IMHO, the WiiU's "asymetric gameplay" and controller options were the opposite of "simple". The Wiimote was/is easy to understand, and simple... hence its success.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Shigeru Miyamoto: Apple and Nintendo See Eye to Eye on Simplicity
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IMHO, the WiiU's "asymetric gameplay" and controller options were the opposite of "simple". The Wiimote was/is easy to understand, and simple... hence its success.
Who said anything about using the Siri remote? Indeed, why on earth would I use it?
My pair of Nimbus controllers are ready!
I own a sizable collection of Virtual Console games but I am willing to repurchase all of them if they were ever released on iOS/tvOS with Apple's more robust ecosystem, digital store fronts, iCloud saves, Game Center achievements, and the fact of being able to remove one less device in my electronics setup is incredibly appealing to me.
If Apple were to release an Apple TV 5 tomorrow, I know I can be reassured that I could simply redownload all those games again. Nintendo may have to update their apps with support, but it's nothing like how they handled virtual console games from Wii to Wii U where you had to pay an additional cost for each game just to play them on the Wii U. Nintendo, like pretty much every other Japanese electronics company, can't seem to comprehend how to design a powerful OS platform and maintain it over time across multiple devices. Nintendo can't even do cross play so people have to pay twice in order to play across the Wii U and 3DS and forget about syncing saves on Nintendo systems. It just doesn't exist.
In other words, let Apple handle the hardware, software, infrastructure and services while Nintendo can focus on what they do best: creating great games. Thats my hope anyway.
This.
Last edited:
There's so much potential here. Since Apple in essence is a hardware company that packages *great* software to drive sales and vice versa for Nintendo, maybe Nintendo will be the developer that will deiliver quality apps and games that take advantage of the silicon and push it to its limits instead of the countless freemium and lazily made apps
So true. I still remember how cool it was when I first saw the Trash icon in OS 7.5 (reminded me of Sesame St
)Now everything in the UI looks like it has been designed by an elitist-snobbish-hipster-designer.... sterile.
Apple OS' have definitely lost a lot of the culture which gave their products "personality" and differentiated them. Unfortunate
I thought I was definitely going to buy the game, but what you mention plus the requirement for constant internet connection are two things which are seriously bugging me.
It really is a shame. Compared to Android Apple does have a good enough ecosystem to limit piracy and convert more users to paying apps, I don't understand why Nintendo feels the need to apply more restrictions than necessary (interns requirement and no family sharing) and punish the people who actually want to pay for their software. I definitely understand a company wants to protect its intellectual property and I sometimes do think anti-piracy technologies are a necessary evil, but in that case I doubt it will reduce piracy (surely people with jailbroken phones will eventually and easily get access to an unrestricted version which works on all their devices) and I think it could hurts sales - a lose-lose situation for Nintendo.
The Apple TV allows for bluetooth game controllers, too. ya know. Personally, I'd love to play Nintendo's older stuff on my iPhone, Mac, or Apple TV. All three can support controllers and, as Square Enix has shown with their FF ports on the App Store, touch controls aren't so bad on a bird's eye view game (like the old Zeldas).
Also, if Apple bought Nintendo, I'd expect them to let the company operate mostly independently like they have with Beats. The only difference would be Nintendo software on Apple devices.
At least two people have grumbled at the fact that the rest of their family can't play it without paying for it.
I didn't even think of this. If it's an in-app purchase, it doesn't apply to other devices? So I'd have to buy on BOTH my iPhone and my iPad? Uhhhhh.... no.
HA. Anybody remember the Nintendo 64 controller? Were we supposed to grow a new hand in order to hold that thing or what?
Why is that the automatic assumption? The inability to use on the subway, or a plane, or in my office which doesn't get a great signal has me disappointed in the internet requirement. Maybe not enough to pass on buying it, but it certainly has me questioning it.
Eh, I know we shouldn't be looking at this in the traditional sense of buying games for consoles/devices, but it does seem crappy to require all devices in a household to buy a copy. Hell, if it requires an internet connection, how about letting only one device at a time use it?
Blame the super restrictive App store rules.
Because (nonsensically) free trials aren't allowed the only way they can offer any "try before you buy" system is to make it a free app and offer the full gameplay as an in app purchase. In app purchases aren't shareable with family sharing.
And rightly so. I'm a developer also, so I can empathize a bit with the challenges of monetizing an app, but even I think it's ludicrous for a game like this to cost $30 if me, my wife, and my son all want to play it. It's a novelty side scroller ffs. Add to that always-on-internet and they're out of their **** minds.
I mean $30 can buy you a decent full-blown console game that your entire family and anyone that comes over to your house can play, in perpetuity, without internet. And this game is nowhere near as immersive or complex. So I say grumble away fellow forum malcontents, in this case it's entirely justified.
No, assuming Super Mario Run is a universal app, it should apply. It's also all under one iTunes Store account.
I know but its due to the App Store rules. The App is 9.99 how many people are going to pay that without a trial? In order to offer a trial they have to make the app free with IAP which aren't shareable.
The problem is people will grumble at Nintendo, they are Apples rules.
No, it was an either or thing with analog and digital. It was a first in so many ways, almost everything new it offered is now a native part of every controller out there. Some games allowed the use of two controllers for dual analog as well, before that was adopted as dual analog in one controller.
$30 these days will get you a cinematic run through of an FPS nearly on rails that you probably will never play again....and you'll pay that often to remain entertained with today's consoles. Not that I'm justifying the price but I would be surprised if this runner ends up being better than games that cost 6 times as much on average.
This is the future of the Apple ecosystem. Allowing local storage means Apple can't charge a monthly fee. In a year or two your iPhone will have no local storage and everything will be based on your $30/month iCould fee, just like the Apple TV today. Get with it, Apple is the new 90's Microsoft.
I've never taken an interest in mobile games before, but I'm really looking forward to this one. It's a shame that you have to be online to play it, bit that's not a deal breaker for me.
