B/c for some reason, I think it's the most compelling feature, many on here feel it's the most compelling feature, Nintendo feels the same way- but this is in part a buying objection to at least some people- I think there's a lot of folks would would rather just have the basic unit, play games with regular controllers and pay $70 less.
I thought it was pretty cool when I saw it last year for the first time- enjoyed it a lot the last 10 months since I first got a Wii U- and now even enjoy it more as I've been using it to watch Netflix and surf while watching regular TV. In fact, I have a Galaxy Tab that I haven't used in four months.
There is also a failure to consider the reasons why someone might say they don't want the GamePad. Most of the arguments in favour of making a GamePad-less SKU have talked about how "other people" have not liked it as an idea. That it's too bulky and so on. There is reason to believe that there is another reason behind these anecdotal stories that has no hope of being solved. Perhaps these people are just pointing out the most obvious feature to justify their already established opinion of it.
For example I remember when the iPhone launched and I saw one for the first time. My first reaction was to complain about how horrible an idea having a touchscreen interface on a phone was. I had already come to the conclusion that it was bad product because I wasn't much of an apple fan. So I just weaved whatever observation I had into that narrative.
Go back in time with the WiiMote, DS, Kinect, iPhone, iPod or any other extremely successful device over the last decade before they came out and ask random people what they think. A fair number of people would instantly rant about how it's a horrible idea. They'd find things to complain about. That alone isn't reason enough to take the sort of risk people are suggesting Nintendo take and make the GamePad a doorstop.
I did get pretty frustrated but I think this is still a good discussion. I want to keep on topic as there is lots of input that is more about opinions on the gamepad and stuff. I am not really interested in reasons the gamepad is good or bad, or why you like it, and all types of stuff and I will just have to stop responding to that type of stuff. As I have said since the beginning, I love the gamepad and am not trying to simply say it's garbage or a failure or that it should be optional because of that.
As I was trying to say, and @DefHalan finally addresses, is what happens if they do make it optional and what postive or negative consequences would it have on their consoles business (profitability). This is not the same as a predicition. Nintendo is unpredictable, and even if it makes all the sense in the world it doesn't mean they will do it. I am predicting it will happen, but I have no idea if it will or not.
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?
Basically this point is about the option causing the under utilization of the gamepad.
We don't actually know how popular the option of the Wii U without a gamepad would be. This is basically a worst case scenario being outlined so let's address the issue of the split userbase causing less support for the gamepad.
It is pretty clear to me that support for the gamepad is already an issue. Yes, the option could make this problem worse but what is happening now? Basically what has always happened with Nintendos gimmics. They take the oppurtunity when launcing a system to try something new. They develop a game and some hardware gimmic together where the console basically becomes designed around a single game concept. The N64 controller was weird but it was basically designed for Mario 64 and the Wiimote was basically designed for Wii sports and the Wii U was basically designed for Nintendoland. You could make the argument these hardware designs become an issue for more traditional games designed later. Some early games also try to use the gimmic. The Wii initially had a bunch of motion stuff, Mario Party 8 has tons of motion control stuff and from what I hear Mario Party 9 basically ignores all that stuff. The touchscreen on the DS initially has a bunch of stuff that uses it and then it becomes less relevant. Dawn of Sorrow throws in some touchscreen stuff as an early DS game and then Portrait of Ruin and Order of Ecclesia basically ignore it. Also we get touch screen Zeldas and then we get Link Between worlds. The gamepad as a gimmic will become less and less critical to games over the life of the system. This is what has happened with Nintendos gimmics in the past and we already see it happening on Wii U. The gimic is a cool thing about Nintendo. They take chances and do creative stuff. But the main purpose of the gimmic is to sell the system. The gimmic is cool, we buy the system, and then we also want to play some traditional games on the new console.
The gamepad is the gimmic on the Wii U. There are games designed around it sure, but there are also more traditional games, and early on we see games adding the gimmic in to the game in a way that is not really neccessary and then we see traditional games start to ignore the gimmic. This is what is happening on the Wii U. Lego City makes you use the gamepad but its basically just for some quirky features. 3D world adds a few crumbs with toad levels, touch blocks, and mic platforms. And games on the way too. DK ignores the gimmic. Smash development said from the beginning they would ignore the gimmic (and smash fans were pleased by that). Kart I hear uses the touchscreen as a horn ( a horn? what?). These are the major games and they are ignoring the gimmic.
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.
When the gimmic begins to be less relevant people do not get upset and angry about why Nintendo forced them to buy the gimmic if it is not being utilized. I have never heard anyone complain about it and I don't hear anyone complaining about upcoming games not using the gimmic.
The gamepad is sort of a special case. It is the default controller of the system, but there is also plenty of other controllers available as well. A traditional game can use one of those other controllers and the pro-controller and classic controller are both basically the same thing for traditional games. Overall the gamepad's gimmic is mainly as a second screen and its other unique features are complementary to that. We have games designed as 2 screen games, we have games that have no idea what to use a second screen for, we have games that use the second screen in a complementary way, and we have apps like that virtual tour they sell.
Which of those do we stand to lose that would cause this abandonment and it's negative fallout?
1. If they don't make anymore gamepad apps would you be angry? Would anyone rage over those virtual tours simply going away and being unavailable for purcahse?
We may lose this but its Extremely doubtful there would be a backlash.
2. For games using it in a complementary way. Wind Waker HD for example. It's nice to have your map and inventory management and I played with the gamepad on the TV and OFF TV as well. OFF TV is basically a complementary feature as well. I agree that losing this type of complementary support would cause that type of fallout on some level. I just don't think that it costs developers much to support this complementay stuff or that a worst case scenario where there are 30 million Wii U's and only 6 million gamepads would mean that we lose it. Traditionally this type of function is achieved by pressing a button to access a menu/map and it is not hard to simply display that menu/map on the second screen. The Wii U has the work for this already done for the most part. Nintendo would be smart to ensure this type of functionallity continues no matter what and they have that level of control in order to do this.
It's extremely doubtful we lose this since it basically costs nothing to have this on a Wii U game but losing it could cause some backlash.
3. For some games they don't even know what to do with the second screen. I don't have a problem with DK shutting off the GP screen, do you? It's a platformer so a map is sort of pointless. DS and 3DS mario put a map on the second screen which was basically a bar showing how close you were to the end of the level and a single touch activated button. Wii U mario basically displays the same screen on both displays and uses the touch screen for things Galaxy did with player 2 pointer. For DK the battery savings of shutting off the screen is a better use I guess is what they are thinking.
If it is a sore spot Nintendo can force games to turn the screen on, but overall I don't think anyone really cares or that there would be a backlash.
4. Dual screen designed games. This is bascially all up to Nintendo for the most part and they are working on it we think, but we have no idea what. We all know Nintendo doesn't care about the size of the userbase of an add-on when deciding to make games. Overall I think these games will come no matter what and people will probably buy them because they have a GP more so than the will buy a Wii U or a GP in order to play them. A special mention for Ubisoft. Rayman legends, a 3rd party game, actually has the best and most integrated use of the GP in a platformer and they reworked this in to a multi-platform game. Zombi U does some stuff but really the creepiness of the looking down trick is basically the same as your inventory screen not pausing the action outside of bending your neck.I think Watchdogs is going to do some cool gamepad stuff too. All of these games should be must buys. Overall Ubisoft is the only one who jumped in and tried to do some cool stuff with the gamepad but the Wii U's poor performance overall is what will keep this type of stuff from coming in the future. Making the GP optional will not make this go away from 3rd parties since there is not anymore of it coming because of the console struggling.
These games will come from Nintendo as a strategy to drive sales regardless. Possibly an indie game could as well. This will not change if the GP becomes optional and any backlash from this has more to do with the Console struggling than whether or not the GP is required to be sold with every console.
Other:
Zelda is not going to get canelled on Wii U regardless of the userbase. We have no idea if it will rely on the gamepad but we can be fairly certain if they plan on using the gamepad they will use the gamepad. The install base of motion plus was not a factor when they made skyward sword, they used motion plus because thats the game they wanted to make. This is the reason Nintendo is so commited to staying a hardware company. They will use the gamepad or not based on the game they want to make. I don't think there will be a blowback if they decide not to use the gamepad in Zelda.
If you think I am off base on of the above let me know which one and why you think I am off base.
@blaisedinsd
Everything you said can happen if the GamePad stays mandatory, the biggest difference is that the User Base doesn't become split and Nintendo can develop GamePad games knowing that 100% of Wii U owners can play it. So right there is the biggest reason Nintendo shoukd keep the GamePad in all SKUs. The GamePad doesn't stop Devs from supporting the Wii U so we will not see a difference from 3rd Parties with a new SKU. The GamePad-less SKU with the lower price might help sales of Wii Us but we have already seen how little a price drop actually helps sales, also customers would know they are missing out on certain games by buying that SKU making it less convincing of a purchase.
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
The main nonsense goes all the way back to the first page. There is an insistence that the GamePad costs $80-90 to produce and the Pro controller only costs $15-20 to make. This ignores the fact that in that price breakdown a good $20-30 of the estimated $80 cost of the GamePad was in the battery. They're about the same capacity too, the Pro Controller battery is about 90% of the capacity of the GamePad. Further evidence to support this. You can buy a larger capacity battery for the GamePad but the RRP is pretty close to the price of a Pro Controller.
Even if it did result in a drop in cost of the scale claimed we're also ignoring a few other things. Firstly there's the fact that we know Nintendo expected to move a lot more Wii Us than they did. So it would be safe to assume that there's probably a warehouse somewhere with hundreds of thousands of GamePads ready to go. From a pure business perspective they're not paying more to make GamePads instead of Pro Controllers because they've almost certainly already paid for and made quite a lot of them that haven't been sold.
The only way this would make sense would be if it was an optional extra that came in the box and was barely used. If the Wii U came with Wii Speak or a Camera that sat under your TV. Something like the IR sensor on the top of the 3DS, the NFC on the GamePad or the camera on any of Nintendo's recent devices. If it was just something like that and they had another controller that did everything but then sure. However the GamePad has a huge Touch Screen on it, a screen that some games have used pretty heavily and it gives you off-TV play on others. It's an entirely different controller that is the default controller for the system. Because of that alone it's a crazy move.
It's not like Motion Plus, it's the default controller and the suggestion is that it be removed from a new SKU. If it's like something on the Wii it would be like if Nintendo decided to make a Wii SKU that had no nunchuk in the box. The reasoning being that most games just use the WiiMote and if they want to play Super Mario Galaxy then they can just go out and buy a nunchuk. Options. Aren't they nice?
I agree they probably have tons of inventory but that doesn't really change anything. It's still real money and if they have to discount these deeply to try and move them it's basically a move to cut their losses. This is why a further price cut will be resisted as long as possible. A new SKU is much better option to get the price down.
I bought a Nyko Power pak for $25 that is way beefier than Nintendos battery. Nyko made a profit and that battery that costs more to make than Nintendos. The battery is probably the most costly part in a pro controller but the screen is probably the most expensive part of the GP.
I think you fail to realize that the gamepad is basically a pro controller which is basically a classic controller which are basically standard console controllers. What we are talking about is a second screen and a touch screen. These things are basically optional in the vast majority of software since launch and much of the stuff using these things is tacked on. These things are only essential for a couple of games. The vast majority of software is only enhanced by these things.
I agree it's a crazy unprecedented move, but my point is simply that it makes business sense to give consumers the option. I do not see how it is a bad business move and I want to hear why someone thinks it would be. Just because it's crazy to think about the console being offered with out it has nothing to do with whether or not is a good business move.
It's like if motion plus was hugely expensive and was included with the original Wii and launched with Wii Sports Resort and Skyward sword. Than later on they take a look and most games using motion can get by simply with a standard wiimote. It would make business sense for them to remove motion plus in a new SKU and sell a cheaper Mario Kart bundel with it even though this SKU can't play those 2 games because it can play the vast majority of games.
Also if you think Nintendo would continue making games that require the GamePad then what would be the point of making a GamePad-less SKU when Nintendo is not going to utilize the install base that SKU creates? To try to get 3rd Parties interested? Nintendo can do a better job of interesting 3rd Parties by growing their install base through better/more games in a united install base which would also allow 3rd Parties to use the GamePad if they wish.
To increase console sales and software sales.
Are we less attatched emotionally to Xbone and Kinect 2?
The Kinect 2 is expensive to make. It is a major reason Xbone costs $100 more than PS4 even though it is mostly accepted the PS4 is slightly more powerful.
Kinect 2 probably does some really cool things and has some games that can't be played with out it. Not everyone likes or wants kinect 2. Would it be smart for Microsoft to release a new SKU that was $100 cheaper? If they did do that would it mean we would never see another kinect 2 game?
Also if you think Nintendo would continue making games that require the GamePad then what would be the point of making a GamePad-less SKU when Nintendo is not going to utilize the install base that SKU creates? To try to get 3rd Parties interested? Nintendo can do a better job of interesting 3rd Parties by growing their install base through better/more games in a united install base which would also allow 3rd Parties to use the GamePad if they wish.
To increase console sales and software sales.
Are we less attatched emotionally to Xbone and Kinect 2?
The Kinect 2 is expensive to make. It is a major reason Xbone costs $100 more than PS4 even though it is mostly accepted the PS4 is slightly more powerful.
Kinect 2 probably does some really cool things and has some games that can't be played with out it. Not everyone likes or wants kinect 2. Would it be smart for Microsoft to release a new SKU that was $100 cheaper? If they did do that would it mean we would never see another kinect 2 game?
If Nintendo continued to make GamePad games than a GamePad-less SKU would be more systems that Nintendo isn't getting game sales on, so how would it help Nintendo make more money by selling a console they aren't making games for (outside of Smash, DK, and Mario Kart) because Nintendo has said they are going to be focusing more on the GamePad?
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
@blaisedinsd
Everything you said can happen if the GamePad stays mandatory, the biggest difference is that the User Base doesn't become split and Nintendo can develop GamePad games knowing that 100% of Wii U owners can play it. So right there is the biggest reason Nintendo shoukd keep the GamePad in all SKUs. The GamePad doesn't stop Devs from supporting the Wii U so we will not see a difference from 3rd Parties with a new SKU. The GamePad-less SKU with the lower price might help sales of Wii Us but we have already seen how little a price drop actually helps sales, also customers would know they are missing out on certain games by buying that SKU making it less convincing of a purchase.
What can happen if it stays mandatory? I don't get your meaning.
I guess if Zelda U is planning some massive gamepad features than it makes sense to keep it mandatory if you don't think the cost of the gamepad is hurting the console. Trying to convince someone to buy a $100 add on for a single game is not going to go well. I would have skipped Skyward Sword possibly if motion plus cost $100 and if your install base. An optional SKU could lower the GP install base and cause a problem for people who are not happy they bought a Wii U and still can't play zelda with out an extra $100 add on. Than there may be some panic whether to completely reword the game and tough decisions would need to be made.
A core title like that planning to require it and I wold buy your reasoning.
If they are planning on Nintendoland 2 and Game and Wario 2 and think they need to force everyone to buy a gamepad for the entire consoles life just to boost sales of those games I think that's a bad business move.
What's truly absent is an argument for why the Wii U becomes more compelling without its defining feature, the Game Pad.
The Wii U system's market is a tough nut to crack that's for sure; arguably Nintendo has already tried the lower price tactic.
Personally? I think Nintendo HQ knows that it's Go Time, and the next year will make (or break) the Wii U.
Price is always an issue when you are selling a console. We have over 30 years of this industry to know that. Price is always an issue when you are selling anything.
We also know all you will hear is how a price cut is not coming and how it won't help and how you can't do it. If consumers think a price cut is coming they wait for it and thats why they act like that.
The Wii U price cut did boost sales. It created a spike.
We have many games coming and none of them need the gamepad that we know of. OFF TV is a meaningless feature to many people. Some don't like the gamepad. I am not saying the Wii U becomes more compelling with out the gamepad, I am more saying the gamepad is not compelling to many people.
If Nintendo continued to make GamePad games than a GamePad-less SKU would be more systems that Nintendo isn't getting game sales on, so how would it help Nintendo make more money by selling a console they aren't making games for (outside of Smash, DK, and Mario Kart) because Nintendo has said they are going to be focusing more on the GamePad?
I agree with this only if we have some core franchise coming that needs the gamepad. (way to avoid the microsoft question by the way)
If these new games are Nintendo Land 2 or Game and Wario 2 they have limited appeal anyway and I don't buy it all.
Zelda is the only game I can think of that may, but I think we find out about that E3.
Furthermore, 1. Nintendoland 2. Game and Wario and 3. Wii Party U are the compelling Gamepad games Nintendo has given us. These are the games they have that can not exist with out the gamepad gimmic.
1. Pack in, sold for $60 I believe or was it $50 seperately. Its' $15 at gamestop. Nintendo games don't drop in price do they? Mario Kart DS sell for more than that.
2. $30 game I think at launch
3. Packaged with a wiimote and stand.....if you wanted a controller the game was $10 more I believe
These are gimic console selling games! Are more of these going to change the consoles fortunes? Do they need to force everyone to pay $75-100 more for the console so they can have OFF TV play, a map, and the ability to play these games? (yeah I know Wii Party U is a million seller, but it sells the same reason Wii Play sold so well- the pack in controller).
Anyway you are still the only one who has given a reasoning behind how it could be bad to offer a noGP SKU. You even got some conditional agreement out of me. I just doubt that those conditions are even possible....Zelda using the gamepad as a shield everyone! Good thing we made every single person buy a gamepad.
In general we have the gamepad because of Nintendoland.
I love Nintendoland, it may still be the most played game on my Wii U. Nintendoland however was not that well received. At E3 people were confused at how much they talked about it. It didn't blow anyone away.
Nintendoland was supposed to be the Wii Sports of this console and on that level it is a failure. Someone saw someone playing Wii Sports and was like what? I want to try that. Nintendoland is not a good single player game and watching people play it is not the same. I tried to get a couple microsoft fanboys to play it once and they refused. Everyone wanted to try Wii Sports.
The time for a gimmic to shine and sell a console is at launch. This gimmic was designed around a game and if that game is not great the gimmic fails. Wii Sports was a homerun and Nintendoland was a dud.
Did motion control gimmic ever become more compelling than Wii Sports? The odds of Nintendo taking the gimmic they came up with that enabled Nintendoland and imaging and creating something more compelling out of it is a Hail Mary pass. I agree they should continue to try to make the gamepad more compelling, but unless there is some huge franchise coming to the console that requires it in a way that is not just some tacked on thing than pursuing this as your sole strategy to improve you struggling consoles fortunes is a hugely foolish business strategy. If this is Iwata's plan and we get another Nintendoland or Game and Wario and the Wii U has 9 million lifetime sales the dude (nicest man on earth) has got to go. Making the gamepad compelling is the launch strategy and it has not worked. When you see the console struggling and your plan to fix it is to double down on the same failed strategy than I just don't understand what he is thinking.
The Wii sold amazingly well because Wii Sports was a phenomenon. Even after that it continued to sell well because it had a huge price advantage and tons of games that were family friendly (boosted by shovelware). The Wii U has none of this. They need a stronger price advantage to appeal to the family friendly market because they do have the best family friendly gaming library.
@blaisedinsd
I think we need to make positive/negative lists. I really want you to think past how much money Nintendo would make from a GamePad-less SKU(short-term) and look at consumer relations(long-term), 3rd Party relations(long-term), and Game Development(long-term). Once you have your list I will make a list and counter points. This way we can keep facts and the conversation on track. Make sure to explore all avenues decisions can/will make. Don't dismiss things just because it might be an opinion. We are talking about the future of a company, all predictions are opinions.
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
@blaisedinsd
I think we need to make positive/negative lists. I really want you to think past how much money Nintendo would make from a GamePad-less SKU(short-term) and look at consumer relations(long-term), 3rd Party relations(long-term), and Game Development(long-term). Once you have your list I will make a list and counter points. This way we can keep facts and the conversation on track. Make sure to explore all avenues decisions can/will make. Don't dismiss things just because it might be an opinion. We are talking about the future of a company, all predictions are opinions.
Consumer Relations:
Customers who hate the gamepad and bought the console anyway will be mad you made them buy a gamepad they didn't want.
Customers who love the gamepad will be mad you are letting people buy the console without it.
Customers will be mad if they buy a Starter SKU and then you drop an Amazing Zelda game that they need buy a gamepad for.
Customers will be mad Game and Wario and Nintendoland didn't get a sequel because dropping the requirement split the user base and it was no longer worth it to Nintendo to make those games.
Customer is confused why he can't play an incompatible game with out a GP. (Did this guy not realize the Wii U originally always had a gamepad?)
I don't know, those all seem far fetched to me. I don't think these people would have anything to gripe about in these situations, certainly not enought to make them swear off Nintendo forever. I am really trying but I can't see how it would harm customer relations. What would harm them is dropping GP support or abandoning the console, I don't see how offering consumers a choice would anger them.
3rd party relations:
Ubisoft is mad you are selling any console that can't play their games anymore and feel they have been stabbed in the back. maybe, if Watchdogs can only be played with a GP. Zombi U failed to sell well and they pulled exclusivity for rayman....I think both games would be able to be easily patched to make them compatible though. I have a hard time seeing this as a problem.
Game Development:
I don't know. The mario kart 8 team is worried about the GP not always being required so the touching the GP screen no longer honks your horn.
Everything 3D world did with GP could have been done in 3D land and they didn't. 3D worlds GP features are entirely fluff....would we miss them in 3D world 2?
Basically the trend we always see of the gimmic becoming less relevant is already happening. Mario Party 8 is a motion controlled waggle fest and Mario Party 9 I hear is nothing like that.
Skyward Sword is the pinnacle of motion control gaming on Wii that took them a revision of the motion control scheme to achieve. It was also pretty much the only core game on the system that used motion controls outside of gimmic add ons and as a core feature of the game (but it had lots of gimmics and stuff too).
I basically can't see the negatives so you wil have to point them out to me.
I think you fail to realize that the gamepad is basically a pro controller which is basically a classic controller which are basically standard console controllers. What we are talking about is a second screen and a touch screen. These things are basically optional in the vast majority of software since launch and much of the stuff using these things is tacked on. These things are only essential for a couple of games. The vast majority of software is only enhanced by these things.
I must protest yet again. The Classic Controller was just a shell with buttons in it, the Pro Controller has Bluetooth, rumble, motion sensors and a battery. Plus looking at an online retailer who's prices are normally fairly decent the Classic Controller is $20 and the Pro is $40. Compare that to the XBOne controller which has less hardware in it and costs $75 or one of the cheap knock-offs that they're selling for $40. I don't think there's as much margin in it as you think there is especially given the build quality of the thing. Also the estimate for the cost of the GamePad that you've thrown out there is inflated I would argue. The prices people have been charged to replace will not reflect the cost to manufacture as much as the price of a product with lots of stock that's already sold.
If you want to know business reasons I have said this numerous times. Putting myself in the shoes of a potential consumer, I don't see how that small a price cut (maybe $50) is worth the loss of those "enhancements". It's certainly not worth the loss of off-TV play and the map on the second screen in a game like Wind Waker. If we're talking business I'd argue that it's better business to keep the Wii U's strengths. If people don't understand what the strengths are then their best option is to do a better job of communicating that. It's less risky, less controversial and has a bigger payoff than going the lazy "well let's start chopping stuff off" route. If you're asking "but skywake, how do they sell these features they've failed to sell". Well observe:
goodbyes are a sad part of life but for every end there's a new beggining so one must never stop looking forward to the next dawn
now working at IBM as helpdesk analyst my Backloggery
@blaisedinsd
With a GamePad-less SKU:
1. People who buy this SKU cannot buy all games and play them, research is required. (Consumer Relations - Negative)
2. Install base is split between those with a GamePad and those without. (Consumer Relations - Negative)
3. Spike in Sales (Short-term Positive). We already know a price cut won’t generate lasting sales. (Long-term Negative)
4. Nintendo is trying to utilize the GamePad more so most Nintendo Games in the future will not be able to be sold to GamePad-less Wii U owners. (Consumer Relations – Negative)
5. 3rd Parties are still not developing for the Wii U because there is not a constant amount of Wii Us being sold. (3rd Party - Negative)
6. 3rd Parties will not spend more money for a system not selling well to patch games that are old news. (Consumer Relations - Negative) Nintendo will not pay 3rd party to patch their games.
With the GamePad included on all SKUs:
1. All Wii U owners can play 100% of games that come out for it(Consumer Relations, 3rd Party, and Game Development – Positive)
2. A single install base for Nintendo to handle, not having to try to serve two masters or three if you include the 3DS or 4 if you count the non-wearable. (Game Development – Positive)
3. Nintendo and other companies can focus on making good games regardless of GamePad utilization. (Game Development, 3rd Party, Consumer Relations – Positive)
4. Nintendo can focus on incressing the single install base which will make 3rd Parties look towards Wii U development more. (Consumer Relations, 3rd Party – Positive)
5. It might take a little longer for Nintendo to make the Wii U profitable. (Short-term – Negative, could turn Long-term if nothing is done but Nintendo is already working on it)
I don’t see the positives of making a GamePad-less SKU
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
I think you fail to realize that the gamepad is basically a pro controller which is basically a classic controller which are basically standard console controllers. What we are talking about is a second screen and a touch screen. These things are basically optional in the vast majority of software since launch and much of the stuff using these things is tacked on. These things are only essential for a couple of games. The vast majority of software is only enhanced by these things.
I must protest yet again. The Classic Controller was just a shell with buttons in it, the Pro Controller has Bluetooth, rumble, motion sensors and a battery. Plus looking at an online retailer who's prices are normally fairly decent the Classic Controller is $20 and the Pro is $40. Compare that to the XBOne controller which has less hardware in it and costs $75 or one of the cheap knock-offs that they're selling for $40. I don't think there's as much margin in it as you think there is especially given the build quality of the thing. Also the estimate for the cost of the GamePad that you've thrown out there is inflated I would argue. The prices people have been charged to replace will not reflect the cost to manufacture as much as the price of a product with lots of stock that's already sold.
If you want to know business reasons I have said this numerous times. Putting myself in the shoes of a potential consumer, I don't see how that small a price cut (maybe $50) is worth the loss of those "enhancements". It's certainly not worth the loss of off-TV play and the map on the second screen in a game like Wind Waker. If we're talking business I'd argue that it's better business to keep the Wii U's strengths. If people don't understand what the strengths are then their best option is to do a better job of communicating that. It's less risky, less controversial and has a bigger payoff than going the lazy "well let's start chopping stuff off" route. If you're asking "but skywake, how do they sell these features they've failed to sell". Well observe:
I was talking about functionally when I said that. The buttons are the same. The classic doesn't have clickable analog sticks. The pro controller actually doesn't have any motion sensing features.
You talk about the business side and you are talking about a consumer who is making a choice between the 2 bundles. This is once again the wrong perspective for the discussion. From a business perspective all those strengths remain because their is still a wii u with a gamepad available.
I was talking about functionally when I said that. The buttons are the same. The classic doesn't have clickable analog sticks. The pro controller actually doesn't have any motion sensing features.
If it doesn't have motion sensing, which BTW is only a 50c component, then I'm mistaken. I was under the impression it did. This isn't a big deal but I guess we'll find out either way when DK comes out.
However you're still gravely mistaken in saying that the two are functionally identical. The Classic Controller is basically no more complicated than the N64 controller was and in some ways is probably less so. It had no rumble, no battery it wasn't wireless and it didn't have any motion sensing. Go find a image of the Classic Controller's PCB, it's almost blank. Compare that to the Pro Controller. In terms of cost they're miles apart.
You talk about the business side and you are talking about a consumer who is making a choice between the 2 bundles. This is once again the wrong perspective for the discussion. From a business perspective all those strengths remain because their is still a wii u with a gamepad available.
How is it the wrong perspective? Nintendo make their money at the point of sale so to ignore that entirely is the wrong perspective. Plus you've spent the whole thread arguing that the consumer doesn't want the GamePad. How is that not the same "perspective"? I have a different take on that. I see the end user looking at this SKU you claim will be the saviour and seeing it as a poor option. I see them looking at it and saying "well it's cheaper but it can't play these games, these other games lose 'enhancements' and I can't play remotely". Saying they can still buy the GamePad later isn't a solution, if the GamePad is that great why not include it? Now they have a Pro Controller they didn't want.
Please explain your case without asserting that it's good for their business. First explain how making a SKU that can play less games in the Wii U's library solves the Wii U's main problem. Lack of games. My argument is that the better solution is to stay with what they have and explain to the consumers why they should get it. Rather than trying to backtrack at the same time, splitting the install base, cutting into their library and sending mixed messages.
Forums
Topic: What does Nintendo have to lose by making the gamepad "optional"?
Posts 281 to 300 of 721
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.