Support NeoGAF

[OG_Original Gamer]

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

See this is what I think Nintendo goal is, release a console where there is no need for a central server because the console would do everything the central server does. That would free up any cost to Nintendo and make online on their console free. I assume all that would be needed is a storage device built into the console.

I don't know if what I just posted is possible, its just something I've been thinking about.

 

[BuddyC]

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

I think the reason Nintendo went online with the DS is they have a chance to do something different. With PictoChat, you can send/receive messages, which makes the DS more than just a gaming machine. With Wi-Fi support, there are no longer any cables holding you down, and Wi-Fi is becoming increasingly popular.

They'll be the first to have an online portable, and they'll have the games to do it. After having wireless internet for a few months at my house, it's incredibly liberating to just plop down wherever and get online. You can do that with the DS, they're cutting the wires...and that's just awesome.

In short, they're doing something different...which is the Nintendo way.

 

[BuddyC]

See this is what I think Nintendo goal is, release a console where there is no need for a central server because the console would do everything the central server does. That would free up any cost to Nintendo and make online on their console free. I assume all that would be needed is a storage device built into the console.

I don't know if what I just posted is possible, its just something I've been thinking about.

You're talking about a console that keeps track of where games are located without uplinking to some sort of central server?

What you describe *is* possible, but only in a limited scope at the moment - it's how the DS handles LAN play.

For reliable worldwide play where you can always play with your friends, you need a central device.

 

[Alcibiades]

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

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

I don't know that any Nintendo fans were buying broadband adaptors expecting online... modem and broadband adapters were very limited and made with the intention of serving Sega's Phantasy Star Online game...

what did people expect when they bought one (if they could get a hold of one)?

So risking the company is the only way to be "revolutionary"? New ways to play games and innovating game design are definitely tried and true, huh?

they play it safe to a point, and it's only titanic-sized risks (like an online venture) that they pry safe about... I'm sure when they can go about it without pissing off stockholders (if an online venture costs the company millions it could send the stock plunging, which could potentionally damage the company more than one may think) they'll find a way to go about it...

 

[IJoel]

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

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

Keep telling yourself this. Take a look at the growing list of games with online features. The big games will feature online gaming. Halo 2, Socom, Madden, GTA (it will eventually), RE, SC, etc. It is certainly a direction the industry is taking towards gaming. Take a look at all the developers that have signed on to produce online games for both Xbox and PS2. Multiplayer is a key component of the gaming experience, and with the technology here to allow online gaming, it will become a huge driver in sales in the near future.

As for Sega, COME ON. Give me a break. Sega was in the red way way way before they started the online approach. I mean... meh... I won't even bother. Even Sega still recognizes the importance of online gaming by adding the feature to many games.

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

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

Well, yes. Hosting services aren't cheap, but when I mentioned the high expenses for Xbox Live, I don't mean the expenses for running the service itself, but rather to establish the infrastructure to support the service. Subscriptions should support most of the hosting costs, since MS doesn't really host many servers for actual gaming (where tons of bandwidth are actually spent.)

As for PSO, Sega is milking their customers. They don't host game servers, just chatrooms. PSO is not an mmorpg. Sega shut it down in order to milk the customers. No other reason. If you want a counter argument, take a look at Bnet. Sure it costs money to maintain the service, but as long as the online component doesn't need server, other than the actual console, there's no need to charge customers for it (well, unless you are Sega and want to rip off your customers.)

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

They released a network adapter. They should've bundled it with PSO, or make a version of PSO bundled with it to make it clear it wasn't going to be supported outside of it. I can't see how anyone could defend Nintendo's pathetic network adapter rip off.

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

The desire to stay afloat? These people have spent millions pushing worthless connectivity and now the 2 screen gimmick (and hey, I find the gimmick quite appealing, but still a gimmick.) Talk about a risk. They didn't need to spend that much on online gaming. They needed to start making an approach towards it by creating some simple interface that would connect customers for some games, and thus enable developers to start including online multiplayer in their games. By starting this, they could've created a base from which to grow. But oh well, this is Nintendo after all. Arrogant Nintendo.

 

[Alcibiades]

well, "millions" pushing connectivity is still a far cry from "hundreds of millions" that would be necessary for the online stuff...

besides, Yamauchi paying for Crystal Chronicles was a loan I think, and I don't think it came from Nintendo...

other than that, I don't really think Nintendo has spent much on connectivity, it's just cheap link cables (which they still get a return on), and games, no need to maintain a constant infastructure (which would cost them on a constant basis)...

and the dual screen thing (considering it's backwards compatible) isn't as risky as one might think... of course Nintendo will spend millions on marketing, but they are bound to make a lot of it up, especially if they release around the holidays... long-term if it bombs it will have cost the company money, but since it's a handheld, R&D on hardware technology was probably not where it is with their home systems...

 

[sc0la]

Here is why Nintendo not seeking online this gen was a blunder.

It isn't because it is making a shit ton of money, it isn't because the userbase for online console gaming is astronomical (its a fraction of install base, and if a third console supported it I doubt those numbers would be up but rather spread around a bit more).

Nintendo was right when they knew it wouldn't be the main hotness this gen... but here is where they fucked up.

By not developing their own online franchise/architecture, they really made third parties hesitant to develope anything online. When Nintendo doesn't take the firing shot at something the others are not likely to follow. In doing this games getting this support had features dropped or even are not showing up at all anymore. The same thing happened with connectivity, they took so long to get defining applications out (PacMan vs, FF:CC, 4 swords) that third parties didn't know what the fuck to do with the thing.

The second reason is the classic spec sheet battle. This compounded with no DVD playback hurt sales to casual consumers, when the clerk tells them the PS2 and the Xbox play DVDs and can go online for games, the gamecube appears as an inferior product, this is removed form price difference and whether or not the consumer will actually use the online component of a product.

They simply want it because its there.

A lot of people bought an Xbox because it could go online "out of the box," and a lot of those people have never touched live.

Nintendo fucked up, but not how many people think they did.

 

[Kobun Heat]

A lot of people bought an Xbox because it could go online "out of the box," and a lot of those people have never touched live.

True, but just as many people bought a Gamecube as bought an Xbox. And Nintendo profited off each of those sales, unlike MS.

EDIT: Nintendo probably thought that connectivity might have taken off in a bigger way than it did. It had some unique possibilities, after all. But the point is that even though it didn't, Nintendo didn't exactly lose the farm on it. Now compare that to MS' profit projections for the Xbox and XBL.

Nintendo can't do something as streamlined and reliable as XBL because they don't have that kind of money to throw around. But an online system like we get on the PS2 is almost anti-Nintendo by its very nature since it requires that players individually set up every online game and pay extra fees for them sometimes. Iwata's said that they simply don't want that kind of system because it's antithetical to the straightforward, user-friendly nature of Nintendo products.

And that leads into another question - does Nintendo's userbase, as a group, actually want online games? That's something that only Nintendo really has the market research to determine, and it seems as if the answer they've come up with is 'no.' All the messageboard speculation in the world isn't worth a damn compared to the internal studies they do on a constant basis.

 

[Alcibiades]

Nintendo fucked up, but not how many people think they did.

well, at least it wasn't intentional...

True, but just as many people bought a Gamecube as bought an Xbox. And Nintendo profited off each of those sales, unlike MS.

 

[ge-man]

It's really too late to cry about Nintendo not jumping online. Most of the games that would've really benefited from it (F-Zero, Mario Kart, Golf, etc) have already been released. Launching the DS with wire-less functionality and the ability to go online right from the start is really their best option right now if they want to test those waters.

As Buddy mentioned, everything is already built in and much of the software is being designed with wireless in mind rather than an after thought like the GC BBA. That's how you jump into new field. Any attempt they could make with the GC would be half assed at best considering the userbase for the BBA.

 

[jedimike]

But an online system like we get on the PS2 is almost anti-Nintendo by its very nature since it requires that players individually set up every online game and pay extra fees for them sometimes. Iwata's said that they simply don't want that kind of system because it's antithetical to the straightforward, user-friendly nature of Nintendo products.

And that leads into another question - does Nintendo's userbase, as a group, actually want online games? That's something that only Nintendo really has the market research to determine, and it seems as if the answer they've come up with is 'no.' All the messageboard speculation in the world isn't worth a damn compared to the internal studies they do on a constant basis.

DS is using the same thing as PS2. To go onine with the DS, you still need a WAP and IP address. It will still be "complicated" for users.

 

[Kobun Heat]

DS is using the same thing as PS2. To go onine with the DS, you still need a WAP and IP address. It will still be "complicated" for users.

We can't really be sure about how complicated it will be since they haven't announced anything about it yet.

 

[jedimike]

We can't really be sure about how complicated it will be since they haven't announced anything about it yet.

Since I'm a network administrator, I'm qualified enough to say that playing the DS over the internet will require it.

Of course, if they are just going to use it for peer-to-peer, the wi-fi will act as a link cable. But you'll have limitations of 200 feet or so.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Since I'm a network administrator, I'm qualified enough to say that playing the DS over the internet will require it.

What I mean is that we don't know how streamlined Nintendo will make the interface. Maybe it'll only require that kind of setup once, and then never again no matter what game you're playing.

 

[jedimike]

What I mean is that we don't know how streamlined Nintendo will make the interface. Maybe it'll only require that kind of setup once, and then never again no matter what game you're playing.

I would hope so.... AFAIK, you don't have to change network setting for each PS2 game. You don't have to change anything for XBL.

I was just saying that the DS will be at least as complicated to set-up as the PS2. The "we're not going on-line because it's not user friendly" approach would apply to DS and GC. Not one or the other. It's the same thing. Just because it's wireless doesn't make it easier to set-up.

All of this is assuming the DS will be playable over the internet.

 

[Mrbob]

What I mean is that we don't know how streamlined Nintendo will make the interface. Maybe it'll only require that kind of setup once, and then never again no matter what game you're playing.

Why wouldn't they? I don't know of any online gaming service that makes you input your conection data every time.

 

[heavy liquid]

It's clear from the DS that Nintendo isn't ignoring the online gaming market, and are working towards some kind of online gaming structure. At least with the handheld.

But what about online console gaming? I'm really curious to see if the Gamecube's successor will be online, and what kind of support they give it. Will it be online out-of-the-box? Will it be free, or a paid service like Xbox LIVE? And if they go online, will it matter that Microsoft and Sony have a head start?

Interesting times ahead...

 

[Gorgie]

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

I wish more games were "pseudo-Nintendo," a fun concept with polished gamesplay.

As for the online debate, I think Nintendo did the right thing by watching on the sidelines this gen and see how the competitors are doing. The fact is, even with high speed internet, lag still poses a problem. I think Nintendo emphasis on LAN (just like Xbox system link) is a much better solution, and provides a greater gaming experience. Yes, its very difficult to organize these things, but they're leagues above playing strangers who may or may not be cheating.

The DS has the right idea of making network games easy, painless, and spontaneous. Sure it can go online, but I think that's so it matches PSP with its WIFI. I'm very interested in starting a pick up game of say Metroid Hunters while on the bus, or waiting in line for Harry Potter 4.

 

[jarrod]

and the market isn't just hard core gamers, it's also casual gamers who would be better represented by Nintendo's gameplay. Ignoring the market is foolish.

Let's take a look at the actual numbers.... PS2 & XBox have a combined userbase of around 85 million managed over 4 years and their online userbase (managed in about 2 years) is just over 3 million. You don't think that qualifies as hardcore?

 

[jarrod]

Of course, if they are just going to use it for peer-to-peer, the wi-fi will act as a link cable. But you'll have limitations of 200 feet or so.

Bluetooth is being used for local wireless (as it's less costly on the battery), WiFi was included specifically for internet access via hotspots.

 

[AniHawk]

It's clear from the DS that Nintendo isn't ignoring the online gaming market, and are working towards some kind of online gaming structure. At least with the handheld.

But what about online console gaming? I'm really curious to see if the Gamecube's successor will be online, and what kind of support they give it. Will it be online out-of-the-box? Will it be free, or a paid service like Xbox LIVE? And if they go online, will it matter that Microsoft and Sony have a head start?

Interesting times ahead...

Iwata's said before that they were looking for ways to make OL not a cost to the consumer nor themselves. Meaning they weren't gonna take a hit with it, or charge the customers. Looks like they've found a way.

 

[jedimike]

Let's take a look at the actual numbers.... PS2 & XBox have a combined userbase of around 85 million managed over 4 years and their online userbase (managed in about 2 years) is just over 3 million. You don't think that qualifies as hardcore?

When I look at a group of 3 million doing the same thing... it's not hardcore. That's like saying there are 400 million people in the US and 8 million vacationed at DisneyLand... they must be hard core. ... or there are 50 million Ford vehicles on the streets, but look, there are 3 million Taurus owners... they must be hard core.

Thx for the wireless info. I wasn't aware that the DS had Bluetooth. In that case, some internet configuration will definitely be involved, but realistically it's very easy to do.

 

[xsarien]

When I look at a group of 3 million doing the same thing... it's not hardcore. That's like saying there are 400 million people in the US and 8 million vacationed at DisneyLand... they must be hard core. ... or there are 50 million Ford vehicles on the streets, but look, there are 3 million Taurus owners... they must be hard core.

Thx for the wireless info. I wasn't aware that the DS had Bluetooth. In that case, some internet configuration will definitely be involved, but realistically it's very easy to do.

You know, the political threads in OT have less perceived venom than any thread about Nintendo, the XBox, online gaming's true userbase, or any combination thereof.

Your comparison's weak. As a network admin, you must also know that a significant amount of users on your system consider themselves smart if they can power on their machine and log in, nevermind know where to find their IP or MAC address. You have to look at pretty much anything technology related through a different lens than you would Disney or the family station wagon. Once you get past the general stigma that kinda-sorta still surrounds video games as nothing but a geeky waste of time, you'll find the most casual people on earth, who just want to play Mario Kart with their girlfriend, make sure that everything's set for Madden, and break out enough controllers for a 4-player Halo session.

Putting the PS2 online takes a decent amount of knowledge, using XBox Live involves a yearly fee. People aren't used to dealing with either on any level with their consoles. You say it's reached the mass market? Prove it. An article from a freakin' XBox site, I hope you'll understand, carries about as much weight as PGC extolling the benefits of owning a Gamecube.

 

[jedimike]

You know, the political threads in OT have less perceived venom than any thread about Nintendo, the XBox, online gaming's true userbase, or any combination thereof.

Your comparison's weak. As a network admin, you must also know that a significant amount of users on your system consider themselves smart if they can power on their machine and log in, nevermind know where to find their IP or MAC address. You have to look at pretty much anything technology related through a different lens than you would Disney or the family station wagon. Once you get past the general stigma that kinda-sorta still surrounds video games as nothing but a geeky waste of time, you'll find the most casual people on earth, who just want to play Mario Kart with their girlfriend, make sure that everything's set for Madden, and break out enough controllers for a 4-player Halo session.

Putting the PS2 online takes a decent amount of knowledge, using XBox Live involves a yearly fee. People aren't used to dealing with either on any level with their consoles. You say it's reached the mass market? Prove it. An article from a freakin' XBox site, I hope you'll understand, carries about as much weight as PGC extolling the benefits of owning a Gamecube.

The Xbox site just reports the news... look at the source of the article (which isn't TXB).

But to answer your "point"...

People aren't used to dealing with either on any level with their consoles.

Actually, people are used to dealing with networking on PC's which is much more complicated.

From a different report. About 24 Million people game online.

In-Stat/MDR has also found that:

-- While only about a sixth of the U.S. population currently plays games online, that number will grow to nearly half the population by 2008.

-- Xbox Live missed forecasted subscriber growth from last year by about 41% because of a 40% price increase compared to 2002, but it is still slated to reach nearly 2 million subscribers by the end of 2004.

-- Sony has nearly a million people playing one online game, SOCOM II: Navy SEALs, scoring nearly 2 million hours of game play a week. There will be more than 100 online-enabled games available for the PS2 by the end of 2004.

-- While there are millions of people who play games online over consoles, there are still 20 times that number playing OLGs over the PC. The PC will remain the dominant method to game online for the foreseeable future.

-- More than 6 million people worldwide participate in Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs), but due to the high annual cost of the activity ($150 to $200), MMORPGs that charge monthly fees are only expected to grow slightly over the next five years.

The above article proves that online gaming is not niche and that people are willing to pay... sometimes up to $200 a year for one game.

 

[MrSingh]

Phantasy. Star. Online.

Live play is the only reason I picked up Midtown Madness 3, Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Rainbow Six 3, Ghost Recon...and I know I'm not alone there.

IAWTP

I bought the same exact games purely for Live play.

 

[xsarien]

Actually, people are used to dealing with networking on PC's which is much more complicated.

From a different report. About 24 Million people game online.



The above article proves that online gaming is not niche and that people are willing to pay... sometimes up to $200 a year for one game.

PC gaming is also not only free, but you also assume that those same gamers are buying PS2s and XBoxes and playing online with those as well. Not to deminish the work of PC developers, but if you haven't noticed recently, about the only thing most PC games these days - and when I say "most" the "Jesus, do we have enough FPSs yet?" is implied - are geared nigh-exclusively to their online components.

Read what you boldfaced. "Worldwide." 6 million people worldwide. If there was ever a drop in the figurative bucket, that's it. Also, what you didn't boldface, which was that XBox Live missed a membership target by about 40%, which is pretty significant.

That's not to say that online gaming will never be mainstream, it just isn't there yet. When it takes zero effort, when saying "Hey, I'll play against my friend in Spokane," comes as naturally as inviting someone over, to people unlike you and me, that's when it'll be The Next Big Thing.

The Xbox site just reports the news... look at the source of the article (which isn't TXB).

The source is TXB. They took snippets from the SD report and wrote the article.

 

[jarrod]

When I look at a group of 3 million doing the same thing... it's not hardcore. That's like saying there are 400 million people in the US and 8 million vacationed at DisneyLand... they must be hard core. ... or there are 50 million Ford vehicles on the streets, but look, there are 3 million Taurus owners... they must be hard core.

Simply put it's a niche segment of the console gaming population. There were also about 3 million Sega CD owners... would you call that mainstream? Your comparisons hold no real relevance to the topic, you're grasping at straws here...

Thx for the wireless info. I wasn't aware that the DS had Bluetooth. In that case, some internet configuration will definitely be involved, but realistically it's very easy to do.

To be fair, I doubt Nintendo will have much in terms of actual internet networking implemented for DS games, at least initially. Probably stuff like national Pokemon tournaments and maybe peripheral things demo downloads or email/messaging but I'm not really expecting much. That goes for PSP also.

 

[Gattsu25]

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

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

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

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

hmm...did you have another name on the old GA? good post, btw

 

[jedimike]

That's not to say that online gaming will never be mainstream, it just isn't there yet. When it takes zero effort, when saying "Hey, I'll play against my friend in Spokane," comes as naturally as inviting someone over, to people unlike you and me, that's when it'll be The Next Big Thing.

I'm really not understanding how one sixth of the US population is not mainstream to you. Let's simplify it.... one out of every six people games online

Sure most of those are PC gamers, but online gaming on PC's had a hell of a headstart versus consoles. Nintendo and Nintendo only owners are simply missing out.

 

[xsarien]

I'm really not understanding how one sixth of the US population is not mainstream to you. Let's simplify it.... one out of every six people games online

Sure most of those are PC gamers, but online gaming on PC's had a hell of a headstart versus consoles.

It's also free in almost every sense of the word for the majority of those gamers. Ethernet jacks and/or modems are built into most motherboards at this point, so short of making sure your computer meets the game's requirements, you're good to go unless your particular vice happens to be MMORPGs, which are about as niche as you can get.

 

[jedimike]

It's also free in almost every sense of the word for the majority of those gamers. Ethernet jacks and/or modems are built into most motherboards at this point, so short of making sure your computer meets the game's requirements, you're good to go unless your particular vice happens to be MMORPGs, which are about as niche as you can get.

I don't know what your point is anymore...

I've shown you 2 reports that say the market is growing and people are willing to pay. XBL is growing, Sony Online is growing, and PC gaming is growing.

Meanwhile, Nintendo's broadband adapter is doing nothing.

Online gaming isn't free for anyone. There are ISP fees for everybody.

 

[xsarien]

I don't know what your point is anymore...

I've shown you 2 reports that say the market is growing and people are willing to pay. XBL is growing, Sony Online is growing, and PC gaming is growing.

Growing. The market hasn't grown to its full potential. It has not hit the big "mainstream" bell at the top of the tower. Exactly how much more clarity would you like?

 

[jedimike]

Growing. The market hasn't grown to its full potential. It has not hit the big "mainstream" bell at the top of the tower. Exactly how much more clarity would you like?

Never once did I say it has reached it's potential.

So you think Nintendo is wise to wait until half of the us population is gaming online? :lol

 

[jarrod]

So you think Nintendo is wise to wait until half of the us population is gaming online? :lol

Are you saying that's what they'll do? Just to clairify, wouldn't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

 

[xsarien]

Never once did I say it has reached it's potential.

So you think Nintendo is wise to wait until half of the us population is gaming online? :lol

You're pretty adament about it being mainstream, which is largely what I'd consider it's ultimate "potential."

I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, printed, typed out, quoted in the press, or maybe just tattooed onto your head, but Nintendo's stance on online has, and always has been, "until we figure out how to make it easy and free." And with the DS, apparently, they've reached some kind of threshold they're satisfied with.

 

[Cubsfan23]

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

Bullshit, no way Mechassualt sells 500,000. Would Socom have sold as much? Nope.

Plus you got games like Burnout 3 that aren't made for Gamecube because of lack of online support, and half assed games like Pandora Tomorrow. Case closed.

 

[xsarien]

Bullshit, no way Mechassualt sells 500,000. Would Socom have sold as much? Nope.

Plus you got games like Burnout 3 that aren't made for Gamecube because of lack of online support.

I don't think that's the reason Burnout 3 wasn't made for the Gamecube. I'm thinking "Nintendo, until very recently, treated European developers like red-headed, bastard stepchildren."

 

[jedimike]

You're pretty adament about it being mainstream, which is largely what I'd consider it's ultimate "potential."

I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, printed, typed out, quoted in the press, or maybe just tattooed onto your head, but Nintendo's stance on online has, and always has been, "until we figure out how to make it easy and free." And with the DS, apparently, they've reached some kind of threshold they're satisfied with.

The Nintendo group is so fucking hypocritical...

let's list the excuses...

#1 - It's not profitable : So does Nintendo want to make profit or do they want it free? Is it profitable for the DS, but not the GC?

#2 - It's too complicated : What's too complicated? One sixth of the US population figured it out. Again, why is it not complicated for DS, but complicated for GC?

#3 - There's no market (i.e. not mainstream) : Every major developer seems to think there is a market. Over 100 Sony online games, even more XBL games. 1/6th of the US population. Oh, but all of the sudden DS has a market.

#4 - It's not free - And it never will be. Sony customers pay, Microsoft customers pay, PC customers pay, and DS customers will pay. How much each customer pays may be different, but there will always be costs associated.

 

[xsarien]

The Nintendo group is so fucking hypocritical...

let's list the excuses...

#1 - It's not profitable : So does Nintendo want to make profit or do they want it free? Is it profitable for the DS, but not the GC?

#2 - It's too complicated : What's too complicated? One sixth of the US population figured it out. Again, why is it not complicated for DS, but complicated for GC?

#3 - There's no market (i.e. not mainstream) : Every major developer seems to think there is a market. Over 100 Sony online games, even more XBL games. 1/6th of the US population. Oh, but all of the sudden DS has a market.

#4 - It's not free - And it never will be. Sony customers pay, Microsoft customers pay, PC customers pay, and DS customers will pay. How much each customer pays may be different, but there will always be costs associated.

Oh, I didn't realize I was a card-carrying member of the "Nintendo Group." Shit, I hope they don't find out about my PS2, or my plans to get an XBox once the US plans for Outrun 2 are finalized. Or my...

:: looks around to make sure no one's within earshot ::

DREAMCAST!

If you'd like to drag this down by screaming "fanboy" simply because I told you, rather matter of factly, what Nintendo's public stance on online gaming is, so be it. I can't stop you. But all things considered, if there's one person around here who definitely deserves their original tag back, it's you.

 

[jarrod]

#3 - There's no market (i.e. not mainstream) :

Not the same thing. There's definietly a market for online console games but that's not to say it's mainstream by any stretch.

Speaking of superficial hypocracy, why are you harping on Nintendo for ignoring online gaming when they've gone to such lengths to include online options in their newest hardware? If DS is "online" then how can you say Nintendo's ignoring this booming market?

 

[jedimike]

My hypocritical rant wasn't directed at you really... just a compilation of excuses I've heard. The market is there for Nintendo. I remember when the online adapters were announced fror the GC... you should have seen the fanboy lists of online games.

Then there was that pokemon ball poster... if ever a game should be online, that's the one that could sell millions.


Now Nintendo fans act like they never wanted online gaming in the first place.

edit:

Speaking of superficial hypocracy, why are you harping on Nintendo for ignoring online gaming when they've gone to such lengths to include online options in their newest hardware? If DS is "online" then how can you say Nintendo's ignoring this booming market?

because of the stuff above... the adapter is there, the promo posters, the gamespy announcements. Everything was in place and Nintendo bailed.


I'm really glad the DS is online enabled, but I haven't touched a handheld in years.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Then there was that pokemon ball poster... if ever a game should be online, that's the one that could sell millions.

I sometimes wonder if Nintendo even understands how popular Pokemon is. Even an offline true RPG version of the POkemon GBA games would be hugely popular on the GC. Yet they don't even try it. Ofcourse you have Colloseum but it's not like the GBA games. I wonder if Nintendo's ever going to get around to making a console version of the series or if they'll just keep it handheld only? Because there'd be no better killer app for next gen if they go online than Pokemon Online. And not the stadium version.

 

[xsarien]

Now Nintendo fans act like they never wanted online gaming in the first place.

I'm sure some would jump at the chance of getting some 1st party games online, but it's like saying "If you're ordering a hamburger and not a cheeseburger when the cheeseburger is clearly the tastier menu option, you must hate cheeseburgers."

Nintendo's prediliction for making games that are fun alone or with a small group of people kind of nulls the pangs for an online mode. Sure, it'd be GREAT if some of them had it, but it's not an overriding concern, something that determines whether or not their games are purchased.

And that applies to ANY popular game that isn't online, whether it be made by Nintendo or another company.

 

[jarrod]

Mike:
Well I agree with that, and I agree Nintendo missed a golden opportunity with online on GameCube but I don't think it's going to cripple them really. Online console gaming is still in it's infancy... to draw a broad parallel I think Nintendo missed a golden opportunity by dropping the SNES CD as well. Not a crippling opportunity again, it was ignoring optical media for N64 that really hurt them... if Revolution doesn't provide any online gaming solution from Nintendo themselves, then I'd agree they're setting themselves at a disadvantage but GameCube in the scheme of things isn't that significant.

 

[Agent X]

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

Oh, man, like, X-Box Live Arcade is so not the way it should be done.

Most of the simple games they're offering (Bejeweled, Zuma, etc.) can be played for free on several gaming Web sites, including Yahoo! Games and (ironically enough) Microsoft's own Zone.com site. A lot of the "casuals" that wander into stores buying console games have never heard of Bejeweled or Zuma, and the ones that have heard of them already know that they can be played online for free with a PC--why exactly would they want to waste $10 to play these games on their X-Box at a lower screen resolution and without a mouse or keyboard? Same with the arcade classics like Dig Dug or Galaxian--anyone who's into those games and cares to play them on modern video game console hardware surely knows of the existence of Namco Museum already, which is under $20 and gets you a whole pile of those games.

Face it, there's no audience for this thing. It's a ripoff through and through, and it's going to die a quick death. I don't understand why the X-Box cheerleaders even want this atrocity to exist--you'd think the X-Box Live service fee (which costs more than the Network Adaptor that they criticize Sony so much over) would give you a free portal like this as part of the total package. Instead, they ask their fans to fork over even more money for games they can already play elsewhere for cheaper or even for free. What a crock.

As far as Nintendo goes, I think SolidSnakex nailed it here:

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

That's exactly why Nintendo needs to throw at least a little bit of online support on the GameCube (more than they have with the Phantasy Star Online games). If F-Zero X or Mario Kart: Double Dash were online, they could've proven a lot to their third-party developers. It would show that they acknowledge the growing market for online games. Instead, their third-party developers aren't even bothering to include online support in their games--and in some cases, are cancelling the GameCube versions altogether (see Burnout 3).

I think this could have major repercussions for the future. It could rub off on Nintendo's next system, and you'll see a dearth of online games and sports games from third-parties simply because they'll be inclined to think that the market isn't there among the Nintendo fan base. Seeing some of the biggest Nintendo fanatics continually parroting the Nintendo company line by pooh-poohing online gaming is also sure to send a message to the developers that online gaming isn't desired on future Nintendo systems.

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

That guarantees nothing with regard to online connections.

Wi-Fi is a wireless networking protocol. It means you can connect to a Wi-Fi access point, or an ad hoc connection to another Wi-Fi device. It doesn't automatically equate to "Internet access." You still need to have a Wi-Fi network set up in your own home, which in turn is connected to the Internet, in order to potentially be able to connect to the Internet with the DS (or the PSP, or any other Wi-Fi device). Even so, that doesn't automatically mean that your DS game will be able to reach out to the Internet and connect up with other gamers--the game has to be programmed with that feature.

Saying that the DS's built-in Wi-Fi guarantees every unit can go online is like saying that every PS2 can go online because they have USB ports, and...well...each PS2 owner could potentially have a USB Ethernet adaptor connected to a DSL/cable modem and a broadband Internet connection in his home. It's just potential to make a connection--like I said above, it guarantees nothing.

 

[xsarien]

Saying that the DS's built-in Wi-Fi guarantees every unit can go online is like saying that every PS2 can go online because they have USB ports, and...well...each PS2 owner could potentially have a USB Ethernet adaptor connected to a DSL/cable modem and a broadband Internet connection in his home. It's just potential to make a connection--like I said above, it guarantees nothing.

No, it's like saying that the PS2 or XBox can go online because they have an ethernet jack. The DS has Bluetooth and 802.11 built in. It'd be awfully redundant if the latter wasn't for something like online gaming.

But Nintendo's said it. Once at E3, once in their press release for the DS, and once on the DS website. Unless those are three outright lies in a row, the DS is going to have some form of online gaming in place.

 

[slayn]

And that leads into another question - does Nintendo's userbase, as a group, actually want online games?

nooo we don't. Go away online, you slow the development of better potential games =\

 

[jarrod]

I think this could have major repercussions for the future. It could rub off on Nintendo's next system, and you'll see a dearth of online games and sports games from third-parties simply because they'll be inclined to think that the market isn't there among the Nintendo fan base.

But what if Revolution ships with a Nintendo supported online solution with key Nintendo software releases featuring online options and play? Will 3rd parties just ignore it because GameCube didn't have online games 2 years earlier? Will consumers?

Fact is, things will only "rub off" if Nintendo allows it...

 

[SolidSnakex]

But what if Revolution ships with a Nintendo supported online solution with key Nintendo software releases featuring online options and play? Will 3rd parties just ignore it because GameCube didn't have online games 2 years earlier? Will consumers?

Fact is, things will only "rub off" if Nintendo allows it...

If that happens then they'll get 3rd party support, but if they do like they did this gen and just release a network adapter, or even have one already built in and don't show any support from the start. You'll start seeing alot of 3rd parties ignore Nintendo from the start of that generation I doubt at the moment many 3rd parties really believe Nintendo is serious about online gaming because of all the comments they've made about why they won't go online.

 

[Agent X]

No, it's like saying that the PS2 or XBox can go online because they have an ethernet jack. The DS has Bluetooth and 802.11 built in. It'd be awfully redundant if the latter wasn't for something like online gaming.

Does the DS have Bluetooth also? I thought it had 802.11b (which is Wi-Fi) and another proprietary protocol.

Even an Ethernet jack doesn't guarantee that all your customers are capable of online gaming. Software has to be written that will allow the system to connect to the Internet, and in turn connect to other gamers who are also connected to the Internet. If such software does not exist for the DS, then the games will not be Internet playable.

Nintendo must lead by example here. They need to actually release several online playable games for the DS. If they do not, then don't expect developers to follow suit just because they've got an 802.11 connection. After all, Nintendo released Ethernet and modem adaptors for the GameCube, and look at how far that went.

But Nintendo's said it. Once at E3, once in their press release for the DS, and once on the DS website. Unless those are three outright lies in a row, the DS is going to have some form of online gaming in place.

Well, I sure hope so. The thing is, Nintendo was hyping up online gaming for the GameCube long before the GameCube was released. After the system released, though, it was a whole different story.

But what if Revolution ships with a Nintendo supported online solution with key Nintendo software releases featuring online options and play? Will 3rd parties just ignore it because GameCube didn't have online games 2 years earlier? Will consumers?

No, they probably won't ignore it.

On the other hand, I don't see any hard evidence that Nintendo is willing to support online gaming on their next system. They need to talk it up...but they also need to do more than that, because they talked up online gaming for the GameCube and subsequently ignored it when push came to shove.

As it stands now, I'm not convinced that the N5/Revolution will be a good system for those who seek online gaming. Nintendo needs to convince me otherwise. I'll bet I'm not the only one who feels this way.