Topic: My Thoughts: Two Wii U Controllers at Once Possible?

[Ceric]

Nope, Still bothered by Wii.  Anyways, I throw in a Nunchuk as well.  If their can only be one then it will be a single player oriented system in that regards.

[Ian Sane]

But doesn't being isolated mean that you get in set in your ways and don't change? This is a change. Losing local multiplayer is a BIG change. Its just not a change for the better.

But it isn't losing local multiplayer because you can still use remotes for the other players.  At least that's how Nintendo would see it.  What I imagine is that Miyamoto comes up with this idea for having a screen controller, never suggests using more than one, presents the idea to the rest of the higher-ups with the idea of the screen being the "main" controller for multiplayer and because they all think the same sort of way no one thinks about using multiple screen controllers.
 
I think of the "isolated" excuse more for just the general Nintendo pattern of being completely oblivious to incredibly obvious ideas that all of us think of five seconds after getting the details.  Why didn't Nintendo think of this incredibly obvious idea?  Because they're all like-minded individuals and don't seek outside opinions.  Thus dumb ideas and stupid oversights get the green light all the time.

[Adrock]

@Chozo - I don't think that's the case. We keep seeing up to 5 people playing WiiU, one with the tablet controller and 4 with Wii remotes. They're clearly pushing local multiplayer. If Nintendo sticks with the single tablet controller per console route, it will be seen as a major oversight by everyone but Nintendo. It's literally inexcusable.

There actually is method to (what at least on the surface may appear to be) their madness:

As I tried to explain even before the unveiling, because the Wii was was an overwhelming success, and since the multiplayer model (party-type games) was the main source of that success, it made the most sense not to significantly change it.

The thing they needed to address this time around was the lack of serious single-player experiences from third parties, who instead flocked to Sony's and Microsoft's condoles since their traditional controllers didn't force them to make special accommodations for each game, and their HD capabilities meant they wouldn't have to take the extra effort having squeeze more from less visual-wise.

 Even though Nintendo found ways to make the uTab appeal to the casual crowd as well, the overall concept seems focused around single player experiences. Since it's far more practical to gather four players in front of a TV for short group sessions than for a single person for several hours, a tablet that can stream away from a TV makes the most sense for that purpose. Nintendo even acknowledged this with the name:

Wii "We" (plural)-- the multiplayer focus
   +
U "You" (singular)-- the single player focus

If I had to guess, I'd say Nintendo's official names for the hardware included in the box will be the following: 1 "U Tablet", 1 "Wii Remote", and the "Wii U console" (as it will be supporting the two controllers).

Focusing multiplayer to use more traditional controllers with buttons and dual analog wouldn't have been practical (plus, I'm not even sure the technology for four-screen streaming is even feasible yet).

Don't get too bent out of shape about it. Even though it seems ridiculous now, people said the same thing when they first revealed name "Wii" five years ago. Just like you, those people were not only looking at it from a hardcore gamer's perspective, but also with the preconceived notion of the name "Revolution"... And look how badly it hurt Nintendo in the end (sarcasm).

Mark my words, this is the exact same situation-- Five years from now you'll barely remember ever being bothered by it...

I'm still not quite sure why this was addressed to me. You begin by explaining the name which I don't recall suggesting I was confused about. Then, you tell me not to get bent out of shape over the name which doesn't have anything to do with the post you quoted. If this is referring to other topics, I've stated several times that I'm okay with the name. I think it's silly but it doesn't change how I view the console. I flat-out liked what I was during E3. None of the conferences blew me away, including Nintendo's and I completely accepted tje WiiU reveal for what it was, a simple console announcement. A stupid sounding name isn't the problem. A lot of things sound stupid the first time you here them. My only worry with the WiiU name was if it would confuse general consumers which include casual gamers. I originally brought it up as a point of discussion, to move the conversation away from "Ugh, the name is stupid" to "The name might actually affect sales and here's why."

I plan on buying WiiU eventually. I don't think Nintendo is changing the name though I think we'll see some minor tweaks to the controller before launch and the console may be a placeholder (nothing major). However, I think the WiiU name put more pressure on Nintendo to market the console as new hardware as opposed to something for the Wii.

[Bman87301]

I'm still not quite sure why this was addressed to me. You begin by explaining the name which I don't recall suggesting I was confused about. Then, you tell me not to get bent out of shape over the name which doesn't have anything to do with the post you quoted. If this is referring to other topics, I've stated several times that I'm okay with the name. I think it's silly but it doesn't change how I view the console. I flat-out liked what I was during E3. None of the conferences blew me away, including Nintendo's and I completely accepted tje WiiU reveal for what it was, a simple console announcement. A stupid sounding name isn't the problem. A lot of things sound stupid the first time you here them. My only worry with the WiiU name was if it would confuse general consumers which include casual gamers. I originally brought it up as a point of discussion, to move the conversation away from "Ugh, the name is stupid" to "The name might actually affect sales and here's why."

I plan on buying WiiU eventually. I don't think Nintendo is changing the name though I think we'll see some minor tweaks to the controller before launch and the console may be a placeholder (nothing major). However, I think the WiiU name put more pressure on Nintendo to market the console as new hardware as opposed to something for the Wii.

Actually, I was telling you not to get bent out of shape over the single uTab issue. The parts about the name were meant as something else entirely...

I was actually trying to explain how their design with the single uTab does make sense when you look at what its real intended purpose apparently was (single-players in the first place). I was using the name breakdown to demonstrate their separate plans for each control method.

Secondly, I was pointing out how the original Wii's name resulted in an initial backlash at first (especially since fans had preconceived notions of the name "Revolution"), but it still did work out and fans quickly forgot about it. In comparison, you're upset because you had the preconceived notion of multi-screens at once and are now claiming it's "literally inexcusable".

Admittedly though, I did go off on a tangent so I can't entirely blame you for getting confused.

[ThePerm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

reposting link again

[BlkPaladin]

I can see where more than one controller of this type may not be necessary. They should make a "classic controller" that can stand on it own. Though I can't currently find the quote but Nintendo is looking into two or more of the new controllers. (sigh... since when do we need to name the controllers..... ;p)

But with the advent of network play the need for localized multi-player seems to be on the way out. Nintendo does allow for the use of the Wiimote/classic controller combo with the new system (which is unwieldly which is why they should come out with a wireless classic)

[Adrock]

What if, in 2005, when Nintendo announced the Wii remote, they also said that only one remote per console was possible? How pissed off would people have been? Think of how that would have changed the landscape of the Wii and the last 4 and a half years of this console cycle. Sure, you can play Wii Sports by passing around 1 remote, but that's fucking lame and annoying.

[Bman87301]

I still don't see how Nintendo comes up with the idea for this uScreen controller and doesn't immediately think at minimum 2 player local multi.

If this was any other company I would be surprised.  It seems like such an obvious thing to at least think of and yet we suggest it and their response is "Hey! I never thought of that!"  But because it's Nintendo I'm not surprised.  Nintendo comes across as a very isolated company.  Probably all the higher ups think the same way and outside ideas rarely penetrate their walls.  Thus they miss obvious stuff.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason behind it wasn't because they never thought of it-- just the opposite. They did foresee people expecting and wanting multi-screen concepts but knew the technology limitations would make two at a time a challenge-- let alone four.

Nintendo apparently designed the tablet specifically to cater to specialized single player experiences (to win over the 3rd party devs and hardcore gamers the original Wii failed to do) but knew people would automatically want to use the tablets for multiplayer purposes-- especially since it resembled the GBA-GCN concept so closely-- and wouldn't easily understand that they couldn't. Not offering separate tablets in the first place is a much easier way of preventing those unaware of the limitation from automatically buying up multiple tablets only to find out they couldn't use them.

[Dozy Boy]

Does anyone know from the revealed features of the Wii U controller (like that photo in the press conference with all the features outlined) whether a 3DS even has the same level of motion control built in? Anyone can see that the lack of a second circle pad on the 3DS is a huge problem for some games like FPS. But in regard to motion, even for Nintendo's own local multiplayer concepts that may utilize 3DS for makeshift controllers, can that hardware do the same kinds of things? Looking around in relation to the screen and all that. Sure, the 3DS has motion, but is it the exact same type? Do you think it would work?

[Kairon]

Yowza! It's times like this that I realize how much I miss the forums. So much wonderful heated discussion!

Anyways, I thinks it's silly to suppose that nintendo didn't "think" of two tablet controllers together. I bet that was the second thing they tried once they got it working!

No, I think they're still working against technical limitations in their streaming graphics technology. I don't have any proof at all, but my hunch is that their current tech CAN stream screen data to two controllers at once... If those two controllers show the exact same image. The controllers they have now probably don't have the cpu guts to do anything but throw exactly what they receive up on the screen, for price, power consumption, but probably performance reasons: any amount of processing would introduce lag.

I wonder what could be done? Make the Wii U broadcast on two completely separate wireless channels, pretending that it's actually two consoles in one? Maybe bite the redesign costs() and manufacturing costs and hardwire some specific chip logic to enable controllers to cut out individual player 1 and player 2 data out of the same, single signal? Heck, WIRE a second tablet right to the console itself?

[Ceric]

Assuming the tech works like Broadcasting TV then an arbitrary number of controllers could be connected to a single Video Stream and the of course multiple controller inputs and outputs could be connected at one time.  Yeah finding channels would be interesting.

I figure how the hole thing pretty much work is all the two way communication is handled like the Wiimote and the actual picture on the screen is just a broadcast.

[ShyGuy]

I wonder what kind of wireless technology they are using for the streaming. Somebody said it would be too much bandwidth for bluetooth. Somebody speculated IR but that doesn't seem likely. I think its probably a modified, closed network wireless N connection.

[ThePerm]

Why is a second circle pad terrible for FPS games, just program the dpad as the strafing, looking up and down buttons...and or the touch screen, and the touch screen and or the buttons as the item select. Either way is Win.

[BlackNMild2k1]

AMD has streaming tech. I've linked to it several times in the rumor thread.

I'll see if I can find it, but there are basically 2 kinds of wireless HD streaming tech (that I know about) going for mainstream right now.

One is WirelessHD and the other is AMD's tech.


edit:

AMD demonstrating HD streaming tech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF8omefUZik

& http://www.wirelesshd.org/


Wireless HD is a little expensive and AMD is making Nintendo's GPU, so it would only make sense that AMD would use their own tech.

[Bman87301]

Even if they can't get two at once for this gen, technology does keep improving in the meantime. At the very least, ten years from now, we will be playing with four at once on our new 'Aii Wii ahn U' console.




(I wee on you)

[BlackNMild2k1]

Actually I think if they took a GPU capable of doing 1080p graphics with majority of effects at 60 FPS and then down graded all the visuals to just at or slightly below 720p and streamed the content out to the controllers, they should be alright, depending on what their streaming bandwidth is.

I don't know all the technical numbers, but we are talking about 4 player split screen being divided up among 4 separate tablets and a full screen TV rendering being done at the same time.

the 4 tablets obviously being rendered at less that HD so lets say it was a 720p screen divided into 4 sections and then streamed out PLUS another 720p screen displayed up on the TV.

Are there any tech people out here that would know the numbers and do the math on something like that?

[Bman87301]

No, I think they're still working against technical limitations in their streaming graphics technology. I don't have any proof at all, but my hunch is that their current tech CAN stream screen data to two controllers at once... If those two controllers show the exact same image. The controllers they have now probably don't have the cpu guts to do anything but throw exactly what they receive up on the screen, for price, power consumption, but probably performance reasons: any amount of processing would introduce lag.

Wait a minute... Why would any of the processing have to be in the tablets themselves during a multi-tablet scenario but not need it in the single-tablet scenario? The console should be powerful enough to do all the processing and then just send it back to each tablet on individual signals regardless. All the individual tablets would still have to do is display the image from its designated signal just as in the single-tablet scenario. I'm not getting why you'd think multiple tablets would change that.

[NWR_insanolord]

It's not a processing limitation, it's a limitation on the bandwidth available for streaming the video to the controller.

[Bman87301]

It's not a processing limitation, it's a limitation on the bandwidth available for streaming the video to the controller.

Exactly... Processing in the tablet wouldn't have anything to do with it in either scenario.

[NWR_insanolord]

Sending the same video to both controllers might work, if they find a way to get both of them receiving the same signal. More likely, they'd have to cut the resolution of the video it's sending out to be able to stream to multiple devices.

[Kairon]

All the individual tablets would still have to do is display the image from its designated signal just as in the single-tablet scenario. I'm not getting why you'd think multiple tablets would change that.

That's exactly the thing... I'm guessing that right now is that whatever technology they're using is only ONE signal at the moment. If they already had multiple signals you'd think they'd already have the multiple controller thing figured out, so I'm guessing that it's got to be some really dastardly caveat with whatever tech they're using.

[BlackNMild2k1]

This is likely the tech that AMD is customizing for Nintendo
http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/hd-content-streaming-2011feb16.aspx
here is a video of it in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF8omefUZik

The problem is exactly as you explain and it's that the tech was designed to stream a songle stream (a single video) to multiple devices. So if Nintendo were having the tech customized for them, then it's likely not a matter of streaming to multiple uScreens, but streaming different content to multiple uScreens at once.

The competing tech:
Wireless HD - http://www.wirelesshd.org/about/technology/ &
WiDi - http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/technology/wirelessdisplay.htm
both potentially have the same problem... That they are designed to stream the same content to every connected device. Atleast that is the only function being talked about for each of them.

That may be why Nintendo didn't really think about having multiple uScreens per console before hand, but the truth is, if AMD can solve this problem, then their product really stands out against the other competing techs for functionality.

I couldn't find too much info on the AMD tech other than it's based on WirelessN, Adobe flash and some proprietary software from both ViVu & AMD, so I''m not sure if they would need multiple "WirelessTV' transmitters where each one would connect to each individual uScreen or just a matter of the the GPU just sending different content to each connected device like each computer connected to a network can do their own thing (I'm also not sure if that would require some local processing in each uScreen either).

[Adrock]

That may be why Nintendo didn't really think about having multiple uScreens per console before hand, but the truth is, if AMD can solve this problem, then their product really stands out against the other competing techs for functionality.

I'm sure they thought of it. It's the first thing anyone thinks of. Nintendo was going to include the tech whether AMD (or whoever) could come up with a viable workaround to this issue. Makes sense. It's a really great feature that has never been done like this before. I would say the screen has more potential than motion controls specifically for the social aspect of it.

The pressure is on to find a way to make this work. If Microsoft or Sony manage to have this technology work on multiple controllers, Nintendo is in a very unfavorable position. As previously stated by a number of us, Nintendo needs to be able to support 2 tablet controllers. Even if the competition can tout support for 4, being able to do 2 player local multiplayer makes a world of difference.

[MegaByte]

Here's a bit of info I picked up from Ubisoft: http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/impressions/26757

[BlackNMild2k1]

Here's a bit of info I picked up from Ubisoft: http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/impressions/26757

To be fair, if U-B-I-soft is using the AMD streaming tech, it's not even gonna be ready till later this year, so they are likely still using a Alpha/Beta version of whatever custom version of the tech is being made just for Nintendo.

I'm sure they thought of it. It's the first thing anyone thinks of.

I guess "didn't think of" is probably the wrong way to put it, but more "didn't plan on using" would fit better.

The design of the tech is probably why Nintendo didn't initially plan on using or didn't plan on showing off at this point in time as AMD is probably still working on developing the proper tech behind it.