Topic: What Happened to the Wii U GamePad’s Potential?

[lolmonade]

All this editorial makes me wonder is "What would have happened if Nintendo abandoned the quirkly input controls, made the Pro controller the default controller, and focused on a more powerful machine in lockstep with PS4/Xbox One?".  Just have some of the Nintendo presentation/Menus/features alongside it.
 
I love my Wii U and don't pretend to know exactly their way to success, but doesn't stop me from wondering.

[Adrock]

All this editorial makes me wonder is "What would have happened if Nintendo abandoned the quirkly input controls, made the Pro controller the default controller, and focused on a more powerful machine in lockstep with PS4/Xbox One?".  Just have some of the Nintendo presentation/Menus/features alongside it.

Since this doesn't imply that Nintendo makes any other changes policies regarding third parties, online play etc., it would be in roughly the same position except with a more powerful, more expensive console and no GamePad and still no third party support. That is better in some ways, worse in others. If you play primarily Nintendo games, you'd just end up having to pay more.

[Phil]

All this editorial makes me wonder is "What would have happened if Nintendo abandoned the quirkly input controls, made the Pro controller the default controller, and focused on a more powerful machine in lockstep with PS4/Xbox One?".  Just have some of the Nintendo presentation/Menus/features alongside it.
 
I love my Wii U and don't pretend to know exactly their way to success, but doesn't stop me from wondering.

Who would buy a console that would struggle to have the same games with parity to the newest consoles from the PlayStation and Xbox brands? Who would want a Nintendo system which has predecessors with a history of poor quantity and quality of third party games? And who would want three identical systems on the market? I like the Wii U because it's actually different, and in a fun way, to the nearly identical pair of the PS4 and Xbox One. Being the same power as the next PS and Xbox systems isn't going to magically fix anything. Nintendo's problems as a console owner go much deeper than that, I believe.

[lolmonade]

All this editorial makes me wonder is "What would have happened if Nintendo abandoned the quirkly input controls, made the Pro controller the default controller, and focused on a more powerful machine in lockstep with PS4/Xbox One?".  Just have some of the Nintendo presentation/Menus/features alongside it.
 
I love my Wii U and don't pretend to know exactly their way to success, but doesn't stop me from wondering.

Who would buy a console that would struggle to have the same games with parity to the newest consoles from the PlayStation and Xbox brands? Who would want a Nintendo system which has predecessors with a history of poor quantity and quality of third party games? And who would want three identical systems on the market? I like the Wii U because it's actually different, and in a fun way, to the nearly identical pair of the PS4 and Xbox One. Being the same power as the next PS and Xbox systems isn't going to magically fix anything. Nintendo's problems as a console owner go much deeper than that, I believe.

Just pondering here....I know a lot of people who like Nintendo games but don't bother with their systems because they also want to have 3rd party games.  My hypothetical is if they were to do this in the first place, not axe the Wii U and do it now. 
 
If the three systems were all on the relative same page, they all would have most likely started with the same quality of 3rd party game, so it would come down (mostly) to "Do I like Nintendo's exclusives enough to choose this over PS4/Xbox One?"
 
I get there are other factors (price, what systems are all my friends getting?), but one thing that's clear is Sony's "let's have the best hardware in the console space that's easiest to develop for" has been a winner for them so far, and saying Nintendo wouldn't get better 3rd party support if they'd be literally porting the same game over from Xbox One/PS4 is wrong, IMO.

[NWR_insanolord]

Third party support would likely be better in that scenario (though honestly, could it really be worse?) simply based on the fact that it'd require less effort. It'd be basically GameCube level, where it got most things, but they were usually inferior in some way. Honestly though, I'd rather have the GamePad, but that may just be because I own other consoles and don't really need the Wii U for third party games.

[lolmonade]

All this editorial makes me wonder is "What would have happened if Nintendo abandoned the quirkly input controls, made the Pro controller the default controller, and focused on a more powerful machine in lockstep with PS4/Xbox One?".  Just have some of the Nintendo presentation/Menus/features alongside it.

Since this doesn't imply that Nintendo makes any other changes policies regarding third parties, online play etc., it would be in roughly the same position except with a more powerful, more expensive console and no GamePad and still no third party support. That is better in some ways, worse in others. If you play primarily Nintendo games, you'd just end up having to pay more.

1) I'm operating under the assumption that the costs of developing the Wii U Gamepad & connectivity between it and the system was a relatively costly endeavor.  Google search puts PS4 at a $384 cost of production, i'm guessing Nintendo could probably get to a fairly competitive price point.
2) If Nintendo's system would be nearly the same as PS4/Xbox One, what would really stop 3rd parties from doing what they do with the Xbox One/PS4, which is develop it primarily on one and port it to the other?  Most articles i've read is that the systems are different enough between the specs and gamepad that it makes no sense to port them.  Assuming they all started out the gate with similar specs/control schemes/limited technichal differences, doesn't this lower the barrier to entry for development on the Wii U and invite more ports?
3) Educate me on this one - what in itself is bad about Nintendo's online policy? 

[lolmonade]

Third party support would likely be better in that scenario (though honestly, could it really be worse?) simply based on the fact that it'd require less effort. It'd be basically GameCube level, where it got most things, but they were usually inferior in some way. Honestly though, I'd rather have the GamePad, but that may just be because I own other consoles and don't really need the Wii U for third party games.

Personally, as much as I like the PS4 for some reasons, I would have held off on buying until I found a good bundle or a price cut if Wii U had a good 3rd party line of games.
 
I like the Wii U as well, and appreciate the gamepad for some of the things it can do, but utilization is really half-baked.

[NWR_insanolord]

Third party support would likely be better in that scenario (though honestly, could it really be worse?) simply based on the fact that it'd require less effort. It'd be basically GameCube level, where it got most things, but they were usually inferior in some way. Honestly though, I'd rather have the GamePad, but that may just be because I own other consoles and don't really need the Wii U for third party games.

Personally, as much as I like the PS4 for some reasons, I would have held off on buying until I found a good bundle or a price cut if Wii U had a good 3rd party line of games.
 
I like the Wii U as well, and appreciate the gamepad for some of the things it can do, but utilization is really half-baked.

I understand that feeling. I basically bought a PS4 just for remote play in FIFA, so if the Wii U had continued to get sports games I probably wouldn't have bought a PS4 yet.

[Soren]

I think a system similar to PS4/X1 with a "standard" controller but the same Nintendo antipathy towards 3rd parties would be worse than Wii U. It doesn't matter how close the specs are to each other, companies aren't going to budget for Nintendo ports if they have to face the same scrutiny, lack of hardware documentation and tech support they've had to deal with in the past.

[NWR_insanolord]

I think a system similar to PS4/X1 with a "standard" controller but the same Nintendo antipathy towards 3rd parties would be worse than Wii U. It doesn't matter how close the specs are to each other, companies aren't going to budget for Nintendo ports if they have to face the same scrutiny, lack of hardware documentation and tech support they've had to deal with in the past.

Would the situation from their perspective really be that much different from the early years of the PS3?

[Soren]

Would the situation from their perspective really be that much different from the early years of the PS3?

Probably. I don't have any evidence but I'm guessing Sony was a lot better at communicating than Nintendo. Hardware revisions on dev kits would have notes stating what changed from the previous version, actual documentation devs could use without having to play a game of telephone between NOA and NCL that took weeks. The kinda stuff that doesn't get fixed just by throwing out a machine with better specs.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-secret-developers-wii-u-the-inside-story

[Ian Sane]

The issue with third party support is that multiplatform is now the norm and Nintendo doesn't offer comparable enough hardware to do that.  So if they had that you figure things would certainly have been better.  Ubisoft and EA were at the very least on board at the beginning so you figure if they would be porting their XB1/PS4 games if it was technically feasible.

Though hardware architecture plays a part.  A lot of devs use middleware engines and the popular ones have to be supported on Nintendo hardware.  Nintendo's own policies also have to be friendly enough that it is worth the effort for the third party.

Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker.  If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties.  That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible.  Is it ALL that matters?  No, but it is absolutely essential.

[NWR_insanolord]

Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker.  If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties.  That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible.  Is it ALL that matters?  No, but it is absolutely essential.

If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.

[Adrock]

1) I'm operating under the assumption that the costs of developing the Wii U Gamepad & connectivity between it and the system was a relatively costly endeavor.  Google search puts PS4 at a $384 cost of production, i'm guessing Nintendo could probably get to a fairly competitive price point.

I was under the impression that $384 was the estimated cost of PS4's collective components at launch which didn't include things like manufacturing. Therefore, Sony wasn't losing $16. Comparatively, Wii U's components cost roughly $230 at launch (the GamePad clocked in at a little under $80 of that sum). Nintendo was losing money on at least the Basic Set and probably less than Sony per unit sold. All hardware requires research and development so I don't know how much more costly it was for Nintendo.

2) If Nintendo's system would be nearly the same as PS4/Xbox One, what would really stop 3rd parties from doing what they do with the Xbox One/PS4, which is develop it primarily on one and port it to the other?  Most articles i've read is that the systems are different enough between the specs and gamepad that it makes no sense to port them.  Assuming they all started out the gate with similar specs/control schemes/limited technichal differences, doesn't this lower the barrier to entry for development on the Wii U and invite more ports?

In a vacuum, nothing is stopping third parties from supporting Wii U. Third support involves far more than just hardware. In fact, hardware isn't really an issue. Notice that many third parties are still supporting PS3 and Xbox 360. Some third parties are scaling their games. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain uses the same engine across PS3, Xbox 360, PS4, Xbox One, and PC. Other third parties contract developers to handle ports either by scaling or just building assets specifically for older hardware. Apparently, Wii U hardware is close enough Xbox 360 in terms of architecture that porting shouldn't be a problem. Third parties are actively choosing not to port. There are a great many things Nintendo is just not doing. Paying for support and/or subsidizing development with upfront payments is one. General basic courtesies that Soren touched on is another. It doesn't stop there either.

3) Educate me on this one - what in itself is bad about Nintendo's online policy?

Nintendo doesn't (or refuses to) offer the same online features as Sony and Microsoft. For example, Wii U doesn't include universal voice chat. If you've seen voice chat in Wii U games, third parties had to include that themselves. Nintendo Network and the eshop are vastly superior to Nintendo's previous efforts (sadly), but neither are really where they need to be.

[nickmitch]

Really though, why would Nintendo want to take design cues from the best-selling game system of all time?

If it worked once, it should should twice!

Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker.  If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties.  That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible.  Is it ALL that matters?  No, but it is absolutely essential.

If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.

I probably spend most of my time with the Wii U in Off-TV play, and honestly there have been times when I didn't buy a game for the system that used the GamePad in significant ways specifically because I wouldn't be able to play it that way.

How many did you not buy? Like 2? 3?

Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker.  If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties.  That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible.  Is it ALL that matters?  No, but it is absolutely essential.

If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.

Yeah, but if great exclusive software were the deciding factor, the Wii U would be doing gangbusters.

[NWR_insanolord]

Really though, why would Nintendo want to take design cues from the best-selling game system of all time?

If it worked once, it should should twice!

I'm not saying it was the most effective strategy, but it's pretty easy to understand why they went for it.

I probably spend most of my time with the Wii U in Off-TV play, and honestly there have been times when I didn't buy a game for the system that used the GamePad in significant ways specifically because I wouldn't be able to play it that way.

How many did you not buy? Like 2? 3?

LEGO City Undercover and then recently Affordable Space Adventures are the only ones I remember offhand, but there were others.

Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker.  If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties.  That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible.  Is it ALL that matters?  No, but it is absolutely essential.

If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.

Yeah, but if great exclusive software were the deciding factor, the Wii U would be doing gangbusters.

My point was that there's no one deciding factor, it's a product of a whole bunch of different things.

[nickmitch]

Really though, why would Nintendo want to take design cues from the best-selling game system of all time?

If it worked once, it should should twice!

I'm not saying it was the most effective strategy, but it's pretty easy to understand why they went for it.

I dunno.  The Wii was never the most sustainable strategy.  It was mostly a fad.  Nintendo wasn't getting long-term customers.  Or if they were, they had no clue how to keep them.

I probably spend most of my time with the Wii U in Off-TV play, and honestly there have been times when I didn't buy a game for the system that used the GamePad in significant ways specifically because I wouldn't be able to play it that way.

How many did you not buy? Like 2? 3?

LEGO City Undercover and then recently Affordable Space Adventures are the only ones I remember offhand, but there were others.

That reminds me, I never got LEGO City Undercover.

Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker.  If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties.  That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible.  Is it ALL that matters?  No, but it is absolutely essential.

If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.

Yeah, but if great exclusive software were the deciding factor, the Wii U would be doing gangbusters.

My point was that there's no one deciding factor, it's a product of a whole bunch of different things.

Yeah, the horsepower isn't the one true decider, but it does create a very large barrier.

[NWR_insanolord]

Really though, why would Nintendo want to take design cues from the best-selling game system of all time?

If it worked once, it should should twice!

I'm not saying it was the most effective strategy, but it's pretty easy to understand why they went for it.

I dunno.  The Wii was never the most sustainable strategy.  It was mostly a fad.  Nintendo wasn't getting long-term customers.  Or if they were, they had no clue how to keep them.

I was talking about the DS. Some of that's still true, but not to the same extent.

[nickmitch]

Yeah, handhelds are weird.  People are likely own multiple units (especially with the revisions), so the number of buyers might be obscured.

[NWR_insanolord]

With the rate at which they were selling in Japan for a while I think they may have been using them as some kind of construction material.

[nickmitch]

They were probably used to build some sort of touch screen Gundam.

[Ian Sane]

Having underpowered hardware however is an immediate dealbreaker.  If Nintendo does that again it makes no difference how they try to court third parties.  That one thing makes multiplatform support impossible.  Is it ALL that matters?  No, but it is absolutely essential.

If that were true the Wii would have been in the same situation the Wii U is now, and the DS and 3DS would have been destroyed by Sony. Really, if you look at history, with the exception of the SNES, the least powerful system has tended to be the most successful. It's a factor, but far from the only one, or the biggest.

But the Wii's third party support was absolutely terrible - easily the worst by a wide margin for any console that sold the best of its generation.  Certainly all those great games of last gen for literally every non-handheld platform BUT the Wii would have been ported to the highest selling console if it was feasible but it wasn't.  Instead we usually got Wii-exclusive spinoffs handled by the b-team with some half-baked motion control in it (or the dreaded on-rails shooter cliché).  I'm not even giving a **** about sales.  Yeah, the Wii U isn't selling well but that isn't why I don't think it's a good system and the Wii's high sales never made me like it.  Nintendo's third party support is terrible and that makes their consoles a lot worse than they need to be.  The Gamecube was the one time in the last 20 years that they didn't put a major technological roadblock in the way to completely destroy third party support and sure enough things noticeably improved.  Things weren't perfect but they were getting better.

A game being released on every non-handheld platform BUT Nintendo is an inexcusable failure on Nintendo's part.  It should practically never happen and yet it practically never DOESN'T happen.  And maybe if the Wii U sold better it would get the PS360 ports that are still showing up.  Sure but what's the appeal in that?  I already have a PS3 if I'm content with getting the "lesser" version of a game.  I'm going to buy a whole new console for those?  If I'm going to buy a new console why don't I get the PS4 or XB1 and get the spiffier versions?  And those last-gen ports will eventually fade out as the PS360 sales dry up and no one was ever going to keep the last-gen versions going for JUST the Wii U.  The Wii U would certainly better if it was getting those games but that wouldn't be a valid substitution for having the same versions as the other consoles.

If you buy a Nintendo console you pretty much just get Nintendo games and NOTHING ELSE.  Only the most die hard Nintendo geek would ever deem that acceptable.  Buy a Nintendo console and you can't play 90% of the games being made while it's the exact opposite if you buy one of the other ones.  The decision for most consumers is obvious.  Even as a Nintendo fan it's a big compromise to make.  Either miss out an almost anything Nintendo themselves doesn't make or buy two consoles.  That's idiotic, particularly when the only reason Nintendo is anything is because of the NES, which had 90% of the games being released and thus ironically resembles the PlayStation experience a lot more than it resembles the current Nintendo one.

And what justifiable reason does Nintendo have to not even TRY to fix that situation?  The Wii U makes no effort to correct it and if Nintendo thinks it does they're out of their minds.  Not having a technological roadblock is step one and they pretty much put the roadblock in on purpose.

[Soren]

That's idiotic, particularly when the only reason Nintendo is anything is because of the NES, which had 90% of the games being released and thus ironically resembles the PlayStation experience a lot more than it resembles the current Nintendo one.

And what justifiable reason does Nintendo have to not even TRY to fix that situation?  The Wii U makes no effort to correct it and if Nintendo thinks it does they're out of their minds.  Not having a technological roadblock is step one and they pretty much put the roadblock in on purpose.

You do remember why the NES had 90% of the games being released right? I'm going to assume you do because the post up until this moment was such a wreck of words. A verifiable crash.


Technology means nothing if the company can't fundamentally change how it communicates with people outside the company.

[Ian Sane]

That's idiotic, particularly when the only reason Nintendo is anything is because of the NES, which had 90% of the games being released and thus ironically resembles the PlayStation experience a lot more than it resembles the current Nintendo one.

And what justifiable reason does Nintendo have to not even TRY to fix that situation?  The Wii U makes no effort to correct it and if Nintendo thinks it does they're out of their minds.  Not having a technological roadblock is step one and they pretty much put the roadblock in on purpose.

You do remember why the NES had 90% of the games being released right? I'm going to assume you do because the post up until this moment was such a wreck of words. A verifiable crash.


Technology means nothing if the company can't fundamentally change how it communicates with people outside the company.

So Nintendo shouldn't bother to fix anything because they'll just **** something else up?  Underpowered specs should remain the status quo because Nintendo's shaky relationship with third parties will doom them anyway?  Having industry standard specs next time around might not turn things around but going with outdated specs absolutely WON'T and I'll take possible failure over assured failure any time.

The Wii U is disaster for Nintendo.  I don't get this need to defend their decisions with it.  Practically everything that could have gone wrong for Nintendo on this console DID and yet if you suggest they should have done this or that differently you get swarmed.  How was something like going with outdated specs a good thing?  How does Nintendo or Wii U customers benefit from that decision in any way?

Or alternatively what SHOULD have Nintendo done that would have resulted in a successful console?  What they did clearly didn't but all suggestions to have different specs or a different controller get crapped on.  So what the hell should they have done?  Nintendo themselves should be trying to figure that out to avoid this outcome next time around.

[NWR_insanolord]

I would rather have the Wii U we have now than a less powerful PS4 with a standard controller assuming Nintendo's third party relations were handled the same way there are now.