loss to sell it at that price, plus the price of completely changing strategy again.  And they still don't have that killer app.  The Wii didn't sell because it was $250, it sold because Wii Sports was a phenomenon.  And Wii Fit kept things going.  Wii U has some great games but nothing that's attracting the masses.

[Shaymin]

Nintendo can't take a massive risk that could affect that nest egg because they don't have operating systems, office productivity software, or insurance money coming in to offset the losses from the gaming division.

[NWR_insanolord]

Nintendo can certainly afford to lose money; that doesn't mean they're willing to do so. They've got the cash on hand to eat the losses it would incur for a few years, they've simply chosen not to. Honestly, I don't think the price is the real sticking point at the moment. They could drop it to $200 and I still think they'd have a hard time getting the user base big enough to really change anything.

[ejamer]

I dropped my gamepad the other day. Gave me a scare (because who wants to replace that thing) but luckily it's built tough enough that there wasn't any damage.  Wouldn't recommend that Nintendo or anyone else try it though. You might not be so lucky.






More on topic, I agree that price isn't the issue at this point. Wii U is by far the cheapest "new" console out there, but people aren't buying and aren't interested. Even at $200, I don't think that the console has the buzz to draw in a big crowd right now.


You can blame that failure on many different causes - poor marketing, sparse software, unproven gimmick, whatever - but the fact remains that Wii U hasn't managed to really pique the interest of anyone other than the relatively small group of core Nintendo fans.

[Mop it up]

If the Wii U gets rid of the GamePad then it's just a PS3/360 with a lot less games. That would never work. It's hardly working now with the GamePad, but it would be a lot worse without it.

It would be like if the Wii dropped the Wiimote, then it would just be a GameCube. And in that case, it would almost literally be a GameCube.

Now we can say things like "it shouldn't have been underpowered to begin with" and regardless if that's true or not, the Wii U already exists. Too late to change anything like that now. Besides, I think Nintendo have bigger issues, some they can solve this generation, and some that will have to wait until the next.

[Stratos]

I think you just made the best post of the thread, Mop it up.


Nintendo has chosen their path this gen. They need to decide how to go down that path as best they can and adapt the lessons they have (hopefully) learned for future generations.

[smallsharkbigbite]

It would be like if the Wii dropped the Wiimote, then it would just be a GameCube. And in that case, it would almost literally be a GameCube.

The Wiimote drove consumers to the Wii, the Gamepad doesn't drive consumers to the Wii U.  As such, conversation about dropping it is relevant whereas conversation about dropping the Wiimote wasn't relevant.  If Nintendo didn't have the gamepad, they could have released the deluxe Wii U with redesigned Wiimotes at $250.  That may have drawn back many of the Wii consumers that bought a Wii for Wiisports and Wiifit and would be interested in a sequel to those games.


I like the Gamepad.  I get where Nintendo is going with the unified system and having 2 screens makes sense to merge the mobile market.  However, the bad thing for Nintendo is that Sony/Microsoft already copied the idea without requiring an additional investment by allowing ipads to connect with their new systems.  And at this point, almost everyone who would spend $350 on a new system has an ipad.  No, I don't expect them to copy the Nintendoland idea because it wasn't a popular game.  But they could copy Nintendoland on their systems.  And in some ways (multi-touch, resolution) the game could be better on their systems. 


Nintendo is probably stuck with the Gamepad because of technical issues.  But let's not pretend like it was innovative or a good idea at this point.  They keep snubbing their nose at industry and third party ideas.  That would be okay, if the consumer wasn't the driving force behind those ideas, but in general the consumer sides against Nintendo now. 

[Mop it up]

If Nintendo didn't have the gamepad, they could have released the deluxe Wii U with redesigned Wiimotes at $250.  That may have drawn back many of the Wii consumers that bought a Wii for Wiisports and Wiifit and would be interested in a sequel to those games.

Again though, this is a "what if" situation. It is far too late to do this now.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Again though, this is a "what if" situation. It is far too late to do this now.

That's your opinion.  Many people think that Nintendo should just scrap the Wii U now and release a new console.  It's probably not going recover and sell decently in its current state.  Not that I think I have the master plan to save the Wii U, but all options should be considered.  If they can't bring unique gamepad games to the Wii U, then maybe the gamepad needs scrapped.  They can patch in Wii U Pro controller support to probably all games except Nintendoland and not miss a beat. 


You think that the Gamepad is what sets Nintendo apart and is a selling point.  Most consumers don't agree with that.  The Gamepad may be a reason preventing ports and third party games from coming to the Wii U.  It also could be adding costs to 1st party games and causing delays.

More on topic, I agree that price isn't the issue at this point. Wii U is by far the cheapest "new" console out there, but people aren't buying and aren't interested. Even at $200, I don't think that the console has the buzz to draw in a big crowd right now.

Price is part of the problem, but not the only problem as you noted.  Saying price isn't the problem is like saying a BMW sells for $50,000 so selling a Honda Accord at $45,000 shouldn't be an issue.  People look at what's in the package and decide if an item has value.  People have determined that the Wii U isn't worth $350.  Now, yes, Nintendo could have done a better job marketing the features and they could have added more hardware to the Wii U so people would think it was worth $350, but it didn't work out that way. 


Nintendo chose their path as a "budget" console with the Wii.  They chose to ignore hardware standards.  The Wii U either needed to be clear that they were including standard features and they were no longer selling a budget console or it should have had a lower price.  We all know Wii U is more powerful than PS3/360, but not by much.  If forced to classify Wii U as PS4 level or PS3 level you'd have to say it's more in line with the PS3.  And the PS3 was on sale for $200 this last holiday season so you shouldn't have been too much from that price point to show consumers that the hardware/value ratio was worthwhile. 

[NWR_insanolord]

First off, Nintendo is not going to do this, even if it were the right thing to do. Second, I don't think it is. The GamePad isn't what's holding the system back; that would be the poor/nonexistent marketing and severe lack of software support. Dropping the GamePad doesn't fix either of those things.

[Soren]

No, I don't expect them to copy the Nintendoland idea because it wasn't a popular game.  But they could copy Nintendoland on their systems.  And in some ways (multi-touch, resolution) the game could be better on their systems.

I swear I think people said the same thing about Kinect/Move doing things better than the Wiimote and look what happened.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I swear I think people said the same thing about Kinect/Move doing things better than the Wiimote and look what happened.

As someone who owns a move and has a tried a kinect they do do some things better than the Wiimote.  And what does look what happened mean?  It looks to me like the Wiimote was first to the market and saturated the market before the other options came on the market.  Now they are fun additions to successful consoles.  Certainly the Wiimote was more successful but the other tech isn't crap and that generation is gone now. 

First off, Nintendo is not going to do this, even if it were the right thing to do. Second, I don't think it is. The GamePad isn't what's holding the system back; that would be the poor/nonexistent marketing and severe lack of software support. Dropping the GamePad doesn't fix either of those things.

I'm not saying I necessarily want them to drop the gamepad.  It just seems like every solution isn't going to happen so let's not talk about it and just continue with the sinking ship.  There are lots of things Nintendo could do, but they probably won't including fixing the two items you mentioned.  Then we are left with where we are at, a console that may be as popular as the Gamecube but trends point to not likely.  The Dreamcast sold 10.6M in about 3 years.  Can the Wii U hit that?  Are you comfortable with Nintendo's position now? 

[ejamer]

Again though, this is a "what if" situation. It is far too late to do this now.

...  The Gamepad may be a reason preventing ports and third party games from coming to the Wii U.  It also could be adding costs to 1st party games and causing delays.
...

You've given a lot of opinions that I disagree with, but any argument is pointless because it's just two conflicting opinions. But this seems like a stretch.

The gamepad is not what prevents games from coming - at least not directly. Instead it's because of the power, the architecture, and the third-party relationships that Nintendo has built/burned. Gamepad support is just the tip of the iceberg in this case... and if the other three issues weren't major roadblocks then third-party support wouldn't be an issue, gamepad or otherwise.

You could argue that Nintendo would've made a more powerful console if they hadn't included the gamepad. You could argue that they would've used a different architecture closer to what PS4/XBox One are using. But given Nintendo's history either claim would seem unlikely. More to the point, it wouldn't change the fact that Nintendo just isn't good at fostering and supporting third-party development.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I have argued those points, but at this point everything on those shortcomings have been discussed.


I'll concede 3rd parties could just clone the screen on the gamepad and then you are just left with the power/architecture issues with porting.  I do think there is some truth to 3rd parties not wanting to deal with the gamepad though if they don't have unique ideas for it.  Nintendo has pushed the gamepad as a big reason to purchase the Wii U and Wii U owners have at least to some extent bought into the hype that the gamepad can help gaming.  If others are taking development time to bring unique gameplay items for the gamepad, your straightforward port is going to be seen as lacking compared to the competition.  Knowing what we know now, there really hasn't been any grandslam ways to utilize the gamepad.  But games take 18-24 months to develop, so why take the chance that your port will be considered lacking, but instead wait and see?  Most software developers are followers and take good ideas and expand on them.  Very few want to go where no-one has gone before.  It's part of why we are Nintendo fans because they are willing to go where others haven't.  But they don't always hit homeruns when they do it. 

[Soren]

As someone who owns a move and has a tried a kinect they do do some things better than the Wiimote.  And what does look what happened mean?  It looks to me like the Wiimote was first to the market and saturated the market before the other options came on the market.  Now they are fun additions to successful consoles.  Certainly the Wiimote was more successful but the other tech isn't crap and that generation is gone now. 

The prevailing thought was "well now Sony/Microsoft can do motion controls, maybe even better than Nintendo can. Wii is toast". As it turns out, Wii's problems then had nothing to do with competing consoles getting motion controls. The games simply never came and the peripherals became an afterthought. So the notion that just because Sony and Microsoft can go tack on second screen features on their consoles and do it better than Nintendo, who based their entire console on a second screen experience, might be a bit of a stretch.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Ah, okay.  I was mainly dealing from the viewpoint that Gamepad usage has been disappointing, whereas the Wiimote immediately had some pretty compelling Gameplay justifying it's existence so I don't think the bar is as high to clear this time around. 


I think the better way for me to phrase that would be I wish Nintendo was able to drive new gameplay ideas with the gamepad and show those ideas to the consumer in a way that Sony/Microsoft would want to copy those ideas.  Then we could have the discussion about whether they could actually pull off copying Nintendo. 

[Spak-Spang]

The problem I have with the Gamepad, is where is the necessity for it.  Actually, all the ideas you can think of for the Gamepad and screen could be made into 3DS games.  There is nothing especially "console" about the experience.  Now, you can give a few good examples like Zombie U...and I will say great.  But that experience could have been played on the 3DS. 

And this is not to say that in house asymmetric gameplay isn't cool.  But asymmetric gameplay in and of itself is not that intriguing, because online gaming has been doing it for ages.  Now, it isn't in the living room in a party environment...but is that compelling enough for a gaming console?  Not really.

The Gamepad does have potential, and I am sure we will see some awesome uses for the controller that are fun and innovative.  However, I feel Nintendo chose the wrong path.  (I know I already wrote this here before) but it still needs to be pointed out.

Nintendo should have went for the SNES or Gamecube style console upgrade instead of trying to create a new Wii like experience upgrade.

By this, the Wii was a solid proof of concept.  However, it need to be improved, enhanced, and perfected...which I am sorry even with the Wii motion plus, it was not perfected yet.  Nintendo could have released an HD device that completely OWNED motion control, and made it the definitive standard into the future...but decided not to...and they sent a mixed message, with the Wii U.  New control and motion control.  Not a good idea.

However, Nintendo can't dump the controller or the system...though I wonder if Nintendo did dump the controller would they be able to release some of the RAM and processing power being used to send the data stream to the controller to make the system more powerful?  It would be interesting to see...though it might require a tweaking of the OS for the system. 

I wonder if developers could do that...have a Wii mote only system that is able to push and use resources that are typically locked away to make a richer gaming experience.
   

[Phil]

Dropping the GamePad wouldn't quite break it from a minor height, but I think dropping it from a medium height would break it.


Why Nintendo should drop the GamePad is to show how sturdy the device really is.

[Ian Sane]

The Gamepad has flopped as the intended "hook" to attract sales but the only advantage in ditching it is that presumably Nintendo can lower the price of the console without it.  But the weaker hardware is what really makes it incompatible with multiplatform development and the really unappealing aspect of it as that it has a very small lineup of games.  I don't think any potential buyer was turned off by the Gamepad, they just didn't care about it and that one feature is pretty much the entire justification of the console's existence.  Without it it's just Nintendo's PS360 equivalent released a mere year before those consoles were replaced.  I don't think ditching it would matter unless the price drop was so major that Nintendo could coast on offering it as a low budget alternative for about a year or so until their next console comes out.

If you're going to do something as extreme as removing the pack-in controller then I think outright replacing the Wii U is the better move.  I think that needs to be done ASAP to give the PS4 as little time as possible to build an insurmountable lead.

The other option is to, get this, make games that actually make good use of the Gamepad.  Wow, what a concept!  This is the whole damn point of the Wii U and Nintendo seemingly gave up on it immediately after launch.  If Nintendo wants to ride it out with the Wii U and wait a few years before replacing it then they need some big ambitious games to keep it going.  2D platformers aren't going to cut it.  It's got to be something like Pokémon Console RPG big or some big epic Zelda game that really goes nuts with the Gamepad like how Skyward Sword went nuts with Motion+.  If we get more Mario it would be big grand full 3D Galaxy-style Mario.  Nintendo needs their teams going for broke, not playing it safe.  The N64 survived with very weak third party support because Nintendo made each game count.

The plan seems to be to just do nothing.  Make the same play-it-safe games and just put along to irrelevance.  That's lame and I can see why this "drop the Gamepad" idea has caught fire because at least it's SOMETHING.

[Adrock]

Nintendo shouldn't even be thinking about replacing Wii U until they have something ready to replace it with ("ready" being the operative word here). They're in an awkward place right now. It's like when you're trying to grow your hair out and it just looks like a mullet. Cut it or deal with it for a while? Cutting it doesn't give you what you want if you want longer hair. It's important for Nintendo to not panic. Ditching the GamePad is a panic move especially since it doesn't fix anything. In fact, it's way more work for them AND it further confuses consumers. Releasing a new console just because it isn't Wii U is another panic move to avoid. If they rush a new console, it stands to suffer from the same problems Wii U had at launch. Weather the storm and make the next one better, the best it can be.

[rlse9]

Why Nintendo should drop the GamePad is to show how sturdy the device really is.

You sir just won this thread.

If you're going to do something as extreme as removing the pack-in controller then I think outright replacing the Wii U is the better move.  I think that needs to be done ASAP to give the PS4 as little time as possible to build an insurmountable lead.

I couldn't disagree more with that idea.  If Nintendo were to decide to bail on the Wii U now, I would not buy their next console.  And I'd imagine there's a fair amount of Wii U owners who would feel the same way.  To get something out quickly enough to not be too far behind the PS4 for it to matter they'd have to rush something out, there'd be a lack of games at launch, probably no third party support, gamers on other consoles would continue to ignore Nintendo, and the spiral would continue.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like a bad strategy.

[EasyCure]

Why Nintendo should drop the GamePad is to show how sturdy the device really is.

You sir just won this thread.

If you're going to do something as extreme as removing the pack-in controller then I think outright replacing the Wii U is the better move.  I think that needs to be done ASAP to give the PS4 as little time as possible to build an insurmountable lead.

I couldn't disagree more with that idea.  If Nintendo were to decide to bail on the Wii U now, I would not buy their next console.  And I'd imagine there's a fair amount of Wii U owners who would feel the same way.  To get something out quickly enough to not be too far behind the PS4 for it to matter they'd have to rush something out, there'd be a lack of games at launch, probably no third party support, gamers on other consoles would continue to ignore Nintendo, and the spiral would continue.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like a bad strategy.

Agreed. I honestly don't know why so many people just assume that canning the Wii U and releasing a new system right away is a good idea, even if Nintendo were to offer some sort of buy-back or trade-in program to those that already bought a Wii U. It's a much bigger risk to Nintendo and no matter what incentives they offer, it will just lead to more problems.

[Ian Sane]

They should replace a Wii U with a worthwhile product, not some half-baked product released in a mad panic.  But they should consider it a priority.  I don't think the Wii U has several years of life ahead of it.

They should have been considering a replacement once those sales projections had to be adjusted, though really they should have realized the situation well before then, that's just when they formally acknowledged it.  At the very least at this point they should be thinking "****, we have to replace this thing" and be planning accordingly.  And maybe it takes a few years to get something with a half-decent launch lineup of both first and third party titles.  It probably also takes some real analysis, potentially with outside consulting, to figure out what to do with the next console.  Frankly if Nintendo knew what sort of product to release they wouldn't have made the Wii U in the first place.

They need to do it right but they need to do it soon.  They can't wait a few years and then start serious plans for a successor.  No, they need to be working on this right now.

[EasyCure]

So, Ian, how exactly would you propose Nintendo do that without pissing people off? Yes, its usually just talk when games say things like "i'm going to boycott X because Y pissed me off!" but usually those are just games; you drop $350 on a new system, and more on some games, and suddenly Nintendo says they're dropping support for this system to release a new one, wouldn't you be pissed? Why should you give them your money again??

And what do you want them to release? Higher spec'd console without a gamepad? Higher spec'd console that CAN utilize the gamepad but doesn't make it a key feature? How do they get 3rd parties to make the games for it after they've already abandoned the Wii U? How should they market this (lol) new system to the masses, and more so how do they do it without looking foolish?

I'm sorry but releasing a new console any time soon isn't the easy fix you expect it to be. There was a thread recently speculating what would happen if Nintendo bought the Xbox division from MS, and many thought that was the answer. A lot of very good points were made, such as even if Nintendo couldn't merge Wii U and XbO  together for this generation, they would at least have tech and patents for the next generation. Yeah that'd be really cool and all but Nintendo will always have this stigma of being for kiddies/casuals/non-gamers etc. Maybe I'm cynical but I honestly picture too many fanboys rage quitting the brand simply because Nintendo is behind it. Even in the best case scenario where Nintendo does everything we know they should but don't realize is right (leave xbox live untouched for example, or leave western dev teams to do what they've been doing instead of shoehorning Nintendo characters into everything), the simple fact that Nintendo is behind the scenes would scare a lot of gamer's away, whether they'd be right to do so or not.

[Luigi Dude]

They should replace a Wii U with a worthwhile product, not some half-baked product released in a mad panic.  But they should consider it a priority.  I don't think the Wii U has several years of life ahead of it.

They should have been considering a replacement once those sales projections had to be adjusted, though really they should have realized the situation well before then, that's just when they formally acknowledged it.  At the very least at this point they should be thinking "****, we have to replace this thing" and be planning accordingly.  And maybe it takes a few years to get something with a half-decent launch lineup of both first and third party titles.  It probably also takes some real analysis, potentially with outside consulting, to figure out what to do with the next console.  Frankly if Nintendo knew what sort of product to release they wouldn't have made the Wii U in the first place.

They need to do it right but they need to do it soon.  They can't wait a few years and then start serious plans for a successor.  No, they need to be working on this right now.

This is exactly what Sega did with killing the Saturn early and then released the Dreamcast and we all know how that turned out.  Doesn't matter how awesome the successor is, if they kill off their current system too early, it poisons their name.  Why should anyone have a reason to be excited for a new Nintendo home console if there's a chance it'll be discontinued in less then 3 years? 

Yeah Sega had other problems as well but the trust issue was a major one.  I remember a lot of people back in 99 being skeptical of the Dreamcast because of the Saturn's short life.  Even though the launch lineup looked strong, many weren't willing to purchase one because of the concern it might get killed early, which combined with Sega's other issues ended up making that concern a reality in the end.

[Ian Sane]

So, Ian, how exactly would you propose Nintendo do that without pissing people off? Yes, its usually just talk when games say things like "i'm going to boycott X because Y pissed me off!" but usually those are just games; you drop $350 on a new system, and more on some games, and suddenly Nintendo says they're dropping support for this system to release a new one, wouldn't you be pissed? Why should you give them your money again??

No one owns a Wii U.  Wii  U owners are in the minority.  That's the whole concern.  So Nintendo should be afraid of offending a small minority of the videogame market while a much larger majority thinks their current product is a joke and wants nothing to do with it?  And I'd imagine that the Wii U userbase is probably made up of a lot of the most loyal forgiving Nintendo fans.  I ultimately just don't see how the Wii U will ever last a proper console lifespan.  The Wii was around for six years.  The PS3 for seven and the Xbox 360 for eight.  There is no way in hell the Wii U will sell well enough for stores to even want to keep it around for that long.  And what brand power will Nintendo have after multiple years of scraping by with like four games a year on some obscure console that practically no one owns?  My thinking is that is that Nintendo needs to put a failure behind them ASAP or risk cultural irrelevance, which would completely destroy any chance of any future Nintendo console getting anywhere.

Nintendo did ditch the Virtual Boy quite quickly and that didn't affect anything.  They replaced the DSi within less than two years and got away with it.  The Game Boy Color came out in Nov 1998 and was replaced by the GBA in June 2001.  That's less than three years and, again, no one cared.  Those GBC owners were all over the GBA and unlike the Wii U the GBC was a very successful product.  Release a Wii U successor in Nov 2015 and that's a three year life cycle, same as the GBC.  Realistically I don't think they could get something out quicker.  And I would obviously suggest they support the Wii U up until its replacement.  With the Dreamcast, Sega was effectively gone for over a year and they had been losing money up to the point, while Nintendo has savings.

But I just look at the alternative as unrealistic.  How does Nintendo just stick with the Wii U for five years?

[Adrock]

GameBoy Color and DSi were replaced by other products which were already well into development. I'm not sure Nintendo even knew who they were marketing Virtual Boy to. It wasn't replacing GameBoy, and Nintendo 64 was already announced.

Nintendo is no where near a similar position with Wii U. How soon do you think they can replace Wii U without the successor being a half-broken piece of **** at launch? All hardware companies are working on their next product all the time so I don't know why you think that isn't happening. Even if you want Nintendo to go all full-steam-ahead, a new product is still years away. They can't just nix Wii U and say, "Eventually, we'll fill that gaping hole in our product line." Best case scenario, Nintendo could possibly have something by mid to late 2016. That's accelerating the research and development process by at least a year to a year and a half.

[ejamer]

...
Nintendo did ditch the Virtual Boy ... DSi ... Game Boy Color ...
...

Those are all poor comparisons, but I tend to agree that Nintendo won't be able to ride the Wii U for five years for a variety of reasons: it's not selling well, there is very limited support beyond first-party development, it has a bad reputation, and the technology it's built on simply won't be competitive for that long.


The trick is how long they can put some support behind the console and pretend that it's not a failure. The longer that happens, the better for all current Wii U owners.
 

[smallsharkbigbite]

So Nintendo should be afraid of offending a small minority of the videogame market while a much larger majority thinks their current product is a joke and wants nothing to do with it?  And what brand power will Nintendo have after multiple years of scraping by with like four games a year on some obscure console that practically no one owns?  My thinking is that is that Nintendo needs to put a failure behind them ASAP or risk cultural irrelevance, which would completely destroy any chance of any future Nintendo console getting anywhere.

What brand power does Nintendo have now that they can't support the Wii U?  I put them at Microsoft pre-xbox level in the market.  Which means they would have to run a similar playbook (which we all know they won't) to break back into relevance.  Releasing a new system would fix at best one issue (power) and that's not going to bring back third parties. 

1.  They would have to spend a ton of money on IT.  COD, Battlefield, almost all FPS shooters need a great online infrastructure that Nintendo can't support today.  FPS are dominant in the market so you need to have them. 

2.  Spend mad money hats for third party exclusives.  The Gamecube had almost all 3rd party ports for a couple of years.  Going for ports isn't going to make you relevant.  You need to pony up to have 3-4 Titanfal like exclusives at launch in addition to 3-4 solid Nintendo exclusives. 

3.  You need to be willing to lose $ on hardware.  A year from now the PS4 is probably going to be $350 and have a one or two of the launch titles packed in.  You are releasing midstream against a console that could be PS2 levels of success.  You need to come with more power at most at the same price.

4.  You need to spend $ like mad on marketing.  Remember  Microsoft's $500M marketing for the Xbox?  Nintendo has an image problem and it's only going to go away by showing people why they need to come back to Nintendo and what they are missing.

This all leads to Nintendo being willing to come back to a bloodbath financially.  They won't do those things.  Odds are they will try to make Wii U profitable and try to come up with another gimmick to be a success to replace the Wii U.  That's why I personally think that the QoL is actually the Wii U replacement.  We've yet to see the gimmick though. 

Nintendo did ditch the Virtual Boy quite quickly and that didn't affect anything.  They replaced the DSi within less than two years and got away with it.  The Game Boy Color came out in Nov 1998 and was replaced by the GBA in June 2001.  That's less than three years and, again, no one cared.  Those GBC owners were all over the GBA and unlike the Wii U the GBC was a very successful product.  Release a Wii U successor in Nov 2015 and that's a three year life cycle, same as the GBC.  Realistically I don't think they could get something out quicker.  And I would obviously suggest they support the Wii U up until its replacement.  With the Dreamcast, Sega was effectively gone for over a year and they had been losing money up to the point, while Nintendo has savings.

It's hard to draw parallels to the handheld market.  Leaving Nintendo there really means you aren't interested in handheld gaming.  The V-boy was an epic-ally bigger bomb than the Wii U and I didn't see the others as new consoles but as existing consoles with cheaply added features.  Like the DSi, didn't that launch with no exclusive software?  You basically know you were buying a DS.  And the price gap was little and you were getting a bigger screen so it wasn't all a loss.

You know what the Dreamcast had?  Great third party support.  In the 3 years it existed it had like 622 games.  And now that my retro-collecting is getting around to the Dreamcast alot of them were great.  And most of the crossover games were best on the Dreamcast.  And it is powerful, it looks great through VGA on my HDTV very much comparable to PS2 power which came later.  Sega would be an interesting case study.  They had other business markets that were doing poorly contributing to their poor financial position.  They also did retarded things like build a $100M game (Shenmue) for the Dreamcast.  I guess what I'm trying to say is their failings weren't the same as Nintendo and I'm not sure they are comparable at all.   

Weren't you that said no one has come back from a home console failure?  This isn't going to be easy and I'm not sure what the answer is. 

[Ian Sane]

This all leads to Nintendo being willing to come back to a bloodbath financially.  They won't do those things.  Odds are they will try to make Wii U profitable and try to come up with another gimmick to be a success to replace the Wii U.  That's why I personally think that the QoL is actually the Wii U replacement.  We've yet to see the gimmick though.

I suspect the QoL is the actual Wii U replacement as well but I fear it's basically a Wii Fit machine and Nintendo will no longer make "real" consoles anymore.  They noticed the popularity of "personal wellness" titles like Wii Fit and Brain Age and plan to make that their new priority.
 
A little while back some story broke from a Wii U dev who described the nightmare of developing games for the thing.  It isn't just underpowered but not properly supported by Nintendo.  The dev kit is poorly documented and if you have a question Nintendo takes days to get back to you.  I'm a programmer.  If I was working in an environment that lacked industry standard features and was poorly documented and had **** support I would be looking for the first excuse to ditch it.  It costs companies serious dev time and thus money to waste time hunting in the dark to figure things out because of poor documentation and support.  Nintendo deserves to lose all their third party support with that nonsense.  It just makes it that much harder for a third party to make a buck.  So, no, Nintendo doesn't have to hand out moneyhats to get support because a lack of bribing companies is not the reason no one is supporting them or why those same third parties support the other guys.  Nintendo needs hardware that compares to the other guys and documentation and support and policies that are comparable to the other guys.  Oh and the console has to actually sell to the general public so that there is a userbase to sell the games to.  Nintendo may have to write some cheques to get a few key games at the start but if their next console sells okay and it isn't a huge ordeal to support their console the third parties will come.
 
Right now Nintendo has the worst console with the worst sales and the worst development support for their devs.  Why would anyone in their right mind support that?  How the hell can Nintendo be the worst in every category and then throw their hands up the air and declare it all to be hopeless?  When you're the BEST and you fail then it may be hopeless but when you're the worst you failing is exactly what SHOULD be happening.

[MagicCow64]

My guess is that beyond the particularities of the WiiU's struggle, and what was fixable ahead of time and what wasn't, what can and can't be done now to revive the platform, Nintendo's looking at the broader shape of the market.

Though it has possibly caused a big hunk of their irrelevancy in the Western dominated game-o-verse, Nintendo sure did hit it on the head years ago about spiraling development costs destabilizing the industry, a trap they've avoided. So now their options are: try to finally catch up all the way, sink a ****-ton of money, sell a new console at a significant loss, hope that third parties will come back and not decide that they're perfectly happy sticking with PS4/Xbone/PC; or decide that they're done trying to claw back market share in an increasingly risky, low-profit, and arguably shrinking business sector.

Based on what we know about how Nintendo operates, which option is more rational? Japan (and soon the U.S) also has a significant aging population, just the kind of folks that Nintendo might want to target for a QoL platform. I can see them transitioning out of the console space as they reorient around a new product category, riding out traditional gaming experience on the 4DS until it too fades into irrelevancy.

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

The fact is the Wii U is a confusing product, with or without the Game Pad, all it does is further confuses potential buyers. When I first went shopping for one I didn't know it still had it's own Wiimote, I thought the Game Pad was supposed to replace the motion controls so another failure on their part, marketing. I don't want to own a machine that I need to read the label to determine if I have the right controller to play it, I never bought the Super Scope or those Bongos for that same reason. It isn't even about games anymore, if your machine is not appealing nobody buys it no games get mad.e