Topic: Does the Kinect-less Xbox One mean anything for the Wii U?

I dunno. I can't see them making an FPS IP on their own, and I'd be more interested in them doing something else with first person (an idea that most developers have only recently realized is a good idea for some reason)

Seriously, you can't expect Nintendo to take everything onto their own shoulders. There's only so much creative gene pool in a single company, and from a pure logistics point of view, you can't just scale it. It's not like Nintendo can just "make more games".

But there are lots of mid-sized companies who are struggling to compete with the biggest blockbuster AAA titles (and their similarly hefty marketing budgets). A Wii U exclusive with Nintendo getting behind a really smart marketing and promotion campaign (and I don't mean mass media marketing / TV adverts) could give them the visibility they need to go to investors / publishers in the future and say "we can compete, but with a smaller budget and timeframe by being smart and lean". Titanfall apparently only had 80-odd people work on it. It was a 3rd party exclusive specifically designed to push adoption of Xbox One. That's a very doable scenario for Nintendo

Why can no one comprehend that making the gamepad optional is not the same thing as removing it completely from existance?

It would not be stupid.

Which helps the Wii U more
A) A $330 Mario Kart 8 bundle with a gamepad
B) A $200 Mario Kart 8 bundle with no gampad

The clear and obvious answer is B. You may think that it is just an under powered and under supported console with out the gamepad but making the gamepad optional but that is what it is with the gamepad too, it just costs more. Keeping the gamepad required doesn't change it either...it is still under powered and under supported.

There are probably plenty of people who played Mario Kart Wii that will be interested in the Wii U when they see it. If they can get an underpowered and undersupported console to play the game that has them interested in the console a whole bunch more would take the plunge at $200 thant at $330. These people were not interested in the gamepad, they are interested in Mario Kart.

All of Nintendos grand plans for SW that makes use of the gamepad is still just as effective even if you offer a "core system". Making the Gamepad appealing will still sell Wii U's. The only thing keeping it mandatory accomplishes is hurting the sales boost that Mario Kart could potentially have. Software sales are what matter here and to sell software they need people to own the console....the gamepad is irrelevant to all of that. Continue to support the gamepad and release software for it but there is not reason that it absolutely must be kept mandatory.

But it is something different, without it, it is nothing.
The difference may be unpopular or underused, but it still appeals to some, and we have to hope Nintendo can encourage developers to use it more, if they use it right. Games like Pikmin and WW use it so well that I don't want to go back to not having one. The issue with the Wii U isn't the GamePad.

Dude, no one is going to take your gamepad away from you. Why do you think making it optional means you lose your gamepad?

Pikmin 4 on Wii U would have the same level of gamepad support whether or not Nintendo sold a "core system". Why wouldn't it? That's how Nintendo rolls.

Is it a PS4? Then no Nintendo has nothing to worry about.

Making the GamePad optional means that you will have a split install base. If every console has a GamePad allows for more unique games and 100% of Wii U owners have the ability to buy and play your game. Sure if it was optional they could still make GamePad heavy games but that means everyone without a GamePad can't play it. So if you are Nintendo, trying to deliver new and interesting ways to play, why would you make the GamePad optional to sell a small number of units. The Wii U is the cheapest system out of the big 3 and making the GamePad optional would probably only drop the price about $50 as then they have to replace the $100 GamePad with a $50 Pro Controller. (Not going into Manufacturing Prices as no one knows for sure how much everything costs and if you claim to know then please provide reliable sources) $50 is not enough to boost sales to the crazy numbers some people think it will. Then if it did boost those numbers that much why would you make the GamePad required in your game when so many people don't have it?

The Wii U was created with the GamePad being the main controller, the Xbox One was created with the Kinect being an optional controller. Microsoft making their optional controller completely optional for consumers is not the same as Nintendo making their primary controller optional and their optional controller primary. So, the reason why people don't want the GamePad to be optional is that we still want unique games that use the GamePad features in unique ways. The reason why people want the GamePad optional is so they can save $50... wouldn't it be smarter for Nintendo to save that $50 by not bundling any games with it like the PS4 and Xbox One? No bundle games would result in the same price cut. This Mario Kart Bundle coming out is great for people who want the GamePad optional because you are basically getting your $50 price cut but then buying Mario Kart which brings the price back up to the $300 price...

Probably not the wii u, but a lot to the ps4. The wii u should do this with the gamepad as an option and sell it for $250

Yes, it would be stupid. Without the gamepad, you are selling nothing more than a crippled Wii U that is only able to play about half the games for the system.

Judging by how many posts I've seen from you about this issue, I realize that you have some personal crusade to see a Wii U without the gamepad, but it is NOT going to happen. **

** _{At least for the current markets. The only place where I can even remotely see them doing this is as part of their emerging markets initiative.}

No for a few reasons:

• Nintendo is stubborn and will ride it out
• The Wii U is last gen hardware and if they remove the gamepad they have a last gen box with Nintendo games...that's not really that appealing
• The gamepad obviously adds to the price but that's a small issue when compared to software droughts, lack of online focus, no 3rd party support, Nintendo not really having that many new experiences in the software department when compared to direct competitors...so I doubt sales would pick up significantly

I think the gamepad is a really bad idea but removing it wouldnt do much for them imo.

Split install base- This would be an issue if the gamepad centered games were important to the consoles future. Having seen the console being out for 1.5 years we have seen Nintendo try and fail to do this. We have Nintendoland, Game and Wario, and Wii Party U basically as games where Nintendo tried their best to make the gamepad compelling. We saw ubisoft and WB come out with games like Zombi U and Lego City Undercover where the gamepad is forced to be the controller even though 95% of what you are doing involves the buttons on the gamepad that other controllers also have. What the gamepad added to those experiences is subjective but those are all early games in the systems life and we have seen the SW ignore the gamepad more and more.

If you are Nintendo and you are trying to figure out how to make money on your Wii U business and you know selling software is the way to do that, why wouldn't you want to get your console that plays the software out there as cheap as you can and not worry about if everyone has a gamepad or not?

Wii U is the cheapest system out there but unless you are in denial you know that it would sell better if it was cheaper. That is basic business/sales.

I posted a parts tear down in another thread that showed the components of the gamepad were around 33% of the cost of the components in the console. A pro controller sell for $50 but it has a lot of profit margin built in. A game sells for $50 or $60 and is practically all profit (the cost is in development only, manufactiruring the game is cheap as hell).

People who do not have the Wii U now are not interested in the Gamepad or the experiences it makes possible. People who might buy the Wii U in the future but have not yet are interested in some of the exclusive games on the system NOT THE GAMEPAD. A Mario Kart core system is designed to sell to those people. Many of them will still scoff at $330 for a Mario Kart bundle.....they want Mario Kart but not that bad. You get that bundle to $200-$230 and you sell a bunch more.

The gamepad may or may not be an anchor dragging the system down (I think it is) but making it optional does no harm and is a win win situation. It frees the consumer to make the decision and allows the system to thrive in both configurations based on its appeal.

@blaisedinsd

Oh I just realized it is you. I am not going to have this argument again with you. Nintendo knows what it is doing. Nintendo has certain goals it is trying to achieve.

@MAN1AC

Nintendo is stubborn- its looking like you are right.

A last gen box with Nintendo games- This is the number 1 market the Wii U needs to go after....people who want Nintendo games. Software droughts are a big problem but convincing people to deal with that is a lot easier when the price is lower. Just like the 3DS (and pretty much every console ever) it's about price and games. If it's too expensive it won't do well. If it has no games it won't do well. The Wii U is expensive (it doesn't matter if it's cheaper than X1 and PS4 it is not competing directly with those consoles) and it needs more games. The best chance the Wii U has is to cut the cost and get more games....that's what they did with 3DS. The gamepad is not going to be neccessary for Kart or Smash so you don't want people interested in those games passing on Wii U because it is too expensive. Get a core system available for those people...they want Nintendo games and don't care about the gamepad.

I think it makes a ton of sense to offer a core system. I don't think it hurts anyone who bought a gamepad and it is soley for those interested in the Wii U library of core games. (Mario, Zelda, Kart, Smash all can be played with no gamepad)

I also think it would be great for current Wii u owners to get the benefits of this move. Being able to watch and use netflix with a wiimote or other smaller controller with better battery life that doesn't make me constantly get up and sit down to fetch and charge the gamepad. Being able to use the system still if my gamepad gets broken or whatever. Perhaps getting some patches for games that will let me play Lego City and Zombi U in a single screen mode so I can have off tv play. Being able to enter my user password with my pro controller or wiimote or classic controller instead of making me use the gamepad.

Overall the Wii U is a better gaming system if the gamepad is optional. The gamepad doesn't have to die if it becomes optional, it's more like the cheap arcade 360 models they used to make. Yeah you are missing out on some features but you make the console available at a lower price point...the arcade models were not popular I don't think and I believe you could add a hard drive later if you wanted...maybe I don't know what I am talking about with 360....but the point is you lower the price of entry to software. It doesn't matter how appealing this core system is just like it didn't matter how appealing the 2DS was.....it is a smart business decision that would benefit everyone and the only reason not to do it is the possible game patches and branding of software as being playable on a core system.

Making it optional would undermine Nintendo's efforts of supporting it this year. Let's see what they have up their sleeve first.

@blaisedinsd
The GamePad probably doesn't have the flexibility of removal as the Kinect does, though, so it's ironic you would post your "idea" on this thread. They can tell the Xbox One to use those resources normally used for Kinect to be used in other areas.

The GPGPU in the Wii U probably has a fixed operation of streaming and communicating with the GamePad, which would mean they would be losing function of the GPGPU that can't be routed to another function.

You don't have the information you need to make a valid argument. Dropping the GamePad wouldn't automatically drop the price by $100, or even $50. Considering you suggest Mario Kart 8 to be bundled and still retain a price of $200-230, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. There are still R&D costs, distribution, and manufacturing contracts and the materials themselves to pay for that you aren't even taking into account.

The direction this discussion is heading feels oddly familiar.

heh one could say the same about 75% of the topics on video game forums lately.

@scar392

Not sure what GPUs and stuff have to do with anything.

I do have a plenty of sources that show the gamepad is around 1/3 of the cost of the console (I have seen this from multiple sources). That is for materials. R&D, distribution, manufacturing are all irrelevant....R&D is a cost incurred before the console launches and making the gamepad optional doesn't affect that. Distribution....I guess you mean the new packaging and probably stickers for compatible software....those costs are insignificant.

www.gengame.net/2013/03/cnn-estimates-the-cost-of-manufacturing-wii-u-to-be-about-228/

Wii U GamePad

Touch screen: $24.75
Main electronic components: $30
Battery, wifi chip, plastic casing: $24.50
TOTAL: $79.25
Wii U Console

Processor: $40.00
Optical drive: $17.00
Flash storage: $6.00
RAM: $6.00
Wifi chip, Bluetooth, plastic casing, other components: $79.38
TOTAL: $148.38
GRAND TOTAL: $227.63

Asking for a gamepad less Wii U is like asking for a wii remote less Wii.
The support is the same.
Mario Kart and Brawl certainly didn't make use of motion control just like Wii U's version don't.
Platformers don't need support of either motion or game pad.
But there are plenty of games on the Wii U which already use the Game Pad brilliantly, just like there were plenty that used motion controls brilliantly on the Wii.

The GPU has (just taking a guess here, I'm no techie) something to do with the amount of power going to the GamePad for whatever it's use. If Nintendo dropped the GamePad entirely, there'd be no point for that extra hardware to be in the system. Keeping it in for people who would never buy a GamePad to use for the few games that would support it would make the price unnecessarily higher. Taking it out from newer consoles would mean that new dev kits would have to be made (or an announcement or something telling developers to not use the GamePad) and the GamePad would never be implemented again.

Removing the GamePad is an awful and terrible idea.

@Everyone If you want an option to play Wii U games with the Pro Controller, buy Wii U games that support it. It'll be an extra $50, but it's not like you have to pay that $50 every time you put in the game. If you don't like that, just get the games you want on the PS4/One/PS3/360/PC you more than likely already have. The GamePad is here to stay. End of story.

@blaisedinsd
Those costs are relevant, otherwise Nintendo wouldn't be losing money on the Wii U, anymore. The GPGPU has to do with it, because that's where the GamePad's communication is being processed. If that part of the GPGPU is passive, then it doesn't improve the Wii U in anyway without it, similarly to how the Kinect is excluded, and they would be throwing money at a part of the processor that is no longer required. Not understanding this proves you don't understand the situation.

If they drop the price of the Wii U, in exchange for the GamePad, they would still have to pay for those other costs that have now risen and possibly won't receive compensation. Saving the consumer $80 doesn't pay for other costs they have, which is exactly what they are trying to avoid. This all still derives from that $350 price point, because even if costs of components have dropped, that doesn't mean others have.

EDIT: @kyuubikid213 understands. That's beside the other costs.