• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Hardware What was the "central concept" of the Wii U?

What was the Wii U's central "hook"?

  • Total voters
    98
Hero of Hyrule

Hero of Hyrule

Frieren the Slayer
Pronouns
He/Him
H2x1_generic_WiiU_image1280w.jpg


I was discussing this console with a friend earlier when it occurred to me - it's not entirely clear what the central "concept" of the Wii U was supposed to be.

If you look at Nintendo's experimental hardware, usually, the central concept is fairly easy to identify and self-evident; the DS was about its two screens and touch screen; Wii was all about motion controls; Switch is about portability and flexibility; 3DS was about stereoscopic 3D. Even going back to before the Iwata era, you can see this. The N64 was all about 3D and the analog stick. The Virtual Boy was about the stereoscopic 3D.

But what exactly was the Wii U about? What was it supposed to be? What was the hook? Was it the off-TV play? Was it asymmetric gaming? Was it touch screen gaming for home consoles? Was it social connectivity (as evidenced by Miiverse/Wii U Chat)? Was it some or all of those? None of those?

Of course, this comes back down to the fact that the Wii U was a confused machine and its appeal was unclear even to those who made and marketed it. I'm not trying to rehash that point, we all know that. I'm more curious in knowing what you think the central appeal/gimmick/concept of the Wii U was supposed to be.
 
0
Reggie’s memoir says off-TV play was the central concept. I don’t trust everything in there, but I have no reason to doubt this tidbit.
 
The Wii U had no central concept, it tried to do everything at once. Because of it, we ended up with a weird and cumbersome controller, which was probably a big reason for it's failure.
 
I feel like this is a cop out answer, but the main concept of the Wii U was...well, the Wii U GamePad. Nintendo positioned it as this jack of all trades. Just look at the Mario characters showing off the device. It can do Off TV Play! If can be used as the main controller for single player games! It can be used as a supplementary screen for single player! It can support asynchronous multiplayer! Use it as a web browser screen! Use it for streaming! Karaoke!

Of course, in practice it was more of a master of none with little appeal.
 
The most memorable moment of the Wii U marketing was the reveal where they showed a picture of a family all sitting together glued to some screen…and somehow tried to connect the Wii U as something to solve this problem? Even though one of its selling points was a tablet controller, which would only further entrench that image? It was so weird.
 
0
I feel like it was designed on Nintendo predicting there was going to be an audience for people using their tablets while watching TV, but at a time where those tablets were very expensive iPads. If you look at how the initial presentations on it went, they talked a lot about using TVii to talk about the shows they were watching on Miiverse, and there definitely was people posting on social networks from their tablets while watching shows, and commenting on them.

Problem is that this is a weak concept to sell an entire videogames console on, and to top that off they were beat to the market by tablets quickly becoming a lot cheaper. At some point before release whatever concept the WiiU could have had got leapfrogged by people doing the same cheaper and better, and they were left trying to sell something without much of a point.
 
“Haha you can touch the gamepad to make platforms appear”.

Aka asynchronous multiplayer that they forgot to design anything around until it was too late.
 
0
Put me into the camp that thinks the system would have sold better had they just called it the Wii 2 and did a better job marketing that it was a brand new system. It still would have been a huge bust compared to the Wii, but I could see it surpassing at least the Gamecube.

Rather, they put all their marketing around a weird name and were so focused on showing the controller that it just confused a ton of people into thinking it was just an accessory.
 
0
It was asymmetric gameplay + Miiverse, I guess.

I'm saying this not because asymmetric gameplay was particularly emphasized in their games (only Nintendo Land make great use of it, basically with three remakes of Pac-Man Vs.), but because Katsuya Eguchi was Wii U producer.

Eguchi previously created Animal Crossing starting from one core idea -- making a game supporting asynchronous multiplayer.

Iwata - When Nintendo 64 was released people started saying, “Network games will be the next big thing”. While that would certainly be interesting, the Nintendo 64 was the first system to have 4 controller ports, so we thought first, let’s allow for 4 people to play together in front of the TV, and so we moved forward with titles like “Mario Kart 64”.

Within that, what Eguchi-san and co. were trying to do was a little different. They wanted a game where multiple people could play one game asynchronously.
Click to expand...

"Asymmetric gameplay" is what you expect from an "asynchronous gameplay" guy.

You can also see that Miiverse is an evolution of this core idea -- you have multiple people playing the game at different times, but interacting with each other leaving messages here and there. Miiverse is basically asynchronous online.
 
From the marketing I remember: it was being able to play on the TV, someone wanted to use the TV to watch a show, so you then played on the gamepad.
 
0
Ironically, it's in the name. The 'U' i.e. the gamepad. As people mentioned, the tablet accessory was the hook that could enable a variety of functions if the player or developer so wished, whether it was for second screen functionality, off-TV play, assym. multiplayer, etc.

To put it succinctly:
Mekanos said:
"y'all liked iPads right?"
Click to expand...

Tablet devices are cool because of their flexibility and portability, and in theory, a tablet controller could enable a plethora of fun features if it could interact with a more powerful stationary device. The GBA <-> GameCube linked games taken to an extreme.

Perhaps this is a cop-out answer, and leads to more questions like 'what's the central concept of the tablet then?". I don't think the tablet was ever intended to have just one use, just as the second screen of the 3/DS wasn't always an inventory screen - sometimes it was an extended display, the main gameplay view, a method of enabling analog control (Mario 64, Prime Hunters), or artwork display.

Ultimately I found the second screen of the 3/DS line much more appealing because two screens were near one another, if I was staring at the top screen the second screen was in my periphery or a blink away, so whatever features were introduced by the second screen were much more seamless. Where as whenever I was playing with the gamepad, I'd rather stare at my gorgeous television set and quickly swap to an inventory or mechanic there than swivel my head down. I know not everyone felt this way, of course. I think the idea of a portable device interacting with a stationary one is cool, but I think I'd rather have used my 3DS as a Wii U controller than use the actual Wii U gamepad.
 
Mekanos said:
"y'all liked iPads right?"
Click to expand...

This kinda says it all. The idea of the Wii U was muddled enough that this thread had to be made. I think people forget that “second screen experiences” was something game devs was trying to make happen at the time and the Wii U was that as a console. Unfortunately, just like all of those second screen experience apps, the Wii U was a solution looking for a problem that just didn’t catch on.
 
0
definitely off-tv play. they said they wanted the guts in the tablet but the tech wasn't there yet. they seemed to have been thinking to consolidate handheld and home systems early, even if the 3DS's initial successor was still concepted
 
ILikeFeet said:
definitely off-tv play. they said they wanted the guts in the tablet but the tech wasn't there yet. they seemed to have been thinking to consolidate handheld and home systems early, even if the 3DS's initial successor was still concepted
Click to expand...

People say they wanted everything in the controller a lot, but I’ve never seen a source on that. Got a link?
 
0
The Game Pad could do a bunch of different things depending on what the game required of it, I don't think any one of them really took priority.

Did that ultimately contribute to the weak messaging around the platform? Possibly. Was it still pretty cool for games that chose to take advantage of it? Definitely.
 
0
it should have been asymmetrical multiplayer, since that's what the system is best suited for

but they were really trying to push off-tv play as though there was something novel about a handheld
 
The number of people saying it was off-TV play has me feeling extremely gaslit. I've either got the worst memory of this is some revisionist history. Got the same vibes from people insisting that the Switch is the "true realization of the Wii U concept"

I recall off-TV play being a small part of early trailers, and pretty much every single major release on the system was a demonstration of how the second screen 'enhanced' the experience. Even asynchronous play was a larger part of it's early concept, with it being the core of most of the Nintendo Land games.
 
karmitt said:
The number of people saying it was off-TV play has me feeling extremely gaslit. I've either got the worst memory of this is some revisionist history. Got the same vibes from people insisting that the Switch is the "true realization of the Wii U concept"

I recall off-TV play being a small part of early trailers, and pretty much every single major release on the system was a demonstration of how the second screen 'enhanced' the experience. Even asynchronous play was a larger part of it's early concept, with it being the core of most of the Nintendo Land games.
Click to expand...
I agree and disagree. I think off tv play was a big part of the pitch (it gets the first time slot in the reveal trailer, and also gets emphasized in the reveal speech), but it was absolutely not THE biggest point. The biggest thing that occurred to me was that the console was basically attempting to be a console version of the DS pitch (so basically dual screen gameplay).

I’d say in order the pitches appeared to be dual screens > off tv play > asymmetric gameplay > alternate methods of interaction (such as touch screen, camera, mic, etc.). But ultimately I don’t think any pitch was particularly well communicated (and none of them save one was even compelling enough to begin with), hence the need for this topic.
 
I think it initially started out as asymmetrical gaming, although that concept got real muddied the more the console went on
 
0
I feel asymmetric gaming was the big hook (doing two things at once) and off TV play was an extension of that. Like the ideal way to play was to be able to do different things with the TV screen and bottom/separate screen whether that was in single player or multiplayer. Off TV play then was being able to watch TV and play games still (again two different things at once). I don’t think it was necessarily a bad hook, but Nintendo didn’t have enough resources and experience to make enough HD games for it quickly enough to get it to take off and maintain interest.

While that was the hook, I think Wii U was started by asking how can we make console games run on a handheld back in 2012? The idea was to still have a console to deliver the power and then stream it to handheld. Their solution created something that did two things at once - off TV play and asymmetric gaming. I think they thought the latter was more interesting as it encompassed the former and that’s why it was the featured hook.
 
Boyfriend said:
it should have been asymmetrical multiplayer, since that's what the system is best suited for

but they were really trying to push off-tv play as though there was something novel about a handheld
Click to expand...
I mean, the point was playing “big HD” games portably which is the main selling point of the Switch after all.

Wii U was very limited in range though so it failed at that.
 
0
Boyfriend said:
it should have been asymmetrical multiplayer, since that's what the system is best suited for

but they were really trying to push off-tv play as though there was something novel about a handheld
Click to expand...

It’s not that a handheld is novel. It was the seamless switching and convenience. I would often sit on the couch and play a game while my wifey watched TV or played a game on the PS3. It’s pretty much the proto Switch, but limited by the range being tied to the actual Wii U.
 
It was about finding a way to bridge the gap between their handheld and home systems. They wanted the system to be in the controller, but couldn’t. So they made this weird system that played 100% of Wii games and used all the controllers while also having a home system that could emulate a DS (as well as everything else before it). The gamepad is for all intents and purposes a TV free Wii. You need nothing other than a Wiimote. The screen is 480p and there’s a built-in sensor bar. Not only did they add further Wii integration, they also added DS emulators and started having it connect with the 3DS, like with Smash as a controller.
 
Clix said:
It’s not that a handheld is novel. It was the seamless switching and convenience. I would often sit on the couch and play a game while my wifey watched TV or played a game on the PS3. It’s pretty much the proto Switch, but limited by the range being tied to the actual Wii U.
Click to expand...
I mean, you're just describing the experience of sitting on a couch with a handheld while someone else uses the TV.

Off-TV play was never an OS level feature, just a convenient side effect of what the controller could do. There was never any OS level support, never any mandate that games would allow it, and no requirement that there even be parity between the experiences.

You can call it a proto-switch since off-tv play is the only thing about it that ended up being notable thanks to everything else requiring software tailored to the system.
 
Boyfriend said:
I mean, you're just describing the experience of sitting on a couch with a handheld while someone else uses the TV.

Off-TV play was never an OS level feature, just a convenient side effect of what the controller could do. There was never any OS level support, never any mandate that games would allow it, and no requirement that there even be parity between the experiences.

You can call it a proto-switch since off-tv play is the only thing about it that ended up being notable thanks to everything else requiring software tailored to the system.
Click to expand...
Some games not utilizing all the main features of a console isn’t new though. Some Wii games don’t have motion or pointer controls Some 3DS games don’t have 3D.
 
Nickle said:
The Wii U had no central concept, it tried to do everything at once. Because of it, we ended up with a weird and cumbersome controller, which was probably a big reason for it's failure.
Click to expand...
I like the feel and weight of the wii u gamepad lol, its actually one of my favorite controllers
 
Last edited:
Boyfriend said:
I mean, you're just describing the experience of sitting on a couch with a handheld while someone else uses the TV.

Off-TV play was never an OS level feature, just a convenient side effect of what the controller could do. There was never any OS level support, never any mandate that games would allow it, and no requirement that there even be parity between the experiences.

You can call it a proto-switch since off-tv play is the only thing about it that ended up being notable thanks to everything else requiring software tailored to the system.
Click to expand...
Nope. It’s different. When I play my 3DS I’m playing my 3DS. But with Wii U I was playing my awesome looking Splatoon or MK8 and my wife wanted to watch something and I would just grab the gamepad and continue on.
 
Herb Alpert said:
The core of wiiu's problem is that even Nintendo themselves weren't really sure about that...
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

After releasing the “revolutionary” Wii, I think Nintendo felt that they had to shake things up again with the successor rather than just releasing a Wii 2 or Wii HD. So they sort of forced themselves to think of something, which is maybe why the Wii U GamePad doesn’t feel quite as much like something that was naturally dictated by the needs of the gameplay. In the end, they made a system that wasn’t very Wii-like, which was a problem because A) it was called Wii U and B) a lot of people really liked the Wii and nobody seemed to care for their weird new tablet thing.

It’s odd, because the 3DS was a much more direct DS follow-up, and it did much better in the market. But for whatever reason, Nintendo either lacked the interest in doing that for the Wii or they thought the market would reject it.
 
Clix said:
Nope. It’s different. When I play my 3DS I’m playing my 3DS. But with Wii U I was playing my awesome looking Splatoon or MK8 and my wife wanted to watch something and I would just grab the gamepad and continue on.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but you picked one of the few Wii U games that doesn’t have off TV play. Splatoon doesn’t have it as far as I remember, but Donkey Kong, NSMBU, 3D World, XCX, Yoshi, Kirby, Pikmin 3, MK8, all the Zeldas and more all have Off TV play.
 
0
The impression I always got from it was “DS, a portable system except not portable so it loses what makes the dual screen concept appealing” and “Asymmetric playstyle”

Not really “off TV play”
 
0
Phantom Thief said:
I agree and disagree. I think off tv play was a big part of the pitch (it gets the first time slot in the reveal trailer, and also gets emphasized in the reveal speech), but it was absolutely not THE biggest point. The biggest thing that occurred to me was that the console was basically attempting to be a console version of the DS pitch (so basically dual screen gameplay).

I’d say in order the pitches appeared to be dual screens > off tv play > asymmetric gameplay > alternate methods of interaction (such as touch screen, camera, mic, etc.). But ultimately I don’t think any pitch was particularly well communicated (and none of them save one was even compelling enough to begin with), hence the need for this topic.
Click to expand...

It was part of a long string of use cases, and I feel like it was given the first slot due to being the easiest to grasp.

Honestly I don't think any of the items in the poll were a 'central concept'. The concept was the second screen on the controller, and Nintendo's goal was to demonstrate some of the various ways it could provide value over traditional console setups. I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. Nintendo probably very well hoped we'd see countless novel second-screen use cases developed from third parties but the system just wasn't popular enough for many to surface.
 
0
I think they thought the 2nd screen added value implicitly, just from the unexpected success of the DS.
Combined this with withered tech thinking, they imagined a re-run of Wii, but with 2 screens, using massively more powerful hardware (compared to the Wii) but unfortunately, it wasn't very powerful compared to what else is on the market and it probably launched too late in 2012 with the focus on the controller confusing consumers.

I could see an alternative universe with Wii U launched in 2010, as a true successor to Wii (more waggle, but in HD, new Zelda in HD) no 2nd screen, being much more sucessful and possibly still being replaced by the Switch in 2017.
 
0
It was in no way asymmetric gameplay, how is that winning the poll?

That was a great idea and great feature in games that utilized it, but many didn't.

Off-TV play is the obvious answer here. Other features were secondary, and software support proves this.
 
julian said:
It was about finding a way to bridge the gap between their handheld and home systems. They wanted the system to be in the controller, but couldn’t. So they made this weird system that played 100% of Wii games and used all the controllers while also having a home system that could emulate a DS (as well as everything else before it). The gamepad is for all intents and purposes a TV free Wii. You need nothing other than a Wiimote. The screen is 480p and there’s a built-in sensor bar. Not only did they add further Wii integration, they also added DS emulators and started having it connect with the 3DS, like with Smash as a controller.
Click to expand...
From a long-term planning of the evolution of Nintendo consoles point of view, I have no doubt this is correct. And it's something Iwata was talking about as far back as the GameCube era. Many just didn't understand his vision (or worse, didn't think he had one) because they were too shortsighted to connect the dots, and he certainly wasn't going to just spell it out for them.

However in practice I don't think this is what most consumers perceived to be Wii U's hook, and for good reason: Nintendo weren't about to market the Wii U as something that's "almost there but not quite". That would have been a suicidal move because had it succeeded, competitors could then release a more mature device of their own that better delivered on the Wii U's promise and they'd reap the rewards, with Nintendo having effectively provided them free market research.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
0
My memories of the Wii U announcement, and Nintendo’s marketing focus afterwards, was asymmetric gameplay. It felt like off-TV play was secondary.

I could be remembering incorrectly though.
 
0
efyu_lemonardo said:
It was in no way asymmetric gameplay, how is that winning the poll?

That was a great idea and great feature in games that utilized it, but many didn't.

Off-TV play is the obvious answer here. Other features were secondary, and software support proves this.
Click to expand...

All support proves is that it was the easiest to implement for games not designed for the system.
 
karmitt said:
All support proves is that it was the easiest to implement for games not designed for the system.
Click to expand...

Ok, but how do you define a hook, then? Is it not a unique feature that's synonymous with the system? Isn't it the thing that's supposed to hook the consumer into buying the system? Justifying the purchase?

Asymmetric gameplay is a subset of multiplayer gameplay. A new mode on top of existing ones.
And the number of games that supported it was even smaller than the number that supported dual screen gameplay - which you could describe as a new mode of single player, supported by a subset of singleplayer games.

Why is dual screen gaming so far behind in the poll, then?
 
0
julian said:
Some games not utilizing all the main features of a console isn’t new though. Some Wii games don’t have motion or pointer controls Some 3DS games don’t have 3D.
Click to expand...
i mean, i also wouldn't call those main features. It's not central to the premise of the console like hybridity is to the Switch, they're gimmicks. More successful ones than things like the PS5's adaptive triggers or whatever, but you're also forgetting how much the conversation around both the 3DS and the Wii U at the time were about "proving" the value of those gimmicks.
Clix said:
Nope. It’s different. When I play my 3DS I’m playing my 3DS. But with Wii U I was playing my awesome looking Splatoon or MK8 and my wife wanted to watch something and I would just grab the gamepad and continue on.
Click to expand...
This just feels like extra steps to have the same thing?

Like I understand the literal difference between the two but no small number of games forced you to pick the display before you actually got in-game. For titles like DKC:TF you basically have to decide wether you're playing on a tethered handheld or a TV from the start, preventing a seamless move. Not having it as a system-level feature really hamstrung the potential.
 
0
Nickle said:
I actually enjoyed the feeling of it too, but a lot of people never took the chance to ever try the controller because it looked so weird.
Click to expand...
Yeah for sure. I always like a controller thats heavier. Its one of my favorite things about the xbox elite controller too. But the gamepad was very ergonomic, and i think it was a more comfortable hand held game device with a screen than either the switch or 3ds are
 
0
Giving the name was Wii U I would say Dual Screen and off tv with single player being pushed as something they wanted back.
 
0
Gay Bowser said:
Pretty much this.

After releasing the “revolutionary” Wii, I think Nintendo felt that they had to shake things up again with the successor rather than just releasing a Wii 2 or Wii HD. So they sort of forced themselves to think of something, which is maybe why the Wii U GamePad doesn’t feel quite as much like something that was naturally dictated by the needs of the gameplay. In the end, they made a system that wasn’t very Wii-like, which was a problem because A) it was called Wii U and B) a lot of people really liked the Wii and nobody seemed to care for their weird new tablet thing.

It’s odd, because the 3DS was a much more direct DS follow-up, and it did much better in the market. But for whatever reason, Nintendo either lacked the interest in doing that for the Wii or they thought the market would reject it.
Click to expand...

I think the WiiU is the result of Nintendo being caught pants down when they realized the tech to pull the switch concept wasn't there yet. They had to release something so they went with this half assed thing.
 
Beanstar40 said:
I like the feel and weight of the wii u gamepad lol, its actually one of my favorite controllers
Click to expand...
I do have a sort of weird nostalgia for it and for how charming the os was......but not for how slooooooowwwww doing anything on the console was. Even opening up the settings menu felt like a big task the whole system had to think about for a few moments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom