Topic: Circle Pad Pro XL Photos

[Fjurbanski]

Because 90% of the time it's dedicated to manual camera control, which only a handful of games actually need. So it makes sense to me that they wouldn't bother including one in the original design.

[NWR_insanolord]

The way the 3DS's Circle Pads are, they take up a decent amount of space, which means adding a second would be a significant design decision. On a console it's less of an issue, but on a handheld you have to worry about form factor and fitting a lot of things into a small space. Adding a second Circle Pad either makes the unit bigger or takes something else away, so "let's give developers an option" isn't necessarily a good enough reason to do something.

[Adrock]

I've seen the teardowns. As previously stated, research and development teams are filled with engineers whose jobs revolve around coming up with solutions to these kinds of problems. I'm not terribly convinced that a right circle pad couldn't happen without drastically altering the present size of 3DS. It seems less like it couldn't be done and more like Nintendo wanted it that way. That's certainly their prerogative, but for a company that has developed a reputation for being stubborn and unfriendly toward third parties, it might not be the best way.

A bigger statement would have been if there was no Circle Pad Pro. It'd be "It's not needed. End of discussion." The peripheral's very existence contradicts this. Obviously, someone felt it was needed, namely Capcom with Monster Hunter, one of the biggest franchises in the market Nintendo cares most about. Yes, that's one game (albeit an important one in Japan), but I think a right circle pad would be far better and more useful it was already there.

[NWR_insanolord]

For Nintendo, having Monster Hunter was more important than standing on principle. If Capcom had asked them to add two Circle Pads they'd have done it to get Monster Hunter. I'm pretty sure they made those things as bulky and unwieldy as possible just to make a point, though.

[pokepal148]

here's the harm, piss off the millions of people who own a system

[Pixelated Pixies]

here's the harm, piss off the millions of people who own a system

Who would be pissed off? Those who already own a 3DS have the option to buy a CPP or they can those choose to upgrade if they think it is warranted. I actually think the inclusion of a second CP in any 3DS revision is less exclusionary than those new features that were introduced for the DSi. In the case of the 3DS, adding a second CP simply builds the functionality of the CPP into the system. With the DSi, there were whole services that weren't available to owners of previous versions of that system.
 
As a current 3DS owner, I certainly wouldn't be angry because Nintendo decided to release a more functional revision of the 3DS, one which offers the option of dual CP control schemes without the need to also carry around an expensive and unwieldy accessory. I can't see why anyone would be angry at something like that.

[TJ Spyke]

Why should 30 million 3DS owners be FORCED to buy an accesory just because a tiny minority of people want games to require a second analog stick? Developers would be hesitant to ever release games that required a second analog stick because they would not want to alienate so many people. And it's why Nintendo will not ever put it in a revision.

With the DSi, there were like 2 DS games that DS and DS Lite owners could not play. That's it.

Nintendo would just piss off the majority of the 3DS fanbase, and developers would only give token support for it. So it makes no sense to waste time and R&D putting a second analog stick built-in.

[Pixelated Pixies]

Why should 30 million 3DS owners be FORCED to buy an accesory just because a tiny minority of people want games to require a second analog stick? Developers would be hesitant to ever release games that required a second analog stick because they would not want to alienate so many people. And it's why Nintendo will not ever put it in a revision.

I don't understand what you mean by 'FORCED'.
 
I refer you to my previous statement.
 

What harm could possibly come from including a second Circle Pad that hasn't already been caused by the CPP? It's not as if having a second CP forces the developers to split the user base. Developers could simply do what they're doing now, which is that they make a decision on a game by game basis as to whether or not the inclusion of a dual CP control option is worth their investment.

No one would be 'FORCED' to buy an accessory. Games would continue to be made exactly as they are now. Developers currently decide whether or not they want to support the CPP. If a 3DS revision included a second CP they would still have to make a decision as to whether or not they support it. I wouldn't expect developers to make games which require the second CP (just like I wouldn't expect them to do that now with the CPP), but it would give developers more incentive to at least include a dual CP control scheme for those games which would benefit from it.
 

With the DSi, there were like 2 DS games that DS and DS Lite owners could not play. That's it.

And? My point is that at least current 3DS owners have the option to augment their system with the CPP. DS owners had no such option available to them as far as DSi specific features went. That's why I said the jump from DS to DSi is more exclusionary than the inclusion of a second CP would be for any 3DS revision.
 

Nintendo would just piss off the majority of the 3DS fanbase, and developers would only give token support for it. So it makes no sense to waste time and R&D putting a second analog stick built-in.

As far as pissing off the majority of the 3DS fan base is concerned, I still haven't heard any arguments for why existing 3DS owners would be angered if a second CP were to be included in a 3DS revision. What is there to be angry about?
 
As for it not being worth their time or money to implement? I guess that's conceivable (although I don't think it's very likely). If Nintendo can waste R&D money on creating a plastic cradle which adds this functionality, I can't see it being a huge leap for them to simply build a second CP into the design of any subsequent 3DS hardware.

Afterall, what are revisions of hardware for if not the inclusion of additional functionality, be it necessary or superfluous. Revisions happen not because the maker wants to give us the best experience, but because they want to save money and make money. They save money by sourcing cheaper components and they can make added revenue from including just enough additional features to entice people who already own previous iterations of the hardware. I think the inclusion of a second CP would be a very inexpensive means of convincing a bunch of people to upgrade. Will developers actually utilise it? Who knows, but at least they will have the option.

[oohhboy]

Dual Shock. Barely a whimper from that transistion. Devs programmed in extra control sets for non-dual shocks and everyone who had one had an enhanced experience. You're mistaking your personal feelings for fact, when it's a sample size of one.

I for one would welcome formal dual stick support in a revision. The CCP exists covers previous owners.

[Fjurbanski]

It's still probably not worth it for Nintendo to develop a revision that includes it. It still won't have a 100% attach rate, so devs will still only make its uses optional. They aren't even shipping the thing CPP to stores in the U.S., correct? Doesn't seem like it's worth it at this point.

[Adrock]

Nintendo would just piss off the majority of the 3DS fanbase, and developers would only give token support for it. So it makes no sense to waste time and R&D putting a second analog stick built-in.

I don't really see how current 3DS owners would be pissed about such a revision, especially for the reasons you're giving. Why would existing 3DS owners mind at all if developers only gave it completely optional, token support? That doesn't make sense. The most likely response would be either "Oh, okay" or "I'll probably upgrade." I would only be upset if I bought an XL right before a true revision was announced, but that would be my fault anyway. I can't blame Nintendo for simply releasing a new product. Currently, I've had my 3DS for almost two years. What's there to be pissed about?

A revision would merely simplify Nintendo's supply chain which is the whole point of a revision. That's what makes the research and development entirely worth it. Any existing 3DS owner who wants the extra functionality probably already has a Circle Pad Pro and anyone who doesn't still has the option.

It's still probably not worth it for Nintendo to develop a revision that includes it. It still won't have a 100% attach rate, so devs will still only make its uses optional. They aren't even shipping the thing CPP to stores in the U.S., correct? Doesn't seem like it's worth it at this point.

I don't think Nintendo would develop a 3DS revision solely to include Circle Pad Pro functionality. If they were planning a revision for any number of reasons (e.g. new models spur sales, may be cheaper to manufacture), adding that functionality is something I think is a very real possibility.

[pokepal148]

Nintendo would just piss off the majority of the 3DS fanbase, and developers would only give token support for it. So it makes no sense to waste time and R&D putting a second analog stick built-in.

I don't really see how current 3DS owners would be pissed about such a revision, especially for the reasons you're giving. Why would existing 3DS owners mind at all if developers only gave it completely optional, token support? That doesn't make sense. The most likely response would be either "Oh, okay" or "I'll probably upgrade." I would only be upset if I bought an XL right before a true revision was announced, but that would be my fault anyway. I can't blame Nintendo for simply releasing a new product. Currently, I've had my 3DS for almost two years. What's there to be pissed about?

A revision would merely simplify Nintendo's supply chain which is the whole point of a revision. That's what makes the research and development entirely worth it. Any existing 3DS owner who wants the extra functionality probably already has a Circle Pad Pro and anyone who doesn't still has the option.

how is this making the supply chain simpler, you still have to produce the CPP (both models) to appease the people who already own the system (and remove the gamestop exclusivity and piss them off) and on top of that manufactur this new model,

It's still probably not worth it for Nintendo to develop a revision that includes it. It still won't have a 100% attach rate, so devs will still only make its uses optional. They aren't even shipping the thing CPP to stores in the U.S., correct? Doesn't seem like it's worth it at this point.

I don't think Nintendo would develop a 3DS revision solely to include Circle Pad Pro functionality. If they were planning a revision for any number of reasons (e.g. new models spur sales, may be cheaper to manufacture), adding that functionality is something I think is a very real possibility.

the backlash they would get is pretty bad, look at the price drop...

[Adrock]

how is this making the supply chain simpler, you still have to produce the CPP (both models) to appease the people who already own the system (and remove the gamestop exclusivity and piss them off) and on top of that manufactur this new model,

A revision replaces the current models. Both Circle Pad Pro peripherals would get discontinued as well. Nintendo would still have plenty on-hand to sell to anyone who still may want one at that point which would be mostly collectors. Four products become one (or two depending on if the revision has an XL model).

the backlash they would get is pretty bad, look at the price drop...

Nintendo dropped the price after less than six months. That's where the "backlash" came from. I put that in quotes because it really wasn't that bad. People whined on the internet for a few weeks then still bought games. The price drop was the best thing that happened to the 3DS and all it cost Nintendo were some short-term losses on hardware and a bunch of old games that they already made money on ages ago.

[TJ Spyke]

I doubt Nintendo has 25 million Circle Pad Pros available, they would need to keep making them if they were foolish enough to put a second analog stick on the 3DS (since you can't split the userbase).

[oohhboy]

You wouldn't need 25 Million CCPs. Devs would code in a fall back control set for games like with every game so far that uses the CCP. It's not that hard to do and it would prevent spliting the userbase.

[Fjurbanski]

That's what we're saying. Devs still would still have to make their games as they are now, with the 2nd circle pad as an option or not used at all. So there's no point in making a revision that includes it.


And let's not forget that the CPP also adds two extra shoulder buttons. So the revision would have to get bulkier just for 3 input devices that devs wouldn't be able to fully commit to.

[Mop it up]

How does it feel to hold? Does it help make the form factor more comfortable?

[oohhboy]

A history lesson is in order. When Sony launched the PS1 back in 1994 it came with the playstation controller, no rumble, no analogue sticks. It wasn't until 1997 in Japan did they launch the dual shock we now all know and love. According to you this shouldn't have worked. But it did work, why?

It enhanced games that used it to the point that it became unthinkable not to have 2 analogue sticks. But developers were not stupid. Despite Sony's initially noncommittal stance to replace it's controller mid cycle, developers made use of the extra controls and coded in a set for people who didn't have the dual shock. The old control set were functional, it allowed people who didn't want to move to dual shock to keep playing and for people with it to have a better experience.

It didn't need 100% uptake to become the default. You just need enough uptake to make it common place. To  do that you program future games to make use of it, but also to have a fall back. Those who don't still get to play, those who have a CCP/Revision get an enhanced game. Simple.

To Mop it: Yeah, it makes holding the the OG 3DS easier. It makes the whole thing feel more like a normal console controller.

[pokepal148]

but we arent replacing a controller we are replacing the entire console

[Pixelated Pixies]

but we arent replacing a controller we are replacing the entire console

Only if you want to upgrade. I really am finding it difficult to understand the argument against building the CPP features into the next 3DS revision. I haven't yet heard a convincing argument for why this would anger or piss off the existing user base. No body would be forcing you to upgrade, and neither would games require dual CP's. What we're talking about is the concept of 'value added'. As far as iterative design goes, Nintendo pretty much wrote the book.

[Fjurbanski]

The way I see it there's two scenarios if Nintendo makes a new revision with the CPP built in.


1.) Developers actually put it to good use. The system gets more and more games that utilize the second circle pad in the way home consoles do. No one is forced to buy it, but people FEEL forced to buy it because they're getting "watered down version" of games on the system they own. The original supporters of the system become second class citizens.


2.) Devs continue as they are now. Making games with the original in mind and the revision as an option or afterthought. People who paid more for the new system feel like they wasted their money because 3 input devices are barely getting any use. They could have spent less money on the original design, and maybe bought the CPP if that one game comes along that they feel really needs it.


Scenario 2 is the most likely. No dev is going to make an FPS on the new 3DS revision because they know a good chunk of the user base won't even bother because they won't be able to play it. So, making a revision with a second circle pad isn't "bad", but it does seem pretty pointless. Especially from Nintendo's point of view. At the end of the day it's their system, and if they had wanted to make games that required a second stick they would have included it. There's no reason for them to waste time and money on something they aren't even going to use. Since they've already shown how little interest they have in the CPP, why would the build an entirely new revision around it?

[oohhboy]

You have made the incorrect assumption that there are only 2 scenarios that assume people commit 100% either way. What would happen some developers make good on the CCP/Revision, some will outright forgo support, some would half ass it, others didn't get the memo. I don't know how many devs would fall into each category. All we know is that your assumptions are incorrect, therefore your scenario(Strawman) is bunk.

History shows branching hardware when it comes to controls isn't fatal. It not just Dual Shock, look at the Wii with it's Wiimote, nunchuk, classic, GC, balance board, Wiimote plus, dual Wiimotes. Based on the assumptions made in this thread, the Wii should be a corpse the moment it came out.

We already have "Second class citizens" on the 3DS, they are called left handers. I am not one of them, but I can imagine how aggravating it can be. Increasing accessability is a massive positive when it helps you make inroads in a normally forgotten 10% of the population.

In a revision, supporters of the previous system have the option of upgrading for a fairly reasonable price. I got my CCP for less then $10. It's cheaper than a normal controller and you only need to buy one.

The question is whether Nintendo is going to formalize CCP support, continue on it's current current stance which is best described as Laissez faire or abandon it. The CCP exists and it opens the door for Nintendo to make a revision to include it.

[TJ Spyke]

All games that required the Wii Remote Plus (or even used it) had the the Wii MotionPlus come free with the game. I'm not aware of any game that required two Wii Remotes. The only games that required the Wii Balance Board came bundled with it. No game required the Classic Controller or GameCube controller. Your analogy would be saying they should have combined the Classic Controller and Wii Remote into one device.

Just give up on a second analog stick being part of the 3DS, it makes no sense to make a revision even bulkier by adding it, and the CCP exists for those who want a second analog stick. In their next handheld they might include one, but there is no reason to make it more expensive to manufacture a 3DS to include it since it would be nothing more than an option add-on for a miniscule amount of games. There are very few reasons for Nintendo to make the second analog stick part of a revision

[Fjurbanski]

1.) Of course I didn't assume the infinite possibilities, why would I even attempt that?


2.) I'm left handed and have never had any issues.


3.) None of this changes the fact that Nintendo clearly does not care about the CPP. And if they don't care about the CPP as it is now, they're not going to make an entire console revision dedicated to it.

[Pixelated Pixies]

All games that required the Wii Remote Plus (or even used it) had the the Wii MotionPlus come free with the game. I'm not aware of any game that required two Wii Remotes. The only games that required the Wii Balance Board came bundled with it. No game required the Classic Controller or GameCube controller. Your analogy would be saying they should have combined the Classic Controller and Wii Remote into one device.

Personally, I think the comparison to Motion Plus is a weak one on both sides of the argument. Motion Plus was required to play many of the games that supported it. In the hypothetical case that Nintendo do include CPP functionality into the next 3DS revision we're not likely to see many, if any, games which require two CPs. They're two completely different cases. The addition of a second CP isn't useful because it allows for games to me made on the 3DS that couldn't be made otherwise, it's useful because it allows developers to provide alternate control schemes for those games which might benefit from it.
 
As for it being expensive to implement? I doubt it's more expensive than having to release a slightly different CPP for each revision that Nintendo make. When the 3DS does inevitably get the 'i' treatment, it is going to have a different form factor. What happens when Nintendo release an XL version of the 3DS'i'? Is Nintendo going to design yet another 2 iterations of the CPP to maintain parity with previous versions of the system, or is it actually more cost effective to simply build that feature into the design and use it as a selling point?

I will grant that it might be expensive for Nintendo to simply throw a second CP onto the current line of 3DS's, as that would require a substantive amount of engineering. However, if Nintendo were already in the process of redesigning the system I don't see the inclusion of a second CP being expensive at all (particularly if it removes the need for Nintendo to design yet another version of the CPP).