Nintendo Confirms Only One Touchscreen Controller Per Wii U Console
![Nintendo Confirms Only One Touchscreen Controller Per Wii U Console [Iwata Tells Japanese Website That Wii U Controller Is Too Expensive To Sell By Itself, Adds That They Will Only Allow One Per Console, How Expensive Is The Wii U Controller Exactly?]](http://tftscdn.nexus404.com/Blog/thumbnailimages/alt/Nintendo-Wii-U-Console-Generic-ImageTFTSThumb220153.jpg)
Some disappointing news coming out of Japan today. Nintendo President Satoru Iwata told Japanese language website Diamond Online that the Wii U will only be able to use one of those great big touchscreen controllers. What gives? Iwata says it’s because of cost, not because of any hardware limitations.
According to Iwata, the Wii U could support multiple touchscreen controllers, but the controllers are too expensive to sell alone, and they’re only going to ship one controller per console. Alas, only one controller per Wii U. This, in my mind, is a huge letdown. It even makes you rethink some of what Nintendo said during the press conference at E3.
They said for example, that during football games you could pick plays with the touchscreen. This is something that the Dreamcast tried with the little Visual Memory Unit (VMU) memory card. But, if you have just one controller, where’s the fun? Football games on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 already handle that by showing multiple plays on the screen and corresponding them to different buttons. And if you’re playing online, who cares if you pick the plays on screen. What I’m driving at, is that this extremely disappointing.
It makes you wonder how much exactly those Wii U controllers will cost. A 6-inch LCD display is not cheap, has evidenced by the prices of smartphones and tablets with 4- and 5-inch displays. What if you break your controller? Will Nintendo give you another one for free? It’s odd to imagine a world where a video game hardware manufacturer won’t sell you new controllers, in new colors, in new styles, etc.
Only one Wii U controller per console, does this disappoint you?
Credit: Source.Nintendo Already Working on Application & Game Marketplace for Upcoming Wii U Gaming Console System & Controller
Sprint’s Dan Hesse Ready to Give Up Part of His Salary As Carrier Is Hit by Expensive iPhone Subsidy
Reports Suggest That Apple May Be Working On An External Gaming Controller
Valve's Steam Box Actually Does Exist, But It Isn't A Game Console Like Many People Think It Is
Volition's Jameson Durall Explains Why A Console That Prohibits Pre-Owned Games Is A Quality Concept
Valve Rumored to Make a Play for the Console Business, Are the Xbox 360, PS3 & Wii in Danger?
2 Comments / Add Your Response?
Breaking News
The TFTS Team
The screen might be expensive, but they don’t have to use top of the line screens. They don’t use top of the line anything else. Why start with the screens. They have to stop thinking profit on everything day one. If they sold them at cost, it wouldn’t be much of a problem. Even if they took a small hit in the beginning. If they used it right, they could make it worth their while. But limiting it to one screen is a mistake. Apple pays $127 (according to iSupply) for a top of the line 9.7 in screen. Nintendo should be able to get a 6 in screen for less than $50. Chart $69 for the thing. The console shouldn’t really be more than $299. Considering it’s mostly old teach, $250 might be more like it. If that’s the case, sell it for $299-350 and include two tablets. It’s called bundling Nintendo.
This is BS! The only motive here can be hiding information from the consumer, which is both insulting and indicative of a lack of confidence. Even if the controller costs $199, there is no reason why this should matter to a rational person who was willing to buy a Wii U – controller bundle for price X, except if they are more likely to break the controller than the console. Then they will need another controller as a “replacement part”, and since this will in fact happen to some people, the price will get out anyway from the mouths of the frustrated people who had to pay it by necessity rather than by choice. A lack of transparency is bad enough, but enforcing a faux-egalitarianism by denying multi-tablet functionality to those who could afford it is suicide! The whole point of this system is (or should be) to scale from the casual to the hardcore gamer. Nintendo is already focusing on the latter demographic by building a higher powered system and refusing to release games for smartphones (casual platforms). This ensures that by alienating hardcore gamers, Nintendo will be shooting itself not in the foot, but in the heart. Are you listening to me Nintendo?