-
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.
Reggie on Revolution, and the demand for "community"
- Thread starter radioheadrule83
- Start date
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
Ristamar said:Sweet. I always wanted to play a little deathmatch with Krang.
Anyone who posts a picture of Krang from the Ninja Turtles is GAF Forum Hero of the day.
So yeah, glad to see that they've slyly announced support for Online gaming in the next Nintendo console. I agree it's most likely going to be the exact same shit but customed tailored to be different from the competition.
Maybe theyll try something similar to free to air tv? ads in place of loading screens, ads while you download demos, product placement in levels, etc. Maybe also a content delivery system? imo that would be revolutionary. Its pretty clear from what they are saying that their problem is the business model and not technology.
I think he is basically saying that online gaming is a fad. There are a lot of homes without Internet Access so why to bother ?
Instead of this they must be thinking on implementing a service in which you call to other people to tell WHAT exactly are you doing at the moment in the game. No lag, no quotes, just the phone bill of phoning someone from Japan/Europe...
Instead of this they must be thinking on implementing a service in which you call to other people to tell WHAT exactly are you doing at the moment in the game. No lag, no quotes, just the phone bill of phoning someone from Japan/Europe...
This is this gens launch redux.
It doesn't matter how many people acutally play the games online, what matters is that the technology is there at launch, readily available, and there are actual nintendo first party games online.
The "spec sheet" killed nintendo, not the games.
It doesn't matter how many people acutally play the games online, what matters is that the technology is there at launch, readily available, and there are actual nintendo first party games online.
The "spec sheet" killed nintendo, not the games.
Isn't it in someways possible to do peer-to-peer connection set-ups? Games like Animal Crossing, a traditional turn-based Advance Wars and Four Swords Adventures, potentially three of the biggest online Nintendo games, don't really need to exchange much data between players anyway. Is it so difficult to offer such an option as an extra? I don't think it'll cause much hassle, it's just the multiplayer and an added IP box. I can understand why bringing things like F-Zero online would cause problems, but there are so many Nintendo games benefitting from a peer-to-peer set-up.
sometimes I believe that, and sometimes I don't.Papi said:
I think it will level off at somepoint, but will always be around in some form. Besides, it is always going to be an accessible activity to children, and there is always going to be a fair amount of those children that don't grow out of it.
I believe its in a high state of 'fad'. As in the new growth of the industry having a lot of fad followers. Which worries me that so many companies are banking on this audience staying around. With the new, older people getting into it..I just don't see it ultimately being accepted as socially okay in that peer group. The fact realism is so popular in games lately is probally directly related to the fad followers fear of doing something ..geeky? Realistic games are less videogames, you can pass them off as simulations or whatever. Playing Madden is playing football, playing Ico is playing a videogame.
MightyHedgehog
Member
I'm not to going to bother with a comment about the Revolution/DS plan...what's the point?
Anyway, I'm going to disagree with the notion that 'realistic' games aren't video games. Gaming is still gaming. Since the advent of electronic gaming, there have been countless attempts to bring more realistic-playing and realistic-looking games to people...and people buy them, based in part and/or on that alone. Fun isn't exclusively contained in fantasy-land scenarios and other highly-'unrealistic' games. If it's fun and enjoyable, it's good enough.
Anyway, I'm going to disagree with the notion that 'realistic' games aren't video games. Gaming is still gaming. Since the advent of electronic gaming, there have been countless attempts to bring more realistic-playing and realistic-looking games to people...and people buy them, based in part and/or on that alone. Fun isn't exclusively contained in fantasy-land scenarios and other highly-'unrealistic' games. If it's fun and enjoyable, it's good enough.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Oh OK. I agree. It's gotten better, though.
some people like online gaming. But 1 million xbox live subs out of a user base of how many xboxes isn't very impressive for a company pushing Live likes its the new messiah.
Xbox live is first and foremost a PC online solution with a nice frontend and common way of interacting. Its about competition mostly with strangers. Its about getting higher on the ranking ladders, to show how good you are against other people
I know you can play against people you know well, but it isn't really designed around cooperation or small groups of friends as much as it is getting people of your level to play *against*
I think the missing link is cooperation, and bringing some of the more social aspects of multiplayer gaming.
I have no idea if Nintendo can or will deliver any of this, but anyone who thinks Xbox Live is the be all and end all of online is easily pleased. Its nice, but it is the niche - there are still 90% of console owners out there that are not online
Xbox live is first and foremost a PC online solution with a nice frontend and common way of interacting. Its about competition mostly with strangers. Its about getting higher on the ranking ladders, to show how good you are against other people
I know you can play against people you know well, but it isn't really designed around cooperation or small groups of friends as much as it is getting people of your level to play *against*
I think the missing link is cooperation, and bringing some of the more social aspects of multiplayer gaming.
I have no idea if Nintendo can or will deliver any of this, but anyone who thinks Xbox Live is the be all and end all of online is easily pleased. Its nice, but it is the niche - there are still 90% of console owners out there that are not online
Online hasn't helped or hurt this gens competitors in the slightest. If that isn't enough of a giveaway that it still hasn't hit the mainstream, I don't know what is.
When XBox released live, it stayed in second place even though they had more online games than Sony.
When XBox launched without online, they got second place above nintendo, without online.
When Sony released it's online network, they stayed in first place despite live being more cohesive.
Nintendo has still succeeeded quite well this gen both in the us and managed to stay in second place worldwide without online gaming.
Really, online this gen FOR THE COMPANIES has been a non-factor. Hell, ESPN NFL2K4 was online and Madden 2004 wasn't and madden STILL trounced ESPN... madden goes online with 2005 and its sales stay roughly the same.
Next gen online will be important out of the box, and nintendo knows this. they know that on a game system people will expect to be able to go online with it instantly.. they will be prepared. as for how they do it? It will be different, but I believe sony and MS will be different also. I agree with Nintendo that the way of online gaming right now does not have mass market appeal. MS evolved that a little with live, but really it is the same ol'. Online gaming will have to evolve greatly and I predict by 2006 it will. And all three manufacturers will be apart of it.
When XBox released live, it stayed in second place even though they had more online games than Sony.
When XBox launched without online, they got second place above nintendo, without online.
When Sony released it's online network, they stayed in first place despite live being more cohesive.
Nintendo has still succeeeded quite well this gen both in the us and managed to stay in second place worldwide without online gaming.
Really, online this gen FOR THE COMPANIES has been a non-factor. Hell, ESPN NFL2K4 was online and Madden 2004 wasn't and madden STILL trounced ESPN... madden goes online with 2005 and its sales stay roughly the same.
Next gen online will be important out of the box, and nintendo knows this. they know that on a game system people will expect to be able to go online with it instantly.. they will be prepared. as for how they do it? It will be different, but I believe sony and MS will be different also. I agree with Nintendo that the way of online gaming right now does not have mass market appeal. MS evolved that a little with live, but really it is the same ol'. Online gaming will have to evolve greatly and I predict by 2006 it will. And all three manufacturers will be apart of it.
when it comes to something that affects games system wide, yes, it is a niche. what if only 15% of gamers owned a dual shock controller? or only 15% of gamers bought the dvd dongle? hell, what if only 15% of game players played multi-player?
that is the big problem here.. you guys think online is a game type or a genre. in effect online is nothing but another way to extend the game. another thing to do with the game. much like multiplayer has ALWAYS been. while a game that has sold to 15% of the installed base would be a bonafide hit of the biggest proportions, when you are tlaking about a subfeature of all games, 15% isn't really that inspiring. I would probably say that 15% of Nintendo gamers own a GBA (if not a lot more) and connectivity is still a niche..
when that number is over 50%, in other words when the majority of gamers go online at some point and time with their consoles, THEN it will be mainstream. and make no mistake.. I'm not saying "well, 46.759% is still niche". To the contrary I am saying when online does go mainstream (likely with next gen) it will jump from 15% to 80% overnight.. just like that..
that is the big problem here.. you guys think online is a game type or a genre. in effect online is nothing but another way to extend the game. another thing to do with the game. much like multiplayer has ALWAYS been. while a game that has sold to 15% of the installed base would be a bonafide hit of the biggest proportions, when you are tlaking about a subfeature of all games, 15% isn't really that inspiring. I would probably say that 15% of Nintendo gamers own a GBA (if not a lot more) and connectivity is still a niche..
when that number is over 50%, in other words when the majority of gamers go online at some point and time with their consoles, THEN it will be mainstream. and make no mistake.. I'm not saying "well, 46.759% is still niche". To the contrary I am saying when online does go mainstream (likely with next gen) it will jump from 15% to 80% overnight.. just like that..
SolidSnakex
Member
"Really, online this gen FOR THE COMPANIES has been a non-factor. Hell, ESPN NFL2K4 was online and Madden 2004 wasn't and madden STILL trounced ESPN... madden goes online with 2005 and its sales stay roughly the same."
Online is in no way big enough to impact a games sales to the point that its going to outdo a series like Madden. But for smaller game series it can play a role. Look at Burnout 3, Ghost Recon, Wolfenstein ect.
Online is in no way big enough to impact a games sales to the point that its going to outdo a series like Madden. But for smaller game series it can play a role. Look at Burnout 3, Ghost Recon, Wolfenstein ect.
don't get me wrong, online features in an average game (not necessarily calling any of those average) can certainly increase its appeal, I was just referring to a more overall "make or break a system or game" sense. No online in a great game will still see huge sales (Metroid Prime, FZero, SSBM, splinter cell, GTA, etc)..
next gen I think it will be different though. next gen I really think most gamers will expect their games to go online and will actually be disappointed if their favorite game doesn't go online. this gen it is and will always be a niche. excluding online in a game next gen WILL be the equivalent of leaving out multiplayer.
LOL!! Funniest thing I've read all day!!! and it's true.. even if a little distorted...
next gen I think it will be different though. next gen I really think most gamers will expect their games to go online and will actually be disappointed if their favorite game doesn't go online. this gen it is and will always be a niche. excluding online in a game next gen WILL be the equivalent of leaving out multiplayer.
jarrod said:
LOL!! Funniest thing I've read all day!!! and it's true.. even if a little distorted...
jecclr2003
Banned
My 2 cents on online gaming....
Reggie is a moron if he feels online gaming is a "fad", it's been around on PC for over a decade and home console nearly as long. Just now are consoles caught up to the PC in terms of usefulness online.
Online is here to stay, especially with arcades going the way of the dinosuar.
I am willing to pay for Xbox Live for a few reasons.
1) A stable online platform
2) Content downloads to improves games (M$, are you listening? KEEP THE FREAKING HDD)
3) A network wide kibosh on cheaters (albeit, after he cheats are found)
4) One central community over many games (although I'd still like some improvments, unlike PS2 non existent netwrok per game.
5) Better to pay a one time fee for a year, than have to guess if a certain game on PS2 will make you pay or not. Remember, it's up to the individual developers if they want to charge or not. Once again, I'm willing to pay for stability and no extra fees.
I have bought many more games in the past year, due to Xbox Live compatability, than I ever have before. It's great to hoponline and play some Burnout 3 or Battlefront against a friend 3000 miles away.
Reggie is a moron if he feels online gaming is a "fad", it's been around on PC for over a decade and home console nearly as long. Just now are consoles caught up to the PC in terms of usefulness online.
Online is here to stay, especially with arcades going the way of the dinosuar.
I am willing to pay for Xbox Live for a few reasons.
1) A stable online platform
2) Content downloads to improves games (M$, are you listening? KEEP THE FREAKING HDD)
3) A network wide kibosh on cheaters (albeit, after he cheats are found)
4) One central community over many games (although I'd still like some improvments, unlike PS2 non existent netwrok per game.
5) Better to pay a one time fee for a year, than have to guess if a certain game on PS2 will make you pay or not. Remember, it's up to the individual developers if they want to charge or not. Once again, I'm willing to pay for stability and no extra fees.
I have bought many more games in the past year, due to Xbox Live compatability, than I ever have before. It's great to hoponline and play some Burnout 3 or Battlefront against a friend 3000 miles away.
You, and many here, maybe. Most gamers, I don't think so.
If it was such a great thing, don't you think more xbox owners would use it? It has an ethernet socket *built in*
Online is the great white hope - a bit like VR was 10 years ago, only online is more successful.
If MS pull off 'Xbox TV', and make it more mass appeal and easier to get into, they may be very successful.
But I would wager that even by the end of the next gen, people not playing online will still outnumber those that are online
jecclr2003
Banned
Part of the problem of online not being more widespread is twofold.
Lack of knowledge customer side and a lack of boradband access in alot of places as well.
M$ really doesnt try to cram the online portion of their system down your throats or advertise it other than on the game cases and the 2 month cards.
Lack of knowledge customer side and a lack of boradband access in alot of places as well.
M$ really doesnt try to cram the online portion of their system down your throats or advertise it other than on the game cases and the 2 month cards.
Reggie never said it was a fad.. it was yamauchi and he said it like 3-4 years ago.jecclr2003 said:
technically no.. while lan gaming has been around to a decent degree for about 10 years with the release of Doom, online gaming never really took off until late-1996/early-1997 with the releases of QuakeWorld and Ultima Online.
Bullshit. Live doesn't make games any more stable. See Madden 2005, Unreal Championship, NFL 2K4 etc for examples.
Again bullshit.. cheaters are only "kaboshed" by getting the word out but again Live has nothing to do with it.. but then again, what is cheating? dropping a game when you are losing? exploiting a bug in the game?
yeah, no downsides here.. unless you don't get the nick you want on live, meaning you can't have it on ANY game.. yeah, that feature rules without a downside..
please tell me aside from FFXI what PS2 game costs money to play online? If you never play FFXI PS2 online gaming is outright cheaper than XBox Live.
you may or may not be in denial here.mrklaw said:
The answer to why most XBox owners don't do it? It is still "extra". You have to go out and buy something to do it. It can't do it out of the box (so to speak).
mark my next words: next gen, online gaming will be (relatively) free. it will in some way or form be subsidized by the manufacturer or publishers.
let me ask you this: say Revolution/PS3/Xenon had a built in ethernet or wireless port. And say that SSBM2/Halo3/Jak4 could go online for multiplayer. And say it could do so out of the box without any fee. How many gamers do you think would participate? My money is on a substantial number. The goal is to a) get those gamers online (which it would do) and b) make money off of it.
The problem is that all it takes is one manufacturer to do as I'm saying and the rest will be forced to follow. If Sony releases all first party games with free online play out of the box, do you really think gamers are going to be as hip on Live as they are now? No, they're going to be asking MS why they don't get to play for free. They are going to wonder why there Revolution doesn't do the same thing.
Online is most definitely here. over 80% of all households are online and almost 50% of those households have broadband access. over 95% of college campuses and dorms are online. Online access has most definitely arrived at the mainstream, even if online gaming hasn't. If you really think demand for online gaming is going to stagnate or diminish over the next 2 years, you are SORELY mistaken.
disabledHeliocentric
Member
It's probably some sort of wifi console to pc connection. It's revolutionary.
jecclr2003
Banned
Xbox is a more stable platform due to one main thing, Microsoft owns and maintans all the servers with the exception of the EA games. That's their baby. I've never had ANY problems with an online game that was a direct result of the network. Juts bad programming (EPSN NFL 2K5, I'm looking at you). Never had any problems with Unreal, though.. so I don't know what you're talking about on that.
As for cheaters, yes anetwork wide fix for cheats. They fixed the Rainbow Six cheats pretty damned quick didn't they? When something like the malotove cocktail Action Replay cheat got out, the game was patched through XBL. The ability to patch exploits that are found out are a great thing.
One overall community over all games is a good thing, sorry you got burned and didn't get the LEET HAXORS tag you wanted. Boo hoo.
Having that ONE NAME lets my friends list contact me, no matter what game I may be playing. Send messages to them and add them to your list. It is a great tool over multiple games.
As for cheaters, yes anetwork wide fix for cheats. They fixed the Rainbow Six cheats pretty damned quick didn't they? When something like the malotove cocktail Action Replay cheat got out, the game was patched through XBL. The ability to patch exploits that are found out are a great thing.
One overall community over all games is a good thing, sorry you got burned and didn't get the LEET HAXORS tag you wanted. Boo hoo.
Having that ONE NAME lets my friends list contact me, no matter what game I may be playing. Send messages to them and add them to your list. It is a great tool over multiple games.
ok, so where have PS2 games had any worse network stabliity? You say Live is better but then have absolutely no examples for worse. As for Unreal, this fell under cheating at the beginning, hence the inital big patch.jecclr2003 said:
This is NOT network wide. You make it sound as if MS releases the patches. No, it is still the inidividual developers. What XBox DID do in this regards though is include the hard drive to patch games. But again, that has nothing to do with live.
umm.. you made it sound like everything was peachy.. I am showing you that there are downsides.. good to know there are respectful and nice people on live.. :\
I'm sorry but this statement is flat out, ignorant. Any company can maintain a network for you to play games on. Microsoft wants to maintain the network so they can make money on every game that is played online. If Ubi Soft releases an online game, MS can make money from it.
Most of hte time when you play, you're not connecting to some big server to play games on.
jecclr2003
Banned
You know, it's amazing. I just post to give a few positive reasons as to why I'd pay $50 a year for the XBL service, and some decides to start a flame fest.
I never said it was the messiah of videogames. But at this point it is the most stable online platform between all 3 systems.
That much is a fact.
I assure you, when on XBL you know when you're on an EA server. It's shit.. you have connection errors, dropped games. It's a noticable difference.
I guess some people enjoying going into threads just to be pissers.
I never said it was the messiah of videogames. But at this point it is the most stable online platform between all 3 systems.
That much is a fact.
I assure you, when on XBL you know when you're on an EA server. It's shit.. you have connection errors, dropped games. It's a noticable difference.
I guess some people enjoying going into threads just to be pissers.
umm.. aside from the whole fact that the match making is all internal at MS and EA's sports games are peer-to-peer.. sounds like network code to me considering once your game starts MS' network has nothing to do with it.jecclr2003 said:
yeah, his statement was ignorant, but the point behind it wasn't.. most XBL games are peer-to-peer with virtually no network infrastructure required by MS.. yes there is the whole lobby part required, but let's face it, you can run a webserver hosting thousands of connections a minute on a box that costs less than $10K.Sysgen said:
The bottom line is this isn't something that ONLY MS can handle... they chose to go this route because frankly, they have control over everything and see a penny from all of it (aka Nintendo Seal of Quality)
I didn't say I expect it to stagnate or diminish. I fully expect it to grow. But at the moment its a tiny percentage of total userbase. MS say 1million live subscribers, Sony said something like 1.5/2 million online users.
Thats 3 million tops.
Out of maybe 100 million consoles sold this gen (70m Sony, 15m MS/Nintendo each) give or take.
Thats 3%
All I am predicting is that online will still be less than 50% next generation. That still gives them room for orders of magnitude of growth.
I'm not bitter or anti-online. I like it. I have live.
I do have a problem with paying for a service that is not much more than a matchmaker (where are the dedicated servers common on PC games MS)?
I have a big problem with MS shoving online down everyones throat - they mention it all the time. and publishers are obsessed with putting online into everything. Even when its only servicing a couple of percent of the user base. Thats development resource that could be saved, or used elsewhere.
I also have a slight problem with everything being so damn competitive. There isn't much fun with ladders if you are 15002 and trying to get to 15001 on the rankings. Its too global, too vague.
These are not insurmountable obstacles, as I stated in my other post. More coop, more community, more locally relevant filters (How am I doing against other people in my country, my city? Give me a ladder with a couple hundred people on it so I don't feel so small)
It all just needs to be more inclusive before it can ever hope to be truly mass market.
well, predictions are just opinions, and I disagree with yours.
mark my words, internet connection out of the box, free online gaming, over 75% participation. we aren't talking about 2004 here. hell, we aren't even talking about 2005 as MS will have to launch a system next year that can compete with Revolution and PS3 a year later.. we are talking about 2006... and if you think anything less than 80%+ of homes will have broadband (likely closer to 85%) you are going to be seriously disappointed.
mark my words, internet connection out of the box, free online gaming, over 75% participation. we aren't talking about 2004 here. hell, we aren't even talking about 2005 as MS will have to launch a system next year that can compete with Revolution and PS3 a year later.. we are talking about 2006... and if you think anything less than 80%+ of homes will have broadband (likely closer to 85%) you are going to be seriously disappointed.
BILL CLINTON
Banned
Reggie just recently gave a teaser picture of the Revolution's "revolutionairy" new controller setup.
^^^ he's playing Mario Revolution BTW.
^^^ he's playing Mario Revolution BTW.
Smiles and Cries
Member
As a Nintendo fan the Revolution I want now is for Nintendo to go 3rd party serious
seriousKai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Being charitable toward Nintendo for a moment, I really wonder if what Nintendo is looking at is the limitations of current online game interaction - the standards for it. It is true Xbox Live voice chat is a nice thing, and some games have a relatively robust online experience. But it can't be denied that there -are- a lot of people who say the online experience is somehow kinda shallow to them - human competition or not. For example, I feel the crowd who is attracted to MMORPGs is to some degree different than those attracted to most other genres of online games. One thing MMO fans are looking for is - you got it - a sense of community. (Something people who don't "get" MMOs fail to grasp is for many players, the community sense is enough to make up for the flaws a lot of MMOs suffer from.)
I wonder if Nintendo is considering some kind of mini-online service embedded in the Revolution? Something like the AOL browser, maybe mirroring Nintendo.com and the Nsider forums, plus some exclusive stuff. What might be really interesting is if the Revolution allowed for temporarily backing out of the online game in progress without shutting down, to access those features - real time updates and forum posts, organizing things behind the scenes, etc. Sure, this is what a lot of people do now while playing online games, using their computer - but I could see this being attractive as an intuitive feature for a game console.
I wonder if Nintendo is considering some kind of mini-online service embedded in the Revolution? Something like the AOL browser, maybe mirroring Nintendo.com and the Nsider forums, plus some exclusive stuff. What might be really interesting is if the Revolution allowed for temporarily backing out of the online game in progress without shutting down, to access those features - real time updates and forum posts, organizing things behind the scenes, etc. Sure, this is what a lot of people do now while playing online games, using their computer - but I could see this being attractive as an intuitive feature for a game console.
imastalker co.
Banned
well, who knows what the fuck is going on with this system , but i get the feeling this is gonna tie in with the systems out of the box PC monitor connectivity.
even though not everyone wants to play or has the ability to play games online why do people bitch about microsoft and sony offering an online plan TODAY. I was under the assumption that more options were better and by microsoft and sony offering their current customers this option who can complain? But since nintendo doesn't offer online they are the cool?
I bet half the people who complain about xbox live costing 50 dollars a year also have 3 GBA's sitting in their rooms right now too...
I bet half the people who complain about xbox live costing 50 dollars a year also have 3 GBA's sitting in their rooms right now too...
Reggie = Nintendo PR hack. All the Nintendo fanboys here are pointing out the flaws of the current online play on either consoles and PCs and then do you people believe that Nintendo will come up with some magical solution that lets you play people from far distances and also gives the experience of being next to them (or however Reggie worded it)? Critical thinking is a skill that fanboys clearly lack. Nintendo is not hiding some magical new technology or idea that they're ready to unleash with the Revolution. They're just being stubborn and dumb about their online policy.