Wii U Forum

Topic: What does Nintendo have to lose by making the gamepad "optional"?

Showing 261 to 280 of 724

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

261. Posted:

This thread is pointless. The same things are being said, over and over.

The GamePad is more important than a quick buck, to both Nintendo and the consumer.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

262. Posted:

[quote=DefHalan]

DefHalan wrote:

The 2DS wasn't created for a lower price point. The 2DS fixed two problems the 3DS had. 3D is harmful to kids at a young age and this fact scared off parents, I have seen it happen in Game Stores. The second problem was the hinges on the 3DS/DS, lots of people complained about how easy they were to break. The 2DS doesn't have the hinges. Nintendo created the 2DS for the younger audience, people who should not view 3D and are more likely to break the hinges..

The lower price point was still a reason the 2DS made business sense. If it cost the same to make you think Nintendo does it?
The lack of a 3D screen made it cheaper ot produce. The lack of a hinge made it cheaper to produce. The single screen made it cheaper to produce.

The 2DS is all about being cheaper. Cheaper to produce and Cheaper to get people access to 3DS software. Selling it at $130 they make a higher profit margin than selling a 3DS. I am not denying what you say about the 2DS are you denying what I am saying about it?

Perhaps my point was completely missed yet again. Is that normal around here? Analogies are thrown back simply for being an analogy. Its not exactly the same thing, it's an analogy. Thats the point of an anology.

What you say about the 2DS is true, but it is not relevant to the point I was making when I brought up the 2DS. The relevant points are what are relevant.

blaisedinsd wrote:

[
You are proposing Nintendo make the GamePad optional. The problem with doing that is it will hurt the customer, then in turn hurt Nintendo. A split install base isn't good for a struggling system, how do you fix the split install base issue? Don't make games that utilize the GamePad. So everyone with a GamePad already has no new GamePad games coming. If you even make the GamePad features optional in your games it limits what devs can do with the GamePad (Little Inferno and ZombiU would have never happened). If Nintendo, or other companies, continued to make GamePad required games then they are missing out on the GamePad-less install base, basically destroying the reason to create the new SKU in the first place. Nintendo could make a quick buck by making a new SKU but it will cause more problems and do more harm than good.

Nintendo needs to focus on their current problems and fix those, not create new problems.

You are seriously just trying to give me a hard time right? Everything you say here I have repeatedly shown to be completely false. It doesn't split the base or hurt anyone. It doesn't create a problem that needs fixing.

Someone making a gamepad only game is not missing out any install base any more than someone making a kinect game is missing out an install base. The add-on game is made for the add-on install base and this is not a problem for anyone.

Someone with no gamepad does not have a problem that they can't play Zombi U anymore than someone with out a kinect has a problem not being able to play kinect sports.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

263. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

This thread is pointless. The same things are being said, over and over.

The GamePad is more important than a quick buck, to both Nintendo and the consumer.

Yeah, it is people failing over and over to realize the point of the thread.

Its a bunch of people brining up the same fear mongering points against the idea that do not actually have any merit to the money Nintendo makes on the console.

A starter SKU is for people who don't want a gamepad that will not complain they can't play the 5 gamepad only games.

Everyone else has a gamepad and shouldn't care if people can now buy the console with out the gamepad.

Gamepad only games can still be made because there is a 6 million strong gamepad userbase that will continue to grow.

/thread

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

DefHalan

264. Posted:

Yes the 2DS was cheaper but was that the main reason Nintendo made it? I don't think so but that is an opinion. Do you have an acticle that shows Nintendo only made the 2DS for a cheaper audience?

blaisedinsd wrote:

You are seriously just trying to give me a hard time right? Everything you say here I have repeatedly shown to be completely false. It doesn't split the base or hurt anyone. It doesn't create a problem that needs fixing.

Someone making a gamepad only game is not missing out any install base any more than someone making a kinect game is missing out an install base. The add-on game is made for the add-on install base and this is not a problem for anyone.

Someone with no gamepad does not have a problem that they can't play Zombi U anymore than someone with out a kinect has a problem not being able to play kinect sports.

It does split the install base, just like the Wii-Motion Plus, Playstation Move, and Kinect split the install base. If Xbox came out with the Kinect and stopped supporting normal controllers then people would have been upset.

Someone making a Kinect required game misses out on the Xbox install base that does not have Kinect. Someone making a GamePad required game misses out on the GamePad-less install base. If you are wanting to make a new SKU for Wii U to create a bigger install base then what is the point of splitting that install base?

Nintendo doesn't have the sales or the content to support a split install base currently. After a system makes profit or at least is doing well then a split install base is not all bad. While a system is suffering a split install base hurts.

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/why-console-specs-dont-matter
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/200271/Video_Don_Daglow_on_nextgen_transition_traps_and_treasures.php

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

AuthorMessage
Avatar

DefHalan

265. Posted:

blaisedinsd wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

This thread is pointless. The same things are being said, over and over.

The GamePad is more important than a quick buck, to both Nintendo and the consumer.

Yeah, it is people failing over and over to realize the point of the thread.

Its a bunch of people brining up the same fear mongering points against the idea that do not actually have any merit to the money Nintendo makes on the console.

A starter SKU is for people who don't want a gamepad that will not complain they can't play the 5 gamepad only games.

Everyone else has a gamepad and shouldn't care if people can now buy the console with out the gamepad.

Gamepad only games can still be made because there is a 6 million strong gamepad userbase that will continue to grow.

/thread

We have agreed with you that a GamePad-less SKU could make Nintendo money(mostly in the short run), but where we disagree is if this is a smart idea for Nintendo. I explained, counter to your points, why this is a bad idea. Your counter to my points is that it is off-topic or doesn't matter or it is only fear based.

Edited on by DefHalan

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/why-console-specs-dont-matter
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/200271/Video_Don_Daglow_on_nextgen_transition_traps_and_treasures.php

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

AuthorMessage
Avatar

unrandomsam

266. Posted:

I want to know what the solution is if I have a 30ms (Over HDMI) plasma TV with the gamepad it goes up to 46ms which is not acceptable. (If it works like I think it does).

I could use component but I dunno whether my TV supports 1080p over component. (Or whether the Wii U deals with it well or not). Less convenient.

I think Plasma's look the best and Panasonic is stopping making them and the newer model is worse over HDMI.

I also want to know why the new Donkey Kong doesn't use it at all (Other than as a pro controller).

I could just plug it into a monitor but I don't really want to (And I won't until there is many more games I want if that is what I am going to have to do).

3 frames is one too many for me to be able to notice it.

“30fps Is Not a Good Artistic Decision, It's a Failure”

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

267. Posted:

The 2ds being cheaper doesn't need an article to support a claim that the 2ds is cheaper. Being cheaper is something the 2ds is. All your points about 2ds are valid as well, but it's still cheaper. Being cheaper helps sales.

Ok, it would split the user base in the sense you are claiming. But from a business standpoint that split does not effect business. It would not cause the wii u to struggle more so the user base being split is irrelevant.

Maybe you don't get captain toad levels or and stuff in 3d world 2, but is that a problem that causes the wii u to struggle? It's pretty simple to have them let you do a toad level on the tv and the touchscreen blocks or mic platforms are not a big deal to anyone.

If that type of thing happening in 3d world 2 is a problem for you caused by this optional sku I guess that's just too bad so sad for you. From nintendos business perspective and getting the wii u to be profitable they simply don't care.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

unrandomsam

268. Posted:

Not replacing the best TV I have ever had (That is absolutely brilliant for games due to its latency as long as more is added). That was obtained at a crazy price. (1/3 of its RRP). Is pretty important to me as is using it for the Wii U.

People generally don't seem to like plasma's.

I could get a digital signage monitor that would be ok but it wouldn't look as nice (In terms of picture) and it would make that and the Wii U cost at least £800 in total.

I suppose the other option is a 1080i CRT but I never seem to find them when I look. (They are great for fighting games a friend of mine does have one).

If I am in the same room (So the TV is on) I don't mind using a wire don't see why that is not an option. (Or allow disabling one or the other completely).

There will be something that will make me take on the associated problems but if Nintendo removed them for me I would more than likely get one straight away.

“30fps Is Not a Good Artistic Decision, It's a Failure”

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

269. Posted:

DefHalan wrote:

It does split the install base, just like the Wii-Motion Plus, Playstation Move, and Kinect split the install base. If Xbox came out with the Kinect and stopped supporting normal controllers then people would have been upset.

Someone making a Kinect required game misses out on the Xbox install base that does not have Kinect. Someone making a GamePad required game misses out on the GamePad-less install base. If you are wanting to make a new SKU for Wii U to create a bigger install base then what is the point of splitting that install base?

Nintendo doesn't have the sales or the content to support a split install base currently. After a system makes profit or at least is doing well then a split install base is not all bad. While a system is suffering a split install base hurts.

You say all this but you don't actually make any point. If it splits the install base you say it is bad and something Nintendo can't afford to do yet you don't give one single reason why it is bad for Wii U becoming profitable. The gamepad missing out on a future install base because someone who doesn't want a gamepad bought a Wii U with out one is bad because:

crickets

Because of nothing. You may say it's bad because of whatever but you do not make the point of how it would hurt the Wii U business.

The discussion is about the impact on Wii U business so you have to make a point of how it is bad for Wii U business or you are not actually contributing to the conversation. You are just making me try to figure how the weird stuff you said even applies to the conversation.

PS3 was sinking for years, the move did not harm the PS3 business by splitting it's install base. The PS3 didn't need to be successful before it could risk a split user base over the move add on. If the move made profit it was good for PS3 business, if it lost money it was bad. The split user base doesn't matter to the PS3 business.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

270. Posted:

@blaisedinsd
People do know what the thread is about. It's pretty clear in the topic title... If Nintendo telling everyone that a GamePad-less SKU isn't going to happen, fails to be enough confirmation for you, there's not much anyone can say.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Jazzer94

271. Posted:

blaisedinsd wrote:

DefHalan wrote:

It does split the install base, just like the Wii-Motion Plus, Playstation Move, and Kinect split the install base. If Xbox came out with the Kinect and stopped supporting normal controllers then people would have been upset.

Someone making a Kinect required game misses out on the Xbox install base that does not have Kinect. Someone making a GamePad required game misses out on the GamePad-less install base. If you are wanting to make a new SKU for Wii U to create a bigger install base then what is the point of splitting that install base?

Nintendo doesn't have the sales or the content to support a split install base currently. After a system makes profit or at least is doing well then a split install base is not all bad. While a system is suffering a split install base hurts.

You say all this but you don't actually make any point. If it splits the install base you say it is bad and something Nintendo can't afford to do yet you don't give one single reason why it is bad for Wii U becoming profitable. The gamepad missing out on a future install base because someone who doesn't want a gamepad bought a Wii U with out one is bad because:

crickets

Because of nothing. You may say it's bad because of whatever but you do not make the point of how it would hurt the Wii U business.

The discussion is about the impact on Wii U business so you have to make a point of how it is bad for Wii U business or you are not actually contributing to the conversation. You are just making me try to figure how the weird stuff you said even applies to the conversation.

PS3 was sinking for years, the move did not harm the PS3 business by splitting it's install base. The PS3 didn't need to be successful before it could risk a split user base over the move add on. If the move made profit it was good for PS3 business, if it lost money it was bad. The split user base doesn't matter to the PS3 business.

The thing is you've made no compelling arguments that getting rid of the gamepad will not split the user base and keep mentioning that there are only five games that people will miss have you ever thought that you know maybe that number will increase overtime you know as more games are made, also your statements about how it would be like the kinect is kinda wrong the difference being is the fact that the Wii U was designed with the gamepad in mind as part of the system during its creation whereas the kinect was an after thought and not a part of the 360s initial concept.

PSN: mangaJman
SSBB FC: 1204-1132-2888
The Jazzloggery
Once you see you can never unsee Everyone's favorite videogame character
I keep getting this feeling that I should write something down here........................

3DS Friend Code: 5155-3100-6367 | Nintendo Network ID: Justinius94

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

272. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

@blaisedinsd
People do know what the thread is about. It's pretty clear in the topic title... If Nintendo telling everyone that a GamePad-less SKU isn't going to happen, fails to be enough confirmation for you, there's not much anyone can say.

1. Your post is missing the point of the thread
2. Nintendo did not say it wasn't going to happen, they said they plan to focus on making the Gamepad more attractive
3. This thread is not asking about whether my prediction will come true or not

Once again, it is asking if Nintendo has anything to lose by making it optional.
The answer is either yes or no.

My postion is that the answer is no.

If you think the answer is yes
Don't just disagree with me and explain why you feel that way emotionally, I want to hear how you think it would actually have a negative financial impact on the Wii U's bottom line.

Saying it splits the user base doesn't expalin anyting at all. Its saying it splits the user base and a split user base is bad because they can't afford to split the user base. Tell me how splitting the user base financially impacts the Wii U.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

PKpunky

273. Posted:

To answer your question: Yes, Nintendo has something to lose.

Straight from Iwata: "We developed Wii U in an attempt to change the way people play with a video game system on TV."

You make the Gamepad optional, it will lose value to the experience.

PKpunky

Nintendo Network ID: PK_Ness

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

274. Posted:

blaisedinsd wrote:

Lack of trust? How exactly would some one buying a starter sku and enjoying smash bros with out a gamepad betray your trust? It doesn't betray anyone's trust. The lack of support for ROB betrayed my trust far more, but you still have all the benefits of the gamepad. You lose NOTHING. This sku doesn't mean any segment feels they should have an ambassador program does it? 3ds price drop was a betrayal of trust they tried to smooth over by offering digital content instead of a rebate. This is not a betrayal of trust.

You can't be serious right? As I've said you've made the argument repeatedly that this SKU won't be a bad thing for GamePad-less users because there are only going to be five games total that ever use the GamePad. If that was the case how does this not make people who did pay more for the GamePad feel like they've been dumped? If it looks like it is going to be dumped like that nobody is going to buy the GamePad. I'm not being paranoid, this is just a logical conclusion. That happens to all accessories that are treated like that.

If the other scenario plays out and it is supported fairly extensively then the GamePad-less SKU people feel like they've been had. They got what they thought was a cheaper console but then were forced to buy a $100 accessory in order to play any of the big games. That's not how you gain people's confidence. It's very, very simple.

Now you're trying to argue that both of the positives above and neither of the negatives will happen. All depending on what particular one is being talked about. If we're talking about the GamePad-less SKU it doesn't matter because the games won't exist. If we're talking about existing users it won't matter because they'll have heaps of titles that use it. I'm arguing that only one of these scenarios can play out because you can't have both heaps and a few and both have drawbacks.

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

275. Posted:

Jazzer94 wrote:

The thing is you've made no compelling arguments that getting rid of the gamepad will not split the user base and keep mentioning that there are only five games that people will miss have you ever thought that you know maybe that number will increase overtime you know as more games are made, also your statements about how it would be like the kinect is kinda wrong the difference being is the fact that the Wii U was designed with the gamepad in mind as part of the system during its creation whereas the kinect was an after thought and not a part of the 360s initial concept.

Becuase splitting the userbase has not been shown to negatively effect the console financially.

If those 5 titles grow to 30 titles that is a postive financial effect on the console business. Its a good thing not a bad thing. They made some extra cash on Starter SKU and now the gamepad has become more compelling. Those extra titles help sell more gamepads and Wii U consoles. The person who bought the starter SKU got to play smash and they either still hate the gamepad or they now want one. Either way the growing GP titles do not harm the business.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

DefHalan

276. Posted:

Splitting the User base is bad because it will lead to the GamePad not being used. User bases are what companies look at when deciding if they can make a profit on the console. User bases show the absolut number of games you can sell on a system. Now if you make the GamePad optional then the company has to decide to go no GamePad and have the possible 100% of the install base for Wii U or go with the GamePad at a lower precentage. Most companies are going to go GamePad-less route to maximize profits. Why would Nintendo not do the same? People who have a GamePad and got the system early are going to feel abandoned. When people buy something they want it to be supported. Then when Nintendo introduces their next console who is going to buy the launch systems? It is already a bad idea to buy launch systems but people do it because of the promise of new games. If Nintendo makes the GamePad optional, and thus making the GamePad useless to most people, it will show that Nintendo isn't willing to support their own Hardware. So, again, would a GamePad-less SKU make Nintendo money? In the short-term sure. In the long-term it can damage their company a lot more than you think. Does this mean it won't happen in the future? No, it could bery well happen. Do I think it is likely especially after Nintendo explained how they want to focus on the GamePad even more? No.

I hope this made sense, I hate typing this stuff on my phone. I feel like I am not fully explaining things.

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/why-console-specs-dont-matter
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/200271/Video_Don_Daglow_on_nextgen_transition_traps_and_treasures.php

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

277. Posted:

PKpunky wrote:

To answer your question: Yes, Nintendo has something to lose.

Straight from Iwata: "We developed Wii U in an attempt to change the way people play with a video game system on TV."

You make the Gamepad optional, it will lose value to the experience.

cute. I think this is a joke right?

No direct correlation how making the GP optional actually devalues the experience. Just 2 random things tossed together. Saying making the GP optional enhances the value of the experience is an equally valid statement. This is the kind of responses I keep getting.....

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

278. Posted:

blaisedinsd wrote:

This is the kind of responses I keep getting.....

When everyone disagrees with you you're either a genius in a crowd of crazies or there's something to what everyone else is saying.

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

279. Posted:

@blaisedinsd
Dude, everyone has and keeps giving you legitimate reasons why it's not a good idea to ditch the GamePad. I've given you solid numbers that you called "fuzzy", everyone has explained how prices are already low enough to warrant selling a product at all, and there have been countless explanations that it would negatively effect the OS and software.

None of our reasons are good enough for you. That doesn't mean that we are failing to comprehend what this thread is about. You are failing to accept the reasons we have given you.

Honestly, I think this thread should be locked, because it's pointless in this current state.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

280. Posted:

DefHalan wrote:

Splitting the User base is bad because it will lead to the GamePad not being used. User bases are what companies look at when deciding if they can make a profit on the console. User bases show the absolut number of games you can sell on a system. Now if you make the GamePad optional then the company has to decide to go no GamePad and have the possible 100% of the install base for Wii U or go with the GamePad at a lower precentage. Most companies are going to go GamePad-less route to maximize profits. Why would Nintendo not do the same? People who have a GamePad and got the system early are going to feel abandoned. When people buy something they want it to be supported. Then when Nintendo introduces their next console who is going to buy the launch systems? It is already a bad idea to buy launch systems but people do it because of the promise of new games. If Nintendo makes the GamePad optional, and thus making the GamePad useless to most people, it will show that Nintendo isn't willing to support their own Hardware. So, again, would a GamePad-less SKU make Nintendo money? In the short-term sure. In the long-term it can damage their company a lot more than you think. Does this mean it won't happen in the future? No, it could bery well happen. Do I think it is likely especially after Nintendo explained how they want to focus on the GamePad even more? No.

I hope this made sense, I hate typing this stuff on my phone. I feel like I am not fully explaining things.

Thank you. I appreciate this post laying out the case in more detail.

What I see you describing is the fear of the gamepad losing software support and the worst case consequences of that harming Nintendo financially. This is exactly what I was a requesting as a response.

I will respond with my thoughts on this excellent post when I get a chance later.

blaisedinsd

Sorry, this topic has been locked.