No, that's just bullshit. I want to you the NEW controller, Nintendo. It's a new way to play. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! Shut up and make it cheap.

I didn't realize it was going to be a one player only experience. That goes against everything Nintendo has done with the Wii. I think they need to put this WiiU back to the drawing board as it will not be a good console if you don't have that function for multiple players on one console.

Think about it: if the Wii U supported multiple Wii U controllers, then developers would make games that used multiple Wii U controllers instead of, say, one Wii U controller and multiple Wii controllers. And if Wii U controllers are too expensive, then they would sorta put themselves into a rut where games require too much of a buy-in.

Still, Nintendo is already putting themselves into a rut with this news. If your Wii U controller breaks, will you be able to buy a new Wii U controller without having to buy a whole new Wii U? If so, then Nintendo will have to support the sale of a controller that is only sold as a replacement, which greatly limits the number of sales it can make.

It is a bit disappointing , but as long as the hardware can handle it we know it's not out of the question. I think nintendo realizes that the majority of people play there game online and are putting there effort into online play. I personally prefer local play, but I can't remember the last time I had someone over to play a local multiplayer. I know there are plenty that still do, but I think it's a minority. So there trying to target the xbox live crowd. He'll me and my friend got madden 11 got all stoked to plY some online from my house a d soon relized that he had to drive home and put on a headset. So the wY I see it it par for the course these days.

@scouserboots: It's not single-player only, the Wii U supports multiple Wii controllers, just only one Wii U tablet.

The key here is going to be how Nintendo handles its online. If it's what it was for the Wii, the bulk of multiplayer will be split-screen/shared screen, and the new controller limit will be awkward and dumb.

But if Nintendo builds an online system that looks like they've ever even heard of Xbox Live before, then everyone will do online multiplayer with their own console and controller, and this limit will hardly ever come into play.

I remember being excited when they announced this.
And then I learned more.

It's so developers don't make big name games for two tablet controllers and thus end up fucking consumers who don't have Wii U owner friends in the anus. Seriously, is this so hard to comprehend, you dumb pieces of shit?

I don't like people touching my stuff anyway. I'm happy playing with my Wii alone, in my room, in the dark.

Sofik your such a hypocrite. If a Sony console had this same limitation you would write a whole paragraph about how they suck. I'll still get one but I need support for at least wii remotes.

Oh, the title is... Now it makes sense. Thanks Kotaku, for not fabricating article titles! The system will only support one touch screen controller at a time at present is what they meant. That sucks.

As others have stated, it would be smarter to just allow it to use the feature of multiple, but make it optional; like in LoZ:4 Swords. Also, as others have said, most people will have friends with the system/controller, who could simply bring theirs over.

I'm still getting it for the sweet new HD Zelda and that sick touch screen to choose my weapons.



OH yeah! *drool*

Who says you won't be able to link up a 3DS anyways?

If the controller costs close to $100, then I wouldn't buy a second one. Plus, the internet would go apeshit even if Nintendo sold them separately at retail for that price. I'd rather spend that kind of money to purchasing games.

If I were to buy a Wii U priced at say $350 with one $60 game, and a second controller at $100, then the total cost would be $550.

If the console were to cost $399 with 1 game and a 2nd controller as the same prices as above, the total would be $604.

I doubt Nintendo would price the console at $450, but if it were, then the cost of a game and a 2nd controller would be $659.

ive heard more of what the wii u can't do, than what it can do.. i think i need to go to japan and start crackin skulls...

I don't normally post but aw hell, one tablet seems fine and realistic.

The wii u has backwards compatiblilty for Wii peripherals, that's classic controller and motes.
Seriously putting the gimmicky 4 Wiimotes vs Wii u controller games aside,
the Wii u controller would be used mostly in single player games so why two tablets when you will at most be using one.
Somehow I feel like I've bitten to a few trolls here or a gross overreaction. /tinfoil

The least they could do is ALLOW the use of another controller, without having to require it. Now that it's one WiiU controller, any features that use the touchscreen or any other features in multiplayer are now null and void... Unless people can come up with creative ways around it (like the WiiU controller is the 'commander' with the touch screen map and other options, while the wiimote players are the grunts, doing all the fighting)

I swear, Nintendo can be so progressive one minute, then they turn around and do the most backwards ass things.

This saddens me. I was never planning on getting a Wii U. But this saddens because there is less and less focus on offline multiplayer and more focus on online co-op. This is just another step to killing offline multiplayer period.

Problem is the brick and mortar stores that don't inform customers or try to oversell. Oh you'll need 4 of these controllers for maximum enjoyment (even though there are no games that support more than 1 controller). Software update at a later date to support more than one Wii U makes sense...

Ihey say its for consumers but lets be real, its more than likely for them to save money on console production and make a profit on the console. Selling consoles at a profit is a huge part of Nintendo's strategy.

I honestly think it has to do with development costs. Since Iwata just stated the console can support more than 1, what's to stop your friend who owns a Wii U from bringing his controller over?

"If Nintendo's only concern is consumer cost, why not let the Wii U support multiple controllers and let consumers make the decision for ourselves?"

B/c the controller has to be pushing $100 to $150 with the screen and such. Can you imagine the field day game press would have with that. Would be horrible for Nintendo. As expected.

If one of them breaks, you will end up having to pay a crazy repair amount for this thing.

Yep, as much as I was originally concerned that it would cost an arm and a leg to buy more controllers, I think it's far WORSE to limit games to only using one, and thereby limiting the only really cool potential uses that I can see the tablet having.

I mean, when they did Zelda: Four Swords or Crystal Chronicles, Nintendo wasn't thinking you'd buy 4 GBAs for yourself, they just figured you'd know some friends who each had one they could bring over.

They AT LEAST should have left it open for two tablets at once (and hopefully they'll address it through an update at a later date). It's not entirely unlikely for someone with a Wii-U to have a friend who owns one as well and is willing to bring the tablet over for some multiplayer.

How many 5 year olds are going to break this controller? A lot, I bet.

You might as well give your iPhone to your 5 year old to play with.

I call this argument bullshit. There's some technical implication that impede them to support multiple controllers.

I sense a big fail here. People are used to play their Wii with the family.

Stupid move, Nintendo.

There's always somethin to complain about!

This article, in an alternate universe somewhere, is about how Nintendo expects you to pay 90 each for 4 controllers...

Y U NO HAPPY WIT WAT U OFFERED?

If they're only going to use one wii-u pad then they need to release wireless classic controllers that don't need to plug into a wiimote for multiplayer as they at least have most of the buttons as a PS3/360 controller, that is if you exclude the L3 and R3 buttons.

Not gonna lie, I would have totally bought at least a second Wii U controller, no matter the cost. Local multiplayer is still one of my highest priorities when it comes to muliplayer gaming, so even if it was expensive, I would have cashed in for one.

Honestly, my guess would be that it would be hard for games to be displayed on the TV AND on 2 or more Wii U controllers at full resolution, without frame rate problems or latency issues.

Wii U Games Using Two New Controllers Being Considered

"We're considering our options with maybe two screens... [Multiple New Controller games is] an interesting idea."

Posted Wed, 08 Jun 2011

http://wiiu.nintendolife.com/news/2011/06/wii_u_games_using_two_new_controllers_being_considered

Guys, stop pretending you do local mutliplayer on a regular basis - it only happens one of three ways (1) Wii-Mote, (2) fighting game or (3) local co-op.

Last I checked most non-Wii/Kinect/Move multiplayer games top out at 2 players for local co-op and not competitive multiplayer. For competitive, publishers seem to want you to buy your own copy. Rarely do you get a local multiplayer game that does four player split-screen anymore.

I think the real intent here is so Nintendo can first push asymmetricalgameplay and get developers to follow suit. Symmetrical gameplay is the most common take on multiplayer.

That's something I'd like to see pushed early on, because if its not then developers are just going to shoehorn in symmetrical multiplayer because its the norm. When that happens, nothing really changes nor does the Wii U controller change anything.

All in all, its getting depressing to see the alleged hardcore gamer continue to think inside the box.

I see the Wii U controller and I see opportunities for asymmetrical gameplay. Imagine being the Dungeon Master in a local multiplayer or online multiplaye game. The Wii U controller could be the DM's interface, give him a top-down view of the action and allow him to place monsters and stuff ahead of the group. He could prepare the dungeon early on the Wii-U's touch screen and save it for a group or online session latter.

And that's just one of many ways it could be used. If you think everyone needs a Wii-U controller for each game, you're thinking inside the box.

This really is just as I suspected and wrote in my blog response to Xander's implications of a single U-tablet article. Nintendo's not looking to make the system too exensive for people to afford and will cut themselves off at the knee to do so.

Knowing this now though, I have to say that I really wish they'd consider the higher price, because everyone being able to use a tablet feels like a much better choice then making people fight over the one and only you can use.

Wait didn't they just show a demo of two people playin Killer Freaks? One shooting, one dropping enemies both using a controller?

I'm confused.

Let's say I'm an avarage mom. Pretty hot, maybe C cup boobs, and I walk into a store and see that the main controller that's right on the box costs 150+. Gross.

Erm thanks for deciding for me?
If I dont want to spend loads for another one I wont but Id like to have the option

This sounds good to me because it means strong support for the classic controller, meaning games will probably have an option to play with either type of controller.

I have a feeling that most games will be developed with the Wiimote/nunchuck/classic controller in mind. Everybody is making such a big deal about using only one tablet at a time, but ignoring that Nintendo isn't forcing us to buy ANY new peripherals for their new console. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they will roll out more peripherals over time. Wiimotes with built-in MotionPlus will become the standard, and I'm sure at least one more iteration of the Classic Controller will emerge. But I'm grateful that I won't have to shell out money for a bunch of expensive tablet controllers just so I can play the new Mario Kart with my friends.

So yeah, I'm going to buck the comment trend and say "Thank you Nintendo, I appreciate it." Sony and Microsoft should be taking notes.

"Let's say I'm an avarage mom. Pretty hot, maybe C cup boobs, and I walk into a store and see that the main controller that's right on the box costs 150+. Gross."

Thaaaaaank yooooou Dtoooid!

That's a dealbraker to me. I don't mind crappy online, crappy graphics, expensive controllers, but if I'm buying a Nintendo console I'm expecting awesome local multiplayer. There are so many possibilities, like everyone having their own screen on an fps, and whatever crazy stuff devs can come up with, limiting it on purpose makes it feel gimped.

"We're not planning on asking our customers to buy multiple Wii U controllers," said president Satoru Iwata, making the decision sound like he's doing us a favor. "


i call BS. a company that does nothing but release rehashes and accessories just to make more money doesnt want your money? i bet it will be added on later and they will sell these separate for 120$ each.

Nintendo sucks

I've yet to see the question posed, will they even sell the controllers by themselves?

If only there was a medium between Sony telling us we needed to spend $50,000 on their new piece of shit or we won't be able to breathe air properly and Nintendo trying to somehow build a system out of invisible parts and sell it for nothing.

I could have told you that the controller was going to going to be too expensive months ago.

Oh, wait. I think I did.

It's because if they decide to only support one controller at a time games will be developed for that purpose and consumers will not be forced to buy multiple expensive controllers just to play a specific game.

So... If they're making this stupid decision to limit the number of WiiU controllers to one due to not wanting the consumer to have to buy multiple controllers...

Then what happens when you break your controller and can't go to the store to buy a new one, because Nintendo decided they didnt want you to have to buy more?

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
I was really looking forward to the new console, but this might be a deal breaker for me.
Seriously Nintendo, don't treat me like a kid and tell me what I should or shouldn't do or what I do and don't need. If I want to spend 150 dollars on one of your controllers I should be damned well able to.

not backwards compatible with the NES and now this...

So most people called it right.

The controller costs a small fortune.

I'm sure they said using a 3DS as a second controller might be possible, problem is it only has one analogue stick. Didn't think that one through.

Wow. Super fail. I was thinking of some great ideas for multiple controllers, since each player would have their own private screen. We'll see.

Well shit. The new super smash bros. isn't going to be nearly as good now.

I'd better get a ton of games with online multiplayer if its only going to support one of those new controllers.