Support NeoGAF

[teh_pwn]

"And I know people who've put more than that in SSBM, and it's not online."

Good for them. I own that game, and it's not that good.


"You're missing the point completly. Just because YOU play online games doesn't mean everybody else does, especially on consoles."

I think you're missing the point. Just because some people don't prefer online gaming, doesn't mean that a company should ignore a part of gaming that'll be growing the most in the coming years. Idiotic business that is.

Nintendo is screwing itself again. Sad though, because they make great games and have a lot of titles that would make excellent online games. Much better than 4 player crap. Think 8 player to 50 player.

 

[Redbeard]

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

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

It was really no worse than the sp of the first game, which people seemed to like quite a bit.

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

Those 1 million online gamers are 1 million more customers that can be drawn to purchase a game where they wouldn't have otherwise. Mabye the sp doesn't interest them, no matter how great it is. Mabye it interests them a little, but not enough to buy the game. It isn't a foregone conclusion that, when making an online component, the entire game is being made only for that fraction of the total userbase. If you're making a game like PT, it is for a userbase of 14m, that online mode is an extra feature that will make more of those 14m people interested.

I, for example, bought R63 primarily for it's online component. The sp game didn't interest me, not because I felt there weren't enough resources devoted to it or it wasn't good enough, but because it's just not a game I'd buy. Same with Pandora Tomorrow and a lot of other games out there.

 

[ypo]

This reminds me of the retards who were arguing that having the OPTION of a manual camera in Ninja Gaiden is somehow bad.

 

[DCharlie]

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

No - there is never going to be anything like that. But where as the Sony and MS camps have large numbers (even if it is down played as a small fraction of the overall gaming community) where as Nintendo have the people who bought into playing PSO.

"Do you think Nintendo's not conducting all sorts of in-house trials and experiments with console games? Do you think they don't have the clout, money, and industry know-how to recruit powerful technology partners for an online initiative?"

Perhaps - but so did sony, and their implementation of an online system is a joke compared to Xbox live, to the extent that now they are having to go back to the drawing board to come up with their own version of XBL - something they seemed to go to lengths to debunk with the "no one wants single log on ids" surveys etc. I do conceed that Nintendo by not coming in at the start have saved some cash in that they can see where Sony went wrong.

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

Maybe one day it will be profitable. Maybe not. MS are in a possition that Nintendo aren`t - they can afford to bleed money left right and centre. Will the online thing ever be profitable? Who knows ! If MS bleed money on it for the rest of eternity, i don`t care as long as it remains kicks. Could Nintendo do the same? Well, how much of the $7 Billion war chest is ever gonna get spent? Is it a war chest, or is it a share price prop? Hmm....

christ - 2 am ... and still at work - *looks up* and talking garbage... time for bed.

 

[SolidSnakex]

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

Yep, Nintendo is still very arrogant when it comes to their image. They still think that people follow them no matter what and that when they do go online everyone will be waiting to jump on. Nintendo doesn't have the type of pull they once had in the industry, they still have a following but it's nothing like it once was and nothing like they think it is now. They'll never become #1 again if they can't even lead the way. Sony and MS are thinking like leaders and that's why they are. Nintendo wants to play it safe in the industry, and that's not something you can do.

 

[Keio]

I would love all Nintendo games to have brilliant single player modes and expansive, great multiplayer options. They'd have a thousand CTF maps, billions of avatars to choose from and also an option to really quickly mute people breathing into the microphone.

However we don't live in a perfect world.

Online gaming isn't just an "option" to be added, like a manual camera control.

If Nintendo doesn't want to spend tens of millions of dollars (like MS did) on building an online infrastructure, I'm happy because then that money goes into funding new games or perhaps innovating new technologies for N5. And I don't think releasing a dual screened portable is "playing it safe".

I can imagine it being a hard equation for devs: if we put in online, it takes XXXX man hours. That MIGHT increase sales by $$$$, but then again if we don't and those XX coders hunt for bugs, we might end up making a better single player game that gets better %% in review and ultimately rakes in lots of €€€€.

It remains to be seen if online gaming will be a big thing next gen. I'm guessing no, because the hardcore are already in and the growth just doesn't look that fast. (Referring to my earlier post: the cancellation of MMORPG games is a good example, as are the empty lobbies of many pc fps shooters...)

If MS bleed money on it for the rest of eternity, i don`t care as long as it remains kicks.

As we've already read in all the news about Xbox Next, everyone at MS isn't happy about the games division "bleeding money" on everything.

 

[SFA_AOK]

So, website posts article rehashing an article already discussed here and here we are on a third page.

Great job everybody!

 

[Keio]

Great job everybody!

Thanks

Missed this discussion the first time, so I'm quite enjoying this now.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Did they really believe carts were a better idea than CD formats?

At the time, they did. Or at least, the evidence wasn't conclusive either way. Hindsight isn't exactly 20/20, but it's a wonderful thing.

 

[Ranger X]

... when Nintendo goes to software only,...

You can see the futur dude! This time is soon to arrive if Nintendo isn't on par with the competition with the Revolution. This could be their last home console if it fails to deliver.
I hope this next console will be online ready because i think online gaming will be pushed foward next gen. Whatever what people think, Microsoft and Sony will push the envellope and taste for online play will rise. And with The Grid system coming in a couple of years making our today's broadband connections obsolete, 56ks will be no more and fast normal internet connection will be total mainstream (read "perfect for online gaming to rise")

 

[Lord Error]

The way I see it, spending too much money for online content/support is not worth it. If it's there, great, if not, well... not a big deal. That's all just my own gut feeling, without overanalyzing the 'global significance' or whatever. Even in EA games, like the mentioned SSX3, I think the online support is OK. What is bad about it? Sure, it could have been better, but even as it is, it still adds to the game. You get online ranking boards, and you have the chance to talk to someone you know while playing the great game - for free. Not bad, IMO.

Now, if you add all other kinds of content to some kind of monthly/yearly gaming subscription, I think that would be worth it. Downloading movies, TV shows that you've missed, music, high-res game trailers, game demos (so I don't have to buy crappy mags) - that, AND online gaming on top, is in my opinion worth the money.

 

[DJ Demon J]

I'm still failing to see where he's wrong, though.

Because you're a Nintendo fanboy maybe? I dunno, call me crazy, just came to me.

 

[Drek]

What I don't get is how Nintendo can ignore online play when they're supposedly so obsessed with releasing quality titles. Replayability helps to make a game more of a quality title, and online play is the ultimate replayability feature.

Come next generation any fighting, sports, racing, or FPS game that doesn't have online play will automatically be a step below it's bretheren that do. If Nintendo doesn't realize that then they won't have the quality content to sell their system next gen, its simply how it is.

Also, the amazing replayability offered by online multiplayer and downloadable content helps a very good title become great, and great games to become classics. That level of game is what ultimately sells any system, and without online play Nintendo is putting all of their software at a disadvantage compared to Microsoft's and Sony's.

I find it hard to believe that Nintendo will ignore such an obvious feature, especially going by their included features in the DS (wireless multiplay). Hopefully they realize just how well some of their flagship titles (Mario Kart/Golf/Tennis, SSBM, Pokemon, Metroid, etc.) lend themselves to online play, and capitalize on that potential next generation.

 

[Kobun Heat]

If MS bleed money on it for the rest of eternity, i don`t care as long as it remains kicks.

And yet that's not exactly a justification as to why Nintendo should do it, too. In fact it quite proves the opposite.

If Nintendo *were* to do online games, people would expect their service to be basically just like Xbox Live. But that would be impossible for Nintendo. What Microsoft has done with the Xbox and XBL would be completely impossible for any seperate company to do. They are operating at a fantastic loss.

It's simply not realistic to say that Nintendo should do what MS does... but neither is it realistic to imagine that Nintendo would roll out any online program that is any less user-friendly than XBL.

 

[Lyte Edge]

This reminds me of the retards who were arguing that having the OPTION of a manual camera in Ninja Gaiden is somehow bad.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Suerte]

Is Live operating at a loss though? I was under the impression that only the actual console was making a loss...

 

[Wellington]

Ah, here we go again.

Well, let me catch up since I missed most of this:

playing four swords with friends is definitely more fun than any online game ive played.

I'll agree, simply because Four Swords is one of the best games out there. However it would easily work online and you would get the same experience, if not better. I have a lot of friends who are into Nintendo games moreso than PS2 or Xbox or what have you, and I can't play with them regularly because we've long since graduated college. Getting us together via an online matching service and being able to communicate via headset would be just as good, and then we wouldn't have to spend any kind of money on travelling the large distances to each other's houses. XBL is great for me and two of my friends. We love playing NBA 2K4 but live a large enough distance apart where getting together everyday would be impossible.

And yeah you're kind of ignoring the success games like PSO, Diablo, and Champions of Norrath (which we would still be playing if it weren't a hideous, buggy, mess)... sure they aren't the same as an online Zelda, nothing will be until there is an online Zelda, but it's taking similar ideas which very clearly work and are tons of fun. Waiting for Wasabiking to fly to NYC or for me to fly to San Fran so we could play would pretty dumb.

And on top of that, we wouldn't really have to wait around for our local friends to be willing to play as there already would be a pretty large pool of players readily available. Yeah, and contrary to popular belief, every online game you enter won't have an asshole player.

You don't understand that OPTIONAL ONLINE SUPPORT, is shit. It's shit when it's optional. Look at SSX 3, or most EA games. Their online mode are shit, but hey, they are there!! What's the point if there's no one playing the game anyway?

EA's online modes are shit? How many Madden GAF tournaments did we get up to, 10, 11? We stopped playing only because E3 hit and now NCAA 2005 is on the horizon (another EA game we'll be playing online). Take a good look... Well after the superbowl was over and done with we kept playing. I am easily the best Madden player in my neighborhood, but being able to find guys like FMT and DMczaf who are better than me, who I can build a solid rivalry with and compete with has extended the life of the game far beyond my initial couple of seasons offline.

Take a good look over at www.easportsnation.com Comprehensive stat tracking, buddy lists, ladders, rankings. Yeah, crappy EA online play.

If Nintendo doesn't want to spend tens of millions of dollars (like MS did) on building an online infrastructure, I'm happy because then that money goes into funding new games or perhaps innovating new technologies for N5.

Really...? Which system is closer to reality, Xbox 2 or N5?

 

[Keio]

I think that pretty much sums it up.

No.

Online isn't just an "OPTION" you can toss it - look the start of Sony's PS2 Online and you see why. It takes a massive commitment, like XBL, and we don't yet know if there are returns from that investment or not.

Even without considering the business side, but accepting that we play in an industry with limited resources, I'm happier if Nintendo stays focused on making up new ways of playing single player games and enjoying multiplayer in the same room with a few friends.

Really...? Which system is closer to reality, Xbox 2 or N5?

And what does this have to do with investing in new, innovative technologies? Rushing out a new, more powerful system is hardly innovative - that's what pc gfx card manufacturers are doing every half a year. Xbox 2 is closer to reality for other reasons - perhaps because the current Xbox is too expensive or because they believe that rushing the next gen would help their business?

 

[Greekboy]

I'm happier if Nintendo stays focused on making up new ways of playing single player games and enjoying multiplayer in the same room with a few friends.

You and I might be but ultimately it will come down to what mass consumers will want in the future. Will Nintendo be ready?

 

[Wellington]

Goddammit I forgot my main point. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo is hurting themselves by not going online with the games who's next natural step would be online play. Your Mario Partys, Golfs, Karts, Tennises, SSBMs, are all multiplayer oriented games. How could it be that the company that pushed four players into the public eye won't go into online play?

 

[Greekboy]

How could it be that the company that pushed four players into the public eye won't go into online play?

As fans we'd love to see online games or at least the option for it from Nintendo. But if you ran Nintendo and believed that online gaming wouldn't bring you in money but would rather cost you money then what would you do? You'd probably stick to making more four player games and preaching the merits of GBA/GCN connectivity in order to keep making more money.

 

[Wellington]

As fans we'd love to see online games or at least the option for it from Nintendo. But if you ran Nintendo and believed that online gaming wouldn't bring you in money but would rather cost you money then what would you do? You'd probably stick to making more four player games and preaching the merits of GBA/GCN connectivity in order to keep making more money.

Actually I'd look at what other companies have done and how it has worked for them. I'm sure Blizzard, without charging any fees for any of their games to date, has been turning quite a hefty profit.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Because you're a Nintendo fanboy maybe? I dunno, call me crazy, just came to me.

Don't get me wrong - I really do love the eternal Catch-22 of GAF, where if you suggest that Nintendo's corporate strategy might be on to something, you're immediately branded a Nintendo fanboy in lieu of any actual argument.

I see the allure of this stance: I mean, actual debate is just so... messy, isn't it? It's so tiring, trying to reconcile your own myopic worldview when the other side presents conflicting sets of facts.

Better just to dismiss it all.

But for everyone who's actually listening, I'd like to point out that Nintendo does continue to experiment with and prepare for online gaming. They've had some form of online connectivity or game distribution system since the days of the Famicom - the Famicom Network, the Satellaview, the 64DD, the Gamecube BBA, the cell-phone adapter on the GBC, and now wireless on the DS.

It's true that Nintendo's not jumping into online feet-first. But they're not 'ignoring' it by any means. They've been conscious of its coming impact, well ahead of the game. Thing is - and this is what Iwata's talking about - it's not commercially viable yet.

 

[cvxfreak]

This online arguement is getting old.

I don't like online too much, that's my opinion, oh well.

 

[Gorgie]

Goddammit I forgot my main point. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo is hurting themselves by not going online with the games who's next natural step would be online play. Your Mario Partys, Golfs, Karts, Tennises, SSBMs, are all multiplayer oriented games. How could it be that the company that pushed four players into the public eye won't go into online play?

Because they're cheap, and they don't feel like losing money so us hardcore gamers can play against each other across North America. Online gaming is like light gun gaming, no one is demanding that every title have at least the option to use the light gun, because the demand for these games don't exist. Same with online, there are some, but its not mainstream yet, and we'll just have to be patient until everyone has affordable broadband until Nintendo really joins the online train.

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft exist to generate money, not to make you happy. Yes, happy customers make money, but you only go so far before your business becomes a charity.

 

[MattCoz]

Nintendo always preaches about making games that appeal to everyone, well what about those people who want to play their games online? All I really want is an online mode in some of their multiplayer titles. I don't want them to be exclusively online, but I think that's what they think an online game is. I just want a simple, free, peer-to-peer system for playing Mario Kart, Super Smash Brothers, Four Swords Adventures, Metroid Echoes, etc. Why they can't offer something like this for free is beyond me. It will only lead to increased game sales and broadband adapter sales.

 

[Gattsu25]

Nintendo fans - "Compact Discs are a fad"

:thumbsup

 

[Suerte]

And will it be commercially viable to Nintendo when Sony and MS build up huge established online userbases and they have nothing? Online gaming will always be something that has to be "built up" - Nintendo can't expect to launch an online service and have large sums of people joining right away.

 

[Greekboy]

And will it be commercially viable to Nintendo when Sony and MS build up huge established online userbases and they have nothing? Online gaming will always be something that has to be "built up" - Nintendo can't expect to launch an online service and have large sums of people joining right away.

This is quite true but maybe Nintendo firmly believes that their loyal fans will just jump to it like they believed fans would with GBA/GCN connectivity?

 

[Musashi Wins!]

And will it be commercially viable to Nintendo when Sony and MS build up huge established online userbases and they have nothing? Online gaming will always be something that has to be "built up" - Nintendo can't expect to launch an online service and have large sums of people joining right away.

I disagree. I think that core group of people, even if it's shrinking, who buy Nintendo systems every go round will jump right in if they have broadband (and more and more people do). Plus every "hardcore" gamer however many that is.

And mark my words, all the Drones who belittle it now will be first in line starting thread after thread about it when it happens. No matter the business details.

 

[Lord Error]

No.

Online isn't just an "OPTION" you can toss it - look the start of Sony's PS2 Online and you see why. It takes a massive commitment, like XBL, and we don't yet know if there are returns from that investment or not.

It takes a massive commitment for what exactly? Would Nintendo suffer anything if it had a nominal online suport like Sony did for the PS2? Does Sony suffer in any way because of it? I'd say no, as they have more people playing online than there are on Xbox, and they are not losing any money over it.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft exist to generate money, not to make you happy. Yes, happy customers make money, but you only go so far before your business becomes a charity.

I was just going to say something to this effect.

Even if a majority of Gamecube owners got together and agreed that they wanted Nintendo to do something, that alone is not a compelling reason for Nintendo to do it.

Look, I think it would be great if every Nintendo game was packaged with a coupon for a free blowjob. You'd input the PIN number into a website, and they'd dispatch a hooker to your house the next business day. She would then blow you.

I think you could get a majority of Gamecube owners to agree that they want Nintendo to do this. Would you then say that Nintendo had to?

 

[GigaDrive]

But for everyone who's actually listening, I'd like to point out that Nintendo does continue to experiment with and prepare for online gaming. They've had some form of online connectivity or game distribution system since the days of the Famicom - the Famicom Network, the Satellaview, the 64DD, the Gamecube BBA, the cell-phone adapter on the GBC, and now wireless on the DS.

good point. Nintendo has had online services since the mid to late 1980s with the Famicom, the Famicom Network, as you mentioned.

Did Nintendo ever introduce anything to get the GameBoy Advance on the internet in any way? that capability was announced andmentioned in 1999-2000, before the GBA even came out in Japan.

 

[Greekboy]

Look, I think it would be great if every Nintendo game was packaged with a coupon for a free blowjob. You'd input the PIN number into a website, and they'd dispatch a hooker to your house the next business day. She would then blow you.

This would be their best example of connectivity by far.

 

[Gorgie]

I was just going to say something to this effect.

Even if a majority of Gamecube owners got together and agreed that they wanted Nintendo to do something, that alone is not a compelling reason for Nintendo to do it.

Look, I think it would be great if every Nintendo game was packaged with a coupon for a free blowjob. You'd input the PIN number into a website, and they'd dispatch a hooker to your house the next business day. She would then blow you.

I think you could get a majority of Gamecube owners to agree that they want Nintendo to do this. Would you then say that Nintendo had to?

:thumbup

 

[Prine]

Nintendo being stupid again. Customers dont want mature, customers dont want DVD playback, customers dont want online, customers do as we say. What you want is 3 different flavours of GBAs, GB pockets, re-packaged NES games and card swipe systems. Go Nintendo

And fuck Austrlia - Iwata


zips flamesuit

 

[Kobun Heat]

What you want is 3 different flavours of GBAs, GB pockets, re-packaged NES games and card swipe systems.

Interestingly enough, except for that last one they turned out to be right.

 

[SantaC]

And fuck Austrlia - Iwata

that i-view was fake.

 

[Hellraizah]

This is quite true but maybe Nintendo firmly believes that their loyal fans will just jump to it like they believed fans would with GBA/GCN connectivity?

I think connectivity hurts their image more than it helps them.

I get lots of people at my store, they want to buy Four Swords, yet it's too much stuff for them. They don't believe in the one player game that it can be, simply because as they say it... they got screwed by Crystal Chronicles. I lose sales when I talk about the connectivity features of the game. My estimates are, if it weren't for the connectivity features, I would have sold at least 3 times as much. If Nintendo had implemented online into this title, as an option, I would have been the first to buy it. Same thing with Wario Ware. Sure, I don't represent the majority, but I'm on the field each day, and I can definitely see what the majority thinks.

Nintendo not jumping on the online bandwagon is them closing their eyes on a part of the market. Hell, they HAVE the broadband adapter out, why not support it ?

 

[Suikoguy]

We forget, that anyone posting at a message board like this is not a casual gamer.

A.) Nintendo needs to remember that some hardcore gamers are interested in online.
B.) However, Nintendo also knows that most casual gamers don't give a crap about online gaming yet.

 

[ManaByte]

I play my GameCube every six months or so when NINTENDO actually releases a game. Thus it has a nice thick layer of dust on it.

I play my Xbox almost every single night due to Xbox Live. I rarely play single-player games on Xbox unless they're something really good like Psi-Ops or Spider-Man 2 (recently). I played Pandora Tomorrow online last night with some friends for about three and a half hours.

With Xbox Live not only can I play games with, and SPEAK to, friends who live 200-800 miles away I can also see when they are playing and what they are playing when I'm not on my Xbox. On the PC, MSN messenger gives you an alert when one of your friends is playing a Live Aware game, and your cell phone can do the exact same thing.

Not only that, but I can be playing Chronicles of Riddick single-player and a friend can pop online in Pandora Tomorrow or Rallisport Challenge 2. It's extremely simple to get a game invite, pop out the game you're playing, and then jump right into the game with them.

Nintendo is fucking retarded for not offering online play similar to Xbox Live with their games.

For all those people who scream "BUT NINTENDO CAN'T AFFORD ONLINE PLAY!!": What the fuck happened to all those billions they have been sitting on?

 

[skip]

And with The Grid system coming in a couple of years making our today's broadband connections obsolete, 56ks will be no more and fast normal internet connection will be total mainstream (read "perfect for online gaming to rise")

tell me more about this..."grid"...system.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Nintendo is fucking retarded for not offering online play similar to Xbox Live with their games.

For all those people who scream "BUT NINTENDO CAN'T AFFORD ONLINE PLAY!!": What the fuck happened to all those billions they have been sitting on?

That's what they'd be asking if they actually went ahead with a system similar to Xbox Live.

 

[Prine]

What the fuck happened to all those billions they have been sitting on?

 

[Hellraizah]

Look, I think it would be great if every Nintendo game was packaged with a coupon for a free blowjob. You'd input the PIN number into a website, and they'd dispatch a hooker to your house the next business day. She would then blow you.

I think you could get a majority of Gamecube owners to agree that they want Nintendo to do this. Would you then say that Nintendo had to?

Nah, sure. But what if Nintendo did it, and then, because of this, doubled or tripled their sales ? Don't you think we would see Xbox Escort Live and Sony Hookers right after ?

A company has to see what's the trend and what is coming up. Right now, on the online side of things, Microsoft and Sony are pro-active, and Nintendo is adopting the "wait and see" attitude. That's why come Xenon, a lot of people will already be on Xbox Live, and waiting for the Xenon's online capabilities. They will also be looking forward to Sony's network plans. What will they be looking forward for the Revolution ? 3 screens ? Connectivity with the DS ?

 

[TTP]

I'm under the impression that most of us tend to look at the online gaming thing from a "wrong" perspective.

I read stuff like "I have fun with Four Swords, I don't need online". And I also read stuff like "online gaming doesn't add anything so important to gaming as a whole". Well, all this is true if you consider online gaming just as an extention of the whole multiplayer concept. But if you consider online gaming as a "platform" you soon realize how promising and important for this industry is. Just look at the PC scene where you can download demos, extra content, create your own content and distribute it, chat with friends via ICQ or MSN. Online is the only platform that allows this.

As for the multiplayer aspect of online gaming, I don't agree with those who say offline multi is enough. No, it isn't. You wont have 16 o 32 people playing on the same screen in Echoes. Therefore you won't have serious team play experiences. And then when you think about Project Gotham Racing 2 you realize that not knowing who you are playing against doesn't matter. When you think about Pandora Tomorrow you realize that that kind of multiplayer experience would have been impossible with the splitscreen solution where anyone can see what you are doing (where you are hiding or where you are coming from). So, it won't make a big difference with the games we are used to but it can (and already does) generate a new breed of experiences that you wouldn't enjoy otherwise.

Man, I'm tired.

 

[Gorgie]

I play my GameCube every six months or so when NINTENDO actually releases a game. Thus it has a nice thick layer of dust on it.

I play my Xbox almost every single night due to Xbox Live. I rarely play single-player games on Xbox unless they're something really good like Psi-Ops or Spider-Man 2 (recently). I played Pandora Tomorrow online last night with some friends for about three and a half hours.

With Xbox Live not only can I play games with, and SPEAK to, friends who live 200-800 miles away I can also see when they are playing and what they are playing when I'm not on my Xbox. On the PC, MSN messenger gives you an alert when one of your friends is playing a Live Aware game, and your cell phone can do the exact same thing.

Not only that, but I can be playing Chronicles of Riddick single-player and a friend can pop online in Pandora Tomorrow or Rallisport Challenge 2. It's extremely simple to get a game invite, pop out the game you're playing, and then jump right into the game with them.

Nintendo is fucking retarded for not offering online play similar to Xbox Live with their games.

For all those people who scream "BUT NINTENDO CAN'T AFFORD ONLINE PLAY!!": What the fuck happened to all those billions they have been sitting on?

What ever are you going to do when the Xenon will be ran as a profitable venture? The only reason Microsoft has so much support on this forum is the amount of free stuff that they give away, mostly a heavily discounted console. Just wait till they take all your perks away in hopes that you remember how nice they used to be, so you'll stay on board for Xenon. And if you think LIVE will stay at the $50 a year, you're high. I could see them charging $10 a month in the future.

 

[Greekboy]

What ever are you going to do when the Xenon will be ran as a profitable venture? The only reason Microsoft has so much support on this forum is the amount of free stuff that they will give away. Just wait till they take all your perks away in hopes that you remember how nice they used to be, so you'll stay on board. And if you think LIVE will stay at the $50 a year, you're high. I could see them charging $10 a month in the future.

This might be true but at least they've hooked and enticed potential Xenon subscribers by doing this. What has Nintendo done to do likewise?

 

[Azih]

I think Iwata's comments are being misinterpreted a bit.

It's not
"Customers do not want online games"
as much as it is
"Customers do not want to pay for online games"


Which is a much more reasonable position to defend, and a much more interesting discussion at any rate.


Right now there are three general models for online gaming.

1. PC model
Pretty much everyone with a gaming level PC has reliable internet support. Every company takes advantage of this and implements matchmaking software to let these gamers find other gamers to play with.

2. Sony's first try.
Similar to the PC model, except that not everyone with a PS2 has reliable internet support plus you have to buy the addon seperately while ethernet cards are pretty much standard on PCs.

3. Xbox live
Set up your own servers at a huge cost to ensure a certain level of Quality of Service and charge a low yearly fee.

Add to that the MMORPG system where you pay a fair bit monthly for a game which requires a lot of ongoing support (servers and whatnot) and there you have the options that Nintendo pretty much faces.

Are any of them appropriate for Nintendo? I'm not so sure about that.

 

[ManaByte]

And if you think LIVE will stay at the $50 a year, you're high. I could see them charging $10 a month in the future.

I'd pay $20 a month for Live.