Rahul, your scenario fails to account for how much that 4% is willing to spend to have the service with the 3000% overhead. It's not unlike launching new hardware, which initially relies on that 4% "core audience" to again shoulder the burden of dramatically increased overhead as compared to previous gen hardware.
-
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.
So how many of you that didn't want Nintendo online are hyped about DS online play?
- Thread starter Wellington
- Start date
For Live, I needed broadband and a router. It was well worth the money, but I had to spend it. All I'd have to get for the DS is a wireless transmitter to plug into the router and I'm set.jedimike said:
Xfire? Blizzard.net? Steam?
Of course, it's a lot harder to consolidate all online PC games together, since there are thousands of them as opposed to Live.
Live is amazingly good for a console online network, but the PC is still king there.
Rahul said:
Your hypothetical scenario here is a bit unrealistic. You're saying that a matching server for a game would introduce a monthly fixed cost that's three thousand percent higher than non-online titles. In fact, it should be more like five thousand million billion gajillion lolzillion percent higher, because setting up a matching server and paying for its connection is JUST THAT EXPENSIVE.
Seriously people, stop acting like peer-to-peer gaming is some incredibly costly undertaking because it isn't. You're just rationalizing your way into paying a monthly fee for something that has been free since 300 baud modems were common.
One-time fixed costs are irrelevant in the online gaming pricing argument; that's like saying we have to pay electric bills to play videogames in the first place.
Nintendo says that most of the open consumer market doesn't have broadband, so making broadband gaming a mainstream thing when the mainstream doesn't have the option to support it is a waste of time. Seems like a logical argument to me.
DS gives you the inherent ability to make free use of a hotspot should there be one. No, it doesn't miraculously introduce wireless internet connectivity if you happen to be in the middle of nowhere. I think the reason they're not being too forward with is it is that -- they can't guarantee online play, unlike how Sony and Microsoft assume that their home console will generally be at home and hooked up to broadband.
I personally don't see why everyone has a hard time understanding Nintendo's ideology. It reflects what their ideology has been for a while: appeal to as wide a market as possible. Sony and Microsoft and the upper teenage core audience seem to think from a more selfish point of view; that they should appeal to specific focus groups in order to ensure success.
I'm not expressing any preference of either, but hearing Nintendo say that they won't create a service if it is inherently limited to appeal to only a fragment of their demographic when Sony and Microsoft are saying the opposite to fall into expectations of their own focus groups seems nothing but LOGICAL to me. The companies are merely acting on their strategy in the marketplace. It's working for most of them at the moment (exceptions: Xbox in Japan, Gamecube to some extent, etc).
Nintendo says that most of the open consumer market doesn't have broadband, so making broadband gaming a mainstream thing when the mainstream doesn't have the option to support it is a waste of time. Seems like a logical argument to me.
DS gives you the inherent ability to make free use of a hotspot should there be one. No, it doesn't miraculously introduce wireless internet connectivity if you happen to be in the middle of nowhere. I think the reason they're not being too forward with is it is that -- they can't guarantee online play, unlike how Sony and Microsoft assume that their home console will generally be at home and hooked up to broadband.
I personally don't see why everyone has a hard time understanding Nintendo's ideology. It reflects what their ideology has been for a while: appeal to as wide a market as possible. Sony and Microsoft and the upper teenage core audience seem to think from a more selfish point of view; that they should appeal to specific focus groups in order to ensure success.
I'm not expressing any preference of either, but hearing Nintendo say that they won't create a service if it is inherently limited to appeal to only a fragment of their demographic when Sony and Microsoft are saying the opposite to fall into expectations of their own focus groups seems nothing but LOGICAL to me. The companies are merely acting on their strategy in the marketplace. It's working for most of them at the moment (exceptions: Xbox in Japan, Gamecube to some extent, etc).
junkwaffle
In Front and Drawing Away
Rahul said:
This concept is to GAF what Kryptonite is to Superman.
junkwaffle
In Front and Drawing Away
I think my point's been made.
Rahul your biggest problem is you care about Nintendo's financial situation. You are trying to make justifications for leaving out features which a lot of gamers crave and love (and more and more will come to understand / love it overtime). I think we ALL know why Nintendo doesn't do it... they want profits. Their console userbase is a shell of what it used to be so they have to worry about these things.
Me? I'm a gamer. I don't care about their business dealings, I want games. I want online gaming. MS and Sony have provided me countless hours of online gaming fun at their expense. I don't cry while playing those games thinking "awww man im so sad MS is losing money on this, maybe I should give bill a call and let him know that only "4%" of the userbase is playing online"... because I'm sure he doesn't already know that. Maybe I should give EA (the biggest 3rd party company in the world) a call and let them know that they are wasting money on online gaming. Go Nintendo! Thanks for making profits! You rock!
:\
Me? I'm a gamer. I don't care about their business dealings, I want games. I want online gaming. MS and Sony have provided me countless hours of online gaming fun at their expense. I don't cry while playing those games thinking "awww man im so sad MS is losing money on this, maybe I should give bill a call and let him know that only "4%" of the userbase is playing online"... because I'm sure he doesn't already know that. Maybe I should give EA (the biggest 3rd party company in the world) a call and let them know that they are wasting money on online gaming. Go Nintendo! Thanks for making profits! You rock!
:\
yeah, and MS doesn't care that you are a gamer. They throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Same thing with EA. These companies can afford to bleed money. For everything they do for you gamers, they also release/develop Sims Online, True Fantasy Live Online, buy companies like Rare who fail to perform, etc.
As for online itself, Nintendo's lacking of it would be important only if they didn't release other quality titles as well. You are a gamer right? So you should be into games, like Paper Mario, Mario Tennis, SSB, Mario Kart, Donkey Konga, Pikmin, Tales of Symphonia, Baiten Kaitos, Viewtiful Joe, RE4 and hundreds of other superb games released for Gamecube.
Many GAFers seems to still forget that online gaming isn't the future, it is just another type of game. Just because the Gamecube doesn't go online doesn't mean it doesn't have great games. Consoles for the past 25 years didn't go online before this generation (for the most part) and they still released tons of amazing games.
By not going online Nintendo certainly missed releasing certain types of games that today's gamer would have eaten up, but agian, it is just one type of game. There are plenty of other games out there that don't need to be online.
As for online itself, Nintendo's lacking of it would be important only if they didn't release other quality titles as well. You are a gamer right? So you should be into games, like Paper Mario, Mario Tennis, SSB, Mario Kart, Donkey Konga, Pikmin, Tales of Symphonia, Baiten Kaitos, Viewtiful Joe, RE4 and hundreds of other superb games released for Gamecube.
Many GAFers seems to still forget that online gaming isn't the future, it is just another type of game. Just because the Gamecube doesn't go online doesn't mean it doesn't have great games. Consoles for the past 25 years didn't go online before this generation (for the most part) and they still released tons of amazing games.
By not going online Nintendo certainly missed releasing certain types of games that today's gamer would have eaten up, but agian, it is just one type of game. There are plenty of other games out there that don't need to be online.
Insertia said:
Voice chat/messaging
Friends List
Ability to see what friend is doing
Ability to invite or join friend
MSN Alerts
Leagues, Rankings, Tournaments
Downloadable Content
Not utilized much now, but will play an important role in future XBL games
Clans, clan rankings, tournaments, ladders, and personalized insignia
I brought it up because it was one of the reasons Nintendo gave for avoiding onling gaming in the first place. It was a negative before, but it's OK now.
Makes sense
Razoric said:
I absolutely understand your point. You aren't interested in their problems, you just want the games, right? This is my opinion with other industries, such as computer networking.
This is the angle of most gamers. It is a selfish angle and the same one that causes so much upset and disappointment to begin with. If one didn't approach the games industry from a soulless, "give me what I want now" point of view, one would understand developers' reasons more soundly and be able to deal with setbacks without feeling one had been cheated. For example, the arguments re: PAL vs NTSC releases, or how Square Enix releases special editions of Final Fantasy in Japan. All these actions are executed for good reasons, except that gamers who do not get what they want obviously don't agree with them.
For this reason, it's also hard to discuss things objectively with most gamers. Preference is fine, but disagreeing with business decisions solely because you personally do not benefit from them strikes me as shallow and unprogressive. What if Nintendo were to follow your personal dreams and go bankrupt as a result? Then you would have obtained what you want right now, but they would not be able to make your wishes come true later down the line.
I am not personally interested in Nintendo's financial situation. What I'm interested in is the way they make decisions, and whether these are good decisions given the cirumstances. I think this is what shareholders are interested as well. But Nintendo shareholders are not necessarily cold to the gaming aspect of the games industry. They just want to see that in which they have invested money (in my case including time/effort) make well thought out choices.
junkwaffle
In Front and Drawing Away
Rahul said:
Sorry for the gushing, but I didn't even know gamers like you existed here. Well said.
borghe said:
Nintendo has been throwing a lot of things at the wall too. Virtual Boy? "Connectivity"? Nintendo DS? Wouldnt some of this time be better spent cultivating a market that is just waiting to explode? Nintendo bleeds gamers just as bad (worse?) as EA. Fuck, the flagship title for their "innovative" new system is MARIO 64. (but but it has some changes) It's still essentially an 8 year old game. They couldn't have just made a brand new title in that time period? Lets not even mention the countless rehashes released for GBA for Nintendo fans to lapup like gold.
You say online gaming isn't the future, but I say it is. Will this kill "offline" games? No they will have their place but online gaming is here to stay... I'm having flashbacks of Nintendo fanboys saying how Disc based gaming was a "fad" as well.
Alcibiades
Member
I own 4.5 shares of Nintendo stock.
I hope that DS-online affair isn't going to cut into their profits and send stocks stumbling...
I hope that DS-online affair isn't going to cut into their profits and send stocks stumbling...
Alcibiades
Member
lmaojedimike said:
I think Nintendo has a lot of grasp on what developers in Japan needed to bring the market back into bloom. That's why we see Japanese developers so enthusiastic about DS.
As long as you understand Nintendo's core argument -- that gaming needs to be revitalised -- then you understand the choices they make with DS, online play, and most likely Revolution. While you don't comprehend this, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, you won't be able to take their arguments seriously. This just means you're living in the now in the industry and are happy with the way it is. I think Nintendo has long-term plans, however. Their online plans will no doubt be introduced in some form, eventually.
It feels like a broader scope than merely yes or no to online play. What Nintendo is effectively saying is that they want to save what they've cultivated so long by refreshing it. Microsoft is saying the same thing with XNA: to solve the problem of cross-platform development costs spiralling through the roof and saturating the market (even further). Nintendo DS and other subsequent ideas are the same thing.
As long as you understand Nintendo's core argument -- that gaming needs to be revitalised -- then you understand the choices they make with DS, online play, and most likely Revolution. While you don't comprehend this, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, you won't be able to take their arguments seriously. This just means you're living in the now in the industry and are happy with the way it is. I think Nintendo has long-term plans, however. Their online plans will no doubt be introduced in some form, eventually.
It feels like a broader scope than merely yes or no to online play. What Nintendo is effectively saying is that they want to save what they've cultivated so long by refreshing it. Microsoft is saying the same thing with XNA: to solve the problem of cross-platform development costs spiralling through the roof and saturating the market (even further). Nintendo DS and other subsequent ideas are the same thing.
Alcibiades
Member
uh, I don't remember anyone calling discs a "fad"
If anything, it was the insane loading times that totally killed the notion of party games and smooth gaming that made some gamers (like me) fond of the N64 instead of the Saturn/PS-X discs...
If the PS-X games had zero loading times, well, I would have called Nintendo stupid. But that wasn't the case (and don't bring up the lone exception of Hexen 64).
Imagine GoldenEye 007 w/ pixilated textures and loading times. LMAO. Would never have taken off the way it did. There is a weird akward silence whenever a load screen pops up and you've got a ton of people looking at the screen waiting for the game to start...
With the GCN, Nintendo was able to kill loading times (at least in 1st party games) and make the N64 --> GCN a smooth transition for it's fans, who haven't had to throw away time waiting for a game to load through Nintendo gaming history...
If anything, it was the insane loading times that totally killed the notion of party games and smooth gaming that made some gamers (like me) fond of the N64 instead of the Saturn/PS-X discs...
If the PS-X games had zero loading times, well, I would have called Nintendo stupid. But that wasn't the case (and don't bring up the lone exception of Hexen 64).
Imagine GoldenEye 007 w/ pixilated textures and loading times. LMAO. Would never have taken off the way it did. There is a weird akward silence whenever a load screen pops up and you've got a ton of people looking at the screen waiting for the game to start...
With the GCN, Nintendo was able to kill loading times (at least in 1st party games) and make the N64 --> GCN a smooth transition for it's fans, who haven't had to throw away time waiting for a game to load through Nintendo gaming history...
Why bring up Virtual Boy at all, it's over a decade old? Seems sorta irrelevant given the comparison to Microsoft now.
And Nintendo DS so far seems like a better investment than online console gaming I'd say, 'ready to explode' or not. If it makes it's 4 million target by March, it will have more than doubled Xbox Live's 2 year growing userbase. It already has over 120 games in development pre launch, does Live even have 120 games on the market?
And Nintendo DS so far seems like a better investment than online console gaming I'd say, 'ready to explode' or not. If it makes it's 4 million target by March, it will have more than doubled Xbox Live's 2 year growing userbase. It already has over 120 games in development pre launch, does Live even have 120 games on the market?
Razoric said:
lol.. ther eis a difference between MS throwing everything at the wall over the last, oh.. 3 years, vs. your list of what nintendo has thrown over the last 10 years.
EA rehashes. Activision rehashes. Acclaim rehashed. Sony rehashes. oh wait.. that's right, EVERYONE does it. Don't pin it on just Nintendo. About the only one who hasn't rehashed is MS and that is mainly because MS first party would KILL for something successful they could rehash on.
Also, my "online gaming isn't the future" comment was taken out of context. Online gaming ISN'T the future. It's here. However it is here as another aspect of gaming. There are HUNDREDS of games being released today that have nothing to do with online and it would be out of place to do so. Do games like Madden belong online? Absolutely. Do games like Mario 64 or Ico belong online? Of course not.
I already said Nintendo certainly missed out on a certain market segment by not going online. Obviously this is a segment they are fine with not having for now. But don't pull this "I'm a gamer" bullshit. Because if you were a gamer you would recognize the Gamecube for what it is. A current gen console with some outstanding games on it. Are they online? No, but as we've been going through, a game doesn't have to be online for it to be great.
kaching said:
Rahul said:
You said that my scenario is comparable to introduction of a new generation. I said I agree, that the "4%" is merely a random figure, and that I'm not saying anything about how console manufacturer's deal with overhead costs, but merely presenting a hypothetical situation in order to figure out what Nintendo is trying to do.
Alcibiades
Member
uh, no, the Amusment Vision (F-Zero developer) guy said in an interview that if they had worked on it longer, implementation of LAN would be possible, but that it wasn't a major issue because the focus of development for the team (not Miyamoto or Nintendo) had been on the one-player experience...Ristamar said:
that is a far cry from "it already has LAN and Nintendo just cut it out"
Alcibiades
Member
well, that's true about AX, yeah maybe it's not overstating to say Nintendo didn't care for the LAN.
that said, I imagine it was later in development (towards release) that the decision was made not to have it, rather than an actual "cut" from something that had already been implemented...
that said, I imagine it was later in development (towards release) that the decision was made not to have it, rather than an actual "cut" from something that had already been implemented...
Another thing that some fail to notice is that Nintendo released a network adapter and then proceeded to mock the poor souls that paid for it.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh ONLINE SERVICE FROM NINTENDO IS FREEEEEEEE!
Sure, if you stole the $40 network adapter.
In any case, come next generation, I am wondering how Nintendo/Sony will handle the online service. Why? When broadband gaming hits mainstream, the server costs will definitely rise and it WON'T BE FREE. Those that delude themselves with cost-effective paper cup online service are just naive. To be able to compete, for instance with Xbox Live, they'll have to both spend creating a SECURE and FEATURE-PACKED service, and the infrastructure to support it. This costs money. Either they will pass on the cost to the customers, to the developers or will pay it themselves.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh ONLINE SERVICE FROM NINTENDO IS FREEEEEEEE!
Sure, if you stole the $40 network adapter.
In any case, come next generation, I am wondering how Nintendo/Sony will handle the online service. Why? When broadband gaming hits mainstream, the server costs will definitely rise and it WON'T BE FREE. Those that delude themselves with cost-effective paper cup online service are just naive. To be able to compete, for instance with Xbox Live, they'll have to both spend creating a SECURE and FEATURE-PACKED service, and the infrastructure to support it. This costs money. Either they will pass on the cost to the customers, to the developers or will pay it themselves.
DJ Demon J
Banned
jarrod said:
Well, I got banned last time for calling DS the next Virtual Boy (thanks Mike Works!), so let's see if I can avoid a banning this time.
The reason that comparison can (and should) be made is that VB was a "new way to play" according to Nintendo--just like DS! Nintendo swears up and down that DS isn't "the next GameBoy" and that it and the PSP have "different demographic targets." This, in my opinion, is BULLSHIT. Nintendo has NEVER EVER rushed to release a new handheld device (I'm of the belief that there was absolutely no design work done on DS at the time of SCEA's groundbreaking and completely unexpected announcement at E3 2003), and now, all of sudden when Sony announced that they're throwing the full weight of the PlayStation brand (an extremely powerful consumer brand, higher even than Nintendo at it's height around SMB3, in my opinion) Nintendo scrambles to release something that, for all intents and purposes, in my opinion, looks like a half-assed effort to get 3D gfx on a handheld in time to compete with PSP so that GBA (and it's ridiculously overpriced games--$30 for a portable 8-16bit quality game on a handheld when PSP games will go for $40-50 and be in the range of Dreamcast-early PS2 quality?) won't get completely slaughtered and Nintendo won't lose its extremely valuable portable monopoly (this is what is keeping Nintendo alive, in case you armchair financial analysts haven't been keeping score) to PSP's inevitable dominance in the space?
Nintendo is scared. Their bread-and-butter is under attack. They've already been marginalized in the console business. They don't want a competitor's new product to outshine them. This is just like the Virtual Boy scenario. Nintendo knew "Ultra 64" (and don't get me started on that debacle) was taking longer than expected, and this new "PlayStation" was gaining ground and mindshare, so to distract their loyal consumers (this was me at that point, who was still staunchly pro-Nintendo) they released Virtual Boy. The result? $25 clearance sales on Virtual Boy within a year or so. Will the same happen with DS? Time will tell.
DJ Demon J
Banned
jarrod said:
Who cares? I'm pointing out why I think DS and VB are similar, and your quote stirred my memories of previous debate on the issue.
Whoops! indeed. :rolleyes
And fyi, he wasn't comparing VB to Microsoft, he was countering someone's complaint about MS "throwing ideas against the wall to see if they stick" by listing Nintendo's attempts at "throwing." Last time I checked this was a DS thread, so let's keep on topic with DS-related debate--like my VB-DS comparison above.
So, you're admitting your post wasn't actually a response to anything being discussed in the thread but rather your own out loud, completely unrelated ramblings? Should this then count towards one of the six you have left?DJ Demon J said:
Indeed... which is why I brought up the relevancy of the time periods he's comparing.DJ Demon J said:
Last I checked, your VB/DS fantasy was unrelated to any actual content in this thread. Unlike anything I've posted.DJ Demon J said:
jarrod said:
Whoops indeed. My Virtual Boy comment stands. Nintendo has had the exact same business practices with "throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks". And for people to spout as fact that Nintendo has made the right decision by staying offline can look to Nintendo's failures to see that their precious company is not infallible.
Nintendo is a very smart company however.... they've single-handedly made their fans believe that a companies bottom line is more important than the games themselves.
Thank you Nintendo for making a profit! You rock!
Justin Bailey
------ ------
It's not free, you still have to pay for ISP fees, wireless access points, the DS, the game, the gas you used to drive to the store to buy the DS and the game, and opportunity cost of the time you use playing the game itself.Celicar said:
Typical Nintendo going back on their word of "free" online gaming.