Topic: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

[tendoboy1984]

Yes it was. The NES introduced a new type of controller (D-pad with face buttons) and made it mainstream. Before the NES, most games were controlled by paddles and joysticks. Nintendo also pioneered the modern platformer with Super Mario Bros., along with the open-world exploration games of Zelda and Metroid.


The N64 introduced full 3D analog movement to console games, and Super Mario 64 revolutionized 3D games. Yes Sony's DualShock pioneered the modern controller interface with dual analog sticks and 4 shoulder buttons, but it probably wouldn't have evolved that way without influence from the N64 controller.

[ShyGuy]

I think around the time Sony released the dualshock is when the gaming population average age got old enough to lose the neuroplasticity that allowed them to adapt to new control schemes. It was just too much effort to learn beyond that.

"Core" gamers have fought any major revision to control schemes ever since.

[Ian Sane]

The Wii U isn't like nothing that came before it.  It's whole big controller gimmick is effectively the same as the DS only taken to a console.  What great idea requires a second touchscreen that could not have been done on the DS years ago?  The second it was announced I was skeptical because I figured if Nintendo had some awesome ideas they would have used them on the DS, particularly early on when they were very blatantly struggling with coming up with ways to "prove" the importance of the touchscreen.  If they had such a great idea for a second screen on a console why wouldn't they have used it on the Gamecube?  And the big thing is that the Wii U comes across as out-of-date.  I think it's clear the market feels that the PS4 and XB1 offer something new or at least the potential for something new while the Wii U comes across as last gen.  The Wii U is a PS3 with the DS touchscreen.  It's a combination of old ideas that Nintendo is merely talking up as something new.  Something ACTUALLY new might have done better.

I think around the time Sony released the dualshock is when the gaming population average age got old enough to lose the neuroplasticity that allowed them to adapt to new control schemes. It was just too much effort to learn beyond that.

"Core" gamers have fought any major revision to control schemes ever since.

I think we all just found a groove we liked and it never seemed like we NEEDED any revisions so they come across as forced and gimmicky.  It doesn't help that motion control was specifically marketed as having casual appeal.  Nintendo made a big stink about how non-gamers were confused by the existing control scheme.  You know, the scheme that core gamers already loved.  So you're changing OUR control scheme to accommodate rubes that don't even like videogames?  When presented in that way there is going to be a natural resistance to the change.  Something new that would make "our" games control better would be a much easier sell.  The whole marketing of the DS touchscreen, Wiimote and Kinect are all around attracting non-gamers and not something to improve the experience for core gamers.  Thus there is an association with new control schemes and dumbing down games for casuals.

And I think a big part of it is the first impression.  The SNES trigger buttons were not that much of a change.  So we have more buttons?  No biggie, we've used buttons from day one.  The analog stick was something very unfamiliar and is probably the biggest adaptation core gamers were willing to make.  It was required for Super Mario 64 which at the time got "greatest game of all time" hype.  It was a big ambitious game that we all wanted to play so we adapted and the implementation was really good as well.  The DS touchscreen?  Nintendo's first go with that was a Super Mario 64 remake that controlled like ****.  And that's a first impression wasted.  Wiimote?  A collection of mini-games aimed at our moms and girlfriends so that's forever associated with casuals.  Kinect?  HA!

When was the last time we were asked to make a major adaptation with a game that immediately sold us on its merits?  I think it was the N64 analog stick (the Dualshock was just two of what we already were comfortable with).  If you flub the first impression, we won't accept it.  If you associate it with casuals, we won't accept it.  It has to work well on day one in a game that we all want to play.  People don't like change and you have to sell them on it and the analog stick was the last time anyone did that.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I think around the time Sony released the dualshock is when the gaming population average age got old enough to lose the neuroplasticity that allowed them to adapt to new control schemes. It was just too much effort to learn beyond that.

"Core" gamers have fought any major revision to control schemes ever since.

I think as far as buttons/thumbsticks we've plateaued.  I've played games where I wasn't an expert in the controls after playing the game for 2 hours.  It's not that people can't learn new schemes, it's just most won't put in the time to get past extremely complicated controls.  And I don't think they should have to.  A fun game doesn't have to be needlessly complicated. 

The only two major control changes since that I can think of are touchscreens and motion controls.  I prefer traditional controls.  I can't speak for everyone who does, but for me the problem is going from a situation where I have near 100% accuracy to a situation where I have 90% accuracy.  If a game benefits from motion controls, then by all means have them.  I play lots of games with motion controls and their existence doesn't bother me and I actually enjoy them at times. 

The problem is Nintendo forcing untraditional control schemes into games that were essentially perfect with traditional controls and now they aren't with untraditional controls.  The biggest example is Mario.  2D Mario has always had spot on control and it didn't need to change.  If you died, you knew it was because you didn't perform the part properly.  NSMB Wii included motion controls that often made me spin jump unintended while playing leading to lots of deaths.  It was frustrating and it left a bad mark on an otherwise good game.  I died because I shifted in my seat, not because I didn't perform the part properly. 

I just don't get Nintendo.  SNES had custom controls why isn't that the norm now?  You want to play Mario completely with motion controls then fine.  You want to play with a traditional controller, then you can do that too.  If you want to hook up a steering wheel and play Mario then you should be able to do that.  Nintendo kind of used the same tactics with third parties on their consumers.  They treated us like our opinions didn't matter.  They kept saying, you don't understand motion controls, you just need to use them more and see them in action.  We understood all along, we just didn't like them in games that didn't need them.  And the point would have been moot if you could have at least opted out of them like in MK.  I actually expect that if Nintendo announced a new system and corresponding new control scheme that Mario/Zelda/Metroid would suffer because of the control scheme.  That's not to say it would be completely a loss or they wouldn't have new IPs that would take great advantage of it.  But I buy Nintendo for those series and if those series suffer, I'm more likely to be turned off to Nintendo in the future. 

[ShyGuy]

I rest my case.

[Ceric]

In light of reading how much of Nintendo's revenue and profits come from hardware.  Nintendo should have a version of PSPlus.  Its ridiculous how much they make of hardware compared to Software.

[Stogi]

Interesting thread.

There are a lot of differing opinions about how Nintendo should move forward. Needless to say, they have a lot of options.

If I can just summarize for a moment. There are those who believe Nintendo should join their hardware divisions into one, those that believe they should instead team up with others, and then there are those who believe that a game or games is actually the solution.

What you all agree on is Nintendo's inability to draw in third party support. Am I correct in assuming that?

From a financial and consumer perspective there are problems with all your conclusions, but problems aren't inherently bad. Those who believe in a hybrid have power and graphic concerns that may ultimately provide the consumer with nothing they want; those wanting a deal to be struck need to know that this is essentially the biggest "money-hat" ever proposed and could have devastating reprocussions when considering how to maintain exclusivity when your competitors have a bigger bank; lastly, simply developing a game is pressure enough but one that fans have wanted for many years would have astronomical hype and likely could be an amazing game that still will not satisfy.

Now I'd like to list out some parameters of the future of gaming, mainly focusing on the console side. I'm doing this to outline the box where Nintendo might play.

1. Games will be both the most expensive and least expensive to make in history.

2. Companies competing on the highest plane of graphics will choose to refine ideas rather than create new ones.

3. Companies competing in lower planes of graphics will be more ambitious.

4. Hardware manufacturers will continually strive to make more complicated hardware that can do several things at once.

5. Hardware will both continue to become more expensive and have longer shelf life.

6. And lastly, while gaming systems become more prevelant, dedicated gamers will decline.

Most of these seem obvious as there is evidence of it happening already but I wanted to show these as trends.

Now does anyone see where a company like Nintendo can compete? They are a dedicated gaming company. They have no ulterior motives to dominate the industry other than to make money from games. Looking over those parameters, I do not.

That is why I propose Nintendo to abandon those parameters and the market which Microsoft and Sony wish to dominate with all in one machines and veer into a more sustainable, more creative path. One that hands the consumers and producers simplicity. That's it.

No crazy controllers, no high end graphics, no netflix, no complexity at all. It will literally have only two options: Buy a game or Play a game. Furthermore, after the initial installation, there are no loading times. And if you buy a game from a store, you can trust that seconds after you pop it in, it'll play. Charge 199 for it and your done.

As for Nintendo's handhelds, I would strive to make it last a week. That would be my goal. Each iteration would last longer and longer till it lasts a week.

Edit: I would also strive to make them indestructible. That is all.

[Adrock]

What you all agree on is Nintendo's inability to draw in third party support. Am I correct in assuming that?

I think it's that they're unwilling more than anything else.

Nintendo being Nintendo is both the reason they rose to prominence and the reason they fell from it. Third parties came to Nintendo because Nintendo was Nintendo rather than because Nintendo did anything particularly special. Sony and Microsoft made approaching to third parties (sometimes with cash in hand) the new normal. I don't think either course is sustainable because the terms are uneven. They should all strive for a middle ground.

If Nintendo ever hopes to get more third party support, they have to be more open and they're ultimately going to have to give something up. What people don't understand is that it has to be mutual. For example, higher specs alone don't do anything. Third parties can bring their games over, but that doesn't mean they will. That's why it drives me up a wall when some people bring up "Wii/Wii U is underpowered" because it doesn't address the more important issue. Third parties can still ignore a higher spec machine and probably will because Nintendo still exists in their bubble. When you have publishers flat-out stating they had no idea what the hell Nintendo was working on, that's the first and more pressing issue. Nintendo is still operating mostly like they have for the past 25 years. They create hardware in secret and third parties can make games for them. Or not. Meh. If Nintendo is okay with that, so be it. However, third parties aren't (and logically can't) make games for hardware they barely know exists. Once Nintendo gauges interest and receives feedback, that's when things like specs and features can be discussed. And the ridiculous part is that merely it starts there.

No crazy controllers, no high end graphics, no netflix, no complexity at all. It will literally have only two options: Buy a game or Play a game. Furthermore, after the initial installation, there are no loading times. And if you buy a game from a store, you can trust that seconds after you pop it in, it'll play. Charge 199 for it and your done.

Gimmicks aren't inherently bad and people need to stop acting like they are. I don't mind the crazy controllers so long as a traditional controller is still available and included. In hindsight, Nintendo should have included a Classic Controller (as well as Motion Plus in the Wii Remote from the beginning). They have to options rather than replacements. That's why DS and 3DS worked.

I don't think Nintendo can get away with a games-only machine in this day and age. Netflix is just the result of a connected world. Unless you mean to also remove online functionality entirely, things like Netflix are simply expected.

As for Nintendo's handhelds, I would strive to make it last a week. That would be my goal. Each iteration would last longer and longer till it lasts a week.

I'm not really sure what this means.

[ShyGuy]

Stogi makes some excellent points.

6. And lastly, while gaming systems become more prevelant, dedicated gamers will decline.

This one is right on the money. Technology has a way of becoming popular and destroying hobbies.

- The decline of Hi Fi as a hobby. Twenty Five years ago, everybody who was into music has a big stereo in their living room with big speakers, tuners, receivers, tape, record and disc players. Along came digital music and the ability to play music anywhere. NOTE: music did not go aways, just the classic audiophile.

- The decline of photography as a hobby. Multiple cameras, multiple lenses, dark rooms and film. Now every phone has a camera built in. You don't have to take the perfect shop, you can use Photoshop to make it perfect.

- The decline of PC building as a hobby. I saw this one personally. The computer shop I worked in had a steady stream of customers buying motherboards, drives and more. Enthusiasts would always be building and upgrading their computers. This slowed down to a trickle by the end of the last decade. Most people bought a cheap laptop and supplemented with a smart phone or tablet.

In all these cases, The results that the hobby produced became cheaper, ubiquitous, required less components and effort. All these hobbies still exist, the things that replaced them offer inferior results, but they are good enough.

There are still music, photos, and computing. But fewer people are dedicated to them in the same way.

As for Nintendo's handhelds, I would strive to make it last a week. That would be my goal. Each iteration would last longer and longer till it lasts a week.

I'm not really sure what this means.


The battery could last a week.

[Stogi]

My handheld comment means I would make a system that could last a week with non stop gaming without needing to recharge, I.e. damn near forever. Each iteration would push the hours it lasts until it's a non issue.

[Stogi]

No crazy controllers, no high end graphics, no netflix, no complexity at all. It will literally have only two options: Buy a game or Play a game. Furthermore, after the initial installation, there are no loading times. And if you buy a game from a store, you can trust that seconds after you pop it in, it'll play. Charge 199 for it and your done.

Gimmicks aren't inherently bad and people need to stop acting like they are. I don't mind the crazy controllers so long as a traditional controller is still available and included. In hindsight, Nintendo should have included a Classic Controller (as well as Motion Plus in the Wii Remote from the beginning). They have to options rather than replacements. That's why DS and 3DS worked.

I don't think Nintendo can get away with a games-only machine in this day and age. Netflix is just the result of a connected world. Unless you mean to also remove online functionality entirely, things like Netflix are simply expected.

The wiimote is actually the least complicated controller of the last gen by far. The attachments is where it got tricky. I actually think two wiimotes "tied" together could be the coolest controller in history, but that's niether here or there

As for a games only machine not working, I wholeheartedly disagree. The fact that it does nothing else but play games immediately will throw a wrench in the whole equation. Sony and Microsoft with all their horse power will actually look slow. People, now having something to compare, will become frustrated by all the extra nonessential functions that Sony and Microsoft employ to ultimately distract you from the pure and simple goal of gaming. They will finally see how broken the system is with constant updates, DLC, and in game advertisements.

Furthermore, Nintendo simply can't compete on their turf no matter how much you think they can. It is unsustainable. There was a reason for the blue ocean strategy after all.  So take the moral high ground. Become the organic amongst all the vegetables except be easier to enjoy by being less expensive and more focused. Remind people of what a gaming system is suppose to be. Fun at a drop of a hat. Start the Revolution.

As for online, anything that makes the enjoyment of games better and safe guards them should be used. Miiverse, one centralized account, ratings, achievements etc. I am all for it. However bring back the seal of approval. Games that release early and require patches are simply not excepted for the sake of the consumer. DLC and free to play will not be allowed. Release your game as a whole. Again this is for thr consumers sake.

The point is to be simple and effective which is ultimately attractive. People should ask themselves as soon as they turn the system on why was it simpler to play a few quick games with your friends a few generations ago then it is now?

[Adrock]

The wiimote is actually the least complicated controller of the last gen by far. The attachments is where it got tricky. I actually think two wiimotes "tied" together could be the coolest controller in history, but that's niether here or there

The only attachment to the Wii Remote should have been the Nunchuk. Motion Plus should have been part of the Wii Remote like it is now and the Classic Controller should have been its own independent controller. Not all games worked with the Wii Remote which is fine, but that's why including a traditional controller would have made sense.

As for a games only machine not working, I wholeheartedly disagree. The fact that it does nothing else but play games immediately will throw a wrench in the whole equation. Sony and Microsoft with all their horse power will actually look slow. People, now having something to compare, will become frustrated by all the extra nonessential functions that Sony and Microsoft employ to ultimately distract you from the pure and simple goal of gaming. They will finally see how broken the system is with constant updates, DLC, and in game advertisements.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I'm not suggesting Nintendo try to make an all-in-one like Sony and Microsoft. I simply find the extras Nintendo does offer to be unobtrusive. And I definitely don't see everyone having a grand epiphany regarding things like patches, DLC, and in-game ads upon seeing a pure gaming console. Third parties like those things and the last thing Nintendo should do is tell third parties they can't have any of that. Nintendo would lose what little support they have now, including indies. A strictly games console with ridiculous self-imposed restrictions would simply make Nintendo look even more out of touch than ever.

Furthermore, Nintendo simply can't compete on their turf no matter how much you think they can. It is unsustainable. There was a reason for the blue ocean strategy after all.  So take the moral high ground. Become the organic amongst all the vegetables except be easier to enjoy by being less expensive and more focused. Remind people of what a gaming system is suppose to be. Fun at a drop of a hat. Start the Revolution.

Isn't that what Nintendo is already doing? They're the most focused games console maker. I don't really see how having Netflix complicates anything.

As for completing, Nintendo doesn't have a choice. As long as these consoles play videogames, they're all competing with each other. In terms of gaming, Nintendo just need to be smarter. They have to listen to their partners unless they really want to have at it alone.

As for online, anything that makes the enjoyment of games better and safe guards them should be used. Miiverse, one centralized account, ratings, achievements etc. I am all for it. However bring back the seal of approval. Games that release early and require patches are simply not excepted for the sake of the consumer. DLC and free to play will not be allowed. Release your game as a whole. Again this is for thr consumers sake.

Again, Nintendo will just lose all support since they would be the only console maker making those demands. No one wants to deal with a bully. You say this is for the consumer's sake but only in a perfect world. In reality, this is an anti-consumer move because no third party is putting up with that crap resulting in a game console with far fewer games.

The point is to be simple and effective which is ultimately attractive. People should ask themselves as soon as they turn the system on why was it simpler to play a few quick games with your friends a few generations ago then it is now?

I get what you're saying; it's just way too idealistic. Things were simpler generations ago because it was impossible to do what we can do today. Games have also become more complicated. Nintendo has some of the best testers in the industry and they missed two game breaking glitches last generation (Twilight Princess and Other M). Patches can lead to laziness, but sometimes they can't be helped. You have to take the good with the bad. Same with paid downloadable content. And even then, it's always optional. I've yet to pay for any DLC. I don't mind it existing because if I don't think it's worth it, I don't give that company my money. If I really think they're nickel and diming consumers, I just won't buy their game. Consumers have a voice.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I rest my case.

I'm not sure I said the same thing as you.  I said in games that controls were perfect and alternative controls made them less accurate Nintendo should have allowed the traditional controls as an alternative.  I'm not sure how that equates to fighting Nintendo tooth and nail because alternative controls exist.  Nobody was arguing that traditional controls should have been shoehorned in WiiSports.  If they had, that might have been the worse game ever invented.

6. And lastly, while gaming systems become more prevelant, dedicated gamers will decline.

I think this is a bit of a misnomer.  Dedicated gamers seems to imply that I want a system that only plays games.  Games are my biggest hobby, but I enjoy watching movies, listening to music, surfing the web.  My PS3 can do all these.  As a person who focuses mainly on gaming I just want the gaming element of the console to not suffer when they add all these other features.  And I think we are already there.  If I want to watch a blu ray on my PS3, I just pop that in the disc drive instead of the game.  If I go a couple of months without watching a blu ray, I literally don't have to do anything special to turn my PS3 into a dedicated games machine it just is.  As processing power has increased, it does all these multi-media things seamlessly and doesn't harm the game experience.  I don't think it takes alot of time either to add a MP3 program to the interface or a netflix app like the Wii U or whatever.  Focus is still on games even if these exist. 

QuoteAs for online, anything that makes the enjoyment of games better and safe guards them should be used. Miiverse, one centralized account, ratings, achievements etc. I am all for it. However bring back the seal of approval. Games that release early and require patches are simply not excepted for the sake of the consumer. DLC and free to play will not be allowed. Release your game as a whole. Again this is for thr consumers sake.

Again, Nintendo will just lose all support since they would be the only console maker making those demands. No one wants to deal with a bully. You say this is for the consumer's sake but only in a perfect world. In reality, this is an anti-consumer move because no third party is putting up with that crap resulting in a game console with far fewer games.

I agree with Adrock.  It's a good idea in theory, but the reality is game development is much more complicated than the NES days.  The reality is it's likely games will have bugs even if you've tested the game extensively.  Why not give developers opportunities to fix those bugs when they are found?  I think that's better for me to play a better/completed game. 

[Stogi]

We demand faster, effecient, more sound products in every other aspect of our lives. Why do we not demand the same from game companies?

And what is so wrong about contraints? Without contraints, ingenuity would be meaningless.

What makes the gaming industry so special that it can throw all its flaws directly on the consumer? Why are we so privileged?

As the largest game only company in the world, Nintendo has a chance to shift the industry back to its rightful domain and innovative where there has only been excuses.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I guess you and I want different things then.  In many ways, I'm not dissapointed where dedicated consoles are going from a hardware and media software perspective.  The PS3 is an awesome dedicated gaming (if only it had Nintendo software) machine that is also an awesome media device. 


Would it be nice if there was an auto load disc feature like the DS had?  Maybe, but the reality is that we are moving to a digital world where most if not all games with be accessed via an O/S on a hard-drive.  As that happens we either need the game console to be psychic to auto load the game I want or it will need to have an O/S that loads and I choose from that menu.  As such, I think that the games menu should auto load to highlight the games.  The fact that there are other media menus isn't a bad thing to me. 


That doesn't give Nintendo a pass for the Wii U menus being clunky and taking too long to load, but I think they know about those problems and are trying to address them within the constraints they created.  I don't see the games industry throwing all of it's flaws on the consumers more than any other industry asks its consumers to deal with economic hardware/software constraints. 

[rlse9]

We demand faster, effecient, more sound products in every other aspect of our lives. Why do we not demand the same from game companies?

And what is so wrong about contraints? Without contraints, ingenuity would be meaningless.

What makes the gaming industry so special that it can throw all its flaws directly on the consumer? Why are we so privileged?

As the largest game only company in the world, Nintendo has a chance to shift the industry back to its rightful domain and innovative where there has only been excuses.

I think you're confusing gaming industry with tech industry.  Every version of Windows comes with day 1 security updates, almost all major PC software issues patches for bug fixes, my Android phone has several apps update every day, often involving bug fixes.  If you want to be an early adopter with anything tech related, there's a good chance that there will be some headaches involved.  And since the tech industry is booming, I doubt it will be changing anytime soon, for better or worse.

Specific to Nintendo, the last thing they need to be doing is anything that makes it harder on 3rd parties to make games for their system.

[Stogi]

Sigh...

I just pity the kids growing up in this day and age when playing a video game can be an exercise in patience rather than slamming a cartridge in and slapping the power switch on.

[Adrock]

We demand faster, effecient, more sound products in every other aspect of our lives. Why do we not demand the same from game companies?

Who says we don't? Console owners are always demanding more and better things.

And what is so wrong about contraints? Without contraints, ingenuity would be meaningless.

Depends on the constraints. Making Netflix available doesn't stop a console from playing good games.

What makes the gaming industry so special that it can throw all its flaws directly on the consumer? Why are we so privileged?

I'm not sure everyone agrees with your stated flaws. Additionally, companies can try to push things on consumers, but consumers choose whether to accept them. If they were really so unacceptable, people wouldn't buy anything.

I just pity the kids growing up in this day and age when playing a video game can be an exercise in patience rather than slamming a cartridge in and slapping the power switch on.

And maybe they don't want or need your pity. Maybe they pity us for living through such a limited age of gaming. Times change and every generation is provided with new experiences. The only thing that hasn't changed is people's ability to say no. If these kids you pity so much really felt the same way you do, they could not play video games. You're acting like they don't have a choice. They have plenty of choices. Things may not be perfect, but they don't change over night. And honestly, some of the things you're railing about others find good for the industry.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I just pity the kids growing up in this day and age when playing a video game can be an exercise in patience rather than slamming a cartridge in and slapping the power switch on.

I'm 33, it's been awhile since someone called me a kid.  You forgot about cleaning the system and blowing on the cartridge and hoping it works .  I'm all for streamlining things if possible, but I can get most games to start within 30 seconds on my Wii U (which still has long load times compared to alternatives).  To me that is acceptable.  Would I like faster?  Of course, just like I'd like all games to be <$10, but it's not a deal breaker to me. 


The big benefit on modern tech, is starting a new game within the menu without changing discs or getting out of a chair or reloading anything.  As long as the game is on the Wii U harddrive it's like 5 seconds to get out of a game and into a new game.  It used to take me much longer to change NES or SNES games.

[Stogi]

I simply can't see any other options working. Competing with Sony and Microsoft next go around will be disastrous. Trying to innovative or merge markets will confuse customers.  And trying to develop a system that expands the market yet again will take an incredible amount of ingenuity.

Maybe I only had half the equation. Other than providing a bare bones experience that trivialized any wait periods, they could provide the most robust streaming and downloading catalog in history. Basically become the netflix of gaming. Maybe the innovation should come in the form of providing a service where consumers can browse every game Nintendo has ever made and are able to play  them instantly all for a monthly fee.

[Adrock]

I simply can't see any other options working. Competing with Sony and Microsoft next go around will be disastrous.

Why?

Nintendo still makes more money on video games than Sony and Microsoft. Sure, a lot of it is thanks to their handhelds, but their hardware in general is always designed to turn a profit as soon as possible. The main problem with Wii U is that Nintendo came out of the gates so laughably unprepared. It's a good console with the potential to be great. Nintendo had no urgency. Wii U's lackluster performance is due to negligence. They had a gap in their release schedule, poor marketing, and no real gameplan. How the hell does a company launch a console like that? Consumers responded by ignoring it, at least until Nintendo released some new software. This is not complicated. People buy Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo games. Get that part right. The rest is a bit more difficult yet still mostly common sense. Most of the things I listed in the opening post are fairly obvious.

[Adrock]

Does anyone remember if Nintendo 64 had different color controllers at launch? I think it did, but I'm not sure. I didn't get my N64 until February 1997 when Mario Kart 64 came out and my mom got me the black controller. I still think the console itself should come in a neutral color like black or silver (at least at first), but I'd love to have different color controllers from the beginning. I realize that having only one color streamlines the manufacturing process especially at launch when materials are constrained. It's still something I'd like to see.

Right now, I have one black Wii U Pro Controller. I didn't want the white controller since the analog stick would look dirty from use. I'm hoping by the time Mario Kart 8 or Super Smash Bros. comes out, Nintendo will have released some different colors.

[BranDonk Kong]

No it was black only.

[rlse9]

I thought it came in multiple colors at launch.  I got one not long after launch and bought a green controller to go with the gray controller included with the system.  I agree, having different colored controllers was great, especially when having a group of friends over and taking turns playing 4 player games.

[BranDonk Kong]

They did have different colored controllers at launch I believe, but the console was only in black for a while.