Now you could assume that Nintendo would have a Wiimote2.0 packed in the box, and they might, but it would also be kinda silly to assume that the big screened controller that will definitely be the center point of the console will not be the main controller... but I still hold out hope for a Wiimote/chuck 2.0 as an alternative and cheaper control method, especially for multi-player?
Why couldn't you get a Café controller with dock and a Wiimote 2.0 in the box? It sounds like a great idea to me. We all know that there has got to be a pretty hefty mark-up on Wiimotes after 200million of them have been sold, so it would probably cost Nintendo next to nothing to throw one in the box. and if the system does cost between $350 and $400, it's perfectly possibly that Nintendo would pack the controllers in the box at cost and make up the difference at retail with $40 Wiimote 2.0's and $70 Café controllers
If both controllers come standard with the system, then how can only one of them be considered the '
Café controller'? This is exactly the kind of thinking I'm talking about-- You're thinking inside the box. Who says '
there can only be one real controller'? The DS uses SNES-style buttons
and a touch screen, does that make the buttons any less of a DS aspect? No, SNES-styled buttons worked in the past so they reused them alongside a new touch screen, both of which make up a DS. As gamers, we're used to being in a bubble cut off from the general public, but Nintendo popped that bubble with the Wii. As a result, we need to start learning to look at gaming reports without our 'geek goggles' still on.
Looking at Wii-styled controls through our 'geek goggles', they may appear to be something obsolete that Nintendo needs to replace since Wii failed to become the console of choice for gamers. The problem with that thinking is that gamers are just a niche portion of the market as a whole. Wii
was the choice console to the mass market-- therefore motion controls were a success, not a failure. So, which is the most logical move on Nintendo's part? Replace the motion controls or add something new in addition to them?
Even though Wii might not have been the most
played console among gamers, most gamers still
owned one. Gamers and non-gamers alike both bought Wiis. The way I see it, it wasn't that gamers weren't willing to embrace the motion controls, it's just that 3rd party developers weren't because it took too much extra work to accommodate the special controls. As a result, all the good non-Nintendo-published gamer-centric games went to the consoles that used traditional controls, and the gamers simply followed the games. So my thinking is that Nintendo's solution to the problem will be to
also include something in the box that can act as more traditional controller so developers have no more excuses. Especially if it also serves another more primary purpose...
What kind of games were most successful on the Wii? I think most would agree local multiplayer party games. Which makes sense when you consider that gathering multiple people for short play sessions is far more practical use for a big TV than a single person sitting in front of it to play an epic adventure for 20+ hours. As far as practicality goes, a long-single player game is best suited for a portable system... but most gamers prefer playing those games with the latest graphics technology which is only available in console form. But... if you had technology that could let you stream content to another device which could coincidentally function as its own controller as well, you'd be hitting two birds with one stone.
That's what I believe is the main purpose of the touchscreen controller really is. Since local multiplayer works best with Wii-type games on a single screen, why change it, let alone make each player pay $100 for a controller in order to join in? The touchscreen controller will have its own purposes, most of which will be for single player-- it makes the most sense.
You say it's kinda silly to assume what will definitely be the center point of the console won't be the main controller... That's assuming its intended purpose was to be a controller. I don't believe that to be the case. If its main intended function was for streaming and we just misinterpreted the leaked reports, then it's not silly at all. In fact, the idea that we'd be expected to have to likely pay $100 for each controller, is a lot sillier.
Show Posts
This article more or less describes my idea of the auxiliary controller exactly... It's a damn shame that part is only going to be worth three points for me. Let's just hope I got the remote prediction right... that's where all the points are.
