ClovingWestbrook
Banned
We also don't want one that costs $250-300. Give me $350 with specs that will carry it into next gen.
Gearbox: Nintendo has listened to Wii U feedback, controller specs will be awesome
- Thread starter onQ123
- Start date
We also don't want one that costs $250-300. Give me $350 with specs that will carry it into next gen.
Father_Brain
Banned
"Mostly ports?" The only ones shown at E3 2010 were OoT, SF64, and MGS3. Do your research before making a claim like that.
Yep. People just expect it because their iPads and smartphones have multi-touch so Wii U should have it too, right ? They just don't seem to understand why multi-touch would really end up being an excessive feature on Wii U.
The accuracy not needing to be as good due to the large screen makes sense. One thing to remember about the Wii U tablet compared to a smartphone is that it'll have buttons easily available, too. Pinching to zoom may not be an option, but a zoom button is perfectly doable. Simultaneous multiplayer games would be possible if it was designed to not need simultaneous access to the screen and instead use buttons for most moves.
The game they showed in the video was Go, which is a turn-based game and, thus, wouldn't require simultaneous access to the screen. They also showed drawing a picture (Link's face) in the video, too, so they may not want to give that up. Easily accessible buttons + single-touch screen may be able to cover most functions that multi-touch would be needed for on a touch-only interface. Just a thought.
I do ^_^
Also, I truly think that powerful hardware in small boxes like console has a very bad effect on reliability, and I want my console to last nearly forever... I'll go with low TDP over graphical capabilities.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I think if you took a poll of the entire consumer base (not just the small, small subsection that is GAF) that buys video game systems the vast majority would disagree with you.
I want a $299 system...
299 would be a competitive price. More than that might scare people away, even if it is only a 50 dollar price difference. I'd pay 350, but would parents?
Yeah - I don't think a Stylus would work for such a large controller. You'd need to hold the controller in one hand to use it, which would be uncomfortable (Kid Icarus, as an example). Plus it would be inconvenient.
On the other hand, the accuracy of a finger is much less than a stylus (Kid Icarus wouldn't have worked with a finger).
Hopefully we find out some details tonight, even if no games will be shown.
Yeah - I don't think a Stylus would work for such a large controller. You'd need to hold the controller in one hand to use it, which would be uncomfortable (Kid Icarus, as an example). Plus it would be inconvenient.
On the other hand, the accuracy of a finger is much less than a stylus (Kid Icarus wouldn't have worked with a finger).
Hopefully we find out some details tonight, even if no games will be shown.
Backfoggen
Banned
Those people also don't buy a console on day one. They can get their $299 box a couple of years in.
Gunpei_Yokoi
Neo Member
Im sure the price will be $349, so if things go wrong, maybe sales go down after christmas, they can always reduce the price to $299 or $249.
Why would me wanting to only spend $299 mean I'm not buying it day one?
Cygnus X-1
Member
I doubt Nintendo will put the price of the system higher than 300$ after the bad experience with 3DS.
They said they've learned from that mistake. So, a 350$ system is out of question.
They said they've learned from that mistake. So, a 350$ system is out of question.
If they could prove it was worth $350 it really wouldn't be a problem but that being said, I see them going for $300.
Backfoggen
Banned
I'm talking about the whole customer base not GAF dudes.
I wonder, what if they announce an Ambassador program right at the start?
GrandHarrier
Member
Fixed that for you.
Am I the only one that thinks the "specs" they are referring to actually means being able to use more than one tablet controller?
The Galaxy Note uses Wacom's technology for the stylus, which works independently of the screen itself. That's why it's super accurate and pressure sensitive.
The Galaxy Note uses Wacom's technology for the stylus, which works independently of the screen itself. That's why it's super accurate and pressure sensitive.
Yes. And it's not as accurate as resistive.
Nintendo faced several challenges when it came to marketing the 3DS:
- The near- identical similarities between 3DS and DS hardware design. Some people mistook it for a DS revised model... and the name didn't exactly help
- Inability to effectively convey 3D visual effect to consumers via TV advertisement
- Similarities between 3DS and DS game cases
- Weak software launch lineup & software drought
- Nintendo put too much faith in having third-parties carry the weight of the 3DS at launch
- Nintendo games sell Nintendo systems. The thing is, Nintendogs, Steel Driver ,and Pilot Wings Resort were not the kind of titles most early adopters wanted
- $250 price wouldn't have been so had if the 3DS had enough compelling software within the first 6 months
- The near- identical similarities between 3DS and DS hardware design. Some people mistook it for a DS revised model... and the name didn't exactly help
- Inability to effectively convey 3D visual effect to consumers via TV advertisement
- Similarities between 3DS and DS game cases
- Weak software launch lineup & software drought
- Nintendo put too much faith in having third-parties carry the weight of the 3DS at launch
- Nintendo games sell Nintendo systems. The thing is, Nintendogs, Steel Driver ,and Pilot Wings Resort were not the kind of titles most early adopters wanted
- $250 price wouldn't have been so had if the 3DS had enough compelling software within the first 6 months
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Nope. Nintendo didnt have the software to justify 250 dollars for the 3DS until 6 months after it launched.
If they have some amazing hardware features and a great launch window, they can easily convince people to pay 350, especially if it has a pack in like a Super Mario Bros Mii Lite or something.
While i doubt it will hit 350, i still dont know the software coming for it so my opinion could change.
Speak for yourself. I'd be quite happy with the Wii U costing $250.
All I want to hear out of Gearbox is that the Wii remote for pointer controls is being supported. Outside of that I don't care what they have to say about the Wii U or Aliens.
not in a way most people would find noticeable
also, and "yes" as in they do not know or that they do know?
I think $350 is a pretty agreeable price. I would say the range is $300-$399, Nintendo will probably be selling as close to cost as possible so to me $350 is a good bet, and if they deliver the content and solid hardware it should be agreeable to others as well.
I'm not sure why people would be looking for the $250 mark, Iwata has already said it will be more expensive than that.
Yes as in I know. My dad has an iPad stylus.
Look at the size of this thing. I'd imagine it would be quite hard to fit a beast of a GPU like a 680 in there. I mean, my measly 5850 is nearly as big as the entire console.
Consoles get special GPUs which are way smaller than the PCIe-Cards you use, so they will fit easily into the case.
So you want Xbox 360 + Wii U controller? That Wii U controller ain't cheap to manufacture. I would rather pay $350 for a more powerful console.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Yeah. The big issue would mainly be with power draw. Dont the top of the line GPUs use about the same amount of power as the entirety of the 360 slim?
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
How do you expect to get the tech in side a box that will carry the Wii U for the next 5 years for a price of $250 sold to the public? Realize that the controller alone will cost a pretty penny. The PS3 is at $250 without the U controller.
Sure. Heavily downclocked to keep them cool.
All i'm saying is that a case that tiny isn't going to house a beast. It's almost impossible.
I want something that will play Nintendo's new games and that won't break my budget. Plain and simple. I'm happy to pay between $249 to $299. I responded to the idea that no one wants a console that cost between that number which is simply not true. Not everyone is willing spend $500+ regardless of what is in the damn system.
But the tool that you use to interact with the screen (your finger) isn't. It's not nearly as precise as a resistive touch screen with stylus controls.
A Wii U controller with a resistive touch screen still has two player simultaneous potential, just like the DS/3DS does. Not through touch, of course, but with buttons. Think Photo Dojo, or the upcoming Bomb Monkey as examples. I personally believe sharing the controller that way would be much better. While the Wii U's screen is a pretty good size, it's not exactly that big. If you have four hands poking around on there, it's going to get cramped, not to mention your view is going to be obscured. You don't have to worry about that with button controls.
And assuming the Wii U does end up supporting two touch screen controllers, you already have a far better way to play two player simultaneous touch screen games.
As do I, but I'd expect many of those games to use buttons in addition to the touch screen.
To answer your question: lots, actually. In many DS games you can use either buttons or touch to control the action on the Touch Screen (assuming that there's actually some action going on down there and not just some interactive HUDs like in most games, which I'm sure will be the case with Wii U games as well). There are a few touch-only games, but there are many more games that support both buttons and touch screen controls, or even button only games.
Games don't have to use touch controls for the Touch Screen just because it's a touch screen. That may be the case on devices like the iPhone and iPad...but only because those devices don't have buttons.
I have no interest in drawing on my computer. I don't have that much interest in drawing period, really, but when I said "drawing" I meant it in a general sense. Not just drawing as in drawing pictures, but the act of drawing on the screen, be it for drawing pictures, writing something, or even the act of drawing used in gameplay.
And really, a resistive touch screen makes it a drawing tablet for kids? >.>
EDIT: Okay, I'll let the touch screen debate rest. It's not going to get anywhere, anyways.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Where did I say $500? Where did I say $400? $350 will hopefully enable Nintendo to include software AND enable it tech wise to last the next 5-6 years. Would you really want to pay $250 for a machine that will only last 2-3 years from now in terms of third party support? In terms of what it can do visually? To me, paying the extra $100 to make sure it lasts a few more years is well worth it.
Zoramon089
Banned
Uhh, if you're playing a game then yes. Going by your logic I guess motion controls without the motion+ are ok because they're not inaccurate in a way most people would find noticeable, right?
We'll have to wait and see I suppose.
Does the iPad have BT mouse support? I have one for my Android tablet and it's nice. Not the same thing as a stylus, but it's useful for some stuff.
Not sure how to answer that considering motion + is still pretty garbage
Quicksilver4648
Member
Controller specs? Is the console going to be $100 and the controllers $150?
I make my purchase of Nintendo systems based on Nintendo games. Since 3rd parties pulled away from Nintendo consoles that's always been the case with me. So when it comes to the Wii U, outside of a few series, I personally don't care about 3rd parties. They are a bonus not a reason why I'm buying the Wii U, especially when it comes to western 3rd parties. Perhaps I'm jaded but regardless of what Nintendo puts out I only expect token support from 3rd parties anyway so they don't even warrant being considered in the decision process.
If paying the extra $100 is okay with you that's fine. I don't feel the same way. It would take a extremely impressive showing to make me feel that way.
Do you know if this is BS or just the specific product in question or if this is representative of response times of touchscreen tech? The difference sounds so extreme to believe...
Refreshment.01
Member
For what is worth i agree with him, if 350 gave the machine better specs apart of the controller and NIntendo sells it a cost, then they shoul've done it. It pays off in the long run.
Nintendo is a company that extensively tests their devices in every imaginable way. I'm sure they settled with the resistive tech for a variety of reasons. Some of which could include:
Price: The controller will be expensive as is... adding capacitive AND multi-touch won't make it any cheaper.
Durability: Nintendo usually never makes sacrifices here. Resistive screens can function with damage that usually ruins capacitive screens.
Precision: Accurately drawing, then adding items to a game, or precisely manipulating fine-details/objects in a virtual world.... Vs; pinching to zoom a freaking map? Really now?!
Lower accidental input %: The awesome sensitivity of a capative screen is great, but also increases the chance of accidental touch input. I'm sure we've all encountered it while texting or browsing, but I'm pretty sure Nintendo would be thinking more along the lines of; "how that will affect a person playing a heavily touch-based game?"
Reliable functionality: Sweaty hands? No problem!
Cross-Over Mechanics: This could be a very big incentive for Nintendo to keep resistive touch. Nintendo is in a position where they can have games on Wii U with mechanics that works exactly like their 3DS counterparts, but with a whole new level of immersion.
Those were just off the top of my head. If those advantages are readily apparent, I can only imagine how many more reasons Nintendo came up with via their R&D team. This isn't a simple case of out-dated tech vs new tech. It's a genuine case of weighing pros and cons. It's almost embarassing that "core-gamers" can't see that.
I'm neither a hater of capacitive, nor lover of resistive. I perfer capacitive for my cel phone(by far!), based on specific needs of the device. If Nintendo can deliver something that solves some of the issues associated with capacitive screens, then I'm all for that! Or, if they have a multi-touch resistive solution, then I'm all for that too! If not, I'll gladly settle for what they currently have right now.
I am 100% sure Nintendo put a lot of thought into their decision( a process which people who only see Nintendo as a naive company simply can't relate to). Even their Wii U patents leaves the possibility of the controller display screen being capacitive, which suggests that Nintendo sees capative touch a viable option, as long as it meets THEIR standards. For now, they wouldn't just forsake all the benefits resistive screens offer THEIR gaming device, just for bragging rights associate with "multi-touch capacitive tech". Were they offered a capacitive solution that satisfies said standards? We'll soon see!
Price: The controller will be expensive as is... adding capacitive AND multi-touch won't make it any cheaper.
Durability: Nintendo usually never makes sacrifices here. Resistive screens can function with damage that usually ruins capacitive screens.
Precision: Accurately drawing, then adding items to a game, or precisely manipulating fine-details/objects in a virtual world.... Vs; pinching to zoom a freaking map? Really now?!
Lower accidental input %: The awesome sensitivity of a capative screen is great, but also increases the chance of accidental touch input. I'm sure we've all encountered it while texting or browsing, but I'm pretty sure Nintendo would be thinking more along the lines of; "how that will affect a person playing a heavily touch-based game?"
Reliable functionality: Sweaty hands? No problem!
Cross-Over Mechanics: This could be a very big incentive for Nintendo to keep resistive touch. Nintendo is in a position where they can have games on Wii U with mechanics that works exactly like their 3DS counterparts, but with a whole new level of immersion.
Those were just off the top of my head. If those advantages are readily apparent, I can only imagine how many more reasons Nintendo came up with via their R&D team. This isn't a simple case of out-dated tech vs new tech. It's a genuine case of weighing pros and cons. It's almost embarassing that "core-gamers" can't see that.
I'm neither a hater of capacitive, nor lover of resistive. I perfer capacitive for my cel phone(by far!), based on specific needs of the device. If Nintendo can deliver something that solves some of the issues associated with capacitive screens, then I'm all for that! Or, if they have a multi-touch resistive solution, then I'm all for that too! If not, I'll gladly settle for what they currently have right now.
I am 100% sure Nintendo put a lot of thought into their decision( a process which people who only see Nintendo as a naive company simply can't relate to). Even their Wii U patents leaves the possibility of the controller display screen being capacitive, which suggests that Nintendo sees capative touch a viable option, as long as it meets THEIR standards. For now, they wouldn't just forsake all the benefits resistive screens offer THEIR gaming device, just for bragging rights associate with "multi-touch capacitive tech". Were they offered a capacitive solution that satisfies said standards? We'll soon see!
Capacitive touch screens do generally have significant input delay. I don't like resistive tech much, but this is an area where it has a huge advantage.
Refreshment.01
Member
What most people want is multi touch, not necesarily a capacitive screen. You could make as much as (if not more) of a compelling
argument on why resistive single touch could be a limiting factor and one that has been used extensivly already in the DS and 3DS.
Regarding durabilitly and price the Vita seems fine to me, plus it features a omore expensive OLED screen , altohough a smaller one
Similar threads
- Poll