Nintendo's WiiU: Touchscreen, coming 2012 | Hacker News Reader

Nintendo's WiiU: Touchscreen, coming 2012

arstechnica.com

85 pointsphren0logy68 comments

It's an extension of the Nintendo DS formula. Except the top screen is the TV and the bottom screen is embedded in the controller. The controller's cost will be a huge factor. It could be as much as $100 ... or more.

Nintendo just needs to make a phone. A Nintendo DS with a cellular antenna that's free after carrier rebates. How could that not work? Every kid would get it. A lot of adults, too. If you really wanted an iPhone or Android, you could just buy a normal Nintendo DS. There's so much opportunity there, it's baffling. Even if all it did was play Mario and have the same features as a flip phone it would sell.

If the Wii U supported more than 1 new controller at a time the cost would be a huge factor. I don't think it does. If it did I believe they would've mentioned it at the conference. Instead they showed a picture of a controller/screen and 4 wiimotes.

If Nintendo didn't disdain indie developers so much, this would be a much more exciting announcement. This kind of innovative thinking is wasted on the mega corporations who hardly take advantage of it.

Didn't Nintendo opened up to small devs with WiiWare ?

I was thinking of Fils-Amie saying the 3DS "isn't for unproven indies". I suppose it would make sense if the WiiWare model carried over to Wii U.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/37379/Nintendo-3DS-isnt-a...

While the WiiWare SDK is a lot cheaper than previous kits, Ninntendo still has you jump through the hoop of being a registered and licensed developer with a business office and a secure facility to store the development kit/hardware. So while it may open the doors to some smaller studios, it's still generally outside of the reach of most "indie" devs compared to the iphone app store.

Smaller companies, anyhow. It's not like the Android market where just about anyone can publish a game.

If Apple puts out an SDK for the Apple TV in September, things could get exciting pretty fast.

Apple is on a 3 year product cycle, so I wouldn't count on it, but you never know:

1998- iMac; 2001- OSX/iPod; 2003/4- iTunes; 2007- iPhone; 2010- iPad; 2013 ?????

Probably because the iPad has an SDK and the comment didn't make sense as a result.

HN tends to be kinda rough on technical inaccuracy.

Actually your comment is the one that is technically inaccurate, why would Apple wait a year and a half to launch an SDK. All I pointed out was that Apple's big launches come in 3 year cycles, it wouldn't fit for a TV SDK to launch now, or anytime soon.

From the guidelines: "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

So far, the only device (that I'm aware of) from Apple that had a wait between the product launch and the sdk launch was the original iphone. Everything else, as far as I know, had an sdk launched way before the product was launched.

As for your downvotes: I'm sorry, but as has been stated previously, we value technical accuracy.

Perhaps I had the wrong impression, but I thought the correct response to a factually incorrect post was to point out the correct information in a reply, not to downmod the post. This is more inclusive (as everyone is misinformed at times) and is more useful to the community (because it provides them with the correct information).

I'd be extremely surprised if that didn't happen.

Isn't WWDC where most SDKs get announced?

Usually. Apple hasn't talked about iOS 5's impact on the AppleTV, other than a mention that the iCloud photostream would be accessible from there as well.

The previous gen AppleTV is still running the equivalent of MacOS X 10.4, so hopefully the new one won't get the same neglect.

I'm thinking that at most they'd work with other large content providers (Hulu, etc. in addition to Netflix), or will push Airplay + other devices as solutions on the AppleTV.

Who is to say indie's can't do this with the existing tablets that are out there today?

http://benjamin-meyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/tablet-tv-games.h...

I agree. Watching this, I start thinking of all the exciting shit I could do with it. But I'm not a company with a contract with Ninty. So i won't. Hopefully the protocol is easy enough to decipher, and I can start using it as a remote control for the PC hooked up to my TV.

For me these colliding principles are heartbreaking. I've been playing Nintendo games since i was 3, and always wanted to work in the Videogame industry, but it seems to get your own games onto a Nintendo platform you need a lot of money or accept the fact that it will only run on jailbreaked consoles and people will live for free.

I was really hoping Nintendo would jump at the Android possibilities that were opening up, but it was Sony who went and did the right thing...

I basically gave up on Nintendo after the N64; all Nintendo is about nowadays is releasing Metroid 13, Mario 59, Zelda 32, in whichever conceivable permutations.

There's no wonder that they want to innovate the hardware, because the games remain the same. Zelda almost feels like the Lorem Ipsum and Hello World of Nintendo, when they want to demo their new platforms.

And I think they just announced an HD-cum-3D version of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time. Jeez.

Keep in mind that last year was the 25th anniversary of the original Mario Bros. This year is the 25th for Legend of Zelda, and next year the 25th for Metroid.

While it does seem that they are rehashing old IP (and I agree that they are) they also have a slight incentive to push out permutations of their successful franchises here in the next few years.

As a non-console gamer is really amazes me how complex it has gotten. There's gotta be at least 4 different controllers that will work on the WiiU? How do you decide which one to use? Are some games unplayable without the right controller? The Xbox and Playstation seem to be even more complicated with add-ons like the Kinect and a controller with tons of buttons/combos to memorize. It's really daunting to me at this point. I don't think I could pickup a console/game and have any fun at all. I would have to figure out which accessories to buy first and probably sit down and read the manual (do games still come with manuals) before I could even attempt to play. The complexity doesn't seem to be hurting the industry yet but it makes me wonder how far they can push it before it just becomes completely inaccessible to normal people.

It's crazy. They found a problem, and solved it in a novel way. This makes having a console possible in my single tv house.

Too bad this won't be out for Christmas or I'd be getting one this year.

I kept thinking about the iPad as I watched the video. Nintendo sees opportunity in freeing users from the TV, Apple sees opportunity in freeing users from desktops.

Nintendo, being a game company, keeps the console as the focus, and has the controller as the accessory.

Apple, a device company, has the smarts in the controller, and AppleTV is the accessory.

WiiU announcement video from E3 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniBUtc4Uws

FWIW Quite a lot of the game footage was from XBox 360 + PS3 games.

I'm interested in how much they will charge for the WiiU controller. The Wii had controller-itis with the wiimote + nunchuck + motion plus. At least the WiiU will re-use the Wii's controllers.

Also, how does the 3DS fit in the equation? If the WiiU controller works for standalone gaming, it could compete against the 3DS.

From the article (referring to the controller):

"Please understand that it was not designed to be a portable video game machine," Nintendo President Saturo Iwata explained.

Looks like it won't compete against the 3DS.

While not explicitly stated anywhere, it seems the Wii U only supports a single new controller, as they haven't ever shown more than one. It probably ships with it, so you won't need to buy it on its own.

This looks like the most uncomfortable thing in the world to hold. It looks expensive, gimmicky, and prone to breaking.

By the time they launch this, Microsoft will be announcing new firmware for Kinect with even more extreme fidelity than they have now, and Sony will start hyping their next console.

Add to that the lackluster sales of the (gimmicky, low battery life) 3DS, and I'd say Nintendo just jumped on the fail whale.

"This looks like the most uncomfortable thing in the world to hold"

Most of Nintendo's previous controllers have been quite comfortable and ergonomic compared to their competitors.

That said, the WiiU does look kinda awkward.

Can't say i'm impressed by Nintendo's offering. It's like they've spent the last 5 years resting on their laurels, then in the last few months before E3 they slap something together with every possible feature you can have in a single controller, and upgraded the hardware to handle HD graphics.

The console itself is fairly decent for it's size, it would be interesting to see whether long-term hardware issues will arise out of shrinking down such high-performance components. All of the tech demos seem very smoke-and-mirrors at this stage; when the Wii was revealed there were real demos with playable games that people could pick up and enjoy. Overall the hardware feels current-gen, and with MS and Sony already planning their next consoles, it won't be long until Nintendo is again at the back of the hardware rankings. No media playback seems like a bit of an oversight; it uses a proprietary disk format, and there is no mention of media playback, except Youtube integration. Seems it will follow the same path as the Wii did with DVD/media playback.

The controller seems strange; you can use it in several different ways, but it seems to be optimized to a tablet-type usage scenario. The placement of the shoulder buttons seems very awkward with the size and shape of the controller. As i said, it just looks like they've tried to incorporate everything including the kitchen sink at the last minute, with no _real_ use-cases or target applications.

In the end the biggest disappointment for me is that Nintendo hasn't addressed the areas it admitted it failed with the Wii. Not so long ago they said they knew they had failed to engage developers on the same level as MS and Sony, and they had failed to create a healthy online ecosystem. Their announcements at E3 haven't addressed either of these failures, so I can only assume that they are still working on a solution, or they are going to continue with the same strategies that they have used in the past.

Whilst I agree with you, can you really blame Nintendo for continue to do what they're doing?

By just releasing low cost hardware and iterating the same franchises, they are making a killing without having to barely anything. As long as people are willing to open up their wallets, there's no reason to change.

While we've never had a full-color screen in our hands with a console, we have had displays in our hands before, with the Dreamcast. I would consider it a bit of a warning that the Dreamcast's promises of how the display would be useful almost entirely failed to pan out. I think the core problem is that on average, you're not going to split your attention between two screens, if for no other reason than physically acquiring a screen with your eyes is a significant fraction of a second. The fraction of a second spent changing screens better have a really good payoff.

For every use case given for the auxiliary screen, I'd ask, could it have been done on the Dreamcast (even if not quite as well), and if so, why didn't it work there and why will it work on the WiiU? Merely saying "now it's in color" really isn't good enough, I think.

I can generate hypothetical uses as much as the next guy ("call plays in sports games!" "multiplayer shooters!" "rear-view windows!"), but once I tone down the excitement (easy after years of practice) and really think about the pragmatic issues of trying to use this auxiliary screen, I'm not actually coming up with many situations in which the auxiliary screen is the best solution, which is the real criterion to measure uses of it by, as opposed to a solution. Play calling works, but that's an awfully elaborate screen for such a use case. Rear-view displays don't work at all. Locally multiplayer shooters are OK, but what will the main screen be doing?

An example in the current generation: Light gun games are best with motion controllers (haven't tried Move but assume it will be at least as good as the Wii), because that game style really uses the controls, a two-dimensional high-speed directional input system that can harness muscle memory; with only a little practice I can flick reliably from one side of the screen to another and it isn't long before there is no longer any barrier between where I am thinking the reticle should be, and where my muscles are putting it. I have never had such fun with this genre as I have on the Wii. Motion controls are not merely a solution, but are the best solution, beating out even "badly-calibrated arcade gun without on-screen reticle". Whereas "wiggle the stick to attack" is not an argument in favor of motion controls, because while it is a solution, it is not the best solution, and the Wii's reputation has suffered from the number of games that have tacked this on so they can claim "motion control". Motion control as a whole has had a big problem with being a solution instead of the best solution. Given the price of the screen here, both in dollars and in controller comfort, I don't see it being the best solution to enough problems to make it worth it.

(Opinion calibration: I was actually up on the Wii, precisely because motion control really did open a lot of things up, and I consider it still underused. Unfortunately, sophisticated uses rapidly become very complicated AI problems to try to figure out what it is you actually meant. I'm also at least modestly up on the 3DS' long term potential, but it's going to take probably 2 full game generations before the developers themselves get over seeing it as a gimmick and start "truly" developing for it. I don't consider myself a reflexive naysayer. I really do think this isn't very likely to turn out to be useful for games, though. But I could be wrong; this could be the iPad of the space. Who knows.)

I think the advantage of the controller here is that it is a touch screen. While your comments focus on the display aspect, I think the fact that it's interactive is more significant. How many buttons can a controller have? How useful are all those symbolically labelled buttons?

I do, however, agree with your skepticism -- I don't think it will be used to it's full (or proper) effect. Business concerns and the failure of imagination on the part of game developers will probably relegate this extra control mechanism to same fate as wiggle-attacks.

Before you can touch it, you have to see it. (Or if it's just a glorified controller with hard-coded buttons, it's a very expensive controller with poor use characteristics.) Touching it is even slower. I think there's a lot more friction than anybody is seeing in their pretty-happy mental visualizations unencumbered by experience.

It works fine in the DS. Status and maps generally go on the other screen, which prevents the "pause, go to menu, look for something, resume what you were doing" flow. You just glance up.

The Zelda mock-up seems like a clear win to me: the controller has the full item menu, and you could just tap the items you want to equip. Yeah, there would be a context switch to look at and manipulate the screen on the controller, but the same is true for using a pause-based menu. The difference here is that the main screen remains unchanged. I think that incurs less of a cognitive context switch.

The DS screens are roughly the same distance from your eyes, though, so switching between them doesn't require refocusing, which is both tiring and slow.

It's an interesting comparison, but the Dreamcast 'VMU' screen was very low resolution (48 x 32) which severely limited what you could usefully show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMU

I think that good examples of the DS screen usage points the way forward - maps, item screens etc. Not forcing the player to enter into different 'modes' on the main screen.

I agree with you. When the Wii originally came out, I could see the utility of the wii controllers. Just swing it to play tennis. You could see people demoing it and it just made sense. It was simple and you just go it.

You cannot swing this U-controller to play tennis. It does not lend itself to swinging. I guess it is tuned to a different set of games. I saw a golf demo where the ball was visible on the controller and the greens were on the tv (they were paired). With the controller on the floor, the person swung while standing near the controller. The ball disappeared from the controller screen and ended up on the tv screen. A very complicated/contrived demo (with an expensive controller on the floor). Gone was the simplicity.

"For every use case given for the auxiliary screen, I'd ask, could it have been done on the Dreamcast (even if not quite as well), and if so, why didn't it work there and why will it work on the WiiU?"

I think you are hugely underestimating the difference in possible use cases between the Dreamcast's 32 x 48 pixel, black and white, non-backlit, non-touchscreen display and the Wii U's 6.2" HD color motion-sensing touchscreen. It's like saying a PS3 offers no new gameplay possibilities over an Atari 2600. This controller is not only the "best solution" to many existing gaming situations (menus in RPGs, play-calling in sports games), it makes new inventive gameplay styles possible. For example, it can be attached to the "Wii U zapper"[1] to make something very similar to this guy's clever hack, "The GameGun": http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRedneckTechie . A photographic exploration game (think Pokemon Snap for N64) would work very well with this as you could use the controller's screen as a camera viewfinder. The screen also allows you to continue playing when someone else wants to use the television.

"Locally multiplayer shooters are OK, but what will the main screen be doing"

One player will be using the main screen with a Wii remote or classic controller, and the other will be using the new controller, facing away from the screen, with headphones on (The controller has a headphone jack). As I understand it the Wii U only supports one of these controller/screens at a time. Being included with the system, the price is a non-issue (Until it has to be replaced of course).

1: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/06/nin12....

"I think you are hugely underestimating the difference in possible use cases between the Dreamcast's 32 x 48 pixel, black and white, non-backlit, non-touchscreen display and the Wii U's 6.2" HD color motion-sensing touchscreen."

I would agree, if I had not just spent the rest of my argument making points that apply equally to both screens. If anything the Dreamcast screen by virtue of being simpler is easier to acquire. Use cases don't matter if the entire idea of a screen in your hands is fundamentally unusable, a violation of Fitt's law suitably modified.

Also, broadly speaking, the further you have to reach for a suitable use of the controller, the more likely it is not to really work. Again, I've seen craploads of innovative ideas like that, and they look a lot more interesting in your imagination or YouTube videos (where details like "being fun for more than 30 seconds" can be easily glossed over) than they do in real life .

"The screen also allows you to continue playing when someone else wants to use the television."

This, by the way, is a really stupid use case in 2011, at least in the US. For the same reason that screens are cheap enough to put in your controller in the first place, screen contention is already not a very significant problem and over the lifespan of the console will effectively go away. When it would have been helpful was when we were all fighting over the family 26" tube TV. The fact that this is even used as justification is another smell to me that this isn't really that great an idea, if that's in the list of "best arguments".

It never really took off, but Nintendo has already put full-color screens in our hands with a console. They had a few GameCube games that could use GameBoyAdvance devices as controllers. The best application I saw for it was the PacMan party game. One player plays PacMan. He sees the whole board on his GBA screen. Three players play ghosts. They all share the TV, but they can only see the board immediately around themselves. The ghosts had to work together to narrow down where the PacMan player was hiding.

I don't really count those, because historically speaking having to buy extra peripherals limits the amount of success such things can have. Effective failure of addons isn't proof that a console can't make a go of the some technology if it ships with it; motion controls are one example, hard drives are another. (The PS2 could have a hard drive, but until consoles shipped with them and they could basically be counted on (yes you could get XBox 360s without hard drives but it was understood that you were going to have a limited experience), they weren't useful for very much.)

I don't have an strong opinion on the WiiU yet. I just think it's interesting that Nintendo is brave enough to not only try crazy ideas, but to also try them again even if they weren't total successes the first time. Illustration from Reddit: http://i.imgur.com/4GVMY.png

I'd tell you what i'd like to see. Resident Evil that you can't pause to go into your inventory. You have to "search" your bag in real time to get items out of it even while running from zombies. That and a commander in the new Battlefield who gets a situation map to use.

Zelda Four Swords and Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles are examples where local multiplayer was a much better experience because each player had their own screen for the information and tasks which applied only to them, while still having all players together in the same world on the TV.

All that hardware and I worry about the weight. The ipad is tiring to hold up in your hands long term, if that thing has any sort of battery life, it would be fairly tiring to hold up too.

I thought that, but then this will presumably be all plastic, like current Wii/DS hardware. If so it'd be significantly lighter.

it's actually quite light and it isn't a portable device, it's simply a screen that streams content/input. I too am worried about battery life. Wii controllers ate up AA batteries like no other.

I've owned several Nintendo platforms (N64, Wii, DS) now, and every one has been starved for compelling titles. Indeed, the best titles (imo) have been the same damn things with minor variations over and over. This seems to work for Nintendo, but it's hard to get excited about a new gimmicky hardware platform which will have the same titles slightly changed.

It is funny to see Nintendo appearing to go back to conventional controls having lured Microsoft and Sony into the gimmick gesture control tarpit.

ok so someone explain this to me. this device negates the need for a Wii? or is an extension for the wii? so are they updating the graphics on the wii? Sorry I'm slightly confused by this (and i've been gaming for 20 years+)

How does this connect to a tv?

Think of an improved Wii system plus the controller has a screen to view extra info and functionality. Then add the ability to optionally use the controller screen instead of the TV screen to view the full game. There you go.

You are taking the wireless controller for the console, the console looks like that http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=21727778#p21727... and connects to the tv with a cable.

ah thank you! no one was showing the console in the pics. thus confusing me.

The Iwata Asks interview for Wii U has been posted. Some interesting insights into the thought process that went into it.

http://e3.nintendo.com/iwataasks/

Any idea if it's backward-compatible with the Wii?

Yes, it's fully backwards compatible

No word on gamecube backwards compatibility like the Wii had.

Wii's hardware is nearly literally the GameCube's hardware with extra video memory, so odds are high that backwards compatibility would continue.

They've only mentioned 12cm discs so far, and no word on GC controller ports.

When is the next Zelda coming out btw?

I watched it live. Once the controller was confirmed I immediately thought about a feature Microsoft did in Vista called SideShow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_SideShow

Reply on news.ycombinator.com