24 replies to this topic

[Aaron Barton]

It's easy to assume that a new system will support multiple connections of its controller for multiplayer. But I slowly grew wary as I realized here that Nintendo has shown no specification for this, nor have they shown the system being used with more than one Wii-U controller. They have shown only one Wii-U controller with up to four additional Wii Remotes at once. See this quote from an interview:

Miyamoto: Right now I'm planning that people can still be able to use their Wii Remote controllers that they already have, which means this time you now have five controllers to play with. Iwata: You mean this new controller, and four Wii Remote Plus controllers for a total of five. Miyamoto: Right. Five controllers. And we have people play in many combinations.

They don't exactly confirm it either way, but I don't like the sound of it.

Consider that the Wii-U console needs to process the video for each screen to be transmitted wirelessly, and you see just how dangerous it is that they allow only one Wii-U controller for processing or wireless bandwidth limitations. Not to mention cost limitations, as it's clear that this would run higher than your typical 360 pad. They may have designed this whole setup so that they don't really expect you to have any more Wii-U controllers than the one it comes with.

If this is the case, I'm extremely disappointed. You couldn't even make the four swords concept work on this system as it existed on Gamecube. All of the obvious applications such as having your plays in a football game on your personal screen are suddenly a lot more gimmicky. It's not going to keep anything secret in multiplayer -it's just going to clean up the TV interface.

I need confirmations before jumping the gun, but I'M NERVOUS.

[Biohazard]

I'm afraid it may be the case. Reggie said that is why the console is titled "Wii U". It's mostly for the single player. I can't imagine seeing multiple tablets work together on one console because one of its primary function is to transfer the game to that specific tablet. There could be a way for Nintendo to have the console exclusively respond to the designated tablet in its main function, while the others are just recognized as peripherals or some sort, but I doubt it. Keep in mind, when Nintendo introduces a relatively new technology in their consoles, it's not refined. The technology is most likely going to have some major quirks until Nintendo comes up with a solution down the line, like they did with MotionPlus. It doesn't really bother me because I tend to play solo.

[AMAC]

I also fear that you could be right. I hope not though. It does sound like Nintendo is gearing their console for single player gaming, not multiplayer. Another possibility is that Nintendo are just showing Wii Remotes being used as controllers because they know that the majority of people won't be able to afford to buy four controllers and they want a way to keep prices down, but they will sell the new controller for those who want to buy extra ones.

[Ruthie]

Before this conference I was completely sure that we would see four people playing on a touch screen controller but I wasn't expecting the controller to be so big and have a camera and all those other neat things. It's still possible but it's not an idea that Nintendo has been pushing.

I'm not even sure I want them to push such an idea, a black Wii remote with motion plus is £26.99, dual shock wireless controller is £32.99 and an Xbox controller is about the same amount. Controllers already cost about the same price as games so who knows how much a Wii U controller will cost.

I guess we will have to wait and see what Nintendo have in mind.

[Caius Casshern Sins]

We have to wait to see what nintendo says, i am hoping for the use of 4 controllers as well.

[Limelight788]

Hopefully, they'll support at least two Wii-U's controllers at a time, but only one at a time would be a huge mistake on Nintendo's behalf. If the only one Wii-U controller rumor is true, that practically destroys local multi-player and Nintendo's envision for a social console.

Edited by Limelight788, 08 June 2011 - 09:57 AM.

[rob_shadows]

This is something I mentioned in another thread and I've really been keeping up on it because my interest is heavily dependent on this as I will not buy one if only one controller can be used at a time.

From what I can tell it appears to be true, multiple reports make mention of it and one even talks about how Nintendo execs have confirmed that the Controller will NOT be sold separately from the system, they will be bundled together and that's it...you will not have the option of buying additional controllers, which to me...confirms it.

[Jikayaki]

It appears Nintendo is trying to insure that two tablet controllers can be used at one time, but no word on whether they'll use more than two. There are a lot of limitations for this sort of technology, so who knows what makes using more than two tablet controllers impossible right now. For one it could be a bandwidth issue through Bluetooth or ext. Then there is the possibility its a hardware limitation. The GPU can't handle more than three monitors while maintaining the graphical quality Nintendo wants and the full functionality Nintendo intends for the tablet controllers. So to have more tablet controllers playing at once may mean you either lower the graphics of the game or hardly utilize the intended functions of the touchscreen.

[Mukkinese]

Well Miyamoto said the Wii U is meant to be paired with one new controller and multi-player games would use Wiimotes.

I don't see a problem with this, sure it would be nice if everyone had a screen of their own, but imagine the processing power needed to do that?

If the Wii U is enough of a success, that could very well be the area that the next gen compete on; who can get the most screens running high quality images at one time?

Mind you, it's early days yet - no doubt Ninty has more surprises to spring over the next year.

I was just reading that the new controller has an HDMI socket? That's interesting. Could it output the streamed image to another T.V. in another room?

We saw with the golfing clip that the new remote's sensor bar works with a Wiimote...

Edited by Mukkinese, 08 June 2011 - 03:45 PM.

[Aaron Barton]

Well Miyamoto said the Wii U is meant to be paired with one new controller and multi-player games would use Wiimotes.

I don't see a problem with this, sure it would be nice if everyone had a screen of their own, but imagine the processing power needed to do that?

The problem is that you no longer have games designed around the strengths of each player having their own screen. There is no "personal game space" concept. Instead, you have the same Wii controls we always have while one player is the "oddball" type player. That's VERY constricting. The only possible way to save the concept for multiplayer would be online. There is nothing they can do to sell me on that short of sending me a demo system that connects to a functional online network. I spent $50 for the Smash Online and went back to Melee in a month.

You speak of processing power, but what's more important

If the Wii U is enough of a success, that could very well be the area that the next gen compete on; who can get the most screens running high quality images at one time?

How about we compete on number of low quality screens at once? Why is the fact that the screen is 1080 more important than each player having one to enjoy its benefits? During the SNES days, would it be acceptable for one person to have an analog stick but the rest to have only d-pads for cost or technical reasons? PLEASE.

NEXT gen we'll compete over which system can give EVERY player the same quality input device? Ridiculous.

It was my assumption that when playing a single-player game, the device would offer a 1080 res display of important data/functions. For instance in Legend of Zelda. The system couldn't be expected to render and serve more than the TV AND controller output. However, in multiplayer, it makes sense that each player can use the same controller to compete. The screen, if it's used at all, may display far more modest res video in lower quality. How much power does it take to render an item menu, or show a map for issuing tactical commands? Not much. If the technology isn't there to achieve it at a reasonable cost, then I don't feel that we should be going there yet.

Again, this was done with Game Boy Advances.

[Biohazard]

Here's what Miyamoto said about the limitations.

Our basic premise is that you can use one with a system. If we got to an idea of having multiple (controllers) it might be just more convenient for people to use their Nintendo 3DS and have a way to connect that.

That being said, we are doing research about if someone brings their controller to their friends house and they want to play together on Wii U to whether or not something like that would be possible.

My link

Hopefully, Nintendo will look real hard into this.

[Mukkinese]

The problem is that you no longer have games designed around the strengths of each player having their own screen. There is no "personal game space" concept. Instead, you have the same Wii controls we always have while one player is the "oddball" type player. That's VERY constricting. The only possible way to save the concept for multiplayer would be online. There is nothing they can do to sell me on that short of sending me a demo system that connects to a functional online network. I spent $50 for the Smash Online and went back to Melee in a month.



How about we compete on number of low quality screens at once? Why is the fact that the screen is 1080 more important than each player having one to enjoy its benefits? During the SNES days, would it be acceptable for one person to have an analog stick but the rest to have only d-pads for cost or technical reasons? PLEASE.

NEXT gen we'll compete over which system can give EVERY player the same quality input device? Ridiculous.

It was my assumption that when playing a single-player game, the device would offer a 1080 res display of important data/functions. For instance in Legend of Zelda. The system couldn't be expected to render and serve more than the TV AND controller output. However, in multiplayer, it makes sense that each player can use the same controller to compete. The screen, if it's used at all, may display far more modest res video in lower quality. How much power does it take to render an item menu, or show a map for issuing tactical commands? Not much. If the technology isn't there to achieve it at a reasonable cost, then I don't feel that we should be going there yet.

Again, this was done with Game Boy Advances.

I don't know the answers to all your questions. I agree that streaming a screen which represents a quarter of the big T.V. would seem to require much less processing power, no doubt Nintendo have considered this. I can see the attraction of multiple controllers, that is obvious and I think it was a mistake to not be upfront from the start when they introduced the Wii U, that there would be only one per machine. But there are lots of other questions too;

Why are Nintendo being coy about the possibility of running two controllers, after saying the machine is meant to be used with one? Are they planning on giving a buyers option, pay more, for a more powerful machine, and get more new controllers? We know they have hinted that the 3DS might work as a controller for the Wii U, probably in addition to the base control unit. What about the DS, wasn't that meant to do the same with the Wii? Will that mean purchasing two copies of one game? I'm sure Nintendo knew they would raise lots more questions and will drip-feed answers over time. It might be that on some points they haven't yet made their own minds up.

Given your, and others, disappointment over only having one controller, why wouldn't the next gen consider competing on the grounds of giving more screens? Doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

Edited by Mukkinese, 09 June 2011 - 04:38 AM.

[Mukkinese]

It just occured to me, the U-mote has an HDMI socket, could extra handsets work with a wired connection or is that too much for the processor too?

[Aaron Barton]

Given your, and others, disappointment over only having one controller, why wouldn't the next gen consider competing on the grounds of giving more screens? Doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

You're right, OMG, I just found a super secret conceptual image of the Wii U's successor that Nintendo had buried in their FTP server for a brief instant. If this is what is coming after Wi U...all is forgiven!!!

Wii U Successor

[Guest]

Ah, it's the BoyCube+. To be honest, Nintendo already revealed it yesterday, admitting that the WiiU was a bad joke. The Zelda demo was a bad camera recording from one of those controllers, the BoyCube+ is capable of 4k at 120FPS =D

[Mukkinese]

You're right, OMG, I just found a super secret conceptual image of the Wii U's successor that Nintendo had buried in their FTP server for a brief instant. If this is what is coming after Wi U...all is forgiven!!!

Wii U Successor

What's your point?

[Aaron Barton]

What's your point?

The point is that it's silly to regard multiple people using the same input device with a screen as next-next gen.

There are other reasons that it's bad that only one controller may be used. It's compromising the role of the console. The Wii was all about the motion controls. With this system, the message is very different. Aside from the screen, the controller offers a very standard suite of gamepad controls. Multiplayer games will have to contend with the fact that two entirely different types of controllers are being used at once. Gone would be the days of plugging in four controllers and each player duking it out in indentical Arwings or go-carts. Now, designers would have to go out of their way to make games work where one person has a traditional gamepad with a screen, and the rest have last gen hardware. It's pretty much the same as the Wii using only one remote, with the remaining players having to use GC pads. Imagine the wonky game designs that would have erupted trying to work around that limitation?

I initially thought that Nintendo was about to dominate, but I now feel it's more likely the Wii U will revel in success for a few years until its competitors arrive, bringing with them less restrictions/haphazard design choices. Time will tell.

[Mukkinese]

The point is that it's silly to regard multiple people using the same input device with a screen as next-next gen.

You seem to start off disagreeing and end up agreeing with my suggestion?

I initially thought that Nintendo was about to dominate, but I now feel it's more likely the Wii U will revel in success for a few years until its competitors arrive, bringing with them less restrictions/haphazard design choices. Time will tell.

Firstly we don't know why only one controller is being offered with each console and I agree that four controllers would be the ideal for local multi-player gaming.

Whatever, if it turns out that Nintendo cannot, or will not, supply more than one controller for the Wii U, for whatever reason, and that controller becomes so popular it is seen as a game changing device, then why wouldn't Sony or Microsoft consider offering a base unit with enough processing power to wirelessly stream up to four similar controllers?

It may be just conjecture that such a situation would arise, but if it did the conclusion is simple logic. If a demand exists, why wouldn't someone try to supply it?

[Aaron Barton]

Having multiple screen-enhanced controllers is an attractive feature that we may indeed find next-next gen. Not disagreeing there. The point is that we shouldn't have to wait that long. But if we do, Nintendo should offer ZERO screen-enhanced controllers until it is possible, because what they're doing now is diluting the vision and identity of their console. I'm not disagreeing with you on what may happen in the industry. I think where we disagree is whether it's good business, good for Nintendo, good for the gamers, and good for their brand. You seem to think it's acceptable to connect to only one controller. I feel it is utterly not.

Nintendo is throwing away a ton of potential by beta-testing an amazing feature for their competitors. Sony and/or MS may see the vast potential and decide to do it right. Why not Nintendo get it right the first time, and dominate? It was one thing when skimping on power meant lessor graphics. Remember when they said it was the control method that was REALLY important? Oops, not important enough it seems!

Edited by Aaron Barton, 09 June 2011 - 05:07 PM.

[Caius Casshern Sins]

The only thing i can say say is that we have to wait and see, hopefully nintendo will be able to implement this to the console. There still hope as i believe they can still change the hardware to make it possible (i hope so). But how will this affect the cost of the console, i don't know.