Idea for Sony and Microsoft to have WiiU-esque controller

[niknar266]

Been meaning to post this for a while the recent steam controller announcement reminded me to do so. So I've only really messed around with the WiiU Controller briefly but I really think it has potential for various new play experiences (How they've not made Pokemon Snap or Fatal Frame for it yet still baffles me). Whether it's devs not wanting to take risks or the WiiU being a bit underpowered in comparison to upcoming PS4 and Xbone. I think MS and Sony could make a WiiU style controller for themselves putting Nintendo in an even worse position than their in just now with WiiU sales.

Several announcements have lead me to this Idea. The first of which was E3 and the use of tablets to interface with games on PS4 and Xbone, Granted most of them I saw seemed to be a map with support features to the main game. The second is iOS 7 with it's lesser known feature native controller support.

The idea this lead me to is a cradle/case for Android (already had controller support) and iOS devices with parts of a XBone/PS controller on it. It would probably only be for 7 inch tablets as I'd imagine it would be too unwieldy for 10 inch tablets. Doing this would lead to developers being able to port games using this style of play to 3 consoles making it less of a financial risk having a bigger market to sell to. I imagine if something like this existed it would only be about the price of controllers today perhaps cheaper as I don't see this needing a battery or possibly vibration. I'm not sure how it would accomodate to various sizes of tablet though. Also having to own a tablet before hand makes it a bit of downside but I imagine with most of the processing being done on the PS4/Xbone really cheap tablets would work fine.

I know something like this will probably never get made I just think it'd be nice. Here's a quick mock up of what I'd think it would look like (looks a bit horrible but only took a few minutes to do).

Spoiler

 

[shootthebandit]

I like the idea that a lot of next gen games will utilise your smart phone/tablet to supplement the normal controller. For example battlefield 4 will allow players with command roles to use the smart phone to call in airstrikes etc without cluttering their normal screen

To me this is the best option. It means you dont have to buy a new peripheral (well 90% of people wont) it would also be optional and used basically as a massively improved UI for certain tasks while maintaining control with the usual control pad

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

Sony do have a controller like the Wii U, its called the PS Vita

 

[Dragonbums]

It wouldn't surprise me.

And I bet you the moment Sony and Microsoft does it it will be alright because reasons.

People, the Wii U gamepad is literally a console version of the Nintendo DS system line.

If you cannot wrap your head around how to utilize a dual screen product that's been out for 8 years, then clearly you are lacking somewhere in the creativity department.

But oh well.

Nintendo will get by how they always do.
They tend to be the unpopular trend setters, that everyone else secretly emulates in the end anyway.

 

[Roxas1359]

Sony do have a controller like the Wii U, its called the PS Vita

Pretty much this. Sony has already said that they are integrating the PS Vita into a lot of things for the PS4 and that the Vita will more than likely act like how the Wii U GamePad is.
I think Microsoft is gonna end up integrating more and more Smart Glass stuff into the Xbox One on their end.

It wouldn't surprise me.

And I bet you the moment Sony and Microsoft does it it will be alright because reasons.

People, the Wii U gamepad is literally a console version of the Nintendo DS system line.

If you cannot wrap your head around how to utilize a dual screen product that's been out for 8 years, then clearly you are lacking somewhere in the creativity department.

But oh well.

Nintendo will get by how they always do.
They tend to be the unpopular trend setters, that everyone else secretly emulates in the end anyway.

While that's true you also have to take into account how many games actually fully utilized the dual screens to their fullest. The ones that come to mind the most are the Zelda games that were on the DS really because those pushed them the most, and the other ones that come to mind are the Jump Super Stars and Ultimate Stars games. Most of the time the second screen was just used as a map, which is not really creative. Hell I hated how they put a map on the bottom screen for the remake of Super Mario 64 because it resulted in the game being made easier when it came to the silver stars.

 

[GoaThief]

Already coming. Sony has Vita/Smart phone support, even the PS3 is getting in on the action with Beyond Two Souls being completely playable from start to finish via iOS/android devices. MS has Smart glass too.

No need for a whole new controller. Definite plus, doesn't make Nintendo seem that cost effective in comparison and no doubt will have a negative effect on the console's image.

 

[Roxas1359]

Even for a traditional Zelda game, the Gamepad is a huge boon. The Wind Waker HD remake is hugely more enjoyable now that you can change items on the fly and look at maps without having to pause the action. It's not a reinvention of the wheel, but sometimes minor improvements can be just as important. I never want to have to pause and bring up the menu to but on my Iron Boots ever again.

I was talking about the DS screen earlier when I meant for Zelda really.
As for Wind Waker U I shall just post this video:
I don't get the game until next Friday because I want the physical version! I know it's good, but no way in hell am I getting it digital since I generally don't like buying things digital because my internet is not the best! >.<

 

[Casual Shinji]

And I bet you the moment Sony and Microsoft does it it will be alright because reasons.

PS Move and Kinect beg to differ.

I can't think of anyone who had anything positive to say about those control methods, even if the Wii beat them to it.

As long as it doesn't interfere with the game and I'm not forced to buy it, they can add as many Vita/tablet/smartphone applications they want.

 

[Hero of Lime]

They usually find a way to mimic Nintendo anyway, besides with the Vita and Smartglass it's already being done anyhow.
I wouldn't even mind much considering I liked the Wii U controller for Pikmin 3, it will probably be nice for Wind Waker HD, and the eventual Zelda U.

Also OP, the Deathscythe avatar is magnificent, I felt compelled to say that.

I never want to have to pause and bring up the menu to but on my Iron Boots ever again.

Probably the best part of Ocarina of Time 3D, I'm so glad they did something similar for WW HD.

 

[BrotherRool]

The problem is game development probably doesn't work like that though. It's why Microsoft made the Kinect mandatory. People work with the hardware and tools available to them, and generally with the big expensive games you want to keep your market as wide open as possible. No-one is going to design games around having the Vita as a peripheral, even if that's 'better' because not 100% of PS4 users have a Vita and it's just busywork unlikely to make the game sell more.

I guess almost 100% of people have a smartphone and the PS4 does allow people to use a smartphone as a WiiU esque controller, so we could see support from there coming up, but I think it would have to be a real improvement on standard gameplay for that to happen.

 

[crazygameguy4ever]

i got cold chills when i saw what your topic was.. why would anyone want a giant, oversized, awkward tablet thing for a controller.. that one of the many, many reasons the will u isn't selling. everyone is fine with regular controllers thank you.

 

[Dragonbums]

Already coming. Sony has Vita/Smart phone support, even the PS3 is getting in on the action with Beyond Two Souls being completely playable from start to finish via iOS/android devices. MS has Smart glass too.

No need for a whole new controller. Definite plus, doesn't make Nintendo seem that cost effective in comparison and no doubt will have a negative effect on the console's image.

I'm confused?... The Wii U is still the cheapest console of the three. And the gamepad is the controller for the system.
This isn't counting the fact that the Wiimote is also compatible with the system.

Since most people who are aware of the Wii U knows it has a gamepad, it can actually damage Sony and Microsoft's reputation because it will be seen as yet another copy cat attempt at doing what Nintendo does. Especially when multiple games on the Wii U can be played and completed purely on the Gamepad if the user so chooses.

 

[redmoretrout]

I don't find the Wii U's concept of a controller appealing at all. Unless your a kid who has to share the TV with his/her parents why would you want to have a inconvenient screen in the middle of your controller? Regular controllers are shaped to accommodate the human hand, a giant screen in the middle of a controller can only distorted that intended shape.

If a new controller for the PS3 came out tomorrow that mimicked the Wii U's controller for 5 dollars, I honestly would not buy it.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

I agree with the Android/iOS streaming concept too but I don't they need a controller housing like Wii U to be effective. It could definitely be cool for tactical multiplayer games which seems to be everyone's first idea for it. Personally, I also like idea of being able to remote and manage my ps4 from my smart phone.

The problem is game development probably doesn't work like that though. It's why Microsoft made the Kinect mandatory. People work with the hardware and tools available to them, and generally with the big expensive games you want to keep your market as wide open as possible. No-one is going to design games around having the Vita as a peripheral, even if that's 'better' because not 100% of PS4 users have a Vita and it's just busywork unlikely to make the game sell more.

I guess almost 100% of people have a smartphone and the PS4 does allow people to use a smartphone as a WiiU esque controller, so we could see support from there coming up, but I think it would have to be a real improvement on standard gameplay for that to happen.

Even then though, just look at the motion controls in the ps3's duel shock controller. Every ps3 owner can use it, yet the only games I can think of that use it are MGS4 and The Last of Us, both of which are exclusives. Personally, I have a little more faith in some developers and think people will develop for peripherals if they think they can do something cool with it. So while I think dev's are excited now for smart glass and ps4 streaming, we'll have to see how it plays out when we actually get the consoles and use those features and if they turn out to be "meh" or worthy of future games.

Since most people who are aware of the Wii U knows it has a gamepad, it can actually damage Sony and Microsoft's reputation because it will be seen as yet another copy cat attempt at doing what Nintendo does. Especially when multiple games on the Wii U can be played and completed purely on the Gamepad if the user so chooses.

Why does it always have to be copying? I was using remote play on my psp to my ps3 way back when the Wii U was a fart in Shigeru Miyamoto's brain. Even then, its not like Sony invented the concept. Its like saying the Oculus Rift is just a copy of the Virtual Boy.

 

[Dragonbums]

I don't find the Wii U's concept of a controller appealing at all. Unless your a kid who has to share the TV with his/her parents why would you want to have a inconvenient screen in the middle of your controller? Regular controllers are shaped to accommodate the human hand, a giant screen in the middle of a controller can only distorted that intended shape.

If a new controller for the PS3 came out tomorrow that mimicked the Wii U's controller for 5 dollars, I honestly would not buy it.

As someone who actually used the gamepad, it doesn't feel uncomfortable at all.

If you can hold your DS just fine, then you can hold the gamepad just as well.

 

[Dragonbums]

Why does it always have to be copying? I was using remote play on my psp to my ps3 way back when the Wii U was a fart in Shigeru Miyamoto's brain. Even then, its not like Sony invented the concept. Its like saying the Oculus Rift is just a copy of the Virtual Boy.

Alright.
Perhaps not a blatant copy, but did Sony really go forward with the idea?

The thing is is that people are brushing it off as inconvenient and stupid, yet a the same time praise how convenient it is to do some of the very features featured on the Wii U gamepad. Now Sony is going back to this same concept and people are not whining nearly as hard enough as they did for the Wii U.

Similar to how nobody looks back to the Virtual Boy, and talk about how it was too far ahead of it's time (yes I am fully aware that thing had a mountain of problems.) Yet are praising the Oculus rift of being the true innovation of gaming. Despite 360 vision being a gimmick in the same league of stereoscopic 3D on the 3DS, motion controls on the Wii/Xbox/PS, and Tablet/TV interface connectivity on the Wii U (even though that's more or less a thing happening now like touch screen more than a gimmick.)

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Alright.
Perhaps not a blatant copy, but did Sony really go forward with the idea?

No. They did not. And I'm probably the only person in world who found a convenient use for it (browsing the Internet before I had a smartphone). Though I would say that was due to the limitations and cost of technology at the time. In 2012, Nintendo was able to put those features in a $350 package. I doubt Sony could have done the same thing 2008.

The thing is is that people are brushing it off as inconvenient and stupid, yet a the same time praise how convenient it is to do some of the very features featured on the Wii U gamepad. Now Sony is going back to this same concept and people are not whining nearly as hard enough as they did for the Wii U.

Similar to how nobody looks back to the Virtual Boy, and talk about how it was too far ahead of it's time (yes I am fully aware that thing had a mountain of problems.) Yet are praising the Oculus rift of being the true innovation of gaming. Despite 360 vision being a gimmick in the same league of stereoscopic 3D on the 3DS, motion controls on the Wii/Xbox/PS, and Tablet/TV interface connectivity on the Wii U (even though that's more or less a thing happening now like touch screen more than a gimmick.)

Its weirdly convenient that you bring this up cause I read an article about the phenomenon I'm about to describe to you like 5 minutes ago. You see, it was about "pushing" and "pulling" technology. Some companies push technology which the equivalent of throwing darts on a board and seeing what sticks. This would be Nintendo who thrust the Wii's motion controls and the Wii U's tablet gamepad onto consumers without really knowing what to do with them. And what did we get? Well with the Wii, Nintendo did some interesting things with it but it never amounted to much. Metroid Prime 3 motion stuff was cool but I could have played the whole game on a completely different system and never lost any of the game's content. Nintendo's did the same damn thing with the Virtual Boy and the 3DS. They are gimmicks and they are useless. If I buy a 3DS it'll be because there are few games I want to play on that aren't on my vita and phone, not because the 3D enhances any of the games (I'd turn it off anyway. It makes sick). The same thing is happening with the Wii U. They threw a tablet controller into the market and there isn't a whole lot of use or need for it outside streaming games

Now onto "pull" technology. Pull technology creates features to solve the needs of users and attract customers. This is Nintendo when they decided to use the analog stick on the N64. There was a need for better movement in 3D games and Nintendo came up with a solution while still hanging onto the D-Pad just in case. And what do you know? We're using it today cause it solved that need pretty well and pulled technology and gaming forward. This is also what Oculus Rift are doing with their headset. If it actually makes you feel like you're in a virtual room, then you can't get that experience playing the same game on a tv or a hand held. I may not have used one, but the people who have seem to be really excited about it

As for Sony and Microsoft's steaming, I guess its not really pull technology either. But unlike the Wii U, they aren't selling it to us so we can be their paying Guinea pigs either. Its just a free feature that a part their boxes because it's easy to add

 

[Dragonbums]

Alright.
Perhaps not a blatant copy, but did Sony really go forward with the idea?

No. They did not. And I'm probably the only person in world who found a convenient use for it (browsing the Internet before I had a smartphone). Though I would say that was due to the limitations and cost of technology at the time. In 2012, Nintendo was able to put those features in a $350 package. I doubt Sony could have done the same thing 2008.

The thing is is that people are brushing it off as inconvenient and stupid, yet a the same time praise how convenient it is to do some of the very features featured on the Wii U gamepad. Now Sony is going back to this same concept and people are not whining nearly as hard enough as they did for the Wii U.

Similar to how nobody looks back to the Virtual Boy, and talk about how it was too far ahead of it's time (yes I am fully aware that thing had a mountain of problems.) Yet are praising the Oculus rift of being the true innovation of gaming. Despite 360 vision being a gimmick in the same league of stereoscopic 3D on the 3DS, motion controls on the Wii/Xbox/PS, and Tablet/TV interface connectivity on the Wii U (even though that's more or less a thing happening now like touch screen more than a gimmick.)

Its weirdly convenient that you bring this up cause I read an article about the phenomenon I'm about to describe to you like 5 minutes ago. You see, it was about "pushing" and "pulling" technology. Some companies push technology which the equivalent of throwing darts on a board and seeing what sticks. This would be Nintendo who thrust the Wii's motion controls and the Wii U's tablet gamepad onto consumers without really knowing what to do with them. And what did we get? Well with the Wii, Nintendo did some interesting things with it but it never amounted to much. Metroid Prime 3 motion stuff was cool but I could have played the whole game on a completely different system and never lost any of the game's content. Nintendo's did the same damn thing with the Virtual Boy and the 3DS. They are gimmicks and they are useless. If I buy a 3DS it'll be because there are few games I want to play on that aren't on my vita and phone, not because the 3D enhances any of the games (I'd turn it off anyway. It makes sick). The same thing is happening with the Wii U. They threw a tablet controller into the market and there isn't a whole lot of use or need for it outside streaming games

Now onto "pull" technology. Pull technology creates features to solve the needs of users and attract customers. This is Nintendo when they decided to use the analog stick on the N64. There was a need for better movement in 3D games and Nintendo came up with a solution while still hanging onto the D-Pad just in case. And what do you know? We're using it today cause it solved that need pretty well and pulled technology and gaming forward. This is also what Oculus Rift are doing with their headset. If it actually makes you feel like you're in a virtual room, then you can't get that experience playing the same game on a tv or a hand held. I may not have used one, but the people who have seem to be really excited about it

As for Sony and Microsoft's steaming, I guess its not really pull technology either. But unlike the Wii U, they aren't selling it to us so we can be their paying Guinea pigs either. Its just a free feature that a part their boxes because it's easy to add

But all of that rests on the views of what you deem as a "gimmick" or innovation.

Just as many people were excited for the Wii motion controls as there were people who didn't care.

Some people will be excited for Oculus Rift, and others will see it as a big useless gimmick that will probably make them throw up in the first 10 minutes of use.

You can't really say the OR is truly innovation the same way you can say the motion controls were stupid because that is completely subjective to who your talking to.

I personally do not see myself using the Oculus Rift. As much as I like to immerse myself in gaming, I also enjoy still being able to keep track of my surroundings in real life. I don't like the feeling of being completely blocked off from the outside world.

Similarly some people do not like moving around just do do things. Again that is completely subjective.

Nobody asked for the Wii motion controls, but then nobody asked for 360 vision in videogames either. I never asked for it. But some people are excited. And that's fine.
However I think this will never become mainstream in any way.
Because it has a whole lot more stacked against it. Oculus Rift has to deal with people who are easily disoriented, get motion sickness easily, those prone to headaches, etc.

What is the Wii motion controls up against? People who don't feel like lifting their arms.

People keep toting this around like it's the next best thing since analog sticks when I really don't see that happening at all. Analog sticks can be practically used by anyone (sans those with disabilities, and illnesses) Oculus Rift is a gimmick/innovation/ whatever you want to call it, that will only really work for a certain group of people, and will only appeal to a certain demographic.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

But all of that rests on the views of what you deem as a "gimmick" or innovation.

Just as many people were excited for the Wii motion controls as there were people who didn't care.

Some people will be excited for Oculus Rift, and others will see it as a big useless gimmick that will probably make them throw up in the first 10 minutes of use.

You can't really say the OR is truly innovation the same way you can say the motion controls were stupid because that is completely subjective to who your talking to.

I personally do not see myself using the Oculus Rift. As much as I like to immerse myself in gaming, I also enjoy still being able to keep track of my surroundings in real life. I don't like the feeling of being completely blocked off from the outside world.

Similarly some people do not like moving around just do do things. Again that is completely subjective.

Nobody asked for the Wii motion controls, but then nobody asked for 360 vision in videogames either. I never asked for it. But some people are excited. And that's fine.
However I think this will never become mainstream in any way.
Because it has a whole lot more stacked against it. Oculus Rift has to deal with people who are easily disoriented, get motion sickness easily, those prone to headaches, etc.

What is the Wii motion controls up against? People who don't feel like lifting their arms.

People keep toting this around like it's the next best thing since analog sticks when I really don't see that happening at all. Analog sticks can be practically used by anyone (sans those with disabilities, and illnesses) Oculus Rift is a gimmick/innovation/ whatever you want to call it, that will only really work for a certain group of people, and will only appeal to a certain demographic.

Well the Oculus Rift was crowd funded so there was huge interest for it but I guess we could never know if a kickstarter for a Wii-like console would ever have gathered interest. Regardless, the Oculus Rift is a reaction to the desire of many consumers. It's not a product that was throw into the market. Whether it innovates or becomes mainstream is up in the air at this point. I don't know if I'd get one but some of the possibilities I've read for it tickle my fancy.

As for what the Wii's motion controls were up against, it's not just moving you're arms, it's the fact that it doesn't improve anything. Instead of "Wow look at this amazing range of commands I'm able to do with just my arms!" we simply got button replacements. Press X to not die simply became Waggle Up to not die. Maybe you could blame lazy developers but the Wii's tech wasn't there yet to give us great controls (but Nintendo gave it us anyway) and most devs probably realized that motion controls weren't what they were cracked up to be outside of sword fighting games

As for deciding what's a gimmick and what isn't, I'm simply saying that there is a pattern for products to be good if they give us something we want rather than experiment on consumers