Wii U Could Be The Perfect Console For People Like Me

I am a multi-tasker. I habitually bounce between screens and activities with the twitch of a speeding driver glancing at his rearview window to check for cops. I keep an obscene number of browser tabs open. I am addicted to doing tons of things at once.

It's awful, I know. I'm part of the generation your parents complain about, one of those twenty-somethings who was raised on the Internet and taught from an early age that paying attention to one thing at a time is way boring. I spent my formative years playing point-n-click adventure games on a computer while watching TV, or letting my eyes glaze over a movie while grinding levels in Final Fantasy Legend on my Game Boy. One screen just wasn't enough.

Even today, I play console games with a laptop next to me, taking frequent breaks to check my e-mail or send messages on IM or put on YouTube videos about Thanksgiving. Sometimes, whether I'm driving around the streets of Grand Theft Auto or sneaking through compounds in Mark of the Ninja, I'll load up a couple episodes of Veronica Mars or West Wing and watch while playing, consuming as many things as possible. It's just what I do.

This makes me a perfect customer for the Wii U, the Wii's successor and a console whose main selling point is its GamePad controller, a tablet-esque beast complete with a seven-inch screen, buttons, joysticks, and back triggers. You can use that controller to play certain Wii U games using what Nintendo is calling "Off-TV Play," which lets you turn off your television and do everything in your lap — or switch channels so you can play games while doing something else.

And sure enough, when I spent this past weekend playing around with Nintendo's new console, I found myself gravitating toward that smaller screen. While playing New Super Mario Bros. U, which mirrors the action so you jump from platform to platform on both screens at the same time, I found that even while the television was on, my eyes kept floating down towards the tablet controller. I wanted to play on the screen that was in my hands.

Holding the GamePad feels like holding a bigger, more lap-friendly portable system, with a lovely high-definition screen and exceedingly comfortable controls.

Eventually I started flipping the TV to other stations, too. Saturday I watched Iron Chef Michael Symon cook turkey in a vacuum sealed bag while playing through Mario's desert world in my lap. Sunday I used New Super Mario Bros. to distract from the pain of watching the Jets' Mark Sanchez improve his record of completions to the ground. For a multi-tasker like me, it was fantastic.

By the way, if you haven't yet tried out the Wii U's fancy new controller, you should know that it is an excellent piece of plastic. Holding the GamePad feels like holding a bigger, more lap-friendly portable system, with a lovely high-definition screen and exceedingly comfortable controls. Friends and co-workers who have tested out the GamePad have all noted that it's surprisingly ergonomic. Ridges on the back of each side of the controller meld nicely with your hand, and once you get used to the unorthodox shape of the whole thing, it is pleasant and easy to use, not unlike the Wii's remote and nunchuck.

The GamePad screen also seems designed to deliver a crisper, clearer display than your television, and unlike gaming with, say, an iPad for an extended period of time, playing with the Wii U's GamePad has yet to feel uncomfortable. It's light, pretty, and fun to use.

In general, what's exciting about a new video game console is not what it has to offer — what's exciting is that console's potential. What it will have to offer. The Wii U has a great launch lineup — one of the strongest of any console launch in history — but its best games will be the ones that Nintendo and other developers release in the years to come, not in the months to come.

And after playing around with the system over the past few days, I'm even more excited about the Wii U's potential than ever before. I've written before about some of the ways the dual-screen technology can make RPGs better, but maybe video game makers should really be using the GamePad for Off-TV Play. The most important feature of the Wii U — to me, and to other multi-taskers like me — might wind up being the one that makes it portable. If I can play great Wii U games while watching television, or while letting someone else watch television, or even while gaming on my Durango or Orbis, it could be exactly what I'm looking for.

If it gets enough game support, of course.

Which makes it particularly awful that Nintendo won't let us play Wii or Virtual Console games on the GamePad — instead, you'll load them up on your screen using what Nintendo of America boss Reggie Fils-Aime calls "a Wii within your Wii U." This is a serious missed opportunity, and I hope they realise that one of the biggest draws of this system is getting to play games on the GamePad screen and only on the GamePad screen. Why not support Super Nintendo or N64 games on the Wii U's controller?

Regardless, this is an exciting console. When I first saw the Wii U at E3 2011, I was excited about what two screens could offer. But now, after spending a weekend getting to know Nintendo's new system, I'm even more excited about what one screen could offer. I'm excited to play console games in my lap, on a controller more pleasant and comfortable than any portable system I've used before.

Now let's see if the games can live up.


Comments

    Ergh... I've been trying to convince myself that I don't want a Wii U straight away, but he's basically describing exactly what I need in my life - a way to have the big console experiences, switching between the TV and my hands at will. This would actually give me the chance to complete more of those longer games without feeling like I'm hogging the TV all the time.

    And also easily watch the cricket all day while simultaneously playing these games!

      Oh God, watching the cricket and console gaming at the same time would be fricken awesome! Over the last few days I've been flipping between tasks on my Nexus 7 with the cricket on in the background, and I thought THAT was cool, give me some real games though and it'll be even better!

      (Sadly?) I'm also a 'multitasker'. I just can't sit on the couch and do one thing, there always needs to be a tablet in my hands, or something on in the background. If they get the third party support happening, the Wii U could be a real winner.

      Cricket whilst console gaming? Mind blown.

    VC games designed specifically for Wii U will support off screen Gamepad only play. It was unofficially confirmed during an Iwata Asks when they said they had the original NES Mario Bros. running on the Gamepad. On a slightly different note, I hope they redo all the N64 VC games with Wii U in mind because the Wii VC N64 games had some pretty annoying frame rate hiccups.

    'Which makes it particularly awful that Nintendo won’t let us play Wii or Virtual Console games on the GamePad'

    Wii games I can understand, but VC (not WiiWare) feel like a missed opportunity. I'm pretty confident we will be able to some time down the track, just not initially until they iron our the bugs.

    I think I can see that being able to play a big release game both on the console (via the TV) and on the gamepad could be more functional than having a seperate console, and a seperate portable gaming system (i.e. a PS3 or 360, plus a Vita or 3DS), but I don't see it as being significantly better, especially given the quality of Vita games. And of course the Wii U solution would not offer true portability.

    Also, couldn't this multi-function aspect of the Wii U be easily replicated by the PS4 and nextbox. To me it seems like a marginal benefit that will be one of many benefits provided by Sony and Microsofts next realease - or potentially even on Sonys and Microsofts current consoles.

      To replicate that function, they would need to replicate the controller completely.
      I don't want to pay full portable system cost (buy a Vita) to play this way PR have to find a place to prop my tablet up whole using my normal controller; that option may as well just be a small different TV.

      Console power streamed to the controller that was already in your hands anyway; it's a good idea and I agree with the author of the article in how useful it is.
      My reason however is that I am not a rabid consumer, however I have one TV and a wife. ;)

        *OR, not PR
        *while, not whole

        Cursed touchscreen keyboards!

        Would they need to replicate the controller completely? It seems to me likely that SmartGlass is going to replicate the majority of the gamepads functionality, and that appears to be a late in the game ad-hoc solution, and mostly lacking due to the lack of gamepad controls - analogue sticks and shoulder buttons etc.

        It seems to me that if Sony or Microsoft, or indeed a third party manufacturer, were to come up with a gamepad type solution it would probably be more versatile (not tethered to a confined radius from the console), and would probably sport HD graphics ability.

        I agree that the cost of a Wii U is less than the cost of a PS3 or 360 plus the cost of a Vita or 3DS, but then the cost of a Wii U is not less than the cost of an existing PS3 or 360 plus the cost of a Vita or 3DS.

        Yeah I get the one TV and a wife conundrum, but isn't that also perfectly well served by owning a quality portable gaming system, such as the Vita. If the dedicated console games offer a far superior game than a portable console (Vita) then I'd agree with your point, but my feeling is that the Wii U games when played on the gamepad won't be vastly superior to the games on the Vita. I own neither so i'm not claiming to be an expert, just expressing my thoughts.

        *just an FYI - you are able to edit your posts

          You may be right; SmartGlass etc can replicate a lot, my only issue is that it does not replicate physical controls, so it does not match what I desire.
          Streaming to something like the Vita would be much closer for me, but would require full investment (console plus Vita) due to not owning a PS3 (I'm sure there are others like me) and Xbox has no such portable (yet).

          Thanks, but I can't edit on my smartphone (hence also the keyboard issues).

            You're wrong, You literally are the only person that doesn't own either a PS3 or 360 as yet. I'm kidding of course, there must be at least a couple more.

            If I didnt own any current gen console (or just the Wii) then I would probably buy the Wii U. $400 is good value for what it is, just not if you already own a console. I suppose you could wait for a 360 or PS3 price drop, that must be around the corner. Or you could wait for the PS4, nextbox, or ouya for that matter.

          The problem with smart glass is that its not practical. To use it you need to drop your console controller and grab your tablet and or phone to use it. Thats far from a convenient solution. Not only that some of the main advantages of a touch screen is the ability to interact with multiple on screen actions simply and easily with the touch of the screen. For example in an inventory system for an RPG, is usually large and many items in them. On consoles you are forced to use the controller which is slow and cumbersome. If there were 50 item options on screen you would have to move the cursor to that particular item. Compare that to a touch screen, you look down at the screen with 50 item options and the one you want is as simple as finding and tapping that item with your finger - see fast and easy. These types of interactions are where touch screen excel at, there are more but you get the idea. With the Wii U its simple too, Take one hand off the controller whilst the other hand holds the gamepad, choose the option and away you go - fast and easy. For smart glass its a hassle. You have to drop your controller, pick up your tablet phone, choose your option, drop your tablet/phone and pick up your controller - like i said cumbersome and im sure gamers are gonna be sick of having to do that over and over in a game.

          Your idea for a third party manufacturer to make a gamepad like solution is doomed to fail to. How would it work? How much will it cost? Remember consoles are sold cheap because they recoup some of the losses from software sales, how would this third party gamepad controller get money (and dont expect sony or microsoft to give them a cut of the software sales, that just aint gonna happen)? If it cant get some profits from game sales then it would have to sold for a profit and that would mean a thirdparty gamepad that costs alot more then the Wii U is for the whole system. Also why would third party game developers support such a device? No matter how you reason it this third party gamepad would be expensive, so not many people will buy it, and because so few people will have it is it worth developers spending the extra time and money on adding functionality that only a small proportion of the install base can actually use? I dont think so. Like smart glass, its good in theory but not in practice

          a vita is cheaper then a Wii U yes but how many games have full ps3/vita functionality? What percentage of games will make use of said functionality? How integrated will this functionality be considering that the ps3/vita combo is not standard for all ps3 users? If your answer is not 100% to all these questions then it fails to match the Wii U for console to gamepad connectivity/functionality. Lets not forget the Vita is still struggling and i dont see how that will change in the future

          Again let me reiterate, yes the Wii U is about off TV gaming, but its not the ONLY way the Wii U can be played. for me Its more about the way the two screens can be used differently, not the same. The good thing is that the options are there on the Wii U. Finally handhelds my get 'close' to current gen consoles but due to size limitations(handhelds have to be small to be portable, home consoles do not) and thermal considerations (heatsinks and cooling) they will never match the power of dedicated home consoles (of similar launch dates that is). Dont even think its possible - its not. IF they can cram that much power in a psp vita, a home console built around the same time with 10x more space and cooling capability will obviously be packed with more powerful hardware and easily out perform it.

            Yes selling a game accessory at a profit is such an absurd idea. What a silly billy I am.

            Why would a 3rd party gamepad be necessarily more expensive than Nintendos offering.

            Tablets are tumbling in price, and can be bought for under $100. Sure, not the best of the bunch but then let's remember that the gamepad doesn't even have a HD screen, or multitouch, or much of what would be considered a serious ommission even on the cheapest of tablets.

            I didn't say that a 3rd party developer would be a raging success, i'm merely suggesting it as an option. Not too dissimilar to uDraw, really.

            Sure, the Vita, and Smartglass are arguably not as elegant a solution as the Gamepad is, but then let's not pretend that the Vita and Smartglass have their advantages. Both are truly portable. Smartglass is free.

            Yes, a home console will always be more powerful than a smartphone, tablet, or portable gaming machine released at the same time. But that doesn't mean that the gap between the performance of home consoles and other devices isn't shrinking. Face it, smartphones, even mid range smartphones, and soon to be low range smart phones are now capable gaming machines, that offer graphics far superior to the last gen of consoles.

            For me Off TV gaming isn't that exciting. I'm entitled to play my PS3 on the lounge TV, not all the time, but a fair amount of the time. And if my wife insists on watching CSI then I can go do something else, or I could play on my PC, PSP or smartphone - all of which are portable. I'll also be able to play some pretty good games on my tablet as and when I buy one.

              When did i say selling for a profit is an absurd idea? I said the fact is that as a third party device unable to attain profits elsewhere (like software sales) all the profits must come from the sale of the hardware itself. No judgement there, just the facts

              How can this third party gamepad cost less then a Wii U? Firstly the Wii U is sold at a loss which will be made back thanks to software sales to Nintendo, something this third party gamepad maker cannot do. Also all the power of the Wii U is in the console itself, not the gamepad, the gamepad merely streams the graphics from the console. It doesnt do any of the CPU or GPU processing on the gamepad itself, which means no CPU or GPU or the heatsink nor the extra battery power required to power cpu and gpu have to be crammed into the Wii Us gamepad. Unfortunately for your idea for the third party gamepad does have to provide its own GPU CPU and cooling solution and enough battery extra battery power to power the build in CPU GPU, which means this thirdparty gamepad will be heavy and large (compared to the Wii U gamepad). I believe you have failed to take those consideration into account when you came up with this solution. With the addition of a dedicated CPU and GPU extra cooling and battery power on this thirdparty gamepad it will cost alot - especially if your asking for HD touch screen. So what we have as your answer to Wii U is a thirdparty gamepad, that will be expensive (you have to have a console and buy this device), will be undoubtably big and heavy (has to have its own GPU and CPU and the appropriate Heatsink to cool such devices) and theres no guarantees third parties will offer full support. Its far from a great solution your making it out to be. In any case why suggest something that even you clearly believe wont be much success? Kind of pointless. I thought your giving options that can rival the Wii U.

              I agree to your advantages, Vita is a true portable and smartglass is free. That however doesn't make them equal to the Wii U and its gamepad as i have explained before

              No the difference between mobile and console gaming is not shrinking, the gap will always remain, its just a matter fact. There is only so much CPU or GPU you can fit/cool/power on a phone/tablet because of the size limitations of being portable - yes it improves with time, but so do console and PC cpus, those technologies dont stay idle as mobile processors improve. Sure they may offer gaming experiences similar to LAST gen (ps2) but nothing on this gen, so no they arent gonna close the gap, when a phone is as powerful as ps3/360 a console will be out that will be a console 10x more powerful then that phone - and this cycle will never change. Size plays a massive role in how much power a device can have.

              Last edited 15/11/12 3:09 pm

                Yes, you went into a big explanation about how a 3rd party wouldn't be able to get a cut of Sony or MS software sales, which strikes me as a bit of a waste of time given that no-one suggested that they could.

                Yes, the Wii U is sold at a loss. The gamepad is only one part of the Wii U. A 3rd party manufacturer of a gamepad like item, if there were to be one, would not be selling nor manufacturing a Wii U. They would be selling the gamepad like item, and thereby would not incur the manufacturing costs of a Wii U.

                If the Nintendo gamepad doesn't require an expensive CPU / GPU and can piggy back of the console CPU / GPU, why couldn't a 3rd party device do the same? Why would a 3rd party device need to be builkier and heavier than the Nintendo gamepad? I've seen much slimmer and more powerful and multi-functional tablets than the gamepad - including those that have their own CPU, GPU and battery power.

                I've not at any stage suggested that a 3rd party gamepad, that has functionality with say an MS or Sony or Apple or Android device or 2 would be a great solution. I've just suggested that such a device may be a viable option and may be made should the Wii U gamepad capture the casual gamers mindset as you think it will. Again, the uDraw goes a long way to confirming that such an item might be possible.

                Yes, Vita and Smartglass are not equal to Wii U + gamepad. In some ways they are inferior, in some ways they are superior. The main thing to remember is that the gamepad is not the only solution of its kind, will not be deemed the most appropriate solution of its kind for everyone, and is also easily replicable.

                Yes, the difference between mobile and console gaming is shrinking, and a gap may always remain, but the gap itself will not remain the same.

                When I owned a PS2 I owned a top of the range dumbphone. I had a lot of games on the dumbphone and I liked them a lot, but they were a whole world away from being compared to a console game. I could even play some emulated 8 bit and 16 bit games, but even those couldn't be compared to an 8 bit or 16 bit console because I was playing those games on a very, very small screen.

                Fast forward to now and I own, as many of us do, a very capable smartphone with a 4" screen, which when played in my hands is a good sized screen. The graphics of many of the free and low cost games I have are far superior to PS2 and PSP games that I own. Many of the mobile games are roughly equivalent to PSN games in terms of gameplay and graphics, with the only downfall being the lack of physical controls. As it happens I don't play games on my smart phone any where near the amount that I used to play on my dumb phone, primarily due to the lack of physical controls, and also due to battery life.

                Real Racing 3 has been described as being akin to Forza. I didn't say that myself, but I have read it.

                Face it. The gap is closing. Further, PSN sized games are becoming the norm. More and more developers are stepping away from AAA big budget game development and embracing cheaper produced games that can be distributed quickly and easily via digital distribution models such as App Store, Steam, MS Live, PSN, Google Play.

                Technology is very much focused on mobile devices. We now have quad core mobile CPUs. If I understand correctly, my smart phone is more powerful than a PC that I bought 10 years ago that I only stopped using 3 years ago. If I understand correctly, a $250 Nexus tablet is more powerful than my old PC was, and if it were able to run business applications in the manner in which Windows does, I'd pick one up in a heart beat.

                Console CPUs do stay idle, when compared to the mobile market. I bought a Galaxy S2 about 18 months ago. That was the hotttest and sexiest phone at the time. My wifes bought a Galaxy S3 about 3 months ago, that was the hottest and sexiest phone at the time. But it isn't any more. There's already the Note 2 out, the Nexus 4, etc etc. Looks at consoles. The PS3 has been around 6 years I think and that's been king of the hill all that time.

                  The reason why i mentioned cuts of software sales was because theres a reason why Nintendo, sony and microsoft can sell their hardware at below cost prices. I was merely pointing out that a thirdparty gamepad like you were suggesting cannot benefit from this.

                  Firstly its obvious you have no idea how the Wii U works, if you did you wouldn't have made this statement

                  "If the Nintendo gamepad doesn't require an expensive CPU / GPU and can piggy back of the console CPU / GPU, why couldn't a 3rd party device do the same?"

                  No its not possible atleast for the 360 and ps3. The reason is that the Wii U was designed from the ground up to communicate directly to the Gamepad, and alot of R&D was put in making sure the connection was so fast that there is virtually no lag between the two units. Ubisoft have come out and said

                  "It's crazy because the game is running in full HD [on the television], we are streaming another picture on the GamePad screen, and it's still 60 frames per second. And the latency on the controller is just 1/60 of a second, so it's one frame late. It's crazy, it's so fast. It's almost instant. That's why it responds so well. So it can be used as a real game-design thing."

                  also

                  ""I think this is where Nintendo is really out in front of things," said Ancel. "The technology inside the controller is quite a bit more advanced than what people might think. It's really responsive The response time is crazy, in fact, and I think the competitors will need some time to [get their solutions] this responsive."

                  So the answer is no, you clearly dont know what your talking about with the Wii U gamepad and how it works. Its not simply about piggy backing the CPU/GPU and sending a signal to a gamepad. Its more then this, and Nintendo have been working on the technology for a while.

                  Secondly - the ps3 and 360 are just not as powerful as the Wii U. This is fact. As you must have read developers are saying that the Wii U being not only able to Run a game at 1080p on the TV screen, it also is able to simultaneously stream to the 480p screen on the gamepad. So when you think about it the Wii U console is pumping out 1080p AND 480p so 1560p effective resolution. And thats at launch. Lets see, what resolution are Halo 4 and COD BO2 on ps3 and 360? thats right 720p, not even 1080p, thats probably the limits of the console 7 or so years into its life - and guess what its not even rendering a 480p screen at the same time. So no the current crop of consoles just dont have the power of the Wii U. Again if you dont understand how it works please dont build arguments with this. Clearly have no knowledge about the way the WiiU works with the gamepad, so you should in future leave this out of your argument.

                  Please dont argue anything about tablets/phone gaming, we know already that consoles cannot compete directly.

                  Well ok you said that your thirdparty gamepad solution wont be a great idea, so why keep bringing it up? There are so many reasons i have listed why it wouldnt work but you still insist on keeping it in your argument.

                  BTW in no way are ps3/vita nor smartglass superior to the Wii U gamepad combo. I've already explained why but heres a list

                  - Not standard
                  - Not all games will be built with that functionality
                  - Lag
                  - Cumbersome (smartglass)

                  The only advantages you have given -vitas portability and smartglass being free doesnt mean its superior in anyway to the gaming functionality the Wii U/Gamepad combo provides, its just doesnt. How can ad hoc solutions ever compete with a console designed with that functionality in mind? its just cant.

                  Again you are wrong. Consoles use PC components but highly optimized versions of them. PC components continue to improve advance as fast as mobile counterparts. Sure consoles have to last for 5 years (or 10 for 360 or ps3) but there is no way a phone can match the power of a console built in the same time frame. Have you seen a phone run 1080p, full AA, uncompressed textures, full H/L with tessellation? No so dont pretend its gonna happen in future. When phones reach that stage PC processors are gonna be doing 4k resolution, see phones/tablets will catch up to one generation behind, but they sure as hell will never catch up the the present generation of PC processors. Secondly games tablet/phones great because they can hide there imperfections thanks to a smaller screen, blow that up to 1080p TV and you wont be impressed for long. Compare a fully realized (25gb game) 1080p console/pc game compared to a tablet game outputting on a TV and its like night and day. Thats right consoles and PCs leave them for dead, i have a 4 year old OC i7 PC with a modern GPU, and i can tell you now no damn phone or tablet released now or in 3-5 years time can even match or come close to the visuals i get - not even close. So no while Mobile gaming gets better, so does PC/console gaming. The gap will never close. So long as Consoles use a decent PC processor/GPU they should stay ahead of tablet/phones for atleast 5 years where in Nintendo's case they will release a new console (10 years for sony and microsoft) This is not to dis Mobile gaming but those are the facts.

                  FINAL NOTE -

                  Anyway i know you will not be able to counter this argument so like always i dont expect a rebuttal from. Dont worry it happens all the time, after all i clearly have destroyed every argument you have made and shown you really dont know much about the Wii U, and have caught you out not having done any real research to back up your arguments. Also you cannot maintain a consistent argument. Firstly you think the Wii U concept will be a success, that atleast 3 competitors will potentially copy, but then go on to say its not a great idea that wont be successful. In other words you dont know what your stand is.
                  I will gladly debate anyone with things i am knowledgeable about, and avoid as best as i can anyone stating their personal opinions (every one has their own opinions) or things that i clearly cannot argue (when Nintendo does something wrong), but if someone believes they can misrepresent the facts dont expect me to remain silent.

                  Last edited 15/11/12 5:45 pm

      I agree i find myself playing games on my laptop and watching movies or TV on the big screen.

      Last edited 14/11/12 3:48 pm

        For some reason it wouldn't allow me to reply to your most recent comment, so i'll reply here.

        Firstly i'm confused about your first Ubisoft quote. You're saying how impressive the gamepad functions despite it not having an internal CPU/GPU and go on to say that this could not be replicated with the 360 or PS3. You're not saying why it could not be replicated, you're simply saying how well it works on the Wii U.

        Perhaps we should remember that OnLive can work on a tablet and doesn't require a hefty CPU/GPU, and perhaps we should remember that Sony own Gaikai.

        I'm merely suggesting the possibility of a 3rd party getting involved. Wether or not they do I don't really care, i'm just suggesting it as a possibility.

        Did I say the Wii U wasn't more powerful than the 360 or PS3? Pretty sure I didn't. Of course the Wii U ought to be more powerful, it's being released 6 years later. It's a shame that it appears that the Wii U isn't significantly more powerful than the PS3 / 360. But then not a surprise.

        I brought up the gamepad idea as a suggestion, nothing more. I've continued to discuss such a suggestion simply in response to your comments, nothing more. You think I should unsuggest the suggestion just because you say that it can't be done without giving any proper reason for your take on things. Fine. The third party gamepad is hereby unsuggested.

        Smartglass is free yeah? Free is superior to spending $400 yeah? So, in some ways, Smartglass is superior to a Wii U yeah. Read my comments more closely please. I didnt say that the Smartglass was overall superior to the Wii U solution at any stage. Given that I view Smartglass as an ad hoc solution it would be unlikely that I would think that it is superior. I think the PS3/Vita combination arguably is superior to the Wii U solution, but then I don't think i've stated that I categorically believe it to be. I've merely stated that in some ways the Wii U is better, in other ways it isn't, and from that, some people (perhaps most) will prefer the Wii U option, and some people (perhaps most) won't.

        I've already stated that I agree that a mobile device launched on the same day as a dedicated console device will not be technically as strong as the dedicated console device. You really ought to read my comments a lot better.

        I can't comment about AA or tesilation, I don't have a thorough understanding or interest in those things. I think I am right in saying that many phones do run at 1080p, and even output (via mini HDMI) at 1080p, still I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure tablets can. I'm pretty sure many phones and tablets can even record video in 720p. Phones are not at all shabby nowadays.

        The gap between mobiles and PCs/Consoles (released at the same time (frame)) will not close. I've already stated as much. But it will and has narrowed, and increasingly so.

        More and more R&D investment dollars will be put into mobile technologies. Intel needs to limit their dedication to PCs and spend some more time with mobiles, before they get left behind.

        15 years ago PCs were the dominant form factor for computers, then they were over taken by notebooks, which were then seriously impacted by netbooks, which were then obliterated by smartphones and tablets, which may then be impacted by phablets.

        15 years ago there weren't really any tablets, and all phones were dumb. I suppose there were a few Pocket PCs bandying around. 5 years ago (or so) smartphones arrived and were accepted by the masses. Today pretty much everyone owns a smartphone. Tomorrow we'll all own multiple mobile devices each of which will perform the majority of business and entertainment functions that most of us need. Sure, they still won't be the best systems to use CAD, Photoeditiing, high end games etc but otherwise they will be jolly powerful indeed. It's so obvious and inevitable I really don't see the point of suggesting otherwise.

      Reply to davedrastic

      When was the Wii U about portability? The Gamepad is designed for comfort not portability, if you wanted portability there are tablets, handheld games consoles out there. The Wii U is not only about being able to play with out the TV, that of course being a major feature, the main thing is how they can use both screens together to provide new experiences and interactions with the game.

      As for being replicated by the next consoles i wont doubt that something like this could be copied but both sony and microsoft (copying Nintendo is not a new concept for them lol). However with a 2 or more years head start and people already associating tablet console gaming with Nintendo and Wii Uhow can either company hope to differentiate itself from that? Look at Move and Kinect, Motion controls copied due to the success of the Wii, yet none recieved the type of sales success of Nintendos console. Thats because the wow factor has gone and when they think of motion gaming they think of Wii, not xbox or playstation, With the Wii U launching soon tablet/console gaming will be synonomous with Nintendos new console - the next playstation and xbox will not be able to take advantage of this. Releasing 2 years after and expecting to grab some of that tablet/console thunder will be too little too late.

      Also the reason why the Wii stood out was because it was different, where as the ps3 and 360 pretty much were practically the same (baring some minor differences) - that also explains why they were neck and neck in sales and had practically the same games (with the difference being first party exclusives)

      They are already trying to say they have the same functionality with their current consoles with smart glass and ps3/vita connectivity but lets be realistic - Both suffer from not being standard, so the functionality they provide wont be necessary- developers cannot force game elements that require smartglass or ps3/vita because some of the users wont have that set up, so essential gameplay elements cant use that feature. Unlike Wii U games which, thanks to be standard, those gameplay elements using the Gamepad will be the same for everyone so they can be implemented without anyone being disadvantaged.

      Its funny how your say that the next releases of sony or microsoft will be tablet gaming, but lets not forget that Nintendo pioneered it and the benefit will be provided by a console that you can have this month, not one 2 or so years down the track.

      Last edited 14/11/12 3:48 pm

        The Wii U was about portability as soon as they announced the importance and centrality of the gamepad. One of the key selling points of the gamepad is that you can play the full console game without needing to use the TV - and be able to use the SD screen that is built into the gamepad - much like how one would use a traditional portable console - although without the portability one would expect / require of a traditional portable console.

        I don't see how an oversized controller was made primarily for comfort. The gamepad was made for functionality, in order to provide gamers with a new and innovative mode of gaming.

        The main feature of being able to use both screens together to provide new experiences is not in the least bit exclusive to, or innovated by, Nintendo.

        Are people already associating tablet console gamimg with Nintendo and Wii? Why would they do that? There are plenty of gaming tablet manufacturers out there, Apple and Samsung spring to mind, and there are 1,000s if not 10s of 1,000s of tablet game developers out there. Nintendo are not one of them.

        I agree about the Wii motion controls having a Wow factor which led to a high level of media exposure and massive sales (although still not quite as high as DS or PS2 sales, I believe). Personally I don't think the gamepad does or will engender a significant Wow factor. I think it's cool, sure, but not that cool. A Nook is cool. Most tablets and smart phones are cool. There are lots of gadgets out there that are cool and offer benefits to one extent or another, but few that are cool enough to provoke significant interest.

        You seem to think that tablet/console gaming is some grand event that will have mass global appeal, I don't. I think it is mildly interesting and easily replicable. I think it might well become the norm but I don't think it will ever be considered as a significant milestone in the development of gaming, certainly not on the scale that the Wiis introduction of motion controls was. From my point of view there is no thunder to be stolen. A murmuring, sure. A burp perhaps. But not thunder.

        You're right about Smartglass and PS3/Vita compatibility not being the norm, but at the same time it's only fair to reflect on Nintendos peripheral history. Did all Wii users have the Balance Board? Did all Wii users have the classic controller? Did all Wii users have multiple nunchucks and Wiimotes? Did all Wii users have the Motion Control enhanced dongle, whatever it was called? Did all Wii users have the steering wheel, the shooter etc etc.

        No. They didn't.

        Will all Wii U owners have the Pro Controller? Will all U owners have multiple gamepads?

        No. They won't.

        My point is that yes there is a benefit in having all Wii U owners owning a gamepad but that doesn't mean that there will be controller equilibrium amongst Wii U owners.

        Smartglass is available this month, isn't it? The Vita has been compatible with the PS3 prior to this month. Nintendo are not the first to innovate or the first to come to market in this regard. Just speaking the facts.

          Like i said its portability is a feature but not the only reason that it was implemented, after all its still tethered to the actual console itself. Therefore its not a true portable in that sense. Also the comment regarding comfort is correct. Look at most portables, they have been designed to be as compact as possible and as a result those hand grips and ridges that would have helped with comfort of holding a handheld are removed so they can easily fit in a pocket or bag. Go ahead, look at a tablet, 3DS, or psp vita and tell me that they were designed for comfort, then look at the Gamepad (those raised areas for hand grips). Like i said portability was not the number 1 concern for the Wii U gamepad so no i'm right. Besides when you think about it its a controller with a screen. Nothing more.

          2 touch screens not exclusive or innovated by Nintendo? Um did some one make a DS before Nintendo? WTF?

          Its got nothing to do with association of TABLETS on their own. Were talking about a console that combines the Two Types Of Gaming - TABLET AND CONSOLE. I was pretty clear about TABLET/CONSOLE and not just TABLET. Must everything be spelled out for you? Please comprehend before arguing.

          Why bring up DS and ps2? They aren't competing in the same market/ generation are they. Whats the point of bringing them up? None whatsoever. Wii sales are stronger then its competitors, those are the facts. Secondly the reference to sales was merely about the 'Wow' effect. Wii had it with Motion controls, and the Wii U will have it with Tablet/console gaming. In other words sales will be greater thanks to the Wow factor of the new and unique product, but don't expect that to occur if and when microsoft or sony come out with their respective Wii U clone versions of xbox or playstation, because in 2 years time that feature wont be seen as special.

          I never said its guaranteed grand feature, and Wii like success is also not guaranteed, but i look to market trends, and what i see is Tablet gaming is getting bigger and bigger. Hence including one in a controller is a great idea. Not only do you get the advantages of a touch screen, you can also interest casual Tablet gamers who have only known tablet gaming to try fuller gaming experiences that consoles (and better controls) can offer, with the touch screen interface they have become accustomed to. How is that not a great market expanding feature? If you cant fight the tablet market, why not join them. This is the idea, and by no means will happen, but the potential is there as long as the software makers provide the experiences that consumers want. Thats the bottom line.

          Whats your point of add ons? I said add ons always suffer from not being standard. giving all the Nintendo examples wont change that fact so i dont know why you even bothered typing them up. I dont care who makes it, when its not standard developers wont make gameplay that force people to use that Addon only, they have to also cater for those that might not have that addon. That is the inherent problem with smartglass and ps3/vita. Doesnt matter how you cut it, its not standard. Oh and because the Gamepad is standard, developers can know they can use the features of the gamepad, and know that no one will be disadvantaged if they use the gamepad. They can make games at launch and games in 5 years time and know that every Wii U owner has one. See thats a massive difference compared to hoping people will use or care about smart glass or have a vita for there ps3.

          You dont NEED a Wii U pro controller, the Gamepad has all its functionality its an option consumer have. Multiple gamepads? What is your point? Controller Equilibrium? Sorry what? You've got no idea what your argument is. It has nothing to do with what i said.

          BTW console to handheld integration was PIONEERED by Nintendo (look up Gamecube and Gameboy connection) so YEAH they've done it before, oh and the DS had DUAL screens before sony even released the ps3 or vita, so EHHHH wrong again. Those are the REAL facts.

            OK, in regards to the Gamepad being built for comfort - of course comfort was a major consideration, but that is not the primary focus on the Gamepad. The primary focus of the Gamepad is its touchscreen functionality and console connectivity.

            You seem unsure of this, so allow me to illustrate it to you.

            What do you think is most comfortable, the Gamepad (an approx 10" lump of plastic), or a modern game controller such as the Dualshock or 360 controller, or indeed a Nintendo Pro Controller? I've not used the Gamepad, but I can be quite confident that, due to its size, it is not more comfortable than a modern controller - if it were to be then the PS3 and 360 would have launched with an approx 10" lump of plastic too, and further they'd be no use for the Nintendo Pro Controller.

            I don't think I can illustrate the point more clearly and I can't see the point of arguing the subject any further.

            You're right about the Gamepad not being truly portable. It would make a lot of sense if it were truly portable, and would be stronger competition for tablet manufacturers, the Vita, even the 3DS, if it were. But, as you pointed out, it is not. No. It is simply a controller with a screen. That might excite you, but it doesnt excite me. I already own multiple touchscreen devices and have done for several years. If the Gamepad were a truly portable device, and had the functionality equivalent or better than a current high end mobile or tablet, then it might well be exciting for me, but then as that is not the case I guess we shall never know.

            Nintendo are not the first to release a console that connects to a secondary touchscreen device. I think my previous comments were clear enough that I was referring to 2 screens, and not 2 touchscreens. You can argue semantics if you like but I won't be participating in that argument either.

            The point of bringing up the DS and PS2, which are both gaming machines, was to illustrate that no matter how successful the Wii has been, it has not been as successful as other gaming machines. We can see that in terms of shipments when comparing to the DS and PS2, but we could also argue that the Wii has not been as successful as the 360 or PS3 in terms of games sold per console (attachment rates), or indeed the critical acceptance of its games. My overall point is that the Wii wasn't an overwhelming success. It sold a lot of consoles, didn't sell a lot of games, and didn't have a wealth of critically acclaimed games. In some regards the Wii was very successful, in other regards it was not.

            Just because you say the Wii U will have the wow factor due to the Gamepad does not necessarily make that the case. I'm not excited for it. My wife isn't. My friends and family members that jumped on the Wii craze aren't - in fact they barely have any knowledge of the Wii U let alone an active interest.

            Your stating your belief that the Wii U has wow factor, I'm stating my belief that it doesn't. There's no need to get your knickers in a knot.

            Now in regards to you suggesting that if and when Sony and Microsoft, and perhaps even Google, Apple, OnLive, Samsung, Steam or an unknown or unexpected player, come to the market with a "clone" of the Gamepad how could you possibly know that such a solution won't garner wide-scale interest. The Kinect came about following the Wii and has sold plenty. As has the Move. One thing I can be confident about is that any future solution by any of the players i've mentioned will be in HD and not SD and as such will be a significant improvement over the Gamepad in that regard alone.

            You're suggesting that in 2 years time the Gamepad won't be regarded as being special, whereas I'm suggesting that the Gamepad won't be regarded as (very) special now, Not by the masses anyhow. Not by me, that's for sure. And why would it? It's a touchscreen gaming device - we've had those since the DS - when was that released, a decade ago? We're to be excited by what is fundamentally a decade old technology that the majority of us will have access to similar functionality across multiple devices already. Why would a BMW 7 series owner get excited by the release of a Hyundai i30. Sure, the i30 is a great value car, but it's not required to the BMW owner.

            Yes tablet gaming is getting bigger and bigger. Why is that? Oh, here's a guess... Perhaps because of $1 games. Perhaps because of a tablets portability? Perhaps because a tablet is a multifunction device that can act as a replacement to a PC, GPS and other devices.

            Hmmm, now does the Gamepad have $1 games? No. Does that Gamepad have portability? Only to a very limited extent, and in other words, no. Can the Gamepad replace multiple other devices? No.

            You may think that millions of casual gamers are going to start paying $60 for a gaming experience to replace the free or near free gaming experience they have with their existing tablet, I don't. Certainly not enough millions to make the Wii U a resounding success.

            It's not a great market expanding feature primarily due to cost, and the fact that the Gamepad won't offer significantly better gaming that a multi-function tablet (or smartphone) device can.

            Do you think that most Hyundai i30 owners will get all excited about the release of the new Toyota Corolla? It's unlikely isn't it. They've already bought their nice little vehicle, they're not in a need to buy another.

            Nintendo are not joining the tablet market. They are not making a tablet - you said that yourself, remember. They're also not selling tablet based games. They are creating a device that looks like a tablet, but is not a tablet, and can only play games that cost far, far more than tablet games cost.

            The reality is that there are plenty of software developers that are offering great solutions to the casual market on iOS and Android devices. They (increasinly) include those software developers that have been in the console and PC gaming industry for decades. Take a look at Molyneux. Whatever you think of him he is one of the worlds most prominent game designers and has had massive and consistent success within the hardcore gaming market, yet he's walked away from that and embraced mobile (tablet and smartphone) gaming. He's not the only one,

            My point about Nintendos history (and present) of not having consistent add-ons and controllers was clear enough.

            Terrak, I'm happy to discuss this with you but you really ought to drop the hyperbole and insults. If you want to discuss the issues just try to remain pleasant.

              You said the gamepad was about portability, i simply stated its design is far from being portable, after all if it was designed to be portable it would be slim and as small as possible, looking at it its far from it (compare it to a psp vita or 3ds) Thats only a minor point

              Why are you talking about the quantitative comfort of other game controllers? Why must you go into tangents? When did i say the Gamepad was more comfortable then a standard controller? I havent so why have you started on this path? OF course a standard controller would be more comfortable, it doesnt have to accommodate a touch screen, where as the gamepad does.

              You say your not excited for a gamepad, yet you bring up that you think that the next xbox or playstation will have it and do it better, hmm really? IF you werent excited by the gamepad concept or think its that great why do you think microsoft or sony will have that feature in there next console? Interesting

              What is this device your referring to that was introduced before Nintendo made the DS (dual screen with touch) and before Nintendo introduced the Gamecube and Gameboy connection because you said you explained it but i dont read in of your comments the device that came before all of that. You said they never innovated with dual screens either are you sticking to that statement after the success the DS was?

              The Wii was not as successful as the ps2, but it did well for what it was and was number 1 selling console of its generation why must it beat the ps2 to be considered a success? Also why do you bring up attach rates? its such a failed tool, and can be easily tricked/manipulated. Lets say console A sold only 1 console and 20 games, and console B sold 50 consoles & 50 games for it. Most people would state that console B is the most successful because it sold the most overall right? However if you subscribe to attach rates then console A in the example i gave sold better because it has a higher attach rate of 20 compared to console B only has an attach rate of 1. See attach rates can be skewed to make bad numbers look good and good numbers look bad, so if it can be easily manipulated its failed metric. Leave that attach rate nonsense for the PR guys

              BTW You said

              "it [the Wii] sold a lot of consoles, didn't sell a lot of games"
              really? well i did some research and i found that

              'Total Xbox 360 games sold as of March 31, 2012: 618.24 million.'
              'Total Wii games sold as of September 30, 2012: 842.20 million'

              so it didnt sell that many games did it? Well it sold almost 30% more then the 360, i think it did better then good. Care to change your statement?

              Great you dont love the gamepad - That doesnt surprise anyone. Obviously you thought it was a great enough idea that the next playstation or xbox will have it. Whatever, you or your family or friends can hate the Wii U all you like its up to you, doesnt bother me. Yes the concept of dual screen has existed for about a decade (thanks to Nintendo),we'll see how it does in the next 6 months. I guess we agree to disagree

              That is true that alot of tablet games are free or as little as $1, and its hard for any console to compete with that, its not a problem that Nintendo faces alone, sony and microsoft are also going to have the same problem. What consoles have that tablets cant have are fuller gaming experiences. Can tablet games be 25gbs or more in size and offer the quality of a current gen console? Not at the moment and the foreseeable future. So console gaming still has a place. The challenge is getting those tablet gamers into console gaming and tablet console hybrid is a great way to do that. Consoles have a place so long as they can provide experiences that tablets cannot. Also because it has a touch screen those tablet games could theoretically make it to the Wii U so there is that option.

              You bring up a car analogy to explain consumer electronics? talk about apples and oranges? Your talking about 2 different markets with different dynamics/price range and trying to say they are related? Come on, thats ridiculous. The tablet/phone market upgrades every 6 months and yes people 'oh' and 'ah' at the release of the latest technology. Why cant that happen for a console released every 5 or so years? If your gonna make analogies please use more relevant examples.

              Nintendo isn't joining the tablet market. They are trying to create a console that provides new ways to interact with games, also part of the strategy is to give those tablet gamers that want more robust gaming experiences a console that has the controls they are used to and the power of a console. They dont have to join existing markets, they can try to forge new ones, just as they did with the Wii. Atleast they are trying to do something different, which i commend them for.

              I dont know why you brought the Nintendo add ons argument. Again my point was the reason that smart glass and ps3/vita wont be as good is because they arent standard like they are for Wii U. Nothing more nothing less.

              i apologies for my 'forceful' comments, i will keep any further arguments insult free.

                There's not much point in discussing anything with you if you're not going to read my comments properly.

                In regards to portability. The gamepad looks like, and in my mind was introduced to the masses as being akin to a tablet / portable gaming device, when in reality it isn't. Yes it can be used on the couch (as a standard controller can), but it can't be used in the bedroom - if, that is, the console is in the lounge. It certainly can't be used in the car, on a plane, at your friends house or down the park. In comparison to a real tablet, or any other portable gaming device, the gamepad is simply not portable.

                You said that the gamepad was primarily designed for comfort, and this is wrong as I said in the first instance. The gamepad was designed primarily for the added functionality that a touchscreen, and presumably embedded CPU and what have you, provides. Of course comfort was a significant part of the design, but not the primary focus. Modern controllers such as the Dualshock are far more ergonomical and comfortable than the gamepad.

                Yes I think that the other gaming hardware manufacturers have a tendency to replicate successful improvements to gameplay, and if the gamepad proves successful in that regard I'm confident that it will be replicated - although we could quite comfortably argue that it already has been replicated, but I'm sure that further and more direct replications would make further improvements. Look at the Wii Motion Controls. In terms of selling the Wii hardware, the motion controls were very successful. In terms of their accuracy they were not. Kinect and Move are quite comfortably superior to the Wiis efforts in terms of their effective technology. Now if Sony do include a gamepad with the Sony 4 that doesn't mean that i'll personally be dancing on the ceiling in anticipation, but it will significantly diminish what ever point of difference Nintendo want to claim the Wii U has.

                "What is this device your referring to that was introduced before Nintendo made the DS (dual screen with touch) "

                Gosh. I've already clarified what I was referring to. I made no mention of a 2 touchscreen device, That was you. I mentioned a 2 screen device combination, and I was referring to a PS3 (plugged into a TV), and a Vita working together, and doing so well prior to the release (and announcement?) of the Wii U.

                "You said they never innovated with dual screens either are you sticking to that statement after the success the DS was?"

                I didn't say that so no I'm not sticking with something that I never said in the first place. Can you please put in a little more effort into reading my comments accurately.

                I never said that the Wii wasn't successful, quite to the contrary. I was simply making the point that despite the Wii selling huge numbers it hasn't actually been the best performing gaming device ever, and hasn't done well in terms of attachment rates, or critical acclaim of its games. It appears that I'm having to repeat what I've already stated because you choose not to pick up on my points. Do you want to argue that the attachment rates of the 360 and PS3 have been skewed?

                The point i'm making in regards to the Wii's success is that the Wii was not a total success, it was a flawed success. More to the point, I strongly feel that the Wii was far more popular and media friendly than the Wii U will ever be, and as such I can only surmise that the Wii U will be significantly less successful than the Wii, If the Wii were a total success, on all counts, which it wasn't, and the Wii U was less successful, then maybe that's not such a bad thing. But given that the Wii wasn't a total success on all counts, and my belief that the Wii U will be significantly less successful, then from my point of view things don't look very encouraging for Nintendo and the Wii U. Let me be even more clear. When the Wii U was announced I was shocked by the gaming medias hype and excitement for the console. I could not see anything to be excited about. Oh look, another 2d Mario game. But wait, this time we get a portable gaming tablet to ensure that the unit is excellent value, although we should note that the portable gaming tablet is neither portable nor a tablet. The launch is pretty much on top of us and my feelings are pretty much the same. Sure, if the Wii U were $200 I'd pick it up on launch day, why not. I love gadgets, and the graphics should be better than my PS3, and i'm sure there'll be some good games for it. But it's not $200, it's $400, and personally I can't be bothered investing in a full price console that doesn't provide any significant benefit over the PS3 that I already own and have too many games for, other than this gamepad thing which is not a tablet and is not portable. If it were a tablet and portable then I perhaps would invest $400 into it, or certainly $300. But it's not. If Sony or MS replicate the gamepad on their next generations will their gamepads be tablets and portable? Yep.

                Yes, if I was wrong about attachment rates, then I was wrong about attachment rates. I'm very surprised about those figures.

                Yes, consoles have fuller gaming experiences than tablets have, and I would say that MS and Sony have done much. much more in developing genres that utilise the additional hardware power that a console has. They've also done much better in developing third party relationships.

                I agree, a tablet cannot offer a full blown experience as yet, although I'm getting more and more impressed by the games on my smartphone and in a few years tablets will be every bit as competent as the current gen of consoles. I would say that the genres that tablets are most easily able to replicate would be 2d platformers and cutesy kart racing games - and that puts Nintendo at a higher risk than it does Sony or MS who have developed a range of hardcore gamer type genres.

                We simply disagree on this tablet-hybrid hypothesis that you have. Casual gamers loved the Wiis motion controls - they could play tennis, and bowling with realistic moves - cool. What does the gamepad do for them? Replicate what they already own. I don't see that as making the Wii U enticing for casual gamers, and I don't see the gamepad as being (very) enticing for hardcore gamers either. I could be wrong and yes we will see.

                My car analogy was an analogy. My point was made perfectly fine with the analogy that I used.

                If a casual gamer is comfortable playing the low cost and quality games that they have on their multi-function, portable tablet device that they currently own, why would they feel the need to purchase a Wii U, whose major benefit for the casual gamer over another console is that the controller will be more easily embraced due to its similarities with a tablet. Why wouldn't they just stick with their tablet?

                Is a Wii U a smart purchase for a casual gamer? Do they want to spend $400 on a unit so they can buy complicated $60 games, when they already own a competent gaming device with games that they love at next to nothing prices. I just don't see the Wii U as being compelling to the casual gamer. I can see that the gamepad would be easier to use, and more fun to use than a standard controller would be for the casual gamer, but there's a big difference between that and forking out $400 for a console.

                I think a lot of casual gamers got swept up in the Wii media buzz, which I would add was well deserved as the Wii was ground breaking, innovative and easily accessible. I think casual gamers got less burned by the Wiis games than hardcore gamers did, but I suspect that most casual gamers still got burned by the Wii to some exent. Do casual gamers still get excited about Wii Sports? I don't think so. I think they gave up after a while and the Wii gathered dust just like it did for hardcore gamers.

                Yes, Nintendo are trying to come up with innovative new ways to play games, and to an extent they've arguably succeeded in doing that. But personally I don't think they've done that in a compelling way. Motion controls were cool. Gamepad not cool. My opinion. Nintendo shouldn't be commended for trying, they're a business with shareholders. They should be commended for succeeding, as and when they do. They seem to be trying to tap into a market that has already been burned by the Wii and is already serviced by tablets and smartphones that are becoming increasingly prevalent and increasingly cheaper. I think that's a very tough market for Nintendo, or anyone else, to capture. Apple and Android are already supplying that market with excellent, well priced devices and an abundance of free and low cost games. If Nintendo manage to win that market over they will have performed a miracle.

                The Wii thrived when they had a dramatic innovation and an unsoiled casual market that embraced the media hype. The Wii U will struggle with a significantly less innovative offering, in a poor economy, after having failed to foster strong third party software developer (and other media) support, and after having failed to develop a solid online presence, after having burned hardcore gamers with a weak supply of games, most of whom have now built up a PSN or MS Live or Steam games collection, and by being overly focused on winning a casual market that is already incredibly well serviced by Android and iOS tablets and smart phones, and by choosing to sell a console that is technically barely superior to consoles that have been on the market for 7 years already and are likely to drop significantly in price before long. Nintendos only hope is that the well serviced casual market do embrace their tablet-like non tablet and non portable gamepad.

                You can be confident about the Wii U if you want to be, I'm finding it very difficult to be so.

                Yes, well you should keep your comments insult free. I've not insulted you. The fact that you feel the need to insult me shows a flaw in your character. Unfortunately such flaws are prevalent nowadays, so you're not in the least bit alone, although still very much at fault, which is disappointing. But good for you for recognizing your faults, although you only did so when they were pointed out to you.

                I already admitted the portability/comfort point wasnt important so i'll drop that. I was merely arguing your point that the Gamepad was designed as a portable, it wasnt, its a controller with a touch screen. Its design is far from being portable - but again its really an an unimportant point.

                In your last comments you state that manufacturers replicate successful things, and mention sony and microsoft will copy the gamepad concept. Hence forth you believe the Wii U will be a successful concept - which you dont like? Correct? Ok, But at the same time you also say the Wii U will fail for many reasons (tablet market, global economy console price etc). IF thats the case why would sony or microsoft copy what you also believe will be a failure? So which is it? Will be a successful product that both sony and microsoft will copy, or a failure? You cant sit on both sides. Thats a lack of consistency right there

                You are stating that ps3 and vita is the first iteration and most innovative 'console to handheld' two screen connection - its not. I said Nintendo pioneered that concept well before Sony thought of it when Nintendo had GC to GB connection, and later Wii to DS connection. Connecting the ps3 to vita is simply copying the concept from what Nintendo did before. Just because the vita has a touch screen is coincidental, and the only reason the vita has a touch screen (the original psp does not) is because it copied the original DS. Your point is that ps3 vita combo was first and before the Wii U gamepad concept, and while it was, your giving all the credit to sony, when in reality the actual concept itself existed before the ps3/vita combo and as i said pioneered by Nintendo.

                You said the Wii didnt sell many games, thats your direct words, dont try to back peddle. You were wrong and many like you keep making the assumption that the Wii hardly sold softare. It did and significantly so. Those are the facts. Im not arguing that attach rates of ps3 or 360 have been skewed, im arguing that the actual METRIC of attach rate is flawed - and thus should be completely ignored. If one examples shows the metric clearly misrepresenting the facts (as the example i gave above did) then the metric as a term of reference is completely useless. i was pretty clear about this point. Attach rates metric is a complete failure and if you keep using it your credibility for logical argument will continue to diminish so long as you believe in its viability.

                The Wii was a success for what Nintendo needed it to be. They needed a console that will bring it the number 1 spot and brand recognition, something that they had all but lost since the GC which they tried to create a console with exact same concept (more power) as the ps2 and xbox. It failed. They couldnt compete like that anymore, its why they went with the Wii concept and targeting the casual market. The hardcore had deserted them for the playstation and xbox. Nintendo saw the writing on the wall and had to something different. Its not that hard to understand. It was a success and thats all that matters, but it came a price, and Hardcore still largely ignored it. Thats the cold hard facts, but thanks to the Wii success Nintendo can do something like the Wii U and try to appeal the hardcore again. If the playstation/xbox copy the gamepad concept and try to do what they did this generation (uber consoles) you'll be stuck with 10 year lifecycles (my estimates the next xbox will be released 9 years after the 360 launced) and expensive consoles (ps3 $700 at launch), yet you complain when Nintendo release a console within the same price (US$250-$350) range as the Wii within 5 years? Anyway its your choice but for me sony and microsoft are dropping the ball with 10 year lifecyles, like you said tablet gaming is huge right now, and they upgrade every 6 months, at that rate people will forget consoles halfway into there 10 year lifecycles. I believe in 5 year console lifecycles and thanks to Nintendos clever use of technology they can make this happen.

                Nintendo have done poorly with third parties in the past - they need to work as well as sony or microsoft on that issue, and i hope they are with the Wii U. It needs their full support to succeed

                Tablet gaming is cumbersome and inaccurate. I tried it and while functional i feel its very limited, which is why i think having the touch screen on the controller, makes those casuals feel its a tablet, but when they get their hands on the analog controls and buttons etc and see how much better console gaming is they might give it a go. Thats the idea, whether it works or not depends on how well Nintendo sells the Wii U. We have to wait and see

                Lets not comment on Wii U's online strategy till its out and proves itself. On the Wii it wasnt great but its a start, and Nintendo promises better with the Wii U, so I'll wait before commenting about it. Yes sony and microsofts online was better and i hope Nintendo copys them

                why shoundnt Nintendo shouldnt try something new? Lets see, Tablet market is growing fast in an economy thats slowing and you think that Nintendo shouldnt try add that feature and use it in the Wii U? You think Nintendo should come out with Wii 2 with improved motion controls? Look how well 360 and ps3 have been selling with their motion control - not very well. All consoles have sold poorly compared to last year, the console market needs something new and fresh, and the Wii U is it. Unless of course microsoft or sony come up with some new concept, but we will wait for the official announcement. Coming out with the same type of console in a stagnating market would fail. How is that a smart strategy and how can shareholders agree to doing that?

                Nintendo's third party support for the Wii U is leaps and bounds better then the original Wii. If you dont see that your blind. While many of the games at launch are ports from 360 and ps3 the fact that the Wii U is getting them at all is a huge achievement, considering the Wii never got these games. And i must stress this is a launch, not 1 year into its lifecycle. It should only improve as its user base increase, and thanks to sony and microsoft there is no same gen competition for atleast 2 years. That will give Nintendo plenty of time to create a solid lead and give developers plenty of time to get used to the system and the gamepad and get the most out of it. Those third parties still unsure wether to make games for the Wii U will be hard pressed to pass up the potential revenue from a console that continues to grow. Sure its no tablet like success but not all success has to be the same.

                Also while theyre are fans that always stick by their console the majority of gamers go where the games are, where the unique and enjoyable experiences are and dont owe any company their alliegiance, You would be niave to think that the majority of ps3 or 360 players will only buy their respective products, thats just not true. If the Wii U can provide them the gaming experience they desire they will buy it. Thats reality, not some un dying loyalty to a faceless company. What it all comes down to what Nintendo can deliver, and that means a better online strategy (i hope and pray that it will be as robust and sony and microsofts offerings and if it is thats another point in favor of the Wii U) and Better Third party support (which it has) . If it can do those things well whilst providing something new then theres no reason why it wont be a success.

                I agree with your last paragraph and should treat each poster accordingly not all the same.

                Last edited 15/11/12 10:21 am

    And how exactly are ya supposed to play skyward sword on the wii u gamepad, ya can't play wii games on the wii u gamepad because it wasn't designed to be that way. Think before ya complain

    You lost me at "Veronica Mars" please tell me that was in irony, and the joke just whizzed by me..

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now