Originally Posted by Blaster man It would be pretty thick if it has shoulder buttons. I would definitely have to wonder how comfortable it would be to hold a large tablet as your controller for extended periods.

Thats my main worry with it, and the battery life potential worry noted by Sara.

As Ive said before, I'm not optimistic the Wii U will end up being any better for core gamers than the Wii was. Those of us who haven't been big on the Wii ths gen should probably just steer clear and leave it for those who still enjoy what Nintendo puts out.

Originally Posted by Droogs We've been using the same Playstation controller since 1997.

I didn't realize the ps1 and ps2 controllers hooked up to the ps3 via usb and worked. Would flowers motion control work with a ps1 controller? Obviously I'm being sarcastic since you are clearly being a dick. The wii u literally uses the wii's controllers.

Originally Posted by Blaster man I didn't realize the ps1 and ps2 controllers hooked up to the ps3 via usb and worked. Would flowers motion control work with a ps1 controller? Obviously I'm being sarcastic since you are clearly being a dick. The wii u literally uses the wii's controllers.

And if Bluetooth had existed when the PS2 was created, there would be no difference between the controls for the PS2 and the PS3. In fact, controls that use the USB port work on both the PS2 and PS3.

Most people play games for a long period of time at a time so I can't see someone going through a 40 hour + Zelda game if the controller is going to die in 3 hours. This could seriously hamper gameplay. Also how will the battery be replaced when the unit dies? Is the battery changeable by the user? This tablet is apparently not going to be sold separately so its not like you can run out and buy another one when the battery dies. The console is as good as dead if you can't play for a long time on a single charge and the tablet battery cannot be replaced by the user.

I assume games will require the tablet controller, otherwise its just another Wii to me, perhaps a bit more powerful but I can't see Nintendo changing their position on how often they release games and how many games get canned or cancelled. We still don't have Kid Icarus for the 3DS and some have been waiting a very long time for that game. Glad I decided to get the Xbox 360, because I am definitely not stuck waiting for the latest game to come out anymore (especially when you are stuck waiting 2 years for a promised game) as I have hundreds of unplayed games for the system.

I also want to know how to charge this thing, ideally it should be able to be charged by standard USB but if its like apple (iPod's at least) it won't come with the wall charger and you will have to charge only through the console. Again hopefully the charging cord is long enough so you can charge while playing (which is something I really can't see them leaving out but you never know). Being able to plug this into any wall outlet without having to buy an additional Nintendo overpriced charger would be a huge plus and would mean you could move it around your house without having to worry about the battery dying.

As always this purchase will have to wait for me, I have been impressed with the Xbox 360 that I just bought, arguably at the end of its lifecycle, so I can't see myself getting another console at the beginning of its lifecycle ever again. If anything I will wait till this thing is dirt cheap to buy it, I don't care if I have to wait 5 years because I have hundreds of other games to play in the meantime that are already out so I am not waiting for the latest game to come out just so I can have something to play on my shiny new system. I am also probably getting a PS3 next year.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by TheLongshot And if Bluetooth had existed when the PS2 was created, there would be no difference between the controls for the PS2 and the PS3. In fact, controls that use the USB port work on both the PS2 and PS3.

Really? I could have sworn that the game "Flower" (as I mentioned above) requires Sixaxis motion control which is not included in the PS2 Dual Shock controller. Or are you suggesting that Sixaxis controls were indeed included in the PS2 controller? I'm also pretty sure that the PS2 controller didn't have a PS button.

I say again, it's not at all normal for a console manufacturer to reuse the same controllers/accessories. I'm not sure why you guys are disagreeing with me, it's common knowledge to anyone that's been playing games for any length of time. The profit margins on accessories is enormous when compared to everything else.

So seriously, stop already. The PS2 and PS3 controllers are different. The fact of the matter is that the Wii U doesn't require some kind of special adapter to use with the original Wii MotionPlus controllers. The Wii controllers aren't missing a button that is present on the Wii U controller. The Wii Motion Plus controller IS the Wii U controller. This is not the same as the PS2 to PS3. The Wii is the EXACT same controller. You can throw your Wii away and put a Wii U where the Wii was and everything will synch with it and work perfectly, no additional accessory purchases needed. I would love to see the PS4 use the PS3 controller but I'm sure they'll make some minor change to it.

What it boils down to is this: Will the PS2 controller play all PS3 games? NO, it won't play sixaxis necessary games. This means that it is not true that there is "no difference" between the two as you stated above. Surely you people know they're different? Why the are you claiming they're the exact same thing?

Originally Posted by Blaster man I didn't realize the ps1 and ps2 controllers hooked up to the ps3 via usb and worked. Would flowers motion control work with a ps1 controller? Obviously I'm being sarcastic since you are clearly being a dick. The wii u literally uses the wii's controllers.

I really wasn't trying to be a dick. I guess I meant more from ps1 to ps2. The dual shock was exactly the same from what I remember and could be used on both systems.

Originally Posted by Droogs I really wasn't trying to be a dick. I guess I meant more from ps1 to ps2. The dual shock was exactly the same from what I remember and could be used on both systems.

Alright sorry I called you a dick then.

Originally Posted by Blaster man Really? I could have sworn that the game "Flower" (as I mentioned above) requires Sixaxis motion control which is not included in the PS2 Dual Shock controller. Or are you suggesting that Sixaxis controls were indeed included in the PS2 controller? I'm also pretty sure that the PS2 controller didn't have a PS button.

You are right that I forgot about Sixaxis, probably because very few game developers use it. (The only other game I remember that uses it is Heavenly Sword) The PS button is mostly an artifact of it being a Bluetooth controller, but it really doesn't have any game functionality.

I say again, it's not at all normal for a console manufacturer to reuse the same controllers/accessories. I'm not sure why you guys are disagreeing with me, it's common knowledge to anyone that's been playing games for any length of time. The profit margins on accessories is enormous when compared to everything else.

It is going to be interesting to see if controllers going the Bluetooth route will change this somewhat. While I expect that manufacturers will release new revisions of controllers with improvements, it seems the basic layouts for both Playstation and Xbox has pretty much standardized. While you point out that there are some differences between the PS2 and PS3 controller, they are not big differences that would force one to learn a new controller.

So seriously, stop already. The PS2 and PS3 controllers are different. The fact of the matter is that the Wii U doesn't require some kind of special adapter to use with the original Wii MotionPlus controllers. The Wii controllers aren't missing a button that is present on the Wii U controller. The Wii Motion Plus controller IS the Wii U controller. This is not the same as the PS2 to PS3. The Wii is the EXACT same controller. You can throw your Wii away and put a Wii U where the Wii was and everything will synch with it and work perfectly, no additional accessory purchases needed. I would love to see the PS4 use the PS3 controller but I'm sure they'll make some minor change to it.

Nothing rules out that Nintendo won't make minor changes to the Motion Plus controller either. Hell, they could give us a Nunchuk with more buttons. The only thing they are guaranteeing is that you can use the current Motion Plus to play Wii games on the WiiU.

What it boils down to is this: Will the PS2 controller play all PS3 games? NO, it won't play sixaxis necessary games. This means that it is not true that there is "no difference" between the two as you stated above. Surely you people know they're different? Why the are you claiming they're the exact same thing?

For the majority of the games on the PS3, the controller is functionally equivilant to the PS2 controller. Few games use the sixaxis capability of the controller.

I agree with most of that. The reason I'm saying that Nintendo will use the same controller is because that's what they said at last year's E3. They may change their minds of course. Personally, I hope Sony gets away from Bluetooth controllers. I think it's a useless feature that is actually less convenient. For example, I put the controller on the back of the couch, it falls down behind a cushion and I forget about it. Later on we're watching TV and someone sits back and the controller turns on the PS3 through the cushions. Now I can't easily turn it off without getting up and turning it off manually or changing to the A/V setting that the PS3 is on and walking through the dialogue boxes to shut it down. Bluetooth is a pain in the ass and adds no actual functionality to the console IMO.

As far as Sixaxis control, Folklore implemented it fairly well. There's also a rubber ducky PSN game that I can think of off the top of my mind.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Thats my main worry with it, and the battery life potential worry noted by Sara. As Ive said before, I'm not optimistic the Wii U will end up being any better for core gamers than the Wii was. Those of us who haven't been big on the Wii ths gen should probably just steer clear and leave it for those who still enjoy what Nintendo puts out.

If by "Core Gamers" you mean fans of online playing such as XBL with a single userID for all games, DLC, or actively wanting game patches...

I'm not to likely to think Nintendo will come through this time either, but the MK7 framework tends to indicate they have the pieces for such a system.

In terms of games portability Nintendo looks to be going out of their way to make porting friendly/easy so to big titles should start to be day one releases in parity with the other systems.

If, and it is a BIG IF, Nintendo gets the online playing portion right, they could be even more dangerous than this past generation as Sport Game fans have funds to spend and will spend freely, yearly, to get what they perceive as the best version of their particular game.

Originally Posted by Blaster man Really? I could have sworn that the game "Flower" (as I mentioned above) requires Sixaxis motion control which is not included in the PS2 Dual Shock controller. Or are you suggesting that Sixaxis controls were indeed included in the PS2 controller? I'm also pretty sure that the PS2 controller didn't have a PS button. I say again, it's not at all normal for a console manufacturer to reuse the same controllers/accessories. I'm not sure why you guys are disagreeing with me, it's common knowledge to anyone that's been playing games for any length of time. The profit margins on accessories is enormous when compared to everything else. So seriously, stop already. The PS2 and PS3 controllers are different. The fact of the matter is that the Wii U doesn't require some kind of special adapter to use with the original Wii MotionPlus controllers. The Wii controllers aren't missing a button that is present on the Wii U controller. The Wii Motion Plus controller IS the Wii U controller. This is not the same as the PS2 to PS3. The Wii is the EXACT same controller. You can throw your Wii away and put a Wii U where the Wii was and everything will synch with it and work perfectly, no additional accessory purchases needed. I would love to see the PS4 use the PS3 controller but I'm sure they'll make some minor change to it. What it boils down to is this: Will the PS2 controller play all PS3 games? NO, it won't play sixaxis necessary games. This means that it is not true that there is "no difference" between the two as you stated above. Surely you people know they're different? Why the are you claiming they're the exact same thing?

As far as I know your content will not transfer from Wii to Wii U so if you want to keep your virtual console games and other downloaded games you will have to keep your Wii. Or am I not correct on that? Maybe they will create some way to transfer the content. So you won't just be able to put a Wii U in the Wii's place and have it function exactly the same as the Wii since you will lose your downloaded games.

Originally Posted by foltzie If, and it is a BIG IF, Nintendo gets the online playing portion right, they could be even more dangerous than this past generation as Sport Game fans have funds to spend and will spend freely, yearly, to get what they perceive as the best version of their particular game.

Considering that EA has been working rather closely with Nintendo, particularly with the online aspect, there may be a lot of truth to this.

Originally Posted by SaraAB As far as I know your content will not transfer from Wii to Wii U so if you want to keep your virtual console games and other downloaded games you will have to keep your Wii. Or am I not correct on that? Maybe they will create some way to transfer the content. So you won't just be able to put a Wii U in the Wii's place and have it function exactly the same as the Wii since you will lose your downloaded games.

Based on the transfer system in place for the 3DS, I would expect a similar situation for the Wii U.

Originally Posted by theflicker Based on the transfer system in place for the 3DS, I would expect a similar situation for the Wii U.

This. Nothing has been announced but it's likely they'll give you some avenue to transfer content though maybe not all but certainly that which was made by Nintendo.

User Accounts are happening.
So are VC/WW transfers to Wii U. (I imagine that some games won't transfer due to licensing issues, I.E. TMNT on NES)

Correcting the issue: You don't lose your VC/WW games if you send something in for repair. Or at the very least they give you the points so you can re-download everything.

Basically, Nintendo is doing what Sony should've done 5 years ago: Copy the ever living out of Microsoft...and Steam. At least, that's what I've been led to believe.

Originally Posted by KingBroly User Accounts are happening. So are VC/WW transfers to Wii U. (I imagine that some games won't transfer due to licensing issues, I.E. TMNT on NES) Correcting the issue: You don't lose your VC/WW games if you send something in for repair. Or at the very least they give you the points so you can re-download everything. Basically, Nintendo is doing what Sony should've done 5 years ago: Copy the ever living out of Microsoft...and Steam. At least, that's what I've been led to believe.

Do you have some inside knowledge? If Nintendo does what Microsoft does, that would be great.

Originally Posted by foltzie If by "Core Gamers" you mean fans of online playing such as XBL with a single userID for all games, DLC, or actively wanting game patches...

All these labels are fairly silly IMO, but they get used regularly.

When I see the core gamer term tossed around I take it to mean basically the average 360 or PS3 gamer who's been gaming for a long time, prefers traditional controls and traditional genres like FPS, platformers, fighting games, sports games etc. Online gaming, DLC etc. goes along with that, as well as wanting top of the line graphics and so on.

In other words, exactly the type of gamer Nintendo mostly ignored with the Wii by putting out a console with last gen graphics, motion controls with no packed in controller option suitable for PS3/360 ports, crappy online system, focus on casual games and rehashing their franchises etc.

I just don't see the Wii U doing a ton to change that. Nintendo's focus will always be more on families and kids than on older core gamers and their game libraries will always reflect that. I don't see the control option being much better and few people are going to want to play the latest shooter or fighter with that giant tablet controller.

Online may go to a more unified account, but they'll probably still keep stupid numbers rather than letting people pick their own screen names since they think that helps protect kids for whatever reason.

Graphics wise the Wii U will probably be on par with the 360 and PS3, maybe a tad past them. As we discussed earlier in the thread, the real key will be how far beyond that the next Xbox and Sony systems go. If they take a big step forward and make the Wii U seem outdated a year or two after launch, then the Wii U will definitely fail with core gamers.

A big graphical leap forward for PS4/720 would mean losses by the hardware manufacturer. While I'm sure Sony is up for that again, I doubt Microsoft is. I think Microsoft has reached a complacent level with 360 and I doubt they'll go all out for their next console unless they are really, really stupid and want to throw those big profits away.

Originally Posted by KingBroly A big graphical leap forward for PS4/720 would mean losses by the hardware manufacturer. While I'm sure Sony is up for that again, I doubt Microsoft is. I think Microsoft has reached a complacent level with 360 and I doubt they'll go all out for their next console unless they are really, really stupid and want to throw those big profits away.

What about software developers? Can a big leap in power in the next gen systems go too high before it becomes overly costly for game studios? On one side I would think better graphics will lead to higher costs, but then they wouldn't have to focus on working around hardware limitations. Clearly I don't know much about the development process, but I do know making games is already getting more expensive.

Originally Posted by KingBroly A big graphical leap forward for PS4/720 would mean losses by the hardware manufacturer. While I'm sure Sony is up for that again, I doubt Microsoft is. I think Microsoft has reached a complacent level with 360 and I doubt they'll go all out for their next console unless they are really, really stupid and want to throw those big profits away.

I don't think so. PC games today on the top settings look a good deal better than PS3/360 games, and that will continue to advance by the time the 720/PS4 are out (I don't see them coming out before late 2013 at the earliest, and 2013 or 2014 probably more likely).

It wouldn't take a super pricey console to make that kind of graphics leap.

In any case, taking a nice step forward in graphics will be key. Cutting edge graphics are huge in selling consoles to the core market. People are going to get whatever console Call of Duty, Madden etc. look the best on among the Nintendo, Sony and MS offering.

If only one of them goes with a big leap forward, then that's who'll win the console sales war next generation. So I'd be shocked if only Sony took a loss and put out a very powerful console as MS would be giving away the market share lead the won this generation. Most of the money is made selling software and accessories, so they can afford to take some losses the first few years on hardware.

And in general, a big step forward is really necessary to get people to buy. Who's going to want to shell out money for a new console if games look mostly the same as on their current consoles? That was a big part of why the Wii didn't appeal to core gamers--they weren't into motion controls and casual games, so why buy a console with games that looked pretty much the same as Gamecube games? Graphics advances are a big part of selling a new console to the core, so I don't think we'll see a PS4/Xbox 720 until they can make a nice leap forward and do so without taking too much of a loss per unit--hence why I think 2013-2014 is a likely launch frame.



In any case, all this discussion about the core and Nintendo is really moot. There's just not much of anything Nintendo can do to get the "core" back as the core views Nintendo as for kids and soccer moms so they're never going to buy a Nintendo console and play Call of Duty, Madden etc. on there instead of the PS/Xbox.

The best Nintendo can do is do a better job with their franchises and new IPs and get more gamers to pick up a Wii U as a 2nd console and hopefully thus get their software attach rate up next gen. If the Wii U software lineup isn't any better than the Wii's, next generation will be the first generation since I started gaming seriously (NES) that I don't own a Nintendo console.

Originally Posted by omster What about software developers? Can a big leap in power in the next gen systems go too high before it becomes overly costly for game studios? On one side I would think better graphics will lead to higher costs, but then they wouldn't have to focus on working around hardware limitations. Clearly I don't know much about the development process, but I do know making games is already getting more expensive.

I think the move to HD was the main thing that drove costs up. As well as needing to hire voice actors and all that kind of stuff.

So I wouldn't expect to see development costs go up with another leap in graphics as it would just be having better textures, draw distances etc. from having more power to work with.

Maybe if more games are coming out in 3D that may drive costs up some I suppose. But other than that, I wouldn't expect to see another big leap in development costs until there's new display technology out.