Topic: The Cube and Online Games

[RahXephon]

we all have to remember that like the above post, there are MANY who just don't have or can't afford BB.  56's maybe be slow, but nintendo isn't stupid enough to release games that will lag with them.  Like many people have said, PSo has no problem at all with the 56K.  BB is becoming more and more popular, but it still doesn't make 56 totally obsolete.  We are getting the chuck of online players who DON'T have BB.  That is a pretty big slice of pie.

[MarioFoxZelda]

I read somewhere (I think in gamespot magazine) that Nintendo announced that they were working on online projects and they will be announced at E3 2003. Many people speculated that the games were Animal Crossing 2, Pokemon, Mario Golf/Tennis/Kart and a few others. But they are definately working on something online.

[slide24]

I don't understand why everyone is so deathly afraid of 56k....I used to play Unreal Tournament and Counterstrike on 56k constantly, and I never really had problems. When I did, it was just the occasional lag and nothing that made me quit playing. If developers program their games correctly and Nintendo sets up an efficient way to play games online, I don't see a problem.

[EggyToast]

Exactly.  It's all about how efficient the netcode is.  If you're playing a FPS, you only really need 3 or 4 vital pieces of netcode that run constantly -- player location, player weapon, firing direction, and successful hits.  If environments are destructable, then that as well.  Everything else can be handled in the load-up (player costumes, maps, weapon set, etc.).  So depending on the speed of the game (something like Descent 3 has much messier netcode compared to a game like TS2 (which doesn't have netcode, but if it did would be simple).  A game like Mario Kart would be simple, too, and a game like Animal Crossing would be amazingly simple, as the gameplay in AC is rather slow.

So, yeah, it really wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo is working on making good netcode so 56k players can be included as well, rather than excluding a ton of players.  Microsoft sells its system on being tech-savvy, so it makes sense for them to be BB-only -- the people expect it, since it's "the most powerful console."  It also lets MS be lazier with their netcode devkits, as they can make up for bad code with simple speed.

[rodtod]

who here utterly despises having to pay a monthly fee for online games? most PC games have a third party hosting the online service, at no cost to the gamers. Nintendo's done just about that by having 3rd parties deal with online games, but many of these 3rd parties do not have the resources to set up and afford a working online network. even Sega has had problems.

[CrYpTiC]

Quote
I don't understand why everyone is so deathly afraid of 56k....I used to play Unreal Tournament and Counterstrike on 56k constantly, and I never really had problems. When I did, it was just the occasional lag and nothing that made me quit playing. If developers program their games correctly and Nintendo sets up an efficient way to play games online, I don't see a problem.

I agree with you 100%. I played Warcraft 2, Diablo 2, Starcraft, even Counterstrike on a 56k and rarely had lag. Now that I have cable I never have lag but 56k wasn't really too bad. The fact that it uses a phoneline is what makes me mad.

About the monthly fee...I hope Nintendo does not charge a monthly fee. If anything maybe a yearly fee of $10 that would be nice. Nintendo could let someone like... Battle.net host their servers or maybe even Sega.

[EggyToast]

I think it really depends on how much bandwidth Nintendo plans to use for the online plans.  If they plan to have thousands of people playing high-bandwidth games at the same time, well, that costs a lot of money.  And there's certainly no profit in providing it for free.

Most of my complaints with monthly fees for gaming is that the fees are rather high.  $9 a month seems low, but after playing online for 6 months (with the first month free), you've bought the game again.  If it adds a ton of replay value and fun, then that might be justifiable, but if I want to play 5 or 6 different games, all with monthly fees?  That really adds up fast, and the more games you play, the less time you can spend with each one.

I think if Nintendo offers a low monthly fee that's payable in different amounts (monthly, bi-annually, annually), it'll be do-able.  Of course, I think they'd have to have some free months included in order to combat the Xbox Live thing, if that's a factor, and something to say "hey, we only have a few games, so we're not charging you for them for a while."  If they only have AC2 and Mario Kart online, then that's not a lot of bandwidth and they could host their own servers without a lot of overhead costs, and possibly introduce a small monthly payment for Nintendo Online.

Or, since they seem pretty keen on letting people do their own thing (4 player games out the wazoo), they might simply do a peer2peer network model, which would bypass the need for much bandwidth.  All they'd have to provide is the online meeting place for people to go and find games.  That just needs chat capabilities (if they ever release a keyboard), or simply a list of available games and the info about those games.  They might even release devkits that allow the game developers to set up one cube as a dedicated game server for such games, for people who have 2 cubes or a really fast connection.

Does Xbox live actually test the connection speed?  Cos you could get online with 56k with it relatively easy -- just connect it to a computer and bridge the connection over to the modem.  hmm...

[Mingesium]

Nintendo is going to use a peer to peer for online. That is how its setup for PS2 and XBox live. I doubt that Nintendo would spend the extra money to use dedicated servers.

Here is what I think that Nintendo should do to cover the cost of online gaming:

Charge $10 extra for online gaming. People will still buy the game at $60.
Profits from online accesories (modems, wave keyboard, wave headset, etc.)

[nonjagged]

When Mario Karts (scheduled to be the second GCN game developed by Nintendo to go online) gamers will be complaining why there arent enough online adapters to go around. Get em now while you can.

When Animal Crossing 2 goes online (Nintendo's first developed game with option for playing Online) there may be a surge in online adapters by all the Animal Crossing fans.

Likewise when Pokemon goes online. Likewise when Smash Brothers 3 goes online.

Its just a matter of patience. Im sure E3 will reveal all the aces we need to hear.

[Scyth3r]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mingesium
Nintendo is going to use a peer to peer for online. That is how its setup for PS2 and XBox live. I doubt that Nintendo would spend the extra money to use dedicated servers.

Here is what I think that Nintendo should do to cover the cost of online gaming:

Charge $10 extra for online gaming. People will still buy the game at $60.
Profits from online accesories (modems, wave keyboard, wave headset, etc.)

Er, XBL is not peer-to-peer.  It uses the XBL servers supportd by Microsoft.

You guys are naming games that are lag free from 56k that are not hosted by another.  When you connect to battle.net for example, you are connected to Blizzard battle.net servers.  They are not being hosted by another individual.   Furthermore, YOU the 56k gamer might not notice lag but the person on broadband could potentially suffer horribly.  

Have you ever played Starcraft with 8 players on battle.net with a modem?  I guarantee you that you will lag broadband users.  Try hosting an 8 player game with a modem... that would be even worse...

Phantasy Star online is again hosted by Sega servers.  Hence the $10 subscription per month.  The lag is virtually non-existant since its not peer to peer and does not really affect another player.

I really do hope Nintendo follows Microsoft in setting up dedicated servers with a subscription program with the $50 a year price tag like the X-Box.  Hopefully they dont do the meager P2P method as the PS2... its already been shown to be pretty unusucessful....

[Mingesium]

XBox live is peer to peer. I don't know if all games are, but I know that the capcom fighter is peer to peer. That is why their is some lag in the game.  

[Alliedrally68]

I think that Pokemon online will really be the game to start the online craze on a Nintendo system.  Other games, like the afore-mentioned AC2 and Mario Kart Online will help solidify a userbase.  Then... well, who knows?

[PIAC]

33.3k modem in teh dreamcast was wonderfull for playing pso i loved it, lag free too, despite 1 or 2 spikes every hour or so

also with pso, are they going to charge $10 us to every country? or whats going to happen, because that will make what i pay, being an australian, fluctuate, which might deter me from going online with it

[Scyth3r]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mingesium
XBox live is peer to peer. I don't know if all games are, but I know that the capcom fighter is peer to peer. That is why their is some lag in the game.

Hehe well technically yes the games themselves are peer to peer.  But the X-Box servers are the one thats allowing voice chat, the friends list, stats, and the whole process of finding competitors...

[Gamer Donkey]

If Ninty wanted to give us free internet play, the easiest way would probably be to put ads in the games. Like in Waverace, I wonder if they got paid by Slimjim and whatever else they had in there. It could easily be done on Mariokart, just put the ads on the side barriers. Even put them in loadup screens and where ever the games are organised. It could make a lot of money if used correctly. Just keep them out of the way.