-
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.
GameFAQs pollers agree with Iwata to some extent.
- Thread starter cvxfreak
- Start date
SolidSnakex
Member
element said:
According to Kaz that's what they're doing now.
Alcibiades
Member
element said:
maybe with pixilated, blocky graphics, yeah, but N64 had anti-aliasing and smoother in-game graphics, so they'd look better, and the graphic quality would have been consistent throughout the game...
element said:
I also think it's a requirement that your 15 years old or below to be a full time member.
Moving on, here are my problems with Iwata's deciding online isn't a big deal. If you poll random fans about whether online is important to them.. you come up with a small percentage. (10-15% max maybe)
I think everyone would agree on that. However, most of that percentage of the people in favor are hardcore (non-casual) gamers... such as people here on this board. This is why the split seems so much more to the side of online play here at GAF.
Those 10-15% of people may actually purchase 30-40% of the total videogames sold in a year. I have 2 casual friends who still play games semi-frequently... I EASILY outpurchase both of them in new games a year.. probably with myself purchasing 2-3X more than both of them together. Neither of them plays online.. they rent a lot of games, but rarely buy.
I know for sure one is purchasing NCAA.. Halo 2, maybe GTA:SA.. he didn't seem to really enjoy the first two.
Alcibiades
Member
JC10001 said:
no, but it does take hundreds of millions of dollars in losses (or billions by some accounts)...
SolidSnakex
Member
efralope said:
So with the N64 you'd had blocky characters and blurry graphics. Either way you're going to get graphics flaws, it's just with the PSone version you'd get around 3+million extra people buying it.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
SolidSnakex said:
Uh FF7 sold psx's. If it came out on the 64,why wouldn't it have sold N64s?
SolidSnakex
Member
olubode said:
Because it wouldn't have had the same impact. Sony's ad is what made FF7 in the US. Without that it'd just been another obscure RPG like basically every other console RPG had been up to that point.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
SolidSnakex said:
Nintendo can advertise a square product. If ff7 was multiplatform, do you think it would have been marketed the same way? If ff7 is Nintendo only, PS1 gets no where near as big because FF7 was a huge catlyst in pushing PS2 sales. Around the time FF7 came out, Sony was either losing to Nintendo or they were virtually neck and neck in the market.
SolidSnakex
Member
When FF7 was released, RPG's weren't a type of genre you could market because the games are so slow paced. So chances are Nintendo wouldn't have marketed it for Square. And there never would've been a multiplatform FF7 to begin with, that'd been way too expensive.
Basically with the N64 you'd had a gutted version of FF7. One that didn't have all the glitz that FF7 on the PSone had, meaning you couldn't market it like Sony did with the FMV ads. There's no way that the N64 FF7 would've had the same impact of the PSone version because it wouldn't have been the same game.
Basically with the N64 you'd had a gutted version of FF7. One that didn't have all the glitz that FF7 on the PSone had, meaning you couldn't market it like Sony did with the FMV ads. There's no way that the N64 FF7 would've had the same impact of the PSone version because it wouldn't have been the same game.
Reason why FF7 on PSX
It's amazing how many people actually care about Nintendo's profit margin more so than having games with more features. What the hell...
Online gaming is here to stay. While many companies are testing the waters and see what works and what doesn't work with online gaming, Nintendo is being their stubborn self again and not getting with the times (CD-ROM, RPGs "boring" anyone?). I dont play Splinter Cell: PD or SOCOM 2 and think "man this game would be so much more fun if Sony and MS were making a profit!!"
Online gaming is here to stay. While many companies are testing the waters and see what works and what doesn't work with online gaming, Nintendo is being their stubborn self again and not getting with the times (CD-ROM, RPGs "boring" anyone?). I dont play Splinter Cell: PD or SOCOM 2 and think "man this game would be so much more fun if Sony and MS were making a profit!!"
No market for a new product/service that is totally frivolous in the grand scheme of things (i.e a luxury) ever materializes fully formed out of thin air spontaneously - companies have to invest in the creation and growth of such a market.
Good thing Nintendo's attitude wasn't the same when they got into videogames 20-30 yrs ago...who really wanted to play videogames at the time anyway?
Good thing Nintendo's attitude wasn't the same when they got into videogames 20-30 yrs ago...who really wanted to play videogames at the time anyway?
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
I think gamefaqs is the perfect place for Nintendo to listen to and well represents their core base. No joke.
so when he mentions online gaming that just means gaming that does not include onlin updates such as new levels and such right
i do think there is a need for some type of online componet whether it be "gaming" or "updates"
one man cannot speak for every one on that there is no need for online
i do think there is a need for some type of online componet whether it be "gaming" or "updates"
one man cannot speak for every one on that there is no need for online
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
SolidSnakex said:
Edit: removed initial sentence
Of course it would not have been as flashy a game. And I was just throwing the multiplatorm possibility just to continue with the discussion we are having.
All I am saying is this. If FF7 came out on the N64, they would could have still sold a shitload in Japan and had moderate succeess in other territoies. But (and this is the KEY point) the PS1 would not have sold as many consoles as they did. FF7 was the monster game that got new adapters. Nothing before it. Everything that came after (GT, MGS etc) became super sucessful as opposed to successful due to FF7 bringing the audience.
Kobun Heat
Member
When Nintendo got into the videogame business, there WAS a market for it. Other companies had tested the waters and it was clear that there was a lot of money in it for a company that did things right. Their early Pong-style systems were huge successes because they were some of the first color video games in Japan, and came from a well-respected brand name. And the Famicom wasn't even close to being the first cartridge based system - it was just clearly better than everything else.kaching said:
Last time Nintendo tried to create a market where there was none was the Virtual Boy...
Hellraizah
Member
Iwata : "Online gaming is not where it's at right now, let's put some more energy into making E-Reader cards and supporting connectivity."
Kobun Heat
Member
You must be great at parties.Hellraizah said:
"Why did the chicken cross the road? ...give up? TO GET TO THE OTHER SIDE!!! Hahaha! Isn't that hilarious, I just heard that joke! Bet you've never heard that one before! Wait, wait, I got another one. A horse walks into a bar and the bartender says 'Why the long face?' HAHAHA! Get it! Because a horse, his face is long! You know? Oh man, I got a million of these!"
Wheee!!!
Only in the next generation, when online gaming comes to the forefront. Not releasing a SNES CD unit wasn't what hurt Nintendo, it was avoiding optical media in the following generation. If Nintendo works on an online solution for Revolution, skipping out on GC-Online won't really have mattered in retrospect...SolidSnakex said:
Funny enough the "networked living room multimedia center" was pioneered with Famicom. Nintendo's ambitions just changed to games since that was the most profitable segment of their initial plans... funny, maybe they were just too ahead of their time.SolidSnakex said:
Sega CD moved around four times as many units as XBox Live kits. And Sega CD was a $299 investment initially....element said:
That was really more industry wide logic at the time, hardly restricted to "Nintendo fans". FFVII (and Square in general) on PlayStation was a huge surprise to everyone back then.element said:
N64 software trends say otherwise. The average N64 game probably outsold the average PSX game, despite having less than half the userbase.SolidSnakex said:
Nintendo's been experimenting with networking the past two decades... it's not like they haven't done their homework here. And looking at the state of the market (less than 4 million online consoles worldwide), I wouldn't say they're exactly off base right now.kaching said:
A market significantly bigger than what there is now for online gaming?KobunHeat said:
So, are you trying to suggest the same can't be said for online gaming?
Good thing a market for online gaming isn't totally absent then, eh?
I'd hate to think that Nintendo is gauging their ability to enter a new market based solely on their failure to kickstart the "monocrhomatic stereoscopic 3d gaming through goggles only" market. That sounds more like they developed a phobia limiting their potential rather than learned a valuable lesson to apply to future endeavors.
My comment never implied that the existing online game market is as massive as the offline market is. My point was that you don't get to that level of success by saying, "there's no market for it". And just because they've "done their homework" doesn't automatically guarantee that they've come to the right conclusion. Every year, lots of people do their math homework in school and come to the conclusion that, "Math Sucks - Why would anyone need to know how to do anything other than add, subtract, multiply and divide?" We wouldn't be able to argue across great distances on this thing called the Internet about electronic toys we get so passionate about if there hadn't been at least a few who felt differently about Math...jarrod said:
Kobun Heat
Member
I think that in a very important sense the market is absent, because consumers are not willing to pay enough for online gaming to cover the costs of setting it up and then making a profit. Companies now are struggling to find ways of bringing in REVENUE from online... let alone profit.
If you're giving something away for free or below cost, of course there's a "market" for that. With the video game business in 1980's Japan it was a profitable opportunity. Right now it's not actually known if ANY online console scheme can turn a profit. That will probably change, but not tomorrow.
If you're giving something away for free or below cost, of course there's a "market" for that. With the video game business in 1980's Japan it was a profitable opportunity. Right now it's not actually known if ANY online console scheme can turn a profit. That will probably change, but not tomorrow.
I think the issue is that Nintendo believes "there's no significant market for it right now". Their stance has always been when the time for online gaming is right they'd do it, and going by the current market, their current stance doesn't strike as all that clueless.kaching said:
Besides, DS shows that Nintendo is indeed somewhat serious about networking in the immediate future (though in a different market and on a different scale). Maybe Revolution will follow?
You've lost me here. Are you implying online gaming has the same far cultural and scientific significance as school grade math? And that Nintendo's hesitation towards online gaming this gen will impede future advances in those areas?kaching said:
Hellraizah
Member
What is very important is also the perception that the customer sees when he checks to buy a console. Right now, people sees Xbox as a very good value, considering you can play online, you got a HDD, you got the most powerful machine, etc....Kobun Heat said:
When a young teen looks at GameCube, he sees a console that cannot play DVDs, while the other 2 can, he can't play online, while the other 2 can, etc.... Maybe he got to pay more to get a PS2 or an Xbox, but the value is seen. Microsoft may face a brick wall next generation if they don't include backward compatibility BECAUSE it seems the other 2 will have it.
If Nintendo is not willing to take any risk, it could very well backfire on them. What is really sad is that Nintendo got an incredible line-up of games that would be godly online, but refuses to see that market. Thank god they are including a wireless adapter in the DS, hoping it shows them that it's valuable.
Kobun Heat
Member
It's going to be very interesting to see how Nintendo handles online on the DS considering that it's the first Nintendo system to have online built in at launch.
Kobun Heat said:
Well its one of the first systems to require you to not do anything like get a wire even. That would help adoption as there are less obstacles, although wifi points may take time to be adopted and maybe rates should fall.
Bear in mind Nintendo always say the opposite stuff alot of the time and supposedly do a U turn the day they make their announcements
With online its hard to say what they really think.According to their own corporate history, they were into the videogame business sooner than that - 1975 from the looks of it.Kobun Heat said:
I think we're mixing up two different desires here: the desire to generate new revenue/profit streams and the desire to maintain or grow existing revenue/profit streams. Online gaming has been offered for years by various companies across multiple platforms. I don't see how online gaming would have even gotten to the point where its at now if it didn't at least help to sustain general profitability for the majority of these companies.
No, I'm just saying that thank goodness not everyone is as gunshy as Nintendo is on this issue, in thinking they don't have the aptitude to generate interest in this market. Otherwise the market would never get to be the size that Nintendo considers big enough.jarrod said:You've lost me here. Are you implying online gaming has the same far cultural and scientific significance as school grade math? And that Nintendo's hesitation towards online gaming this gen will impede future advances in those areas?
Here's hoping.
Kobun Heat
Member
kaching said:
Actually, 1977. And they profited then too, as I said.
Companies like Sega, who was in the red before, during, and after taking the DC online? Or MS, who's however many BILLION dollars in the hole on this?
Hellraizah
Member
I think he was making reference to PC gaming companies, like Blizzard.Kobun Heat said:
Kobun Heat
Member
Oh. Well, that's more than a little different, isn't it?Hellraizah said:
Which videogame business would that be? Amusement, consumer, handheld, network?kaching said:
Well market penetration is likely just one of the reasons for Nintendo's reluctance in online gaming this generation, and at that likely more of a "told you so" justification for the media specifically. After all, FC Banking, BSX, 64DD and Mobile GB were pretty notable for their time, I doubt Nintendo's suddenly gunshy due a single factor.kaching said:
Blizzard doesnt host the Battle.Net servers.. They have partners that do that
http://www.battle.net/info.shtml
I dont know what the agreement look like But who knows might be some tracking involved or something like that, but it would be unlikely for these companies to host the servers for free.
I dont know what the agreement look like But who knows might be some tracking involved or something like that, but it would be unlikely for these companies to host the servers for free.
Kobun:
I'm just referencing Nintendo's own corporate history page but I'm willing to split the difference and say 1977, since that seems to be their home debut. Now, the question remains, how big were the profits at that time that lured Nintendo into the market? Can't track anything down regarding actual profit numbers but, according to Gamespy, their actual units sold puts them in the realm where console online gaming is at now:
As for your comment regarding Sega and MS, I didn't realize that their experiences summed up the experiences of every company that has provided online gaming. And you've really proven nothing with regard to Sega by saying they were in the red before, during and after they took the DC online. The association is what? That online gaming couldn't pull them out of the red? EVERYTHING they were selling at the time couldn't pull them out of the red, including their games in general.
I'm just referencing Nintendo's own corporate history page but I'm willing to split the difference and say 1977, since that seems to be their home debut. Now, the question remains, how big were the profits at that time that lured Nintendo into the market? Can't track anything down regarding actual profit numbers but, according to Gamespy, their actual units sold puts them in the realm where console online gaming is at now:
Certainly doesn't sound like profitability at the time was really blowing anyone's skirt up...
As for your comment regarding Sega and MS, I didn't realize that their experiences summed up the experiences of every company that has provided online gaming. And you've really proven nothing with regard to Sega by saying they were in the red before, during and after they took the DC online. The association is what? That online gaming couldn't pull them out of the red? EVERYTHING they were selling at the time couldn't pull them out of the red, including their games in general.
Kobun Heat
Member
Yeah, they sold a million units of the Color TV Game consoles, and MADE A PROFIT.
I don't know where we're missing each other here.
Speaking of console manufacturers, they're two out of the three who've made an effort at it. The only reason I didn't include Sony is because I'm not sure they've lost money on it, although I'd assume they are.
I don't know where we're missing each other here.
Speaking of console manufacturers, they're two out of the three who've made an effort at it. The only reason I didn't include Sony is because I'm not sure they've lost money on it, although I'd assume they are.
Hellraizah
Member
Except a fantastic multiplayer experience.SantaCruZer said:
Hellraizah
Member
To each his own, but for me, replayability is a very important factor, and most single player games does not offer that much.SantaCruZer said:
The Shadow
Member
Razoric said:
That's pretty much my thoughts. Why *wouldn't* people want an extra mode of gameplay? Can you really consider yourself a gamer if you care more for a companies bottom line rather than additional gameplay possibilities?
Sure, Nintendo doesn't think it's "profitable". Evidently, Sony and Microsoft do. Microsoft seems to be investigating ways in improving Live and Sony looks like they'll have a similar network for the PS3. Both of those companies know that there is profit to be gained in that area.