This is even less comparable to how they've addressed online gaming and pretty much word-for-word how they were approaching the PR problem of N64 not using CD-ROM. There was all kinds of PR speak coming out of Nintendo at the time about how CDs hindered gameplay and made "horrible, slow experiences." Completely disassociated from reality.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Reggie: VR isn't ready right now, but when it is, Nintendo will be there too
- Thread starter aza
- Start date
I would argue there is insufficient data to imply Microsoft and Sony have reaped any significant reward from their online ventures. There is certainly no data that even hints at them gaining anything from HD gaming. We have yet to see if either of them is likely to turn a profit this time.
Nintendo will have to go through some of those pains now, but it isn't going to be nearly as bad for them as it was for Sony and Microsoft. Losing a couple million dollars for a few years is a much safer bet than losing billions over a decade. It's not like Nintendo doesn't constantly introduce new technology. Nintendo simply does not place their bets on unproven tech.
nintendo doesn't use online as much more than a storefront though. they haven't decided to make it a revenue stream, at least at this point. when it comes to dlc, they regularly release free stuff months later. the way they treat online gaming is way different than the other two, mostly because they're still focusing on the living room in a lot of cases.
I don't know what you even mean. Their online is fine. I've been playing MK8 online constantly and I've literally never noticed lag even once, and it's always matches with people all over the world, and even on the other side of the planet. Match-making is super fast.
MiiVerse is probably more interesting than either other ecosystem at this point.
And Nintendo sells a lot of digital games, and the percentage of their sales that are on the eShop keeps increasing. Account balance is unified too, and they had Mii's ready before MS's avatars.
I don't really see much fault in their online. It's also now literally the ONLY console with free online multi-player. And they're behind?
Ninja Scooter
Member
The fact that VR tech is going to take so long to adapt is actually I think in the technology's favor. Both sony and Oculus seem to understand that you can't just rush this out to try and be the next Wii-esque fad. For the next few years (if both OR and Sony release commercially in 2015) I think it will very much be niche. By it's nature it's a very solitary experience. It's the opposite of motion gaming in that regard. In gaming it will appeal to niche segments because of that. And you will see (thanks to Facebook backing) it used in a lot of non-gaming fields (schools, museums, advertising, architecture). But I think that will allow it to grow more organically.
That's nice that their online play works, but what I mean is that it's not a selling point for them. It's not selling people on their hardware the way it is with MS and Sony where people buy those consoles to play online with friends and engage in the online community. Nintendo is playing catchup in this regard.
That's nice that their online play works, but what I mean is that it's not a selling point for them. It's not selling people on their hardware the way it is with MS and Sony where people buy those consoles to play online with friends and engage in the online community. Nintendo is playing catchup in this regard.
I agree VR isn't ready for the masses yet. Next gen seems like a better fit as we'll have the system power to do it well, costs will be lower and tech matured. My only worry is that sony tries to jump the gun with their thing and it sours consumers due to it being half baked.
I hope Nintendo does VR smart and teams up with oculus for the headset. oculus will have the most advanced and affordable option on the market and theres no point in Nintendo developing its own tech since they are basically displays. Nintendo will still control the hardware and controllers powering the VR but the headsets should be universal.
I hope Nintendo does VR smart and teams up with oculus for the headset. oculus will have the most advanced and affordable option on the market and theres no point in Nintendo developing its own tech since they are basically displays. Nintendo will still control the hardware and controllers powering the VR but the headsets should be universal.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
I don't think the VR will take off for the same reason 3D TVs or 3D in general didn't take off, because they are uncomfortable wearables, it might have its niche but it don't it ever hit mainstream.
er, carts having minimal load times was the reason nintendo went with that over cds. it wasn't pr talk- it was game design talk.
ab.aeterno
Member
Look, customers don't want online games. Nintendo listens to what the market wants.
shinra-bansho
Member
If you're referring to console online, I'm pretty sure Xbox Live was a paid service from inception, although I could be mistaken. With PS2 online a network adapter was required for older models, I don't know how well that uptake went.
If one is looking for historical lessons from console online though, it's probably worth looking at how much mindshare the Xbox brand established due to those early steps and how that translated into it's successful association with some of the biggest franchises in the market (read: Call of Duty). And that it took a long time and a lot of concerted effort for Sony to match that functionality (and perception.) Online has become incredibly important in console gaming, and the impact of not being able to match competitive services (real or perceived) is something of a function of those earlier investments or lack thereof.
So the query then becomes, will VR take off, and if so is it worthwhile to play the long game.
But spot on
I don't think it was completely disassociated from reality, but I think it was a huge misread on what the majority of people are willing to tolerate for something new and different. There is no question that for certain parts of the experience, CDs at the time was a step back. But what drove the technology was all the other possibilities it opened up. Loading times were not an insignificant issue, but it was a price people were willing to pay to see game experiences advance with a huge capacity jump.
In the same way, we see Nintendo being very slow to react to online services, support of stuff like Twitch, social platforms, etc. Their approach and estimation of what people are willing to embrace with shortcomings is very conservative because they themselves are conservative and they can't see a perspective beyond their own. That is Nintendo's greatest weakness.
Ninja Scooter
Member
They've lost more than "millions". they've completely lost any and all relevance in the mainstream console market, despite the occasional enthusiast bubble from a Nintendo Direct or game announcement here or there. They are Blackberry in the console world. And that is largely because they spent the entire Wii generation in a bubble and emerged in 2011 completely out of touch with what the mainstream console gamer wants, which in a lot of cases involves online play and community and HD presentation.
Go back and rewatch Sony's PS4 reveal conference from last Feb. and see how many times they keep reiterating buzz words like social, community, sharing, and online and how much emphasis was placed on that? You think that's a coincidence? IT's because after the PS3 Sony worked hard to figure out where this industry was and where it was heading and figured out where the bread was being buttered.
Smiles and Cries
Member
what Sony is giving us is a toy, It might not be powerful enough in the long run to face off against whatever Facebook has
when I have my PS4 I would love to try it and see if I like it. If it works well enough. I would love to have one
but VR powered by a PC with a bigger library could win out. Or Sony could through a lot of good development power behind their own project. Yeah they are jumping in early but I like the fact that they are willing to try.
I think more core gamers would willingly support VR on PS4 than jumping on a Nintendo platform. IMO they would be very very cynical right now if Nintendo was offering the same vision that Sony already showed. But it is PS4 vs Facebook so we can all pay attention to this interesting tech without the distraction.
Nintendo saying not ready is the best choice for them and it is a much healthier thing for VR growth to not have the cynical media attacking Nintendo VR right now.
Keeping people positive on VR can help this tech that many older gamers have been dreaming about since the 90s
i think it's here that the comparisons don't work. perception of vr will be mostly dependent on software and marketing, while microsoft and sony are benefiting from online as a service. if sony makes shitty games or software that doesn't connect with a wider audience, it doesn't matter how long they've been at it or how good the hardware is.
This is an interesting comment since Nintendo's was able to leverage twitch streaming like few others have during E3.
ab.aeterno
Member
It's not about network lag (what?) but instead the quality of the design -- it's integration at the system level, and cohesion. So as long as their account system remains a joke, then yes.
Here's a list of other account systems I have where I can't redownload digital goods tied to my account on different hardware by myself:
I'm talking about integration of services for their platforms, not what they use for marketing. Nintendo's desire to "protect" their own audience based on their assumptions of what would work for audiences when integrated into their products is what holds them back most of the time.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Hmmm, your post seems to be busy loading something, maybe a pic or a spreadsheet or something of all the online services that tie your account to hardware in 2014.
You're right that Live was always established as a paid service to get online, but MS gated so many things under Live such as Netflix streaming that at some point, you had people who didn't play online pay for it for access to Watch ESPN, Hulu, Netflix, etc.
Live and PS+ were always packaged with Online being part of the subscription, not the main reason to acquire a sub. At least in my opinion.
Hmmm, your post seems to be busy loading something, maybe a pic or a spreadsheet or something of all the online services that tie your account to hardware in 2014.
If that is literally your only complaint left about Nintendo online, it is massive exaggeration to state it like you have been.
They have unified accounts now, and account balances. I'm hoping that they free up the downloads soon. That's the only thing I can even think of that is an issue with their online.
And again, you can play online multiplayer for free. That is pretty damn huge in my book. And you can do it on both their systems. Hell, they've been doing Download Play for years where your friends don't even have to own the game to play multiplayer with you, and Sony is just now catching up to that with Far Cry 4.
Hell, the Wii U even lights up the controller now with notifications when your system isn't even on.
shinra-bansho
Member
Hmm, but in the same way, online essentially needed content that made appropriate use for it, as well as laying the infrastructural/technological foundation? Conversely, would that content have taken off without that infrastructure to begin with? Does Call of Duty take off and become the franchise it has without the online infrastructure to support it, without every box having network function and a hard drive for things like DLC, and vice versa, does online become a vital service function of a platform holder without franchises like Call of Duty?
Obviously investments in content will be as, if not more, important than providing a competent competitive consumer device.
That is a ridiculous statement. Nintendo hasn't lost relevance in any sense of the word. Being different is not the same as being irrelevant. Nintendo's problems with their current console have nothing to do with their relevance in the console market. Nintendo made the conscious decision not to battle head to head with Sony and Microsoft because it was a bad business decision. Now you have two identical console fighting over the same audience and Nintendo free to do whatever it wants.
Your concept of Mainstream is deluded. The Mainstream audience is the 25-35 year old guy who buys CoD and Madden once a year. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony do not make money off these people.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I don't have any "complaints" about Nintendo online, I am stating that they were super late to the party which means they are behind their competitors in a field where if you are behind you might as well not exist. That's where Nintendo is at with online. It's just a box they check off because they sorta have to, but it's not selling their hardware. It's not a selling point for them.
Being different and being irrelevant are not the same thing, but in Nintendo's case they are both. Their share of the market pie is going to be abysmally low by the time this is all said and done. I don't know what else you'd call it.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
Basically, the WiiU is too underpowered for VR without regressing to gamecube level graphics.
The time is definitely right but it's just unimplmentable on the WiiU.
VR is going to be a mass market thing before the next Nintendo system is out. The Facebook acquisition guarantees this.
The time is definitely right but it's just unimplmentable on the WiiU.
VR is going to be a mass market thing before the next Nintendo system is out. The Facebook acquisition guarantees this.
Xbox Live has been around for over a decade now. For most of that decade none of the things you mention even existed. Live was established first and foremost as a paid service which you can use to play Xbox games online. That was the primary and only reason to subscribe when the service was introduce. The idea of added benefits is something they introduced much later on.
Online play for PS3, PSP, and Vita is free. The PS+ gating for online play is only for the PS4, so this is a... very recent thing.
while that obviously played a role wouldn't the fact that they had a monopoly on manufacturing the carts (and thus the profits of that) also a large factor? I think the role of the CD in gaming development was less important than what it could facilitate in terms of reduced manufacturing and licensing costs. that's the real reason why everyone jumped ship to the playstation.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
Being a headgear Wearable is the hardest bottleneck that'll prevent VR from being mainstream.
Hmm, fair enough. They should loose the shackles of their own services.
Shit like Miiverse should be able to access by people who don't own a Nintendo system, etc.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Sometimes I wonder how many PTA meeting Nintendo attends
Seriously there is not much that can be posted on Miiverse that is beyond PG-13 ratings
I don't find not offering twitch shocking, I find it strange that people do not see Nintendo's weakness as you pointed out twice now.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
No u
ab.aeterno
Member
Massive exaggeration? No. When you're literally the only account system that's designed in this ass-backwards way, then it's a giant fucking problem. It acts exactly counter-intuitively to how any rational customer would expect it given their use of accounts with Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, etc.
Microsoft got this right in 2005. By the time Nintendo likely addresses this, it will have been an entire decade since people first got it right in gaming.
And before the "well people don't use that feature much" argument gets trotted out, as it inevitably does, I've had to use that feature for both the 360 as well as the Vita, since I either changed consoles via upgrading or got a second one, and both times, I had to call customer service and hope I got someone willing to help me exactly 0 times to do it.
If you give this thought more than 5 min, you will see that it's simply not true.
It's true because Nintendo won't release another system Kappa
the difference being that one is physical and the other is not. the experience of online gaming, and the value of a service are a lot less comparable to how you can build an audience than by simply introducing a new piece of hardware. nintendo came out with the wii remote and it was a huge success. sony, who actually had prior experience with motion controls (and nintendo did too, but not in the console space), came out with move and failed to part oceans. then microsoft, who had no prior experience with motion controls, was able to supplant nintendo's market with new hardware and the appropriate software.
shinra-bansho
Member
Yes, all according to keikaku (keikaku means plan.)
Nintendo clearly decided to have the worst selling system in like a decade.
Over the course of the last cycle, the person who bought CoD and Madden annually would have bought something like 10 games, and probably things like DLC. So yes, two of the manufacturers do make money off of games like CoD and Madden.
You're just repeating yourself now. And yes, it's massive exaggeration to say that Nintendo is behind in every sense in online, when in reality you are talking about only one specific thing, and they do pretty much everything else very well.
I don't think Sony putting their dev teams on VR will be good enough match what Facebook will inevitably do.
As for the Nintendo vs Sony thing, I think it would depend more on the overall package since entering the marketing first doesn't mean another company can't just swoop in with a better/more popular product and win the masses over. I personally don't see VR becoming anything more than a niche product when it comes to gaming and see it being bigger in other areas(which is one of the reasons why I think Facebook will end up taking the market) so I'm not even sure if I see Nintendo entering the market.
I don't think we're quite there yet.
shacklesmcgee
Member
only for handheld, no? Not really the same comparing playing a race of Mario Kart DS with a friend that's beside you to playing the Far Cry 4 with anyone on your friend list anywhere they are.
The time is right for what though? A mass market VR product that is cheap enough and enough commercial appeal to be successful or the time is right for a product that is very expensive, unattractive to most consumers, and will only sell to an extremely niche audience?
Truth. At least Nintendo updates the eShop at a regular time and allows for midnight releases of new titles. Sony still can't promise us a PS Store update on Tuesday in North America.
Smiles and Cries
Member
VR still has a huge chance of being a huge fail for Facebook
It could become the next fad like 3D but then become very unpopular
Wearing that thing on your head leaves you very vulnerable to pranks
This thing could turn epic or bomb it is not guaranteed
It is just very very cool tech
Everything you said its true.
That still doesn't mean that VR is guaranteed to be the next thing that drives the gaming industry.
mugurumakensei
Member
Facebook acquisition doesn't advance it quite that much. I do believe Facebook will be the one to make it mass market first, but it's still a decade or more out from being mainstream. I see museums, libraries, theme parks, and maybe marketing experiences happening with reasonable frequency in about 5 years.