Wii U: Iwata Says: Multiple Tablets "Technically Possible."

[Crazybone126]

Ever since E3 2011, there's been a lot of confusion about whether the Wii U can support multiple Wii U tablet controllers on one console. There's also been many statements from Nintendo representatives that also confused many people.

Nintendo president, Satoru Iwata, has commented on the confusion and said, "Technically, it is possible for the Wii U to support multiple Wii U Controllers."

But due to this being a considerable price to the customer and with Nintendo not planning on having people buying more controllers, the focus is primarily on one."

Source: N-Europe (http://www.n-europe.com/news.php?nid=15779)

[Viper]

My concerns have been price and wireless communication method. The low latency suggests it's pretty recent technology but most of them still get bogged down pretty quickly with multiple connections.

[Segitz]

The easiest way to do it well would be to simply use 2 connections. They already use bluetooth for their controllers, so... keep using it. And the video will be transmitted on an independent connection. Make input latency independent of video. And even if the video feed cuts out, controls could still work (when having interference, for example). To be honest, I think it's pretty bold for them to do a wireless live low latency video feed. Not a lot of devices can do that. Most devices can play video, but only stored on device or with aggressive buffering, which makes low latency go bust (had to program a mp3 streaming app last semester, which had the ability to synchronize several clients via click... it was hell to get the synchronization right, but it was mostly because we had to use java software sockets, which aren't as flexible as say C++ or so on).

[Fallax]

I think Nintendo plans on selling the controller however not making games themselves that require more then one at the start. http://wii.ign.com/articles/117/1177013p1.html Read his comments.

[Viper]

I just read a report that it can technically handle 4 Wii U controllers. I don't know if this just means the wireless protocol, the video feed, the horsepower of the machine, etc....but it's a better thought than before when 1 was all there was.

I still love the idea of asynchronous multiplayer but if you can do both asynchronous and synchronous...all the better.

[frosty]

The Wii U controller has all the buttons and analog sticks you'd expect to find on a console controller, but it also sports accelerometers and a large touch screen in the middle of it, which can display data streamed from the console. Speaking to Japanese business site Diamond Online, Nintendo boss Satoru Iwata said, while the Wii U could technically support multiple controllers, it would raise costs quite considerably. Nintendo wasn't planning to ask its customers to buy more than one controller anyway, Iwata added.

There you have it. No multiple Wii U controllers. In other words, while the hardware could stream to more than one controller, the interface to do that streaming would raise costs too high (plus the expense of the additional controllers themselves). This is why I think they made a big mistake with that controller.

[Viper]

Do you know how back and forth they are on this issue? Hell man, look at the start of this thread. Look at the quote I just gave you in the other thread.

No multiple Wii U controllers isn't final at all. It's all a matter of accepting the costs that would place on gamers. That's it.

[SadPanda]

My question is would they have to add additional radios to the Wii u to allow multiple uPads? If that would be the case I could see that expense adding up. Esp if they want to hit a 249.99 price.

[Crazybone126]

My question is would they have to add additional radios to the Wii u to allow multiple uPads? If that would be the case I could see that expense adding up. Esp if they want to hit a 249.99 price.

I can assure you, they are NOT going to be hitting the 249.99 range. Nintendo probably plans to sell the console for 300-400 dollars.

Edit: I HOPE that's what their goal is. We don't need a 2006 PS3 again.

[SadPanda]

I can assure you, they are NOT going to be hitting the 249.99 range. Nintendo probably plans to sell the console for 300-400 dollars.

Edit: I HOPE that's what their goal is. We don't need a 2006 PS3 again.

We still don't have finalized specs. As far as Wii know Nintendo might be willing to take a loss on each console to get them sold before the NextBox and PS4 come out.

[Viper]

We don't even know which wireless protocol they are using but Nintendo is saying that it is already technically possible so that's apparently not an issue.

[frosty]

What they meant was the Wii U is technically able to handle rendering to multiple tablets, but the cost of including the tech to stream to another tablet would be prohibitive. That, and they weren't planning on asking their customers to have to purchase more than one of these expensive controllers.

[TEEDA]

One thing which troubled me about Wii U. They said that there will be one controller per bundle for the moment. Not being able to buy an extra WiiUpad outside the box is kinda frustrating.
So what If your Wiiupad gets screwed up and you have to get it back to the after-sales service only for a controller ? Could be kinda messy for a consumer. I do think they should sell it separately maybe not in stores but online.
Hope Inntendo will find a solution bout that.

[frosty]

I didn't think about that... The dog chewing up your controller or your kid spilling their drink on the controller would become a very huge headache. Not as simple as just running to Gamestop and getting another one.

[Segitz]

Well... it's not so much fun today anymore either... 60€ for a DS3 is just a joke. And no, I do NOT buy third party gamepads. I know this is MSRP, bit still, they only go on sale very seldom.

Also... gaming, at least for me, has always been quite an expensive hobby. All things considered, I still think PC gaming is a lot cheaper. Yes, the hardware can easily be double what a day one console costs, but each and every guy you buy is at least 10€ cheaper... and sales often let prices fall as low as 5€, which simply never happens for consoles...

Look at me... I am ranting again.

[Viper]

TEEDA, Nintendo is well known for being fantastic with hardware customer service. I had a GC well out of warranty when my youngest son accidentally spilled kool-aid on it. I called Nintendo and they gave it a warranty extension and I received another GC in 4 days at no charge...not even shipping.

If a single Wii U pad is going to be the direction they take, I can assure you that their customer service on the issue will be top notch.

However, it seems more and more likely every day that multiple pads are going to be offered. Finding the right balance on price is probably something they'll mull over for the next few weeks and then inform 3rd parties of the solution (since they need to know first for development purposes) and then TGS will probably have all the details for us.

[Segitz]

Those pads have to retails for at least 100€, if not more. I'd guess it's more. That's probably also the reason why they didn't intend to sell them individually (or rather, just one per system).

[Fallax]

Those pads have to retails for at least 100€, if not more. I'd guess it's more. That's probably also the reason why they didn't intend to sell them individually (or rather, just one per system).

I would say $85 at least. If it costs 60 dollars to make, add $24 to it and u get 84 (currently Nintendo enjoys $24 profit after hardware costs). I don't know what that is in euro's though ...

[frosty]

f a single Wii U pad is going to be the direction they take, I can assure you that their customer service on the issue will be top notch.

You still have the issue of losing your console for as much as a week or two over a dead controller. Controllers are the one component of a console that die the most. Not being able to go out and buy another one when one dies will still be a huge pain in the ass no matter how good their customer service is.


However, it seems more and more likely every day that multiple pads are going to be offered.

I'm not seeing the same based on what I'm reading. Nintendo has never been a company to pass on high cost to their customers, and I'm willing to bet that if they do go the multi-controller route, the console's CPU/GPU/RAM configuration will suffer. We don't know how much that extra radio for XMT/RCV of the controllers costs, but it's obviously a high enough price for them to give pause to the one feature that would make their console a revolutionary multiplayer experience. You know good and well multiplayer was one of the first things you thought of when you first saw the controller. I know it was for them as well, so to even mention having to scrap that it had to be one hell of a prohibitive cost.

Looking around on the net, the average price of an iphone replacement screen is around $100 for the screen and touch panel assembly. This is a smaller screen than is on the Wii U controller. We'll assume a 50% profit markup, so we'll say hard costs are $50. Then we have to put in the camera, microphone, buttons, and whatever wireless system being used (we'll assume bluetooth). You can find webcams for as cheap as $10 for a half decent one, we'll assume the camera costs Nintendo $5. We'll assume the bluetooth transmitter costs them another $5. This is the accelerometer used in the Wiimote. (http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9269) They want $20 for 100+ of them, so we'll assume that Nintendo is paying $5 for their parts (yes, they order millions, but there has to be a base cost they can't go below). The gyro is a similar story (http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9793) (motion plus, also in Wii U's remote). Another $5. Toss in some speakers and an amp to power them and a mic, another $5. Then another $2-3 for the battery. This isn't counting the costs of the boards that join all these parts together. Already, with our very conservative estimate, we have a controller who's factory hard costs are in the $60-80 range ($60 being VEEEEEERY conservative, damn near impossible). You're looking at a controller which after getting marked up by Nintendo for profit, then marked up by the retailer for profit, will exceed $100-120.

Judging by Nintendo's remarks about the console aspect of multiple controllers being cost prohibitive to have more than one (Iwata was sure to specify both the console and controller side are too high priced, so it's obviously the tech they're using to connect them that is costly), and the limitations of bluetooth, I'm inclined to believe that it is not bluetooth they are using to stream data to and from the controller. So, those price estimates above could be way higher depending on that.

[Fallax]

We don't know. That's just it. He said they would consider games with multiple controllers in the future. I don't think they can consider it if the Wii U can't handle it. But I still think the only reason they are saying all these confusing things is because they never considered it until E3.

[Viper]

You still have the issue of losing your console for as much as a week or two over a dead controller. Controllers are the one component of a console that die the most. Not being able to go out and buy another one when one dies will still be a huge pain in the ass no matter how good their customer service is.
That's new to me. Must be a Nintendo thing. I've had 24 Nintendo controls pads since the NES days. Only 2 have ever failed and both were from cord damage.



I'm not seeing the same based on what I'm reading. Nintendo has never been a company to pass on high cost to their customers, and I'm willing to bet that if they do go the multi-controller route, the console's CPU/GPU/RAM configuration will suffer. We don't know how much that extra radio for XMT/RCV of the controllers costs, but it's obviously a high enough price for them to give pause to the one feature that would make their console a revolutionary multiplayer experience. You know good and well multiplayer was one of the first things you thought of when you first saw the controller. I know it was for them as well, so to even mention having to scrap that it had to be one hell of a prohibitive cost.

Looking around on the net, the average price of an iphone replacement screen is around $100 for the screen and touch panel assembly. This is a smaller screen than is on the Wii U controller. We'll assume a 50% profit markup, so we'll say hard costs are $50. Then we have to put in the camera, microphone, buttons, and whatever wireless system being used (we'll assume bluetooth). You can find webcams for as cheap as $10 for a half decent one, we'll assume the camera costs Nintendo $5. We'll assume the bluetooth transmitter costs them another $5. This is the accelerometer used in the Wiimote. (http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9269) They want $20 for 100+ of them, so we'll assume that Nintendo is paying $5 for their parts (yes, they order millions, but there has to be a base cost they can't go below). The gyro is a similar story (http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9793) (motion plus, also in Wii U's remote). Another $5. Toss in some speakers and an amp to power them and a mic, another $5. Then another $2-3 for the battery. This isn't counting the costs of the boards that join all these parts together. Already, with our very conservative estimate, we have a controller who's factory hard costs are in the $60-80 range ($60 being VEEEEEERY conservative, damn near impossible). You're looking at a controller which after getting marked up by Nintendo for profit, then marked up by the retailer for profit, will exceed $100-120.

Judging by Nintendo's remarks about the console aspect of multiple controllers being cost prohibitive to have more than one (Iwata was sure to specify both the console and controller side are too high priced, so it's obviously the tech they're using to connect them that is costly), and the limitations of bluetooth, I'm inclined to believe that it is not bluetooth they are using to stream data to and from the controller. So, those price estimates above could be way higher depending on that.
Everything I'm reading right now says otherwise.

And while you can claim that it's against Nintendo's nature for X, look at what they are doing with the console to begin with. Many things that are against their nature. Also the fact that they are trying to appease 3rd parties far more than they have in decades suggest that if 3rd parties push for multiple Wii U pads, the chances of the console supporting multiple Wii U pads goes up.

And since we don't know the final hardware (In fact, I write a report just days ago that devs are getting upgraded Wii U dev kits next month), we can't say how many it will be able to handle to begin with. And with Iwata and Reggie both already stating it can technically handle more than one already, what's the concern?

[frosty]

Well we all know the system itself can render to more than one, that's no different than split screen in concept. The hurdle they face seems to be with the connectivity cost.

We'll see. I'll say this much, this is definitely one of the more interesting and risky moves for them. They've put out a big white question mark box, almost as if they're trying to watch our reaction and speculation to decide what to answer those ?'s with. What they are able to do will be interesting to see... and even more interesting is what they are willing to do.

Nintendo has always stuck to their guns pretty well. The third party thing is a good start, but they have a lot of tradition to break before they're where they need to be.

[Viper]

I hear 2 sides to the connectivity thing. And my initial speculation sided with the group that says more than 1 unit won't be easy or cheap. But I see another group that talks of certain protocols that can apparently support multiple units like this and isn't too hard to too costly.

It goes back to none of us knowing but it does suggest it can be possible depending on which protocol they are using. Better still is the fact it is early enough in development that if they wanted to switch protocols, they could without it delaying the launch.

[Segitz]

My question is... "radiowaves" need to be shared. The 2.4 Ghz band (or 5Ghz for that matter, but that has a LOT less range) is not big. Given that you have to transfer a 800x480 (or thereabouts) video, which mustn't be compressed too much, to each device, the bandwidth is a big concern. If it indeed uses one of the two frequency bands, it also has to fight for airtime with Wifi and bluetooth, which won't make it any better, and I highly doubt Nintendo will use a different, expensive, frequency band. And this is just talking about one device. Enabling 4 is just insanely more complex, especially if all 4 tablets have to display different framebuffers.

I am not saying it's impossible (it isn't), but it will be very hard to make it work in ALL households, with all kinds of interferences ... interfering.

[Viper]

That's why we need to wait and see which protocol they are using. Some would work OK while other snot so much.

Look at the various protocols and functions of Wireless HDMI. That in itself is not a specific protocol but covers the names ad functions of protocols from Sony, LG, Philips and a dozen others for high bandwidth wireless data transmission that would work for this purpose.

[TimmyJ]

There's been mention of the controllers being prohibitively expensive, and I really don't think that's likely to be the case when you consider Guitar Hero style peripherals that people were willing to buy for one game. The WiiU controller has plenty of applications (obviously) and should be a better value proposition for customers - certainly enough for them to buy a second a few months after launch.

Also, two controllers per console seems like a reasonable limit to me:
- for the technical reason of only having to stream 2 video feeds
- for the technical reason of only having to render/buffer 2 480x800 images and a 1920x1080 image.
- for the practical reason that I know shit loads of people with 2 controllers but barely any with 3 or 4 (anecdotal and of limited worth, I know, but tell me I'm wrong).
- for the practical reason that 2-player splitscreen is generally more palatable than 4-player splitscreen (and, therefore, 3-player splitscreen) and 4-player games would be completely possible with 2 controllers and a 2-player splitscreen configuration.
- for the practical reason that asymmetrical multiplayer would be completely possible with such a setup, but so would 1v1 games. This would also be fairly easy for developers given that they could render 2 feeds, and have 1 stream to a WiiU controller and the other stream to either the TV or a second WiiU controller - such a configuration would be available to everyone with a WiiU but would be even better for those with a second controller.