Nintendo Wii U controller thoughts

[Mikezilla]

Well everyone ripped on the wi when it came out:  Stupid name, horrible controllers, bad graphics, and it made a killing.  Really all the plusses are in the controller, that is pretty much what Nintendo's head honcho has said.  yeah the graphics chips and such are newer, but it remains to be seen as to whether they are more powerful, and if that additional power makes a difference.

Nintendo is betting the farm on the controller.  I think its a loser, because the controller can only be used by one person at a time, and what really saved the wii was a robust new multiplayer experience.

I think the no dvd player is a big deal.  Yeah we all already have them, but I think that consoles are moving more towards HTPC territory - a place where you play games, surf the web, watch netflix.  That is where MS and Sony are positioning their devices, the only difference is MS is concentrating on streaming content, Sony is concentrating on Blu Ray.  If Nintendo does not have a robust internet service, I see this as a PS3 with move controllers and no blu ray, with a huge one player touchscreen pad.

All valid points. See, I didnt think the controller was all that bad. Granted, I didnt get a Wii till about 2 years ago, but I mainly wanted it for all the first party titles, and I was bummed about Super Mario Galaxy cause it made me want to barf. Everyone said it was an amazing game, despite the graphics, controllers, etc.

But like you said, what made the wii successful was not only the multiplayer, but the controller. Vigo mentioned it before that his grandma can play it with her other grandma friends. It made a killing because it had a broader demographic.

I just dont see this thing working, because its too complicated for the grandma's, but the touchscreen and only being able to have one isnt going to appeal to the "hardcore", so who is left? The kids.  And who are we kidding, thats been Nintendos primary target anyway. Its like I want to be excited, but Im not. 

[ChadTower]

So since Sony and Microsoft are focusing on being media stations... and Sony and Microsoft are massively larger corporations than Nintendo will ever be... what sense would it make to position themselves as direct competitors to Sony and Microsoft?  Nintendo used its video game expertise to position itself squarely in the blindspot of the larger companies and won.  There is a lot to be said for being more creative than hardware designers.

[shmokes]

I think the lack of film DVD/Blu-Ray support is fine.  That's such a dying industry.  The Wii can stream through Netflix and it's pretty damned safe to say that the Wii-U will have this too.  Hulu's probably on the table as well.  And Nintendo can have their own rental service too, if they want.  There's not a person alive who doesn't have a DVD player, and Blu-ray players are getting to be the same (for all the people who have any interest at all in Blu-Rays, anyway).  I'd rather pay $20 less for the thing than have to pay a royalty for a feature that I already have in other devices, and that I don't use anyway because I download or stream all my movies.

As for the controller, I think it's not all bad news.  There are some spectacular (and diabolical) things that can be done with one person on the tablet controller and four others on standard controllers.  Plenty that can be done there, I think.  Probably spectacular stuff could be done with four people all with tablet controllers, but then you'd have the fantastic cost issue to deal with.  

And don't forget about the internet.  TONS of great current multiplayer is online only.  Look at Uncharted or Grand Theft Auto or Crackdown, etc..  That means that in multiplayer on those PS3/Xbox games you can ONLY use one controller.

Basically, I think what Nintendo is doing here is saying, "Okay, the Wii is all about We.  And it was a runaway success because it got all these people casual gaming together.  But we gotta admit, what's biting us in the ass now, is that we sort of short-changed the hardcore gamers this time around.  We gave them a controller that, like it or not, is just not well suited to deep, complex games.  We need to put the You (or U, as it happens) back in the Wii."  So they've basically taken the Wii and added only what it was missing to give a great single-player experience that can go toe-to-toe with what their competitors are doing.  And, of course, they added a giant new feature to set themselves apart (the screen, obviously).  Anyway, it seems to me that it's called the Wii U for a reason.  The Wii's major deficiency is the single-player experience, and that's what they've apparently set out to correct here.

Frankly, as much as it may be nice to be able to reuse all your old controllers, I wish they'd have updated them too.  It'd be nice at the least to have full Motion Plus in the nunchuck, a speaker that isn't retarded, a pointer that isn't so easily confused and so sensitive to distance from the TV.  The Wii remotes represent a decidedly first-gen technology.  It seems a bit crazy not to polish them up a bit.

[Donkbaca]

Because they are competitors.  They are more or less competing for the same dollars.  If they decide to bow out and cater to a niche market; i.e. grandmas then they face the challenge of convincing third parties to develop titles for grandmas.

I think coming up to par with the graphics is a potential huge advantage for nintendo.  It will allow third parties to more easily port their games to wiiu; seeing as how MOST great games are cross platform this COULD be a huge win for nintendo, since they have the best exclusive content.  As good as GOW and Halo are, for the XB360, and as good as God of War, Infamous and Little Big Planet are for the PS, nintendo's lot of DK, Mario, Metroid, Zelda easily trump them.  Imagine a game system that would play Red Dead Redemption; the latest Call of Duty; La Noire AND the latest Mario and Zelda titles.  Its a slam dunk.  

The PROBLEM is that Nintendo should have done this with the wii.  Then they could have sold it as "we have 90% of the same games as the XB and PS have, and we are better because we have the nintendo IP and motion controls."    Since then MS has come out with the Kinect, and Sony came out with MOVE which steal all of the thunder from the wii.  The kinect is the fastest selling home appliance ever; it has driven XB sales.  According to NPD, 360 sales have increased each month on a year over year basis since the kinect has been launched, and the wiii has seen sales decline, with the PS3 more or less treading water with a very slight uptick.  

The big challenge is going to be whether people will ditch their XBs and PS3s to play the wiiu.  The big questions are going to be whether the controller is a "gotta have it" function.  I personally don't think it is, and the secondary question will be this;  A game comes out for PS3, XB260 and WiiU, why should I buy the wiiU version?  Right now, I prefer XB versions for most games because of the robust nature of Xbox Live.  

[shmokes]

I more or less agree.  I'm not very excited for the Wii U (at this point anyway).  But to play devil's advocate, because the Wii U is the most powerful of the three systems (so will have best graphics and highest framerate, etc) and the Wii U version of the game has some cool extra touch-screen features.  Of course this presumes that you have a Wii U.  Nintendo will presumably have a couple of amazing pieces of software showcasing the new system (think Mario 64, Pilotwings and Waverace).  So they'll try to drum up a bunch of buzz around the great first-party releases to initially move hardware.  I imagine the fact that all the existing Wii peripherals are compatible will make it an easier sell.  And then once you have it, that's the system you'll buy games for because it's the best.

This strategy has a few major problems, I think.  One is that for a lot of games (Call of Duty, for example), the best system to play on is not the one with the best graphics, but the one that all your friends have.  Additionally, it seems to me that even if this system is an initial success, Nintendo is setting themselves up for a major crash a couple years down the road.  As much as I haven't entirely written off the Wii U's present potential, I just can't imagine how it will stand up against an Xbox 3 with a built-in Kinect successor.  When Microsoft and Sony hit back it's going to be with systems that make the Wii U and it's use of original Wii controllers seem utterly primitive.  If you think the Wii has seen a sharp decline in sales in the past year or two, just wait till you see the cliff the Wii U is aiming for.

[Donkbaca]

Yeah, or they might have a port of some third party game as its flagship software, like SF4 was for the 3ds



This is true, and of the Big 3, Nintendo has, by far the WORST online multiplayer experience.  It would be a lot expecting them to go from worst to best. 

[shmokes]

Yeah, or they might have a port of some third party game as its flagship software, like SF4 was for the 3ds



This is true, and of the Big 3, Nintendo has, by far the WORST online multiplayer experience.  It would be a lot expecting them to go from worst to best. 

Btw, you seem to be using a strange combination of image tags, quote tags and url tags.  So your quotes aren't showing up.  You did it in an earlier post too.

[Dervacumen]

I think the whole wife wants to watch tv thing is kind of silly.  People do so much more than watch tv, they read books on their kindle, surf the web, play angry birds on their iphone,  plus we have 3 tv's in our house.  If I am playing games and the wife wants to watch TV, she can just go watch TV

I don't know the last time my wife watched live TV, everything is recorded.  And in our house recorded shows are only playable on the main TV because that's where the Directv box is.  Anyway, why in the hell would I want to go to another room to watch TV on a smaller screen in less comfortable surroundings so my kid could play a game?  Maybe if I want to be nice or I'm not that invested in watching TV at that moment.  But for moments when I want to watch the TV I paid for, in the room that I pay for, at the time I want: The WiiU has an answer.

[Donkbaca]

Anyway, why in the hell would I want to go to another room to watch TV on a smaller screen in less comfortable surroundings so my kid could play a game?

You don't have to.  The kid plays the xbox on the tv in his/her room.  With how cheap tv's are now, and how easy it is to network houses, I have 2 sets of cat 5 and coax cables, I can pipe TV into any room I want to.  I don't think there is a whole lot of TV sharing going around...  maybe my household is just different

[Bootay]

I'm with Donk on this. I have a TV in the front room, my son's room, my daughter's room and the basement mancave. The kids play games in their own rooms. I don't allow it in the front room. They also have the choice of playing in the basement where all the other games are.

And if you are cheap you can just get the kids CRT TVs. That's what I did...then when we upgraded the front room TV from a 32 inch LCD to a 42 inch, I upgraded my older son's CRT with the 32 inch LCD and upgraded the daughters smaller CRT with the son's discarded larger one.

I do the same with the computer parts. If I upgrade my video card, I move my old one into my son's computer and put my son's into my daughter's computer. My daughter is only 4 years old so she isn't so worried about getting the older tech.

[Dervacumen]

So you would have to buy multiple consoles for each room, and on top of that give the kids yet another reason to isolate themselves.  Unless I miss how to stream the console to multiple locations.
I guess I could rewire my whole house to modern standards, but considering that most people are in older houses or are not able or willing to rewire the house I still say kicking the kids off the TV is a benefit.
There are a lot of people that aren't cheap; they're poor.  Buying one console and a game every three or four months is a treat.  Do your kids unhook the Wii, sensor bar, power supply, etc. just to move it to a new location when they want to play?  Wow.  That's asking for lost broken stuff if you ask me.  Not to mention trying to get it hooked up without my help.

[Donkbaca]

How often is sharing a tv a problem in your household? Its not a problem for most people I know. Yeah, a lot of people are poor and a lot of poor people h e more than one tv. Also, I don't think Nintendo is targeting the walmart crowd with this

[shmokes]

To be fair, I think Wal-mart is the biggest game retailer in America.  They sell more games than Gamestop.  And Nintendo is certainly targeting all of their customers.  Wal-mart will, afterall, carry the Wii U.

[danny_galaga]

I more or less agree.  I'm not very excited for the Wii U (at this point anyway).  But to play devil's advocate, because the Wii U is the most powerful of the three systems (so will have best graphics and highest framerate, etc) and the Wii U version of the game has some cool extra touch-screen features.  Of course this presumes that you have a Wii U.  Nintendo will presumably have a couple of amazing pieces of software showcasing the new system (think Mario 64, Pilotwings and Waverace).  So they'll try to drum up a bunch of buzz around the great first-party releases to initially move hardware.  I imagine the fact that all the existing Wii peripherals are compatible will make it an easier sell.  And then once you have it, that's the system you'll buy games for because it's the best.

This strategy has a few major problems, I think.  One is that for a lot of games (Call of Duty, for example), the best system to play on is not the one with the best graphics, but the one that all your friends have.  Additionally, it seems to me that even if this system is an initial success, Nintendo is setting themselves up for a major crash a couple years down the road.  As much as I haven't entirely written off the Wii U's present potential, I just can't imagine how it will stand up against an Xbox 3 with a built-in Kinect successor.  When Microsoft and Sony hit back it's going to be with systems that make the Wii U and it's use of original Wii controllers seem utterly primitive.  If you think the Wii has seen a sharp decline in sales in the past year or two, just wait till you see the cliff the Wii U is aiming for.

Of course, who is to say Nintendo don't bring out an even more amazing 'kinect' type peripheral in a couple of years...

[ChadTower]

How often is sharing a tv a problem in your household? Its not a problem for most people I know. Yeah, a lot of people are poor and a lot of poor people h e more than one tv. Also, I don't think Nintendo is targeting the walmart crowd with this

I am strongly considering getting rid of every TV in my house but one.  I hate when we have people using a TV in three separate rooms.

[ChadTower]

Yeah, it sucks when people have to learn to sit in the same room with each other and compromise once in a while.  It might lead to an actual conversation of more than 5 or 6 words.  That would be terrible!

[Dartful Dodger]

The PS3 controller is a PS1 controller with two analog thumb sticks. They didn’t have to redesign it, all they needed was to tweak what they already had. Anyone who is remotely interested in buying the next generation console owns a Wii. The wiimote is comfortable to use and we are all use to it.

I while back somebody posted a rant about how easy it would be for the wiimote to be more precise and the only reason it wasn’t ws that Nintendo didn’t want to spend the extra pennies so the console could do it.

Kinects is a great gimmick and you have preteen girls in your house those dance games will get a lot of play, but I’m not going to spend hours running and jumping in place to play Call of Duty(...and I know you fat slobs aren’t either) .

If the Wii2 has better graphics and speed than the PS3 with dead on accurate wiimotes, it will hold its own. Add a gimmicky controller (even if it only works with two or three fun games) and Sony and MS don’t have a chance.

[Corbo]

Anyone who is remotely interested in buying the next generation console ownED a Wii, realised the Wii-mote was useless for all genres other than pet stroking and cookery simulations, and sold their Wii's while they still had a market value in the "obese and looking for a way to get fit without getting dressed" demographic.

Fixed 

[Dartful Dodger]

You’re right, if your only reason for owning a system is to play cooking and virtual pets games the Wii is no longer your only option.

After seeing that interactive kitten in the Kinects trailer, you must have wet yourself.

[Dervacumen]

How often is sharing a tv a problem in your household? Its not a problem for most people I know. Yeah, a lot of people are poor and a lot of poor people h e more than one tv. Also, I don't think Nintendo is targeting the walmart crowd with this

Every day it's an issue and a tradeoff.

[Howard_Casto]

How often is sharing a tv a problem in your household? Its not a problem for most people I know. Yeah, a lot of people are poor and a lot of poor people h e more than one tv. Also, I don't think Nintendo is targeting the walmart crowd with this

Every day it's an issue and a tradeoff.

Agreed. 

I don't like the "Walmart Crowd" comment either.  Walmart has quality products at reasonable prices.  If you don't shop at Walmart then you are simply hurting yourself.  Also I'm pretty sure that Walmart is the #2 seller of games and game consoles in the united states, so the majority of gamers are "the Walmart crowd" if you want to get technical.


We have flat planel tvs in every room of the house BUT  the largest is in the living room so all the consoles (except for the retro ones) are hooked up there.  And of course the living room is whre most people want to watch tv.  Now yes I could unhook the console from the living room and hook it up on one of the other tvs whenever the living room is occupied but constantly hooking/unhooking systems can lead to damage and wear, not to mention the fact that to do it efficiently you pretty much need extra cables and an extra power supply for every tv you want to use it on. 

So while the Wii U doesn't have me sold yet, the ability to play games with the console off is a MAJOR selling piont for me and many others.

[versapak]

Agreed. 

I don't like the "Walmart Crowd" comment either.  Walmart has quality products at reasonable prices.  If you don't shop at Walmart then you are simply hurting yourself.  Also I'm pretty sure that Walmart is the #2 seller of games and game consoles in the united states, so the majority of gamers are "the Walmart crowd" if you want to get technical.


We have flat planel tvs in every room of the house BUT  the largest is in the living room so all the consoles (except for the retro ones) are hooked up there.  And of course the living room is whre most people want to watch tv.  Now yes I could unhook the console from the living room and hook it up on one of the other tvs whenever the living room is occupied but constantly hooking/unhooking systems can lead to damage and wear, not to mention the fact that to do it efficiently you pretty much need extra cables and an extra power supply for every tv you want to use it on. 

So while the Wii U doesn't have me sold yet, the ability to play games with the console off is a MAJOR selling piont for me and many others.

Yeah, find myself gaming quite often on my iPad while the family is watching something on the main TV. It would be great if I was able to do that with full console games, so I think Nintendo has got something with that feature.

[ChadTower]

Of course, NEC did that with the TG16 and the TurboExpress a long time ago.

And Sega with the Nomad. 

Sure, it wasn't a system controller, but you could still play your full games at probably something like what that controller will cost.

[Bootay]

Of course, NEC did that with the TG16 and the TurboExpress a long time ago.

And Sega with the Nomad. 

Sure, it wasn't a system controller, but you could still play your full games at probably something like what that controller will cost.

Yea but the difference is the Wii-U will allow you to switch mid-game. You can be in the middle of a game and switch over to the hand held without interrupting your game. I think it is a great idea especially if you have kids and only one TV..or have the console hooked up to the main TV. It wouldn't apply to me though just because I have a game room with a TV that is the same size as my main, and that's where all my games go. My 13 year old has his own 360 in his room. But I think to most families it will be useful. Not saying the Wii-U has me sold by any means, but that particular idea is a good idea and I am actually surprised someone hasn't come up with it earlier.

[Donkbaca]

Here is what I find funny: 
- I want to play my console on the BIG tv
- With this, I will be able to have my console hooked up to the big tv YET, I will be playing on a dinky 6 inch screen, which is the smallest screen in the house.

This is WORSE than just hooking your console up to the smaller tv in the other room, in my opinion.  So, instead of hooking the xbox up to the 32 incher in the bedroom, and playing that all the time on the 32 inch screen, you are cool with playing part time on the big screen and part time on a dinky 6 inch screen?

It would be cheaper to just move the xbox.  A video cable and a power brick will set you back what, 50 bucks?  Don't see how unplugging two cables, moving the xbox 40 feet down the hall and plugging in two extra cables will result in excess wear....  Heck you can get a MS certified refurb x box for 99 bucks, about what the cost of the controller for the wiiu would be and just put that sucker in the other room....

Plus isn't the point of the controller that it will allow all new control features and let you interact with 2 screens? If that is the case, it won't even be the same experience on the controller than it would be on the console.  Its like you would get a cool console game, and a watered down ds version to play....

I think this solves a problem nobody has anymore: a household that has a single TV that is shared.  If you DO have a household with only one TV, that for goodness sake get another TV before you get a $400 console

[Donkbaca]

You want to play the console on a big tv?  Here you go:
http://www.walmart.com/ip/TCL-The-Creative-Life-LE40FHDP21TA/16115032

at walmart, 400 bucks, 40 inches.  buy, game on a big screen full time in 1080p glory, or, you know, get a wiiu and game on a 6 inch screen when the wife wants to watch Grays Anatomy on the big tv....

[versapak]

Here is what I find funny: 
- I want to play my console on the BIG tv
- With this, I will be able to have my console hooked up to the big tv YET, I will be playing on a dinky 6 inch screen, which is the smallest screen in the house.

This is WORSE than just hooking your console up to the smaller tv in the other room, in my opinion.  So, instead of hooking the xbox up to the 32 incher in the bedroom, and playing that all the time on the 32 inch screen, you are cool with playing part time on the big screen and part time on a dinky 6 inch screen?

It would be cheaper to just move the xbox.  A video cable and a power brick will set you back what, 50 bucks?  Don't see how unplugging two cables, moving the xbox 40 feet down the hall and plugging in two extra cables will result in excess wear....  Heck you can get a MS certified refurb x box for 99 bucks, about what the cost of the controller for the wiiu would be and just put that sucker in the other room....

Plus isn't the point of the controller that it will allow all new control features and let you interact with 2 screens? If that is the case, it won't even be the same experience on the controller than it would be on the console.  Its like you would get a cool console game, and a watered down ds version to play....

I think this solves a problem nobody has anymore: a household that has a single TV that is shared.  If you DO have a household with only one TV, that for goodness sake get another TV before you get a $400 console

Yeah...

It makes much more sense to move everything to a different less optimum room for half an hour so I can game without my family anywhere around. 

If I am ready to do some gaming, and my family is watching something, then I can begin the experience on the controller and then seamlessly switch to the main screen when it becomes available. It isn't like it would be the primary screen, and it is far more convenient than moving everything to another room.


I don't think it is a feature that will sell the console, but it is a feature that I know will use. Like I said previously, I already do game on my iPad in the same sort of way.

[Vigo]

If you dont want to leave the room, you can always just buy a $50 travel lcd screen and get video line switch box to switch between screens. 

[Donkbaca]

It makes much more sense to move everything to a different less optimum room for half an hour so I can game without my family anywhere around. 

Dude how big is your house? How is your family all of a sudden not around by switching rooms? Plus, how is having your nose buried in a tiny screen playing a video game by yourself quality family time?

Its pretty much one of the two things that sets the wiiu apart.  I think its pointless, but hey to each his own.

[Bootay]

Donk: The point I was making was from the perspective of a child, not myself. If my child was playing the Wii-U and then I decided I wanted to watch a movie, I could kick him off without forcing him off the game. Or like versapak said...if I am watching something and he wishes to play a game he can play it on the controller until I am done with the tv. I think it's a great idea for a child. For me or most other adults? No probably not. It doesn't apply to me anyway because if I did buy a Wii-U it would just go in the gameroom with the rest of the games.

[versapak]

If you dont want to leave the room, you can always just buy a $50 travel lcd screen and get video line switch box to switch between screens.  

Or I could just game on the controller that offers the feature of doing so


Why would I purchase anything extra to do what the Wii-U will do on its own? It isn't like I am saying that the Wii-U has this feature so I am buying it. I will be buying it anyway regardless, and I just think that it is a feature that will be useful for me.

As for the size of my house...

It isn't a big house at all, but my main room, with the big TV and the primary place of my gaming, is downstairs. All of our other TVs are in rooms upstairs. Moving my consoles to one of those other rooms for a half an hour or so of gaming seems stupid.

There is never a time where gaming is such a necessity that I have to kick people off of the TV to accommodate it or even move to another room, but the ability to game/kill time while others are occupying the main screen is a welcome feature.

[Vigo]

If you dont want to leave the room, you can always just buy a $50 travel lcd screen and get video line switch box to switch between screens.  

Or I could just game on the controller that offers the feature of doing so


Why would I purchase anything extra to do what the Wii-U will do on its own?

Because then you would have to buy a Wii-U.  

Seriously though, I think that Playstation could top this feature in a heatbeat. The PSP already links up to the ps3 and a number of things are accessable with remote play, natual progression will blur the lines between their handheld and console even more. I don't see why a future playstation wouldn't be able to stream all games to the Vita the same way the Wii-U would. Plus you could take your handheld on a roadtrip and continue playing your game...heck, they might be able to allow multiple portables connected to the playstation at the same time.

The Wii-U sounds more like a defunct handheld to me.

[versapak]

Because then you would have to buy a Wii-U. 

Seriously though, I think that Playstation could top this feature in a heatbeat. The PSP already links up to the ps3 and a number of things are accessable with remote play, natual progression will blur the lines between their handheld and console even more. I don't see why a future playstation wouldn't be able to stream all games to the Vita the same way the Wii-U would. Plus you could take your handheld on a roadtrip and continue playing your game...heck, they might be able to allow multiple portables connected to the playstation at the same time.

The Wii-U sounds more like a defunct handheld to me.

Except that we are only talking about the controller here.

I am sure that the Wii-U will be just like any other Nintendo system from the last 3 generations. It will be the place to go for Nintendo games.

I have always had all of the main systems, and nothing will change next generation.

[Vigo]

Because then you would have to buy a Wii-U.  

Seriously though, I think that Playstation could top this feature in a heatbeat. The PSP already links up to the ps3 and a number of things are accessable with remote play, natual progression will blur the lines between their handheld and console even more. I don't see why a future playstation wouldn't be able to stream all games to the Vita the same way the Wii-U would. Plus you could take your handheld on a roadtrip and continue playing your game...heck, they might be able to allow multiple portables connected to the playstation at the same time.

The Wii-U sounds more like a defunct handheld to me.

Except that we are only talking about the controller here.

That's exactly that problem. The thing is only a controller, utterly useless away from it's console. It much less than their handhelds can do, except for the fact that it will link to the console like their handhelds should do. Since their console is not going to be any better performing than an Xbox, the whole thing sits incredibly backwards.

An Xbox is at the price point of $200, Nintendo should be able to match that. That should leave $200 for the controller cost. The 3DS is at the price point of $250 and is expected to go down, Nintendo would have no problem bundling a game console and a fully functional handheld together for around $400. If they did that, my revised version of the Wii-U controller would be able to play games on the go. If you lost or broke your controller, it would be easy to buy a new one. Your friends could bring over their controllers and be able to use their save data at your house and then you can have some crazy pokemon battle or custom robot war with each other. With a few revisions like this, it would actually sound like a cool system to have. 

This is the kind of innovation I expect to see from Nintendo, not some controller that makes a coffee table conversation piece.

[Donkbaca]

Seriously though, I think that Playstation could top this feature in a heatbeat. The PSP already links up to the ps3 and a number of things are accessable with remote play, natual progression will blur the lines between their handheld and console even more. I don't see why a future playstation wouldn't be able to stream all games to the Vita the same way the Wii-U would. Plus you could take your handheld on a roadtrip and continue playing your game...heck, they might be able to allow multiple portables connected to the playstation at the same time.

The Wii-U sounds more like a defunct handheld to me.

Despite the fact that Vigo insists centipede is worth playing, he does make a good point from time to time.  This whole "connect to the console" feature has been done before:
Sega - The Nomad was a portable genesis/megadrive, let one player use the screen and the second player use the TV
NEC - had the Turbo express, similar to the nomad
Nintendo - let you plug the GBA in
Sony - let you connect the PSP to the PS3

So yeah, the whole plug a handheld into a console and take the game with you bit has been tried but different companies over different generations, and at a time when more household probably had one TV, so that feature was probably a bigger selling point, and all of these concepts have failed.  The Wiiu isn't even its own handheld, so its actually a step backwards from these other concepts.  I just don't know why people think this is some sort of revolutionary concept.

Furthermore, Nintendo is touting the controller as a new way to interface with the game.  They are saying that games will have the player utilize both the image on the screen and the image on controller.  If this is the case, then its in direct conflict to the previously described notion of playing the game without the tv, because in this instance, the whole point it to have 2 screens, so how could you turn off the tv and play without it?

[ChadTower]

It's probably time for people to accept that there is a point in their day when they need to turn off the screen and go amuse themselves for a while.  It's bad enough now that there are 3 screens available in every room to a kid (TV, PC, Phone, iPod, uPod, gayPod, PodPod, *Pod).  Now they need a way to seamlessly transition a game in progress from the console to a standalone without even pausing the game?  What is next?  Holding the game in the controller like a burning ember and transferring it to a console in the other room?  Holding it in the controller and riding in on a bike like the Olympic torch to a different kid's house? 

This is starting to feel like freakin Jurassic Park.  Everybody is so hot on what we can do that nobody is stopping to ask whether or not we should.

[versapak]

I am not sure why you guys are hung up on the feature of playing the main console on the controller's screen. It is simply one of the features, and if it isn't one you would use, then so be it.

The examples of Nomad and Turbo Express aren't relevant. They are not second screens, and one of them came out long after the systems prime. Just because one of the features of the Wii-U controller is the ability to play the Wii-U games directly on its screen doesn't mean it is the sole purpose or even a primary one.

Who knows how well the second screen will be utilized, but this will indeed be the first time one was included with a console as a primary feature. Not counting the Dreamcast of course, because we are talking a completely different kind of screen here.

It's probably time for people to accept that there is a point in their day when they need to turn off the screen and go amuse themselves for a while.  It's bad enough now that there are 3 screens available in every room to a kid (TV, PC, Phone, iPod, uPod, gayPod, PodPod, *Pod).  Now they need a way to seamlessly transition a game in progress from the console to a standalone without even pausing the game?  What is next?  Holding the game in the controller like a burning ember and transferring it to a console in the other room?  Holding it in the controller and riding in on a bike like the Olympic torch to a different kid's house? 

This is starting to feel like freakin Jurassic Park.  Everybody is so hot on what we can do that nobody is stopping to ask whether or not we should.

Huh? 

[Donkbaca]

I balme the Nomad

[Vigo]

It's probably time for people to accept that there is a point in their day when they need to turn off the screen and go amuse themselves for a while.  It's bad enough now that there are 3 screens available in every room to a kid (TV, PC, Phone, iPod, uPod, gayPod, PodPod, *Pod).  Now they need a way to seamlessly transition a game in progress from the console to a standalone without even pausing the game?  What is next?  Holding the game in the controller like a burning ember and transferring it to a console in the other room?  Holding it in the controller and riding in on a bike like the Olympic torch to a different kid's house?  

This is starting to feel like freakin Jurassic Park.  Everybody is so hot on what we can do that nobody is stopping to ask whether or not we should.

Huh?  

I don't quite get it either, but this is what I think he means:

[Howard_Casto]

I am not sure why you guys are hung up on the feature of playing the main console on the controller's screen. It is simply one of the features, and if it isn't one you would use, then so be it.

The examples of Nomad and Turbo Express aren't relevant. They are not second screens, and one of them came out long after the systems prime. Just because one of the features of the Wii-U controller is the ability to play the Wii-U games directly on its screen doesn't mean it is the sole purpose or even a primary one.

Who knows how well the second screen will be utilized, but this will indeed be the first time one was included with a console as a primary feature. Not counting the Dreamcast of course, because we are talking a completely different kind of screen here.

It's probably time for people to accept that there is a point in their day when they need to turn off the screen and go amuse themselves for a while.  It's bad enough now that there are 3 screens available in every room to a kid (TV, PC, Phone, iPod, uPod, gayPod, PodPod, *Pod).  Now they need a way to seamlessly transition a game in progress from the console to a standalone without even pausing the game?  What is next?  Holding the game in the controller like a burning ember and transferring it to a console in the other room?  Holding it in the controller and riding in on a bike like the Olympic torch to a different kid's house? 

This is starting to feel like freakin Jurassic Park.  Everybody is so hot on what we can do that nobody is stopping to ask whether or not we should.

Huh? 

Agreed.  And I don't think that people are getting that it isn't the ability to play the game on a dinky screen that's the feature, it's the seamless transition from big screen, to small screen, to a portable game you can play anywhere in the house that's the feature, NOT the fact that you are playing the game on a screen on the controller. 

If I'm in the middle of a boss battle and I need to take a wicked dump, it might be nice to be able to bring the contoller with me instead of waiting 15-20 min until I'm done. 

Also if a show somebody wants to watch is coming on and I'm  5 minutes from the save point, they can go ahead and watch their show, and I can watch it with them while finishing up. 

Those kinds of situations are the feature.

Is that a feature that is going to sell me the console? NO.  Does it seem like a really cool one?  Hell yes!

I also agree about the lame, non-comparable examples people are giving.  Stuff like the sega nomad is a portable version of the home console, that is NOT the same thing.  And screens like those on the dreamcast, well those were so low res and tiny that it was laughable that any developer would be able to do anything really useful with it.  So yeah this is the first controller to have this feature, and we'll have to wait to see what's done with it.  I still have my doubts, but I'm not going as far as calling it a dumb idea. 


And in regards to the comments about sony being able to do the same thing... well, sony COULD do the same thing, and they probably will claim to do it at some point, but it won't be as good.  Why?  Because Sony won't take the risk involved. 

Nintendo, love em or hate em, has balls.  When they come out with an innovative controller design they don't say "this will be an accessory" they make it the main controller that comes with the console!!  That means that developers are pretty much forced to use it in some way and thus the unique features of the controller actually get used.  This is what they did with the wiimote and while some third party implementation's are questionable we can all agree that most wii games make use of the wiimote.  Compare that to the move.  Sure there are some games that use it, some that use it quite well, but it's a small percentage of their game library simply because it's an accessory controller and not the main one.  It does make a difference.  The only two accessory controllers in the history of games that had a wide acceptance base was the genesis 6 button and the psx dual shock.  The reason?  The original controllers were broken and couldn't play the games of the time so developers and users were FORCED to use different ones.

Now while I'm positive that we will see a select few games on the ps3 offer streaming capabilites to the vita, it will be specific to each game, awkard to use and overall not be as seamless as the wii u's version.  And if it isn't available for every single title then what is the point?