"Customers do not want online games" - Iwata

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 7, 2004
85,527
1
0
etiolate said:
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.
Nintendo doesn't want to give the best product possible, so why should 3rd parties? Online gaming on the GC is a much bigger risk than online gaming on the PS2 and Xbox just because of how Nintendo's treated the entire situation. They don't have any communication devices for the GC in the US, Nintendo themself don't care for online gaming right now ect. There's just no real reason for them to go online and risk the game not selling at all. Once Nintendo starts supporting online gaming, 3rd parties will. They aren't going to take the lead in with the consoles marker ignoring the feature. The only reason some 3rd parties started developing online games for the PS2 before Sony is because Sony had made it clear that online would be a big priority for them so they knew they weren't going to be doing it on their own like they would be on the GC.
 
Jun 7, 2004
21,704
2
0
45
NM USA
etiolate said:
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.
I disagree. Consumers do want this. Online play on the PC is such an old and established way of playing games that it's only natural for the console market to take part in it, as well. The problem with Nintendo is that they're sending mixed messages when they release official online accessories that they don't bother to support. Then they say it's really not worth it. Nintendo's NEVER released an official accessory and not supported it with at least one to three products.

Were consumers 'begging' for connectivity? Were they asking for light-gun games? Were they asking for LAN play? Were people 'begging' for a stylus and touch-screen support? No. It's about exploring options and giving these options to consumers. The way Nintendo treats online play is not much of an option.
 

slayn

needs to show more effort.
Jun 6, 2004
5,058
0
1,380
this argument always gets so out of hand because there are 2 different thigns to argue and no one really seems to pay attention (or care) who is argue which.

you can argue whether or not nintendo going online is a good business decision
and you can argue what you personally prefer.

I, for example, think nintendo should go online, but I am a happier gamer than I would be because they haven't. Hence, +1 nintendo for not doing online.


one thign I always find interesting is, people act like the assumption that you need to be "prepared" and "experienced" with online games to make them work is a supported truth. But all it is is a guess. A guess that I see as leaning neither way as to which is probable.

in the question of:
"can we wait until online is profitable and then jump with and have our dissadvantage be insignificant"

or

"we won't be successful later in online unless we do it now"

has no answer with no proof either way. And people hound nintendo because nintendo thinks the former is more probable and better monitarily while they think the latter and there is no possible way of knowing which is the truth. No matter how strongly you personally feel, all you are doing is guessing.

as to the all or nothing, people aren't saying that nintendo absolutely must go all in xbox live or nothing. They are simply pointing out that that is what nintendo's mentality is. Its an explanation, not an argument. Nintendo won't want to do online until they think they can do it right. As it stands now, they (probably) feel that is an impossibility.

personally, I found myself losing interest in PC gaming as it became more and more online oriented. I went from being more of a pc gamer to playing like 1 pc game every 3 years. I imagine the same will one day happen with consoles and am saddened in knowing that I may one day no longer be a gamer because people demanded online. Thus, till that day comes I shall be an avid fan of any and all companies that do their best to delay the inevitable.
 

slayn

needs to show more effort.
Jun 6, 2004
5,058
0
1,380
SolidSnakex said:
Nintendo doesn't want to give the best product possible, so why should 3rd parties? Online gaming on the GC is a much bigger risk than online gaming on the PS2 and Xbox just because of how Nintendo's treated the entire situation. They don't have any communication devices for the GC in the US, Nintendo themself don't care for online gaming right now ect. There's just no real reason for them to go online and risk the game not selling at all. Once Nintendo starts supporting online gaming, 3rd parties will. They aren't going to take the lead in with the consoles marker ignoring the feature. The only reason some 3rd parties started developing online games for the PS2 before Sony is because Sony had made it clear that online would be a big priority for them so they knew they weren't going to be doing it on their own like they would be on the GC.
so say all the next consoles come with broadband adapters and free online. Wouldn't 3rd parties suddenly prefer the console maker to NOT be online because then there is no hinderance to overcome, and without nintendo onlien games there would be less competition? Hence, nintendo's current stratedgy will actually be the best for next generation for 3rd parties and they are proving that with their current neglect and thus nintendo's console will be the king of online next generation. see, nintendo IS thinking ahdead, they are just thinking so far ahead that you cant even keep up and understand their thinking. ;)
 
Jun 8, 2004
2,364
0
0
slayn said:
this argument always gets so out of hand because there are 2 different thigns to argue and no one really seems to pay attention (or care) who is argue which.

you can argue whether or not nintendo going online is a good business decision
and you can argue what you personally prefer.
This has been my point really. The arguments continue to go round and round because they are based on opinions of the companies and what people believe the future should be. No can support their arguments either way because it's impossible to track truly track the performance of online games versus those without online features. This is why Iwata's comments look like they are not well reasoned. At the same time many of those that defend online and call it the future don't look a whole lot better. What evidence are we suppose to use to determine whose right? Every example of failure is refuted by a succesful online game--every success story has some element that makes an exception rather than the rule.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Jun 6, 2004
15,363
14
1,465
Here
SolidSnakex said:
Once Nintendo starts supporting online gaming, 3rd parties will.
The much more logical (hell, much more rational) explanation that seems to make the rounds is that Nintendo doesn't offer any kind of support for the LAN Adapter/Modem to 3rd parties. They need to DIY as far as online code and what have you are concerned. The big game of Follow The Leader doesn't make too much sense if you look at it through a raw, business lens. If a 3rd party made some killer app, online game for the GameCube, I somehow doubt Nintendo would be angry.
 
Jun 7, 2004
6,007
0
0
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.
You just gave the reasons why Online games arent gonna take off as much as pple seem to think so....there's all the bills you mentioned to pay first...
 

DCharlie

And even i am moderately surprised
Staff member
Jun 7, 2004
23,294
25
1,480
www.dcharlie.com
"Iwata presented sales figures for a PS2 online golf title which failed to match the sales of its offline predecessor (Sony's own Minna no Golf / Everybody's Golf titles, released in the west as Hot Shots Golf) as "proof that customers do not want online games.""

... back up a sec!

He's saying because Mingol (basically an online version of Minna no golf 3) didn't sell, what?, 1 million plus units that that's all he needs for proof?

erm.... okay.

*looks at sales figures for 4 swords/Crystal Chronicles*
News flash - no one wants connectivity games either.
 
Jun 6, 2004
9,296
0
0
38
San Francisco
blog.wired.com
DCharlie said:
*looks at sales figures for 4 swords/Crystal Chronicles*
News flash - no one wants connectivity games either.
News flash - and they're pretty much fecking done with them, aren't they?

Seriously - how many times does connectivity need to be trotted out? Nintendo gave it a shot, it wasn't picked up on by as many gamers as they'd thought, and they're no longer pushing it. Were there any connectivity-powered games at all being shown off at E3 2004? Four Swords - as awesome as it is - seems like the last hurrah.
 
Jun 8, 2004
19,324
0
0
Nintendo being Nintendo again. I am so surprised. Oh and online gaming *WILL* be a strong point of the next generation. People who are against online support because "they dont like playing against stranger" are total fucktards. They can make the game multiplayer in online and offline mode too, you know. And playing againts real life friends gets boring eventually.

There's always new competition, online. I cant believe that some of the most cultist Nintendo boys here are not excited about being able to play the next iterations of fzero, mario golf, mario kart, and etc ONLINE with 32 players, voice chat, etc.
 
Jun 6, 2004
5,136
0
0
Japan
yukihime.com
Kobun Heat said:
And how's FFX-2 doing?

Oh no, wait: how's the "Limited Edition" box of FF1 and FF2? Have they hit under sen-en yet on the used circuit?

^___^
FFX-2 goes for about 2500-3000y on the used circuit, but Square sold through like 2 million copies new, so I doubt they're crying too much. International version was a total flop, tho - got mine for 3500y new like two months ago. It's still hovering around 3500-4000y new in stores - not sure when it's going to drop down to Total Clearance level. The FF1-2 box is still about 3000-4000y. This is as of yesterday in Aki.
 
Jun 6, 2004
9,296
0
0
38
San Francisco
blog.wired.com
JackFrost2012 said:
Agreed! In 2004, you should be mocking the DS' awkward two-screen setup and nigh unusable stylus interface. *ducks*
Ah ha!

I got to hold a DS in New York City and using the stylus is TOTALLY comfortable. The unit's light enough to be supported by just your left hand, completely flat.

And as I just said, I like the idea of using a GBA as a Gamecube controller, especially considering how much fun we're having with Four Swords and how unique Pac-Man vs. is. I just totally understand why it didn't catch on with a lot of other people, and I'm pointing out that Nintendo's sorta backing away from it.

Or running full speed. Who knows, really.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Jun 9, 2004
24,925
0
0
>>>In other words, we can't get fat on huge margins with it, so gamers don't need it.
We can get insane margins on stuff with fewer users like Donkey Konga.<<<

Further refined: "We don't care about making better games, only our bottom line.".
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,357
0
0
40
Dayton, Ohio
www.myspace.com
6 freakin' pages already...

...you guys need to calm down!

Me, personally, I would like to do online gaming, but I can't. Where I live can't get broadband, and even if I could I couldn't afford it. I don't think the content that's being put out there for online gaming is enough for me to invest in that. Thinking on that logic the money I would spend on a broadband service & online gaming could be better spent buying another game. Plus an extra bill is an extra commitment...yeah to have broadband for internet & gaming is nice, but I have enough bills thanks.

People who love online gaming are loving it with that: "I got it, you don't" attitude. If somehow, some company can give the online "experience" to us at no extra cost or at least make it alot cheaper/easier and provide worthwhile content THEN, and only then, will online gaming truly mean anything. Right now, it's just a status or image thing...

From a developer or publisher's stand point, why don't THEY build a network to play online games on, why don't THEY create the service and thus make it easier to play games online? They wanna take the risk or the plunge into a service that could someday end up profitable...Nintendo isn't really hendering them *cough*PSO*cough*! They won't though, why do it when Sony & Microsoft could instead bend over and take the risk for them...and for what...image & status. Nintendo is a business...not a charity, yeah it would be nice if Nintendo built this uber-network & wasted their reserves on all that. But people would still like Sony/Microsoft better...this game has gone on since the Genisis. Nintendo would lose such a game...their competitor's WANT them to go into online gaming, they WANT them to lose money, they WANT them to be unprofitable, so that eventually Nintendo (who doesn't have anything non-gaming to fall back on) will fall and one of them could snatch them up for this "one system" ideal.

Looking at all that from a REALISTIC perspective and you'll see why Nintendo isn't so enthusiastic about it. There could be an economic crash, or the games martket could take a dive. Mr. Iwata has also been saying that gaming, as a whole, is expendable entertainment...it's not needed, and when/if there is "downtime" they would rather not have to deal with upkeeping an expendable niche within an expendable entertainment form. And even if they did some developers/publishers would just use some other excuse not to support them: their image sucks, they're not "cool", 3RD place, smaller marketshare, kiddy, they're old/washed up, not the right "demographic"...pfft, the truth of the matter is, alot of people in this industry just DON'T like Nintendo and they have and will continue to use ANY excuse not to make games for them *cough*Godzilla2*cough*.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Jun 6, 2004
15,363
14
1,465
Here
ManaByte said:
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.
Odd as it may be, Nintendo also gives a royalty break on online games.
 
Jun 6, 2004
9,296
0
0
38
San Francisco
blog.wired.com
DrGAKMAN said:
From a developer or publisher's stand point, why don't THEY build a network to play online games on, why don't THEY create the service and thus make it easier to play games online?
Actually, I thought that in many cases it was the opposite - Sony and MS want online games, so they give developers incentives to do it. Reduced royalties for any Xbox game with Live functionality.

Nintendo would lose such a game...
Another good point. If Nintendo gets into a money-spending war with Microsoft, they will lose. If you're Ryu you don't get into a fireball fight with Guile; you fake a jab shoryuken and try to get him to Flash Kick short.

Or something.
 

Gunstar77

GAF Madden 2006 Season 1 NFC Champ
Jun 6, 2004
1,228
0
1,365
Iwata presented sales figures for a PS2 online golf title which failed to match the sales of its offline predecessor (Sony's own Minna no Golf / Everybody's Golf titles, released in the west as Hot Shots Golf) as "proof that customers do not want online games."
So based on this theory customers do not want Gamecube because it failed to match the sales of the N64. I have been following the game industry for almost 20 years now and this comment would have to be in the top 5 for dumbest comment ever. Nintendo's feelings on online gaming are just plain stupid. Nintendo was always saying we focus on gameplay over graphics. Well name one bigger improvement to gameplay in the last 5 years then online gaming! Online gaming also makes the games last longer. Most offline gaming I will play for a 1 or 2 months but online games I usually end up playing anywhere to 6 months to 1 year+. Socom 2 is perfect example of this, everyone has seen the thread on the board and Socom 2 came out a while ago but yet I still play it once a week at the very least. Until Nintendo goes online, I will never buy another piece of hardware from them again!
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,357
0
0
40
Dayton, Ohio
www.myspace.com
DCharlie said:
"Right now, it's just a status or image thing..."

oh come on, that's bullshit and you know it.
It is just like Sonic has more attitude, splash processing, FX chip, CD-ROM add-on's are the future, HD is the new standerd gaming feature, connectivity...things like this are just for show and come & go. Some of these things evolve into wanted features/future standerds, but at the time they're boasted about it hardly makes a difference to anyone but to the rich kids who have too much money to waste and the companies with their penis-measuring PR rulers.

Online gaming WILL become important, just as co-op & multiplayer are now...but for right now, with the way it is now and in this generation it doesn't go beyond niche.
 

Kiriku

SWEDISH PERFECTION
Jun 6, 2004
9,586
1
0
Sweden
manofsound.se
DrGAKMAN said:
pfft, the truth of the matter is, alot of people in this industry just DON'T like Nintendo and they have and will continue to use ANY excuse not to make games for them *cough*Godzilla2*cough*.
Really, this is taking it a bit too far. You think people responsible make the decision not to release a game on a Nintendo console ONLY because they don't LIKE Nintendo?

...

I mean, come on, they got analysts for these kind of things. And here we are, saying how things should be when we probably don't know more than half of what they know. And even if they make stupid decisions about whether or not a game should be released, I'm pretty sure they have more serious reasons than just "We don't like Nintendo!!". :|
 
Jun 9, 2004
375
0
0
Customers do not want online games.

Customers want neutered four-player gimmicks that require you to invite three friends over and buy four GBA's and four link cords so you can play some simple pseudo-puzzle-action game that would be more fun online or more fun if they focused on single player or more fun if they did just about everything different.

Yep, that's what people want.
 
Jun 6, 2004
5,136
0
0
Japan
yukihime.com
Neutron Night said:
Customers do not want online games.

Customers want neutered four-player gimmicks that require you to invite three friends over and buy four GBA's and four link cords so you can play some simple pseudo-puzzle-action game that would be more fun online or more fun if they focused on single player or more fun if they did just about everything different.

Yep, that's what people want.
GRADE: F

Please deposit 50 cents to continue trolling.
 
Jun 10, 2004
9,757
1
1,290
DrGAKMAN said:
Online gaming WILL become important, just as co-op & multiplayer are now...but for right now, with the way it is now and in this generation it doesn't go beyond niche.
And how is that going to happen unless companies take that initial loss to build an infrastructure for online gaming? Microsoft (and to a lesser extent, Sony) are laying the foundation for an online-enabled future. Nintendo continues to hang back, spinning their competitors' long-term investment in online gaming as a waste of money by painting it as something customers don't want. While that may go over well with shareholders, I think it's ultimately a shortsighted strategy. It also doesn't help Nintendo's corporate image--Microsoft and Sony's dedication to online gaming reinforces the perception of these companies as forward-looking. Combined with Nintendo's steadfast 'family-oriented' stance on content, the Big N comes off looking doggedly conservative compared to the competition. That does them no favors, outside of the small but fanatical core of Nintendo fanboys out there.
 
Jun 7, 2004
4,283
0
0
Cali
Nintendo and Connectivity, Nintendo saw this as a opportunity to broaden their GC userbase, add some exclusives for those that own GBA/SP and in turn they may purchase the GC console. Or vice versus, they increase they're handheld market share. This is just to give some gamers the incentive to one of their consoles. There really at this moment any way to know how many gamers are actually using connectivity.


Nintendo and Online gaming, it took Sony nearly two years to go online. Online gaming didn't become an issue until MS came on the market. MS, the wealthiest software company in the world for the PC market, who has their on networking software technology. The PC market has many years of history in online gaming, MS having been prevy to a bird eye view of this section of PC gaming, saw it as some what as a trump card or that one thing they can say their competitors don't have. Sony, even though they have a lead in hardware userbase, still feared MS as a competitor. So inorder to not be outdone, Sony decides its time to release they're network adapter and (harddrive) which was recently brought to the US market. MS believing online to be their advantage spends several billions dollars on this venture although loved by the hardcore gamer not immediately accepted by the casual gamer. Sony online community outpaces MS, due to having a larger userbase and a larger number of hardcore gamers. But, the numbers are a drop in the bucket compared to their respective userbases.

Nintendo on the other hand has decided to stay away from the online gaming scene, releasing a broadband/narrowband modem on the market for those who choose to venture into the new gameplay mode(Third Party). Nintendo has a history of researching technology that will benefit themselves and the gaming market. There has been many interviews done by President of Nintendo Satoru Iwata, suggesting that their goal is to introduce technology that would allow gamers the abillity to play online at no cost to them or Nintendo. No one knows if Nintendo has already aquired this technology yet or if its feasible. Then the question comes to mind, what if Nintendo succeeds at bringing this technology?

I've been wondering why online gaming hasn't taken off the way many expected, DSL, and Cable highspeed internet connection cost has lowered but the number of online gamers hasn't increased with the high rate increase of high speed connections in homes. Then this obvious thing came to mind, there is no console kiosk that I know of that have a online demo. The main draw to gaming is the pick up an play aspect, to sooth the consumer curiosity Nintendo, Sony, and MS positioined gaming kiosk around the world to give gamers and none-gamers across the world the chance to experience gaming for the first time or the chance to play a demo of the latest game.

If Nintendo succeeds they will have online gaming positioned right at the gamer finger tips, pick up and play online gaming. If your curious about online gaming, just turn on your Revolution(game disc inserted obviously), go to online mode set up your free account. You pick your username and create a password, you could choose to host or join a server. When your console does a search for a server it searchs one for one domain name, all the consoles would have this domain name but have different mac adressess illiminating any confusion. With a built-in storage device and server software design for online gaming, a pre-installed GUI and features such as a friends list, rankings, etc. Updates to the GUI and features are done by connecting to Nintendo servers, the same servers used for thier websites and media file downloads.

I'm bored guys so I'm just running with it, whatever that comes to mind I'm typing and going over it to make it readable.

The imagination is a great thing.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,357
0
0
40
Dayton, Ohio
www.myspace.com
Tellaerin said:
And how is that going to happen unless companies take that initial loss to build an infrastructure for online gaming? Microsoft (and to a lesser extent, Sony) are laying the foundation for an online-enabled future. Nintendo continues to hang back, spinning their competitors' long-term investment in online gaming as a waste of money by painting it as something customers don't want. While that may go over well with shareholders, I think it's ultimately a shortsighted strategy. It also doesn't help Nintendo's corporate image--Microsoft and Sony's dedication to online gaming reinforces the perception of these companies as forward-looking. Combined with Nintendo's steadfast 'family-oriented' stance on content, the Big N comes off looking doggedly conservative compared to the competition. That does them no favors, outside of the small but fanatical core of Nintendo fanboys out there.
You're right. But what can Nintendo do? Microsoft has the HD/Ethernet built-in and Sony has way more of a userbase to work with...Nintendo has neither. Yeah, it's their fault, but why try to do a half-assed structure now, half way thru this generation? Plus, it'd be best to start off next generation (when it'll matter more) on the right foot rather than try to change shoes this generation. No matter what effort Nintendo has made and will make the industry already has their mind set on what Nintendo is. Doing some kind of network now could help change that veiw for the future, BUT, much better than that I think it's in their strategy to just shock everyone with the next system. Lower our expectations and then BAM, come out with something that works. Did we think DS would be WiFi? Did we think that the next Zelda was gonna be realistic/mature? Will we think the next system will be kick-ass. I assure you MOST people didn't.

My theory is that Nintendo will include a HD in the next system so that each person can be/host their own server, then include built-in LAN (possibly wireless) and use your computer to piggyback your way online. Seriously, most people who want online gaming are people who already have computers. Back someone that can create some kind of match-making service for people *cough*AOL*cough*GameSpy*cough* and bam...you're online (if you have Broadband that is, which by the time Revolution comes out, should be more available by then). They already experimented with LAN stuff this generation and while it wasn't successful it is a step...a system that is planned carfully like this from the get-go would be much better than trying to create a half-assed network now. Plus this would basically be "free" like Mr. Iwata has been talking about for a while now. Maybe I'm insane, but that's my theory for now!
 
Jun 6, 2004
5,136
0
0
Japan
yukihime.com
Neutron Night said:
I've noticed that. Maybe you should develop a mind of your own, instead of just thinking the opposite of whatever I say. You're nothing but a annoyance.
Trust me, it's not like I set out to make it a lifestyle choice. I just oppose the stupid things you say on a case-by-case basis, and the nature of your posts has, much to my chagrin, turned it into a bit of a trend.

It's not your opinions that I find offensive. It's the way you shoot your mouth off, insult anyone who disagrees with you as an "idiot," lace your posts with unecessary and ineffectual profanity, rant and rave without even trying to back up your opinions. You don't converse with people. You don't even argue with people. You scream at them, ignore their replies, then wonder why they don't like you.

Cut it out.
 
Jun 16, 2004
7,348
0
0
There has been many interviews done by President of Nintendo Satoru Iwata, suggesting that their goal is to introduce technology that would allow gamers the abillity to play online at no cost to them or Nintendo. No one knows if Nintendo has already aquired this technology yet or if its feasible. Then the question comes to mind, what if Nintendo succeeds at bringing this technology?
But will it be Nintendo exclusive? You act as though Sony and MS aren't also looking at ways to make online gaming cost effective. It's a very blinkered view to think that Nintendo could offer such a comprehensive online service so easily and cheaply while the competition couldn't.

Imo, this Nintendo online is more a symptom than a cause. I think the bigger problem is that Nintendo don't seem to think long-term, and then just dig their heels in and muscle on. They seem to be placing all their tickets on the hope that they'll chance upon the next big thing that people will want, that'll their cornfield'll be hit by lightning. They hope that people'll want dual screens and styluses, that they'll want whatever the Revolution has got.

Of course their track record recently hasn't been great in guessing what people would want. They thought people would want connectivity. Not really. They thought people would want a no frills cheaper, games only console. Once again a bit off the mark there. They seem to be looking for something which is going to flash the pan then explode, and they are applying that thinking to online gaming. Because it hasn't achieved 75% market penetration overnight it's a fad. But it was never going to do that, however both Sony and MS are both investing for the future. The networks and expertise they are developing now aren't going to dissappear, and there's no reason, as far as I'm aware, why they next gen systems from those two shouldn't be online ready far earlier in their cycles.

And should the point come where online is a deciding factor (and that's far more likely than dual screens becoming a deciding factor) Sony and MS are going to be leagues ahead of Nintendo. And I don't think there's is any situation in the forseeable future where Nintendo are going to be able to jump online without some hefty investment on their part.

And to those who say Nintendo can't really compete in the digging the heels in game, I ask, can they really afford not to? It's not exactly been a winning strategy for them so far.
 
Jun 16, 2004
7,348
0
0
DrGAKMAN said:
You're right. But what can Nintendo do? Microsoft has the HD/Ethernet built-in and Sony has way more of a userbase to work with...Nintendo has neither. Yeah, it's their fault, but why try to do a half-assed structure now, half way thru this generation? Plus, it'd be best to start off next generation (when it'll matter more) on the right foot rather than try to change shoes this generation. No matter what effort Nintendo has made and will make the industry already has their mind set on what Nintendo is. Doing some kind of network now could help change that veiw for the future, BUT, much better than that I think it's in their strategy to just shock everyone with the next system. Lower our expectations and then BAM, come out with something that works. Did we think DS would be WiFi? Did we think that the next Zelda was gonna be realistic/mature? Will we think the next system will be kick-ass. I assure you MOST people didn't.

My theory is that Nintendo will include a HD in the next system so that each person can be/host their own server, then include built-in LAN (possibly wireless) and use your computer to piggyback your way online. Seriously, most people who want online gaming are people who already have computers. Back someone that can create some kind of match-making service for people *cough*AOL*cough*GameSpy*cough* and bam...you're online (if you have Broadband that is, which by the time Revolution comes out, should be more available by then). They already experimented with LAN stuff this generation and while it wasn't successful it is a step...a system that is planned carfully like this from the get-go would be much better than trying to create a half-assed network now. Plus this would basically be "free" like Mr. Iwata has been talking about for a while now. Maybe I'm insane, but that's my theory for now!
But when Nintendo do decide to go online, will they have the online players? The later they leave the less there will be after Sony and MS carve up their share. And the momentum is only going to move away from Nintendo. Next gen starts and MS say Live is going to carry through, and Sony say here's some new Socom and GT5 will be online and blah blah blah, that's going to attract the online players. Where the online players go the online developers will go as well, and that attracts more online players. Sony and MS are setting the rumblings of that momentum up in their favour now, building up networks and recognisable online franchises and branding. The later into that cycle Nintendo try to get in the more they are going to have to put on the table, which'll require more investment, more effort.

And your free online vision isn't exactly free is it. Someone has to bear the cost of the hard drive, whether Nintendo through greater hardware losses or the consumer through greater costs.
 
Jun 7, 2004
63,747
2
0
Nintendo is such a shit company. They used to be good. At one time. Long, long time ago.

Happy days will be here once the PSP trounces the DS and future Nintendo portable successors into oblivion.

BRING ON THE REVOLUTION....so I can laugh at it.
 
Jun 7, 2004
4,283
0
0
Cali
Die Squirrel Die said:
But will it be Nintendo exclusive? You act as though Sony and MS aren't also looking at ways to make online gaming cost effective. It's a very blinkered view to think that Nintendo could offer such a comprehensive online service so easily and cheaply while the competition couldn't.

Imo, this Nintendo online is more a symptom than a cause. I think the bigger problem is that Nintendo don't seem to think long-term, and then just dig their heels in and muscle on. They seem to be placing all their tickets on the hope that they'll chance upon the next big thing that people will want, that'll their cornfield'll be hit by lightning. They hope that people'll want dual screens and styluses, that they'll want whatever the Revolution has got.

Of course their track record recently hasn't been great in guessing what people would want. They thought people would want connectivity. Not really. They thought people would want a no frills cheaper, games only console. Once again a bit off the mark there. They seem to be looking for something which is going to flash the pan then explode, and they are applying that thinking to online gaming. Because it hasn't achieved 75% market penetration overnight it's a fad. But it was never going to do that, however both Sony and MS are both investing for the future. The networks and expertise they are developing now aren't going to dissappear, and there's no reason, as far as I'm aware, why they next gen systems from those two shouldn't be online ready far earlier in their cycles.

And should the point come where online is a deciding factor (and that's far more likely than dual screens becoming a deciding factor) Sony and MS are going to be leagues ahead of Nintendo. And I don't think there's is any situation in the forseeable future where Nintendo are going to be able to jump online without some hefty investment on their part.

And to those who say Nintendo can't really compete in the digging the heels in game, I ask, can they really afford not to? It's not exactly been a winning strategy for them so far.
You make a good point, its possible it maynot be exclusive. The next consoles will have the same equation, the console with games that gamers want will lead the next gen. Online will be what it is now and thats a feature. If all three are online and have online games, the games that has the gameplay and neccesary features with online are going to sell consoles. How do you know they're not investing in it now, thats why they have R&D teams. Nintendo can research online gaming without releasing one game, as a matter of fact Nintendo has more than one R&D team. So unless Nintendo say's we aren't doing any research no one can say they're not.
 
Jun 6, 2004
1,071
0
0
i hope this all means that nintendo will take the same approach with online gaming they did with the GC with the N5. Broadband penetration will be much higher in 1-1/2 years so i'll have more time with my ps3 and xenon on and offline while waiting for the n5 fire sale.

I really cannot believe they are shunning online play again. there were so many games this gen on GC that would have been amazing online.
 
Jun 16, 2004
7,348
0
0
OG_Original Gamer said:
You make a good point, its possible it maynot be exclusive. The next consoles will have the same equation, the console with games that gamers want will lead the next gen. Online will be what it is now and thats a feature. If all three are online and have online games, the games that has the gameplay and neccesary features with online are going to sell consoles. How do you know they're not investing in it now, thats why they have R&D teams. Nintendo can research online gaming without releasing one game, as a matter of fact Nintendo has more than one R&D team. So unless Nintendo say's we aren't doing any research no one can say they're not.
Well of course they could be working on it secretly, but I don't think that provides a magic solution. Sony and MS because they have online out there, will be able to work off feddback from actual real world people using their networks and infrastrucures. But also it's about games, and once again by being out there, Sony and MS are creating brands and franchises that are recognisable to online gamers. And they'll carry those over making it more likely that the online gamers will go with them, thereby setting the momentum in their favour as the cycle of online gamer goes where online games are, online games are developed for where the online gamers are in motion.
 
Jun 10, 2004
34,867
1
0
www.backloggery.com
Wow!! I've never read a thread so meticulously since i'm writing in boards on the internet!!
Stick this thread or start a museum of famous threads or something. This thread here is TEH entertainment!!!

( what's more, i'm serious here!! )
 
Let's make a deal. I'll start getting on Nintendo's tail about online gaming, when Sony makes a console with 4 controller ports.

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.
Thank deity their focuses in regards to online gaming/aping Sony have given them such a lead over Nintendo in the US. For every 7 Xboxen there are only 6 GameCubes! (and 19 PS2)

Die Squirrel Die said:
Sony and MS are setting the rumblings of that momentum up in their favour now, building up networks and recognisable online franchises and branding. The later into that cycle Nintendo try to get in the more they are going to have to put on the table, which'll require more investment, more effort.
If there's one thing Nintendo doesn't need to worry about, it's recognizable franchises. And I'd tend to think that only getting into a market when they deem it worthwhile rather than giving it life support for the first few years would be less investment.
 
Jun 6, 2004
1,571
0
0
Kobun Heat said:
Don't get me wrong - I really do love the eternal Catch-22 of GAF, where if you suggest that Nintendo's corporate strategy might be on to something, you're immediately branded a Nintendo fanboy in lieu of any actual argument.

I see the allure of this stance: I mean, actual debate is just so... messy, isn't it? It's so tiring, trying to reconcile your own myopic worldview when the other side presents conflicting sets of facts.

Better just to dismiss it all.
Kobun, when you're done obstreperously using big words in your holier-than-thou attempt to prove your self-affirmed correctness (not to mention your nigh-religious affection for a game company, that is by all accounts in the industry and by consumers, out of touch with the direction of the market) perhaps you'll see that the only one(s) with a myopic worldview here is Iwata and Nintendo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.