We don't demand gamepad functionality in general, we demand quality games that have actual effort put into them.

If a game has a natural, obvious gamepad usage that will undoubtedly and significantly improve gameplay, and the game doesn't have it, then clearly the developer couldn't be bothered to think about what they were doing, and thus clearly didn't put effort into development.

If gamepad functionality would just be a tacked on feature with minimal positive impact on the gameplay, then we don't need it. That said, a bit of gamepad functionality of the most basic kind, the sort that requires minutes, rather than weeks, of coding (you know, like just making the map that would otherwise appear in the corner of the TV screen appear on the gamepad instead), should happen anyway.

Basically, we want games to be as good as they can reasonably be. If the developer doesn't want to make the best game that they can, then why should we expect the game's quality to be decent?

In the case of Minecraft, there is a blatantly obvious way that the gamepad can be used to make the game far smoother; they didn't do it. It's not even something they'd need to spend much time working on. Yet their response when asked about possible gamepad usage, their response was "Not at the moment, sorry. It's just used as an alternate screen if someone is using the TV. Would be cool though. :)". Stop and think about what that says to us - there was an obvious way to improve the game, that the dev felt "would be cool" to have in the game (in other words, it would make it a better game), but hadn't bothered to implement.

By comparison, Pikmin 3 uses the gamepad for a map, and touch functionality to handle input of where to throw pikmin, independently. It's quite a minimal usage, but there's little more that you'd want to do with the gamepad in that game. And some games don't even go as far as to use it for touch functionality - just a map in some cases; but that's all they really need to do. Why? Because anything more would just add more development time, without improving the game in any substantial way.

Nintendo always want to make something innovative that later on becomes a burden as time and time goes by. Because a game shouldn't need a gimmick in order to feel special.

the gamepad was a cash in

It's not the Nintendo fans' fault that everyone hates on Nintendo and releases subpar games on Wii U.

Third parties should not be forced to utilize the game pad if there is no obvious use.

There was an INCREDIBLY obvious use for the game pad in Minecraft.

that was just BS to justify the low sales of the games

Off-screen play is simple to add-in and is a viable use of the gamepad.

3rd parties should use the gamepad in atleast this capability and then if the game *could* do something else... like minecraft's toolbox functionality, then they should add that as it just makes sense. But, if the game has not obvious gamepad enhancement, just do off-tv support and toss the game out.

I don't see the conflict really. What fans say is that you don't have to do something special. You don't have to do change game mechanics to have a special use gamepad. Batman didn't need functionality to use scanning by looking at gamepad. Leave it the same as other consoles. 3rd parties felt they had to not consumers asking for it.

Hell even Nintendo doesn't add special gamepad functionality to all of its games. Just use the built-in functionality and allow off-tv play. That in itself provides value above other consoles.

A smarter thing to do would have been to offer better terms to devs/publishers who use the gamepad well rather than just disqualify so many games.

Carrots and sticks are better for maintaining long term relationships with 3rd parties rather than dictatorial communication.

I get what Nintendo was trying to do but they hurt their cause when they communicate their wishes in such a fashion.

The only real functionality i want out of the gamepad is to use it for off screen play and anything beyond that is icing on top of the cake.

I fail to see the relevance of this topic TBH.

This isn't really an issue, I don't see for every game Nintendo gamers saying they want gamepad features lol.

For games like Minecraft where you have to build shit, it makes logical sense for people to question why they didn't do it.

This is like the Wii all over again. People were upset with Capcom for doing onrail shooters because they saw how awesome RE4 was. They wanted RE5 and RE6 because of the controls. They didn't give a shit about gfx.