Post by: WindyMan on July 05, 2004, 08:27:45 AM
Nintendo President Satoru Iwata recently met with the Japan Economic Foundation, explaining his view of the current state of the game industry in Japan. One of the major topics brought up during the talks was online gaming.
Nintendo has always been reluctant to make the jump into the field like Sony and Microsoft have, but Iwata insists that people don't want it yet. Iwata gave the rather odd example that Minna no (Hot Shots) Golf for the PS2 sold better with the offline original compared to its online sequel, claiming it's "proof that customers do not want online games."
Remember that this is Japan Iwata is referring to, and not online gaming here in North America. The majority of people in Japan access the internet through cell phones or internet cafes, because owning a home broadband connection is very expensive there. This is one of the big reasons why online console gaming has not taken off in Japan lke it has in the U.S.
With Nintendo's "Revolution" system set to be revealed at E3 next year, it will be interesting to see if Nintendo integrates some kind of online component into the hardware, like Sony and Microsoft are surely planning for their next systems.
For some more details on what Iwata had to say, as well as a comment on that Bandai buyout rumor, click here.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 05, 2004, 08:35:37 AM
But seriously, let's not get into the same argument here...
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on July 05, 2004, 08:49:19 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 05, 2004, 09:14:45 AM
Ah good point. And it also explains why Iwata is so off his rocker. Basing the decisions of a worldwide company on the market of one country which isn't even the most lucrative market is idiotic. Even if online gaming never takes off in Japan it's stupid to completely ignore it because in the US it WILL take off and the North American market is where the money is.
If Nintendo wants to focus on Japan that's okay I guess but they should stop stepping on NOA's dick and allow them to appeal to the American market. NOA shouldn't be held back by the market trends of another country. Let them develop an online gaming strategy for North America.
Post by: ravishingdrolvarg on July 05, 2004, 10:39:46 AM
Of course Nintendo has the DS which is seemingly made for online gaming, perhaps it's Nintendos way of testing the water?
Post by: darknight06 on July 05, 2004, 11:26:24 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on July 05, 2004, 11:30:17 AM
That's all I'm going to say on the subject. I hereby swear not to say anything else about online until Nintendo says something other than "people don't want it".
Post by: rholder on July 05, 2004, 02:40:12 PM
Quote
Minna no (Hot Shots) Golf for the PS2 sold better with the offline original compared to its online sequel, claiming it's "proof that customers do not want online games."
So let me get this straight...Nintendo says that since a version sold better than another that nobody wants the lesser selling version? While my thoughts might bring up an extreme example, the basic rule applies:
Lets say Pokemon Fire Red sells 100,000 units more than Leaf Green....That must be proof that customers do not want Leaf Green...
All I am saying here is that just because something sells less that another doesn't mean its not desired, but that it just isn't desired as much.
Quote
don't only 10% of the tiny(relativly speaking) x-box audience use xbox live? The majority obviouslly don't care about online other than for email and research.
Like it or not, the Xbox is as -- or more-- popular here in America than the cube, so I will ignore your tiny audience comment. While the figure is a relatively small (more than 10% though) number, all those users of Live did purchase the service as well as every game they play on it. As everyone knows that MSoft has lost money on the service as a whole, (a) some sources say its not as much as you'd like to believe and (b) they will be prepared to launch a solid money-making service come time for its new system.
/rant
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 05, 2004, 02:56:49 PM
No, that fewer people do...Which means that online games are not as profitable as non-online games...
Post by: theRPGFreak on July 05, 2004, 03:44:51 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 05, 2004, 04:27:10 PM
Post by: theRPGFreak on July 05, 2004, 05:22:47 PM
Post by: ravishingdrolvarg on July 05, 2004, 08:23:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: rholderQuote
Minna no (Hot Shots) Golf for the PS2 sold better with the offline original compared to its online sequel, claiming it's "proof that customers do not want online games."
So let me get this straight...Nintendo says that since a version sold better than another that nobody wants the lesser selling version? While my thoughts might bring up an extreme example, the basic rule applies:
Lets say Pokemon Fire Red sells 100,000 units more than Leaf Green....That must be proof that customers do not want Leaf Green...
All I am saying here is that just because something sells less that another doesn't mean its not desired, but that it just isn't desired as much.Quote
don't only 10% of the tiny(relativly speaking) x-box audience use xbox live? The majority obviouslly don't care about online other than for email and research.
Like it or not, the Xbox is as -- or more-- popular here in America than the cube, so I will ignore your tiny audience comment. While the figure is a relatively small (more than 10% though) number, all those users of Live did purchase the service as well as every game they play on it. As everyone knows that MSoft has lost money on the service as a whole, (a) some sources say its not as much as you'd like to believe and (b) they will be prepared to launch a solid money-making service come time for its new system.
/rant
The cube isn't the be all and end all of gaming for me, and yes the cube does have an even smaller audience, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the people with a xbox don't go online. It also doesn't change the fact that a large percent of such a tiny audience doesn't mean jack. It also doesn't change the fact that over a two year span Microsoft has bled over two billion dollars(of course Live wasn't totally responisble for the entire loss). Microsoft could lose that much every year for the conceivble future and still be profitble, Nintendo can't. Also MS has been flogging live forever it still hasn't reached the majority of gamers and with the ho hum online games they have it never will. It will take a major app which justmakes gamers just jump up and want to go online. I just don't see MS being able to ever get more than 15 or 20% on live, I mean it's just the poor mans pc. Nintendo proably hope to be more than just the poor man's pc when they go online.
Post by: Perfect Cell on July 05, 2004, 09:27:52 PM
Saying People dont want online because an online golf game sold less than the non online game is beyond silly....
I bet if Nintendo has a poll on Nintendo Power/Website the vas majority would want online...
Post by: Caillan on July 05, 2004, 10:10:02 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 05, 2004, 10:20:34 PM
Quote
I bet if Nintendo has a poll on Nintendo Power/Website the vas majority would want online...
GameFAQs has polls about online gaming all the time, and without fail they have shown most people don't care about it. I had links to a bunch of the polls in another thread. Regardless, what you "bet" is no more a basis of evidence to support your case than you claim the poor sales of a golf game are to Iwata's statement.
Post by: Jensen on July 05, 2004, 10:30:28 PM
Online console gaming is mostly impersonal right now, which can take out a lot of the novelty factor of it. It also leads to things like disconnects and cheating. The only good reason I see to play online is for games that aren't playable offline.
In the PC world, people can have more interaction... They all have keyboards. There are forums and channels were people can meet outside of a game.
Post by: UniversalJuan on July 05, 2004, 10:44:40 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 05, 2004, 11:14:39 PM
Post by: Nephilim on July 06, 2004, 12:57:39 AM
Quote
GameFAQs has polls about online gaming all the time, and without fail they have shown most people don't care about it.
wow ppl on gamefaqs dont support online gaming, they also dont support finishing a game using your own iq
In reality Online gaming does work, all you need in big games and lots of advertising(this is why xbox live is still alive and well, and ps2 online is dead)
I really dont care if people dont wanna play online games in japan, if they wanna be backwoulds then fine....they can go hang out in those arcade photo booths instead
but really I want a game which will last me more then 10hours, and playing multiplayer is a good way of this, either with a mate or with a stranger online
Post by: quobobo on July 06, 2004, 02:08:58 AM
No offense, but I'm living in Japan and this statement is, well... totally wrong? Yes, people mostly use their cell phones for email and internet here, but ADSL is anything but expensive. For about the same price as it is in North America, you get absolutely huge speeds; anywhere from 8mbit downstream to 45mbit downstream (with YahooBB, at least). It's definitely not much more expensive, and it's much, much faster. I really don't know where you're pulling the 'expensive' bit from. If you don't believe me, take a look at Yahoo BB's prices.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 06, 2004, 03:26:08 AM
If you want online, get an online system. You won't even make a dent into their sales figures. The rest who doesn't give a damn about online will still not care. Goddamnit, that's the whole idea behind capitalism: If people want a product they'll buy it, if they don't want it they won't buy it. Currently the majority of owners for any system don't buy online. The little difference it makes isn't worth the R&D and maintenance costs as Microsoft's figures show. Sure, the Box sold more than the Cube, but is the difference really the online gaming or rather the whole "We have the most powerful and mature system" hype?
Besides, if MS needs free market reseach on why !eviL hasn't taken off in Europe: People in Europe don't have credit cards, they're only good for american services that weren't properly adjusted to the european market. We use EC cards and transmissions via bank here.
Post by: odifiend on July 06, 2004, 06:30:46 AM
Also Sequel can be naturally worse than their original *coughthe adventures of linkcough*There are way too many variables in the performance of a game to use one example.
Also I'm pretty damn sure EA's lineup hasn't faltered due to their online modes.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 06, 2004, 07:44:03 AM
Same here in Canada but we also have credit cards. Best of both worlds.
I think my biggest problem with Nintendo's online stance is that it doesn't fit within my view of Nintendo. Like many fans I've always viewed Nintendo as a hardcore gamer's company. They're very progressive and are always pushing the envelope. So when a new way to play console games in introduced I would assume Nintendo would jump on it, create an amazingly original title, and influence online console gaming like they influenced 2D and 3D console gaming. But instead they're being very conservative and have seemingly no desire to move forward. That's NOT the Nintendo I became a fan off. I'm not interested in some old fuddy duddy company clinging to the past. I want an innovative company that leads the industry through example regardless of their position in the market.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 06, 2004, 08:30:29 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 06, 2004, 09:08:37 AM
Good thing you don't design games. I've thought of interesting ideas for online titles so Nintendo should be able to. Afterall not everything Nintendo has done has been innovative. Four player games existed for years before the N64 yet I'm still glad they started putting four controller slots on their systems. The idea technically wasn't new or innovative at all but it was a good idea and has a great addition to Nintendo's games. Online gaming technically isn't new either but adding it to Nintendo's games would be great.
Plus not everything Nintendo does has to be their own idea. Using optical discs for games certainly wasn't their idea but it was pretty smart for them to switch to that format with the Cube. They didn't invent memory cards either but they went with them because it was a good idea.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 06, 2004, 09:09:43 AM
Oh really? I'd like to hear them...
And if I ever worked on game design, online games wouldn't be something I'd work on...Why work in a game area you don't like? :\
Post by: Ian Sane on July 06, 2004, 09:26:01 AM
I wouldn't really work on online only titles but any multiplayer would be online enabled.
Anyhoo I don't want to give the specifics of my idea but in general it's a full 3D take on a weapons fighting game that plays a lot like the battles in Ocarina of Time. There's a movable camera and you can z-target to fight multiple opponents at once. In multiplayer it would work best if each player had their own screen so online or LAN (but really why limit it to just that) is the way to go. I would put split screen in it anyway to be user friendly but it would be designed with individual screens in mind.
So I guess it's not a super innovative idea but it's one that would be greatly limited if made for the Cube which is too bad because I thought of the controls with the Cube controller in mind. The limitation is the real problem. How can one innovate if they're enforcing limitations on themselves?
Post by: Kairon on July 06, 2004, 10:17:18 AM
Iwata's statements, when taken in context, prove one thing: Nintendo looks at the state of online games today, and realizes that fundamentally all Online games are is player-matching and persistent content. Even your ideas on how to innovate in the online field amounts to simple player-matching a Fighting game: bring Soul Caliber online and make it more than 2 player! Yay!
True online innovation has to use the medium beyond letting people play preset genres together from different screens. It has to use the connectivity inherent in the internet to craft new relationships that players have with their games, and with their opponents. And it has to use the internet to not say "there's another person, play with him!" but to say "there's another person, what is your relationship to them?"
All you want to do is use the internet to make people fight each other in glorious polygons. Until the internet can somehow amount to more than long-distance multiplayer, I highly doubt that Nintendo will bite.
Oh, and for the record, Nintendo has been experimenting with the idea of a network for their consoles since the Famicom. It's sort of sad that today's biggest examples of online gamplay, MMORPGs, are simply prettied-up MUDs. And if online gaming hasn't progressed further than that since the Famicom, I doubt Nintendo has much reason to be optomistic that if it merely intends to copy what's already been done.
Nintendo believes in connectivity, Nintendo believes in people playing together. Pokemon created a "trading and collecting" mindset among players. Animal Crossing lets players share their landscaping, interior design creativity, and interpersonal relationships (such as when you visit someone else's town and a villager shows you a letter that the town's resident wrote them: gossip, invasion of privacy, voyeurism). Even the poorly implemented GBA connectivity feature in WW showed innovative drive: the GBA player was imagined as the role of the parent, helping and guiding their child through the game (much the way I would draw maps of the first Zelda's Dungeons to help my Mom beat the game, after which she'd teach me how to play). But they don't believe in connectivity with little purpose, which is what most online games today amount to. They don't believe in merely throwing two people in a room together and expecting them to race, fight, or chat. They believe in giving those people a framework so that they can communicate meaningfully.
Nintendo doesn't believe in Online in it's current form, because Nintendo wants Online to mean something more.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 06, 2004, 11:15:07 AM
Quote
wow ppl on gamefaqs dont support online gaming, they also dont support finishing a game using your own iq
And you can't be bothered to capitalize your letters, use punctuation, or even spell words out all the way- what's your point? Does bashing people who use GameFAQs make you feel better about yourself? Because if so, you've got some self esteem problems, man.
Post by: SgtShiversBen on July 06, 2004, 11:20:46 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 06, 2004, 11:39:25 AM
BS. Pokemon trading exists so they can sell twice as many copies of the same game and to get kids to convince their friends to get Gameboys and copies of the game. Animal Crossing, while a decent title, is very much an ad for accessories like the GBA link cable and the e-Reader. Nintendo likes connectivity because it requires people to buy a bunch of their proprietary hardware. It sells GBAs to Cube owners and vice versa. It also sounds pretty silly for Nintendo to always be talking about how online isn't popular and then shill connectivity as an alternative when it is significantly less popular than online gaming and has been pretty much a complete bomb. At least they seem to have stopped pushing it as hard as it wasn't focused on at E3.
Personally I think Iwata should just shut up about the whole topic until they actually have their own solution. All this "online is evil" crap just sounds like a company trying to cover up their own mistake and it just causes people to focus on the fact that Sony and MS have a feature that Nintendo doesn't.
Post by: Syl on July 06, 2004, 11:53:27 AM
The line that scared me the most was when nintendo said it might buy out or merge with Bandai. O_o;
Nintendo owning bandai, damn, that would be interesting. Because that would turn every bit of bandai's licensed products into nintendo exclusives, along with a higher chance of nintendo related anime coming out, among other unnecessary toys.
very interesting.
Post by: Kairon on July 06, 2004, 12:21:32 PM
"Nintendo likes connectivity because it requires people to buy a bunch of their proprietary hardware. It sells GBAs to Cube owners and vice versa."
This is very close-minded and exceedingly cynical, especially when you said that:
"The limitation is the real problem. How can one innovate if they're enforcing limitations on themselves?"
Don't write off owning two independent pieces of hardware as bad. You're limiting yourself immensely to the possibilities of intersecting mobile and console gaming. How can you innovate that way?
And besides, let's remember that add-ons simply don't work. Droves of people aren't going to buy a $99 piece of hardware just to play this "connectivity game." Looking at the connectivity angle as a scheme to get GBA owners to own GCs and vice cersa is ridiculous. Nintendo isn't inspiring new consumer behavior as much as it is exploring new channels of gamer's relationships to games, and making use of the already present number of gamers who own both a GC and a GBA (thanks to the GBA's current monopoly).
Perhaps Satoru Iwata is hitting the nail on the head a bit hard. Perhaps he's fighting a rear-guard action to save face. Perhaps it'd be folly to ever believe corporate speak at face value. But no matter the distortions you or others may throw at him, he's essentially right. Nintendo isn't in a position to merely copy player-matching and persistent online content, and they can't condone the online arena until they can use it to, yes make money, but even more: until they can use it to make a real original and groundbreaking Nintendo game, instead of merely a Mario Kart DD: Online Edition or SSBM: Online Edition that'll be nice, but ultimately meaningless and futile against juggernauts Sony and Microsoft.
Nintendo is eager to explore new modes of gameplay and new ways to alter the relationship between player's and games. And Miyamoto's willing to take his time to fully realize his vision, or to go against the grain, or to simply wait on the sidelines until he can figure out a way to do things (after all, they've been messing around with Mario 128 for HOW long?)
If you think the rewards aren't worth the wait, I'm at a loss as to how you can call yourself a Nintendo fan.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 06, 2004, 12:54:34 PM
I fail to see how having online Mario Kart and Smash Bros games would be futile against Sony and MS. Those games sell HUGE. Now having the same exact games but with online play? Yeah that wouldn't do well but why would they do that? Obviously the Cube isn't going online now. The Revolution however has to have online play and in that case Mario Kart and SSB Online would be major killer apps. Sure that's not really anything different than what Sony and MS would be having but those games would likely be better than anything Sony and MS have even if they're not that innovative. Innovating is important but so is matching the competition. People like the standard online multiplayer stuff and if Sony and MS have it and Nintendo doesn't that's a lost sale.
If Nintendo can't come up with a cool new way to play online until 2012 should they wait that long? Of course not. At the very least they should offer what the competition does. By doing so they effectively remove that feature from being a deciding factor in a console purchase. Predictable but fun games like Mario Kart Online won't make that much of a difference but they completely take away Xbox Live as any sort of advantage to owning an MS console. That right there makes it worth pursueing.
Post by: Kairon on July 06, 2004, 04:14:04 PM
Hyperbole, I know, but the fact is that Nintendo IS it's developers, it IS it's games. Without it's games and the people who make them, Nintendo is nothing. It isn't a wheeling and dealing business whose main form of survival is throwing money and numbers around. Nintendo is little more than a reputation built on the successes of people like Miyamoto who believe and protect and embody that Nintendo-style drive for videogame excellence and innovation.
Hiroshi Yamauchi may have done one thing right in his reign, and that was to believe in Miyamoto and to enable him to fill the role he now so ably embodies: a creator more than a developer. In this environment, Yamauchi at least gave Miyamoto something that you don't: respect. A respect for integrity, a respect for intelligence, and a respect that means that you trust them to give you only the best they have to offer.
As soon as we start thinking that the consumer dollar and market trends are more important than these developers ideas, visions, and integrity, then we destroy the very thing that has enabled Nintendo to accomplish so much and become so successful. As soon as we don't respect the talents of people like Miyamoto, who have consistently delivered, then we argue that market forces, popular perception, and petty greed are more important to us as videogamers than the next Zelda, Mario, or Metroid.
As soon as it's more important to us that Nintendo be the arbitrary leader in numbers like marketshare of an industry $11 Billion dollars large and with room for three consoles, rather than being the Nintendo represents visionary innovation and artistic excellence, then we kill Nintendo.
Why should Nintendo go online before they feel like they can do something new in the medium? Why should Nintendo force Miyamoto to make something he doesn't yet have a vision for? Why should Nintendo sacrifice it's respect for the independence and skill of it's developers and creators? Why should Nintendo, instead of sticking out, start playing catch-up and lap-dog to Sony and Microsoft by rehashing old and tired concepts?
Your answer is basically this: So Nintendo can sell more consoles, and so they can have another line to stick onto their PR spin sheet.
I'm sorry, but that's not the Nintendo I believe in.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: jasonditz on July 06, 2004, 07:22:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
So, in essence, let's forget everything that makes Nintendo who they are, and let's chain Miyamoto to his desk and FORCE him to turn out something he doesn't believe in. Let's sugjugate the artistic to the commercial, and the human to the machine. Let's turn Nintendo into Sony, or Microsoft.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Not only that, everyone is calling for them to adopt a model that just flat out doesn't work.
Microsoft is losing stupid amounts of money on their bellicose online scheme. What good is outselling the competition if you can't make money doing so?
You're right, Nintendo needs to keep its artistic vision rather than making the same cookie cutter games that people didn't enjoy the last 10 times they played them. That's not abandoning the commercial aspect though, thats the only way to save it.
Post by: Perfect Cell on July 06, 2004, 08:58:13 PM
Quote
Why should Nintendo go online before they feel like they can do something new in the medium
The Reason Nintendo avoids Online isnt because of not being able to inovate... its because of $$$.... Going Online ala Microsoft, would cost too much, and going online ala Sony would give too much control to third parties. Something Nintendo vividly hates.
Quote
You're right, Nintendo needs to keep its artistic vision rather than making the same cookie cutter games
Hogwash... Nintendo makes the same amount of cookie cutter games like its competitors... Other than Wario Ware (Which is starting to become milked) and Pikmin... what New IP has Nintendo created? Was Mario Kart Cube and Mario sunshine really different than its previous incarnations... I love Nintendo to heck... but to think Nintendo is some sort of Indy "inovative" Movie house, and Sony and Microsoft are the No Soul Juggernauts in it for the Money is bogus....
Post by: Ian Sane on July 06, 2004, 09:15:06 PM
Nintendo is a big corporation in it for a buck like Sony and MS. The only difference is they're more consistant at putting out a quality product which is why I support them. In fact the reason they're not going online is because of money. A true "artist" would not limit their development teams to work offline or discourage third parties from making online games.
Post by: Kairon on July 06, 2004, 11:08:37 PM
And the closest that Nintendo has gone to making Cookie Cutter games was Pokemon Yellow and Crystal, and perhaps the Mario Party games. And even then, the Mario Party game's concentration in mini-games has kept the series fresh and in no way a carbon copy of earlier incarnations. There's an essential difference between cookie-cutter games and Nintendo sequels. Even Super Mario Sunshine can't be called cookie-cutter. They experimented with new ways to introduce and present traditional platform play while trying to escape jump-mechanics that have dictated every mario game. Even their level design was philosophically different: instead of the "seperate paths within one level" that Super Mario 64 had, SMS had levels whose paths wound tightly around each other, overlapped, and made amazingly efficient use of the space.
Ian Sane, I love your examples of how corporate behavior has seeped into and corrupted Nintendo. Mario Kart works fine for four-players...but anyone who's played LAN with 8+ players can tell you how broken and arbitrary the game becomes. Basically, when market pressure, the clamoring for online, and the resulting need to appease those who want Online but didn't get it; when all this made it's way to MK
D, they combined not only in a poorly implemented LAN mode, but a LAN Mode that completely broke the game, a LAN mode that didn't work with the game's essential gameplay, a LAN Mode that was a smear on the game NOT because of poor technical implementation, but because the game simply became fundamentally flawed with more than 4 players. THAT is an example of the corruption of artistic integrity that lies beneath every fanboy's demand for Nintendo to cater to their own personal tastes.Another example is the pitiful FMVs thrown into SMS, ideally to prove that FMVs could be done on the GC, but in the end a soulless, ham-handed and idiotic decision that came about when market and image concerns were for a moment held in higher esteem than hands-on game development, experience and artistic vision.
And then you mention Dinosaur Planet, a forced Star Fox franchise and yet another key example of Nintendo acting as a corporation instead of as a visionary, game-centric artistic force. You end up with what could be the single most compelling argument for why Nintendo sold their 50% stake in Rareware. And you want Nintendo to act even MORE as a corporation with this track record?
Anyways, the fact is that Nintendo can be accused of a lack of enthusiasm in regards to online. But that's a far cry from saying that Nintendo intends to keep developers from going online. In fact, that's ridiculous. The only problem a developer faces going online in a Nintendo game is creating a market. Surely, Microsoft makes that part easy with their XBOX Live, and Sony's specifically chased after online games as part of their overall strategy, but look at Sega: if a third party wants to go online with a Nintendo system, they can.
In fact, the only un-artistic limitation and discouragement is coming from the gamers who demand that developers drop whatever they're doing to jump on the Online bandwagon. Cancellations of MMORPGs like Mythica, True Fantasy Online and many others show the perils of embarking on an online route without the requisite vision to make the game complete. And without that integral artistic vision, Nintendo would be just as lost, wasting energy toiling away at projects that a soulless corporation believes gamers want, instead of pursuing their own ideas and visions.
Nintendo will go online when they're ready, but to demand it of them prematurely is to mortgage Nintendo's experience, vision and artistry in order to buy a replica of online gaming that has already been done, to tack on unnecessary and game-breaking features to otherwise decent games, and to cash in on consumer's loyalty to trusted and valuable franchises.
Better to realize that we won't love Nintendo because they are in a strong market position if they jumped on the online bandwagon... in fact this is the Nintendo we hate, the price-fixing Nintendo of the 80's, the censoring Nintendo of the 90's, the artistically compromised Nintendo of Star Fox Adventures: Dinosaur Planet and broken Mario Kart Lan gameplay.
Better to wait for Nintendo to come online naturally, when they can do something worthwhile and meaningful, and give Online all their creative energy and vision.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on July 06, 2004, 11:30:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Perfect Cell
going online ala Sony would give too much control to third parties. Something Nintendo vividly hates.
Then explain why Nintendo has adopted exactly the same model for online gaming? Third parties only produce online multiplayer for PS2 games because the PS2 is so huge. If it wasn't the top dog, guess how many multiplayer games it would have? Third parties don't like spending money on nothing, either. Blizzard, EA and the likes seem to have a plan that involves total control over the people playing (after all, they require you to have an account on their servers and don't want opensource/freeware devs to offer alternatives?). I'm not sure what they see in it but I think it involves monitoring buying habits, planned obsolescence and proprietary lock-in (i.e. if nobody bought Diablo 3 they'd just kick support for Diablo 2 and make people migate that way).
Online services are expensive. Really expensive. Many MMOs get cancelled before they even come out since once the thing's out you have to support it for years to come, no matter if only a handful of people play it. If Nintendo launched an online service for the Cube they'd have to keep it alive longer than they want, maybe even longer than the Revolution lasts. Hell, they shut down the SNES online service somewhen in 2000!
Nintendo tried to launch a service in NA that was pretty comparable to !eviL before, on the SNES, I think. It failed and got canned before launch. In fact, all of their attempts to deliver an online service in North America were canned before they launched because they weren't viable. The only tme they succeeded with online was wth the Famicom, since online wasn't something widespread and the Famicom was one of the first consumer devices to offer it. Their subsequent attempts never reached that level of popularity.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 07, 2004, 08:00:36 AM
How did LAN mode break the game? Most people don't even have the ability to play it. Flaws aside LAN mode in Mario Kart is widely considered to be a total blast. I've heard complaints about the dumb limitation that prevents one from picking their character but the experience itself is supposed to be great. Plus you can't blame market pressure. We wanted online support. They instead chose to half-ass it and give us a limited LAN mode instead. It was their choice to "break" the game. Had they put any effort into an online mode there wouldn't be any problems. It's like how Pokemon Colloseum doesn't suck because it included an RPG mode that the fans asked for, it sucks because it included a CRAPPY RPG mode that was not at all what the fans wanted. Nobody asked Nintendo to include a non-online LAN mode that doesn't allow you to pick your own character in Mario Kart. Nintendo chose to wang that feature themselves.
"Third parties only produce online multiplayer for PS2 games because the PS2 is so huge. If it wasn't the top dog, guess how many multiplayer games it would have?"
Probably quite a few because the Xbox has a lot of them and it's not the top dog. The PS2 gets online support because the console maker promotes the feature, releases their own online titles, and encourages the development of online games. Nintendo publicly bashes online gaming, has not released ANY of their own online titles, and hasn't provided middleware for it to third parties. The PS2 now comes with a network adapter. The Cube's adapter is a rare item. That's why the PS2 has online support and the Cube doesn't despite the fact they essentially have the same strategy. The Cube could be the market leader and it probably would have less online titles just because of Nintendo's attitude.
"Nintendo tried to launch a service in NA that was pretty comparable to !eviL before, on the SNES, I think. It failed and got canned before launch. In fact, all of their attempts to deliver an online service in North America were canned before they launched because they weren't viable."
Of course they weren't viable then. Very few people even had access to the internet. Online PC games were obscure at the time. You can't compare the f*cking SNES to the Cube. In technology terms that's eons ago. So Nintendo tried it when it wasn't viable, failed, and now won't try it when it is viable. Yeah that makes lots of sense. That's like Enix not releasing Dragon Warrior in the US because DW4, an NES game released well after the SNES launch, bombed.
Post by: Kairon on July 07, 2004, 10:08:55 AM
When people say that the MK: DD LAN is a blast to play, that's the Nintendo fanboy in them ignoring the facts. 8-player MK: DD IS broken because the game all of a sudden has no reward for skill, and it's completely arbitrary who wins. I'm a decent player, but in eight-player mode, I consistently end up in last place, behind people who never picked up the game before. If you play it, you'll see that LAN is a failure NOT because it's poorly dressed up, but because the very concept behind the game's items, the item spread, and the innate gameplay was created with a maximum of 4 players in mind, not 8. In effect, the game was developed to be a Mario Kart game, but when they added the LAN mode to try to quell clamorings from people who demand online connectivity or some fascimile thereof, they exposed the game to broken gameplay. Miyamoto made his Mario Kart game, and it could stand on it's own; but when corporate thinking like "we need to appeal to those fans who think that they want online or something like it" got it's hold on the game, an extraneous and gameplay-breaking mode was added to the game.
Could Miyamoto have designed the game to accomodate more than 4-players comfortable? Yeah, sure. Just let him go back to the drawing board, because the MK: DD gameplay he was making was absolutely not fit for anything beyond one system. He was making his game, until petty corporate attempts to appeal people like you pushed aside the integrity of his creation, and crammed in something that compromised the entire game.
And then of course we see fans clamoring for a 3D Pokemon that they would've liked to see on the GameCube. That's ridiculous, the designers know what they're doing, because Pokemon would benefit more from it's portability on the GBA than from being dressed up prettily in polygons. It would benefit more from being played on the subway, in-between school-periods, and during car rides than it would from being played in one spot in your house only. It would benefit from being played on a portable system that could easily be played with other people around, rather than being played on one console, a big TV, and in what is usually a solitary setting. Oh, and should Pokemon go online? Of course not. The entire Pokemon concept is based on PvP, one of the thorniest issues in MMORPGs. Can you imagine playing Pokemon online just to be trash talked by the kid with 6 MewTwos who then proceeds to take half your money?
Pokemon is just another example of how the developers need to be given the room to re-imagine their base concepts that work so well off-line, but would be broken online. They need to be given time to figure it out, because while fans can shout real loud, they can never make the next big thing, or we'd have a lot more of a crowded games market today.
And Pokemon Colosseum, as well as Mario Kart: Double Dash's gamebreaking LAN mode, is an example of what happens when you shortcut the time and respect you need to give developers to figure things out on their own. You break games by throwing on modes that the innate gameplay doesn't allow, and you pretty something up with polygons, only to realize that the innate gameplay simply that's been so successful for so long doesn't work outside the GBA environment. They circumvented the artist and subjugated his work to corporate thinking, market trends, and fan pressure, and they got a pile of unworkable sludge because of it.
Nobody asked for it? That's untrue. People like you are asking constantly that the creativity and hard work of people like Shigeru Miyamoto, his personal visions and ideas, his near-completed games, be sacrificed so that you can have games in an online medium you don't understand and before the people developing those games themselves don't have a full grasp of the medium.
Could we eventually see Pokemon in full 3D, and MK online? Sure. But not until the developers are given the time and free-reign to re-imagine the basic gameplay of their games in such a way that bringing them online wouldn't break the gameplay, but fulfill it. Circumvent that process, and demand online gameplay NOW, before the developers themselves have fully worked out the concepts, and you get games that are a smear on Nintendo's reputation of quality.
Nintendo only delivers hits consistently because they gave their developers the time and freedom to develop things as they saw fit. And Nintendo is only delivering sludge now because people are demanding that the developer's freedoms be pushed aside so they can have whatevcer they think they ought to have. The fact is that Nintendo only creates such great games because they put dedication and integrity and artistry into their work, and Nintendo has almost always created bad games when they've sacrificed that reputation to imitate trends, or to appease vocal trends.
"The Cube could be the market leader and it probably would have less online titles just because of Nintendo's attitude."
And how would Nintendo support online titles? Simply by having online games of their own. But let's be happy that we don't have those now, before Nintendo is ready to enter the online medium, because we'd get broken games like MK: DD and pitiful player matching from current genre.
Simply put, Nintendo can't afford to even think of supporting Online titles more fully because they don't have the resources of their own games to hope to make any dent in Microsoft and Sony's presences. What they have now are half-thought out concepts and tired implementations, hardly the stuff of dreams.
"Of course they weren't viable then. Very few people even had access to the internet. Online PC games were obscure at the time. You can't compare the f*cking SNES to the Cube. In technology terms that's eons ago. So Nintendo tried it when it wasn't viable, failed, and now won't try it when it is viable. Yeah that makes lots of sense. That's like Enix not releasing Dragon Warrior in the US because DW4, an NES game released well after the SNES launch, bombed. "
Obviously, Nintendo still believes that it's not very viable with the Cube. Broadband is slow in catching on. Already the MMORPG market, a market that appeals to PCs, which are predominantly connected to the internet, is having problems. And the business models of subscription (especially when applied to consoles) are vastly alien and unappealing to a great number of casual players.
AND, Nintendo knows that even if conditions permitted it, and even if they could go online, they'd have no software to sell it. Nintendo online would bomb without Nintendo games, and Nintendo games can't be developed without time, understanding, and vision from people like Miyamoto. Nintendo games can't be forced, demanded, or expected. They have to be subject to the developers visions and artistry, instead of to marketting polls, noisy fanboys, and corporate thinking. Nintendo games are fragile and special and all the more beautiful because of it.
We had to wait for Super Mario 64. We had to wait for Ocarina of Time. We had to wait, because mediocrity comes quick, and Nintendo-style excellence takes longer. We had to wait because a great idea released half-developed doesn't even deserve to be called a game. We had to wait because you can't simply tack Online onto a game, and expect it to be anything but a deadweight addition: it has to be fully integrated into the game's design from day one.
And if you're a Nintendo gamer, you'll realize that you can wait for Nintendo to go online. You can wait because when they do go online, it'll be out of their own fully realized visions and not half-hearted fan-service. You can wait, because you realize that the only reason you want Nintendo to go online is so that you can brag to others, win fanboy arguements with Sony kids, and be part of the winning team.
But Nintendo was never about being on the winning team, Nintendo was always about making great games, and because of that, Nintendo gamers are willing to wait. Because we can see that anything less, be it the FMVs in SMS, the game-breaking LAN mode in MK: DD, the forcing of Star Fox Adventures, anything half-implemented, not-fully realized, or lacking of artistic vision and spirit...anything less wouldn't be worthy of being called a Nintendo game.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on July 07, 2004, 10:36:32 AM
Besides, how would you make that character selection on LAN? People can't select the same character, after all. That would just result in a quick rush to secure yourself the best characters, which would be pretty unfair for the people who "drew last". Random means equal chances to get good characters for everyone.
Post by: Perfect Cell on July 07, 2004, 11:34:44 AM
Exactly.... The Reason why third parties dont make online games on the cube, is because Nintendo doesnt want them to.... Its because Nintendo refuses to make more network adapters... Nintendo is to blame.
Can Nintendo fans "Wait" till this artistic "indy" Nintendo that Kairon
keepts talking about gets its act in gear and makes online games ... sure... but they will be too late to actually get into the game.
The Revolution better have some sort of online component, or it could simply just give up vs its competitors... because it wont be winning didly squat. Online gaming is one of the keys to the future.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 07, 2004, 11:34:57 AM
I would have the game make each person pick their character one at a time. The order of character select is random for the first race and is based on finishing order for the rest. So the team (if player's are doubling up) that got last picks first, etc. That way people still get to pick and it's balanced.
Kairon I think you're being way too picky and giving too much praise to Nintendo. People asked for online Mario Kart the second we found out the Cube had a broadband adapter. In other words the "market pressure" existed before the game even started being developed. So it was Nintendo choice to leave out any LAN or online play entirely, design the game with online/LAN play in mind, or tack it on as an afterthought. It was their choice. Same with Pokemon Colloseum. The "market pressure" was there for YEARS before. Again half-assing it was their choice.
And Nintendo isn't nearly as artsy as you think they are. They're the videogame equivalent of The Beatles. They're critically acclaimed and considered masters of their field but their output deep down is pure pop. Nintendo makes games that have mass market appeal and are designed to sell tons of copies. They rarely make really arty games.
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on July 07, 2004, 12:40:55 PM
And what in the world does "half-assing" mean to you? To me, half-assing something means that you set out to do something and then not completely finish doing it. Or just doing half of it and be done with it. Nintendo set out to implement a LAN mode, and they did that. They have never set out to incorporate an Online mode, therefore they did not do it. Simple as that. If they were planning on doing an Online mode and then instead just did the LAN mode, then yeah, I would say they they "half-assed" the job.
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 07, 2004, 12:52:52 PM
Quote
And Nintendo isn't nearly as artsy as you think they are. They're the videogame equivalent of The Beatles. They're critically acclaimed and considered masters of their field but their output deep down is pure pop.
You dare say anything negative about The Beatles?!? Blapshemy! You shall not go unpunished!
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 07, 2004, 01:04:09 PM
Wot? What has online gaming anything to do with artsiness?
Post by: Ian Sane on July 07, 2004, 01:05:06 PM
I didn't. I said they were critically acclaimed and considered masters of their field, I compared them to Nintendo, and I said their output was fundamentally pop. The negative is where? The fact they made pop music isn't bad.
"Dude, we don't even know when development started on the game, so how can you say that the pressure was already there before they started?"
I think it's fair to say that Mario Kart was not in development when the Cube was first revealed considering it didn't come out until two years later. If it was it was very early in development.
"And what in the world does 'half-assing' mean to you?"
To me it means putting in a significantly less effort into something than expected. Considering how low on options Mario Kart's LAN mode is it's fair to say Nintendo didn't put the same amount of effort into it as they did the rest of the game. Thus they half-assed it.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 07, 2004, 02:24:54 PM
Post by: Djunknown on July 07, 2004, 03:24:52 PM
Great insight on both sides, but let's keep it level here. I believe Kairon is putting too much faith in Miyamoto here; sure he's made games that had everyone else copying, but he hasn't exaclty delivered big time like he did back then(Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Cliche but true). I don't see developers making Pikmin-like games.... Unless Mario 128 is the end-all of gaming, hopefully Nintendo has an somebody else up to bat.
Wonder what Iwata will say next? Where's Reggie? It seems he's been MIA since E3.... It'd be interesting what Mr.Kick-Ass-and-Take-Names has to say about this.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 08, 2004, 10:32:21 AM
Post by: Kairon on July 08, 2004, 10:35:59 AM
And that's what this comes down to: can we let people like Miyamoto have the freedom to make games the way they envision them, driven by their own ideas and interpretations of the medium, or do we, as people outside the development process, have the right to interfere in their artistic integrity by dictating to them that they should make certain types of games, regardless of their wishes?
I'm doing nothing more than trusting Nintendo to continue developing Nintendo games to their own artistic beat, and critics are doing nothing more than demanding that Nintendo games be dictated not by the people like Miyamoto who have essentially made Nintendo what it is today, but by faceless corporate forces and ravenous, mainstream fans.
I'm not even argueing that by proceeding at their own pace that Nintendo will regain market prominence. No. What I am argueing is that if Nintendo would sacrifice the respect and freedom of people like Miyamoto, it would no longer be the Nintendo that we've grown to love, nor will it be a Nintendo that will create the "Nintendo" games we could always depend on them for (which were a result of Miyamoto's and other's free-wheeling creativity in the face of a vacuum of ideas).
I'm only argueing that Nintendo not say: "Look, there's a lot of people who seem to think that online games are the way to go, let's bang out a game to keep up with the Jones'(read: Sony and Microsoft)." The Nintendo I know and love would say, "Look at this interesting new medium that allows people to connect in ways that weren't possible before. Let's see what ideas we have, work on them, get them right, and put out something that we can be proud of."
The Nintendo I believe in has at it's heart the creative forces of game development, innovation and excellence. The Nintendo I cannot accept, and cannot perpetuate, is the one that does something merely because it needs to make more money and gain access to the pockets of more consumers.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on July 08, 2004, 10:51:57 AM
Well that's not really an issue with Mario Kart assuming there's a good match making mode. As long as you limited yourself to playing with people you know (which I would do) you wouldn't have to worry. Cheaters are really only a big issue in MMOs. In other online games you can just avoid them.
And it's not like when they do go online with the Revolution (so I hope) that they're going to suddenly know how to handle cheating. They can only learn that sort of thing through experience.
"Come to think of it, maybe they just decidedthey wouldn't do online for the Cube because it didn't sell enough and wouldn't be worth the expenses?"
Likely but then their wishy washy attitude towards online gaming within the first few years of the Cube's life may have contributed to lower sales. Probably not a lot but I know that not having online support when the other two consoles do does make the Cube look inferior in the eyes of the buying public. Missing features, even if the buyer doesn't use them, is a negative.
Realistically though I don't expect or even want Nintendo to go online with the Cube. At this point it's too late to matter. My complaint is that they SHOULD have and have made things harder for themselves going in next gen by not doing so (ie: when they do go online it will be hard to convince people that their solution is better than Sony's and Microsoft's which have already been in place for years.) I also don't like the attitude they have right now. It sounds like they don't really want to go online next gen either, like online gaming is just bad period. The DS and the Revolution both HAVE to be online. It's inexcusable for them not to be and Nintendo will be totally f*cked in North America if they aren't. So thus I'm being quite vocal on the subject until Nintendo shows me something concrete that proves they will go online next gen. Lately it's all been "online is bad" and that doesn't put much confidence in their hints of going online next gen.
Post by: Perfect Cell on July 08, 2004, 11:38:02 AM
Quote
as people outside the development process, have the right to interfere in their artistic integrity by dictating to them that they should make certain types of games, regardless of their wishes?
Yes. Because were the buyers. If they make games for them instead for the market, the of course they have terrrible sales...
Its that attitude that you speak of. The Were right, and the Market has to adapt to us. Instead of adapting to the market. That has made Nintendo drop from the dominant force in the SNES days to a company that is either third, or seccond depending on who you ask.
Its this righteous attitude, that has nintendo and third parties working against each other, Nintendo out right bashing GTA and Online gaming when both are extremly popular. Its this attitude that had Miyamoto question why people hated the cel shaded Link when he initially showed it. The Market forced them to shift to he realistic zelda shown this year. Its what we wanted.
Quote
. The Nintendo I cannot accept, and cannot perpetuate, is the one that does something merely because it needs to make more money and gain access to the pockets of more consumers.
except Nintendo has to care about making money. If they go 100 percent the route you want, it will simply lead them to the path of Sega.
Post by: Kairon on July 08, 2004, 01:28:19 PM
And the largest arguement that people put forth for Nintendo impinging on it's developer's abilities is that Nintendo won't be the number one console maker without that course of action. But that's ridiculous. The Nintendo we love was never about being the biggest kid on the block, nor was it about holding some arbitrary title of "Marketshare Leader." in an industry big enough for THREE console makers. Nintendo was always about the great games that can arise from creativity.
And when it comes down to it, holding more than 50% market share is vastly less important than allowing people like Miyamoto to develop new and exciting games the way they envision them.
In essence, Greed and Bragging Rights should not become Nintendo values. Vision should be.
Let buyers go elsewhere if they want: thhy're entitled to their opinions. But a true Nintendo gamer should know that they won't be able to find a Miyamoto game without the freedoms he enjoys at the Nintendo of today. Let's face it, if you listened to consumers all the time, we wouldn't have the NES and Super Mario Bros.: focus groups - buyers and consumers, 12-year olds - trashed it. In fact, if we always listened to consumers, the videogame market would be non-existent. It's Nintendo's stubborn actions DESPITE consumer opinion that we have to thank for the videogame revival after Atari destroyed the reputation of videogames in America.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on July 09, 2004, 12:05:28 AM
