Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U Meant for Consumers with Higher Disposable Income, Says Nintendo

Play4Fun said:
drkohler said:
Wyrdness said:
drkohler said:
Wyrdness said:

.. now considering the U controller will have no processer and such and just stream I think he's on the ball here.

That is complete nonsense. Behind closed doors, Nintendo has apparently shown early apps that run on the tablet (a web browser was one of the aps)


The app is being run by the console not the controller the latter is just streaming it, it's been confirmed that the controller will have no processor and just stream and be used for inputs, the controller can't function by itself like a tablet the console is what runs everything.

Nonsense. The web browser app was reportedly running independent of the base unit, on the tablet.  Of course, the tabled is not going to be nowhere as close as an ipad clone or "tablet" clone, but apparently it has enough computational power of its own to run some apps.


The console does the work for the tablet, do you understand that? As long as the console is on or in standby mode, the tablet can be used.

So, a game can be played on the controller screen  independently of  the TV screen but it's still the console that is processing the image, not the controller.

So, yeah you could just browse the web, watch videos or play   games on the controller with the TV off as long as the console is on or in standby.

 The controller is only going to show the images generated and processed by this hardware unit [console] - and sent from the hardware unit wirelessly. That's what Nintendo said.

Exactly the controller doesn't do any work and is not a stand alone tablet so won't have most of the expensive components inside it, the's no cpu or gpu inside it. So if they can make a tablet that costs 60 (which is the speculated price put forward earlier anyway) without government backing in India as someone put it then the controller minus the costly parts should be able to be even more cost effective, lol at the cheaper means less quality comments when a majority of products like clothes and electronics are manufactured for cheap in such countries.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel said:
thismeintiel said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"I've read that some companies are making very basic tablets for dirt cheap around the prices he mentioned, now considering the U controller will have no processer and such and just stream I think he's on the ball here. The controller will have a camera, touch screen and probably a place for headsets to be plugged in but not much else as it's a wireless controller that just streams, people shouldn't think of ipads and so on as those have much more going in them."

"some companies" does NOT mean "every device". Durability and stability need to be maintained for this, and the low end stuff tends to not be good in that regard.

As for not having a processor, that's impossible. It has to accept a streaming signal and turn it into an image. That requires more than just a screen, receiver, and controller parts.

Exactly.  People keep pointing to the tablet in India that is selling for $35.  The only reason it's just $35 is because its being subsidized by the government.  When the subsidizing ends, it's going to cost $60.  And at that price, it's probably not that great of a tablet.  I doubt it could handle streaming video games without considerable lag.  It's case is probably a cheap generic one, so durablity and cost won't be that great.  The Wii U's controller, on the other hand, is going to be made from a better plastic, as well as being a custom mold, so its obviously going to cost more just for the casing. 

Have to laugh at his claim it won't have a processor, too.  All controllers have processors, otherwise it couldn't take button inputs and turn them into a signal to send to the console.  And the Wii U controller is going to be handling a wireless feed that needs to be turned into a video image on a 6.2" screen, as well as touchscreen and button inputs that need to be output to the Wii U at the same time.  So to do this without considerable lag, it will need a decent processor.  And if the rumors are true that the Wii U will be able to run certain apps seperate from the console, it will definitely have good processor, as well as some form of internal storage.  In short, the Wii U controller isn't going to be cheap.

You miss the point of the tablet comparison, the Wii U controller and the Aakash tablet both share a 7-inch 800x480 resistive touchscreen but the Wii U controller doesn't have the CPU, RAM, Internal Flash Storage, SD Card slots and (many) other components that are required to make a functional tablet. Essentially, the Wii U controller is a much simpler device that should cost significantly less to manufacture than the Aakash tablet.

Whether or not the device makes for a good tablet or not is irrelevant. The point is that it demonstrates that the components required to make a device like the Wii U controller are not as expensive as some people suggest.

 

 

Another way to look at it is this, the Wii U controller could be seen as being similar to an XBox 360 or PS3 controller with the addition of a 7 inch resistive touch screen. While the addition of the touch screen may increase the manufacturing cost of these devices by 50% to 100% the cost of production of these devices have come down dramatically over the past couple of years; and the volume discounts Nintendo will (likely) be able to get could lower the cost even further. On top of this, being that the costs of these devices will (likely) continue to fall further in the near future, it is unlikely that Nintendo would need to turn a massive profit on day one to justify the cost; because the profit margin would continue to grow over time.

This isn't to say that the Wii U Tablet won't be the most expensive controller for a major console (it probably will be) but I think people who believe it will be (significantly) more expensive than $100 at retail are delusional.


Exactly and very well put, people are having trouble understanding it's not a tablet.



Wyrdness said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"I've read that some companies are making very basic tablets for dirt cheap around the prices he mentioned, now considering the U controller will have no processer and such and just stream I think he's on the ball here. The controller will have a camera, touch screen and probably a place for headsets to be plugged in but not much else as it's a wireless controller that just streams, people shouldn't think of ipads and so on as those have much more going in them."

"some companies" does NOT mean "every device". Durability and stability need to be maintained for this, and the low end stuff tends to not be good in that regard.

As for not having a processor, that's impossible. It has to accept a streaming signal and turn it into an image. That requires more than just a screen, receiver, and controller parts.


Argue it all you like Nintendo themselves confirmed the controller has no processor in it, it's not a tablet like people call it but a controller utilizing a touch screen, the streaming can be done in the similar way a console tells a controller to rumble it's not as complex as people think. More then anything the console does all the work and just sends it to the controller.

if there is no processor then how is input and output handled? and the conversion of sound, video etc to radio waves?



o_O.Q said:
Wyrdness said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"I've read that some companies are making very basic tablets for dirt cheap around the prices he mentioned, now considering the U controller will have no processer and such and just stream I think he's on the ball here. The controller will have a camera, touch screen and probably a place for headsets to be plugged in but not much else as it's a wireless controller that just streams, people shouldn't think of ipads and so on as those have much more going in them."

"some companies" does NOT mean "every device". Durability and stability need to be maintained for this, and the low end stuff tends to not be good in that regard.

As for not having a processor, that's impossible. It has to accept a streaming signal and turn it into an image. That requires more than just a screen, receiver, and controller parts.


Argue it all you like Nintendo themselves confirmed the controller has no processor in it, it's not a tablet like people call it but a controller utilizing a touch screen, the streaming can be done in the similar way a console tells a controller to rumble it's not as complex as people think. More then anything the console does all the work and just sends it to the controller.

if there is no processor then how is input and output handled? and the conversion of sound, video etc to radio waves?


By processor I meant CPU.



o_O.Q said:

if there is no processor then how is input and output handled? and the conversion of sound, video etc to radio waves?


There is (likely) an embedded digital controller that interfaces with the Blue-Tooth/Wifi components and converts the incoming data into visual/auditory/vibration output, and takes button-presses/touch-screen input and converts it to an outgoing signal to be interpreted by the Wii U system, but this would be a highly specialized processor and much simpler/less-expensive than the CPU that is currently in the Nintendo DS.

I haven't got a clue what controller Nintendo would be using, but almost a decade ago there were DSPs that could handle this that were being sold for a couple dollars a piece.



Around the Network

This is not the right move for Nintendo... but I'll be buying one anyway... just as I bought a PS3 at $599 (yes, yes... I know). When that happens depends only on when the games I'm looking for appear (SSB, Zelda).

I cannot believe that Nintendo would attempt this after the 3DS and the rough start of the PS3. Granted, if WiiU is $300 or MAYBE even $350, then I am totally wrong... but the postureing doesn't seem to indicate that price point.

Also, I agree with those who are chiding Nintendo for believing that Wii will still sell as the "value line" under the WiiU. It will still sell, but only insofar as the PS2 continued to sell after the PS3 was released... and probably worse because the game library looks to be cut off swiftly.

I predict dark times ahead.



i have bought a cheap $60 tablet to see how good they are. Durability was the last thing on their mind.

When you press the screen not only does it bend in it isn't responsive half the time unless you hold down for a little bit to register your touch.

The case plastic also bends in and stays bent in haha.



 

 

Cobretti2 said:
i have bought a cheap $60 tablet to see how good they are. Durability was the last thing on their mind.

When you press the screen not only does it bend in it isn't responsive half the time unless you hold down for a little bit to register your touch.

The case plastic also bends in and stays bent in haha.

But would it have had a capacitive touchscreen?

 

The U Pad is going to be hard to compare to anything on the market, at least from a components perspective



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

oniyide said:


basic economics?? Things go up in price, ALL products do, thats the way of the world (1). YOu really think that this Wii U would cost the same as the WII did at launch?? That makes no damn sense. THe WIi was just a GC with motion controls attached to it(2), and even the motion tech was kinda cheap, of course it eas inexpensive(3). This thing is supposed to be more powerful than PS3 and has to transfer info to at least two tablets(4). Unless you want Ninty to sell at a loss they cant sell this thing too cheap, and how expensive is too expensive?? Cause 350 for a NEW console is not that bad. PS3 hit the sweet spot around 300(5)

N64 and GC, maybe they didnt do as well because the PS products at the time were just THAT much better(6). and please it wasnt like they were really expensive either. SO i dont know what price has to do with those. (7)

How about some people have no personal or financial stakes in NINTY's affairs(8). Some people need to prioritize their lives, if Ninty shoots themselves in the foot, what difference does it make to you??(9) Dont mean nothing to me, cause they dont put food on my plate(10). Worst case scenerio, they get another ass kicking and they have survived those, so whatever(11). Why are they disrespecting customers, by trying to make a product thats not cheap??(12) WHat kinda logic is that. By that logic Prada, Ferrari any buisness that makes not so cheap products are disrespectful??(13)


1. Tech doesn't necessarily work that way, thanks to things like Moore's Law. Lots of game systems were able to launch in the same $200-$300 range from the early 1980s to now.

2. What? You really think the Wii was just a GC? You mean you think the specs and components were the same? People actually took apart the system at launch and confirmed that the parts are different.

3. I didn't claim the motion tech was expensive. That is why the Plus took a few years for its costs to go down.

4. More powerful than a system launched 5 years ago is not that much. The PS3 itself dropped in price a hell of a lot since launch. As for the streaming, that requires showing the transmitter would be expensive, in which case it would be too much for the mass market at the moment anyway.

5. That's still assuming it even sells that low. But it's still $100 more than the Wii, and that came with a game bundled. In Japan, the Wii launched at the same price as the GC, N64, and SuperFam (not sure about the Famicom though).

6. I hope you mean the games, and not the tech. The former is most certainly why they did better.

7. I didn't claim that low price equals good sales. It needs to be paired with good games. I'm stating that too high a price will hurt good sales, even if the games are good.

8. Why do people need that to care about this? And I don't mean in terms of fanboyishness. You're acting as though Nintendo's finances exist in a vacuum, or is somehow disconnected to their ability to make products.

9. Nintendo makes games we like isn't enough? You think being concerned about them not ruining themselves isn't related to this?

10. NOBODY HERE IS CLAIMING THAT NINTENDO DOES ANYTHING OF THE SORT. Sorry for the allcaps, but that is such a bullshit strawman claim. And it shows you're priorities are skewed, as you are claiming concern should only be given for those who can give you something you personally need. The world doesn't stop existing outside of one's needs.

11. No, the worse case scenario is they don't stop shooting themselves until they go bankrupt. Now it's more likely they will have problems and have to turn around, but we'd like for Nintendo to stop doing that stupid cycle.

12. How is making a flagship product, that costs more money than other iterations of that product, showing respect to customers? It's the content of the product that shows respect, not how flashy and pricey the tech is. And a large touchscreen controller is flashy.

13. If they suddenly jacked up their prices without any actual improvements to the product beyond the norm and inflation, that would be what Nintendo is doing.

And last I checked, Nintendo was NOT in that league. They are Levis and Honda.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

If the Wii U is capabable of handling graphics,textures and phisics with destructible inviroments, explosives, particles effects with over 24+ players and air attacks at once while keeping 60fps @ 1080p ..  or and if I can count every string of Marios mustche, I'm all in.

 

Than it will be a long term buy for me.  $600 x 10 years= great buy.



My Trigger Happy Sixaxis controller