Apologies in advance if this idea has been beaten to death in another topic somewhere; I couldn't think of a way to effectively search for this particular idea.
|
This idea came to mind after I was looking at a 2DS for the first time. Am I the only person who thinks the current U controller was a missed opportunity? There's very little it does that couldn't be accomplished by a slightly modified 2DS/3DS/3DSXL. Imagine keeping the same price point for the U, but the bundled controller is a fully functional 3DS. Players get a vastly expanded library, mobile play, and a unified controller interface, and Nintendo sells a ton more games automatically.
|
Was this idea never even considered?
I'm not sure if this was ever considered for the current gen, but there are rumours that the next Nintendo console will be called "Fusion," effectively merging their home console and handheld line in a way similar to what you describe. They would both obviously have their own unique software library and be able to function independently of the other, but would be able to be linked up to remotely play console games on the handheld (like PS4 and Vita), handheld games on a TV (like... Super Game Boy?) or use the handheld as a controller for the console.
There would be some kinks though. For one, I find the Gamepad much more ergonomic than the 3DS. It would be very hard on the hands to use a 3DS as a Wii U controller for an extended period of time. There's also the question of whether or not the dual screen set up of the 3DS would be intuitive to use with your TV. There's two screens to look at, both of which are smaller than the screen on the Gamepad. If you're looking back and forth between the controller and the TV, this becomes a large issue. The screen needs to be a decent size and needs to be immediately focal.
Has been said before for one. When it was said before the person who said it also forgot all of the key technical differences. Firstly that the 3DS screen is a much lower resolution screen and that the touch screen has the wrong aspect ratio. Also the glaring omission of NFC, second triggers, click-able analogue sticks and a second analogue stick. Even if it was a reasonable idea it would do a bad job at being a GamePad.
......... then there's the fact that the GamePad is a very, very thin client. It does nothing but display the stuffs that the Wii U renders. The 3DS has a CPU and GPU, it's a fully fledged piece of hardware. Doing this would add quite a bit to the cost of the Wii U especially if you wanted to maintain the Wii U's features.
You could modify the thing so it was an entirely new thing that did both however said thing would also do a bad job at both. Said thing would also require a fair amount of R&D.
Has been said before for one. When it was said before the person who said it also forgot all of the key technical differences. Firstly that the 3DS screen is a much lower resolution screen and that the touch screen has the wrong aspect ratio. Also the glaring omission of NFC, second triggers, click-able analogue sticks and a second analogue stick. Even if it was a reasonable idea it would do a bad job at being a GamePad.
......... then there's the fact that the GamePad is a very, very thin client. It does nothing but display the stuffs that the Wii U renders. The 3DS has a CPU and GPU, it's a fully fledged piece of hardware. Doing this would add quite a bit to the cost of the Wii U especially if you wanted to maintain the Wii U's features.
You could modify the thing so it was an entirely new thing that did both however said thing would also do a bad job at both. Said thing would also require a fair amount of R&D.
There wouldn't be any adding of the U's off-TV play to the 3DS. The idea would be just a straight software change so that a 3DS would function as the controller for the Wii U.
There wouldn't be any adding of the U's off-TV play to the 3DS. The idea would be just a straight software change so that a 3DS would function as the controller for the Wii U.
1. There's nothing particularly hard about off-TV play, if it can work as a GamePad it can do off-TV
2. It lacks the hardware to function as a GamePad
(NFC, ZL/ZR, Analogue Stick 2, Clickable sticks, 5Ghz WiFi, 16:9 touch screen and ~240pixels of vertical resolution)
3. It would cost more because unlike the GamePad it would have more horsepower and a second screen
There wouldn't be any adding of the U's off-TV play to the 3DS. The idea would be just a straight software change so that a 3DS would function as the controller for the Wii U.
Wii U controllers connect with Bluetooth. The 3DS does not have bluetooth.
I am unsure if the gamepad is using bluetooth for controller inputs or if the inputs are being added to the video streaming signal, which is a modified wi-fi standard. Perhaps the 3DS Wi Fi could be modified by software to support this, but why would anyone want to use their 3DS as a Wii U controller with no video? It doesn't have all the buttons of other Wii U controllers and the touch screen probably wouldn't work well since there would be no video.
If the next console supports this type of handheld integration it would be cool as long as it is optional like on playstation. I am all about giving consumers options as the smart business strategy so the future console should 1) make second screen optional and not required 2) offer a gamepad-like version that is not an independent portable 3) Enable all your handhelds to work as fully functional gamepads This has the added benefit of making Wii U two screen experiences possible controller wise if they keep the trend of releasing a new console with one generation of BC built in at launch.
They can not repeat the mistake of a mandatory add on massively increasing the price of their next console. It would likely be more appealing than Sony's PS4/Vita implementation simply because Nintendo handhelds are generally much more popular while most playstation owners don't bother with Sony Hand helds.
Nintendo handhelds are generally much more popular while most playstation owners don't bother with Sony Hand helds.
There isn't a heck of a lot of precedent. The PSP was the first Sony handheld and it sold just as many units as the PS3.
Ok but it launched during the PS2 lifecycle, which was the best selling home console in the history of the world, and it was WAY behind the sales of the DS that it was directly competing against.
Ps3 on the other hand is one of the biggest disasters in the history of gaming from the perspective of Sony's wallet. It was 3rd in it's console war and basically wiped out all the profit made on the extremely successful PS1 and PS2. Meanwhile the big retailers in my area are pretty much pulling Vita off the shelves basically. Out of sight out of mind, the Vita is a certified dud compared to the pretty successful PSP....Japan is probably the only place its selling at all.
Ps3 on the other hand is one of the biggest disasters in the history of gaming from the perspective of Sony's wallet. It was 3rd in it's console war and basically wiped out all the profit made on the extremely successful PS1 and PS2.
Ummm....what?? As of this past summer, the PS3 has surpassed the 360 in worldwide sales (even though it launched a year later) and the PS3 has been massively successfully for Sony financially, with their gaming division being basically their sole bright spot.
Ps3 on the other hand is one of the biggest disasters in the history of gaming from the perspective of Sony's wallet. It was 3rd in it's console war and basically wiped out all the profit made on the extremely successful PS1 and PS2.
Ummm....what?? As of this past summer, the PS3 has surpassed the 360 in worldwide sales (even though it launched a year later) and the PS3 has been massively successfully for Sony financially, with their gaming division being basically their sole bright spot.
They had a rough year, but Sony Pictures is also quite successful. Sony Financial also makes up a huge portion of their profits.
The only sector that's really hemorrhaging money is their consumer electronics.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Comparing handheld and home console sales isn't really a good idea. Handhelds by their very nature sell more units because they are a personal product. So if a handheld and home console of similar timings are selling about the same then the home console is doing a lot better. The PSP didn't do nearly as well as the DS but it still sold about as many units as the GBA
I am unsure if the gamepad is using bluetooth for controller inputs or if the inputs are being added to the video streaming signal, which is a modified wi-fi standard. Perhaps the 3DS Wi Fi could be modified by software to support this, but why would anyone want to use their 3DS as a Wii U controller with no video? It doesn't have all the buttons of other Wii U controllers and the touch screen probably wouldn't work well since there would be no video.
It actually uses 5Ghz WiFi so no, it's not even technically possible. Well not directly anyways. They could in theory have it connect via 2.4Ghz but then you'd knock out the online functions of the Wii U assuming its not wired. You could also connect via your WLAN but that's a bit of a gamble. You are right in saying that neither of those options would allow the video function. Especially the latter.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
Ps3 on the other hand is one of the biggest disasters in the history of gaming from the perspective of Sony's wallet. It was 3rd in it's console war and basically wiped out all the profit made on the extremely successful PS1 and PS2.
Ummm....what?? As of this past summer, the PS3 has surpassed the 360 in worldwide sales (even though it launched a year later) and the PS3 has been massively successfully for Sony financially, with their gaming division being basically their sole bright spot.
PS3 lost tons of money and only became profitable toward the end of it's life. That doesn't mean that overall it made money, it means that it finally had some periods where it was profitable instead of causing a loss. It is also my understanding that 360 has sold more software which in most peoples opinion would place 360 as the "victor" of the fictional "console war"......on hardware the Wii was the winner but who considers the Wii the victor of the console war?
Sales don't really matter. Profit is what matters. PS3 was a disaster for Sony.
It is pretty safe to say that the PS3 caused it's maker to lose more money than any other console in the history of the world. Here is the best breakdown of this that I could find.
I guess I should mention that I am a Sony fan. PS1 and PS2 were my only gaming consoles in their time...no Nintendo for me then. I prefer my PS3 over my 360 as well and definitely think it has better exclusives but I find a few things about the PS3 very annoying. I probably have as many or more PS3 games as Wii games and I have had a Wii for much longer than my PS3. But Sony really screwed up with the PS3 and lost tons of money. PS4 needs to be a winner for them. It's concerning that PS3 lost so much money and 360 was losing a bunch too after the original Xbox lost tons of cash. I believe 360 eventually became profitable long enough to overcome it's early losses but still hasn't made enough to overcome the total loss on XBOX if you count the first one. This is concerning for the overall health of console gaming which is the heart and soul of the overall gaming industry in my view. Wii U is not doing so hot but I have hope that PS4 is going to right the ship and I will get one eventually once it has enough games I want to play.
...on hardware the Wii was the winner but who considers the Wii the victor of the console war?
Erm, I would. And I guess pretty much anyone who isn't blinded by brand allegiance. Wii sold 101 million console units, whereas 360 sold approximately 78 and PS3 80 million units. The number of consoles sold has always, I mean always, been the predominant factor for the "victor". There is no official award ceremony, mind you. Why should the previous generation be any different? Because some people have a stupid prejudice against Wii? Nah, can't be that way. Besides, I'm quite positive, that although Nintendo doesn't milk their costumers on a online services fee, they have made stupendous profit. The Wii software tie-ratio is actually very high and the amount of accessories (Balance board, Wiimotes, Wii Wheel...) and controllers sold at a profit can't be ignored. Unlike Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo never sold their console at a loss, either.
...on hardware the Wii was the winner but who considers the Wii the victor of the console war?
Erm, I would. And I guess pretty much anyone who isn't blinded by brand allegiance. Wii sold 101 million console units, whereas 360 sold approximately 78 and PS3 80 million units. The number of consoles sold has always, I mean always, been the predominant factor for the "victor". There is no official award ceremony, mind you. Why should the previous generation be any different? Because some people have a stupid prejudice against Wii? Nah, can't be that way. Besides, I'm quite positive, that although Nintendo doesn't milk their costumers on a online services fee, they have made stupendous profit. The Wii software tie-ratio is actually very high and the amount of accessories (Balance board, Wiimotes, Wii Wheel...) and controllers sold at a profit can't be ignored. Unlike Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo never sold their console at a loss, either.
Yeah sure I can agree with that. Sales of the console are a terrible way to determine the winner these days however but none of that really matters since this "console war" is just a fictional thing that exists mostly on the internet. I think the 2 ways that make more sense are profit (from the companies side) and software sales (from the consumer side). This is a business so profit is the ultimate goal of the companies making these video game consoles. The gamer however doesn't care how much the company makes but how many games he gets to play, so software sales (coincidentally where most profit lies in this business) is the best measure of how much gamers got out of the system. The Wii I believe wins on profits, the 360 wins on software sales (and it is the longest tenured console in history which helps software sales), and the PS3 loses on both. Since we are gamers I generally consider the 360 the winner because it was profitable, sold the most games, and was generally where the mainstream gamers were (for instance most people that have all 3 consoles couldn't get the new big game on the Wii and wouldn't anyway, and would usually buy it on the 360 because it usually was slightly superior visually and had better online service and more online players. Ps3 had some big exclusive games though.)
It made Nintendo a tonne of money, more than the other guys I think most would assume. Especially given that most of their sales were during a period when only they were making a profit on the hardware. Plus most of the best selling titles on their platform were first party. Globally they were first in hardware sales AND software sales. Sure they were 2nd in Japan to PS3 and 2nd in NA to 360 and 2nd to PS3 everywhere else in software sales but overall they were 1st. I don't know where you got the number saying they weren't.
The only measure they didn't win was tie-ratio. On average Wii owners brought less games than 360 and PS3 owners. "Ha ha!" you say, "that's the metric". Well cool, say that if you want. However it was Wii at 9, PS3 at 10 and 360 at 11. And also for perspective the SNES was 8 and the Gamecube was 10. So objectively the notion that the Wii lacked games was false, anything above ~5 is pretty good for a tie ratio.
Also I have no idea why this is being argued and even less of an idea why it's being argued in this thread.
Ps3 on the other hand is one of the biggest disasters in the history of gaming from the perspective of Sony's wallet. It was 3rd in it's console war and basically wiped out all the profit made on the extremely successful PS1 and PS2.
Ummm....what?? As of this past summer, the PS3 has surpassed the 360 in worldwide sales (even though it launched a year later) and the PS3 has been massively successfully for Sony financially, with their gaming division being basically their sole bright spot.
They lost quite a bit of money on the PS3, and I believe they only recently started to make a net profit from the system. Sony was hurting in a lot of areas as well, so they weren't as successful as people give them credit for
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
They lost quite a bit of money on the PS3, and I believe they only recently started to make a net profit from the system. Sony was hurting in a lot of areas as well, so they weren't as successful as people give them credit for
They started to make a profit but not a net profit. There is basically no chance PS3 future profits will overcome the massive losses incurred in its early years.
I stand corrected on the software sales of the Wii. I looked it up and must have been hearing about attach rates. I guess by all measures the Wii was the winner of the console war. It is a hollow victory that unfortunately doesn't help the Wii U because all those Wii software sales were early on and the later years were lean. The Wii's success was built on the expanded gaming audience it brought in and the core gamers, the ones who want better graphics and will pay premium for them, were the ones who were playing the HD twins.
Forums
Topic: Wii U Controller: Missed Opportunity?
Posts 1 to 18 of 18
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.