Author Topic: NIntendo wants your thoughts!!! (Read 18924 times)

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #75 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.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #76 on:** May 04, 2004, 07:01:42 PM »

"Alot of people are supporting Online now. You just have to look at Nintendos competitors. look at how popular Socom is"

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.

Mannypon · « **Reply #77 on:** May 04, 2004, 07:38:26 PM »

socom is popular but if you look at the number of people online compared to the total installled user base and its not a good ratio. I dont have exact numbers but if I remember corectly its not even 10 percent.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #78 on:** May 04, 2004, 07:58:57 PM »

"socom is popular but if you look at the number of people online compared to the total installled user base and its not a good ratio. I dont have exact numbers but if I remember corectly its not even 10 percent."

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.

OG_OriginalGamer · « **Reply #79 on:** May 04, 2004, 09:12:49 PM »

Let me get in on this, Nintendo problem right now as for as online goes and third party support, is software sales. I believe the majority of third party publishers don't want to invest the money necessary to incorporate online in their GC ports, because they fear they're games won't sale enough on the console to recoup there investment. MS Xbox Live service relieves most third party companies of the cost of maintaining servers for online gaming. Sony get there's because of their larger installed userbase. IIRC Nintendo has a GameSpy SDK so developers could include the feature if they choose to. Seriously, I believe Atari is making a big mistake not releasing the Godzilla game for the GC, and its going to comeback and bite them on the ass.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #80 on:** May 04, 2004, 09:29:38 PM »

Yeah, there's even a Gamespy SDK for chrissakes.

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.

The Omen · « **Reply #81 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.

theRPGFreak · « **Reply #82 on:** May 05, 2004, 09:28:46 AM »

Ok where to start.........i've drawn a blank!

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #83 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?

odifiend · « **Reply #84 on:** May 05, 2004, 12:39:45 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
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.

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.

Kyosho · « **Reply #85 on:** May 05, 2004, 01:17:45 PM »

"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... It's pointless to bring it up at all because the possibilities are too vast to make any difference at all. "

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.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #86 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.

Kyosho · « **Reply #87 on:** May 05, 2004, 02:42:07 PM »

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.

"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.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #88 on:** May 05, 2004, 04:00:35 PM »

NINTENDO SUCKETH. The end.

joeamis · « **Reply #89 on:** May 05, 2004, 04:56:38 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
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.

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).

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #90 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.

Rich · « **Reply #91 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.

the_zombie_luke · « **Reply #93 on:** May 05, 2004, 07:10:23 PM »

I don't like the argument that since Nintendo does not have an online service now, somehow that means it will disrupt their next-generation online plan. Nintendo has been experimenting with online for a long time. This N-Sider articlce, Nintendo Onlinedetails exactly how much they have done exploring online potential. It is clear Nintendo will be online with the N5, so complaining about the GameCube being offline is pointless. The argument that online would have saved Nintendo this generation is wrong. The X-Box has online play, yet it has come nowhere close to the PS2 sales anywhere.

Rich · « **Reply #94 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.

Kyosho · « **Reply #95 on:** May 05, 2004, 07:19:51 PM »

"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."

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.

Rich · « **Reply #96 on:** May 05, 2004, 07:26:29 PM »

This isn't supposed to be here. Sorry about that.

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.

Mario · « **Reply #97 on:** May 05, 2004, 07:47:50 PM »

All our thoughts are belong to Nintendo.

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.

Bloodworth · « **Reply #98 on:** May 05, 2004, 10:10:02 PM »

I'm shooting this dead horse.

*BANG*

News:

Author Topic: NIntendo wants your thoughts!!! (Read 18924 times)