Topic: Wii U's launch price(s): Is it worth it?

[Mannypon]

Nice, there's life in the WiiU thread lol.  These descussions are always fun to read.

I have a question that I'll like to pose to Chozo since he is currently in this discussion but this could be answered by any other member who sees the WiiU gamepad as a gimic. 

If the PS4 and 720 ape the WiiU and implement touchscreens in their remotes, would you call their gamepads gimics? 

I ask this becuase I believe this is a real posibility.  The big players always ape the others inovations (usually the competion apes Nintendo after they set a standard IE shoulder buttons, analog sticks, rumble, motion controls)

I think there are a few key reasons why this will happen, especially with Microsoft. 

First of all, they don't want to be left behind or feel less adequete with the gameplay features their systems provide.  The WiiU gamepad can do everything a basic controller can do AND THEN SOME.  This in turn would cause them to have to release another addon (such as kinect, move this current gen) during the system's life that'll never get supported due to it not being a standard feature.  If they follow the status quo and push out another standard remote and the WiiU gamepad is a hit and provides very inovative uses not found on the standard controls, then there are not enough cpu cores, gigs of memory, and dual graphic cards than can overcome that disadvantage. 

Second, and most importantly, the WiiU gamepad is PERFECT for Microsoft's (and Sony to a lesser extent) desire to become your entertainment hub.  If they want to dominate your living room and provide multi-media services, a basic controller is not going to cut it.  The best created software will never overcome the disadvantages of navigating an OS (along with facebook, Youtube, Amazon, and any other software they want to provide) with an analog stick, buttons, and/or some rediculious verbal commands and strange hand gestures with kinect. 

The touchscreen just seems like a natural evolution to controllers based on where technology is going.  Tablets and touch phones are all the rage and there are no signs of it letting off in the coming future. 

So again, this is just my opinion, but I'd say everyone should be learning to accept this touchscreen gamepad "gimic" as it'll soon become the standard.  I'll be blindsided if Sony and MS don't come out with some type of touchscreen remote or the like for their next gen systems. 

And if your scoffing at what Nintendo is charging for their gamepad, get ready for an ass raping from Sony and more specifically MS.  I've could never believe how MS wanted to charge their insane prices for the 360 propriety harddrives and their dam usb wifi dongle.  Sh*t was and still is madness. 

[Chozo Ghost]

If the PS4 and 720 ape the WiiU and implement touchscreens in their remotes, would you call their gamepads gimics?

When Nintendo introduced the D-Pad for the first time, people who were used to Joysticks might have thought of that as a gimmick at the time, but since its introduction everyone now uses it and it is an industry standard. The same goes for shoulder buttons, analog sticks, and a bunch of other things. Perhaps the touchscreen concept will turn out that way as well. If everyone copies it and every future console continues to use it then it would no longer be just a gimmick but an industry standard.

But before that can happen the concept has to be proven. There has to be games that use it which are clearly better off because of it. If that doesn't happen then it will just be a hyped up fad for a shortwhile, and then be forgotten. There is a reason why the PS Move flopped and why Nintendo themselves are distancing themselves from motion controls with the Wii U. Waggle controls sounded good in theory, but spending tens of hours flailing your arms around in a game where a simple button press would have sufficed people learned it wasn't really all it was cracked up to be. This is why waggle controls were a gimick and continue to be a gimmick to this day. They haven't caught on as an industry standard which can replace a traditional controller. Even Nintendo agrees with this, because look how they are coming out with a traditional controller which is basically a clone of the xbox 360 controller.

Even though the Wii U preserves compatibility with the Wiimote, it seems that the Wiimote is being treated as a secondary control scheme. You can take this as a tacit admission by Nintendo that they were wrong about the whole Wiimote thing. Its not the future of gaming that they had trumpeted it as, so they've quietly swept it under the rug and went back to the drawing board. A traditional controller with a touchscreen is what they've come up with. Rather than try and reinvent the wheel like they did with the Wiimote, they decided to go back to the old traditional wheel and slap a touchscreen onto it. This is something that they can't really screw up. Again, my only concern with the whole thing is the cost. I'm fine with it in every other respect.

[MrPhishfood]

Definition for gimmick:

• A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.
• An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance; a gadget.
• An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
• A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.

I'm actually expecting Microsoft and Sony's next consoles to include some kind of gimmick and when I say "gimmick" I don't even mean it in a negative way. I think gameplay innovation is slowly coming to a halt and gimmicks are exactly what the industry needs. Well maybe its not what the industry needs but its what I want.

With the Wii I think Nintendo missed the mark first time round. At launch they gave us the impression we were actually getting the equivalent of Wii Motion Plus. I felt Sony's Move had the most potential of this generations gimmicks but severely lacked the games to show it off.

Saying that, if Microsoft or Sony did include some kind of hardware gimmick in their next console then you can expect them to have average specifications in order to stay affordable just like the Wii U.

[MrPhishfood]

Even though the Wii U preserves compatibility with the Wiimote, it seems that the Wiimote is being treated as a secondary control scheme. You can take this as a tacit admission by Nintendo that they were wrong about the whole Wiimote thing.

A tacit admission? That's one hell of an assumption. You're assuming Nintendo thought "oh we were wrong about the Wiimote but we'll let people use it as a secondary control scheme anyway" which doesn't really make sense.

[Chozo Ghost]

Even though the Wii U preserves compatibility with the Wiimote, it seems that the Wiimote is being treated as a secondary control scheme. You can take this as a tacit admission by Nintendo that they were wrong about the whole Wiimote thing.

A tacit admission? That's one hell of an assumption. You're assuming Nintendo thought "oh we were wrong about the Wiimote but we'll let people use it as a secondary control scheme anyway" which doesn't really make sense.

How else could you interpret it? They marketed the Wiimote as the future of gaming. The fact it is now only a secondary control option proves they were wrong. The reason it is preserved as a secondary control scheme is mainly because that's the only way they can maintain backwards compatibility with Wii software. If it weren't for that they might have just scrapped it entirely.

As a matter of fact, they may eventually do just that at some point in the future just like how they ultimately stripped out Gamecube ports from the Wii.

[MrPhishfood]

How else could you interpret it? They marketed the Wiimote as the future of gaming. The fact it is now only a secondary control option proves they were wrong. The reason it is preserved as a secondary control scheme is mainly because that's the only way they can maintain backwards compatibility with Wii software. If it weren't for that they might have just scrapped it entirely.

As a matter of fact, they may eventually do just that at some point in the future just like how they ultimately stripped out Gamecube ports from the Wii.

I think its safe to say that if Nintendo thought the Wiimote was so wrong then they could keep it to maintain backward compatibility but restrict Wii U games to not use it at all. Why include something that isn't supposed to fit?

[NWR_insanolord]

They stripped the GameCube ports out of the Wii to save money. The wireless nature of Wii controllers means that won't be a consideration. And the Wii remote is being used prominently by Nintendo, with certain parts of Nintendo Land requiring it and it being the primary control scheme for Pikmin 3.

[Stogi]

I think you both are right.

If Nintendo was truly committed to the Wiimote, they would have included it every box out the gate insuring developers that every person can play their game.

Now that may have been a calculation on their part, seeing as how a lot of people own a Wiimote and they are still selling it. There are also mainstream third party games like COD that allow its use so they advocate it.

But what I think might be the clue in determining their conviction is if we ever see Wii U branding on the Wiimote.

[Adrock]

Also, keep in mind that the uDraw which the Wii U gamepad was inspired by was a commercial failure which cost THQ a huge amount of money because people wouldn't buy it.

That is patently false. Unless you think Nintendo's research and development department is comprised of time travelers and wizards, the GamePad was most likely inspired by the Dreamcast VMU, GCN-GBA comnectivity, and most importantly, DS.

The only issue I have is the cost of it, and how it detracts from the console itself. I think either the cost of the console went up or the specs were brought down in order to accomodate the controller. So gamers are paying for that even if they have zero interest in it.

People buy things with features they don't want/will ever use all the time. My PS3 "only does everything," but really, I need it to play movies and sometimes games. It probably does things I don't even know exists. I'm not complaining that I'm paying for those things because the PS3 does what I bought it to do.

The difference here is that the Wii U revolves around the GamePad. People are only paying for it when they buy the console. I can't imagine anyone buying one if they were that adamantly against using the GamePad. It's part of a package. Consoles aren't build-your-own products so you don't get to choose what comes with it. "I have no interest in the GamePad." Well, then, you don't want a Wii U because every game is going to use that controller. You don't get to complain about having to pay for one since you haven't paid for one yet. If you ever do, you still don't get to complain because you know what you're paying for. That said, it's extremely silly to use that as a mark against the Wii U. There's nothing wrong with not wanting a Wii U. That's your prerogative. However, your reasoning is baffling.

Megabyte pointed out how the CPU has only a few threads (whatever that means).

If you don't know what it means and you're admittedly not an expert, how are you so convinced that it's as bad as you're making it out to be?

[Soren]

How else could you interpret it? They marketed the Wiimote as the future of gaming. The fact it is now only a secondary control option proves they were wrong. The reason it is preserved as a secondary control scheme is mainly because that's the only way they can maintain backwards compatibility with Wii software. If it weren't for that they might have just scrapped it entirely.

You're right. I mean we're certainly not going to need to use our Wiimote for Wii U games. It's not like Nintendo has shown we'll put our Wiimote to good use on WiiU software.




Oh wait...

[Ian Sane]

If the PS4 and 720 ape the WiiU and implement touchscreens in their remotes, would you call their gamepads gimics?

Sony and MS copied motion control with Move and Kinect and I sure see those as gimmicks.  It's all in the implementation.  Motion control has mostly stuck to shallow casual fare and often makes games HARDER to control because of the lack of precision.  It arguably makes games control worse but it has good marketing potential.  Designing a controller for marketing purposes is a gimmick.  It contributes nothing of true value but rubes eat it up so it sticks around.
 
I would no longer call the screen a gimmick if it was consistently implemented in a way that demonstrated it as essential.  Stuff like the d-pad and L&R buttons and analog stick proved their worth almost immediately and so many games use them and in a way where you can't really imagine them using anything else.  Something like the clicky buttons on the Cube controller were minor but were essentially gimmicks because they just didn't add much and very few games made use of them.  They were merely an option, however, and they had no real financial impact so it doesn't matter.
 
The screen idea has been done before.  They did it with the Cube-GBA connectivity.  The DS and 3DS have it.  In that time I have not seen anything to suggest the concept as anything beyond a gimmick that some games use for novelty purposes and some other games shoehorn in in a control-breaking way.  The DS really took off once developers stopped trying so hard to use the touchscreen and just made "normal" games.  If it was a new concept I would be more willing to give it a chance but it's not.  Nintendo needed a gimmick like they had with Wii and that kind of stuff is hard to think of so they just took the DS concept and turned it into a console.
 
I don't actually care about the system being called "Wii U".  I would never not buy a system because it had a dumb name.  But the whole thing thus far looks like a continuation of the Wii formula and I'm not interested in that.  The specs issue stems mostly from fear of the specs being underpowered as that is the primary cause of the Wii's problems last gen.  Nintendo could easily set things straight by telling us the specs or having games that actually look impressive compared to PS360 games.  But they don't so the concern will remain until the system is out and someone cracks the damn thing open and takes a look.  The fact that they constantly talk about how it compares to THIS gen doesn't help because we don't care how it compares to THIS gen.  That's like saying the Wii is powerful than the Xbox.  Well, yeah it is, but what does that matter?  That was never the concern.

[Stogi]

Nintendo could easily set things straight by telling us the specs or having games that actually look impressive compared to PS360 games.....The fact that they constantly talk about how it compares to THIS gen doesn't help because we don't care how it compares to THIS gen....That was never the concern.

I think I just found the first FHATTIE nominee.

[MrPhishfood]

I think I just found the first FHATTIE nominee.

Care to explain what that is?

[TJ Spyke]

I think I just found the first FHATTIE nominee.

Care to explain what that is?

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=39492.0

[Stogi]

MrPhishfood, I consider you the front runner for best new poster.

[tendoboy1984]

If the PS4 and 720 ape the WiiU and implement touchscreens in their remotes, would you call their gamepads gimics?

Sony and MS copied motion control with Move and Kinect and I sure see those as gimmicks.  It's all in the implementation.  Motion control has mostly stuck to shallow casual fare and often makes games HARDER to control because of the lack of precision.  It arguably makes games control worse but it has good marketing potential.  Designing a controller for marketing purposes is a gimmick.  It contributes nothing of true value but rubes eat it up so it sticks around.

Aside from Wii Sports Resort and Zelda: Skyward Sword, motion controls on the Wii have been pretty lackluster. On the other hand, pointer controls work wonderfully for shooters like Metroid Prime Trilogy and Goldeneye.

PS Move works well, but the constant recalibration is tedious. I hated Sports Champions, and I thought Killzone 3's controls were too "floaty". I actually hope Sony continues supporting the Move, because it has a lot of potential. In the game Tumble (a block-stacking puzzle game), you have full 360-degree motion controls, which gives the illusion of actually "reaching into" the screen.

Kinect is nothing but lag. Everytime I play it at Best Buy, it fails to recognize my movements.

[Oblivion]

Tendo, play Red Steel 2.

[toddra]

I think the launch price is certainly fair considering what you get. Plus I have owned every single Nintendo console ever made so I am biased but this one I am excited about, Wii I was not so much. I bought a Wii but I regretted doing so until the day I sold it.