• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why does Nintendo ignore the online market... it's just their style.

jedimike

Member
Lots of things in the gaming community don't make sense... Resident Evil on GCN, Sega's continued Xbox support, etc., but Nintendo's lack of online support has to take the cake as the most profound blunder.

...and perhaps Sony is making an even bigger mistake by doing it all for free.

Casual Online Gaming On The Rise

Pay-per-play browser gaming, where users pay to enter skill-based games tournaments to compete for cash and other prizes, is the hottest of the new online gaming sub-sectors. Its dramatic growth over the past two years has already precipitated a service provider (and investor) land-grab. A $35m global market only three years ago, pay-per-play gaming reached $137m in 2003 and is forecast to grow at an impressive compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 40 per cent to 2007 to become the second largest online gaming sub-sector behind MMOGs. Other revenue streams for casual games include a resurgent advertising element, subscription-based services and paid-for downloads.

The article is PC oriented, but explains that casuals market is going to grow rapidly and the casuals are paying for simple on-line games (see XBL arcade), subscription based services, and downloadable content. Everything that XBL offers.

It seems that this market would be perfect for Nintendo.

discuss....
 

Dave Long

Banned
People are gambling online in record numbers. This really isn't videogame related. That's what the casuals are doing.
 

beerbelly

Banned
It's way too late to go online with the Gamecube to make a profit. They need to launch N5 and let the public be aware of its online capabilities similar to what Microsoft has done. Also, I think their new philosophy of having shorter development times is in the way of being able to create online games.
 
beerbelly said:
It's way too late to go online with the Gamecube to make a profit. They need to launch N5 and let the public be aware of its online capabilities similar to what Microsoft has done. Also, I think their new philosophy of having shorter development times is in the way of being able to create online games.

I think it'd be smart now to get on board even if you won't be able to turn profit. They need to show developers that they are going to commit to it. Because its very obvious that developers don't even think of Nintendo right now when it comes to online play. They're pretty much ignored. They either miss out on features completely (online in SC) or the developers don't put the game on the system at all (Burnout 3). They just need to get on now and show developers that they're going to be online next generation.
 
Why everyone "forgets" that Nintendo was the first to go "online" on the NES days??? Why people forget that SNES was kinda online and you could even play games like Street Fighter and Mario Kart ??

Leave Nintendo alone....
 

BuddyC

Member
SolidSnakex said:
I think it'd be smart now to get on board even if you won't be able to turn profit. They need to show developers that they are going to commit to it. Because its very obvious that developers don't even think of Nintendo right now when it comes to online play. They're pretty much ignored. They either miss out on features completely (online in SC) or the developers don't put the game on the system at all (Burnout 3). They just need to get on now and show developers that they're going to be online next generation.

I think they're showing this via the DS, where they're pushing wireless online something fierce.
 
BuddyChrist83 said:
I think they're showing this via the DS, where they're pushing wireless online something fierce.

It'd probably be smarter to do that with the GC. They've already got network adapters. They've had games that'd be perfect for online play and have completely ignored it.
 

Kalren

Member
SolidSnakex said:
I think it'd be smart now to get on board even if you won't be able to turn profit. They need to show developers that they are going to commit to it. Because its very obvious that developers don't even think of Nintendo right now when it comes to online play. They're pretty much ignored. They either miss out on features completely (online in SC) or the developers don't put the game on the system at all (Burnout 3). They just need to get on now and show developers that they're going to be online next generation.


IAWTP

Even if it means not making profits, allowing its own developers and engineers to work on creating online titles and networks, Nintendo would not be falling too far behind. By ignoring it, they will be playing a game of catchup with the next generation of console, when Sony and Mcrosoft have experience building online code/titles and have more experience and more robust network.
 

Matt

Member
I demand for JediMike (or another Xvangelist) to prove to me that XBox Live and/or PS2 Online is making anyone any money, or that online features are a selling point for any game. I still contend that every XBox Live game would have sold almost as well (or even as well) as it would have without XBox Live.
 

jedimike

Member
beerbelly said:
It's way too late to go online with the Gamecube to make a profit. They need to launch N5 and let the public be aware of its online capabilities similar to what Microsoft has done. Also, I think their new philosophy of having shorter development times is in the way of being able to create online games.

An online network is seperate from the console... when Xenon and PS3 launch, there will still be XBL and Sony Online. Plus, adding "lan" code and "net" code are similar. Development times would be consistent.

Kobun Heat said:

Because there is a significant market available for Nintendo to tap... and the market isn't just hard core gamers, it's also casual gamers who would be better represented by Nintendo's gameplay. Ignoring the market is foolish.
 

beerbelly

Banned
ahem, Pandora Tomorrow, various sports games, racing games...

But Matt's right. If the other 2 companies aren't making a profit and STILL willing to have online play to satisfy fans, then why can't Nintendo do the same.
 

Xizk

Member
Didn't Nintendo say that the DS would show how their next Console would be like?
If they are pushing wireless online on the DS then it's almost safe to say that they will do the same with their next console.

The DS is probably so that they can test wireless online and to get knowledge of it so that they can use that knowledge for when they launch the GC's succesor.
 
beerbelly said:
ahem, Pandora Tomorrow, various sports games, racing games...

But Matt's right. If the other 2 companies aren't making a profit and STILL willing to have online play to satisfy fans, then why can't Nintendo do the same.

Well Nintendo won't do something where a profit is not eventual. Sony + Microdollar also have other cash flows Nintendo works in the game industry only so a mass fuck up could hurt them ohh so much more than it would Sony or MicroDollar
 
DeEJaYMiND said:
Why everyone "forgets" that Nintendo was the first to go "online" on the NES days??? Why people forget that SNES was kinda online and you could even play games like Street Fighter and Mario Kart ??

Not everyone has forgotten. But so what? How many games are currently officially online? Two?
 

jedimike

Member
Matt said:
I demand for JediMike (or another Xvangelist) to prove to me that XBox Live and/or PS2 Online is making anyone any money, or that online features are a selling point for any game. I still contend that every XBox Live game would have sold almost as well (or even as well) as it would have without XBox Live.


It's about calculated risks... does XBL make money now? I have no clue, but it does generate a lot of revenue and market awareness. Plus it must be profitable for developers... why else would they do it?

Not to mention that some develoopers are shunning GC support because of their lack of online effort.
 

BuddyC

Member
SolidSnakex said:
It'd probably be smarter to do that with the GC. They've already got network adapters. They've had games that'd be perfect for online play and have completely ignored it.

Not really. DS has wi-fi built in, it's not an add-on. That's a gurantee to every developer that every single unit can go online, and with the way they've handled the wireless multiplayer, it's a snap to work in Wi-Fi play if they've already got Bluetooth (or the equivalent thereof) done.

Did Nintendo fuck up with the GC? Ya, well, duh. But why devote those resources now when they're concentrating on DS / GB Next / Revolution?

Don't make me call Reggie :p
 

BuddyC

Member
Matt said:
I demand for JediMike (or another Xvangelist) to prove to me that XBox Live and/or PS2 Online is making anyone any money, or that online features are a selling point for any game. I still contend that every XBox Live game would have sold almost as well (or even as well) as it would have without XBox Live.

Phantasy. Star. Online.

Live play is the only reason I picked up Midtown Madness 3, Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Rainbow Six 3, Ghost Recon...and I know I'm not alone there.
 
BuddyChrist83 said:
Did Nintendo fuck up with the GC? Ya, well, duh. But why devote those resources now when they're concentrating on DS / GB Next / Revolution?

Because why screw existing fans out of online play? People that went out and bought network adapters and have really only got to put it to use with 2 games. If they're willing to go online, they should start now with both the DS and the GC instead of ignoring one.
 

BuddyC

Member
SolidSnakex said:
Because why screw existing fans out of online play? People that went out and bought network adapters and have really only got to put it to use with 2 games. If they're willing to go online, they should start now with both the DS and the GC instead of ignoring one.

Because it's Nintendo? Besides, developers see GC online play as a lost cause. Good luck trying to convince Ubi Soft that implementing online play is a good idea. People that want to play online aren't still holding out for GC anymore, they've caved and bought an XB or PS2 to play their games online. The GC is good for playing Nintendo games....and that's about it.
 

8bit

Knows the Score
SolidSnakex said:
Because why screw existing fans out of online play? People that went out and bought network adapters and have really only got to put it to use with 2 games. If they're willing to go online, they should start now with both the DS and the GC instead of ignoring one.

Even if Nintendo themselves aren't able to satisfactorily add online play to their games, what's stopping third parties from doing so?
Nintendo made both broad & narrowband solutions available, but no-one is utilising them.
 
jedimike said:
Because there is a significant market available for Nintendo to tap
There is?

I'm sorry the old forum is gone because we had a great thread in which we had all the numbers for installed bases of network adapters and such, and it didn't look like there was much of a market at all, especially not one that Nintendo could tap considering that they by default would have the lowest installed base of network adapters (in that their userbase is far below PS2's and the Xbox comes pre-installed with the hardware).

It's about calculated risks... does XBL make money now? I have no clue, but it does generate a lot of revenue and market awareness. Plus it must be profitable for developers... why else would they do it?

I think the estimate in 2003 was that MS had spent about $2 billion to set up XBL. Sure there's 'revenue' coming in. But it's far from profitable for them, and it won't be for a very, very long time if that estimate is correct.

Profitable for developers? Sure, when the online service is totally subsidized by the hardware manufacturer, and they give you the code. There's no such thing as a free lunch, though. If somebody gets online play for 'free', somebody has to pay for it.

Not to mention that some develoopers are shunning GC support because of their lack of online effort.

I've never heard that. Ever. I know that most developers wouldn't put an online game on GC because it's so much easier to do it for MS or Sony. If there's any reason [Western] developers are shying away from releasing GC games it's because of userbase and the purchasing habits of said userbase - Xbox owners are far more likely to buy Western-developed games, licensed games, that kind of stuff.

As for other reasons that companies might keep supporting the Xbox over the GC, well, you pointed it out yourself that Sega continues to produce Xbox games despite absolutely abysmal sales. So there's got to be some, ahem, outside factors there.
 
BuddyChrist83 said:
Because it's Nintendo? Besides, developers see GC online play as a lost cause. Good luck trying to convince Ubi Soft that implementing online play is a good idea.

Because it'll show them that Nintendo really is commited to going online. I doubt many developers really believe it now, even with the DS because of how they've ignored the GC.

8bit said:
Even if Nintendo themselves aren't able to satisfactorily add online play to their games, what's stopping third parties from doing so?

Nintendo. Why would a developer support something that the system manufacturer doesn't have faith in? That's why there's really no one even bothering with the GC network adapter. If Nintendo wants to ignore it, then so will developers.
 
BuddyChrist83 said:
The GC is good for playing Nintendo games....and that's about it.
I wouldn't go that far. There's a certain type of third-party game that can really thrive on GC. Do you really think that Tales of Symphonia would have gotten so much worldwide attention if it were on PS2? No freaking way, and Namco knows it.

Now, this doesn't work for just any game that you bring out as a GC exclusive, of course. But there's potential there to be exploited, just as Xbox exclusives can get more attention merely for the virtue of their being Xbox exclusives.
 

BuddyC

Member
SolidSnakex said:
Because it'll show them that Nintendo really is commited to going online. I doubt many developers really believe it now, even with the DS because of how they've ignored the GC.

I think the ease of implementing online play into DS games has many convinced, as does the marketing of the DS as a "social" device. The promo at the E3 Booth stressed that the DS is made with multiplayer gaming in mind.
 
jedimike said:
It's about calculated risks... does XBL make money now? I have no clue, but it does generate a lot of revenue and market awareness. Plus it must be profitable for developers... why else would they do it?

Not to mention that some develoopers are shunning GC support because of their lack of online effort.

So basically devs are assuming that because of the number of gamers online on the Xbox and PS2, software sales of higher numbers may be possible. Xbox has 750,000 online gamers, PS2 has 1-2 million gamers online making it possible to sell 500,000 pieces of software.

The only problem with that assumption, especially this year, is the lineup for each console is packed with high profile titles. The Godzilla and BO3 games are gonna be crushed this year, NFSU2 and SRS are going to put up some serious competetion. And if DOA:U release this year, Atari might as well limit the release this year.
 
Kobun Heat said:
I wouldn't go that far. There's a certain type of third-party game that can really thrive on GC. Do you really think that Tales of Symphonia would have gotten so much worldwide attention if it were on PS2? No freaking way, and Namco knows it.

I'm sure it would if it were a 3D Tales game coming to the PS2 in the US. The problem is that it isn't, the PS2 gets 2D versions that'll never come to the US so you get no hype outside of Japan other than people who're pissed about NAMCO ignoring it.
 

BuddyC

Member
Kobun Heat said:
I wouldn't go that far. There's a certain type of third-party game that can really thrive on GC. Do you really think that Tales of Symphonia would have gotten so much worldwide attention if it were on PS2? No freaking way, and Namco knows it.

Now, this doesn't work for just any game that you bring out as a GC exclusive, of course. But there's potential there to be exploited, just as Xbox exclusives can get more attention merely for the virtue of their being Xbox exclusives.

Hence the "about" ;)

I could poke a hole there, as Symphonia was eventually ported to the PS2 in Japan, but your point would still remain. The GC exclusives that seem to do really well tend (in my eyes) to be highly polished and enjoyable titles, exactly I would expect from a Nintendo game. I guess you could call the successful 3rd party exclusives "pseudo-Nintendo" games.
 
Kobun Heat said:
I'm sorry the old forum is gone because we had a great thread in which we had all the numbers for installed bases of network adapters and such, and it didn't look like there was much of a market at all, especially not one that Nintendo could tap considering that they by default would have the lowest installed base of network adapters (in that their userbase is far below PS2's and the Xbox comes pre-installed with the hardware).

Sure, but how many network adapters did you think they would sell with only ONE online game availible at the time it was released (and two games currently)? I bet they would've sold a LOT more if say, Mario Kart and other anticipated games were announced as being online.
 

Dave Long

Banned
Kobun is right on. Viewtiful Joe would have gone largely unnoticed on PS2. Super Monkey Ball would've been DOA if it had been a PS2 release. Sonic Adventure 2...best selling Sega game on any console after Dreamcast? Gamecube exclusive. Godzilla Destroy All Monsters Melee? Very good GC sales, abysmal elsewhere and yet Atari ignores the GC for the sequel...

There is definitely a market for Gamecube exclusive 3rd party games. There is not a large market for Western developed ports of PS2/Xbox franchises that usually arrive later on the Cube.

Nintendo is apparently very interested in working wtih certain 3rd parties to provide exclusive games for their console. Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes really hasn't done all that bad on GC considering it's a remake.

There's no doubt that the third party shovelware and cross-platform stuff doesn't sell as well on the Gamecube. But you see, that's the difference between the Gamecube game buyer and the rest of the public, they're more interested in the exclusive titles (or exclusive features like Link in Soul Calibur II). Even if those come from 3rd party games makers like Capcom, Konami, etc.
 
BuddyChrist83 said:
Hence the "about" ;)

I could poke a hole there, as Symphonia was eventually ported to the PS2 in Japan, but your point would still remain. The GC exclusives that seem to do really well tend (in my eyes) to be highly polished and enjoyable titles, exactly I would expect from a Nintendo game. I guess you could call the successful 3rd party exclusives "pseudo-Nintendo" games.

It also has to do with the GC not getting too many exclusive 3rd party games. So when they do they're usually held to a higher standard than they would on say the PS2 that gets alot of them. For example look back on how much VJ was praised and how big a thread would get with a few new screenshots of it in it. Now look at VJ2, it's basically being ignored now that it's multiplatform. There are still those excited about it obviously but it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere near the fan following it did when it was GC exclusive.

I don't follow the idea though that certain games on the GC will get noticed on it but ignored on another. Katamari Damacy for example sold well on the PS2, and i'm sure alot of people thought it'd been overlooked because it's such an obscure looking title. If it's a good game with good appeal it'll sell usually.
 
SolidSnakex said:
It also has to do with the GC not getting too many exclusive 3rd party games. So when they do they're usually held to a higher standard than they would on say the PS2 that gets alot of them. For example look back on how much VJ was praised and how big a thread would get with a few new screenshots of it in it. Now look at VJ2, it's basically being ignored now that it's multiplatform. There are still those excited about it obviously but it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere near the fan following it did when it was GC exclusive.

I don't think so, this year is different from the last. MP2:E, RE4, Paper Mario2 are eclipsing the title. Only way to know is when the game is released.
 
Also, if you work exclusively with Nintendo, you're getting anywhere from a bit of input from to a full-on collaboration with Miyamoto and EAD. That's something Sony and MS can't even begin to offer.

heavy liquid said:
Sure, but how many network adapters did you think they would sell with only ONE online game availible at the time it was released (and two games currently)? I bet they would've sold a LOT more if say, Mario Kart and other anticipated games were announced as being online.

Actually all the math I did was based on how many more network adapters Nintendo could expect to have sold if they did the same percentage as Sony, which was about 10%. And then look at how many online games they could have sold. At that point, if I remember correctly, Sony's biggest selling online game was Socom, and they had half of the million people who bought it go online. From that and some other figures we had, I determined, best case scenario, how many more copies of any one game Nintendo could expect to sell if that game had an online mode, and then how much more money Nintendo could expect to make per title.

It wasn't much.
 

Musashi Wins!

FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
It's all supported though (GC 3rd party sales) by a lack of titles overall. Lots of titles get attention and sell well on the Cube because the competition is a lot lower. Usually, you can look at release dates over a couple months and Xbox/PS2 will have several larger name 3rd party releases and the GC will have 1 or 2 which makes it far more likely someone will buy that over another choice. Sure some of that excess choice is junk, but fortunately a lot of it isn't too. I don't think anyone believes that all the 3rd parties that have abandoned the Cube are making shovelware.

I also agree that online gaming hasn't reached a point of profitability, but it's certainly beginning to establish itself on home consoles more than ever before. I think it's increasing support is a sign of getting closer to that goal and more importantly establishing a record of customer loyalty and benefit in the market as more and more gamers become interested in implementing it (and high speed access gets more common). It seems to me that the strategy of MS/Sony is to maximize choice and product even when quality can suffer with many properties. Nintendo tends to maximize exposure of established products/titles even when you get major franchises that suffer from a lack of polish or pretty craven deals like their nostalgia GBA games.

Now you see MS pulling back on how easily they'll release a game to control some of their quality issues. Nintendo keeps looking for new ways to re-release past properties and forego expensive features with their products to protect the bottom line rather than entice many new gamers. It will be interesting to see if they'll keep up that plan with their home consoles as they continue to suffer in the largest market.
 

Sho Nuff

Banned
Nintendo is doing the right thing. The market is just too saturated with online. PS2 and Xbox both have online and neither of them turn any profit. Nintendo needs to concentrate on making CONSOLE games, not gimmicky games with five year olds screaming into each other's ears.
 

Alcibiades

Member
how are they screwing any fans over?

I'm not paying $50 a year for online play, and I haven't purchased an adapter, so I don't see how fans are getting screwed...

I pay for my games, get a lot of multiplayer out of them like I expected...

Nintendo didn't say "no-subscription free online" when I bought the games...

Besides, like Iwata said, 1 million online, probably 3 million by the end of the generation isn't all that successful in the large scheme of things...

It will still probably less than 10 million total online PS2 + XBox at the end of this gen, so it really hasn't reached mainstream yet, though it may next gen...

all I know is if Smash Brothers and Double Dash were online for free, of course they'd be popular, the the amount of server costs and upkeeping would cut right into Nintendo profits...

even if they sold another 300,000 more cause of online (best-case considering the relative popularity of online console games right now), they'd probably still not break even with the server costs and stuff, considering they don't have experience with this and unlike Microsoft, are gonna have to get everything outside...
 

BuddyC

Member
There's a lot of "I" there, efralope.

All Iwata said was that if Xbox Live was a console, its sales wouldn't be nearly as impressive. But seeing as how it's the first of its kind, well, there's really no bar to measure it against.
 
The problem with Nintendo using that "it doesn't make profit" excuse is that they're going online with the DS. So that's no longer an argument for them. If they're going to go online with that then they're obviously willing to take a loss with it if it's not profitable.
 

Alcibiades

Member
well, XBox Live was an evolutionary step if you ask me, to what Sega had started...

although there is a lot of "I" there, "I'd" still represent the majority in that online is still a minor percentage of console players...

actually, if Nintendo had Smash Brothers free online, I'd probably be part of that minority... that said, Nintendo would be working themselves into a corner throwing away money like that further doing damage to that 4.5 billion in dollar holdings they hold...
 

Alcibiades

Member
SolidSnakex said:
The problem with Nintendo using that "it doesn't make profit" excuse is that they're going online with the DS. So that's no longer an argument for them. If they're going to go online with that then they're obviously willing to take a loss with it if it's not profitable.

thing is, Nintendo doesn't have to purhase expensive servers, hire new personnel, and have expensive upkeeping with the DS online...

They are two totally different things...

At least, from what I get they aren't gonna be doing an "unprofitable" business model with that wireless DS stuff...

I may be wrong, but the cost from doing console online to DS online are significantly different...
 

IJoel

Member
1. Like it or not, online is the direction tons of games will be taking and are starting to take. Whether you dismiss it now and tackle it later, it doesn't matter. If a manufacturer wants to be of some relevance in the future, they will have to join for the ride.

2. Xbox Live costs have been expensive because it's been a well thought service with a well defined infrastructure. Take a look at what Sony's doing now. They're playing catch up to Xbox Live features. Xbox Live isn't an Xbox only service. It will support future MS consoles and perhaps PC gaming as well.

3. Nintendo tried a half assed approach to online gaming with their release of the network adapters/modems. I bought a worthless piece of plastic that has absolutely no use, other than to play PSO. Well, not only myself, but everyone that bought one of those useless things.

4. As to why Nintendo has ommitted online gaming, there's only one reason. Profitability. I, for one, am so very glad both Sony and MS joined console gaming. We'd still be playing on the N64 if it was for Nintendo. Obviously, Nintendo had no plans of joining online gaming until it became profitable, though I believe they will pursue it on the next generation (they will be forced to), even though profitability will still be questionable.
 
efralope said:
thing is, Nintendo doesn't have to purhase expensive servers, hire new personnel, and have expensive upkeeping with the DS online...

They are two totally different things...

At least, from what I get they aren't gonna be doing an "unprofitable" business model with that wireless DS stuff...

I may be wrong, but the cost from doing console online to DS online are significantly different...
How would DS online work then?

I'm at home with my Linksys wireless router, I fire up Metroid Hunters to play it online, how would I connect to other people without a central server?
 

IJoel

Member
Katcher said:
How would DS online work then?

I'm at home with my Linksys wireless router, I fire up Metroid Hunters to play it online, how would I connect to other people without a central server?

Nintendo magic dust. During the making of DS, Nintendo slaughters millions of pixies and embed their pixie dust into the DS, thus enabling online gaming free of charge!
 

BuddyC

Member
efralope said:
I may be wrong, but the cost from doing console online to DS online are significantly different...

You are. The 100 ft wireless bluetooth-esque feature doesn't require a central server, but you need one for the worldwide Wi-Fi play.

edit: I don't know what happened to my other post, but..

My main beef is with "I haven't purchased an adapter, so I don't see how fans are getting screwed..."

You haven't purchased an adapter, but they're not only avaliable, but also sold to people! And the people that buy them are left high and dry here in the US, and it's almost the same situation over in Japan.
 
Katcher said:
How would DS online work then?

I'm at home with my Linksys wireless router, I fire up Metroid Hunters to play it online, how would I connect to other people without a central server?

Isn't Wi fi used in wireless routers?

Why do you need a central server and could the console or handheld be the central server?
 

Alcibiades

Member
IJoel said:
1. Like it or not, online is the direction tons of games will be taking and are starting to take. Whether you dismiss it now and tackle it later, it doesn't matter. If a manufacturer wants to be of some relevance in the future, they will have to join for the ride.

2. Xbox Live costs have been expensive because it's been a well thought service with a well defined infrastructure. Take a look at what Sony's doing now. They're playing catch up to Xbox Live features. Xbox Live isn't an Xbox only service. It will support future MS consoles and perhaps PC gaming as well.

3. Nintendo tried a half assed approach to online gaming with their release of the network adapters/modems. I bought a worthless piece of plastic that has absolutely no use, other than to play PSO. Well, not only myself, but everyone that bought one of those useless things.

4. As to why Nintendo has ommitted online gaming, there's only one reason. Profitability. I, for one, am so very glad both Sony and MS joined console gaming. We'd still be playing on the N64 if it was for Nintendo. Obviously, Nintendo had no plans of joining online gaming until it became profitable, though I believe they will pursue it on the next generation (they will be forced to), even though profitability will still be questionable.

1. "connectivity" is a direction a lot of games are taking on GCN (and just like online, some require it some optional), doesn't mean squat right now...

right, since Nintendo isn't pursing online, they are totally irrelevant going into the future... Hey, Sega started this whole ride, and look at (sad as it is), how relevent they are turning out to be....

2. XBox Live is expensive just because hosting online services isn't free (whether the customer is paying or the company)...

Online gaming isn't cheap for anyone... otherwise Phantasy Star Online wouldn't be free and servers would last forever and not shutdown the it happened for Sega...

3. Nintendo's approach couldn't be "half-assed" because they didn't have one... Sega wanted the adapters released, and since Nintendo wasn't going to lose money selling them seperately, they had nothing to lose...

4. well, it's not just profitability that stopped Nintendo, it's also the desire to stay afloat... sure "calculated risks" are necessary for all companies, but DS right now is a far for assuring risk with returns on the venture practically guaranteed than going online... Sony and Microsoft aren't really taking "calculated risks" the way Nintendo would with an online venture... It would be everything or nothing and could cost the company like 1/5 worth of holdings and if it doesn't have a profit structure, I'm sure Nintendo isn't gonna be stupid enough to throw a few hundred million away... If Microsoft or Sony lose a few billion here or there online ventures, it's really not biggie... If Nintendo were to it would be a massive blow to the company...
 

IJoel

Member
OG_Original Gamer said:
Isn't Wi fi used in wireless routers?

Why do you need a central server and could the console or handheld be the central server?

To locate games. I guess they could make it so that it detects nearby DS' with wi-fi and the same game and also searching for online games, but it sounds like a logistic nightmare. Ideally, and like every online game, the DS would connect to a central server that would display any other available game sessions/hosts. The server doesn't actually have to host the game but it's needed to link the connections (at least initially, theoretically speaking.)
 

Alcibiades

Member
BuddyChrist83 said:
You are. The 100 ft wireless bluetooth-esque feature doesn't require a central server, but you need one for the worldwide Wi-Fi play.

edit: I don't know what happened to my other post, but..

My main beef is with "I haven't purchased an adapter, so I don't see how fans are getting screwed..."

You haven't purchased an adapter, but they're not only avaliable, but also sold to people! And the people that buy them are left high and dry here in the US, and it's almost the same situation over in Japan.

well to be honest I'm not even sure about any of this stuff, but I'm my point was the money risk part of it is probably a small fraction what setting up central servers to console games would be...

I don't even understand how online would work on DS I just assumed it would be like a bigger version of those wireless things that come free with Pokemon, but with that technology x10 that's installed in places like coffee houses and libraries and stuff...

but yeah, I'm really not sure this is just from skimming articles cause wireless play is not something I'm familiar with...
 
efralope said:
1. "connectivity" is a direction a lot of games are taking on GCN (and just like online, some require it some optional), doesn't mean squat right now...

right, since Nintendo isn't pursing online, they are totally irrelevant going into the future... Hey, Sega started this whole ride, and look at (sad as it is), how relevent they are turning out to be....

2. XBox Live is expensive just because hosting online services isn't free (whether the customer is paying or the company)...

Online gaming isn't cheap for anyone... otherwise Phantasy Star Online wouldn't be free and servers would last forever and not shutdown the it happened for Sega...

3. Nintendo's approach couldn't be "half-assed" because they didn't have one... Sega wanted the adapters released, and since Nintendo wasn't going to lose money selling them seperately, they had nothing to lose...

4. well, it's not just profitability that stopped Nintendo, it's also the desire to stay afloat... sure "calculated risks" are necessary for all companies, but DS right now is a far for assuring risk with returns on the venture practically guaranteed than going online... Sony and Microsoft aren't really taking "calculated risks" the way Nintendo would with an online venture... It would be everything or nothing and could cost the company like 1/5 worth of holdings and if it doesn't have a profit structure, I'm sure Nintendo isn't gonna be stupid enough to throw a few hundred million away... If Microsoft or Sony lose a few billion here or there online ventures, it's really not biggie... If Nintendo were to it would be a massive blow to the company...

1. Online gaming is much more popular and continues to grow at a healthy pace, while "connectivity" is stagnant.

2. $50 a year(the cost of a single game) for the best (and most stable) online network with tons of great features that are constantly upgraded, and lots of free downloadable content to extend replayability of games, is VERY worth it for those interested in online
play. Which helps keep existing subscribers, and add new ones, which in turn increases revenue. When revenue keeps increasing so will profits.

3. In other words, Nintendo saw a way to make some cash, knowing full well the only people that would be screwed in the end were the fans.

4. So for all Nintendos talk of innovation and "revolution" they still will stay to their tried and true formula of "play it safe for profit" in the end. Doesn't sound very revolutionary to me.
 
Top Bottom