http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/wii-strap/ … 222773.php

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Typical.

I find it hard to believe that someone who correctly uses a Wii can actually cause themselves injury nor seriously damage something such as a TV.  On the other hand, since many people are idiots, I wouldn't be surprised if they did fling the remotes and such.  That being said, I think Nintendo did make the strap too thin, but they are replacing it free of charge as they should, and I think that should take care of the situation.

cheers,

-avatar!

http://wiihaveaproblem.com

See this is the typical North American attitude towards litigation.  If anything isn't 100% idiot proof (And even when it is) people will raise a big fuss about it.  For all our machismo, we're a bunch of sissies if we can't even figure out how to use a f---ing video game system properly for Christ's sake.

http://www.nintendojo.com/fullfocus/vie … 1166055790

While I would normally agree with this sentiment, it seems to me that this time Nintendo have messed up. With the repeated on-screen instruction to use the wrist-strap, Nintendo made it clear that they knew that letting a remote slip during play is a strong possibility and needed a safety control. It is hardly designed with a gripped surface after all. So the strap is the protection method.

The strap, as it turns out, wasn't strong enough.

Like making seat belts in a car that tear during a crash, this is simply a design fault. While Nintendo are now offering to replace the straps, there are thousands (probably millions) of units out there with straps that just aren't strong enough and, as already shown, Nintendo knew before release that they needed that safety measure to work.

Yea, in America Nintendo should not have included the wrist-strap and instead told everyone to not throw the controller to begin with. <_<

That is not a scientific process at all.  He would need multiple straps to conduct several load tests.

That test does seem to show that the strap has incredible repeated stress resistance, as he kept using the same strap for heavier items.

I'm definitely with Marcel on this one.  This is just pure opportunistic malice. 

Sure.  But I personally don't buy the 'weak strap' argument.  It seems to me that you'd have to be doing some seriously animated, extremely exaggerated Wiimote swinging to break that strap.

I strongly disagree with that.  Nintendo can make a case of showing that reasonable measures were made.  There are constant warnings in the manual and games not to place excessive force on the strap.  It is emphasized that no extreme force is necessary. 

No product is completely durable.  At some extreme application of force, any product will break.

Also, what would be the point of all those other portable electronics with straps?  People have twirled cell phones and cameras on their straps.

And do the straps break?

Regardless, this is pure opportunism for a class action lawsuit which typically does nothing but hurt the manufacturer for the sake of the lawyer; Nintendo is already replacing the straps for free (which is the only thing Nintendo would probably have to do if such a class action occurs, other than make the lawyers richer) and I checked the NOA site---you can order multiple straps at once.  I'm not wasting NOA's money because myself and everyone that has played my Wii, not to mention all my friends that have a Wii and those that have played theirs, aren't retarded and/or drunk when we play.  I doubt my friends will order the straps too.

I'm curious if this strap nonsense is part of the reason why Nintendo has supposedly delayed Wii Play, as it is bundled with a Wiimote, in the US.

I'll bet they do, yes.  I'd be surprised if nobody's tried to get money out of Kodak or Sony or any other camera manufacturer.  The Wii straps are not any thinner or flimsier than any camera or phone strap I've ever seen.  The new versions of the straps are *quite* thick... moreso than ones on any device I've ever seen.  I simply can't believe the straps are breaking due to normal use.  You've gotta be quite violent in order for those things to snap, I think...

You're right! That's why you'll have to buy one of those rubber jackets for about $15 (more). Here are more common sense directions; don't play so damn aggressively and the controller will stay put. You can still get into the games without using the force to fling a football. Between this method and the strap, I don't see what the problem is...

Yes, they can break, and usually the camera or phone doesn't even survive the impact of hitting whatever surface they fly into.  You can break any electronics strap if you give it enough force, but that force is usually well beyond the intended design. 

I think we have some really silly people who are looking to blame someone else for breaking their TVs.

We just need to kill everyone who isn't one of us.

And now you hit the nail on the head. Intended design of a camera or phone is simply to be held. Quite still usually. And yet, even then, accidents can happen and things can slip, hence the addition in some models of a strap. Now go check those Wii Sports diagrams on how to play the games. It's very clear that the designers wanted people to swing that remote around as if it were a real bat or raquet. Ever played tennis? Or baseball? That force is the intended design.

I am under no delusions thinking an electronic remote can be used in the same way as a real tennis racket or bat.   The manuals and advertising never state that this device should ever be treated as the same as sports equipment.  It's a simulation, not the real thing. 

The intended design argument may be an area where the plaintiff will try to make their case.  I think that this class-action lawsuit shouldn't go anywhere.  If a case happens, and Nintendo loses or settles, it is only going to encourage more lawsuits for other products, like camera and phone straps.  The argument will not be "intended design or not" but be about product durability.  And then, companies will be leery of releasing new products.

Well that's quite a leap to make but, if that's your reasoning, I can understand why this would be worrying.

A brushpen that was a particular favourite of mine is no longer sold in most countries because some kid choked on the cap. It was easier for them just to discontinue the brand than to fight lawsuits. Idiotic result.

Of course a brushpen is not designed to be eaten by children and that's where the crucial difference lies.

Yes indeed, people throw around tennis rackets and baseball bats like nothing so the wiimote strap clearly has to stand such force.

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsart … chid=13662

Nintendo's not backing down.

LOL!

Sarcasm. Nice, but misplaced. Though it does actually happen that both of those objects get thrown, ask yourself why it doesn't happen more often.

the controllers shouldve come with metal spikes that you jam through the centers of your palms and secure on the other side.... after all, body piercing is such a big thing with the kids nowadays.. the risk with that is that nintendo might get sued by the christian coalition for infringing on trademark stigmata wounds...

Hehe...
That reminds me, I think there was some Christian woman who sued D&D for her son's suicide, only because he had played the game at some point.  It's interesting how people very often try to blame others for their own shortcomings (in this case, I believe she rightfully lost the lawsuit).  That being said, I do think there are many instances when a company does rightfully deserve to get sued (PayPal, ebay, PayPal, ebay, PayPal...) however I'm very skeptical in this wriststrap case.  Of course,  I don't know all the details nor do I have a Wii yet.

cheers,

-avatar!

Paypal is a much-lesser evil than ebay.

I believe that ebay owns PayPal.
Also, from what I've heard of PayPal (and I think some people in this forum would agree), PayPal is just as evil!

cheers,

-avatar!

Paypal is owned by ebay, but Paypal was clean before then, and is still not as dirty as its owner.  I think most of the problems with Paypal still arise from its association with ebay, such as when somebody there's suspicion of "stolen money" being used to pay for an auction.