By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Could Nintendo add a capacitive touch screen in a WiiU redesign?

 

Capacitive or no?

Give me a more responsive one! 33 21.85%
 
It's fine the way it is ... 118 78.15%
 
Total:151
sethnintendo on 17 December 2012
Baron said:
sethnintendo said:
Baron said:
The touch screen is fine the way it is. I haven't experienced any problems of unresponsiveness with the touchscreen.

What I want most now is a (much) faster OS and Internet speed. The OS is terribly slow, it shouldn't take that long to load Youtube or the Webbrowser, and the internet speed (wired) is also way below my isp (17-18 MBit down, 4 Mbit up as opposed to +/- 95 MBit up and down). My PC and X360 run fine so I'm assuming it's a software problem and therefor should be easily fixed.

Web browser and other apps don't take too long for me to load.  Sure there is some down time with launching different application on the Wii U but it seems to be getting better for me.  I bet I could surf the web on my Wii U faster than you on a slower connection speed than your 360 (I'm 20 mbps d/l and 2 upload).


I've compared it to my laptop (windows 7 + wifi @ 70 MBit) and my XBox 360 (wired). The Wii U (wired or Wifi) for me was significantly slower.

Internet Explorer on 360 must be a god send then considering the Wii U browser is pretty damn fast to my experience.  It (Wii U browser) loads just a little slower than my desktop.



Around the Network
osed125 on 17 December 2012
Baron said:
sethnintendo said:
Baron said:
The touch screen is fine the way it is. I haven't experienced any problems of unresponsiveness with the touchscreen.

What I want most now is a (much) faster OS and Internet speed. The OS is terribly slow, it shouldn't take that long to load Youtube or the Webbrowser, and the internet speed (wired) is also way below my isp (17-18 MBit down, 4 Mbit up as opposed to +/- 95 MBit up and down). My PC and X360 run fine so I'm assuming it's a software problem and therefor should be easily fixed.

Web browser and other apps don't take too long for me to load.  Sure there is some down time with launching different application on the Wii U but it seems to be getting better for me.  I bet I could surf the web on my Wii U faster than you on a slower connection speed than your 360 (I'm 20 mbps d/l and 2 upload).


I've compared it to my laptop (windows 7 + wifi @ 70 MBit) and my XBox 360 (wired). The Wii U (wired or Wifi) for me was significantly slower.

That's strange the Wii U scores really high in the internet (more specifically HTML 5) test, it's supposed to be way better than the 360 

http://html5test.com/results/gaming.html



Nintendo and PC gamer

dahuman on 17 December 2012
bananaking21 said:
dahuman said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
bananaking21 said:
gergroy said:
spurgeonryan said:
If it makes it more accurate then lets do it!


it wouldn't, capactive might make touch with your fingers slightly more responsive, but not enough to be that noticeable.  However, you would lose the very precise stylus touch.  

Capactive touch screens really only make sense if you are adding multi touch.  However, like the OP said, Nintendo can't really do that without fracturing their base.  So, basically, you would lose more than you would gain if Nintendo did this.  


slightly more responsive? no its way more responsive


It is more responsive and noticeably.


Responsiveness depends on the sensitivity dial and the amount of processor power used to register that touch. I've seen plenty of shitty capacitive touch devices just as I've seen a lot of shitty resistive, saying one is more responsive than another is kinda weak since you are not supposed to use them the same way.

no, its very well known that capacitve touch screens are miles ahead of resistive touch screens in terms of sensativity. just because you used a crappy capactive touch screen doesnt make them any less superior. fact is wiiU's touch screen is 4 year old tech, simple as that


I won't argue about the Wii U since it does run on older tech even though it's very responsive, but if you broaden the perspective of touch screens in general then you would be incorrect and your information is outdated.



Soundwave on 17 December 2012
sethnintendo said:
Soundwave said:
I would prefer a higher resolution screen or at least something with a better picture quality. Playing off screen is useless to me because the image quality is so bad.

Let the old games function the same way, but for off tv stuff and web browsing and videos I'd love a Wii U tablet with a higher quality screen.


So you want a retina display.


I wouldn't complain, but I wouldn't mind a 1280x720 or even 960x540 resolution screen with better black levels. Wii U screen looks like one of those "cheap portable DVD player from China" screens unfortunately. 

In a year or two those types of screens should get cheaper and cheaper as everyone and their grandma are making mini-tablets now, so perhaps Nintendo could get a good price on them. 

I like the Wii U controller, but I think it needs a redesign. The look of it is fairly ugly too, I think they could probably refresh that too. 



Mmmfishtacos on 18 December 2012

@osed125 little big planet make very good use of the front and back touch. Paint park also make good use of multi touch, it's how you mix your Paint.



Around the Network
bananaking21 on 18 December 2012
dahuman said:
bananaking21 said:
dahuman said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
bananaking21 said:
gergroy said:


Responsiveness depends on the sensitivity dial and the amount of processor power used to register that touch. I've seen plenty of shitty capacitive touch devices just as I've seen a lot of shitty resistive, saying one is more responsive than another is kinda weak since you are not supposed to use them the same way.

no, its very well known that capacitve touch screens are miles ahead of resistive touch screens in terms of sensativity. just because you used a crappy capactive touch screen doesnt make them any less superior. fact is wiiU's touch screen is 4 year old tech, simple as that


I won't argue about the Wii U since it does run on older tech even though it's very responsive, but if you broaden the perspective of touch screens in general then you would be incorrect and your information is outdated.

i actually thought about it quite a lot, and the addition of resistive makes no sense other than reducing the price of the gampad. nintendo them selfs claim that the gamepad adds value to gameplay. so there main reason to add the touch screen was to improve gameplay. and we all know in the middle of a game responsivness is VERY important. a quick and slight tap should be able to register a touch. but resistives technology works against that. it needs to feel pressure not a slight touch and that there will harm nintendo's goal to add value to the gameplay



Baron on 18 December 2012
osed125 said:
Baron said:
sethnintendo said:
Baron said:
The touch screen is fine the way it is. I haven't experienced any problems of unresponsiveness with the touchscreen.

What I want most now is a (much) faster OS and Internet speed. The OS is terribly slow, it shouldn't take that long to load Youtube or the Webbrowser, and the internet speed (wired) is also way below my isp (17-18 MBit down, 4 Mbit up as opposed to +/- 95 MBit up and down). My PC and X360 run fine so I'm assuming it's a software problem and therefor should be easily fixed.

Web browser and other apps don't take too long for me to load.  Sure there is some down time with launching different application on the Wii U but it seems to be getting better for me.  I bet I could surf the web on my Wii U faster than you on a slower connection speed than your 360 (I'm 20 mbps d/l and 2 upload).


I've compared it to my laptop (windows 7 + wifi @ 70 MBit) and my XBox 360 (wired). The Wii U (wired or Wifi) for me was significantly slower.

That's strange the Wii U scores really high in the internet (more specifically HTML 5) test, it's supposed to be way better than the 360 

http://html5test.com/results/gaming.html

Hmm, interesting test. I'll compare my Wii U to the 3DS as well. It's not as slow as my Wii was but it's not much faster.

I'll fiddle around with my router settings as well, maybe thats where the problem lies.



dahuman on 18 December 2012
bananaking21 said:
dahuman said:
bananaking21 said:
dahuman said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
bananaking21 said:
gergroy said:


Responsiveness depends on the sensitivity dial and the amount of processor power used to register that touch. I've seen plenty of shitty capacitive touch devices just as I've seen a lot of shitty resistive, saying one is more responsive than another is kinda weak since you are not supposed to use them the same way.

no, its very well known that capacitve touch screens are miles ahead of resistive touch screens in terms of sensativity. just because you used a crappy capactive touch screen doesnt make them any less superior. fact is wiiU's touch screen is 4 year old tech, simple as that


I won't argue about the Wii U since it does run on older tech even though it's very responsive, but if you broaden the perspective of touch screens in general then you would be incorrect and your information is outdated.

i actually thought about it quite a lot, and the addition of resistive makes no sense other than reducing the price of the gampad. nintendo them selfs claim that the gamepad adds value to gameplay. so there main reason to add the touch screen was to improve gameplay. and we all know in the middle of a game responsivness is VERY important. a quick and slight tap should be able to register a touch. but resistives technology works against that. it needs to feel pressure not a slight touch and that there will harm nintendo's goal to add value to the gameplay

Right, like I said, I won't argue about the Wii U because some people are just not used to it and it does run on more proven tech instead of new tech so I can understand that, but you are coming at me with the Wii U, and that wasn't even my discussion since it was focused on the common misconception that somehow capacitive is a lot better than resistive which has been debunked by the tech demo I posted from 2009 as it is very responsive, very accurate, most likely cheaper to produce, and can work with a brush lol. The weaknesses are that resistive are not covered by a gorilla glass and the requirement for stronger back light.