Post by: StrikerObi on May 09, 2005, 11:09:03 AM
When Nintendo President Satoru Iwata unveiled the first pieces of information regarding the DS' online plans, he left gamers with many questions. Now, in a document sent to Japanese gaming website Game Watch, he has clarified some of this information.
First off, Nintendo plans to launch somewhere around 1,000 wireless hot-spots across Japan, to help those gamers who do not already have a wireless connection in their home. These hot-spots will be free to use, and there will be no set-up required. The Nintendo DS will automatically connect to them.
At the Game Developers' Conference, Iwata mentioned that there would be no need for gamers to use complicated things such as SSIDs and WEP passwords to access Nintendo's online service. This confused many gamers, leaving the impression that the DS might not be able to access hotspots that needed this information. However, in his recent comments, Iwata has stated that in order to connect to a home wireless connection, the DS will require some configuration, but that it would be minimal if the gamer users a "Nintendo approved router."
Iwata also said that Nintendo will not charge for their online service, but they are not going to stop other publishers from charging players to access their games.
Post by: Arbok on May 09, 2005, 12:08:25 PM
And in comes Sega to take advantage of that...
Anyway sounds nice for Japan, although doing similar hot spots in the US I assume won't be possible considering the size differences.
Post by: odifiend on May 09, 2005, 12:10:46 PM
Post by: Robotor on May 09, 2005, 12:14:34 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on May 09, 2005, 12:26:08 PM
Eh, I've got a router in my house, and I don't care if it's Nintendo approved or not, I'm playing
Post by: MarioAllStar on May 09, 2005, 12:34:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
I don't think "Nintendo approved router" means a router specifically made for the DS, like odifiend implied. I figure there's a bunch of routers that Nintendo tested on and designed their system around, so that people who already own [popular] routers wouldn't have to go through a lot to get connected.
Eh, I've got a router in my house, and I don't care if it's Nintendo approved or not
Exactly. It's just like how there are certain ISPs that are guarunteed to work with Xbox Live, though others work, too.
I'm really excited about this announcement. Nintendo couldn't have done online play any better way. Though it's dissapointing that 3rd party developers can still charge us money, I don't think many will. Either way, I think it's for the best. Some developers wouldn't make the game online at all if they couldn't profit from it.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 09, 2005, 12:34:05 PM
"Iwata has stated that in order to connect to a home wireless connection, the DS will require some configuration, but that it would be minimal if the gamer users a 'Nintendo approved router.'"
I like this a lot. That's the kind of flexibility I want to see. Nintendo is infamous for insisting that people do things their way so it's good to see that they're not handcuffing the DS to some hot spot related design that would not work outside of Japan. Simplifying things is cool but sometimes you need that extra complexity for those that can use it. I'm glad they're not sacrificing flexibility for simplicity.
"they are not going to stop other publishers from charging players to access their games."
Well on one hand third parties would like to have that option so it's a good way to be third party friendly. But cost to the user was one of the reasons Nintendo supposedly didn't go online with the Cube. Free first party games with the potential pay-to-play third party games isn't new. The PS2 already has that model. I didn't wait through five years of being offline to get what the competition could have offered me years ago. The delay was supposed to be for a reason. We're supposed to get something better. This isn't better. It's better than nothing but Nintendo was practically promising free online gaming in exchange for no online for the Cube.
Sure the Xbox Live model has a fee but it's ONE fee for everything with a few exceptions like PSO. Here we could potentially have to pay the price of Xbox Live for each online game. Now obviously not everything will be pay but without a centralized model we could be put in a situation where we have to pick and choose what online titles we play for a month or face paying insane amounts of money. With Live that doesn't happen. Whether you play one online game a month or twenty the price is the same. Now if only MMOs cost money then Nintendo's method could be superior to Live but that assuming third parties play nice which is a pretty big gamble.
This is basically the Cube online model without Nintendo's sabotage. I didn't put up with offline Mario Kart to get the Cube online model years later. I was expecting Nintendo to deliver some sort of really cool service to justify the delay but I'm not seeing it here. I'm seeing what Nintendo should have done in 2002. Sony and MS already have the online market. Nintendo is not going to steal it away from the competition by merely being competent. Nintendo Online should be exceptional. Hopefully they've got something with more meat to it for the Rev but this DS online plan isn't really blowing me away. It's sufficient but not worth killing the Cube's online presence for.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on May 09, 2005, 12:35:53 PM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on May 09, 2005, 12:44:43 PM
I don't believe developers or publishers get any money for Xbox Live games, so as long as they aren't greedy and Nintendo is providing the servers, we shouldn't see fees very often.
Post by: Deguello on May 09, 2005, 12:57:22 PM
Post by: ssj4_android on May 09, 2005, 01:08:57 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on May 09, 2005, 01:33:12 PM
Ian: For once Nintendo is "ahead of the curve" technologically (at least that is the perception). Please, just don't complain about it. I think it's great that Nintendo is going this way instead of only allowing you to plug it in (or not having online at all). I personally don't want to string wires across my living room just to play online. And let me note that I don't have a wireless router, but certainly plan on buying one just because of this (and it will work great with my laptop).
Post by: Ian Sane on May 09, 2005, 01:36:15 PM
Whatever. Nintendo's online. That's good. Just don't make me buy a wireless router for the Rev and I'll be happy.
Post by: thepoga on May 09, 2005, 01:42:05 PM
Hopefully all of nintendo's online games will be free.
Post by: Nephilim on May 09, 2005, 01:43:00 PM
im excited that there talking about it.
Hopefully they make a updated port of PSOU, I wouldnt care about the fee.
Post by: gally on May 09, 2005, 01:44:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
I don't think "Nintendo approved router" means a router specifically made for the DS, like odifiend implied. I figure there's a bunch of routers that Nintendo tested on and designed their system around, so that people who already own [popular] routers wouldn't have to go through a lot to get connected.
That's what I assumed it meant. I don't know how wireless routers work differently from other routers though. My household has a router for all of us to use the internet at once, but what's the difference between that and a wireless router? Will I have to buy something new?
Post by: Artimus on May 09, 2005, 02:05:07 PM
Post by: Pale on May 09, 2005, 02:12:46 PM
How long did it take you to shelf that VCR and buy a DVD player?
Post by: Mr. Segali on May 09, 2005, 02:22:02 PM
Nevertheless, I'm gonna buy a wireless router. A wireless network is something I've wanted to set up in my house for a while now and the DS is the push I needed to finally go through with it.
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 09, 2005, 02:27:25 PM
It was; it just wasn't implemented at all. Nintendo's had the exact same model as Sony since this gen started, they just had no games and a shortage of adapters. The only new info in this article is Nintendo adding hotspots and providing a means for the DS to go on the net somehow, which implies some sort of interface that could possibly have other features.
Microsoft's plan has been proven to be flawed... because of the fee, Live subscribers make up a very small percentage of Xbox users. Sony's and Nintendo's plans this gen were also flawed because the adapter and/or HDD also count as a fee. Nintendo's going in the best direction next gen as far as I can make out... there are technically no added costs, not even wires, and if Nintendo delivers on their promise of simplicity then I can see online gaming experiencing a boom. Which sucks, but that's my opinion.
The wifi Rev-DS connection rumors, on the other hand, make me happy... connectivity without the wires.
Post by: gally on May 09, 2005, 02:28:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaleZer0
Ian do you have a regular router? Cause you'll need one of those for the Rev regardless... spending an extra 10 bucks on a wireless one isn't that big of a deal...
Only $10? I'm impressed. I had no idea of how much a wireless router cost. Now I just need to know how to set one up.
I'm very glad Nintendo is taking this route, even though I admit I don't understand it all that well - that is, how it is different from regular online services. I hear Wi-Fi is considered a "free, open" service, and that is why it is becoming popular. So apparently people without normal internet access can use this? What are the ping speeds when compared to cable (what I have)?
I'd like to know more information. I'm not very familiar with Wi-Fi, and Wikipedia's article on it hasn't answered many of my questions at all.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 09, 2005, 02:31:19 PM
Wireless is better than having cables going everywhere but that's no justification for wireless only. Component and S-Video are better than the standard composite A/V cables but that doesn't mean that the Rev shouldn't be able to use standard A/V cables. There's nothing wrong with having options even if one option is clearly "inferior".
I can afford a wireless router and I probably would buy one if I had to but obviously I would rather not have to buy something if there was no legitimate excuse for being forced to.
Post by: Mr. Segali on May 09, 2005, 02:33:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: gallyQuote
Originally posted by: PaleZer0
Ian do you have a regular router? Cause you'll need one of those for the Rev regardless... spending an extra 10 bucks on a wireless one isn't that big of a deal...
Only $10? I'm impressed. I had no idea of how much a wireless router cost. Now I just need to know how to set one up.
I think he meant 10 bucks more than a regular router, heh.
Post by: gally on May 09, 2005, 02:34:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiNIt was; it just wasn't implemented at all. Nintendo's had the exact same model as Sony since this gen started, they just had no games and a shortage of adapters. The only new info in this article is Nintendo adding hotspots and providing a means for the DS to go on the net somehow, which implies some sort of interface that could possibly have other features.
Microsoft's plan has been proven to be flawed... because of the fee, Live subscribers make up a very small percentage of Xbox users. Sony's and Nintendo's plans this gen were also flawed because the adapter and/or HDD also count as a fee. Nintendo's going in the best direction next gen as far as I can make out... there are technically no added costs, not even wires, and if Nintendo delivers on their promise of simplicity then I can see online gaming experiencing a boom. Which sucks, but that's my opinion.
Yes, I always wondered why so many PS2 games went online and their Gamecube equivalents didn't, even though neither company had a service set up like XBox Live.
Cutting extra fees out is an impressive idea; I do wonder though how many people will be sparked to buy wireless routers as a result. Most people already have modems or cable connections, and they may not be familiar with wireless, so they may at first view it as another annoying thing to pay for. I hope Nintendo is able to convince consumers of the benefits of Wi-Fi.
And I am glad to see Nintendo starting up their own online network. I wonder if they can use this to encourage people to buy the wireless routers they need (provided they need them - don't places such as New York City already serve as wireless hotspots?). Heck, Sony convinced people to buy hard drives and modems/broadband adaptors. Microsoft encouraged them to spend extra money for the Live service.
A lot of people likely WILL see what Nintendo is doing as an extra price as well - what's the difference to Joe Peon between buying a modem adaptor, and a wireless adaptor? That's where I think Nintendo needs to concentrate next: on getting the word out.
Post by: Mr. Segali on May 09, 2005, 02:38:25 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 09, 2005, 02:42:41 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on May 09, 2005, 02:52:06 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 09, 2005, 02:58:11 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 09, 2005, 03:01:15 PM
Post by: Mr. Segali on May 09, 2005, 03:12:53 PM
Post by: Arbok on May 09, 2005, 03:22:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I was comparing Xbox Live to the worst possible case scenario of most third parties charging for each of their online games so you end up paying the same as Xbox Live for each game. I don't want to pay for Xbox Live but if I had to pay I would rather pay once for everything then get charged around that same amount for each game.
I don't know about anyone else, but I will be damned if I pay to play any game online... Blizzard has pretty much spoiled me in terms of my stance on this, and it's also why I didn't get World of Warcraft. If Nintendo's games are the only ones that are free to play online, then those will likely be the only ones I will play, although I don't expect that will be the case here.
Post by: kennyb27 on May 09, 2005, 03:27:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Segali
Lots of wireless routers out there can also act as regular wired routers with like 4 ethernet jacks. So you should be fine.
I'm pretty sure that this is very commonplace now, so, Ian, you should be fine.
Post by: nickmitch on May 09, 2005, 04:26:10 PM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on May 09, 2005, 05:18:22 PM
Also, I would REALLY like it if you stopped complaining about the Revolution "not having an ethernet port" until Nintendo says it doesn't have one. It likely will not have a ethernet port, since that would cost extra, but Nintendo cares about ease of use enough to consider the extra cost. We've heard you say the same thing way to many times when you have no reason to complain yet.
Post by: MarioAllStar on May 09, 2005, 05:41:11 PM
If we're talking about the Revoltion, it is still useless. We don't know a thing about the console and here you are complaining about Nintendo forcing you to abandon your wired router. It's crazy!
Post by: gally on May 09, 2005, 05:57:03 PM
I too am tired of all this complaining. Legitimate complaints are one thing, and I have no problem with them. Someone has to make companies get their act together and give people what they want and/or need. But here Nintendo IS getting their act together, making internet built right into the box, with only a router being a possible expense, and yet there is still some complaining about that. Would you rather buy a modem like you did for the PS2 or GC?
Speaking for myself, I'm pretty damn satisfied with what Nintendo is saying so far. Hell, they have their own online network that they're working on. Not even Sony did that, or appears to be doing that (far as I know).
Post by: ThePerm on May 09, 2005, 06:12:18 PM
Post by: BigJim on May 09, 2005, 06:25:59 PM
Granted, I already have a wireless router so I am basically all set, but if you don't have one, you can get one for the cost of a DS game.
Yes it would be ideal if wired and wireless were both an option, but really the cost of switching to wireless isn't that great. If you're waiting for Revolution's online games, at least you know that you have at least a year and a half to dig up the $30 extra for a wireless router, if it doesn't include an ethernet port.
Frankly, as a side note, the wireless technology is more expensive than a physical port. The cost of an ethernet port is negligible if you're already incorporating networking capability. Not including a port would be more of a design choice, not so much a cost concern. But I digress.
Re: wired and wireless routers.
As others mentioned, and as you can see in the link above, most wireless routers also include wired ports, so you can keep your devices wired if you wish.
Setting up a wireless router is not much different from a wired one. The biggest difference is that you connect wireless routers and devices together using an encryption "key" that you create. This makes it secure. Once it's set up, you don't have to fuss with it again. It's an extra step, but fairly simple.
Post by: ShyGuy on May 09, 2005, 07:21:27 PM
Post by: Grant10k on May 09, 2005, 07:57:22 PM
Also, I wonder if the home configuration for routers (setting WAP keys, picking YOUR router instead of your close neighbor's, stuff like that.) will be saved per game, or in the DS itself? Will I have to set my secure network security key ("alpha0003") in every game or will online games come with some sort of firmware upgrade.
Post by: Mario on May 09, 2005, 09:24:43 PM
Post by: Nephilim on May 09, 2005, 09:54:33 PM
I think people are jumping the boat to early
Iv said it before and I will say it again, will only cost them 20cents to make a cord to run from rev to a router.
Post by: ruby_onix on May 09, 2005, 10:52:15 PM
It's good that Nintendo's excited about Wi-Fi for the DS. Wi-Fi is right for it. I don't want a cat-5 cable hanging out of my DS, whether I'm playing at home or not.
However, I do hope that this excitement about Wi-Fi doesn't carry over to the Revolution, to the point where Nintendo excludes wired connections to the Rev, just because Nintendo (like some of you) seems to have developed a pointless infatuation with going wireless purely for the sake of going wireless.
Right now the only benefit that I can see the Rev getting out of Wi-Fi is the DS/Rev connectivity (which, like what I said earlier, needs to be wireless). That and, it caters to those people who already have wireless networks and are opposed to running cat-5 lines through their walls.
That's not a big enough reason for Nintendo to botch the Revolution's internet strategy by pointlessly telling the people who don't have laptops/handhelds that they have to go and "update" their network to a wireless one, or else take a hike.
(BTW, I got my wired router for $10 Canadian a couple years ago.)
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on May 09, 2005, 11:07:49 PM
QuoteSee, normally I'd agree with you, but if Nintendo rereleased their system with its progressive scan port removed to cut down costs, they could just as easily do the same for a wired port (heck, they'd probably save MORE money). But now I'm starting to sound like Ian--I think Nintendo recognizes that not everyone has broadband, let alone wireless, and will act accordingly.
Originally posted by: BigJim
Wow, so many concerns.
Frankly, as a side note, the wireless technology is more expensive than a physical port. The cost of an ethernet port is negligible if you're already incorporating networking capability. Not including a port would be more of a design choice, not so much a cost concern. But I digress.
Post by: BigJim on May 10, 2005, 12:49:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: TheYoungerPlumberQuoteSee, normally I'd agree with you, but if Nintendo rereleased their system with its progressive scan port removed to cut down costs, they could just as easily do the same for a wired port (heck, they'd probably save MORE money). But now I'm starting to sound like Ian--I think Nintendo recognizes that not everyone has broadband, let alone wireless, and will act accordingly.
Originally posted by: BigJim
Wow, so many concerns.
Frankly, as a side note, the wireless technology is more expensive than a physical port. The cost of an ethernet port is negligible if you're already incorporating networking capability. Not including a port would be more of a design choice, not so much a cost concern. But I digress.
Does anybody know where there is a picture of the newer GameCube's motherboard? Though I don't know it for fact, I tend to suspect it wasn't just a removal of the port to cut costs. Component video rendering could have been removed from the consolidated hardware, for example. Or possibly since Nintendo was creating a new budget model anyway, and while the port didn't add much to the cost, the sales of component cables rendered it mostly useless and stripped it just because they could.
Nonetheless, I understand what you're saying.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 10, 2005, 08:06:39 AM
That actually could be an okay solution. Wireless isn't very widespread right now so for the first few years they could include the wired port. Then later when they want to cut costs and wireless has become more widespread they can drop the wired port like they dropped the progressive scan port. It's not perfect but it's a much more flexible solution.
Post by: Michael8983 on May 10, 2005, 12:15:17 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on May 11, 2005, 11:09:02 AM
Post by: Tuxedo.Bond on May 11, 2005, 01:33:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
It seems the best arguement for justifying wireless-only is "I'm already wireless so I don't care." That's not a valid arguement. I'm asking for both options so if you already have internet access you don't have to buy anything.
Wireless is better than having cables going everywhere but that's no justification for wireless only. Component and S-Video are better than the standard composite A/V cables but that doesn't mean that the Rev shouldn't be able to use standard A/V cables. There's nothing wrong with having options even if one option is clearly "inferior".
I can afford a wireless router and I probably would buy one if I had to but obviously I would rather not have to buy something if there was no legitimate excuse for being forced to.
You have it wrong, you do not need to acquire a wireless router if you already have a wired one. You only need an Access Point, which connects to an RJ-45 input jack on your router or switch connected to it, and it provides wireless network access for you devices. Although, Access Points cost about as much as a wireless router of the same caliber. So, if you get a Wi-Fi router, and want to use it as an Access Point, you will need to disable some stuff, which non-techy people may have trouble doing, so it would be easiest to just get an Access Point.
