3DS XL Circle Pad Pro Expansion coming this year

[VMM]

They have an influence but they take no part in the development. There's a difference there.

They interfere a lot in development,
I remember reading that Kirby got a lot different than the original project due to Iwata's interference

 

[Deleted_171835]

Clearly those developers thought it would be worthwhile investing money into adding support for the device. Was it a good decision? Only they know, not us. We don't have their sale data, nor their cost data, nor their designs. Perhaps they even regret spending money providing that functionality. If you were a software developer, you'd understand perfectly where I'm coming from. If you were a project manager, you'd understand the risks that are involved in even the smallest of functionality. As it is, projects rarely finish on time and on budget, and there's very little time for gold-plating. (7 or so games isn't a "multitude of games" anyways)

If a revision of the 3DS was to include an additional circle pad, developers would feel forced to develop and optimise for both platforms. By keeping the control scheme as purely optional (as it is currently), developers don't feel that pressure whatsoever. Not to mention, if developers don't use the functionality, why would Nintendo release the product to begin with? Seems like a waste of Nintendo's time if developers don't develop for the new platform. Just look at the DSi, which from a developer's perspective, was a complete and utter failure. How many DSi-only games are sold in retail stores? How many DSi games take advantage of the faster CPUs and the big increase in RAM?

You know what, here's a task for you. I want you to make pictures of a 3DS variation, which shows all sides of the console, that includes all of the functionality that you want. With that, I want you to include a feasibility study with a statement as to what value it will provide to the business. You have to give reasons as to why developers want more work, and why Nintendo should invest in a product that would most likely only be used by a minority. On top of which, I want you to include some designs as to what the internal architecture would possibly look like. If you really want to convince me, include a full detailed diagram of all of the components and all of their connections. If you really think it's that easy, all of those tasks should be no problem for you.

For one, adding support for a second stick and triggers is not as much of an investment or a cost risk as you seem to think. If that was true, developers would not have had support for the CPP (which had a very small userbase at the time of release).

How would developers feel forced to utilize an additional circle-pad? It's their choice as to whether to add support for it in their games. They have the option to leave the second-stick alone and utilize one control-scheme for both systems. Nintendo isn't putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to use a second stick. It's an option just like the D-Pad on the 3DS which is not used in all games.

As for developers not using the functionality, it's not necessary for all games. There will be devs that won't use it but for the ones that are developing FPS, TPS and other game-types that benefit from a second stick (most notably, Monster Hunter), they would use it to improve their games control-scheme.

There is no reason for me to outline all of what you asked. I'm not a Nintendo product designer so it certainly isn't my job. I already explained above that it would not force more work on to developers. Not to mention your conclusion that a second stick would only be used by a minority is flawed. If that was the case, Nintendo would not have come out with the Circle Pad Pro. They made that device because there was demand for one.

Since you seem to think that adding the triggers is impossible without adding a lot of bulk, look at these lovely triggers on the Classic Controller?

That would fit on the system without causing much bulk.

 

[Deleted-185407]

For one, adding support for a second stick and triggers is not as much of an investment or a cost risk as you seem to think. If that was true, developers would not have had support for the CPP (which had a very small userbase at the time of release).

How would developers feel forced to utilize an additional circle-pad? It's their choice as to whether to add support for it in their games. They have the option to leave the second-stick alone and utilize one control-scheme for both systems. Nintendo isn't putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to use a second stick. It's an option just like the D-Pad on the 3DS which is not used in all games.

As for developers not using the functionality, it's not necessary for all games. There will be devs that won't use it but for the ones that are developing FPS, TPS and other game-types that benefit from a second stick (most notably, Monster Hunter), they would use it to improve their games control-scheme.

There is no reason for me to outline all of what you asked. I'm not a Nintendo product designer so it certainly isn't my job. I already explained above that it would not force more work on to developers. Not to mention your conclusion that a second stick would only be used by a minority is flawed. If that was the case, Nintendo would not have come out with the Circle Pad Pro. They made that device because there was demand for one.

Since you seem to think that adding the triggers is impossible without adding a lot of bulk, look at these lovely triggers on the Classic Controller?

That would fit on the system without causing much bulk.

Your entire argument is flawed because you clearly don't have any experience in professional software development and have little to no understanding of software design and life-cycles (Before you ask, yes I do have professional software development experience). The developers who implemented the control scheme obviously thought that players like yourself wouldn't purchase the game unless it supported the device. They know how aggressive and picky the player-base can be, thus must have thought that it would be best to keep them happy. Now does the cost justify the reward? You don't know that, neither do I. The uninformed consumer will obviously think it's something that's simple to do, but even the smallest of features can be daunting tasks. Don't forget coding is just one step of a life-cycle for a feature, you have Requirements, Design, Unit Testing, Integration Testing, User Acceptance Testing, and so on.

If Nintendo put the second analog and triggers onto the console, they would most certainly be pressurising developers to take advantage of it. If Nintendo decided to spend lots of money modifying the architecture of their console, they most certainly want to see that money come back to them. Everyone keeps thinking it costs nothing to add new controls to the console. That's very misguided considering again, it lacks complete knowledge of development life-cycles and the amount of work that's involved in modifying hardware. Why should Nintendo spend lots of money when little to no developers are going to develop for it? Seems like a waste of money for Nintendo. The only reason they designed the 3DS XL is because they believe the cost of researching and developing a larger version of the 3DS with few modifications will be worth it.

The fact that Nintendo came out with an adapter that costs little to nothing to make is proof that the features would only be used by a minority. There's nothing complex about the design, and requires no modification to the complex design of the console. I don't get what's so hard for people to understand that modifying complex architectures is not easy. Once you have a design implemented, it's extremely hard to make modifications. They obviously released the product because it cost them little to nothing in terms of development, while it will actually bring plenty of new customers to the platform. If Nintendo truly thought the majority wanted an additional circle pad + triggers on the console, they would have ignored the millions of people who already bought their console and incorporated them as soon as possible. They didn't, meaning you are a minority, whether you like to admit it or not. Nintendo aren't idiots.

As for your "design", where are you getting the space for them? Stop looking at the outside of the console and start looking at the inside where it truly counts. Show me real designs, otherwise, your entire argument is baseless. You're just saying it's possible, without actually proving it. Give your argument some solid ground.

This is your argument in a nutshell: "Oh hey Nintendo, I'm a complete newbie when it comes to hardware and software design. I think you're a bunch of idiots and you should follow my hand-drawn pictures of the exterior of the console. I know nothing about costs but I don't think it'll cost you much. You shouldn't be after profit, you should be trying to make every single one of your customers happy."

 

[raulpica]

I'll be a little non-intrusive strap-on () circle pad which will strap between the ABXY buttons and the Power button. Which will also somehow add the two additional triggers in the back in a similiar, elegant way.

I trust in you, Nintendo!


...who am I kidding, it'll be a huge, horrible beast carrying destruction and weight

 

[Deleted User]

That's going to make it as big as a baguette.

 

[ProtoKun7]

I'll be a little non-intrusive strap-on

 

[Foxi4]

I'll be a little non-intrusive strap-on... ( )

I'm a little bit scared of the end result, I think I'm going to pussy out on this one... ( )




HA!

 

[raulpica]

I'll be a little non-intrusive strap-on

Damn you, nightly-tiredness-derived-typos!

I'll be a little non-intrusive strap-on... ( )

I'm a little bit scared of the end result, I think I'm going to pussy out on this one... (creep)




HA!

I'd gladly continue this awesome pun combo, but it'd steer into an awesome super-funny off-topicness that would derail the entire thread, so I'll stop here.

 

[Foxi4]

Valid arguments.

You speak of the truth. Mmmmostly.

I'm not going to contest your long post as you have quite a valid and reasonable approach, but I'll give you food for thought. Since the dawn of time, it's been games that sold accessories, not accessories that sold games. I'm not even trying to begin counting how many otherwise useless plastic instruments and how many DDR mats were sold just because of DDR and Guitar Hero/Rockband, and those accessories are really only useful for the one game that they're trademarked with.

My point is, as a professional developer, (or so you claim) how do you think - what are the odds that Nintendo is going to push this new accessory onto developers, trying to promote it the best they can, especially since many get the impression that it was made due to fan demand rather than prior planning? How much are you willing to wager that the games that *could* utilize the CPP in a creative or simply comfortable way will do so simply because programming keybinds in isn't that much of an issue?

Secondly, the 3DS XL contains the exact same hardware as the 3DS, minus the screens which are obviously bigger, while being about 90% bigger from its predecessor. What do you think, do simple maths tell you that you can cram up some extra hardware in there if you have, practically, a bigger PCB to work with, a bigger case to work with and the same amount of guts that you have to put inside? I'm willing to bet that "it's going to fit perfectly fine".

 

[Deleted-185407]

You speak of the truth. Mmmmostly.

I'm not going to contest your long post as you have quite a valid and reasonable approach, but I'll give you food for thought. Since the dawn of time, it's been games that sold accessories, not accessories that sold games. I'm not even trying to begin counting how many otherwise useless plastic instruments and how many DDR mats were sold just because of DDR and Guitar Hero/Rockband, and those accessories are really only useful for the one game that they're trademarked with.

My point is, as a professional developer, (or so you claim) how do you think - what are the odds that Nintendo is going to push this new accessory onto developers, trying to promote it the best they can, especially since many get the impression that it was made due to fan demand rather than prior planning? How much are you willing to wager that the games that *could* utilize the CPP in a creative or simply comfortable way will do so simply because programming keybinds in isn't that much of an issue?

Secondly, the 3DS XL contains the exact same hardware as the 3DS, minus the screens which are obviously bigger, while being about 90% bigger from its predecessor. What do you think, do simple maths tell you that you can cram up some extra hardware in there if you have, practically, a bigger PCB to work with, a bigger case to work with and the same amount of guts that you have to put inside? I'm willing to bet that "it's going to fit perfectly fine".

You're absolutely right that it's the games that sell consoles, not the hardware and accessories. Many people who are demanding for Nintendo to release a new variation of the 3DS with a built-in pad + triggers feel otherwise. However, I believe that once the console has a game they really want, they'll purchase the console anyway. If that happens, that just proves Nintendo is right to not waste money researching and developing a "revised" version of the console. Customers never usually know what they want. They think they want one thing, when actually it's something entirely different. Nintendo is perfectly aware of that.

As a result of the adapter costing little to nothing for Nintendo to make (compare the insides of the adapter, versus the insides of the 3DS), I don't think they really care if it succeeds or not. As I mentioned before, they know how picky the current generation of gamers can be. I would agree that it was made due to fan demand rather than prior planning, and that's why. It's clearly designed to be something that they could make cheaply and quickly in order to drastically improve sales. Has it been success in doing that? The only people who can answer that are those who bought the console once the adapter came out. Don't forget as well, that if Nintendo did incorporate the slider + triggers into a new variation, the increase in price would be much larger than $20 due to research, development and risk.

I'm not entirely sure what your second question is asking. But remember, a key-binding isn't just a simple remapping, your game engine actually has to support the binding and the new functionality. Take a simple example, say your camera has a clever algorithm to follow the player all of the time. Now let's say you want to let the user control the camera with the second circle pad. Doing so requires modifying and introducing a good few new algorithms (moving a camera isn't as simple as adding co-ordinates, you also have to do complex ray-tracing to ensuring the camera doesn't go through walls and so on). Then of course, you have to get your testers to test the functionality and constantly tweak it until it's comfortable, intuitive and perfected. I can't remember the exact percentage, but coding a feature is a minor task (like 30%, still a hefty task though), the majority of the work is in testing (50%) (Requirements and Design accommodate the remaining 20%. The Agile approach to software development is becoming more popular, which reduces the emphasis on documentation, and more emphasis on coding and testing to produce software quicker with better quality.).

Whether a lot of developers think it's necessary or not remains to be seen. I don't think many developers care about supporting the device considering only a few games support the device, while millions of 3DS consoles have been selling. If I was a 3DS developer, I wouldn't think it'd be wise to waste time focusing on something that only a minority would use. Rather, I'd focus on innovating and perfecting the standard control scheme that everyone can use. The existence of the touch-screen allows for many innovative possibilities. Think about some of the old DS shooter games. The touch-screen controls were far superior to dual-analogs since the accuracy was so much better. That's innovation. In software development, since you want to be on-time and on-budget (which for 70% of projects, doesn't happen), you simply just don't have the resources to keep a minority happy.

As for the last paragraph, it's not just the screens that changed, but also the batteries. To support those larger screens, you need a much bulkier battery. Like I said in a previous post, it's amazing that Nintendo actually increased the battery life at all. Supporting two massive screens, one of which being 3D, is really not easy. As a result, the battery will clearly be taking up a lot of room in the console. On any device, the screen is what takes up the majority of the power. The consumer wouldn't think that the battery changed at all, since it's an internal change, but it definitely has, and most likely is twice its original size. Mobile CPUs and GPUs are not that power hungry at all (yet are still very powerful).