Wii U Questions

[Metal Ghost]

Hi all....well, I really did not think that I'd be purchasing a Wii U. I guess I still probably won't. However I am finding myself more curious about the console now than I have in the past. Maybe because it's the only upcoming console launch in the forseeable future? Maybe because it's a Nintendo console? It's funny, while I've never considered myself a core 'Nintendo guy' (probably because I'm still jaded that all my friends growing up had tons of fun with their NES', Genesis' and SNES' while I tried to extol the virtues of my 7800 ), at the end of the day I have more Nintendo consoles in my house than anything else.

• that NES from one of my friends from when we were kids and his mom bought him a new SNES
  
• An N64 that my now wife bought as a birthday present....of course it was a couple of months after the PS2 was launched so, well, there was that
  
  • A backup N64 I got at thrift for $10 with games
    

  [*]A GameCube I bought with a gift card my awesome in-laws got me, but definitely towards the tale end of the GameCube's run

  • a backup GameCube I just got a few months ago for something like $15 with a new controller and all cables from this awesome local game shop.
    

So as you can see though, I've never been quick out of the gate with a Nintendo console, though I seem to end up with them at some point. So with that having been said (in my long winded way!), these are some of the questions I was thinking of:

• Will the Wii U be backwards compatible with Wii games?
  
• Will Wii peripherals be useable on the Wii U?
  
• I'm not holding my breath on getting true 'specs' from Nintendo, but any word on things like game and content storage? Audio/Video/Network connections?
  

I did a quick search here and didn't really see a thread started yet. And of course I could probably get a lot of this via Google, but it's more fun talking about it here on AA!

[bomberpunk]

the only thing that's confirmed is that that 4 Wiimotes (along with the new tablet controller) will work with the system. it's more than likely that Wii discs will be compatible during the first few production runs (ala Gamecube compatibility). there aren't any GCN ports for controllers, so plugging in a Classic Controller into the Wiimote might be necessary for some gameplay, especially Virtual Console & some WiiWare stuff. Wii game saves can be transferred via the SD slot.

 

as for transferring digitally downloaded games from the Wii to the Wii U, i'm guessing "no" on that. but i don't know. i could be wrong. after all, there's a way to transfer crap form DSi to 3DS (but only in one direction, not from 3DS to DSi).

[Protoplasym]

as for transferring digitally downloaded games from the Wii to the Wii U, i'm guessing "no" on that. but i don't know. i could be wrong. after all, there's a way to transfer crap form DSi to 3DS (but only in one direction, not from 3DS to DSi).

 

I asked a Supervisor at N. about that earlier this year, and she told me, "no".

Edited August 17, 2012 by Protoplasym

[xg4bx]

Nintendo has confirmed that all of your old Wii downloads – including WiiWare games and Virtual Console classics – will be able to be transferred to your new Wii U. The confirmation comes to us via ABC News , and the report goes on to say that a restructuring of user logins and accounts will occur to help make the transition happen.

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/05/e3-2012-old-wii-downloads-will-transfer-to-wii-u

[Protoplasym]

Nintendo has confirmed that all of your old Wii downloads – including WiiWare games and Virtual Console classics – will be able to be transferred to your new Wii U. The confirmation comes to us via ABC News, and the report goes on to say that a restructuring of user logins and accounts will occur to help make the transition happen.

 

http://www.ign.com/a...ansfer-to-wii-u

 

Ahhhh, now I remember. I was told that I would have to decide... as N. will only allow their users to have their content on one system. So, if you want your DLs on your Wii U, that means you can 'only' have them on your Wii U and not on your Wii at the same time.

 

 

The mandatory, "you can only have your dls on one system" is insulting, asinine, and imo... worthy of not supporting N. on digital dls. Apparently I'm the only one who feels this way less N. would quickly and painlessly change their policy.

[Animan]

Nintendo has confirmed that all of your old Wii downloads – including WiiWare games and Virtual Console classics – will be able to be transferred to your new Wii U. The confirmation comes to us via ABC News, and the report goes on to say that a restructuring of user logins and accounts will occur to help make the transition happen.

 

http://www.ign.com/a...ansfer-to-wii-u

 

Ahhhh, now I remember. I was told that I would have to decide... as N. will only allow their users to have their content on one system. So, if you want your DLs on your Wii U, that means you can 'only' have them on your Wii U and not on your Wii at the same time.

 

 

The mandatory, "you can only have your dls on one system" is insulting, asinine, and imo... worthy of not supporting N. on digital dls. Apparently I'm the only one who feels this way less N. would quickly and painlessly change their policy.

 

If you WERE allowed to transfer your downloads to another system and keep them on the original system, then what's to prevent someone from copying their games to a friend's system?

[Protoplasym]

Nintendo has confirmed that all of your old Wii downloads – including WiiWare games and Virtual Console classics – will be able to be transferred to your new Wii U. The confirmation comes to us via ABC News, and the report goes on to say that a restructuring of user logins and accounts will occur to help make the transition happen.

 

http://www.ign.com/a...ansfer-to-wii-u

 

Ahhhh, now I remember. I was told that I would have to decide... as N. will only allow their users to have their content on one system. So, if you want your DLs on your Wii U, that means you can 'only' have them on your Wii U and not on your Wii at the same time.

 

 

The mandatory, "you can only have your dls on one system" is insulting, asinine, and imo... worthy of not supporting N. on digital dls. Apparently I'm the only one who feels this way less N. would quickly and painlessly change their policy.

 

If you WERE allowed to transfer your downloads to another system and keep them on the original system, then what's to prevent someone from copying their games to a friend's system?

 

Assuming Probable Cause in the name of instituing a Safety Measure is 'never' the best policy. I've never stolen a game in my life, nor have I ever enjoyed a game I didn't pay for. But because there are those who steal games, share them with their friends, and so on and so forth.... I'm suddenly at the mercy of a policy whos' instituted agenda is to prevent those ^ kinds of theft from occurring.

 

My Morality. But since no one can be trusted... we need to verify the owners legitimacy and right to play the licensed software EACH and every time the game is booted, all in the name of ensuring said Developer actually gets paid for their game (effort in creation) - that example is DIII in a nutshell... and that example follows the same logic as you have presented it to me.

 

I can make a conscious effort to not steal, but because my fellow man might not share that mindset, the Company making and selling the game has to throw a Blanket of Suspicion around me and my fellow gamers, all in the name of ensuring they get paid for their work.

 

 

I'll simply refuse to support a Company who calls me a thief soley in the name of not knowing whether or not I have the propensity to steal from them. There's a reason a Police Officers in the United States of America have to tell citizens why they're being stopped, questioned, or even being detained. For some reason, that logic doesn't apply to Video Game Developers. According to todays Publishers, todays Gamers are guilty until proven innocent (i.e., that they bought the game). In the case of Diablo III, every user of that game is guilty until they prove (by logging in for 'that' specific session only) their innocence, time and time again. (Blizzard has literally come out and justified their decision with, "we have to verify the game disc as being authentic for each and every time the user runs the .exe") If, as a Gamer, you don't mind being asked to prove that you purchased the game legally, every time you boot up a game, then so be it... go for it... but do 'not' dare expect others who strongly disagree to willingly bend to your loss of logic when it comes to getting everyone on board, simply for the sake of being able to play a game.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Protoplasym

[Rex Dart]

Well, you'll have to forgive Nintendo if they don't see your pinky-promise as legally binding.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Rex Dart

[Protoplasym]

Well, you'll have to forgive Nintendo if they don't see your pinky-promise as legally binding.

 

You're going to have do a whole lot better than that. If you want to argue with me, extend an effort to do so... less I will decline to take your attempt at debunking my logic, with any ounce of seriousness.

 

 

good day

[Animan]

Well, you'll have to forgive Nintendo if they don't see your pinky-promise as legally binding.

 

This. A million times this.

 

@Protoplasym As crazy as it may seem, game companies don't have the resources to monitor the morality of every single consumer.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Animan

[Metal Ghost]

So, about that Wii U information .... Can't wait to get a release date and pricing information from Ninty *whistling*

[Rex Dart]

Well, you'll have to forgive Nintendo if they don't see your pinky-promise as legally binding.

 

You're going to have do a whole lot better than that. If you want to argue with me, extend an effort to do so... less I will decline to take your attempt at debunking my logic, with any ounce of seriousness.

 

 

good day

 

 

 

Sorry, but it doesn't take much effort to argue with a world view consisting of puppy dog tails and gumdrop dreams.

Auf wiedersehen!

[Protoplasym]

Well, you'll have to forgive Nintendo if they don't see your pinky-promise as legally binding.

 

This. A million times this.

 

@Protoplasym As crazy as it may seem, game companies don't have the resources to monitor the morality of every single consumer.

 

For the second time, if someone can't be bothered to put forth a sensible argument as to why and how a "guilty until proven innocent" Gaming Scheme benefits Gamers, and the Industry at large... then don't quote or disagree with me. I've laid out a very well defined argument, and so far, I've received two equally impressive knee jerk reactions that do not attempt to cover the topic at hand in the slightest.

 

 

Good day to the both of you until you're ready to put forth something worthy of discussing.

[Protoplasym]

Well, you'll have to forgive Nintendo if they don't see your pinky-promise as legally binding.

 

You're going to have do a whole lot better than that. If you want to argue with me, extend an effort to do so... less I will decline to take your attempt at debunking my logic, with any ounce of seriousness.

 

 

good day

 

 

 

Sorry, but it doesn't take much effort to argue with a world view consisting of puppy dog tails and gumdrop dreams.

Auf wiedersehen!

 

You have put forth zero effort. If and when you're ready to discuss the topic, by all means... say something worthwhile.

 

 

Good day

[Rex Dart]

You mean, until somebody says what you want them to say, you're just going to rant & ignore replies. Tally-ho good sir, and may thy biscuits remain always crisp!

[bomberpunk]

crunch!

[Protoplasym]

You mean, until somebody says what you want them to say, you're just going to rant & ignore replies. Tally-ho good sir, and may thy biscuits remain always crisp!

 

Says the guy who completely dismissed my entire statement and reasoning, in the name of putting forth a (at best) trolling and instigative message in the hopes of taking me off point. Enjoy your jokes and obvious hesitancy in regard to strapping my argument on. My weekend will be much brighter for it.

[godslabrat]

Well, you'll have to forgive Nintendo if they don't see your pinky-promise as legally binding.

 

This. A million times this.

 

@Protoplasym As crazy as it may seem, game companies don't have the resources to monitor the morality of every single consumer.

 

For the second time, if someone can't be bothered to put forth a sensible argument as to why and how a "guilty until proven innocent" Gaming Scheme benefits Gamers, and the Industry at large... then don't quote or disagree with me. I've laid out a very well defined argument, and so far, I've received two equally impressive knee jerk reactions that do not attempt to cover the topic at hand in the slightest.

 

 

Good day to the both of you until you're ready to put forth something worthy of discussing.

 

Please do not presume to tell someone when they can and cannot disagree with you. It's seen as rude and this is (generally) a very civil and polite forum. If you do not think the rebuttal to your point is adequate, then feel free to say so, but do so constructively.

Edited August 17, 2012 by godslabrat

[Protoplasym]

Well, you'll have to forgive Nintendo if they don't see your pinky-promise as legally binding.

 

This. A million times this.

 

@Protoplasym As crazy as it may seem, game companies don't have the resources to monitor the morality of every single consumer.

 

For the second time, if someone can't be bothered to put forth a sensible argument as to why and how a "guilty until proven innocent" Gaming Scheme benefits Gamers, and the Industry at large... then don't quote or disagree with me. I've laid out a very well defined argument, and so far, I've received two equally impressive knee jerk reactions that do not attempt to cover the topic at hand in the slightest.

 

 

Good day to the both of you until you're ready to put forth something worthy of discussing.

 

Please do not presume to tell someone when they can and cannot disagree with you. It's seen as rude and this is (generally) a very civil and polite forum. If you do not think the rebuttal to your point is adequate, then feel free to say so, but do so constructively.

 

That's exactly what I did... repeatedly. And repeatedly, I've been accosted with trolling remarks... and you're going at me... lol

[godslabrat]

Please do not presume to tell someone when they can and cannot disagree with you. It's seen as rude and this is (generally) a very civil and polite forum. If you do not think the rebuttal to your point is adequate, then feel free to say so, but do so constructively.

 

That's exactly what I did... repeatedly. And repeatedly, I've been accosted with trolling remarks... and you're going at me... lol

 

With the exception of your initial post (#7 in this thread), I don't see your contributions as being very constructive at all. You've made numerous comments saying that no one is providing a reasonable counter-argument, and that's not true. As Rex Dart has said, it's not practical for the publishers to use the collective morality of the gaming public as their primary anti-piracy, anti-cheating measure. Allowing gamers to pirate games without any measure to stop them will have a negative effect on publishers, and allowing gamers to cheat online will have a negative effect on other players. Both these areas will hurt the industry. So yes, a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality could be positive in at least some ways. It's also not an incredibly new or unique concept. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a rule reserved for criminal cases, and has no place in areas such as this, which are strictly civil matters.

 

Now, if you want to go so far as to say that the extent to which the average, compliant, honest user has to go to prove his/her "innocence" is beyond reason, then you might have a more solid point. Most games and software have had some kind of "prove you bought this" mechanism since the very beginning of computers. It is nothing new, and it does serve a purpose. And no, if you didn't prove yourself a legit user, you weren't assumed "innocent" and allowed to use the software... most times. The industry has grown and thrived in the 40-50 years since creating the concept of user verification, so I'm quite sorry if you suddenly woke up this morning thinking that it was unquestionably damaging.

[Protoplasym]

Please do not presume to tell someone when they can and cannot disagree with you. It's seen as rude and this is (generally) a very civil and polite forum. If you do not think the rebuttal to your point is adequate, then feel free to say so, but do so constructively.

 

That's exactly what I did... repeatedly. And repeatedly, I've been accosted with trolling remarks... and you're going at me... lol

 

With the exception of your initial post (#7 in this thread), I don't see your contributions as being very constructive at all. You've made numerous comments saying that no one is providing a reasonable counter-argument, and that's not true. As Rex Dart has said, it's not practical for the publishers to use the collective morality of the gaming public as their primary anti-piracy, anti-cheating measure. Allowing gamers to pirate games without any measure to stop them will have a negative effect on publishers, and allowing gamers to cheat online will have a negative effect on other players. Both these areas will hurt the industry. So yes, a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality could be positive in at least some ways. It's also not an incredibly new or unique concept. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a rule reserved for criminal cases, and has no place in areas such as this, which are strictly civil matters.

 

Now, if you want to go so far as to say that the extent to which the average, compliant, honest user has to go to prove his/her "innocence" is beyond reason, then you might have a more solid point. Most games and software have had some kind of "prove you bought this" mechanism since the very beginning of computers. It is nothing new, and it does serve a purpose. And no, if you didn't prove yourself a legit user, you weren't assumed "innocent" and allowed to use the software... most times. The industry has grown and thrived in the 40-50 years since creating the concept of user verification, so I'm quite sorry if you suddenly woke up this morning thinking that it was unquestionably damaging.

 

That is a counter argument, the others simply posted instigative remarks, but if you wish to cling to saying they had worthwhile replies, then I will not deny your opinion of that: I will simply and strongly disagree with that assessment.

 

Now, onto your argument:

 

I might? I believe I do. Yeah, it was called owning Physical Media. You have basically made my argument. Do me a favor and name me another game besides Starcraft II or Diablo III (MMOs do not count) that require the user to Prove they purchased the software legitimately prior to each and every play session (Single Player sessions is what we're talking about).

 

"Please do not presume to tell someone when they can and cannot disagree with you. It's seen as rude and this is (generally) a very civil and polite forum."

"I'm quite sorry if you suddenly woke up this morning thinking that it was unquestionably damaging"

 

That's interesting, I could swear you were just preaching to me about being civil

 

 

The requirement to be online to verify installation (once and only once) - is as 'far' as you'll get with regard to your logic that the Devs and Pubs of today have a right to verify that we've legitimately purchased their software. Asking the user to perform this verification for each Single Player session is not only damaging to their potential Customer base (I've yet to buy Blizzards last two games for example), but also extremely insulting to me as a Gamer for a number of reasons of which I've already listed in this thread = ultimately the latter example imho, is unacceptable on any front unless it's an MMO I suppose... but for Single Player gaming, not a chance in hell today, and not chance in hell 20 years from now.

 

You have laid out your argument in a clear and concise manner and for that I applaud you. The other two were having technical difficulties when they peeked in the thread, thanks for saying for them what they were apparently unable to type.

 

Bottom line: some believe that being asked to prove ownership of software for Single Player games, repeatedly for each Gameplay session - is ok... while others do not. I am in the latter camp. You are apparently in the former camp.

 

 

The most ironic and saddest aspect of this arguement... is that I've literally never pirated a video game in my life (I've been given a couple discs from a friend, and the ones I played/enjoyed I ended buying physical copies at local retailers), and I plan on using hacked .exes for Starcraft II and Diablo III at some point. And those will be the 'only' games I've ever had to do that with in my life. I plan on buying them legitimately, and then using patches to allow me to play offline to my hearts content - I'm soooooo very evil and don't deserve to play video games.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Protoplasym

[Mendon]

I'll simply refuse to support a Company who calls me a thief soley in the name of not knowing whether or not I have the propensity to steal from them. There's a reason a Police Officers in the United States of America have to tell citizens why they're being stopped, questioned, or even being detained.

 

I consider myself a safe driver that obeys the law. Yet I have to endure Speed Bumps.... some that rattle the hell out of my car.... on a vast number of streets and parking lots in my town simply because some people refuse to drive responsibly.

 

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't always apply. Such is life.

 

 

Mendon

[Rex Dart]

Observe: shopkeepers, keeping shop. But you're not a thief! Oh well.

[Protoplasym]

I'll simply refuse to support a Company who calls me a thief soley in the name of not knowing whether or not I have the propensity to steal from them. There's a reason a Police Officers in the United States of America have to tell citizens why they're being stopped, questioned, or even being detained.

 

I consider myself a safe driver that obeys the law. Yet I have to endure Speed Bumps.... some that rattle the hell out of my car.... on a vast number of streets and parking lots in my town simply because some people refuse to drive responsibly.

 

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't always apply. Such is life.

 

 

Mendon

 

Horrible analogy imo... does not compare apples to apples in the slightest. I take it you believe in Probable Cause being warranted in a pre-emptive fashion across all facets of life....? Or just where the argument suits you?

[Mendon]

Metal Ghost... back to your original post:

 

Speaking for myself, I have very little interest in the Wii-U at this time. I'm having so much fun with the Wii and Xbox360 (especially picking up some fun games for $10 or less) that I just don't see a need for spending $$$$$ on a new system.

 

And there are so many unanswered questions regarding the new system.... launch date and price, storage, transfer of DLC from Wii, online aspects, and on and on. Nintendo is being too quiet in too many area's, IMO.

 

Plus, after watching the launch of the 3DS, I plan on waiting for at least a year or more in order to see what final price and design the Wii-U will take before I even consider the possibility of a purchase. That time frame will also allow me to see what software is produced by 3rd parties and what direction Sony and MS might take with a new system.

 

 

Mendon