Two tablets might not be out of the question.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/rumor/30111
A Global TestMarket survey may have revealed new Wii U tablet functionality and a tentative $300 price tag, as reported by GoNintendo reader Porygon.
In one question on the survey, the question is asked: "How likely are you to purchase Wii U if it cost: $299.99?", potentially suggesting a general pricing range.
In addition, a series of pictures showing off gameplay, Netflix, and sports game features was revealed, and one pictures appears to show gameplay between either two Wii U tablets or a tablet and a Wii remote. If it is the former, it will be contrary to previous suspicion that only one Wii U tablet will be playable at a time.
Am I the only one who doesn't want >1 tablet capability?
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.
Food for thought - Will the Wii U support regular Wii Remotes without Motion Plus?
yes, you are the only one.
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.
Food for thought - Will the Wii U support regular Wii Remotes without Motion Plus?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.
Don't expect simultaneous multiplayer CoD Black Ops 2 only using the controller screens to play.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?Don't expect simultaneous multiplayer CoD Black Ops 2 only using the controller screens to play.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.
Wha??
Am I the only one who found this incomprehensible?
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.
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...
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. :)
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...
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.
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.
Tempest, meet teapotI'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'm gonna out myself now... I really hate the term "wiimote"... Like, with a passion.
I honestly think that was a missed opportunity for Nintendo Marketing. Wii Remote is just so utilitarian for non-utilitarian piece of equipment.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.
Heh, my personal terminology (that just hasn't caught on T-T) is "Tablet Controller".I've been calling it tablet controller too. /Internet high five
"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."
"Okay, so that I can elaborate on. The Wii U is not a portable handheld device you're going to take with you in transit or into a proximity away from the Wii U console, but you can take content from your console, put it on your Wii U controller, take it with you somewhere else, and be able to upload it. That technology is possible."
I likened it to the Wii Remote, which has a small amount of memory for storing Miis and the like, and he noted it is "similar, but that's kind of basic, what you can do with the Wii Remote. Taking a Mii with you is cool and fun, but this has the possibility to do more... not on the go, but once you get somewhere else where you take your stuff to someone else's environment, it's definitely possible."
"It's hard for us to commit to anything concrete, but yes, it's a possibility because the controllers are compatible. It's possible to have that kind of experience."
But the abbreviated TabCon doesn't sound good.
Heh, my personal terminology (that just hasn't caught on T-T) is "Tablet Controller".I've been calling it tablet controller too. /Internet high five
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?
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.
Should we fit with with an avatar of the Joker?
I think multi-tablet support would ultimately be a lose-lose for gamers and developers.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.
It's a simple difference of opinion...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.
...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?
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?
Skyward Sword, Wii Sports Resort, and Zangeki no Reginleiv?There was also FlingSmash and Wii Play Motion. Yes, I realize these don't help at all, but they exist.
Now, IF the tablet controllers were each, say, $40 bucks??? Sure, tablets for everybody!! But I don't see that happening... do you?
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.
Well only some people will have multiple Wii Remotes, or Classic Controllers; should Nintendo not support those either because of the fragmented market?
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?
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.
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.
@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.
in fact, haven't people complained over this past generation that Nintendo focused too much on games that used peripherals?
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.
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.
@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? ::)
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.
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.
I'm not arguing for four, though. I'm arguing for two.
On that same note, you've done the "gotcha!" moment to me a few times, trying to make me look bad.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
So... you do or don't want Nintendo to put a 1-Tablet limit on the system?
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
@ChozoGhost
Yea, but the unexpanded audience didn't hurt the PS2 much, now did it? :)
Am I the only one who doesn't want >1 tablet capability?
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.
What about the 360? How many of those are re-purchases from RRODs?
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?
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?
If someone wanted to go back and play FFXI, assuming the servers are even still up, there are better ways to do so.