A Nintendo community
for the fans, by the fans!
 Go to forum index
Wii U software cannot be stored on SD Card, tied to Wii U System and not user accounts.
News reported by 
November 11, 2012, 01:22:16
Unfortunately it seems that Nintendo gamers will once again have to make do with a few restrictions with the purchase of Nintendo's Wii U system.

This is a translation from Nintendo's Japanese site.

Downloaded software can only be played on the Wii U it was originally bought from. Meaning if you download a game to an external HDD and try to use that HDD on another Wii U, it won't work. Correction: downloaded software is saved to the internal memory or what's in the USB slot. Downloaded software can't be saved to the SD card.

360 or PS3 owners have long been able to download software tied to their accounts and run it on friends systems, Sony takes this one step further and allows the software to be installed on 2 systems without the paying user being logged in, meaning you can share software with a friend if you so desire. Nintendo however are opting to only allow software to be installed on the system it is purchased on, not really a suprise but its still the most restrictive scenario of the current home consoles.

On top of this it seems that getting a nice large SD card with your system will be pointless as software purchased can only be stored on USB devices or the systems local storage solution. Best not to rely on those SDHC cards just yet.

Information originally discovered by NeoGAF user Hobby.

URL to share this content (right click and copy link)
Posted: 11/11/12, 01:22:16  - Edited by 
 on: 11/11/12, 01:42:18    
Why not sign up for a (free) account and create your own content?
From my game designer point of view, I don't want piracy to go, I want it to stay the same as it is now. While it hinders the game industry, it can help it at the same time. The multiple games on multiple console thing however has to go.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 03:21:44
@nacthenud maybe thats what happened. I dunno. I went through a 360 and a ps3. i just remember at one point sharing a system with someone and they couldn't access the games I downloaded. On either system. Or having arcade games on my memory card and other people couldn't play them, only the demo version.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 03:59:17  - Edited by 
 on: 11/12/12, 04:02:31
Xbob42 said:
Likewise, the developer of Hotline Miami provided tech support to pirates. His sales then increased.
So the highly pirated game didn't sell, eh? And then sales increased when the dev went to the Pirate Bay and made the little fucks feel bad?

The way devs now have to beg with bundles to make any money off their games on PC lends credence to the whole idea that piracy hurts them, methinks.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 05:17:38
Good to know, I was about to get myself a 32 gig SD card for storage. It's too bad, SD is much cleaner, I don't want to have a bulky HDD hooked up to my Wii U at all times. I guess I will have to go USB. Oh, and piracy = bad, no two ways about it.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 05:40:30
I think the best way to combat piracy is by creating services that offer intangibles that you stealing a stand alone product wont provide. Things like Steam and Steam Workshop are a prime example.

I've never pirated anything other than music when I was in college, however services like Steam and GoG and others make it so easy to buy, download, install and maintain your games, going through any sort of hassle to steal it when I can buy it for the cost of lunch, for me, just doesn't make sense.

I also had no idea you could do that with a Playstation. Honestly that seems like a really poor business decision and I don't blame anyone for not following their lead.

Further I think consoles are going to have a hell of a lot harder time transfering to a DD model than the PC. One of the best things about something like Steam is that I know twenty years from now I'm going to be able to play my games that are attached to my username on whatever PC I own. Consoles due to the one and done nature of them don't have that luxury. The odds of a game you bought on the 360 being able to run 4 generations from now are not good. So you have a problem because your games are attached to your account however unless you save your old hardware you are fucked. For me that eliminates a lot of the appeal.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 06:21:06  - Edited by 
 on: 11/12/12, 06:24:24
I guess I misunderstood how Sony was doing it. I don't think anyone thinks Nintendo needs to allow games to be played at the same time on multiple consoles, though. Just to have the games easily transferable through an account rather than being tied to a single system forever.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 06:32:26
@Xbob42 I'm not appealing to emotion, I'm stating facts.

Fact: China has one of the world's largest economies.

Fact: You can openly buy pirated games in China and they do little to stop it.

Fact: Console manufacturers struggle to sell their products in China where people can openly buy pirated stuff easier (this article is just Nintendo, but I've seen similar statements from Sony and Microsoft)

You could sit around saying all of the console manufacturers are dumb for not catering to the Chinese market more because the piracy is helping give them word of mouth yada yada, but the fact is that the official products do exist there, and almost no one buys them, because they can buy the "same" stuff for cheaper. Word of mouth means jack when people can walk into stores and buy your games for significantly less than you could ever sell them for.

Of course, they could pirate the games themselves, but the fact that also points to something... that there are still a lot of people willing to pay for things only because they haven't figured out / put the effort into / etc getting them for free yet. Right? Why else would anyone pay someone else for a pirated copy of something?

Whatever the case, are you suggesting that it's actually bad / wrong / etc. for companies to fight piracy based on some vague "we really don't know its effects" argument? Because there is certainly a lot of evidence that it can be very, very damaging (for instance, the sharp drop in music sales after Napster came around... pirating definitely did a number there.) And yeah, I know I argue on the other side of things sometimes when it comes to music. Because I don't care about major corporations that much, and when they started losing money I just thought "hey, they're finding it tougher to exploit musicians!" and I think, for instance, the new market is easier for indie musicians to break into and make money off of without depending on majors. This may be true with the new market in games as well. But the majors sure as hell lost a lot of money to pirating in music, and that is nearly undeniable. I can see the exact same thing happening in games. Word of mouth can't quite make up for the fact that most people prefer free to paying. Especially when "word of mouth" from piraters often comes in the form of "hey, I just got this great song / movie / game, want me to send it to you?" In other words, they are generally giving word of mouth to the product AND the distribution means (pirating) at the same time, and I'm hard-pressed to believe that this won't be damaging to the industry longterm.

Almost no one is going to pirate a game and then tell all of their friends to buy it...

Oldmanwinter said:
I think the best way to combat piracy is by creating services that offer intangibles that you stealing a stand alone product wont provide. Things like Steam and Steam Workshop are a prime example.

This is certainly true, but I think unfortunately (for me) a lot of publishers see the way to do this as focusing on online stuff, where they have more ongoing control over things than a static single player experience. Still, I do think this is going to be the most successful way to combat piracy moving forward. But I'm not going to fault companies for looking for various ways to do it.

Oldmanwinter said:
The odds of a game you bought on the 360 being able to run 4 generations from now are not good.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. In the case of Nintendo with its weird hardware, maybe. Sony and Microsoft though? All of the console manufacturers seem to have realized by this point that selling old games works. Right now you can download PS1, PS2 and PS3 games onto your PS3. I'm sure the same will hold true for the PS4 and PS5.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 07:04:22  - Edited by 
 on: 11/12/12, 07:12:57
Zero said:
This is certainly true, but I think unfortunately (for me) a lot of publishers see the way to do this as focusing on online stuff, where they have more ongoing control over things than a static single player experience.
I'm sure moving forward we'll see a lot of bright ideas like this.

I will get out of gaming if that's the future, just watch me.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 07:19:59  - Edited by 
 on: 11/12/12, 07:22:59
@Guillaume Simply awful. It's nice to see the comments section tell the guy what a terrible idea that is.

Anywho, while I'm not going to get up in arms about this (it's par for the course), do we have any idea what is going to happen if your hard drive dies, or your WiiU gets misplaced/stolen? Are we basically screwed unless we have a police report or something? Would we have to send the WiiU to Nintendo in the mail?

Again, it's not an enormous deal for me, especially since I'm not getting a WiiU at launch, but I just don't get why they don't link the purchases to your account. Doesn't virtually every other device/service do this nowadays? I mean, they DO have that information somewhere, at least with downloaded purchases, otherwise I wouldn't have surveys waiting for me on Club Nintendo.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 17:42:53  - Edited by 
 on: 11/12/12, 17:46:33

Oh god. Agree totally.

I never want to get into a future where the most enjoyment in a game goes to those who have the biggest wallet. Whatever happened to balanced gameplay mechanics and unlocks acquired through skill?

Anything where you pay money to progress is a bad idea.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 21:29:53

Most competent developers of F2P games have realized that money to progress games aren't the way to go; few people want to play against other people who have bought their way to the top.

But as F2P gaming expands, and it will, the better developed stuff isn't going to be about that. It isn't really that way now, FWIW.

Besides, it's not like all gaming is going to be F2P anyway. There are a lot of markets, and that's just one.

As far as the thread topic at hand goes... it's not a dealbreaker, but it is lame. You can get a 64GB SD card for about as many dollars now, and that's only going to get better. I'd rather have my stuff saved/backed up on super portable flash media that I can more easily back up to my PC, but... whatever. It's not a dealbreaker.

Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 23:52:14
Browse    1  2  3  4