Refreshment.01
Member
It has been pointed out to you that Nintendo was considering a screen on a controller for decades even before Tablets were main stream. That a fragment of my reply has an speculative part, doesn't have any bearing on what the company factually wanted for years.What has? I was speculating, which is what you go on to do later on in your own reply, coming to the same conclusion (second bolded part)
That's not how it works, you are ignoring technology progression and the impact it would have on a given idea. The same idea in the future could be a lot better that it once was in the past. It's basically waht happened to VR and it's cuarrent renaissance.Doesn't matter that they were thinking about it for decades, a bad and poorly thought out idea in 1996 is still a bad and poorly thought out idea in 2016
Parting from your comment, the functionality of a screen in a controller in 1996 would be rather limited because of size, resolution and the state of touch technology. The Wii U came to be because it was a point in which the screen size and price was in a range good enough for them to extract a variety of uses.
However, even if we narrow our minds and qualify the idea as just "bad", as time goes on, the screen in a controller makes more sense because of reduction costs and advancements in haptic technolgies. There are touch screens right now that simulate diferent surfaces and resistances with micro vibrations. Or ones that detect different preasure intensities. In the future maybe we would have a screen capable to emulate the physical feeling of a button press.
Now, one could talk about the actual Wii U implementation of the idea. And i think there's room for improvement there, i ' ve pointed this out myself for years like i already told you many many times.