Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 03, 2004, 10:30:30 AM
is asking for input on how to improve on on everything GC and GB from games to image.
So now is the time to speak up!
Nintendo.com Forum
Quote
Time to express your opinion on The Big N. Let us know what you think we can do to improve our products, services and image. I won't be responding to every thought or opinion, but I will read them all, as will others.
If there are any really good ideas, I'll pass them along as my own. Woah! Eval Pickle moment...scratch that.
Some bulletpoints to get your brainstorming juices going:
What features do you wish the Nintendo GameCube had, but doesn't.
What do you think are the best improvements in the GCN over the N64.
What do our competitor's systems do, that the GCN should do?
What genres of games should we focus on?
Connectivity: Proven fun that should continue vs. gimmick that didn't work.
Think of the above stuff, but with Game Boy in mind.
If you think Nintendo has a kiddie image, why?
What kind of image do you think we should strive for? How do we get there?
The warranty on our hardware is four-times longer than our competitors. Do you care? Does service have anything to do with purchasing decisions?
What do we need to quit doing? What do we do that makes you go "Oh...man...not again!"
What do we need to do more of? What do we do that makes you go "Oh, yeah! WOOT! Nintendo rocks!"
P.S. topic is about 2 weeks old but it is still open and he is supposedly still checking it.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 03, 2004, 10:45:48 AM
Too bad you didn't discover this earlier. I'll probably write something up tonight after work but I doubt after two weeks anything is going to be listened to. The tread starter even has a "thanks guys" message. In other words "I don't need anymore info."
"Connectivity: Proven fun that should continue vs. gimmick that didn't work."
Oh man they're SO asking for it.
Edit: I've checked some of the responses and they tend to fall into two categories. First you have the longer posts that go into detail on what needs to be improved. The second are one second fanboy responses to the tune of "everything is great the way it is!" It's going to be hard to sort this data.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2004, 11:09:44 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 03, 2004, 11:20:52 AM
I particularly like these quotes from the admin's "thank you" post.
"To the rare request for turn-based games, to the overwhelming 'we want online gaming' opinions, this thread has re-inforced what we've been hearing for quite awhile."
It's nice to see the requests for online support have been "overwhelming". Profitable or not Nintendo fans want the option. Though realistically NOA doesn't get to make the call on this. They can forward their research to NCL but if the guys in Japan decide that "online gaming is evil and stupid" then it's not going to happen.
"While people can debate whether or not we have an image problem, I can tell you that image is one thing we're going to be working on. A lot. We've got some killer products, but for some folks we've lost the 'cool.' We'll get it back. Or, at least the non-dorky 2004 version of 'cool.'"
This is nice to read. Unlike the online thing, NOA actually has control over Nintendo's image in North America without having to butt heads with NCL. I'm very glad that they're working on improving their image because that's the biggest hurdle the Gamecube has had to face. Although it's stupid, image means everything these days and I think that with the exact same game library the Cube would have been a much bigger success if it had a better image going in.
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 11:26:12 AM
stop making so many sequels!
stop with the snes ports on gba!
go online (your games would work so well for it)!
utilize the hardware for the amazing graphics it's capable of!
make games that deal with serious storylines
instead of cr@p like Wario wants all the treasure for himself
(which took about the creativity of an 8 year old)!
well theres my beef, it's whats for dinner.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 03, 2004, 11:28:35 AM
Quote
It's nice to see the requests for online support have been "overwhelming". Profitable or not Nintendo fans want the option.
You mean internet geek message board rat hardcore Nintendo fans want the option- there's a HUGE difference between us and them Ian. Don't be pretentious and assume OUR opinion (which is divided even among us) applies to everyone, because it doesn't.
Otherwise I think it's great that NOA is at least asking for suggestions- it means they're being open minded, which is never a bad thing. Now I want ALL of you who have complaints about Nintendo to post there.
In my opinion, if you don't, you shouldn't be allowed to complain anymore since you passed up your opportunity to tell Nintendo themselves how you feel. Post your thoughts anyway, Ian, to reinforce what's already been said- obviously things that are being said more often are getting more notice. In general, though, it's a shame most of the complaints and suggestions people have are completely unfeasible and incredibly selfish. :\
Post by: Ian Sane on May 03, 2004, 11:40:44 AM
No kidding. There's been some "I want more BLOOD in Nintendo games" requests and even suggestions to go back to cartridges! Plus some guys have talked about third party games as if Nintendo makes every game on the system. Though I assume these sorts of "uninformed" responses are common with any sort of attempt to get feedback. I imagine Nintendo is smart enough to disregard the opinions of people who clearly have NO CLUE what they're talking about. "I WUNT KNOW MOOR POKENOM!!11" Yeah I'm sure Nintendo's going to do that.
One thing I think Nintendo should try is holding focus groups specifically with people that don't own any Nintendo systems and own a PS2 or Xbox instead. If you're posting on Nintendo's web site odds are you're going to keep buying Nintendo consoles anyway. The complaints from non-owners might be useful particularly if they used to own a Nintendo console and switched.
Post by: vudu on May 03, 2004, 11:41:51 AM
EDIT: directed towards mouse_clicker and his unrelenting views towards online gaming.
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 11:54:50 AM
not to us here at PGC.
I for one cannot understand how people are so against any type of online gaming
from Nintendo. It's another option for more modes of play, much like having a time
trial mode in a racing game so people can compete for the fastest times, or having
bots in a first person shooter title for more enemies and allies at play. If you don't
like online gameplay you don't have to play it. That's it. Some people are dying at
the chance to have online enabled nintendo games, why ruin it for them because
you don't want it? just don't use it. I say this because I really want online nintendo
games, it would be alot more fun racing 16 people in F-Zero GX than racing 30 AI
drones, or playing animal crossing with other people living in your town, etc etc.
Not everyone is blessed with friends in the same town who play videogames, so
this is there only chance to have multiplayer goodness more than once or twice a
year.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2004, 12:05:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: kingvudu
oh god, here we go again...
EDIT: directed towards mouse_clicker and his unrelenting views towards online gaming.
Might as well add me to that...I'm just as hostile towards online gaming as he is...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 03, 2004, 12:15:52 PM
If you don't want to use it then you don't have to but why deny the rest of the option?
It s just like cruise control on a car, all modern cars have but you don't have to use it. Once in a while the opportunity may come up when it comes in handy and it would suck for the option to not already be there.
It s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
Post by: vudu on May 03, 2004, 12:18:51 PM
Quotei didn't say i was pro-online gaming. i'm just sick of hearing the same arguments over and over again. and i'm tired of bloodworth having to lock threads because they become one big online gaming flame war.
Might as well add me to that...I'm just as hostile towards online gaming as he is...
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 12:21:15 PM
game I've had alot more fun than playing alone, except for NFSUG because it's
rampant with cheaters. Online gaming isn't going to cause single player games
from stop being made. What online games have you guys played, and why did you
not enjoy them? The thing is that right now there are a number of online
games out there that are just not made right, but there are even more online
games out there that are done right and so much more fun being so.
It just boggles my mind how people would rather play against bad AI, or
even share a 5x5 inch square on a tv instead of a full screen game against
32 other people. They say it's too impersonal... but it's not. you've got a
keyboard you can still talk, and soon voice chat will be enabled in every online
game... so how is that too impersonal? For it to be personal do you need an
animatronic person next to you so you can pinch him in the belly when you win a race?
no offense but I just can't understand your hostility to onlining...
(if you don't want it, you don't have to use it)
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 03, 2004, 12:21:24 PM
Let it stay on the PC, it's the only place it doesn't suck.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 03, 2004, 12:21:51 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2004, 12:32:06 PM
Paladin pretty much summarized my feelings...It's really not worth the effort to bring online gaming to a relative few...I say continue enabling LAN in multiplayer games and let fans like Warp Pipe do the work to bring them online...
"Odds are MC and Bill are going to buy the N5 anyway with or without online support."
Well, duh...
Post by: Mario on May 03, 2004, 12:32:20 PM
Quote
What do we need to do more of? What do we do that makes you go "Oh, yeah! WOOT! Nintendo rocks!"
Good games from Nintendo please. GCN needs more.
Quote
What genres of games should we focus on?
Genre doesn't matter so much, the games just have to be BETTER damn it.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2004, 12:34:49 PM
Post by: Mario on May 03, 2004, 12:36:54 PM
).
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2004, 12:46:28 PM
Nintendo is like morphine...
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 12:47:16 PM
"To the rare request for turn-based games, to the overwhelming 'we want online gaming' opinions, this thread has re-inforced what we've been hearing for quite awhile."
- is a relative few.
Adding online would be worth it just for the third party support...
as many publishers have forgone releasing GC versions of their
games just because GC doesn't support online.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2004, 12:52:02 PM
"To the rare request for turn-based games, to the overwhelming 'we want online gaming' opinions, this thread has re-inforced what we've been hearing for quite awhile."
- is a relative few.
Someone is forgetting that this is a thread on an online forum...
Post by: WesDawg on May 03, 2004, 01:10:04 PM
I think Nintendo would be a bit foolish not to build a network adaptor into their next console. I'm hoping they put built in Wireless/rechargable controllers too though. Then we could live the dream of having 16 player SSBM competing on one system with one screen simultaneously. That and I think Nintendo needs to put out some jawdropping screenshots with hype words like, MOST and BEST and POWERFUL for their next system. That seems to be what sells stuff nowadays. Actually, I'd settle for a steady stream of great games. One a month for the first 12 months of the system would be really nice.
I never knew my GC warranty was four times longer than a PS2's. I never needed it either. Weird.
Post by: Kyosho on May 03, 2004, 02:02:01 PM
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 02:13:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
I wouldn't say:
"To the rare request for turn-based games, to the overwhelming 'we want online gaming' opinions, this thread has re-inforced what we've been hearing for quite awhile."
- is a relative few.
Someone is forgetting that this is a thread on an online forum...
It was a Nintendo representative, asking a sample of the population of Nintendo
gamers (sure they me be people using computers, but the sample is indicative of
the larger population, with a small -not large- degree of error)
Also he says this has reinforced what we've been hearing for quite awhile (which
indicates that it hasn't just been from comments found online)
As you read game mags and visit various videogame sites, you continuously see
letters from gamers and comments from editors addressing the fact that people
want Nintendo online, that Nintendo should embrace online, and quite close to nothing
for the opposite.
Wesdawg I don't see that Nintendo supports online, just including a modem/broadband
adapter isn't supporting online to me, and it is why numerous publishers won't
release games that they had planned to for the GC just because of that single fact.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 03, 2004, 02:18:58 PM
Neither did I. Considering the common problem of people having to replace their PS2 after only a few years I think that's something Nintendo should make a bigger deal about. It should be on the box in big red lettering.
"Adding online would be worth it just for the third party support..."
Agreed. This is why the new God: DAMN is not being released on the Cube despite good sales for the Cube original. The developer wanted the game to be online and felt the effort wasn't worth it to make the Cube version online. And then there are games like Splinter Cell: PD and the EA Sports lineup and are online for the other consoles but not the Cube. The Cube is automatically getting inferior versions of these games and anyone that owns multiple consoles is all but guarenteed to not buy the Cube version.
"Someone is forgetting that this is a thread on an online forum..."
I've never understood this as a problem. What sort of person who is interested in videogames is not able to post in an online forum? They either have to be a little kid, elderly, or somebody who is either too poor or not tech savy enough to have access to the internet. If you fall into those categories you likely aren't buying many games anyway. Sure not everyone is going to post in the Nintendo forums but most have the option to. I would consider the inability to respond to an online forum due to a lack of internet access to be equal to not being able to write a letter of complain because you can't read or write. It just isn't a valid excuse to me. And if you can respond but for whatever reason don't discuss gaming on the internet or post on forums well you probably don't read reviews and buy crappy games too, so tough. It's not my fault you're not a smart consumer.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on May 03, 2004, 02:27:55 PM
Please send viruses to the majority of posters on your official forum.
Thanks for your time,
Infernal
Post by: - NintendoFan - on May 03, 2004, 02:36:35 PM
Post by: DrZoidberg on May 03, 2004, 02:57:22 PM
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 03:05:43 PM
a small online plan at this stage, it would just make them look more
inferior to the competition in many peoples eyes. (if they do put online
together for GC I don't see it being anything large at this point)
The only reason I could see for them to go online now is to get rid of
the broadband adapters in stock because not really anyone is lagging around
4 tvs and 4 GCs and 4 BBA around to take advantage of it.
(on that note actually just take the losses for the unsold BBA, it's a better
business decision for what I stated above)
The fact is N5 needs to be online at launch, if just for third party support.
Otherwise we will continue to see publishers forgo releasing games
for the N5 like they're now with the GC. It will also result in games
being released for N5, while the same game is released for PS3 and XB2
with online support thereby having people buy those versions instead.
If Nintendo wants more market share they need those 3rd parties.
Post by: Chongman on May 03, 2004, 03:30:05 PM
I don't think anybody could disagree with the fact that online gaming would be a turnoff at ALL. I mean, seriously, who in the world would say "BAH! Me no like online! It make console bbbbaaad!!!" That just doesn't make sense.
But on the otherhand, online still isn't that profitable at all. ESPECIALLY in America where 100% broadband isn't apparent yet, not even a major majority. Therefore, online gaming just isn't profitable until the US's online capabilities reach their peak.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 03, 2004, 03:37:18 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2004, 03:53:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: DrZoidberg
people have asked for a new 2d Yoshi for Gamecube right? RIGHT?
It's coming...
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 03:58:16 PM
but when it comes down to it, it really is profitable in other ways.
1. it's profitable in the eyes of developers/publishers, they want
to make online games so either you provide them with the system
in place or you disregard their wishes and turn them away from your business.
2. alot of people play games online casually and religiously, alot
of people want it and alot of people expect it. When you provide
your customers with what they want, they support you more.
When you say to your customers, well we can't rake in dough from
providing you with what you want- they support you less and respect
the company less which plays a big role in their future purchases.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2004, 04:09:36 PM
(Oh, and please stop pressing enter at the end of every few words! It makes your posts hard to read... >_<.)
Post by: Mario on May 03, 2004, 04:11:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BillQuote
Originally posted by: DrZoidberg
people have asked for a new 2d Yoshi for Gamecube right? RIGHT?
It's coming...
People were saying that over 2 years ago. I'm still waiting.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2004, 04:13:56 PM
Post by: Deguello on May 03, 2004, 05:02:35 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 03, 2004, 05:16:33 PM
Quote
An online poll about online games is usless. It's like polling the state of Georgia about the treatment of minorites, but restrciting the poll to people who are members of the Ku Klux Klan.
The funny thing is, GameFAQs has done quite a few polls about online gaming, and it's quite clear from the results of just about all of them that most people do NOT want to play games online. I posted links to a slew of them in a Talkback thread a while back. How ironic that even the online community isn't too interested in online gaming.
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 05:39:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
There isn't a single developer out there that doesn't support the Cube because of a lack of an online plan(this is an image thing), so null that point...And most gamers(non-ignorant ones, that is) don't quantify their purchase on whether the game is online or not, so null point number two...Add to that the most important fact that online gaming isn't profitable and you get a pretty strong argument against online gaming, at least for time being...
(Oh, and please stop pressing enter at the end of every few words! It makes your posts hard to read... >_<.)
Then why have I read on more than one occasion that (insert company) decided not to make a GC version because it lacked an online system in place, on videogame sites on the interweb?
And there is nothing a person can say when jimmy who owns a GC and a PS2 goes to the store and sees (one of the dozens of games) that is online for PS2 but not GC, that he is going to opt for the PS2 version (despite inferior graphics) because his parents just got (insert internet connection better than 56k).
Gamefaqs is a site where people who can't make it through a game without guidance every step of the way go to, therefor it's not surprising about the poll results in regards to online gaming. Everywhere else you look, people are talking about online gaming as the next step in videogames. And the important companies are gearing up for it, for example you got EA talking about the future of online gaming and how it may turn into something like on demand television, and then of course is the example of SquareEnix and the whole restructuring in place there with the emphasis on online gaming, add in the new employee they just hired whose job is to tell the company what needs to be done for the advent of online gaming.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 03, 2004, 05:44:01 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2004, 06:00:42 PM
I would like some specifics, because I haven't seen a single thing like this...
And there is nothing a person can say when jimmy who owns a GC and a PS2 goes to the store and sees (one of the dozens of games) that is online for PS2 but not GC, that he is going to opt for the PS2 version (despite inferior graphics) because his parents just got (insert internet connection better than 56k).
Until Jimmy's parents see they have to pay a monthly fee to keep playing a game that they already paid for...
Gamefaqs is a site where people who can't make it through a game without guidance every step of the way go to, therefor it's not surprising about the poll results in regards to online gaming. Everywhere else you look, people are talking about online gaming as the next step in videogames.
A trash site like Gamefaqs is where you'd expect to find more people whining for online gaming...It's not that there are more people wanting online than others, it's because those that want online gaming are bigger whiners...Do you think someone is going to start a thread entitled, "OMG ONLINE IS TEH SUXORS"? You see it once in a while, but it's rare...The minority that want online are just creating a bigger stink...
Post by: Perfect Cell on May 03, 2004, 06:16:59 PM
the new Godzilla Game, at least according to IGN
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 03, 2004, 06:17:37 PM
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 06:18:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
"Then why have I read on more than one occasion that (insert company) decided not to make a GC version because it lacked an online system in place, on videogame sites on the interweb?
I would like some specifics, because I haven't seen a single thing like this...
And there is nothing a person can say when jimmy who owns a GC and a PS2 goes to the store and sees (one of the dozens of games) that is online for PS2 but not GC, that he is going to opt for the PS2 version (despite inferior graphics) because his parents just got (insert internet connection better than 56k).
Until Jimmy's parents see they have to pay a monthly fee to keep playing a game that they already paid for...
Gamefaqs is a site where people who can't make it through a game without guidance every step of the way go to, therefor it's not surprising about the poll results in regards to online gaming. Everywhere else you look, people are talking about online gaming as the next step in videogames.
A trash site like Gamefaqs is where you'd expect to find more people whining for online gaming...It's not that there are more people wanting online than others, it's because those that want online gaming are bigger whiners...Do you think someone is going to start a thread entitled, "OMG ONLINE IS TEH SUXORS"? You see it once in a while, but it's rare...The minority that want online are just creating a bigger stink...
#1
As specific as you can get: See Godzilla at the bottom
#2
Most online games are FREE. Theres like 2-3 games for PS2 online out of the what 30+ games online that actually charge an additional fee.
#3
by your comments regarding Gamefaqs it's clear you equate online gamers as common visitors to "trash" sites. And those that want online are bigger whiners? What do you
expect when people who want online games are faced with people saying online games should not exist? Just because you don't like online games doesn't mean they shouldn't
be provided for those that do like them. It's really just another genre when you think about it. Go ahead and play the games that you do like, and let others play the games
they like, its democracy, not communism. Change is good.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 03, 2004, 06:27:24 PM
Also, just curious, but why do type in columns, joe? It's getting kind of irritating- if it's a technical, problem, though, that's fine.
Post by: Bloodworth on May 03, 2004, 06:34:30 PM
I for one want to play Splinter Cell multiplayer, and am planning on buying an Xbox to do it. Most people interested in the Pandora's Tomorrow want to at least try multiplayer, which unless some miracle happens, means that they aren't going to wait on the GC version.
That brings up another point: LAN play. Although I'm not terribly interested in online gaming, and especially don't feel like paying monthly fees, I really do like getting together for LAN parties. There's a much better chance of developers putting LAN modes into games that are designed for online. Expecting them to put the effort into making games with LAN modes without the potential of making a profit from online is silly. They'd rather axe the feature than try to weed out the bugs.
Post by: Kyosho on May 03, 2004, 06:49:17 PM
lol... that is very contradicting to business practice. The POINT of a business is to sell to the consumer's wants. *I* think Nintendo should offer online gaming because yes I want it. Four/Eight player LAN is not practical in my situation. How would Nintendo offering online hurt YOU or anyone else advocating against it? It doesn't take half of Nintendo's assets to set up online play. Examples: Kali, Warp, early conception of Battle.net, etc.
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 06:52:28 PM
I should restate what I said because it will illustrate my point better. The people who vote on the Gamefaqs polls are those that visit the site often, the people who visit the site often are those who need help every step of the way. People who have that much trouble playing games are less likely to appeal to online games because they don't have enough technical know how for them, and the competition online is a step up from what they're used to, therefor its not appealing. People who do not goto gamefaqs often are very unlikely to vote in the polls, they could care less, they want to get their games faq info they need and get right back to the game they were playing.
I already stated many facts that support my view, and others who have just peeked into this discussion have stated they agree with me. The sales of Sony's modems have actually been quite brisk, and they're increasing at very high rate. One shred of evidence for you is what I posted about Godzilla which you obviously didn't read? They're not the only developer who thinks that way. I'm not arguing that specifically Nintendo should go online. My main reason all along was for third party support. I am arguing that there should continue to be healthy online support in general and that online gaming should not be abandoned simply because some people don't like it.
I stopped typing in columns posts ago, I originally typed that way so I would never make it so other people would have to scroll the screen horizontally to see the posts. I also answered this question in the PM response to yours yesterday. If you don't like online games you have a choice of not playing them...
Post by: Rich on May 03, 2004, 07:29:05 PM
Post by: joeamis on May 03, 2004, 07:46:06 PM
Posted on Mon May 03, 2004 8:58 PM
it may not be profitable in terms of making money directly off it but when it comes down to it, it really is profitable in other ways.
1. it's profitable in the eyes of developers/publishers, they want to make online games so either you provide them with the system in place or you disregard their wishes and turn them away from your business.
2. alot of people play games online casually and religiously, alot of people want it and alot of people expect it. When you provide your customers with what they want, they support you more. When you say to your customers, well we can't rake in dough from providing you with what you want- they support you less and respect the company less which plays a big role in their future purchases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a diehard Nintendo fan but when Nintendo says we won't do it because we won't profit off it, it just makes me lose respect for Nintendo. And I would feel this way no matter what it was they say they can't profit off of. Nintendo was the first company to sell consoles at a loss so that they could get their name out and have recognition, they didn't use to just make decisions on what is profitable- they used to give the consumers what they want, what they could afford. To me online support is very much like selling consoles at a loss, it's not to make profit... it's to get their name out, get recognition, and provide the consumer with what they want and what they can afford.
p.s. - alot of Cube owners over on the IGN boards are very upset with GC not having any online support, and alot of them are saying they're probably gonna buy an xbox because of it.
Post by: MysticGohan24 on May 03, 2004, 08:26:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"it's a shame most of the complaints and suggestions people have are completely unfeasible and incredibly selfish."
No kidding. There's been some "I want more BLOOD in Nintendo games" requests and even suggestions to go back to cartridges! Plus some guys have talked about third party games as if Nintendo makes every game on the system. Though I assume these sorts of "uninformed" responses are common with any sort of attempt to get feedback. I imagine Nintendo is smart enough to disregard the opinions of people who clearly have NO CLUE what they're talking about. "I WUNT KNOW MOOR POKENOM!!11" Yeah I'm sure Nintendo's going to do that.
One thing I think Nintendo should try is holding focus groups specifically with people that don't own any Nintendo systems and own a PS2 or Xbox instead. If you're posting on Nintendo's web site odds are you're going to keep buying Nintendo consoles anyway. The complaints from non-owners might be useful particularly if they used to own a Nintendo console and switched.
I never wanted that
Nintendo has done well for me for sometime. All I want is more great RPG's like GS, ToS, Baten Kaitos. That would be great. Nintendo's image is getting better, they just need to perfect it. I like the new GBA commercials, now that's hitting it.
Let's hope they can be as cleaver with GC.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 03, 2004, 09:32:47 PM
Yes online gaming isn't profitable now but I think it's pretty likely it's going to be profitable (or at least at a break-even point) sometime in the future. So when should Nintendo go online? They can't just wait until it is profitable and then say "okay, here's our online plan" when Sony and MS have had working plans for YEARS and have a complete hold of the online gaming market. If you don't take a risk with something new then you'll always be playing catch-up.
Plus "it's not profitable" isn't a good reason for most gamers. That's an excuse for investors, not customers. Sony and MS have it so there's no reason in the eyes of a gamer why Nintendo shouldn't have it too. Nintendo is supposed to be an innovative, progressive, risk-taking, cutting edge developer. They're not supposed to be a conservative developer living in the past. I didn't become a Nintendo fan because they played it safe. I became a fan because they pushed the envelope and led the industry into the future. I became a fan of the developer that made Super Mario 64 and set the standard for 3D gaming.
Nintendo is like that kid in school who sucks at sports because of his allergies. As real as their excuse is you can't expect gamers to tolerate it. If all of the competition wasn't into it I'd cut them some slack but they have to match features or no one's going to give a sh!t.
Post by: Ocarina Blue on May 03, 2004, 11:03:11 PM
I was going to post my thoughts but found they had 'technical difficulties'.... whatever that means. Hopefully the massive response they've expierenced will tell them something.
Post by: UniversalJuan on May 04, 2004, 12:18:06 AM
Now would I like to see Nintendo online? Well sure, why the hell not? I mean the sheer thought of Mario Tennis online is enough to make me forget about the rest of my life and get used to just being found on Nintendo's servers and nowhere else but I digress. Am I, however, going to think Nintendo is nuts for not having an online plan? Hells no. Nintendo has played this little game before (See: multiple times) and have fallen on their faces. I can clearly be understanding of them wanting to tread lightly into it this time.
For those who like to think Nintendo going online will magically make like half their problems go away (Seriously, read some of your posts. A few of you sound like this I swear.) you're more or less going to be dead wrong. 3rd parties aren't shying away because of a lack of an online scheme, though I do give you that that is a factor some 3rd parties may consider, of note here's your random out of nowhere thought of the day though. If 3rd parties want to bend over backward to put all this online stuff in so much....why the heck do we get crappy ports which, I believe, would require less work than putting in online, a good and/or enhanced port I mean. There's something to ponder over.
Am I trying to come across as "Nintendo is almighty and can do no wrong!" Straight answer? Of course not! Am I, however, trying to come across as "Give Nintendo a freaking break they aren't perfect"? I would hope so. I'm willing to bet money when Nintendo can either turn a profit or take minimal losses on online gaming they'll jump in and the wait will eb so worth it everyone will smack themselves for bitching so much, on both sides of the table for that matter cause face it, us pro-Nintendo's decisioners bitch right back just as much as anti-Nintendo decisioners. And then of course both sides will move on to the next topic to bitch about on the place where we love to bitch, heck it's the forum's slogan
, and we all know what that is....should Mario grab a fireball thrower instead of a fire flower all roll around the Mushroom Kingdom randomly picking off people for no reason for the sake of getting some "gratification" from Peach (Note: The linked feature is quite the good read)
Edit: Edited link for Shifty's pleasure lol. Thanks for pointing that out.
Post by: Shift Key on May 04, 2004, 12:37:05 AM
? I clicked it and got the Microsoft website, which REALLY threw me! Post by: mouse_clicker on May 04, 2004, 04:08:16 AM
Quote
I think Nintendo does need to provide online tools to third parties whether or not they think it's profitable for them to take their own games online. The big players like EA and Ubisoft see online as the "next 3D", and whether or not you agree, if Nintendo doesn't provide some basic support, eventually these companies are going to see dropping sales and will reconsider bringing out versions for Nintendo systems.
I completely agree- even if Nintendo doesn't see the profit in online gaming right now, a lot of other developers do, and it sertainly wouldn't hurt if Nintendo encouraged them to support the Gamecube online.
Quote
I would say that Bill bashed Gamefaqs alot more than I may have and he's on your side of the argument.
I get the distinct impression that Bill was playing along with your comment. It doesn't really matter if he wasn't, though- you were downplaying people who go to GameFAQs because its polls don't support your case.
Quote
p.s. - alot of Cube owners over on the IGN boards are very upset with GC not having any online support, and alot of them are saying they're probably gonna buy an xbox because of it.
THat's exactly what I'm talking about, joe- the opinions of a few internet geeks over at IGN don't mean ANYTHING. It's the overall public, the huge majority of gamers who don't post on message boards, and right now they're saying they don't care about online gaming!
Quote
Yes online gaming isn't profitable now but I think it's pretty likely it's going to be profitable (or at least at a break-even point) sometime in the future.
No one is saying it won't be profitable in the future, it's just not profitable now- that much is obvious.
Quote
So when should Nintendo go online? They can't just wait until it is profitable and then say "okay, here's our online plan" when Sony and MS have had working plans for YEARS and have a complete hold of the online gaming market. If you don't take a risk with something new then you'll always be playing catch-up.
Nintendo would only have to play catch up if the online wave hits this generation, which we know it won't. Next generation user bases start over again at 0, as do online communities. A consumer judges the online potential of a console by looking at its selection of internet enabled games, which means Nintendo simply needs to work off the experience of Sony and MS (ie replicating their good ideas and avoiding their bad ones) and get a comparable amount of 3rd party support for their console. Developers aren't going to look at the online user base of LAST generation because that means nothing THIS generation.
Quote
Plus "it's not profitable" isn't a good reason for most gamers. That's an excuse for investors, not customers.
Let's look at the facts, Ian- just about all gamers have absolutely no clue what to do when it comes to running a business. Gamers don't need the reason because the vast majority of them don't care enough to want one anyway. Why should Nintendo go out of their way and drop millions of dollars into what is, at this point, a niche gaming market?
Quote
Sony and MS have it so there's no reason in the eyes of a gamer why Nintendo shouldn't have it too.
Except most people don't care about that- you seem to forget this little fact a lot, Ian.
Nintendo is supposed to be an innovative, progressive, risk-taking, cutting edge developer. They're not supposed to be a conservative developer living in the past.
There's difference between taking a risk and being stupid. Do you honestly think Nintendo has ignored online gaming completely? When they say it's not profitable, I'm inclined to believe they've done their homework more than a message board rat, and not just because they have droves of evidence to support them while you don't.
Quote
I didn't become a Nintendo fan because they played it safe. I became a fan because they pushed the envelope and led the industry into the future. I became a fan of the developer that made Super Mario 64 and set the standard for 3D gaming.
I became a Nintendo fan because I loved their games, and I still do. If you don't, I think your problems with Nintendo run much deeper than mere lack of online play or Nintendo's seeming ignorance to the future, or whatever crap you'd like to make up.
Quote
For those who like to think Nintendo going online will magically make like half their problems go away (Seriously, read some of your posts. A few of you sound like this I swear.) you're more or less going to be dead wrong.
Exactly. Very well said, Juan.
Post by: joeamis on May 04, 2004, 05:45:44 AM
QuoteNintendo is supposed to be an innovative, progressive, risk-taking, cutting edge developer. They're not supposed to be a conservative developer living in the past.
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
I think Nintendo does need to provide online tools to third parties whether or not they think it's profitable for them to take their own games online. The big players like EA and Ubisoft see online as the "next 3D", and whether or not you agree, if Nintendo doesn't provide some basic support, eventually these companies are going to see dropping sales and will reconsider bringing out versions for Nintendo systems.
I completely agree- even if Nintendo doesn't see the profit in online gaming right now, a lot of other developers do, and it sertainly wouldn't hurt if Nintendo encouraged them to support the Gamecube online.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You were all against this in all your previous posts, and now you change your mind to align yourself with Bloodworth's view? Note, they can't just encourage other developers to have more than 3 online games come out for their system, they have to either put a network in place like Microsoft or put some titles of their own online like Sony. No developer is going to take the risk of putting games online for the GC just because Nintendo encourages them to, especially since publishers are cancelling regular games for GC at an alarming rate. (Sega being the only exception, and when they realized ok were the only ones, they ported the game over to xbox live)Quote
I would say that Bill bashed Gamefaqs alot more than I may have and he's on your side of the argument.
I get the distinct impression that Bill was playing along with your comment. It doesn't really matter if he wasn't, though- you were downplaying people who go to GameFAQs because its polls don't support your case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I get the impression he wasn't becaues everything else he stated was against my argument)
I downplayed them for a legitimate reason... here's what I posted just before, which makes perfect logical sense, but you seem to blatantly ignore alot of what I post:
The people who vote on the Gamefaqs polls are those that visit the site often, the people who visit the site often are those who need help every step of the way. People who have that much trouble playing games are less likely to appeal to online games because they don't have enough technical know how for them, and the competition online is a step up from what they're used to, therefor its not appealing. People who do not goto gamefaqs often are very unlikely to vote in the polls, they could care less, they want to get their games faq info they need and get right back to the game they were playing.Quote
So when should Nintendo go online? They can't just wait until it is profitable and then say "okay, here's our online plan" when Sony and MS have had working plans for YEARS and have a complete hold of the online gaming market. If you don't take a risk with something new then you'll always be playing catch-up.
Developers aren't going to look at the online user base of LAST generation because that means nothing THIS generation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually it means alot, without prior experience in something you have no idea what the future will hold. If Nintendo didn't look back and see cartridges were a bad decision for the N64, they would still be using cartridges today.Quote
Plus "it's not profitable" isn't a good reason for most gamers. That's an excuse for investors, not customers.
Let's look at the facts, Ian- just about all gamers have absolutely no clue what to do when it comes to running a business. Gamers don't need the reason because the vast majority of them don't care enough to want one anyway. Why should Nintendo go out of their way and drop millions of dollars into what is, at this point, a niche gaming market?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
online games are the fastest growing part of the market.
There's difference between taking a risk and being stupid. Do you honestly think Nintendo has ignored online gaming completely? When they say it's not profitable, I'm inclined to believe they've done their homework more than a message board rat, and not just because they have droves of evidence to support them while you don't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
theres no use for insults, Ian's not a message board rat.
Post by: ghostVi on May 04, 2004, 07:38:23 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 04, 2004, 07:49:31 AM
Agreed. I've never said that Nintendo should go online with the Cube now. I've said they should have gone online with the Cube but it's too late now. Yes it's safe to say that online gaming isn't going to become standard this gen. But it could take off next gen so Nintendo should have an online plan for the N5. Now I hope they will but I get pretty worried every time I read an interview with a higher-up at NCL like Iwata. When NCL execs talk about online it's as if they NEVER plan to go online. They're always bashing it as if it's not worth looking into. I would feel more at ease if they said something a little more reassuring like saying outright "yes we're working on an online gaming service but we're likely going to wait until the next console to implement it." Instead we get all this anti-online propaganda.
"For those who like to think Nintendo going online will magically make like half their problems go away you're more or less going to be dead wrong."
I don't think it will solve all of Nintendo's problems. For the most part I want it because I want to play Nintendo games with guys on the forum. However I think it's part of a bigger problem. Lack of online support is another reason to not buy a Gamecube (or ARTNBAG) and that's been the fundamental issue with the Cube. Nintendo has given the public tons of excuses to not buy a Gamecube. A lot of it is minor stuff like not offering the option for third party component cables and not having a DVD player and having smaller memory cards but it all adds up and makes the Cube look unappealing and inferior. Online support is another feature that the PS2 and Xbox have and the Cube doesn't. Therefore someone somewhere is going to buy one of the other consoles over the Cube because of this issue. It's like if I went to buy a DVD player and there were three models of a similar price. One model didn't have progressive scan. I don't have a TV that can play progressive scan but if the prices were similar I would have bought one of the models that supported it just in case. Let's say a guy doesn't know anything about games and he's buying a console and asks the guy at EB to explain the differences between the three options. The clerk says that the Xbox has Xbox Live and that the PS2 has all of these online games like THUG and SOCOM and that the Cube has only two online titles that require a monthly fee. Even if this guy has no immediate plans of playing online odds are he's going to see that as a fault with the Cube and that's going to affect his decision. Missing features can easily make someone lose interest. I remember I was at EB and a guy immediately decided to not buy a Cube the second he found out it didn't have a DVD player because the other consoles could thus do more".
The N5 needs to have very few ARTNBAG's.
Post by: Kyosho on May 04, 2004, 08:40:36 AM
I'm sure you know how to run a business. Anyhow, they should definitely research more into the issue. The cartridge incident was the epitome of Nintendo's lack of anticipating the future appropriately.
"I became a Nintendo fan because I loved their games, and I still do. If you don't, I think your problems with Nintendo run much deeper than mere lack of online play or Nintendo's seeming ignorance to the future, or whatever crap you'd like to make up."
I wouldn't say it's all crap. Being how you're young, it's quite obvious your taste for games will differ from other people that have been through Ninty since its conception. I've played nintendo since early 80s, and it made me expect MORe from Nintendo. The SNES days were definitely one of the more captivating Nintendo periods for me personally. But it's obvious you would think otherwise. There are undeniably problems with Nintendo whether it be their philosophy or games... you already admitted that. SO what are you trying to say here? You seem to be changing opinions left and right and dont have a very consistent view on things.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 04, 2004, 09:06:27 AM
I've been a Nintendo addict since I was 3 years old (1989) and I don't...If anything, I would have expected the older gamers to be more tolerant of what Nintendo has been doing...
Post by: KDR_11k on May 04, 2004, 09:24:08 AM
"It is just a matter of time. When the people are ready for it, we have the Network in place."
- Hiroshi Yamauchi (on online gaming)
I think they knew online wouldn't reach critical mass this generation and played this whole anti-online stuff to reduce the damage caused by the lack of an online plan (which would still be less than the cost of a network, apparently). Sure we can argue about whether or not online is good but face it, it's a feature. It expands the possibilities of game design. Give Miyamoto online to play with and you might have the "killer app" everybody's waiting for.
Post by: Kyosho on May 04, 2004, 10:34:11 AM
Back to an earlier topic, having online is not going to solve all its problems. But it will lessen the impact of some problems. Having features definitely is a plus whether or not there is a loss of profit involved initially.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 04, 2004, 11:17:50 AM
Quote
theres no use for insults, Ian's not a message board rat.
It's not name calling- I use the term the same way I would mallrat, meaning someone who spends a lot of time on a message board. We ALL fit into the category, myself more than anyone else here.
Quote
Yes it's safe to say that online gaming isn't going to become standard this gen. But it could take off next gen so Nintendo should have an online plan for the N5.
I completely agree- I think Nintendo should definitely research how to make online gaming profitable and have a system set up to their liking (and to our liking) for next generation.
Quote
Now I hope they will but I get pretty worried every time I read an interview with a higher-up at NCL like Iwata. When NCL execs talk about online it's as if they NEVER plan to go online. They're always bashing it as if it's not worth looking into. I would feel more at ease if they said something a little more reassuring like saying outright "yes we're working on an online gaming service but we're likely going to wait until the next console to implement it." Instead we get all this anti-online propaganda.
I have a feeling you hearing what you want to hear rather than what's actually being said. I haven't heard any "ant-online propaganda" or bashing, as you put it- I've just heard that online gaming isn't profitable this generation and they don't feel they should pursue it right now, which is entirely acceptable. I haven't heard Nintendo rail on online gaming at all, in fact.
As for actually saying they're setting up an online system for next generation now, that's a bad idea plain and simple- you don't make promises like that years in advance, because people expect you to act upon them, and if you don't follow through exactly how they want you to people become dissapointed.
Quote
Being how you're young, it's quite obvious your taste for games will differ from other people that have been through Ninty since its conception. I've played nintendo since early 80s, and it made me expect MORe from Nintendo. The SNES days were definitely one of the more captivating Nintendo periods for me personally. But it's obvious you would think otherwise.
Oh god, I'm so tired of this age stuff. Just because I'm younger than you doesn't mean ANYTHING, and the fact that you're assuming it does shows you obviously aren't grasping what I'm trying to get across. Get back to me when you can see beyond age, Kyosho.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 04, 2004, 03:35:21 PM
I'm catching up to you, if not even...
Post by: Kyosho on May 04, 2004, 03:40:40 PM
As per the age, by no means do I not listen/respect your opinion. I am just saying that there will be obvious differences in opinions regarding certain issues and those tend to be *scratch out "age"* experience related.
Joeamis: "You were all against this in all your previous posts, and now you change your mind to align yourself with Bloodworth's view? "
Post by: foolish03 on May 04, 2004, 03:49:27 PM
Post by: Smadte on May 04, 2004, 04:14:14 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 04, 2004, 04:37:40 PM
Quote
Joeamis: "You were all against this in all your previous posts, and now you change your mind to align yourself with Bloodworth's view? "
Ugh, THIS is why I get into so many fights with people on this board, because you guys DON'T read my posts all the way through, and even if you do you obviously don't understand them. Not once did I EVER say online gaming is bad, or would never be profitable. ALL I'm saying is that it's not profitable RIGHT NOW and hence Nintendo has no reason to pursue it at all RIGHT NOW. I apologize I didn't make that painfully clear in all of my other posts, I kind of assumed you would have understood it. I have not changed my opinion on the subject at all- it's been the same for months now, and, you'll actually see me agreeing with Bloodworth in several other threads on the same issue. In fact, you can find me quoted in one such thread from quite a while back as saying "Online gaming is the wave of the future, but that wave is in the middle of the ocean right now, not crashing on shore as many people believe." You guys are criticizing Nintendo for ignoring online gaming this generation, and say they won't support it next generation, when you have absolutely no proof to support either.
As for age, drop it, Kyosho- up until a couple years ago I listened exclusively to classical music, far from the norm for my age. You quite simply can't make an accurate judgement about someone based on how old they are, you can only assume, which will often leave you in a very sticky situation, as it is now. You can't claim to know my tastes in gaming with the knowledge of my birthdate alone, you can only guess, and that's obviously proven to be untrustworthy. Here's a tip for the future- judge a person's stance on something by what they say and do, not how old they are. You shouldn't have even considered my age when entering this debate.
Quote
I'm catching up to you, if not even...
You might have already passed me, but I doubt it.
Post by: The Omen on May 04, 2004, 05:23:04 PM
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p.s. - alot of Cube owners over on the IGN boards are very upset with GC not having any online support, and alot of them are saying they're probably gonna buy an xbox because of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THat's exactly what I'm talking about, joe- the opinions of a few internet geeks over at IGN don't mean ANYTHING. It's the overall public, the huge majority of gamers who don't post on message boards, and right now they're saying they don't care about online gaming!
The overall public, the majority of gamers, increasingly don't care about Nintendo.
If you polled every gamer, and gave them the choice of having an Online option, I'd have to say they would vote that way convincingly. The problem is, the question always comes out "Do you want your games online?". A slight difference in wording.
Post by: Mannypon on May 04, 2004, 05:43:29 PM
Post by: joeamis on May 04, 2004, 06:00:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
Joeamis: "You were all against this in all your previous posts, and now you change your mind to align yourself with Bloodworth's view? "
Ugh, THIS is why I get into so many fights with people on this board, because you guys DON'T read my posts all the way through, and even if you do you obviously don't understand them. Not once did I EVER say online gaming is bad, or would never be profitable. ALL I'm saying is that it's not profitable RIGHT NOW and hence Nintendo has no reason to pursue it at all RIGHT NOW. I apologize I didn't make that painfully clear in all of my other posts, I kind of assumed you would have understood it. I have not changed my opinion on the subject at all- it's been the same for months now, and, you'll actually see me agreeing with Bloodworth in several other threads on the same issue. In fact, you can find me quoted in one such thread from quite a while back as saying "Online gaming is the wave of the future, but that wave is in the middle of the ocean right now, not crashing on shore as many people believe." You guys are criticizing Nintendo for ignoring online gaming this generation, and say they won't support it next generation, when you have absolutely no proof to support either.
You said Nintendo should not make online games right now nor make any network system in place right now. But then you said, "I completely agree- even if Nintendo doesn't see the profit in online gaming right now, a lot of other developers do, and it sertainly wouldn't hurt if Nintendo encouraged them to support the Gamecube online."
The only way to encourage developers to make online GC games, is to have a reliable network in place and/or release online games themselves. Simply saying we'd like to see this online or if you make an online game we will pay you money, is not going to work. Even if someone did it because Nintendo threw them some dough, overall their loses will be greater.
who ever said they won't support it next generation?
Post by: Rich on May 04, 2004, 06:23:58 PM
Post by: Perfect Cell on May 04, 2004, 06:25:31 PM
Its cool though that Nintendo is at least trying to listen to its fans, that itself is something ive been harking for a long while.
Personally Nintendo needs to change too many things to get the ship in the right direction, so i wont post them here. Id do belive Online gaming has a legitimate future. It lacks the Killer App (Might change with Halo 2) I also belive Nintendos games while excelent lack that certain thing that made their Super NES counterparts special. Something that even Nintendo has admitted. Anyways Im happy this is certainly good news.
"also, alot of heads will say they want online but how many of them would actually support the feature? Alot of people are flaky like that, they just want things cuase its somethin else to consume. "
Alot of people are supporting Online now. You just have to look at Nintendos competitors. look at how popular Socom is
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 04, 2004, 06:58:02 PM
Quote
The only way to encourage developers to make online GC games, is to have a reliable network in place and/or release online games themselves. Simply saying we'd like to see this online or if you make an online game we will pay you money, is not going to work. Even if someone did it because Nintendo threw them some dough, overall their loses will be greater.
So you took what I said, brought it a few steps forward, and then claimed I said it? I said Nintendo should encourage OTHER developers to set up their own online networks, like Sega is doing now. I never said Nintendo had to go that route by making their own online network, you just assumed that's what I meant, Please, joe, don't assume you know where I'm going. My posts may contain seemingly insignificant yet crucial components, but I always say what I mean.
Quote
who ever said they won't support it next generation?
Ian in particular has said he gets the strong impression, or is at least very worried, that Nintendo won't go online even next generation.
Rich: I'm not saying age doesn't play a role in tastes, I'm just saying you can never claim to know exactly what role it plays and how that role is played out. Everyone is different, so you can't look at something as vague as someone's age and pretend to know what their tastes are in things. Therefor even considering someone's age in this situation is pointless because whatever conclusion you'll rich is only assumed and is most likely entirely false. It's pointless to bring it up at all because the possibilities are too vast to make any difference at all.
Quote
The overall public, the majority of gamers, increasingly don't care about Nintendo.
If you polled every gamer, and gave them the choice of having an Online option, I'd have to say they would vote that way convincingly. The problem is, the question always comes out "Do you want your games online?". A slight difference in wording.
Let's not debate semantics, Omen- debates only go downhill when you start. Sure, the public may like the option of an online feature, but that doesn't mean squat if they won't actually play their games online, and it's obvious that most of the public won't play their games online. Playing around with word order is something you use to justify an action that's already taken place, not trying to figure out if you should carry through with it at all.
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 04, 2004, 07:01:42 PM
Which type of online is the most popular now? PC online.
I could be wrong, but that doesn't seem to be too hard to implement. All Nintendo would have to do is release BBA's and the players could host P2P gaming networks, like Warp Pipe. All that has to happen is developers should include support for that type of network in their games, but they're not because it's a waste of time, since not enough console gamers care about online for the addition of online to have any measurable effect on sales.
Why are you blaming Nintendo? Go ahead and blame all the lazy devs who aren't taking advantage of the BBA. Or blame the lack of any large market for online console gaming. Or blame Microsoft for trying to make money from online, thus ensuring the stagnation of the console online market and its inherent inferiority to PC online.
Post by: Mannypon on May 04, 2004, 07:38:26 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 04, 2004, 07:58:57 PM
I wonder what percentage of Cube owners own an e-Reader or make use of the GBA-GC connection. I don't know what those percentages are but it wouldn't surprise me if they're comparibly small as well. Online gaming is an extra feature so what percentage of the userbase has to make use of it to be worthwhile? I don't know I'm just curious.
Post by: OG_OriginalGamer on May 04, 2004, 09:12:49 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 04, 2004, 09:29:38 PM
All developers have to do to add online to their titles is buy the SDK and incorporate it, right? They don't even need servers, since it's p2p.
Microsoft hosting servers is a ripoff, but it's necessary just because people don't even care enough about console online for there to be enough player servers at any given time.
Console online as it is right now is an overpriced hot air balloon of hype.
If I were Nintendo I'd wait till interest in online console games built up and keep the basic infrastructure in place, like they're doing now.
When online games are popular enough that incorporating online isn't a waste of time, I'd make some p2p games.
The whole "but Microsoft and Sony will have a stranglehold on online" thing is bull. That's the thing about p2p, there's no "market" as such since it's all basically free to consumers. All Nintendo or any developer for that matter has to do is add network code to their games or use an SDK.
Post by: The Omen on May 05, 2004, 03:16:41 AM
Quote
Let's not debate semantics, Omen- debates only go downhill when you start. Sure, the public may like the option of an online feature, but that doesn't mean squat if they won't actually play their games online, and it's obvious that most of the public won't play their games online. Playing around with word order is something you use to justify an action that's already taken place, not trying to figure out if you should carry through with it at all.
I don't care if the majority of gamers won't use it. I only care that Nintendo has the same options as the other consoles. Thats what Nintendo should care about as well. Would it kill them to have Animal Crossing online? No matter how many people say they wouldn't, they would in fact go online with AC if they had the option. What about Mario Kart and Mario Golf? I'd be happy if they were the only three games Nintendo put online. Wouldn't that be 'testing the waters'? Which is exactly what they should be doing, instead of waiting for Sony and MS to prove online has merit. It wouldn't cost them a ton of money, and at least they would have their foot in the door, as opposed to jumping in late if it does catch fire.
Post by: theRPGFreak on May 05, 2004, 09:28:46 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 05, 2004, 11:23:41 AM
Quote
Which is exactly what they should be doing, instead of waiting for Sony and MS to prove online has merit. It wouldn't cost them a ton of money, and at least they would have their foot in the door, as opposed to jumping in late if it does catch fire.
First off, as I've said many times before, I'm going to take Nintendo's word over yours, so if THEY say online gaming isn't profitable right now, I'm going to believe them, NOT you. Why you even bother with such statements as "it wouldn't cost them a ton of money" is beyond me. On top of that, you'd rather Nintendo waste money this generation working out all the kinks in online gaming when MS and Sony are doing that already- why does Nintendo have to follow the same path? Wouldn't it be much smarter to let MS and Sony drop millions of dollars into making online gaming profitable, then picking up the feature when it IS profitable without having wasted all that money yourself? It would be redundant for Nintendo to extensively pursue online gaming now for "research" purposes, so that point is moot. As for "having their foot in the door", read what I said earlier about user bases, both on and offline, resetting next generation- Nintendo would get their foot in the door only to have it not matter a couple years down the line. Why not jsut wait those couple years to get into online gaming period?
Post by: odifiend on May 05, 2004, 12:39:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
Which is exactly what they should be doing, instead of waiting for Sony and MS to prove online has merit. It wouldn't cost them a ton of money, and at least they would have their foot in the door, as opposed to jumping in late if it does catch fire.
First off, as I've said many times before, I'm going to take Nintendo's word over yours, so if THEY say online gaming isn't profitable right now, I'm going to believe them, NOT you. Why you even bother with such statements as "it wouldn't cost them a ton of money" is beyond me.
Many here would be content with LAN. Helping to fund Warp Pipe or implementing a similar system wouldn't cost droves because fanboys, who i know probably didn't even have thousands of dollars behind them, started it.
Post by: Kyosho on May 05, 2004, 01:17:45 PM
You're roughly near the same age as my brother. So you can spout as much dirt as you want on the issue, but I have a 8 year difference on you. It's obvious my opinions will differ from yours and due to experience why certain assumptions are made.
"Wouldn't it be much smarter to let MS and Sony drop millions of dollars into making online gaming profitable, then picking up the feature when it IS profitable without having wasted all that money yourself?"
You see.. this is the epitome of a lack of understanding of technology today. Do you think it's EASY to just jump into something like online gaming the day it gets popular? They need to spend the time to RESEARCH the target audience, the technology, and maximal efficiency before they can jump the gun just because the market desires it. Look at all these MMORPGs coming out. How many of them are actually GOOD or near flawless the first time around? Same goes with online services. I'm not saying they should do it *NOW* at this time since it's probably too late, but they should LOOK into it or at least do some adequate research before making such stubborn and naive statements about next generation.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 05, 2004, 01:39:28 PM
Quote
You're roughly near the same age as my brother. So you can spout as much dirt as you want on the issue, but I have a 8 year difference on you. It's obvious my opinions will differ from yours and due to experience why certain assumptions are made.
You're still not understanding me- YES, age makes a difference. NO, you cannot tell exactly WHAT that difference is. I don't care if you have a 40 year advantage on me, you cannot claim to know what my tastes are, and it's extremely pretentious of you to even suggest that. DROP the age issue, Kyosho- you've hit a dead end and now you're trying to weasle your way out of it.
Aside from that, you do raise some good points about research and whatnot, and I do agree that a policy of complete uninvolvement followed by complete involvement wouldn't work well. However, leaving the bulk of the research, not to mention the spending, to MS and Sony in regards to finding the best infrastructure to setup, as well as payment plans and of the sort, is a very good move on Nintendo's part in my opinion. I think if Nintendo studies closely what the successes and failures of MS and Sony's strategies are, then that would work best for them, rather than jumping in all at once, or, as you've shown, not jumping in until the last second.
Post by: Kyosho on May 05, 2004, 02:42:07 PM
"However, leaving the bulk of the research, not to mention the spending, to MS and Sony in regards to finding the best infrastructure to setup, as well as payment plans and of the sort, is a very good move on Nintendo's part in my opinion."
Who is to say that MS or Sony will show Nintendo their internal infrastructure? There's more things that go on in the background that what is publicly visible to consumers. In theory it may work, but theory and application are almost 2 separate entities.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 05, 2004, 04:00:35 PM
Post by: joeamis on May 05, 2004, 04:56:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
The only way to encourage developers to make online GC games, is to have a reliable network in place and/or release online games themselves. Simply saying we'd like to see this online or if you make an online game we will pay you money, is not going to work. Even if someone did it because Nintendo threw them some dough, overall their loses will be greater.
So you took what I said, brought it a few steps forward, and then claimed I said it? I said Nintendo should encourage OTHER developers to set up their own online networks, like Sega is doing now. I never said Nintendo had to go that route by making their own online network, you just assumed that's what I meant, Please, joe, don't assume you know where I'm going. My posts may contain seemingly insignificant yet crucial components, but I always say what I mean.
From the outset you have been anti-online. When I heard you say Nintendo should encourage other developers it came a bit as a shock coming from you. Whatever the case, the only way to encourage other developers to create online titles on your hardware is to make it viable. For it be viable you either need to create the network like XB Live or create your own online titles like Sony so a userbase is maintained. I did not assume that's what you meant, but that's the only viable way to encourage other developers to create online titles for your hardware, which is a different case than Segas who do not have to encourage developers for a hardware device. So if that's the way encouraging has to be done, that's what it equals. It didn't come from your mouth but that's what it amounts to.
What really made me say you suddenly changed your view, was your whole view towards online gaming in general that Nintendo should not have GC go online and then saying they should encourage developers to make online titles for GC. What I got from that is it's not in Nintendo's interest to have GC go online but it is in their interest to have GC go online, just not them. That would result in a makeshift online plan, and result in bad support towards their 3rd parties, (you take the risk and we won't help you achieve your goals by not contributing and leaving you developers with a smaller online userbase because we won't take the risk that we expect you to).
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 05, 2004, 05:27:13 PM
Quote
I never said i can tell exactly what the difference is. I already said it a thousand times that due to age opinions will differ, but I never said WHAT differs. I also never CLAIMED to know your tastes either. If anything, any information that has caused you to make such miscontrued intuition is gathered from actually reading and analyzing your posts.
If you readily admit you can reach absolutely no conclusion from knowing my age, why did you bring it up at all? Knowing that my age makes some difference offers nothing to the debate, period.
Quote
What really made me say you suddenly changed your view, was your whole view towards online gaming in general that Nintendo should not have GC go online and then saying they should encourage developers to make online titles for GC. What I got from that is it's not in Nintendo's interest to have GC go online but it is in their interest to have GC go online, just not them. That would result in a makeshift online plan, and result in bad support towards their 3rd parties, (you take the risk and we won't help you achieve your goals by not contributing and leaving you developers with a smaller online userbase because we won't take the risk that we expect you to).
Not at all. What I meant by that was simply Nintendo should encourage 3rd parties to set up their own plans if they would like to, and to overall not discourage them from setting up online plans. Nintendo doesn't have to support online gaming itself. Obviously our ideas differ on how this encouragement can and should be implemented, but that's a fundamental difference of opinions.
Quote
Who is to say that MS or Sony will show Nintendo their internal infrastructure? There's more things that go on in the background that what is publicly visible to consumers. In theory it may work, but theory and application are almost 2 separate entities.
I never said MS or Sony would show Nintendo their internal infrastructures, just that Nintendo should observe what they're doing. While the details are obviously closely guarded, the basic idea of MS and Sony's online plans are quite obvious, and Nintendo should note which strategies fail and which succeed.
Quote
If anything, any information that has caused you to make such miscontrued intuition is gathered from actually reading and analyzing your posts.
If my intuition is misconstrued, why have I been right about it so far? Online gaming isn't profitable right now, there isn't ample user support for it, and most gamers don't care about online gaming. If my conclusion that Nintendo shouldn't waste money on an online plan right now is misconstrued, I fail to see what's right.
Post by: Rich on May 05, 2004, 06:05:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kyosho[/i"I became a Nintendo fan because I loved their games, and I still do. If you don't, I think your problems with Nintendo run much deeper than mere lack of online play or Nintendo's seeming ignorance to the future, or whatever crap you'd like to make up."
I wouldn't say it's all crap. Being how you're young, it's quite obvious your taste for games will differ from other people that have been through Ninty since its conception. I've played nintendo since early 80s, and it made me expect MORe from Nintendo. The SNES days were definitely one of the more captivating Nintendo periods for me personally. But it's obvious you would think otherwise. There are undeniably problems with Nintendo whether it be their philosophy or games... you already admitted that. SO what are you trying to say here? You seem to be changing opinions left and right and dont have a very consistent view on things.
Mouse thats all he said, he never said he could make a conclusion on the games you like based on your age in the first place. Maybe its you whos reading a little to quick cause you seemed to have misunderstood something about what he said, you've been making a big deal about something that isn't and its getting annoying.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 05, 2004, 06:22:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kyosho "I became a Nintendo fan because I loved their games, and I still do. If you don't, I think your problems with Nintendo run much deeper than mere lack of online play or Nintendo's seeming ignorance to the future, or whatever crap you'd like to make up."
I wouldn't say it's all crap. Being how you're young, it's quite obvious your taste for games will differ from other people that have been through Ninty since its conception. I've played nintendo since early 80s, and it made me expect MORe from Nintendo. The SNES days were definitely one of the more captivating Nintendo periods for me personally. But it's obvious you would think otherwise. There are undeniably problems with Nintendo whether it be their philosophy or games... you already admitted that. SO what are you trying to say here? You seem to be changing opinions left and right and dont have a very consistent view on things.
Maybe I'm still assuming, but that implies to ME that he's saying I would expect less out of Nintendo because I'm younger. Even if I'm wrong, simply pointing out the fact that I think differently because I'm not the same age is pointless and offers nothing to the debate- it's like saying I have two eyes because I'm a human.
On another note, here's something I appear to have missed from that post:
Quote
You seem to be changing opinions left and right and dont have a very consistent view on things.
I'm not changing my opinions "left and right", I just don't have the opinion you THINK (or rather expect) I do. I never take the polar opposite side of an issue, Kyosho, I just rarely have your opinion.
For those who are confused, here's my views on online gaming:--Online gaming is not profitable right now
--There is not ample user support for online gaming to justify Nintendo pursuing it
--The majority of gamers do not care about online gaming
--Nintendo is right not to have jumped into online gaming themselves as Sony and Microsoft have
--Nintendo is NOT right to have made the online capabilities of its console as obscure as they have
--Nintendo SHOULD encourage 3rd parties to set up their own online networks for the Gamecube
--Online gaming WILL be very popular and profitable in the future
--Nintendo most definitely SHOULD support online gaming when they have found a profitable and appealing way to do so
--Nintendo should study their competitors' failures and successes and learn from them in order to duplicate the good and avoid the bad
This has been my view on the subject since the beginning, most of you just haven't taken the time to notice as much.
Post by: the_zombie_luke on May 05, 2004, 07:10:23 PM
Post by: Rich on May 05, 2004, 07:18:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Maybe I'm still assuming, but that implies to ME that he's saying I would expect less out of Nintendo because I'm younger. Even if I'm wrong, simply pointing out the fact that I think differently because I'm not the same age is pointless and offers nothing to the debate- it's like saying I have two eyes because I'm a human.
What are you talking about, your analogy makes no sense, all humans have two eyes whether they keep them or not is a different story but all humans have 2 eyes. But what seperates us as humans are our experiences, and living in different time periods changes a lot of the experiences we have. Kyosho grew up earlier in time then you did Mouse, therefore he will have different experiences, and while you may be content with what Nintendo is giving us, Kyosho who lived in the greatness of the SNES, expects a little bit more. Its not to difficult to understand and though your right, age doesn't play a role in most debates it does in this. Kyosho wants to see Nintendo as he remebers them in 1993 or so when Nintendo was the king of this industry. You probably weren't as involved as he was and dont remember as much about the NES and SNES era.
Post by: Kyosho on May 05, 2004, 07:19:51 PM
I will make the above statement clearer for you to read:
It should read... I've played Nintendo since the early 80s. Because I've been a long term Nintendo player, I expect more from Nintendo. The SNES days were definitely one of the more captivating Nintendo periods for me personally. But it's obvious from your posts, that you would think Nintendo is almost fine the way it is right -now-.
It's not that we don't take the time to read your replies thoroughly, it's the fact that you just don't present them in a very clear and concise manner with consistency. I will remember your list of views for future reference. But if any time I read something and I see a discrepancy, I won't hesitate to point back to the above post for your reference.
Post by: Rich on May 05, 2004, 07:26:29 PM
And Mouse just to be clear. I totally respect and agree with your opinions. I am only 17 so your pretty much my peer. So don;t get the idea that just because im arguing against you doesn't mean i don't respect you.
Post by: Mario on May 05, 2004, 07:47:50 PM
Quote
First off, as I've said many times before, I'm going to take Nintendo's word over yours, so if THEY say online gaming isn't profitable right now, I'm going to believe them, NOT you.
That's Nintendos problem, not ours. The only money I would lose if Nintendo decide to go online is the money that i'm going to spend buying whatever it is i need to play a Nintendo online game on GCN.
Post by: Bloodworth on May 05, 2004, 10:10:02 PM
*BANG*
