Topic: Nintendo's LAN stratagy

[Mattfish]

Nintendo's alleged plans for a LAN push rather than a solid online plan absolutely puzzles me to no end. I'm completely baffled as to how Nintendo expects to sell and market something like this. These things have been tried before, right? Isn't there a similar device for the Playstation (2?) or X-Box that allows you to link up multiple systems and play on separate screens/systems (maybe somebody can clear this up for me)? But as far as I know, they've never really taken off for one very good reason - they are completely and wholly inconvenient for the user, thereby making them a bigger hassle than they're worth. Each person has to have their own system, their own copy of the game, and their own TV. How often do you see yourself getting together with your friends in these sorts of circumstances? Calling them up and saying "Hey, how about I bring over my cube, my TV, and my second copy of Time Splitters 3 and we can LAN play!"? Doesn't online play make a lot more sense for the end user, albeit from a non-financial standpoint? Personally I wish they would just stick with how things currently are if they don't want to go with online play. I guess if I don't use it I really don't lose anything, and those who DO use it will have an improved experience (ala the Gameboy - Gamecube connection), but it just seems to me to be wasted resources for the small amount of gain they will get (R&D and production costs). But perhaps I'm missing some very important details, so I'll just shut up now and hope that some of you out there have some answers or comments.

Thanks for listening to me rant,
-Matt

[Grey Ninja]

It's well known these days that LAN games can be played online.  Nintendo wants to enter the online market slowly, and this is the perfect way to do it.  Those who want to play online now have that option, and Nintendo doesn't really have to pay a dime for servers, as the games will most likely be played peer to peer.

[adamhap]

COLLEGES.  Colloges have giant LAN networks usually and every dorm room is hooked up and more then likely with a tv of its own.  When you have 10,000 people in one location all able to load a game and see a buddy across the hall playing it makes a big difference.  I am one of those who hate online gaming unless I know who I am playing against.  That makes Lan gaming so much more enjoyable to me.  Plus you don't have to worry so much about connection speeds when everyone on the lan has a 10/100 mb connection to the lan.  This also allows people to setup their own networks so they can play games on 2 tv in their home in the off ocasion they have more then 4 people over to play games.   I really prefer the idea of Lan gamming to Online gaiming myself.

Adam

[ZombieX]

Also if Nintendo releases those high quality portable GC LCD screens they showed at last years E3 show, that will definitely help make LAN gaming even easier to achieve!  My friends and I are eagerly awaiting to have some GC LAN parties in the future!  LAN party Mario Kart GC...oh my!  

 

[Ian Sane]

I have no problem with Nintendo pursuing LAN gaming.  Personally I think it's a great idea.  However, like Mattfish, I don't like the fact that Nintendo seems to think that LAN is a good substitute for online play.  It's not.  It's a good option to have LAN play alongside online support but as a complete replacement it's quite poor.  Nintendo has this incredible fear/prejudice about going online and it's getting to the point that they're just being stubborn instead of thinking rationally from a business perspective.  Online may not be profitable but not every game is like PSO and requires extensive server maintanence.  All we need for stuff like Mario Kart is peer-to-peer which certainly isn't going to bankrupt the company.  Why risk losing a HUGE chunk of the future game market just to save a few bucks now?  When Microsoft and Sony are the kings of online gaming how does Nintendo plan to compete?  Nobody's going to care in 2013 when Nintendo finally announces their online plans after Microsoft has been online for ten years already.

[dmcollin]

Um, online is extremely expensive right now for both the user and the company.  Most online games do not work well without a high speed connection, and only a small percentage owns broadband.  Nintendo would have to setup servers all over, and dedicated bandwidth is extremely expensive, not only will you have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on routers and special equipment, but the bandwidth it self would be probably be a hundred thousand per server cluster.  And you would do that all for probably less than 1 million people.
Also, microsoft is loosing tons of money with xbox live, and um that one year deal is coming to an end and there is lots of speculation that unless they make it $50, tons of people will ditch their service.

[Ian Sane]

I seriously doubt that simple peer-to-peer online games would be that expensive.  It's stuff like online RPGs that cost a lot to maintain.  I'm pretty sure a simple match making service would be very easy and inexpensive to do.  As for the cost towards a user well no one says you have to play online.  The LAN capabilities are still there for those that don't want to go online.  The option should still be there for people who have broadband and want online games.  And Nintendo's current "plans" don't require a subscription of "Gamecube Live" or anything like that anyway.  Simple online Mario Kart multiplayer races would not be ridiculously expensive.

[Mattfish]

As far as I know, the only costs involved in setting up peer-to-peer would be maintaining a master server that all of the gamers could report their hosted games to. It's a very cost effective method, and it's pretty much a standard in PC games these days. Something I hadn't considered is what Grey Ninja pointed out - Nintendo might be using the LAN setup as sort of a "back alley" way of creating a peer-to-peer solution. How feasible is this? I'm sure there are some network savvy people out there who have some insight .
As for the college dorm usage; this would only be convenient if Nintendo goes with the standard RJ45 (edit: oops!) network connector so that the users can plug into their PC network routers. When's the last time Nintendo has gone with standard technology? I foresee them going with a propritary setup similar to what they use on the GBA to link up systems. Which brings us back to the earlier questions - would this still be feasible as a peer-to-peer solution if they used a propriatary cable setup instead of a RJ45 (edit: oops, again!) that could plug into a broadband router, possibly with the use of the existing network/modem adapter?

-Matt    

[Mingesium]

Nintendo is going to use the broadband adapter for LAN. It will use the standard ethernet cable.

[Tman]

Ethernet jacks are RJ45, phone jacks are RJ11

[AngusPodgorny]

To echo what others have touched upon, LAN play is a good thing.  If you can play peer-to-peer over a LAN, you should also be able to play peer-to-peer over the internet.  Nintendo should be applauded for this.

The real question is, how many games will support peer-to-peer?  I'll be disappointed of Nintendo chooses to implement a proprietary client-server model and charge fees, like Microsoft.  I'll be doubly disappointed if developers aren't given a choice regarding which model to use.  I'll be triply disappointed if developers are given a choice, but they choose to charge fees.

-AngusPodgorny

[LOP Posse]

To answer Mattfish.
I don't know about ps2 but i have played LAN games on Xbox.  Halo is a blast with 8 people in the same room all talking smack.  Very hectic.  I would be excited if Nintendo would release LAN games.  I found 8 to be twice as fun as 4 when it comes to certain multiplayer games.  The only issue is getting 2 tv's and 2 systems  and 8 controllers together.  It's easier as I live in a college town.  where whole houses just have college students and the living room is built around the video game setup and all your neighbors likely have systems as well.

[noentiendo64]

I think Nintendo is slowly transforming its home console into a semiportable system. By using the new TFT gamecube screen and connecting LAN games, the gamecube is beginning to resemble a glorified multiplayer GBA. Maybe Nintendo´s next system is actually a GBA-GC hybrid. The little gamecube discs point towards future portable game media. Isn´t  portable gaming Nintendo´s domain?

[Bloodworth]

Great discussion here.

I for one am excited about LAN gaming. Even if you don't have a ton of people over, you can at least play two-player games full screen.  For me it's as easy as running a wire to my housemate's room across the hall since he has a GC of his own.  Yes.  Fun times WILL be had.

Personally, I don't care about online play unless I'm with people I know and have a headset to talk with them.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Nintendo will be doing much of anything online this generation, but I can certainly see their reasons why.  They've been experimenting with online gaming for a long time now - NES, 64DD, GameBoy - and if they aren't satisfied with the results, then that's their decision.

[Grey Ninja]

Bloodworth, you forgot about Xband, which was an online service for SNES.  Nintendo has always been playing around with things online, but haven't seen any profit to be made from it yet.  I do believe they are watching it closely though.

Personally though, I agree with them for the most part.  Online gaming isn't accepted by the majority of the mainstream yet.  Especially not on consoles.

[Mattfish]

I think the Gameboy Player is pretty much a guarantee that Nintendo doesn't plan on using the existing Broadband adapter for their "LAN Plan". It would just be far too much of a hassle for those who use their modems to play games like Phantasy Star to unplug the entire setup just to switch to their broadband adapter for LAN plan. Plus, that's extra hardware sales down the drain. I think it's more likely that Nintendo will opt to use the one remaining expansion port for whatever LAN accessory they have up their collective sleeve.

I don't doubt that console LAN play is fun, don't get me wrong. I use my PC for LAN games all the time. It's a blast. I've even joined in the event of ultimate "nerd-dom" on occasion - that's right, a computer LAN party! The question is whether or not the whole endeavor is worth their time and money. If Nintendo honestly thinks that online isn't worth investing into because of lack of consumer interest, thereby making it unprofitable, then I'd really like for them to explain the logic behind a LAN setup. I still believe that it will be the minority that takes advantage of this, though it seems that most hard-core Nintendo fans (IE, the ones that post on Nintendo news site message boards) plan to at least look into the idea.

I am intrigued by noentiendo64's comment, though - that Nintendo is slowly moving towards a hybrid portable/home console. This would certainly be a step in that direction. Same goes for their revealing of the high quality monitor and small discs. Indeed, it seems they've been trying to tie the Gameboy and the Gamecube together this generation, as is evident by their connection device endeavor. Even the names, Gameboy and Gamecube, are very closely related, as if Nintendo is trying to blend the lines between them a bit in preparation. Imagine a device with a flip up monitor that you could take on the road with you, but you could also inherently plug into the TV in the comfort of your living room, all with comparable graphics and gameplay to Sony's and Microsoft's latest. Perhaps you're onto something...

Bloodworth: Do you have any more details on Nintendo's online experiments in the past? I'm not familiar with them.
Grey Ninja: The XBand wasn't a Nintendo product, though I forget who the mastermind behind it was. But I remember seeing one for the Sega Genesis as well, so there's no way Nintendo had any part. As I recall, it was very similar to what Microsoft has set up for the XboX Live - a proprietary client-server model with fees, as AngusPodgorny put it.


-Matt  

[Bloodworth]

Honestly, I don't think that interfering with the small percentage of modem users would be enough for Nintendo not to use the Broadband Adapter for LAN gaming.  

As for previous experiments, you can surely find info on the 64DD and GameBoy cel-phone adapter at IGN.  The GameBoy one was really only used for Pokemon Crystal.  As for the NES / Famicom experiments, you'll have to check out a good book like Game Over for those details.

[Christberg]

Using a broadband adapter isn't a problem for people using a broadband service at all.  All you have to do is get a hub on top of whatever you're using as an IP router, be it a computer or whatever.  You'd need it if you wanted more than 2 cubes hooked up anyway, and they're cheap.

It's really that simple.  Hubs are a good thing where networking is concerned.

Personally, I'd rather have one adapter for both and just use a hub but maybe that's just me.  That's how the Xbox works, why not the GC?

[Ninja X]

Just adding my two cents...Online gaming hasn't hit the majority of console gamers yet, so that's one reason why Nintendo does not want to step into online gaming.  As of right now, Nintendo needs to make all the smart moves it can, and staying away from online might be one of them for now.  Sony and Microsoft are not just video game companies, but Nintendo is.  Nintendo does not have as much money in the bank as Sony and MS, so wasting money on online just to compete with MS and Sony is not that smart a move.

Meanwhile, they're moving into LAN and GC-GBA connectivity.  GC-GBA connectivity saves money and is an exclusive for Nintendo right now, and a relatively cheap one too.  Nintendo must maintain a good flow of money, especially with problems in the economy right now, it seems.

[manunited4eva22]

Mattfish-What are you talking about anyway?

In order for Nintendo to create a whole new adaptor, they would have to A) design a completely new networking protocol, build wiring for it, make it massively available, creat hubs and other networking equipment, and finally get it to all the developers to build on. What would be the point of all that? They would literally have to buy factory time from another company to build all of this and for what?

It would be illogical to spend so much money for something that may be outdated next generation. It would never gain a profit, as it is only for a small portion of the market, and would just be more of a hassle to do than the modem to gba change.

I really don't see any logic in forcing out a new standard when there are already two that are well known and well used...