no, don't play offscreen, just use the screen for random stuff like inventory or map, ect.

having it hd would reduce battery time, speaking of which i need to buy the battery pack that came avaiable not too long ago.

Yeah I would. I'd pay 100-150 bucks for an HD gamepad. I'd settle for WiiU to support 2 Gamepads at the same time too. It totally blows playing Nintendo Land without a Gamepad.

What Nintendo needs to do with the gamepad is as follows - Secondary gamepads need to have more hardware in them, so they tax the Wii U not at all and can provide the power to do the processing for the unit (as opposed to the Wii U doing all the work), also allowing whole house movement (distance is nice, but if I turn a corner, I could loose signal). Then I would get a "2nd player" gamepad, or upgrade the unit.

It'd depend on the price but I'd consider it.

I think the better question is if you had the option would you purchase a console without the screenpad and pay less overall.

I dunno, honestly the graphical fidelity on the Gamepad already looks fine. It may not be "HD", but the graphics look very crisp on it regardless.

I quite like playing my games on the Gamepad every now and then. 80% of my Black Ops II multiplayer time is spent on the Gamepad while something else is playing on tv. I'd definitely be interested in an upgrade but it would depend on things like price, how big the improvement is, whether or not the battery is improved or at least the same, etc.

No I have only been using it for a couple days but the Gamepad sucks imho and is not comfortable to hold.

God no, to be honest i hate myself for actually support the gamepad idea with my money.

The Gamepad goes through the 5GHz wifi band due to its higher bandwidth and less interference but it's limited by range. The 2.4GHz band has the range advantage but the other are CONS.

I think the Gamepad uses miracast.. wifi-direct, but not really sure.