Looks kind of cool, will probably cost $500. Discuss it here.

_________________

Yeah those controllers will be very pricey with all the tech inside them. $100 for one I'm sure, and that is not even the cost of the main console.

Yeah I can't imagine the controller not adding at least $100 to the cost of the console, which would probably be $300 at minimum.

_________________

Everybody sucked pretty equally this year at E3. Everyone pleading their cases of please buy our motion control stuff. It really does work! Sony had by far the best presentation and the most to look forward to with the next Uncharted games. Nintendo apparently begged back all their third party support. Too bad that controller looks terrible. Thumb sticks directly over the D pad / ABXY buttons...really? Clearly designed by tiny Japanese people. Buy a fucking ipad and be happy.

On that note, can't wait to see Sony and Microsofts game tablets at next years E3.

I can't say it enough. I am sick as fuck of hearing about stupid motion control bullshit. Microsofts presentation was embarrassingly bad. Especially the star wars demo.

Kudos to Konami tho. They know they can't put on a show for shit and phoned it in this year with an all pre recorded video.

EIDT:

Oh yeah, best of show....Silent Hill Remastered. Get hype.

_________________
Avelle <Risen>
80 Mage
Ner'zhul Server (Fuck Illidan)
Avelle 75 PLD/DRG/DRK/BRD
Midgardsormr - Active again
Elidrin 75 Paladin
Midgardsormr - Retired
Elidrin 65 Ranger
Lanys T'Vyl - Retired

We pulled a lot of punches at E3. I haven't asked anyone who can tell me, but I think we're just reluctant to give anyone an attractive target right now.

Why would I buy a portable gaming system where the games cost $30 when my kids love the $1.99 games I buy for them on my iPad, something I can use for a lot more than gaming.

There's more to gaming than Angry Birds? There's more to gaming than games for kids? Any number of reasons.

Why would a person buy a $2000 computer when they can buy something cheaper?
Why pay $15 a month to play a video game when there are thousands upon thousands of games that are free?
Why would a person buy a 60" TV when they can watch a 12"?
Why would a person get cable when stuff is available online?
Need I continue?

edit: Why spend $700 on an iPad when you can get something that can do the same thing for cheaper?

I'm not saying it's a bad product. But the market for it has shrunk compared to the glory days.

The reality is that you can buy a $2,000 computer to play games, but not many do. You can pay $15 a month for a game but not many do. You can even buy a $300 gaming device that does only one thing, but I don't think many will, at least not in the numbers they used to. You seem to think a new Nintendo device is more economical, but $30 for a game for my kids, especially a relatively mediocre one, isn't very economical. Given that I can justify getting a tablet for lots of things, not just gaming, and that the games are so much cheaper. It's a pretty big no brainer - for me. I doubt I'll ever upgrade my kids' DS.

Games for tablets are better than Angry Birds and they will only get more so. They're cheaper, more accessible and in many cases, a much better value.

If I want to play a game, I will buy a console system, a PC or a handheld. Phones are FAR from being even close to these systems for games. The controls are too simple (very basic setups, and can not match a controller or a mouse + keyboard), and phone games are meant for killing some time at the movies.

Phones will never be a true gaming platform, and I would love for anyone here to prove me wrong

I know it's unlikely , but if you have a Windows 7 phone on you, you could go play games on Xbox Live right now -- and not just Uno.

I'd hate to see the framerate for Crysis 2 on that =x

Anyway, most of the games for iPhone and iPad are carrot-on-a-stick with trend/fad game mechanics that a decent gamer can master in about 5 minutes. They appeal to the lowest common denominator for a reason. Zero depth or thought process. They are BUILT from the ground up with the purposes of the classic time waster in mind.

The more I look, the more I find you often get what you pay for. A person hard up for cash for whatever reason will find these cheaper games much more attractive because they perceive value from behind that lense.

That being said, there's always going to be premium pricing. My '11 Alpina isn't expensive because its parts cost THAT much more than everything else(although that's part of it), it's because of the fact that its higher end. My surprise is that Nintendo has done this with the 3DS and now WiiU, yet they want to focus on a wider spectrum of potential gamers. To be honest, I get some decent game time out of my PSP and both systems are very comparable in terms of quality games.

The Wii U won't have friends codes....best news ever!

Also the Dark Souls and Skyrim gameplay previews looked pretty awesome at E3. Battlefield 3 is shaping up nicely as well.

World of Goo
Worms 2
Plants vs. Zombies
Monkey Island 2 Special Edition
Final Fantasy 3
Civilization Revolutions
SimCity

Those are the games I play most often on mine. I think those totaled $30, maybe a bit more because the FF Games are overpriced.

don't forget dead space for the ipad. that game freaking rocks.

infinity blade is a really good tech demo for what can be done for gaming on ios, but the story isn't really deep.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I don't think that one's avaiable for WP7. But extreme cases aside, why not? Your phone is a 1.0GB single- or dual-core processor. There's no separate GPU, but it's enough to play any early 360 game at full framerate. No one is talking about new releases for really high-end games coming straight to mobile platforms yet, but it'll happen as distributed processing gets better -- your video stream will probably just be rendered for you server-side and sent down. If that sounds like latency is the really big challenge, then I'm telling it right.

Even for an early full-fledged 360 game, full framerate seems a bit extreme to me. Hell, even the Xbox 360 itself has framerate slowdowns for a few early titles. I'd be downright excited to be wrong about that if it's true. I've seen some of the XB Live arcade games played on WP7 phones(almost all of which use massively fewer resources than any standard XB360 game), but not a full game made by a major developer.



Yea, those are decent titles(though again, I would argue a few are quite repetitive in nature). I'm just saying I could swap 3 or 4 of those for say, Mass Effect 2 and still get more gametime out of it. The result is a slightly more expensive game than all of those put together, but a much more rewarding experience.

My point is moreso that if I had a choice between watching 4 or 5 summer blockbuster movies or 1 deeply moving, thematic, characterized masterpiece(and say the prices between the two were equal), I'd pick the masterpiece because it would leave me reeling for days if not weeks depending on the quality.

That's not to say ME2 was a masterpiece per say, but certainly it was head and shoulders above most of the crap put out these days. "Insert awe-inspiring title here".

I'm not comparing tablets to set top consoles. I'm comparing tablets to dedicated gaming portables.

Except that the Wii U is a set top console.

Ye Olde Time Controller Component



Sega Dreamcast, released 1998, ahead of it's time.

With a gaming handheld for a controller.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

With a controller that doubles as a handheld. Subtle difference.

Hey, I'll say it. ME2 was a masterpiece.

Read the publicly available stuff about distributed processing and cloud storage, and they all say the big problem with those technologies is that American bandwidth sucks in comparison with that of other developed countries. Yet another way your phone and cable company are screwing with your happiness.

Only one Wii U controller can be used at a time so don't worry about having to buy one for each of your friends!

At this time yes, but Nintendo is still thinking about allowing more than one. I'm sure they will want max profits, so allowing 4 = more $$$ for Nintendo

I'll just play all the good games on the better controller of the PS3, seeing as how pretty much every Nintendo exclusive since Zelda has been a forgettable piece of shit.

Not if they can help it.

For any group of 4 fans:
1 console allowing 4 controllers: sells 1 console and 4 controllers
1 console allowing 1 controller: sells 4 consoles and 4 controllers

...and the 1:1 model liberates publishers from having to support local multiplayer (split-screen) in favor of what they want to do, which is having each player use their own display.

I don't think Nintendo is that dumb, though. They should realize that their shit isn't so good that is smells like roses. They risk alienating the very market they're aiming for if they use obvious tactics like that. When you're trying to go for new markets that are normally out of reach, you typically don't do anything that will alienate. Sure, Nintendo has been pretty obvious by selling its peripherals like hotcakes in the past, but nothing as bold as changing up the 4-controller per console model. It's a party console brand, people expect to buy it and be able to have a good time with their friends.

I just don't see that happening. They'll find a way to make it accessible without buying 4 expensive controllers and consoles. And publishers still want split-screen type stuff because it still sells for that party game market. People who play PC games isolated on individual screens form an entirely different market from those who enjoy single-console experiences with their friends huddled around one screen.

Ahh sorry.. I was thrown off by all of the pics, which showcase the controller.

After reading up on it more, I'm totally confused.... how would you use the controller in relation to a game on your TV?

Where was it said about each console only allowing one 'ipad-esque' controller, is that because of the hardware demands to stream it seamlessly to the controller?

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

I didn't think anything was as bold as requiring you to buy one handheld per person and plug them into a home console as controllers in order to play Crystal Chronicles, but they did it, and we all bought it.

I still don't get it... how would I use the handheld vs. the TV screen? It seems gimmicky.

Try YouTube?

Thanks.

It's a gimmick.

noted

Well, the original (and as far as I know the most successful) one sold less than 2 million copies sold worldwide, which is less than stellar for a standard Square Enix title. Gamecube(as well as Wii) only had a handful of truly interesting and groundbreaking titles, and while those titles were good, it also means that anything that's even half-way good will be bought by people desperate for something fresh and new.

The Echoes version performed even more poorly with a paltry 500k sold worldwide.

It was also a somewhat isolated incident.

That, and it's just a SLIGHT leap from making you buy 4 relatively cheaper handhelds to 4 consoles and 4 expensive(assumably, given the tech) controllers.

Thumbstick/D Pad location is still an instant no sale for me.

Just think of all the cancer that thing will beam in two your body with all that wifi data transfer!

smash brothers on that hunk of plastic will be interesting...

Smash Brothers in HD will be very nice to see

I foresee no ill effects for Smash Brothers gameplay, since unlike skill-based fighters, you use one button to attack.

And then you continue hitting that button.

The original Crystal Chronicles was the most successful in the series in terms of raw sales, but it didn't break 1.5m copies. None of its sequels even broke half that. There aren't any figures on how many of those cartridges came with a handheld device to play them on, for a combined retail price of around $200, though.

Ill have to see someone actually playing with that device to see if it will be worth the money I just dont see it as something I need or even want.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

How the hell are kids going to play with that controller? lol That thing is huge.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

They should start with a Coleco/Atari. Once they are older you should have them play NES / SNES / Genesis / etc...

By they time the reach the WiiU they should be able to use the controller.

Starting with a Wii will make them dumb gamers. Don't make that mistake! =)

I sense a Smash brother's Rage quitter!

I would love to see Smash brother played with a Kinect. 4 people punching each other in the living room.

There's a fighting game for the Kinect, called Fighters Uncaged. A guy on the release management team likes to tell a funny story about the room's reaction when someone asked if there was multiplayer support.

Well it's only $300/350, so that's something.

_________________

Fuckers made the black one more expensive!

Way way WAAAAAAYYYYY overpriced.

In the context of the controller being $100, it's not too expensive. But when you think that it only has a 32GB hard drive (for the $350 version), slapping any kind of decent storage on there is going to price it over $400. So you can play the games that will be released on current gen consoles with a stupid control scheme for the first 6-12 months while developers figure out if there's any real functional use for the shitty low-res touchscreen on the giant goddamn controller.

_________________

32 GB hard drive? Jesus. That's a thumb drive from 2004!

Bayonetta 2 exclusive.

What a fucking waste.

EDIT: Gameplay Footage.

32 GB USB thumb drives today still aren't all that cheap, and no, you couldn't get one in 2004.

It's still an outrageously low volume. I hope they really go forward with that.

$20 is cheap.

Yea you can probably find them lower than that if you look hard enough, too. I'd call it cheap factoring in inflation, etc in recent years as well.

At any rate, 2004 was probably a bit early for the thumb drive. 2008 or so is more accurate for 32 GB. And now 256. Yay offshoot of Moore's law.

I'm not going to say this decision is as retarded as the innumerable mistakes by Microsoft with the 360, but it's close.