Wii U Forum

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

Showing 41 to 60 of 724

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

41. Posted:

If they get rid of the GamePad, it will result in similar sales anyway, then they will be trying to sell the GamePad, instead of software.

The Wii U's GPGPU is specifically made for streaming video/image feed for up to 3 screens, given what the CPU will allow.

In otherwords, Wii U is specifically built with more than one screen in mind. Once you get rid of the GamePad, that essentially makes part of the GPGPU just a bundle of empty space that should have been used for a GamePad that consumers have no guarantee of having.

We can go back and forth all day, but it is fact that Wii U was designed with at least one other screen in mind. The GPGPU is literal proof of that.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

rockodoodle

42. Posted:

Not so sure about that.... They would have to sell 6m- w/out the Wii U with gamepad selling any more for it to catch up. And who knows- maybe somebody who buys a Gamepadless system eventually gets a gamepad.

I personally think that the Gamepad is the coolest thing about the system, but if it gets people to buy that otherwise wouldn't have, why not give it a try?

Donalp15 wrote:

Making it optional WILL result in the death of the gamepad, no two ways about it. It is better keeping it and trying to redeem it, than condemn it.
Nintendo have said recently that they are keeping it on and will do great things with it, and as long as they keep true to their word. I see no reason why why making it optional is even being discussed.
Anyway, you are acting like this will suddenly make the sales spike unbelievably which it will not, a short spike maybe, but in the long run it will be back to normal.
The gamepad usage is but a small part of the problem. Third and first party games are in short supply and this is the real problem.

rockodoodle

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

43. Posted:

rockodoodle wrote:

who knows- maybe somebody who buys a Gamepadless system eventually gets a gamepad.

This is exactly the risk that Nintendo is not willing to take.

The GPGPU is literally designed to support more than 1 screen. If you get rid of the GamePad, you're devaluing the GPGPU and GamePad streaming chip, as well.

EDIT: OS ease of use would also suffer.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

mamp

44. Posted:

Kawaii_Neko wrote:

Many people think the Gamepad is too gimmicky and uninspiring. I think it's a great controller.

I think it's alright but its innovation is not as great as the Wii controller, that to me was inspiring.

The cat's the only cat who knows where it's at.
NNID: Muffin-Gun

3DS Friend Code: 3136-6586-7657

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

45. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

@blaisedinsd
If the prices don't matter, then both of our math figurations are "wrong", so good job with contradicting your own post.

They're making sure the GamePad is in every SKU, even if it loses them money, because the software ultimately benefits more with it included, and doesn't effect the consumer. Losing a few dollars on hardeare isn't an issue, because thay can make that back on software.

The GamePad ultimately gives more vaule to the console and software, and that's apparently worth losing $50 or so.

The price drops don't matter as far as this discussion is what I was saying. Your math is just wrong. It's in no way accurate how you calculated the gamepad cost $30 and replacing it with another controller offers no savings.

The Wii U is sold at a slight loss currently I believe. The cost of manufacturing the gamepad is a major reason why. Nintendo profited on N64 and Gamecube hardware and I believe this is the first time they have sold a console at a loss. They need to change this as quickly as possible, generally by reducing manufacturing costs but I think they have more hardware now than they can sell, so a new SKU is about the only solution to offer relief.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

46. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

If they get rid of the GamePad, it will result in similar sales anyway, then they will be trying to sell the GamePad, instead of software.

The Wii U's GPGPU is specifically made for streaming video/image feed for up to 3 screens, given what the CPU will allow.

In otherwords, Wii U is specifically built with more than one screen in mind. Once you get rid of the GamePad, that essentially makes part of the GPGPU just a bundle of empty space that should have been used for a GamePad that consumers have no guarantee of having.

We can go back and forth all day, but it is fact that Wii U was designed with at least one other screen in mind. The GPGPU is literal proof of that.

No No No

Not getting rid of the gamepad. That is an entirely different subject.

You really think if they had a $250 bundle (wind waker or mario/luigi U) that the $300 bundle would instantly stop selling? (lets not forget the savings on the gamepad charger and stand as well)

I don't. I do not think it would kill the gamepad. It would take a bunch for those people to matter more than the 6 million current gamepad owners.

If that $300 bundle did stop selling and they only sell the gimped version basically going forward than that means 100% that dropping it was not only the right move, but a neccessary one.

Lets not get confused here, the goal is not to sell gamepads. They need to sell hardware to sell games. Games sell hardware (wii sports was a game that sold Wiis). A Wii Sports type of hit with the gamepad will still sell Wii U's...I don't think that type of game is on the way but if it was. I see no problems pursuing the strategy of adding value to the gamepad while also making it optional.

Edited on by blaisedinsd

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

47. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

rockodoodle wrote:

who knows- maybe somebody who buys a Gamepadless system eventually gets a gamepad.

This is exactly the risk that Nintendo is not willing to take.

The GPGPU is literally designed to support more than 1 screen. If you get rid of the GamePad, you're devaluing the GPGPU and GamePad streaming chip, as well.

EDIT: OS ease of use would also suffer.

How is this a risk?

Can I still use my gamepad to navigate the OS more easily? OF COURSE I CAN.

They have Wii U's made they have not sold, so if those consoles have hardware that only matters if a gamepad is connected their is no risk. They are worth something when sold and nothing if they are not.

If they sell someone a gamepad who bought a gimped bundle, that is not a risk.

What is a risk? Where is the risk? What is being risked?

Their is a risk in keeping the gamepad mandatory. I see no risk in making it optional. What would they be risking? Imaginary third party gamepad support?

Edited on by blaisedinsd

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

rockodoodle

48. Posted:

Well- I agree with you but you hear people out there complaining about it (typically those who don't have a Wii U). I think the gamepad is really, really awesome. been using it more and more for offline play and even to watch netflix...... If it got the price down and exposed people to it who might not have bought one otherwise..... In a way, this is how I got my 3ds- I never would have bought on if i didn't take a chance on a Wii U (probably happens more in reverse). As has been mentioned, component prices are going down and it might not be that long before they can get the system down to $199 if they drop the gamepad- not entirely but just for a different SKU.

SCAR392 wrote:

rockodoodle wrote:

who knows- maybe somebody who buys a Gamepadless system eventually gets a gamepad.

This is exactly the risk that Nintendo is not willing to take.

The GPGPU is literally designed to support more than 1 screen. If you get rid of the GamePad, you're devaluing the GPGPU and GamePad streaming chip, as well.

EDIT: OS ease of use would also suffer.

Edited on by rockodoodle

rockodoodle

AuthorMessage
Avatar

OptometristLime

49. Posted:

EDIT Reading through this thread, pretty much all of the arguments have been made on either side. Hopefully this post still contributes in a meaningful way...

@SCAR392 is correct, in that the performance of the system will be degraded by absenting the Game pad from the equation.

Like it or not the Game pad had to be thoroughly integrated into the design of the architecture, in order to achieve a seamless visual experience across multiple screens. An imperfect comparison could be made to the 3D aspect of the 3DS system in that it is integral to the GPU - the difference, of course, is that the 3D slider can optionally eliminate the burden of rendering the stereoscopic visuals. The 2DS console makes sense, largely for this reason; a Wii U sans Game pad would not benefit from the same independence.

TLDR:
The Game pad is an inherent "cost" to the GPU which cannot be mitigated by simply throwing it away.

Edited on by OptometristLime

Miyamoto on his desire to focus more on the (hard)core Nintendo fan.

[The casual] attitude is, ‘okay, I am the customer. You are supposed to entertain me.’ [...] and to me it’s kind of a pathetic thing.

You are what you eat from your head to your feet.

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

50. Posted:

Wait, are you trying to convince me that the Wii U will be less powerful and take a performance hit if it doesn't have a gamepad connected to it?

I have heard the talk of how a 2DS is actually superior for displaying 2D images, I think thats true but I don't think anyone cares. It definitely was not the purpose behind the console.

The Wii U will not take a performance hit and you want these gimped Wii U consoles to have gamepad support built in anyway. You are hoping those people buy gamepads eventually.

Once again, another post that talks about dropping the gamepad completely from the console, that is not what I want this thread to be about at all. 6 million gamepad users, continued gamepad sales, continued emphasis of gamepad features.....that is what I am talking about. I don't see evolving the software to be more user friendly and offering people a chance to buy a lesser version of the console (that they can upgrade) as the same thing as the utter destruction of all non-sold gamepads, retroactively taking away gamepad features that we love and removing them from any future titles. Not requiring it does not mean dropping it or getting rid of it unless you think its a total failure no one would want unless they were forced to.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

kkslider5552000

51. Posted:

I think Nintendo needs to avoid even risking confusing people even more than they apparently have.

3DS friend code: 2878 - 9709 - 5054
Nintendo Network ID: SliderGamer55

I have a Let's Play channel? How?!

AuthorMessage
Avatar

DualWielding

52. Posted:

As I've been saying Nintendo would lose lot of money if a gamepad less option is not available when SSB launch, Developers itself have been saying that the gamepad won't be used for anything on the game because its focus is on symetrical local multiplayer and the console only supports one gamepad.... People who would be interested in SSB would be put off for having to pay extra for a gamepad that is irrelevant and even detrimental to the game they want to play....... Lets say four friends want to all buy Wii Us for SSB and want to get toguether locally to play for old times sake...... they can't just bring the controllers they got with their console to each other's house to play some smash becaues instead of a controller, they got a gamepad which can only be used one at a time... meaning someone needs to go out and buy 3 additional controllers if they want to do local multiplayer...... really smash is the poster child of why gamepad was a stupid idea.

PSN: Fertheseeker

AuthorMessage
Avatar

CaviarMeths

53. Posted:

Its viability in the console market.

Courage is the magic that turns durrr into reherrdurr.

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

54. Posted:

@blaisedinsd
My math is correct, because the Deluxe Set is the SKU they are riding with. It's still worth $350 in materials, so you have to factor in that getting rid of the GamePad, would still derive from that $350 price point, not the $300 one. That's why dropping the price point to $300, is essentially getting rid of any sort of doubt, that the price could be cheaper without it, because it wouldn't be much less than they already offer it for.

$350 - $80 = $270

The current price is only $30 more than that. The amount of GB in the HDD, and the little bonuses you get for buying the Deluxe Set(charger stand, stand, Nintendo Land or whatever game) are more flexible in price point than the other more important parts of the console. Consumers aren't paying anymore for the GamePad, than they would if there was any other controller in there. THIS APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO THE DELUXE SET, WHICH IS THEIR MAIN ONE.

As I mentioned before, the Wii U's GPGPU is specifically designed to take advantage of more than 1 screen. When you take away the GamePad, that's devaluing the Wii U's components that were specifically made to accommodate that.

You might as well ask Nintendo to make a GPGPU-less Wii U, because that's how it was designed in the first place. It would be like asking for a DS, without the bottom touchscreen. You can't even play the games that use a touchscreen, if the touchscreen isn't there, which is a majority of the games.

Also, I understand you're saying the GamePad would still be there. I can f***ing read. The point is that Wii U was designed to take advantage of more than 1 screen, based on other components in the console, and making it optional would devalue other parts of the system that make it for what it is.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

kkslider5552000

55. Posted:

Also, unless it's as cheap as the 3DS, I fail to see how the lower price point would suddenly make the biggest difference.

3DS friend code: 2878 - 9709 - 5054
Nintendo Network ID: SliderGamer55

I have a Let's Play channel? How?!

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

56. Posted:

They aren't concerned about selling hardware at a profit, as much as they are with making sure that people have the GamePad with their console. You're 100% more likely to see the Wii U drop to $250, but still include the GamePad. That's how ridiculous it is to suggest that it should be optional.

EDIT: It would be fact, that other investments will have been made in vain, if the GamePad was optional, which is exactly why it never was, and never will be optional.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

rockodoodle

57. Posted:

"Lets not get confused here, the goal is not to sell gamepads. They need to sell hardware to sell games." BINGO!!!!!

There's 100m Wii owners out there. They could target them with a $230 console- they probably have numerous Wii Motes too- you wouldnt even have to include a controller. As much as I love the gamepad, the market has spoken about it- for the time being at least. As I mentioned, I think there's a decent chance that a good number of people who bought this version would end up with a gamepad anyway.

That said, maybe it's too early to play this card but it should be considered, even if as a contingency play down the road..

blaisedinsd wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

If they get rid of the GamePad, it will result in similar sales anyway, then they will be trying to sell the GamePad, instead of software.

The Wii U's GPGPU is specifically made for streaming video/image feed for up to 3 screens, given what the CPU will allow.

In otherwords, Wii U is specifically built with more than one screen in mind. Once you get rid of the GamePad, that essentially makes part of the GPGPU just a bundle of empty space that should have been used for a GamePad that consumers have no guarantee of having.

We can go back and forth all day, but it is fact that Wii U was designed with at least one other screen in mind. The GPGPU is literal proof of that.

No No No

Not getting rid of the gamepad. That is an entirely different subject.

You really think if they had a $250 bundle (wind waker or mario/luigi U) that the $300 bundle would instantly stop selling? (lets not forget the savings on the gamepad charger and stand as well)

I don't. I do not think it would kill the gamepad. It would take a bunch for those people to matter more than the 6 million current gamepad owners.

If that $300 bundle did stop selling and they only sell the gimped version basically going forward than that means 100% that dropping it was not only the right move, but a neccessary one.

Lets not get confused here, the goal is not to sell gamepads. They need to sell hardware to sell games. Games sell hardware (wii sports was a game that sold Wiis). A Wii Sports type of hit with the gamepad will still sell Wii U's...I don't think that type of game is on the way but if it was. I see no problems pursuing the strategy of adding value to the gamepad while also making it optional.

rockodoodle

AuthorMessage
Avatar

rockodoodle

58. Posted:

I wonder if the price of components (dropping) has helped Nintendo here...... And that's why they were willing to drop the price down to $300.... By the end of the year, if not selling, they should consider this as I'm sure components will drop even further.

SCAR392 wrote:

@blaisedinsd
My math is correct, because the Deluxe Set is the SKU they are riding with. It's still worth $350 in materials, so you have to factor in that getting rid of the GamePad, would still derive from that $350 price point, not the $300 one. That's why dropping the price point to $300, is essentially getting rid of any sort of doubt, that the price could be cheaper without it, because it wouldn't be much less than they already offer it for.

$350 - $80 = $270

The current price is only $30 more than that. The amount of GB in the HDD, and the little bonuses you get for buying the Deluxe Set(charger stand, stand, Nintendo Land or whatever game) are more flexible in price point than the other more important parts of the console. Consumers aren't paying anymore for the GamePad, than they would if there was any other controller in there. THIS APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO THE DELUXE SET, WHICH IS THEIR MAIN ONE.

As I mentioned before, the Wii U's GPGPU is specifically designed to take advantage of more than 1 screen. When you take away the GamePad, that's devaluing the Wii U's components that were specifically made to accommodate that.

You might as well ask Nintendo to make a GPGPU-less Wii U, because that's how it was designed in the first place. It would be like asking for a DS, without the bottom touchscreen. You can't even play the games that use a touchscreen, if the touchscreen isn't there, which is a majority of the games.

Also, I understand you're saying the GamePad would still be there. I can f***ing read. The point is that Wii U was designed to take advantage of more than 1 screen, based on other components in the console, and making it optional would devalue other parts of the system that make it for what it is.

rockodoodle

AuthorMessage
Avatar

rockodoodle

59. Posted:

I wonder if the price of components (dropping) has helped Nintendo here...... And that's why they were willing to drop the price down to $300.... By the end of the year, if not selling, they should consider this as I'm sure components will drop even further.

SCAR392 wrote:

@blaisedinsd
My math is correct, because the Deluxe Set is the SKU they are riding with. It's still worth $350 in materials, so you have to factor in that getting rid of the GamePad, would still derive from that $350 price point, not the $300 one. That's why dropping the price point to $300, is essentially getting rid of any sort of doubt, that the price could be cheaper without it, because it wouldn't be much less than they already offer it for.

$350 - $80 = $270

The current price is only $30 more than that. The amount of GB in the HDD, and the little bonuses you get for buying the Deluxe Set(charger stand, stand, Nintendo Land or whatever game) are more flexible in price point than the other more important parts of the console. Consumers aren't paying anymore for the GamePad, than they would if there was any other controller in there. THIS APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO THE DELUXE SET, WHICH IS THEIR MAIN ONE.

As I mentioned before, the Wii U's GPGPU is specifically designed to take advantage of more than 1 screen. When you take away the GamePad, that's devaluing the Wii U's components that were specifically made to accommodate that.

You might as well ask Nintendo to make a GPGPU-less Wii U, because that's how it was designed in the first place. It would be like asking for a DS, without the bottom touchscreen. You can't even play the games that use a touchscreen, if the touchscreen isn't there, which is a majority of the games.

Also, I understand you're saying the GamePad would still be there. I can f***ing read. The point is that Wii U was designed to take advantage of more than 1 screen, based on other components in the console, and making it optional would devalue other parts of the system that make it for what it is.

rockodoodle

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

60. Posted:

rockodoodle wrote:

you wouldnt even have to include a controller.

I'm done here.

$¢@®³’²

Sorry, this topic has been locked.