"Customers do not want online games" - Iwata

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 8, 2004
2,364
0
0
SapientWolf said:
Anyone who doesn't want an online version of Advance Wars or Soul Calibur II is not a gamer. I don't know if Nintendo can continue to ignore the wants of the hardcore crowd and still remain competitive, because the Nintendo generation is growing up and the Pokemon/Mario craze has died down.

I do think Nintendo was wise not to make a halfway attempt at online gaming like Sony did. Online gaming won't be financially viable until broadband is more widespread. The problem is that Microsoft will already have a great online service in place and Nintendo will have to play catch-up when online gaming goes mainstream. Nintendo had better become more flexible in the future, or they will find themselves making kid's toys and not game systems.
After reading the arguements for and against closed and open online systems, I beginning to wonder if it's even fair to say that Nintendo is ignoring their fans. It seems like things are more complicated than they appear when it comes to implementing online modes.

Regardless, I think this debate will continue to go no where unless we had reliabe evidence of how online components affect sales. Otherwise, we're just bunch of gamers trying to defend our tastes.
 
teh_pwn said:
I'm getting ready for another day of warcraft III. I've put over 300 hours into this game. Most replayable game ever.
From the perspective of most publishers, though, they'd rather you play more games than love one game with free online for 300 hours.


About the "People will be more likely to buy the online-enabled software." I thought the concensus was that didn't pan out for MS's holiday titles last year?
 

Azih

Member
May 31, 2004
19,276
2
0
37
Canada
Kobun Heat said:
For now.

The Gamecube isn't going to be the lead platform of this gen. But next generation, everybody starts at zero. And as you're trying to line up launch titles, you do it through solid relationships with the developers and publishers.

Lead platforms aren't created out of thin air, and Nintendo's laying the groundwork for next generation with its partnerships now. Whether all that will work out in their favor is anyone's guess at this point - but if you agree that one of Nintendo's main problems early on with the GCN was lack of major franchise titles and solid, deep games, then you've got to believe that teamups with outside developers are a big step towards solving that problem at Revolution's launch.
This is like Gamecube redux. Nintendo had a huge stable of 2nd parties and the amount of interest from publishers for the cube was much much higher than what the N64 ever got. The *problem* with the cube launch however was that Nintendo refused to lead from the front with their own software. In the end it's *Nintendo's* responsibility to create a critical mass of gamers and Nintendo abdicated that with their reliance on games like Luigi's Mansion and Pikmin.

With Iwata's rhetoric unchanged from the Cube launch days to now (we've been hearing about how simpler is better for 3 years now) what I see is that the most important lesson of the Cube (and heck the N64) generation is unlearned. Nintendo is the most important thing about a Nintendo console. The kind of audience that a Nintendo console achieves is determined by the kind of software Nintendo creates. And since Nintendo needs heavy support from Western publishers they better learn to create software that would get the kind of people buying Nintendo consoles that Western publishers (hell *ALL* publishers) need. 'Simpler is Better' ain't going to cut it.
 
Jun 10, 2004
20,366
1
0
41
Bluemercury said:
Well i want online games as long as i dont have to pay any fees or additional costs ill play online games, like i do on pc with CS and DOD......
What are you people going to do when you move out of your parent's house and realize that you have to PAY for electricity, your telephone, internet, cable, etc? Everything costs money to maintain and online gaming is becoming no different.
 
Jun 7, 2004
31,945
9
1,500
JoshuaJSlone said:
About the "People will be more likely to buy the online-enabled software." I thought the concensus was that didn't pan out for MS's holiday titles last year?
Of course those titles may have sold even less without the online modes.

The original Amped and PGR were B-grade titles in iffy genres that had their sales propped up by virtue of being launch titles. The sequels were not going to surpass sales of the originals, online or no online. If Nintendo released Luigi's Mansion 2 with online multiplayer, I wouldn't expect it to do better than the first.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Jun 14, 2004
14,551
0
1,390
Austin
"From the perspective of most publishers, though, they'd rather you play more games than love one game with free online for 300 hours."

Unlike EA, that's not Blizzard's style. They don't crank out shitty games constantly to meet deadlines.

It's not exactly free online. The games are more expensive than most PC games. They come out at $60. That would be like $80 for a console game.

Instead they make incredible games and they tweak them constantly to balance things out. They also continually add to the game. They adds new maps, and even units (aside from the expansion).

If I wasn't still interested in Warcraft III, I wouldn't have bought the expansion, and I probably wouldn't be interested in WoW.



Someone mention around the lines that "Nintendo shouldn't divert resources to online play." Honestly, how many development changes need to be made to make online play possible for SSBM, Mario Kart, etc? Not many. They'll still be able to make quality games. It's not like they can't afford to hire a few more software engineers anyway.
 
Jun 10, 2004
9,757
1
1,290
StrikerObi said:
You're missing the point completly. Just because YOU play online games doesn't mean everybody else does, especially on consoles.
And just because you have the luxury of inviting a bunch of friends over at a moment's notice whenever the urge to play a multiplayer game strikes doesn't mean that everybody else does. Some of us (particularly older gamers like myself) have families, jobs, and other responsibilities that impose constraints on our free time. When your friends have similar time issues, it becomes harder and harder to schedule these social gaming get-togethers. Hooking up with people online is a more than acceptable alternative--there's no travelling involved, no having to straighten up the house ahead of time if you're hosting, no dirty looks from the wife because you want to go hang out with the guys again, no 'keep it down, you'll wake the baby'. You can squeeze in a few hours of gaming with your pals online without leaving the house, and BS with them via voice chat the entire time. Sure, it's not quite as good as being there in the flesh, but it's a helluva lot more convenient.

That's what being 'adult' really means to a gamer, and Nintendo is turning a blind eye to it.
 
Jun 10, 2004
20,366
1
0
41
Tellaerin said:
And just because you have the luxury of inviting a bunch of friends over at a moment's notice whenever the urge to play a multiplayer game strikes doesn't mean that everybody else does. Some of us (particularly older gamers like myself) have families, jobs, and other responsibilities that impose constraints on our free time. When your friends have similar time issues, it becomes harder and harder to schedule these social gaming get-togethers. Hooking up with people online is a more than acceptable alternative--there's no travelling involved, no having to straighten up the house ahead of time if you're hosting, no dirty looks from the wife because you want to go hang out with the guys again, no 'keep it down, you'll wake the baby'. You can squeeze in a few hours of gaming with your pals online without leaving the house, and BS with them via voice chat the entire time. Sure, it's not quite as good as being there in the flesh, but it's a helluva lot more convenient.

That's what being 'adult' really means to a gamer, and Nintendo is turning a blind eye to it.
Best post in this thread.
 
Jun 7, 2004
31,945
9
1,500
The Pokemon craze may not die down until there is no longer a cruddy half-hour commercial for the game running on TV six days out of the week. The Mario craze has obviously cooled off a great deal.....I don't think SMS will even come close to matching the sales of Mario64.
 
Jun 7, 2004
527
0
0
I would pay for a 'Nintendo Online' service that blows AOL out of the water. provided that Nintendo provides full internet access through N5 / GCNext / Revolution and some internet capability with DS. the Revolution service includes full gaming communities, exclusive chat, email service, IMing over Revolution and DS, and of course online gaming like LIVE.


remember the reported Nintendo "Star Road Nework" for Dolphin / Star Cube, before the console was unveiled as GameCube, circa July-August 2000 ?
 
Jun 7, 2004
16,250
0
0
www.myspace.com
"Customers do not want online games" - Iwata

"Customers apparently didn't want our console" - Iwata 4 years from now

I see this as shooting yourself in the foot. What Iwata has essentially done, is made their "Revolution" console, already inferior to the PS3 and Xenon.

One less feature...one less reason to buy the machine. Sure, some people will buy it strictly for Nintendo games. But those people won't make your console #1.

Is Nintendo happy being #3 in the market?!
 
Jun 10, 2004
34,867
1
0
www.backloggery.com
ManaByte said:
What are you people going to do when you move out of your parent's house and realize that you have to PAY for electricity, your telephone, internet, cable, etc? Everything costs money to maintain and online gaming is becoming no different.
I've read all the pages of this topic and i must say i agree with you dude BUT...
I still believe we shouldn't pay for online play. Or not much more than what you pay now with Microsoft. Most major business makes incredible profits every year and they always find a way to slowly suck your money out of your pockets in subtle ways. Their increase their fee slowly (so it's psychologically acceptable as an increase but in mid term, they screw you in a "politically correct" way) If we are not carefull it could lead to a world where it's episodic gaming (4 parts 25$ each -- they rob you 40$), online services paid each month 20$ (easily) and also making you believe they have 10 000 millions different expenses to give you their services to justify their imaginative fee on everything and for everything (like the Banks).
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Jun 6, 2004
15,366
17
1,465
Here
Fight for Freeform said:
"Customers do not want online games" - Iwata

"Customers apparently didn't want our console" - Iwata 4 years from now

I see this as shooting yourself in the foot. What Iwata has essentially done, is made their "Revolution" console, already inferior to the PS3 and Xenon.
Oh? Really? Do you know for a fact that the Revolution won't have online gaming? Please, lay it on all of us, unless, of course, this is just wanton speculation on your part. Here. though? NO...

Tellaerin said:
And just because you have the luxury of inviting a bunch of friends over at a moment's notice whenever the urge to play a multiplayer game strikes doesn't mean that everybody else does. Some of us (particularly older gamers like myself) have families, jobs, and other responsibilities that impose constraints on our free time. When your friends have similar time issues, it becomes harder and harder to schedule these social gaming get-togethers. Hooking up with people online is a more than acceptable alternative--there's no travelling involved, no having to straighten up the house ahead of time if you're hosting, no dirty looks from the wife because you want to go hang out with the guys again, no 'keep it down, you'll wake the baby'. You can squeeze in a few hours of gaming with your pals online without leaving the house, and BS with them via voice chat the entire time. Sure, it's not quite as good as being there in the flesh, but it's a helluva lot more convenient.

That's what being 'adult' really means to a gamer, and Nintendo is turning a blind eye to it.
While the "I have a life/wife" argument is reaching a little - because ever since Poker was invented, men have been having buddies over despite growling looks from spouses - it fails to take into account that this particular segment - at the moment - is a sliver of the online gaming market, which in and of itself isn't that big when you consider how many PS2s, XBoxes, and Gamecubes are out in homes.

And just because it's surprisingly appropriate in threads where people talk about "mature" and/or "adult" gaming:

 
Jun 7, 2004
16,250
0
0
www.myspace.com
Oh? Really? Do you know for a fact that the Revolution won't have online gaming? Please, lay it on all of us, unless, of course, this is just wanton speculation on your part. Here. though? NO...
Oh no, I don't have any proof.

But I thought Iwata was the President of Nintendo. Am I wrong?

If Xerox said that "Customers are tired of fax machines"...does it not imply that they will discontinue making them? After all, they, like any business, cater to what customers want. It's bad business to do something you think customers don't want.

I thought that if the President (or say that he isn't the President, but someone very important within the company [after all, he is Yamauchi's adopted son ;)]) would make such a bold statement, at a time like this (where the potential for online gaming on your current console has come and gone, and we are not too far from the next generation of consoles).

It's a safe assumption, that's all.

Though I will note that you took exception to my comments. Perhaps you agree that online gaming support is a must have feature for the next generation of consoles? Perhaps you agree that Iwata's comments are ill-advised?
 
Jun 7, 2004
31,945
9
1,500
It's "reaching" to say that there is a growing segment of gamers who are trying to actively hold down jobs and finances and social lives? =\

The existence of a once-a-week-at-best Poker Night in some social circles hardly negates the attraction to being able to have a mostly hassle-free multiplayer gaming experience in the online realm.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Jun 6, 2004
15,366
17
1,465
Here
Fight for Freeform said:
It's a safe assumption, that's all.

Though I will note that you took exception to my comments. Perhaps you agree that online gaming support is a must have feature for the next generation of consoles? Perhaps you agree that Iwata's comments are ill-advised?
Considering that he's made roundabout statements that some aspects of the DS would make it into the Revolution, it's actually a poor assumption to make. The DS has two kinds of wireless networking built into it, one of which is easily capable of climbing onto the Internet. Do I personally care about online gaming? Not really. Maybe it's the fact that I was weaned on adventure games while everyone else was playing Nintendo; maybe it's my own personal preference towards games that focus more on character and story than how many weapons I can get, and what (or who), precisely I can shoot with them. It's a big question mark in my head, to be honest, but I never really gave it much thought, because it's the same rationale that ultimately drives people to like one game or another period.

Iwata's towing the company philosophy, which is to never take a loss (most of their hits have come in the form of exchange rate fluctuations, which they can't do jack about.) When Nintendo sees a business model that works to their advantage, they'll jump in with their first party software, and given their history, it will probably be flawless. Are they being cheap? I don't know. Maybe for what they'd like their online services to be, they'd have to do more than simply "setup a P2P network," which is oft-suggested here. What I think he should do is encourage 3rd parties to develop online games for the Revolution, despite Nintendo's policy on their own software. Whether that's part of their "tie-up" plan with western developers that he's mentioned is anyone's guess.

border said:
It's "reaching" to say that there is a growing segment of gamers who are trying to actively hold down jobs and finances and social lives? =\

The existence of a once-a-week-at-best Poker Night in some social circles hardly negates the attraction to being able to have a mostly hassle-free multiplayer gaming experience in the online realm.
"Growing," being the operative word. There's also a "growing" market of people who own SACD players, but that format isn't quite taking over the record store (yet.) All I'm stating is that just because a market exists doesn't mean it should be the focus. However "big" the "But I can't find friends to play with!" market is, there's a larger one that still can, but may use online to merely augment the experience. That's why online gaming, at least for this generation, is still, largely, a novelty. Consider that the next GTA, which is probably going to be just as big a bunker-buster as the previous game, is off-line despite the "popularity" of Multitheft Auto.
 
Jun 10, 2004
20,366
1
0
41
Maybe because you are not the market targeted by Nintendo with the Gamecube?
All I'm stating is that just because a market exists doesn't mean it should be the focus.
Thus the mind-boggling problem with Nintendo. Sony vastly expanded the videogame market with the PlayStation. Making videogames less of a toy and more of a part of your home theater that goes right next to your stereo, VCR, or DVD player. Part of the reason why Microsoft has done so well in the US is that they followed what Sony did and realized, smartly, that people over the age of 21 were also buying games in large amounts. Madden wouldn't be selling four to five million units every year if that market wasn't there. That's a FACT. That market is also the key demographic for online gaming, and it's a market that Nintendo likes to pretend doesn't exist. But that's a whole other thread topic.
 
iwata's strategic mistake is thinking that nintendo can wait in the wings with NO prepared online strategy or solution and then, when it becomes big business/starts making money, swoop in and conquer - it's not going to work. customers will have made their software and hardware investments ALREADY at that point, and the other companies will have fully mature solutions while nintendo will be fumbling just like it did with high-cap media, hardware 3d, etc. etc.

disgusting.

the problem is that it's undeniable that networked gaming will be HUGE in the future. it's an inevitability at this point. iwata is acting like maybe we'll have a nuclear war and the networking revolution will just stop in its tracks - well, it won't.
 

Keio

For a Finer World
Jun 10, 2004
2,543
0
0
Finland
Look, I think it would be great if every Nintendo game was packaged with a coupon for a free blowjob. You'd input the PIN number into a website, and they'd dispatch a hooker to your house the next business day. She would then blow you.
I believe online is one of the keys that Nintendo needs if they are serious about chasing down a "mature" userbase.
No, no - Kobun already presented the key to enticing a "mature" userbase :) I love it when people want to differentiate between "adult" and "kiddy" games. Sigh.

And then when you think about Project Gotham Racing 2 you realize that not knowing who you are playing against doesn't matter.
It matters to me. I prefer playing against good drivers who don't try to push me into the nearest barrier or cut me when I clearly have made a better exit from a corner and try to overtake cleanly on a straight.

It really costs NOTHING to do free P2P gaming, which is why so many games on the PC offer it as an option.
Honestly, how many development changes need to be made to make online play possible for SSBM, Mario Kart, etc? Not many.
After all the debate here about open and closed systems, would you think that Nintendo settled for a system where the user would have to worry about ping times, lag etc? I think the only online service they would support would be one where the whole technological level (including "quality of service" symbols etc.) would be removed from the customers view and you'd really have only hassle free gaming without a worry about performance.

And just because you have the luxury of inviting a bunch of friends over at a moment's notice whenever the urge to play a multiplayer game strikes doesn't mean that everybody else does. Some of us (particularly older gamers like myself) have families...
This is one of the reasons I still have my Live account, although I have learned the hard way that there is also a certain unique look you can get from your wife when you are crouched in front of the tv, shouting "covering fire!"...

That's what being 'adult' really means to a gamer, and Nintendo is turning a blind eye to it.
I consider myself adult and I think Nintendo is to thank for numerous nice evenings with friends where good conversation, food, brilliant multiplayer gaming and drinking have mixed well. Maybe I'm just lucky to have a wife who likes Nintendo games :)

If Xerox said that "Customers are tired of fax machines"...does it not imply that they will discontinue making them?
This reminds me of the old Cyberpunk 2020 role playing game buy R. Talsorian Games. In their future (writted in 1989) everyone has stopped using regular mail... instead they send faxes to their friends! Fax is teh future, Nintendo is stupid not to support it...
 
Jun 7, 2004
31,945
9
1,500
"Growing," being the operative word. There's also a "growing" market of people who own SACD players, but that format isn't quite taking over the record store (yet.
It's not entirely the same as the "market" for SACDs. The teenagers who picked up gaming with the Playstation are going to become adults sooner or later....that's just the inevitable march of time. With that adulthood comes a more tight schedule and increased difficulty in arranging social getogethers. If these people are going to continue being active gamers, they will seek out the consoles that best allow them to keep up social gaming.

That market doesn't have to be the complete focus (why is it always "all or nothing" with the anti-online folks?), but it doesn't have to be ignored. If Nintendo is serious about hanging on to gamers as they grow older, I think it's definitely something to pay attention to.

GTA:SA and MGS3 will be offline "bunker busters" yes, but that's partially because those games are difficult to conceive as multiplayer expieriences -- Rockstar North has admitted as much, saying that they don't really have the time and the ability to make their next effort online enabled. At the same time though, Halo 2 and Gran Turismo 4 will be blockbusters with online play. There's room in the market for both sorts of games.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Jun 6, 2004
15,366
17
1,465
Here
ManaByte said:
Part of the reason why Microsoft has done so well in the US is that they followed what Sony did and realized, smartly, that people over the age of 21 were also buying games in large amounts. Madden wouldn't be selling four to five million units every year if that market wasn't there. That's a FACT. That market is also the key demographic for online gaming, and it's a market that Nintendo likes to pretend doesn't exist. But that's a whole other thread topic.
It's been awhile since I've seen the hardware numbers posted, but the US breakdown isn't nearly as drastic as you're making it. The XBox is not a hair's length away from the PS2, it's sold (very roughly) about five times less, with Nintendo not very far behind that. If you'd like to talk about relative failures in the US market, both XBox and Gamecube qualify. If the former were released by any other company, I assure you, it would've been axed simply because no company outside of Microsoft can afford the losses it still incurs.

It's funny you mention Madden, you know? EA could kill both the XBox and Gamecube versions of that game and still have sales figures in the multi-millions to brag about. What I don't have on me, unfortunately, are EA's stats for their online service, which I'm sure is doing fine for them. But as I said, the online components of games like that serve to augment, or serve the hardcore players who go as far as to set up leagues (or whatever's on the laundry list of Things It Can Do, sports games aren't my thing.)
 
Jun 8, 2004
15,194
0
0
Well even without that, they're leaving GC only owners out on their own with certain games. Look at Splinter Cell PT. PS2 and Xbox owners got the single player and multiplayer, GC owners get single player and connectivity. For a company that claims they're all about gaming, it's strange that they don't want to get onto something like this.
There is a modem for the Gamecube, companies can use it if they want. They just simply say "Nintendo doesn't support online", which is total politics and only hurts their own sales. Sega has pretty good sales with a PSO title, but every other company seems to ignore that. It just pisses me off as a gamer that companies are more interested in playing politics about an element which is more hype than reality instead of just making their games as best they can.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Jun 6, 2004
15,366
17
1,465
Here
border said:
It's not entirely the same as the "market" for SACDs. The teenagers who picked up gaming with the Playstation are going to become adults sooner or later....that's just the inevitable march of time. With that adulthood comes a more tight schedule and increased difficulty in arranging social getogethers. If these people are going to continue being active gamers, they will seek out the consoles that best allow them to keep up social gaming.
Border, please, please, please re-read my posts. The cries of "all-or-nothing" are, in reality, coming from those who insist that if Nintendo doesn't go online NOW NOW NOW, they either never will, or they'll somehow - probably through magic - always be thought of as the company that hates the Internet.

I think you're giving the average gamer's attention span entirely too much credit. We're talking about mainstream gamers, that well before Rockstar squirmed out of Sony's contract, couldn't wrap their heads around why GTA was "only" on the PS2 and demanded XBox/Gamecube versions from visibly annoyed EB clerks.

You see, we're both talking about the inevitable march of time, and Nintendo's never said that they'd never go online. They're just saying that right now, for console online gaiming, it's just not the right time. And given that Microsoft hasn't profited off of Live, and that Sony's online gaming base - compared to their installed base - is quite marginal, there is some semblance of a point there.
 

Hero

Member
Jun 6, 2004
14,960
2
0
I just skimmed over the past few pages and I'll add my two cents in.

- Nintendo hasn't stated that they will never go online. They just haven't found a feasible way to do it and not lose money.

- Nintendo can't just dump money into a project that won't be profitable for them. They don't have the luxury of having another sector of the company carry them on their backs.

- Some games just wouldn't be the same online.

An example:

Four Swords:

<Hero> Alright guys, we all need to push the block here.

<Pikajew2005> whut block

<Nintend00m3d> this game sux *uses fire rod on pikajew2005*

<cowboydude> where r u guyz

<Hero> ....

<Hero has left the game>

Or how about:

Crystal Chronicles:

<Hero> My screen says this monster is weak against fire.

<Pikajew2005> i only have blizzard *runs around in circles*

<Nintend00m3d> this game sux *destroys all materia*

<cowboydude> im low on health *runs away with chalice*

<Hero has left the game>


I mean, your friends can do that when you're in the same room, but at least you have the option of hitting them. People online are generally retards or assholes.

And SSB:M wouldn't be fun online if there was an ounce of lag. It's all about timing.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Jun 18, 2004
49,330
0
1,550
Jesus, I love how the media twists Iwata's comment, "But, at the moment, most customers do not wish to pay the extra money for connection to the Internet, and for some customers, connection procedures to the Internet are still not easy," into "Consumers don't want online games."
 
Jun 6, 2004
9,296
0
0
38
San Francisco
blog.wired.com
etiolate said:
There is a modem for the Gamecube, companies can use it if they want. They just simply say "Nintendo doesn't support online", which is total politics and only hurts their own sales.
By "Nintendo doesn't support online," what those companies mean is "Nintendo doesn't write all of our online code, supply the servers, and run our tech support, all for free."

That's what MS and, to some extent, Sony do for third parties. Nintendo says "If it's that important and you can profit off of it, do it yourself." They don't, because they can't.
 
Jun 6, 2004
9,296
0
0
38
San Francisco
blog.wired.com
Hero said:
I mean, your friends can do that when you're in the same room, but at least you have the option of hitting them.
And thank God for that. We just played some more Four Swords, but this time a friend of ours who hadn't played it much joined in. Three of us were trying to finish the dungeon. He was being such a total dick, screwing around and ruining the game that we had to literally carry him from screen to screen. Eventually we just started throwing bombs at him to kill him when we got bored. Then, halfway through the level, he was like, "This is boring, I don't want to play anymore."

If somebody can be that much of a dick in the same room, I'm not sure I'd want to play Four Swords online with three strangers...
 
Jun 10, 2004
20,366
1
0
41
Kobun Heat said:
That's what MS and, to some extent, Sony do for third parties. Nintendo says "If it's that important and you can profit off of it, do it yourself." They don't, because they can't.
If you HONESTLY think a major third party like EA does not have the money or resources to set up their own online server for online Sports games (and profit from it) on the Cube, you are on some seriously strong crack.
 
Jun 7, 2004
85,527
1
0
etiolate said:
There is a modem for the Gamecube, companies can use it if they want. They just simply say "Nintendo doesn't support online", which is total politics and only hurts their own sales. Sega has pretty good sales with a PSO title, but every other company seems to ignore that. It just pisses me off as a gamer that companies are more interested in playing politics about an element which is more hype than reality instead of just making their games as best they can.
Why should 3rd parties add online play to games on the GC when the company that makes the system are constnatly telling their fans that online play isn't worth it? You've got 2 other companies that'll fully support you if you go online while one will just leave you out on your own.
 

DCharlie

And even i am moderately surprised
Staff member
Jun 7, 2004
23,294
25
1,480
www.dcharlie.com
"If Nintendo *were* to do online games, people would expect their service to be basically just like Xbox Live. But that would be impossible for Nintendo. What Microsoft has done with the Xbox and XBL would be completely impossible for any seperate company to do. They are operating at a fantastic loss. "

So - here's a solution.

Nintendo and Sony to utilise XboxLive.

Sony need to build and entire infrastructure.
And so would Nintendo.

MS have already built something that i doubt the other two could match.

MS brings in the cash from competitors using their system.

Obviously, if MS is determined to forge ahead of the other two (rather than just , say, shifting XNA and XBL software solutions) then they would keep XBL closed.

(i know it's not likely, but i'm sure people at all three companies are thinking/thought about it).
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,791
915
1,700
In the tech world, internal R&D lab work without any real-world, decent scale experimentation ( that is actually releasing a product ), etc... you cannot really hope to have your solution at the same level more experienced competitors can produce: unless you are sitting on some miraculous breakthrough.
 
Jun 7, 2004
31,945
9
1,500
xsarien said:
Border, please, please, please re-read my posts. The cries of "all-or-nothing" are, in reality, coming from those who insist that if Nintendo doesn't go online NOW NOW NOW, they either never will, or they'll somehow - probably through magic - always be thought of as the company that hates the Internet.
I just mean "all or nothing" is the sense I get from some people (excuse the following hyperbole):

"Nintendo must have a multi-billion dollar Xbox Live rival or they cannot have online games."
"Online games will have to become the focus of the entire company if they ever put netplay into any game."
"Games can only have good single player or good multiplayer -- never both!"

It just seems like the deck just gets stacked with ridiculous "absolute" assumptions.

I don't think Nintendo has to go online NOW NOW NOW. They have dropped the ball this generation -- there's no point in making some half-assed attempt at doing it in these final 18 months. They've already released one iteration of all the franchises that would have made great online titles (except Starfox), so there's not much left for them to do that will make a big splash. I expect the "mature" Zelda to be Cube's swan song, and after that they will need to adjust their attitude about online for next generation.
 

Kiriku

SWEDISH PERFECTION
Jun 6, 2004
9,586
1
0
Sweden
manofsound.se
Please, god, please, stop this about "I might have to play against UNKNOWN PEOPLE online OMG OMG OMGZ!!"
Well, bloody hell, just find your friends online and play with them! If your friends can manage to come over to your place and play a game, why wouldn't they be able to move their lazy asses to their own sofa and start a game on their own?! And if your friends are being total dicks while you're playing with them, GET NEW FRIENDS.

OK, I feel better now. Move on, move on... :p
 
Jun 7, 2004
31,945
9
1,500
I agree with everything except your parenthesis.
EA probably profits from their online stuff more than any other 3rd party. Now they've got a way to force people to buy the new Madden/Live whatever instead of just holding on to their old version, as many were apt to do in years prior. Is it just a coincidence that now Madden sales are at their highest ever, and increasing with each new version? I imagine online plays some role in that (as does a newfound lack of competitors)...
 
Jun 7, 2004
85,527
1
0
xsarien said:
You see, we're both talking about the inevitable march of time, and Nintendo's never said that they'd never go online. They're just saying that right now, for console online gaiming, it's just not the right time. And given that Microsoft hasn't profited off of Live, and that Sony's online gaming base - compared to their installed base - is quite marginal, there is some semblance of a point there.
Yah he has a point that online gaming isn't exactly the most profitable move right now. But it's also not something you can wait around on and expect people wait for you to finnaly go on, especially when you've got companies pushing online gaming on consoles like Sony and MS are. They've been left behind before because of their wait and see attitude, this just seems like another one. Almost everyone seems to agree that online play is going to catch on, just like with CD formats. Yet Nintendo is still playing their "oh we'll wait till we see it work".
 
Jun 6, 2004
9,296
0
0
38
San Francisco
blog.wired.com
Kiriku said:
Please, god, please, stop this about "I might have to play against UNKNOWN PEOPLE online OMG OMG OMGZ!!"
Well, bloody hell, just find your friends online and play with them!
Not that all people online are asshole idiots, of course.

Percentage of my friends with XBL: 0%
Percentage of my friends with PS2 BBA: 0%
Percentage of my friends with GBA: 100%
 
D

Deleted member 284

Unconfirmed Member
ManaByte said:
If you HONESTLY think a major third party like EA does not have the money or resources to set up their own online server for online Sports games (and profit from it) on the Cube, you are on some seriously strong crack.
So why doesn't EA make the online games for the cube? Especially if they could profit from it? And EA did get some incentives from Sony and now MS.
 
Jun 8, 2004
15,194
0
0
Why should 3rd parties add online play to games on the GC when the company that makes the system are constnatly telling their fans that online play isn't worth it? You've got 2 other companies that'll fully support you if you go online while one will just leave you out on your own.
Nintendo decided not to add any fee to companies to take their game online in order to make it easier. They may not fully endorse it, but they aren't restricting online.

You essentially got to the point of the whole thing without realizing it though. Sega, Sony and Microsoft have been telling their consumers they want this, that online is BIG. I never saw the consumer be the one to start begging for it. This has been a company/developer idea always and they've ignored the cost to the consumer. I have a PS2 to go online with, but now I need a wireless game adapter to use broadband. Those range in the $100+ category. Nintendo is saying online is a small deal and not profitable. This currently is true and it is not some tenth commandment to its fans. Fans want Mario Kart online, do you think they don't just because Nintendo says online isn't for right now? This is all about politics of what the companies are saying and nothing to do with giving the consumer the best product you can.
 
Jun 8, 2004
15,194
0
0
Percentage of my friends with XBL: 0%
Percentage of my friends with PS2 BBA: 0%
Percentage of my friends with GBA: 100%
This makes me think of a current problem with online gaming. If I want to not play with the massive amount of morons online and instead with some friends that I can enjoy the game with... they all have to have the system, the network adapter and the same game. This doesn't all line up very often. The idea of online is "you can play with hundreds all over the world!", but in reality you only want to play with a few good people. When I have a multiplayer gaming shindig at home, no one else has to have anything(unless its a connectivity deal). They just show up and play.
 
Jun 10, 2004
20,366
1
0
41
olubode said:
So why doesn't EA make the online games for the cube? Especially if they could profit from it? And EA did get some incentives from Sony and now MS.
Because Nintendo themselves aren't supporting online. Even if they aren't paying for, or doing any of the coding, publishers like the security of being able to call up the hardware manufacuer for assistance with online stuff IF NEEDED. In Nintendo's case, third-parties don't have that option as they aren't supporting online. That's why you don't see anyone using the broadband adaptor or modem for online play.

Sony and MS give cuts on royalty fees if you add online support to your game, which is why like 90% of EA's stuff last year was online on the PS2. At the same time, Nintendo gives publishers a break on their still massive royalty fees if they add connectivity to their game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.