If this is the way they're choosing to go, then it immediately eliminates some of the advantages of having a screen on your controller: the ability to watch your slice of the action without having to look at a split-screen, and the ability to "hide" your actions from the other players (either because you don't want to bore people with menus, or because you're competing against other people and you don't want them to see what you're doing).
I didn't even think of that. That was some of the fun (and annoying things) of playing games like Goldeneye back in the day with your friends. As you frantically run around a level, you take a quick peak at another corner of the screen to see where your adversary was. This would have been a pretty neat way to mitigate that.
There'd be tons of use for that though (see also, using the controller to choose a particular play in a sports game.)
Based on what you guys are saying it almost seems as if what Nintendo has included in the new controller is overkill. I reckon there's a greater use case for a less resource-intensive screen that compliments the gameplay (shades of the Sega VMU!), rather than mirroring what's on the screen and allowing you to play the entire game in lower-res on the controller.
Don't get me wrong, mike, playing on the screen is pretty sweet and I am sure there are lots of households that will appreciate the feature more than being able to choose football plays or whatever on multiple individual screens. Nintendo usually seems to get their research right, or at least right enough to sell tons of whatever they are pushing. They probably even considered the cases we are lamenting not being covered, but chose the other path. It's just a shame they couldn't do both. Considering how much this is likely to cost, though, I suppose they also figured no household would ever buy more than 1, if any, so the point isn't worth debating.
This is disappointing and I expect them to backtrack on it. Especially seeing all the negative response.
The jury is out until next year.
Well, do we know if these connect over Bluetooth like the Wiimote or wifi? If it is Bluetooth, don't expect them to backtrack because Bluetooth can only handle so much bandwidth at a time, and that is probably the limiting factor. Besides, they need some reason to sell you a Wii U 2 in 4 years, right? ;)
I wonder what the resolution on the controller is? I mean, it's not full HD is it? That said, it'd probably require a lot of graphical throughput, not to mention wireless bandwidth in order to push data to multiple controllers.
Plus, the cost of those controllers are going to be pretty damn expensive too!
I guess it was a design decision from the get go, though. And it explains why we only ever saw one controller on screen during the keynote promos. This isn't something they planned to implement.
Maybe I'm not thinking out of the box enough, but I kind of agree with Miyamoto. I can't see how using more than one of these would be beneficial. What am I missing?
Good news! Seeing as this thread hasn't been updated since last year, at this year's E3, Nintendo announced Wii U owners will be able to use two Wii U controllers at a time.