Serebii

It would surprise me, greatly. Nintendo know full well that Pokémon is handheld for a reason.

Good god man :p

I can promise you that this is fake

Yes you can and yes it does

Yes, you are. You are responding to me, twisting my words to mean what they didn't. I am always very clear with what I say, and you just respond as if I said something completely different in an attempt to criticise or discredit me. Please desist. Out of respect for @Ashley and this forum, I've thrown you on my ignore list so petty arguments and word twisting does not occur.

I said the concept, not the only thing they showed off. You keep twisting my words.

You seem to overestimate how many people actually do have multiple TV. Plus, those that do, will they really unplug everything and shift it upstairs when their significant other wants to watch Celebrity Dancing with Pandas on ice? Off-TV Play was the original concept behind the GamePad, and that then moved into the multiplayer, but the original idea was off-tv play. For me, having it on the screen seems a bit more organic, for lack of a better word. You can still see what's going on and/or control the game, but you can check the map. However, using a pause menu, and you're stuck on that and can't really negotiate the situation better. Imagine you're hunting for something...let's go for Treasure on Wind Waker. Normally, you'd have the map, and you'd constantly be pausing to see if you're near it. Here, you can see when you're close on the GamePad, and even manipulate your course if necessary to get into perfect position. Can you do it with a pause menu? Sure. Does that mean it's better, and that we shouldn't bother trying to change things up? I don't believe so.

So, would you rather Nintendo shoehorn the features in where they may not belong? Nintendo did set out how they were going to use it. The entire concept behind it originally was Off-TV Play. They achieved this, even DKC:TF has it. The other things are extras. Problem is, for many, that isn't enough. Besides, they said they're doubling down on GamePad unique features for games in the upcoming line-ups at the Investor Meeting, so it's not "completely irrelevant"

I never said people weren't entitled to their opinions. Please do not paint me as someone like that. Though, I do disagree with his use of the term nobody in his tweets. It happens here a lot. Just because a person does not like something or does not see the worth, does not mean everyone has the same view.

Second screen map & inventory has really been revolutionary for me. It has changed the entire way games are played and increased immersion for me. It's just awesome. Going back to having to navigate shoddy menus which have a short period from pressing the button and seeing the map (such as Assassin's Creed, GTA V etc.) just feels so unintuitive That really isn't true. I wasn't happy that they were shutting WFC down, even though I completely understand why they are doing it. Doing something amazingly new and unique is not necessarily the perfect embodiment of the GamePad. As explained above, the minor things are where the GamePad excels, not features shoehorned in just because the GamePad exists.

It may be "barely more powerful", but there's a lot more tech in the overall package and it's disingenuous, and insulting to Nintendo to claim it's not balanced. You may not like the GamePad, but there's some decent tech in there and that has increased the cost. Nintendo clearly felt the cost was justified for the GamePad experience. Personally, I agree that it was justfied. The GamePad has revolutionised gaming for me and I struggle to go back to standard controllers and their cumbersome menu systems. Besides, it is technically worth it, hence how come it is being sold at a loss. If they were gaining a big profit with the Wii U at this price, then yeah you'd have a point, but nope. They got the balance and it's damaging the company a little in doing so. Unfortunately, it's just not the balance that many consumers and developers were hoping.

Did you not see that my post was referring to a hypothetical scenario, not the current one?

Yeah, I know. However, it has soured me on it somewhat. If the gameplay is much the same, I'm out.

Ah well. Nintendo will never have sufficient third party support, anyway. I'm 100% certain that, even if they did everything right, and it sold well, third parties would find excuses not to do it. Third party games seldom excite me, anyway. Got bored of Arkham Origins half way through, even though I loved Arkham City. Indie games are my current love at the moment. Have to get a hard drive for my Wii U soon. Starting to run out of space.

Which was inspired by San Francisco and New York :p

To be fair, that game isn't coming out on 360/PS3, to which the Wii U is closer in terms of specs so you can see the reasoning, no matter how much it sucks

One which is celebrated but isn't necessarily a day off

Not quite. The way the 3DS plays GBA games isn't the best thing. It's unable to do software emulation so does it via the hardware, loading the game into the console's RAM, locking out all features of the console just so it can be played. There are also issues with doing emulation this way.

Germany had a pseudo holiday yesterday so that's why we didn't have it

On the contrary sir, I fully understand the industry and commercial reality. I just don't follow hyperbolic PR fluff. However, out of respect for @Ashley and this forum, I shall not continue this further. It's a circular argument that we have been down many times.

Ah, fair enough. Still, MS and Sony have screwed with the model. Combined, they sold over 160 million units last gen, and overall neither came out at a large profit. They both had ridiculous losses. That is not sustainable business. The development part of the industry has also suffered similar issues. Sure, some due to bad budgeting, but it's got the a ridiculous point. The PS4 is the most likely one to buck this trend, but really it's just a mid-range PC using off the shelf parts with a unique operating system. Is that really how gaming should be now? Just drop an extra £50 and you can get a fairly decent PC that can do better (My PC was £500 and is more powerful than the PS4) Isn't Ground Zero a one hour long "game" for over £30? I don't see that as a reason to buy a PS4, I see that as a reason to think that the industry is in dire straits.

Unlike all the others? So the 360 and PS3 weren't sold at a loss? They haven't even broken even if memory served.

But would people not find it logical to get it at the times the games they want come out? Chances are the console would be cheaper then, too. Yes, the future prospects have got a factor in it, but it's not a large part. I would support a Pokémon spin-off that fully uses the NFC feature, would be huge. However, so would the collection: 885 figures, $10 a figure, that's $8,850 on figures. Factor in shinies and it gets ridiculous. Nintendo are a bit too moral to inflict that on kids and parents.

I said profit eventually, not profit right now. Jeez.

Exactly. The Wii U will plod along, as a relatively niche console, eventually turning a nice, albeit small, profit. Its lineup is already top-notch, and there is much more to come. It'll be remembered in years to come as a massively under-rated console. Then, in 2016/2017, Nintendo will come out full force and hopefully change the tide. Bring gaming back to how it should be. No wanting to be screwed by microtransactions, bad ports, horrific paywalls and ridiculous policies. If Nintendo ever leaves, or becomes third party, it would be a very, very dark day indeed. Besides, contrary to what a lot of people believe, Nintendo don't HAVE to be at the top to be successful or "not dead".