Support NeoGAF

[Littleberu]

Then ask them if they'd like the topion to do both. Play it for free just like any other Pokemon, or have the ability to go online and play with others. I'd wager they'd take the one that gives you the most options. Nintnedo seems to be ignoring this. No not everyone wants to go online, that'll never be the case. But there are alot of people that do, so why not give them that option if they want to?

Pokemon Crystal did this, but it failed (IIRC), because it was badly implemented.

Look at how Rainbow 6 is shit in Single Player, and how much fun it is in Multiplayer. Or look at Socom 2. There are no balance yet, there are always sacrifice being made.

 

[Death]

Then ask them if they'd like the topion to do both. Play it for free just like any other Pokemon, or have the ability to go online and play with others. I'd wager they'd take the one that gives you the most options. Nintnedo seems to be ignoring this. No not everyone wants to go online, that'll never be the case. But there are alot of people that do, so why not give them that option if they want to?

Because adding an online feature gives their young minds the impression that unless they try out the feature, they'll never be able to unlock the true wonders of the game, which is an impression that Nintendo does not want to give.

 

[siamesedreamer]

I agree with some of the posts here. There really isn't that much variety when it comes to online gaming (SCT not withstanding). And maybe broadband penetration isn't as far along as it needs to be. But, IMO the litmus test for online gaming will be Halo 2. If that really doesn't push people to sign up for XBL, then nothing will.

 

[Grubdog]

Then ask them if they'd like the topion to do both. Play it for free just like any other Pokemon, or have the ability to go online and play with others. I'd wager they'd take the one that gives you the most options. Nintnedo seems to be ignoring this. No not everyone wants to go online, that'll never be the case. But there are alot of people that do, so why not give them that option if they want to?

1% of casual Pokemon fans want online play. 99% just want the game, as soon as they can get their hands on it, adding online play would take longer, and would upset 99% of the fans. It would also make them feel left out that they are not taking full advantage of their new game.

 

[Lyte Edge]

Littleberu, who says that a Pokemon online game would have to cost money to play online? All of the PS2's online games, FFXI and Everquest aside, are free.

Yeah and what's the point then? Why did they include Online play then? They could've made the single player experience a lot better in these games without Online.

Yes, because Madden and NBA Live have such HORRIBLE single player modes. And yeah, no one plays these games online! I guess those guys in the Madden online leagues, that are growing large enough to get their own coverage on G4, are just wasting their time with those "shitty online modes."

I don't see the point in arguing with you about this; optional online support is only a good thing, and it's just that: OPTIONAL. It sure as well beats having to use a GBA, that's for sure.

 

[sprsk]

"Could you recreate the fun of 4 Swords online, I don't think so. "

It's called Phantasy Star Online.

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

not even close.

 

[Suerte]

Like it or not, online will be playing an ever increasing role in gaming in the future - by this time MS and Sony will have had EXPERIENCE in the field, Nintendo will be just starting out so they'll still be lagging behind.

 

[Littleberu]

Yes, because Madden and NBA Live have such HORRIBLE single player modes. And yeah, no one plays these games online! I guess those guys in the Madden online leagues, that are growing large enough to get their own coverage on G4, are just wasting their time with those "shitty online modes."

I don't see the point in arguing with you about this; optional online support is only a good thing, and it's just that: OPTIONAL. It sure as well beats having to use a GBA, that's for sure.

Yeah but how long did it takes to Madden and other EA Sports game to REALLY master the online part? Madden has been here since 89, and I didn't change a lot. It's easy to just update the game a little, then add an online game, because it takes a lot less developpement time than making a whole new game. I hope you understand me well (i.e. : Sorry for my bad english/spelling)

Littleberu, who says that a Pokemon online game would have to cost money to play online? All of the PS2's online games, FFXI and Everquest aside, are free.

Yeah, and there not successful beside Socom 2. Because their online mode sucks.

 

[Lyte Edge]

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

not even close.

You're right. Four Swords is a much simpler game and would be even easier to play online, with a smooth, lag-free experience.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Like it or not, online will be playing an ever increasing role in gaming in the future - by this time MS and Sony will have had EXPERIENCE in the field, Nintendo will be just starting out so they'll still be lagging behind.

Ah yes, let's trot out the old experience canard.

First off, do you think that the next generation of hardware is going to be the magic bullet that instantly takes online from tiny niche to fully mainstream and pivotal to a console's success?

Do you think Nintendo's not conducting all sorts of in-house trials and experiments with console games?

Do you think they don't have the clout, money, and industry know-how to recruit powerful technology partners for an online initiative?

And what do you think Sony and MS have really learned about online that Nintendo hasn't learned simply by watching them throw money down the toilet? If Sony and MS have a secret vault in which they're storing away all of the massive money making secrets to online gaming that they've supposedly been piling up by the truckload, you'd think they'd open that fucker up and start using some of them now.

 

[Littleberu]

You're right. Four Swords is a much simpler game and would be even easier to play online, with a smooth, lag-free experience.

No it wouldn't, because it needs close teamplay, much more than any other online games, and is much more enjoyable with people you know well (friends, family, etc).

 

[SolidSnakex]

1% of casual Pokemon fans want online play. 99% just want the game, as soon as they can get their hands on it, adding online play would take longer, and would upset 99% of the fans. It would also make them feel left out that they are not taking full advantage of their new game.

Where'd you get these numbers from? How would it take longer? Pokemon debuted back in 1996 and we still haven't gotten a real console version. So by now waiting shouldn't be too hard.

"Look at how Rainbow 6 is shit in Single Player, and how much fun it is in Multiplayer. Or look at Socom 2. There are no balance yet, there are always sacrifice being made."

Or look at PGR2, Rallisport 2, or upcoming games like GT4 and HALO 2 which seem like they'll do it jsut fine. There's always going to be games that focus more on online than offline and vice versa but there are also those developers that realise that alot of people won't go online so they don't want to stiff them on the game.

 

[sprsk]

You're right. Four Swords is a much simpler game and would be even easier to play online, with a smooth, lag-free experience.

minus the experience of fucking your friends over which is 80% of the game.

 

[norinrad21]

Sigh They always make these stupid decisions that always comes back to bite them in the ass and by the time they realize whats going on the Industry has moved on another 5 years. I wish they had someone at Nintendo with balls. Bring the old man back

 

[Lyte Edge]

Yeah but how long did it takes to Madden and other EA Sports game to REALLY master the online part? Madden has been here since 89, and I didn't change a lot. It's easy to just update the game a little, then add an online game, because it takes a lot less developpement time than making a whole new game. I hope you understand me well (i.e. : Sorry for my bad english/spelling)

Yeah, and there not successful beside Socom 2. Because their online mode sucks.

You're talking to the wrong person about Madden's changes, but I get the feeling you're pretty wrong about the lack of changes the game has gone through.

When I see "[Sony's] online mode sucks," that's more or less a challenge to Nintendo so step in and raise the bar. So Nintendo shouldn't bother because "[Sony's] online mode sucks?"

 

[Littleberu]

Or look at PGR2, Rallisport 2, or upcoming games like GT4 and HALO 2 which seem like they'll do it jsut fine. There's always going to be games that focus more on online than offline and vice versa but there are also those developers that realise that alot of people won't go online so they don't want to stiff them on the game.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure that GT4 multiplayer mode won't be as good as you think.

PGR2 isn't even that fun Online IMO, it's just a multiplayer mode, without anything special. I didn't try Rallisport 2 though.

And then we got Halo 2. I can't wait to see if the Single Player's gonna be good or not.

Like I said, games that made the balance between Offline and Online took a lot of time to do so, and it's smart from Nintendo to hold back and try to make the best Offline mode possible before going Online.

 

[Suerte]

Ah yes, let's trot out the old experience canard.

First off, do you think that the next generation of hardware is going to be the magic bullet that instantly takes online from tiny niche to fully mainstream and pivotal to a console's success?

Do you think Nintendo's not conducting all sorts of in-house trials and experiments with console games?

Do you think they don't have the clout, money, and industry know-how to recruit powerful technology partners for an online initiative?

And what do you think Sony and MS have really learned about online that Nintendo hasn't learned simply by watching them throw money down the toilet? If Sony and MS have a secret vault in which they're storing away all of the massive money making secrets to online gaming that they've supposedly been piling up by the truckload, you'd think they'd open that fucker up and start using some of them now.

No, I don't think next generation will be some kind of magical bullet, but with this generation we've seen the number of online games and players increase, so it's only natural that this should increase once again next generation, no?

You know, to be honest, I doubt Nintendo is really doing a lot of testing for something they really sound like they don't want to do. Even if they are testing in house, they still haven't released any online games to date to test out their actual customers reactions to it.

I'd say MS has at least learned a fair deal out of XBL, they've taken customer feedback and added this feedback to live, they're doing a damn good job IMO.

IMO experience WILL help MS and Sony, I don't see how it couldn't.

 

[Lyte Edge]

minus the experience of fucking your friends over which is 80% of the game.

And you couldn't do this online because....?

 

[Laurent]

Another day, another whine... NINTENDO EVERYONE!

 

[Memles]

Do you think they don't have the clout, money, and industry know-how to recruit powerful technology partners for an online initiative?

I was under the impression they already did, working with AOL. Granted, it's gone nowhere, but it was at least set-up. Nintendo is putting the money into the research, I think, but they aren't quite ready to jump into it.

 

[Littleberu]

You're talking to the wrong person about Madden's changes, but I get the feeling you're pretty wrong about the lack of changes the game has gone through.

That's not what I'm saying. Madden didn't change a lot during all those year. It's still a Football game.

Mario Kart or F-Zero or any other "could be online" Nintendo game, on the other hand, are vastly different, and much more less frequently released than Madden. So putting Online in those game would, first, lower the time given for single player experience, and second, make the success of the game risky because of a possibly shitty online experience. I don't know if you got me on that.

 

[sprsk]

And you couldn't do this online because....?

because you cant unplug peoples controllers online?

My main problem with online gaming is that you never know who youre gonna get. I wouldn't want to play four swords with people i dont know because of the fact alot of online gamers are retards or cheaters. And the experience of having friends next to you playing is much different than playing online. That may sound like im being a nintendo apologist, but as someone whos played alot of online games i can honestly say nothing beats having friends over playing a 4 player game.

 

[Lyte Edge]

That's not what I'm saying. Madden didn't change a lot during all those year. It's still a Football game.

Mario Kart or F-Zero or any other "could be online" Nintendo game, on the other hand, are vastly different, and much more less frequently released than Madden. So putting Online in those game would, first, lower the time given for single player experience, and second, make the success of the game risky because of a possibly shitty online experience. I don't know if you got me on that.

Er, Mario Kart and F-Zero have alos both changed as "little" as Madden has over the years, so that also makes no sense. And Mario Kart Double Dash even has LAN support, so setting up a simple online server couldn't have been that hard.

And AGAIN, since this would be *OPTIONAL* (once more, OPTIONAL: NOT A REQUIRED ELEMENT OF THE GAME) online play, it wouldn't take a thing away from the rest of the game. It wouldn't affect its success at all.

 

[Wario64]

Nintendo fans - "Online gaming is a fad"

 

[SantaC]

uh haven't we discussed this already? Iwata is not an idiot, or else Nintendo wouldn't make him a freaking president. I think some of his translations are too harsh.

 

[Jesiatha]

It’s just a preference.

If I had to choose between playing 8-player “Capture the Flag” online or playing 3-player Super Smash Brothers co-op, I’d choose the latter.

And given the choice between single player Smash Bros. and 3-player online Smash Bros., you'd choose the former?

When I was in college, we played Smash nightly with 3 or 4 people, and it was great. Now that I don't have 3 roommates who play games, I would love to be able to recreate that experience online. Sure, it wouldn't be the same thing, and there still should be co-op modes for when I can gather people around the same TV, but online has its place for me.

Would you argue that the telephone is something people don't want because they can already talk to other people in person?

 

[sprsk]

Nintendo fans - "Online gaming is a fad"

I dunno, most people dont know enough about computers and the internet to setup their system for online play.

"what is a router?"

 

[Redbeard]

How many Xboxs have been sold in the US? At E3 Microsoft said they were quickly approaching 1 million Xbox Live users. That's pretty crummy.

It's not crummy. Consider that it's a million more gamers that would be more likely to purchase a title with online play than one that lacks it. It would be interesting to see what percentage of people who bought Rainbow Six 3 have Live. Without that would it have sold nearly as well? I doubt it.

 

[Littleberu]

Er, Mario Kart and F-Zero have alos both changed as "little" as Madden has over the years, so that also makes no sense. And Mario Kart Double Dash even has LAN support, so setting up a simple online server couldn't have been that hard.

And AGAIN, since this would be *OPTIONAL* (once more, OPTIONAL: NOT A REQUIRED ELEMENT OF THE GAME) online play, it wouldn't take a thing away from the rest of the game. It wouldn't affect its success at all.

Yeah but Mario Kart Lan mode suck too. And yeah it WOULD take time, to implement a lobby room, friend list, and all those little details that makes Online gaming on console more enjoyable.

But what I means with Madden vs Nintendo Franchise is that most of the time, you see a new Mario Kart every 4-5 years. You see a Madden game every year. Yeah, Madden has changed a lot since '89, but it didn't since last year. Mario Kart did change a lot since the 64 one. You understand.

 

[sprsk]

Would you argue that the telephone is something people don't want because they can already talk to other people in person?

id argue that talking to someone in person is better than talking on the telephone.

 

[SolidSnakex]

"Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure that GT4 multiplayer mode won't be as good as you think. "

I trust Kaz on this. He hasn't let me down yet.

"My main problem with online gaming is that you never know who youre gonna get."

That's alot of the fun early on with online games since there aren't any cheaters then. You might get someone that'll steal, you might get someone nice. You never know really. By the time the cheating starts if it does you should have enough people on your friends list to not have to worry about that going on.

Even if some don't enjoy the online, I just don't see the problem with having it for those that do enjoy it. Sony and MS have fixed this but Nintendo still ignores it. Alot of people were saying they were changing at E3, but they basically seem like the same company they've always been.

 

[Lyte Edge]

because you cant unplug peoples controllers online?

My main problem with online gaming is that you never know who youre gonna get. I wouldn't want to play four swords with people i dont know because of the fact alot of online gamers are retards or cheaters. And the experience of having friends next to you playing is much different than playing online. That may sound like im being a nintendo apologist, but as someone whos played alot of online games i can honestly say nothing beats having friends over playing a 4 player game.

*sigh*

It's optional. ********O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L******** online play we're taking here. That means you could just as easily play with your friends offline, never once going on, but should you move and still want to play with your buddies, the ability to do so is still there.

What I'm getting from your post is that it's okay to be an asshole to your friends, but if someone else does it you online, it sucks, BTW.

 

[Cloudy]

"Customers do not want online games"

 

[Mr. Lemming]

Optional or not, online play still costs resources to implement. Obviously Nintendo doesn't think the profit potential is worth that cost.

 

[Jesiatha]

id argue that talking to someone in person is better than talking on the telephone.

I completely agree. Multiplayer in the same room is more fun than multiplayer over Live. It's also a lot more inconvenient for many people - my old roommates live in Chicago and Dallas, and I'm in Seattle. In the past two years we've all gotten together once. However, the roommate in Chicago and I stay in touch primarily by playing games on Live, and we've had a blast doing so.

 

[ravingloon]

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

Amen. I don't mind the disappointment that Nintendo doesn't support online, but this topic should just be stickied so a new topic doesn't pop up every week with everyone expressing disappointment and the trolls going open season on Nintendo (including topics that have nothing to do with online).

To the delusional poster who stated Gamecube is techically inferior to PS2 and Nintendo should just stick a fork in themselves. Huh? When your only advantage is really crappy quality DVD playback, that's not much... especially since most humans have a vastly superior DVD player. PS2 playback barely rates above VHS if you're a videophile.

 

[Hellraizah]

Iwata : "We don't see online as being an important factor for gamers"

Nintendo fans : "Right, screw online, make better multiplayer and connectivity titles"

Obscure european mag : "We have the details on Nintendo's online network...."

Nintendo fans : "Best day of my life, bring on all these online titles, can't wait for F-Zero online or Super Smash Brothers"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iwata's comments are dumb as hell. Because there's only a small fraction of people wanting online games, it doesn't matter right now ? So basically, what he is saying is :
"Sony and Microsoft, 2 of the largest corporations in the world, right now, are doing online gaming for no reason at all, almost nobody wants it."

For an "innovator" like Nintendo, I see them being behind everyone in a couple of things for the last 2 generations (disc based media, online).

 

[Ninja Scooter]

While i do not agree with Nintendo's stance, i can see where they are coming from. Thereseems to be this misconception that adding online play is somehow either a)easy and b)automatically will make games better/sell more. Thats just not the case. If time isn't taking in tweaking the online play and making it good. I, personally, find online play sort of overrated this gen, at least for me. I will find myself getting all hyped for online play in games, maknig me want the games even more, and then when the game comes out it turns out the online mode sucks. Like Fight Night. Having a good online play in that game would have kicked ass, but unfortuntatly, waiting 15 minutes to find someone with a decent enough connection to play, just to have a 1-2 minute match, isn't very fun after a while. And then Champions of Norrath. Balders Gate with an online mode? KICKASS! But not when the online mode is broken beyond all repair. Like i said, i wish Nintendo would take a more aggresive stance on online play, rather than wait around for someone else to do all the work for them so they can just jump on the bandwagon later, but i can see their point of view. You have to remember, whether they like to admit it, or us fanboys like to admit it, a nice chunk of Nitnendo's userbase are children. When that is the case, it shrinks down the potential for online success even further than Sony or MS. I mean, the last few years all you hear people say is "Nintendo is dumb! Why not make a Pokemon MMORPG! IT'd be a goldmine!" WEll, not really. How well will parents take it when their kids ask them for not only 'that new pokemon game', but also their credit card, so they could sign up for a $10 a month online service to play the game?

 

[Keio]

Even if some don't enjoy the online, I just don't see the problem with having it for those that do enjoy it.

If 1 million of 14 million Xbox gamers play Live, I'd rather have Microsoft make a brilliant singleplayer game for the 13 out of 14 million than waste resources making the minority happier. (Of course MS believes that the minority will become a majority later, but that is not the issue here.)

So if Nintendo wants to give me (or encourage other devs to give me) good single player experiences AND games that are great for 4 ppl in the same room (SSBM, Wario Ware, 4Swords, FF: CC, TimeSplitters 2, SMB1&2 etc...), more power to them.

And if this is an opportunity to reach some online gamers, please stop the singing/breathing into the microphone/whining/squeaking/chatting to other people in the same room while playing... If that is "Teh future of gaming", I don't want to be there

 

[sprsk]

*sigh*

It's optional. ********O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L******** online play we're taking here. That means you could just as easily play with your friends offline, never once going on, but should you move and still want to play with your buddies, the ability to do so is still there.

What I'm getting from your post is that it's okay to be an asshole to your friends, but if someone else does it you online, it sucks, BTW.

it may sound silly but its true, being an asshole to someone you know is alot different than just being a dick online.

as for optional play...thats money nintendo has to spend on building a network. why lose that money when you can just use gbas that already exist in the market?

 

[Redbeard]

If 1 million of 14 million Xbox gamers play Live, I'd rather have Microsoft make a brilliant singleplayer game for the 13 out of 14 million than waste resources making the minority happier. (Of course MS believes that the minority will become a majority later, but that is not the issue here.)

They aren't mutually exclusive.

And the idea that making a great single player experience is just a matter of throwing more resources at it is nonsense (Driv3r anyone?).

 

[SolidSnakex]

If 1 million of 14 million Xbox gamers play Live, I'd rather have Microsoft make a brilliant singleplayer game for the 13 out of 14 million than waste resources making the minority happier. (Of course MS believes that the minority will become a majority later, but that is not the issue here.)

Ofcourse it is the issue. When that minority does become the majority, or just simply alot more, guess who they're going to stick with? Sony and MS because they're going to be so established in that realm that people aren't even going to give Nintendo a second thought. Just look at how alot of adult gamers treat Nintendo now because of how they've ignored more adult oriented games. They don't care about them no matter how hard they try. Nintendo might be trying to hold off till online gaming becomes really profitable, but that's just going to hurt them in the long run.

 

[Kobun Heat]

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Actually, so far they kind of have been. Games have either been great online or great offline... not both at once.

Even Pandora Tomorrow's single player mode wasn't much to shout about, as I understand it.

 

[Keio]

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Ok, if you were a developer, would you try to make a game for a userbase of 14 million (13 offline gamers+one million online gamers) or would you make a game for a userbase of just 1 million potential online gamers?

I agree that a very good online game can sell more than an offline game, because many online gamers buy more games than offline gamers. But if you look at Carve, Powerdrome etc. there are already too many competitors in the online sphere too...

Anyway, online isn't something you can just put into a game, bang. It takes a LOT of work to implement - so much that in Splinter Cell: PT they actually had two different teams, one for online and the other for offline.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Sony and MS because they're going to be so established in that realm that people aren't even going to give Nintendo a second thought.

I'm not sure about that.

Nintendo's got great brand recognition and the name is generally trusted. When they do move forward with online games, it's really not going to matter that they've never made one before. Square's first online game was FFXI, and that did better than anything in Japan. Why wouldn't Nintendo's first be any different?

 

[Keio]

Ofcourse it is the issue. When that minority does become the majority, or just simply alot more, guess who they're going to stick with? Sony and MS because they're going to be so established in that realm that people aren't even going to give Nintendo a second thought. Just look at how alot of adult gamers treat Nintendo now because of how they've ignored more adult oriented games. They don't care about them no matter how hard they try. Nintendo might be trying to hold off till online gaming becomes really profitable, but that's just going to hurt them in the long run.

When or if. The growth of online gaming hasn't matched the predictions of late 1990s and 1 million (which still probably includes lots of free trial players) isn't that much either. Look at the demise of all the MMORPG projects. Online gaming isn't the cornucopia that people thought it would be.

It's a gamble to go online and it's a gamble not to go online. But those resources not spent there can be used elsewhere, like the DS.

And I don't see many "adult" (meaning really mature people) gamers shunning Nintendo because of their lineup. Their lack of violent games mainly hurts the teen market.

I do have to admit that I'd love to see Nintendo try their hand online. If they could make an accessible and interesting MMORPG which I wouldn't have to sacrifice my social life and other interests to play, I'd be over the moon.

 

[Hellraizah]

Actually, so far they kind of have been. Games have either been great online or great offline... not both at once.

Even Pandora Tomorrow's single player mode wasn't much to shout about, as I understand it.

Pandora Tomorrow's single player game is really good. But, as with a lot of games these days, it's the type of games that you're not gonna go through twice. If it wasn't for the online play, I would have sold it long ago, right after finishing it.

If Nintendo would give the option to play online, I would have bought Four Swords, because I think the game looks really good, but the connectivity thing is really turning me off.

What I don't understand is, why do Nintendo focus on connectivity, when there's obviously a lot less people that will use that than people playing online. Also, there's always a lot of complains about how you gotta pay 5$ for more stuff on Xbox Live, yet they don't complain about how you gotta have 4 GBAs and 4 link cables to fully enjoy Four Swords or FF : CC.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I'm not sure about that.

Nintendo's got great brand recognition and the name is generally trusted. When they do move forward with online games, it's really not going to matter that they've never made one before. Square's first online game was FFXI, and that did better than anything in Japan. Why wouldn't Nintendo's first be any different?

There also weren't many online games before FFXI either. By the looks of it when Nintendo gets around to it there's going to be alot more online games there. There's also going to be alot more online games in the US. And Nintendo's going to basically be starting from scratch with online games compared to Sony and MS who will be very established by then. The point is Nintendo's constantly been giving people head starts recently by ignoring obvious trends. Did they really believe carts were a better idea than CD formats? They still haven't recovered from that blow which was big. I'm not saying not going online will be that significant or anything. Just that they need to stop giving companies headstarts like this because all it hurts in the long run is them.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

And I don't see many "adult" (meaning really mature people) gamers shunning Nintendo because of their lineup. Their lack of violent games mainly hurts the teen market.

Really? You'd think the GC would be selling better then. But I have no idea how you would measure such a thing anyway. Ask everyone who doesn't own a GC? That's a lot of people.

We have this conversation every week though. I don't think I'd let every time Iwata makes a comment about it drive me to look for new answers about the GC. I'm sure their next console will probably address the issue, and he has to say something about their strategies given their success in the handheld market and continued floundering in the home console field.

 

[Ozchin]

The point is Nintendo's constantly been giving people head starts recently by ignoring obvious trends. Did they really believe carts were a better idea than CD formats? They still haven't recovered from that blow which was big. I'm not saying not going online will be that significant or anything. Just that they need to stop giving companies headstarts like this because all it hurts in the long run is them.

Word. Not having online in the future is really narrow-minded of them.
Maybe they'll add the ability to play audio CDs and DVDs on to the Revolution...