Topic: No Online Play for NBA Jam on Wii

[UncleBob]

Then, when the Wii version doesn't sell much and everyone's bought NBA Elite for the download, EA will announce a 360/PS3 version with online and all of the Wii exclusive modes and online play.

[BlackNMild2k1]

would a solid 30fps online have ruined the online experience?

how about a solid 45fps? why does it have to be 60fps or nothing at all?
sounds more like a reason to fail than a goal to succeed.

I remain skeptical until it's proven otherwise.

[Pale]

Was Nintendo lazy for not including online play in Wii Sports resort?

[UncleBob]

Was Nintendo lazy for not including online play in Wii Sports resort?

Did Nintendo develop and give away free HD copies of Wii Sports Resort with online for PS3 and 360?

[Pale]

Point taken.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  I think it's very ignorant to call a developer "lazy" when none of us have any of the details.  It's not like the developers woke up one morning and went to work.  Upon arrival they checked out their to-do list.  On the top it was "copy the online support from the 360 version of NBA Jam into the Wii version."  Then they exclaimed, "**** it, I'm taking a nap."


If you want to 'blame' EA for this, the only reasonable statement would be. "I really wish EA would just spend whatever time and money it takes to put a functioning online mode in the Wii version, even if that means delaying the game."

[Mop it up]

After thinking about it, I think it may be due to the publisher rather than the developer. Things like having them create a version for PS3 and XBox 360 means less resources for actual game features, and it doesn't look like the game had a large budget to begin with. Plenty of smaller companies have gotten online modes to work in Wii games that run just fine, so it realy doesn't seem that difficult to do. EA is a large company, with developers that have experience creating online features, and this game would be a relatively simple game to bring online. It doesn't seem like the reasons for it are anything other than either the lack of effort, or the lack of resources/funding from EA.

There's no way to know the real reasons of course, I just call them as I see them.

[NWR_Neal]

I refuse to blame the team at EA Canada for this. Talking to Trey Smith (creative director on the game) is like talking to an excited little kid who freaking loves NBA Jam. If they could get online in, have it work at the required 60 fps (Thanks Mark Turmell!) and make the October ship date, it would be in.

[BlackNMild2k1]

that's what I'm calling "shenanigans" on. That 60fps is required otherwise online isn't worth it. That's BS and we all know it.

most people wouldn't even tell the difference if it was a steady 30fps or sometimes dipped to 45fps.
I just don't see why it was 60fps online or bust.

[Adrock]

I refuse to blame the team at EA Canada for this. Talking to Trey Smith (creative director on the game) is like talking to an excited little kid who freaking loves NBA Jam. If they could get online in, have it work at the required 60 fps (Thanks Mark Turmell!) and make the October ship date, it would be in.

Agreed. Kind of what I've been saying this whole time in the main thread.

that's what I'm calling "shenanigans" on. That 60fps is required otherwise online isn't worth it. That's BS and we all know it.

most people wouldn't even tell the difference if it was a steady 30fps or sometimes dipped to 45fps.
I just don't see why it was 60fps online or bust.

Except that it's not BS. No one at EA Canada was like, "Let's have the game run at 60 fps so it won't run well online on the Wii." People are acting like this is a conspiracy against Nintendo. It's not. Mark Turmell basically told Smith's team at EA Canada, "This is how we made NBA Jam back in 1993." Ask yourself why Turmell and his team made the original run at 60 fps. I guarantee it wasn't for sh*ts and giggles. Doing so made the game better otherwise why bother? It'd be pretty disrespectful to ask the creator of the series for pointers and advice then tell him to f*ck off. It's 60 fps online or bust because the original itself was 60 fps or bust. That's how Turmell and co made their game and it's hard to argue against him when 17 years later, we're all still talking about how NBA Jam was the sh*t. That's why NBA Jam 2010 even exists.

I'm disappointed that online multiplayer got the ax. If EA Canada had it working flawlessly, that's an easy $50 purchase. However, I respect EA Canada's decision to cut something that wasn't up to their standards. More companies should do that. The problem is that everyone wants to blame EA entirely while conveniently ignoring that Nintendo put together hardware filled with limitations. That's not EA's fault. The 360/PS3 version has online multiplayer because the hardware could run the game 5 times over without breaking a sweat.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Standards, goals, etc etc. I'm glad they have them, but when you give the features (and the game) away for free on the other consoles, I at the very least expect to have those same features in teh retail release that you are actually charging full price for.

Do they really think we give a damn if the online is a solid 60fps or sometimes dips down to 45fps? we probably won't even notice as long as it works like it's supposed to. I'm definitely not saying that they were lazy and nver tried, I just don't see why it would be 60fps or throw it out when 30fps is more than acceptable.

I'm not gonna set a goal to make $1million this year and then at the deadline donate all I've made to charity because I only make $920k. That just sounds like a waste. They obvioulsy got online working, and their only issue (from it sounds like) was that it wasn't locked in at 60fps. who cares. most games doesn't even run at a solid 60fps and I don't see anyone complaining about that, and I ure don't see those games getting cut from the release schedule because of it either.

Truth of it all is that I will likely pick it up regardless of if it was ever to have online or not, but I don't accept the reasoning for not having online that they are providing. If there were other reasons as to why online was scrapped.... well, I don't see them listed here, but not locked at 60fps is hardly a reason to chop a significant replay value added feature if it was working fine otherwise.

[Mop it up]

The problem is that everyone wants to blame EA entirely while conveniently ignoring that Nintendo put together hardware filled with limitations.

I don't think anyone's ignoring that. It's a given, so there's no point in continuing to complain about it. However, from what I have seen, I don't believe it's some arduous task to get a game online on the Wii. Furthermore, it's also that they are taking a once-Wii-exclusive and putting it on another system with a feature that they were trying to implement into this version - and might have been able to if they hadn't had to spend time converting the game to PS3/XBox 360.

[Adrock]

Standards, goals, etc etc. I'm glad they have them, but when you give the features (and the game) away for free on the other consoles, I at the very least expect to have those same features in teh retail release that you are actually charging full price for.

First of all, it's not "free." In fact, some people may buy NBA Elite, just for Jam. That's a $60 coaster then. Second, I think you have your answer. Buy NBA Elite, trade it in, and actually save $15 to the get the feature you want.

Do they really think we give a damn if the online is a solid 60fps or sometimes dips down to 45fps? we probably won't even notice as long as it works like it's supposed to. I'm definitely not saying that they were lazy and nver tried, I just don't see why it would be 60fps or throw it out when 30fps is more than acceptable.

Acceptable to whom? Not to EA Canada. Not to Turmell back in 1993. And clearly, there was a noticeable distinction between the game running at 60 fps and when it was running at 30 fps. Look, this is going to sound sh*ttier than I intend it to so I mean no offense, but I'm more inclined to believe the development team's assessment of the frame rate than yours. They saw the game running at both 60 fps and 30 fps while you're assuming it wouldn't make a difference.

I don't think anyone's ignoring that. It's a given, so there's no point in continuing to complain about it. However, from what I have seen, I don't believe it's some arduous task to get a game online on the Wii.

I disagree. The general consensus is that this is EA's fault and Nintendo escapes, once again, unscathed from fanboy rage. The 360/PS3 version of NBA Jam has online multiplayer because it's a standard definition game ported to high definition hardware. The Wii doesn't have enough RAM to adequately handle voice chat so I don't think EA Canada not being able to get the game running online at 60 fps is too much of a stretch. EA Canada is taking a lot of flack for something that's beyond their control. They cut something they tried very hard to get working and didn't want to cut.

[Mop it up]

As I've already pointed out, Mario Strikers Charged, a similar game to NBA Jam, runs at 60FPS and has an online mode. It can be done.

I disagree. The general consensus is that this is EA's fault and Nintendo escapes, once again, unscathed from fanboy rage.

Are you encouraging people to complain about the same thing over and over again?

[MegaByte]

Does Mario Strikers Charged really run at 60FPS online?  When I tried it back when it launched, it was barely playable.

[NWR_insanolord]

I'll certainly criticize Nintendo for their mistakes with the Wii's online. Hell, I spent a good part of today complaining about the online implementation on the Wii being worse than that of the Dreamcast (Happy 11th Birthday!), despite Sega's notable handicaps of being the first to do online gaming on a console and being restricted to 56k. But I think both parties share the blame in this case. I think people here would be a lot less prone to blaming EA for they weren't releasing what was originally touted as a Wii exclusive as a pack-in designed to sell another game on another console with the feature included. I'm not saying they were wrong to do that, but it certainly hasn't done well for EA in terms of their perception around here.

[broodwars]

Are you encouraging people to complain about the same thing over and over again?

Considering that's exactly what's going on with people on these forums whenever EA comes up in conversation, I just find that question amusing.  : : : : : : :

EA's really done a horrible job of handling public perception of this game.  Frankly, if the framerate was the major sticking point I don't know why they made a major fuss over it.  I've played games that run in 60 FPS like the PS3 Ratchet & Clank games, and I honestly couldn't tell you that I ever saw a difference in animation quality between those games and games that run at 24-30 FPS.  That said, I have my reasons but I highly doubt EA cut this feature out of laziness or spite towards the Wii or its fanbase.  They likely decided that there wouldn't be enough online players on the Wii to justify spending the time and money towards making the online work (on a system not known for its online prowess) with their launch window (and the upcoming NBA Season) closing fast.  The team at EAC likely cut what they had to to release the game, and the EA head honchos made their decision to carry on with online on the systems with much larger online user bases and easier-to-implement online services.

[Mop it up]

Does Mario Strikers Charged really run at 60FPS online?  When I tried it back when it launched, it was barely playable.

Well, it has a refresh rate of 60FPS, but certain stadiums have slowdown. When I played it, I didn't notice it running any less smoothly than offline, but this was far after launch, so there were less people playing. Though you also might have run into people with poor connections.

[BlackNMild2k1]

<stuff>

Can you really tell the difference of a game running at 30fps and 60fps?
let me rephrase that... sorta. Can you tell the difference between a game running 60fps and when it's not exactly 60fps?

And I never asked you to believe my "assesment" of the framerate, but it doesn't mean I'm gonna swallow piss just because they call it lemonade. They said they would only include the online if they could get it running at 60fps.... that's a commendable goal to reach for, but if (and I can't stress IF enough) if they had it running fine and the only reason they didn't include the online was because it wasn't locked at 60FPS (like the "hit list" demanded) then I say that's bullshit.

I still stand by the comments I quoted into this thread earlier.
"sounds more like a reason to fail than a goal for success. and i remain skeptical till till it's proven otherwise."

That doesn't mean they didn't try, and it doesn't absolve Nintendo of any fault(that's a whole different topic), it just means that I think there is more to this than the lame excuse of "perfection or nothing" and I'm not buying it without more clarification.

BTW, where was this commitment to "quality" when they released Deadspace on the Wii?

[broodwars]

BTW, where was this commitment to "quality" when they released Deadspace on the Wii?

What are you on about?  Aside from some questionable QA (crashes that are so obvious I highly doubt QA missed them.  They probably just couldn't get Dev to fix them.) and the overall decision to make the game a railshooter, Extraction was a fine game and got fairly decent reviews.  You might not have liked the route that EA decided to go with in Extraction, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a "quality" title.

[Jonnyboy117]

Does Mario Strikers Charged really run at 60FPS online?  When I tried it back when it launched, it was barely playable.

Well, it has a refresh rate of 60FPS, but certain stadiums have slowdown. When I played it, I didn't notice it running any less smoothly than offline, but this was far after launch, so there were less people playing. Though you also might have run into people with poor connections.

Nintendo WFC is a peer-to-peer matching service, so the quality of online connections should not be related to how much time has passed (or how many people are playing at that time).

[BlackNMild2k1]

BTW, where was this commitment to "quality" when they released Deadspace on the Wii?

What are you on about?  Aside from some questionable QA (crashes that are so obvious I highly doubt QA missed them.  They probably just couldn't get Dev to fix them.) and the overall decision to make the game a railshooter, Extraction was a fine game and got fairly decent reviews.  You might not have liked the route that EA decided to go with in Extraction, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a "quality" title.

I'm talking about QA. There were framerate issues & bugs all over that game.
doesn't the Q in QA stand for quality?
where was this need to hit the predetermined goals or scrap the project when it came to that game?

They likely decided that there wouldn't be enough online players on the Wii to justify spending the time and money towards making the online work (on a system not known for its online prowess) with their launch window (and the upcoming NBA Season) closing fast.  The team at EAC likely cut what they had to to release the game, and the EA head honchos made their decision to carry on with online on the systems with much larger online user bases and easier-to-implement online services.

I think that sounds plausible and goes along with what I believe Mop it up said earlier

Furthermore, it's also that they are taking a once-Wii-exclusive and putting it on another system with a feature that they were trying to implement into this version - and might have been able to if they hadn't had to spend time converting the game to PS3/XBox 360.

[Ian Sane]

I think in terms of PR EA is clearly goofing this up.  They goofed up huge with Dead Space as well.  The whole way the situation has been handled feels like it was designed specifically to turn off Wii owners.  That probably isn't the plan since throwing away money is not usually the sort of thing companies try to do.  But EA is botched the PR nonetheless.

I think there is a tendency in these situations to always divert SOME blame to Nintendo because, well, this really only seems to happen to them and it happens to them a LOT.  And the Wii has some very notable hardware restrictions.

Since I bought a PS3 I have been quite impressed with how unrestrictive and flexible it is.  I never encounter games that look last gen.  Almost every third party game of note is on it, except for ones MS specifically bought exclusivity of.  If games have bugs they get patched.  I can download demos of most of the games I'm interested in and I never worry about space at all.  No downloadable title has been blocked due to size restrictions either.  Online play is pretty damn easy and intuitive.  And I pretty much never have to fight with the controls (or **** around with batteries either).

The difference is just night and day.  With the Wii I'm constantly hitting walls.  Can't do this, can't do that.  I'm being told how I should want things and what I should need or don't need.  It becomes very noticable once you buy another console.  Why am I fucking around with friend codes and having to play shuffleboard with my storage?  Why am I forced to use these awkward controls?  Why doesn't this thing support modern TVs?

If that is what it is like for us the paying customers then I imagine it ain't so hot for developers either.  If it was one particular third party constantly dropping the ball, fine, it happens.  But we get this with every third party game.  We get the "oh but..." all the damn time.  That suggests that the problem lies at the top with Nintendo.  It isn't EA making up excuses, it's EVERYONE making up excuses.  Well maybe those aren't excuses.  If one person doesn't work well with you it could very well be their fault.  But EVERYONE can't work well with you?  Yeah, that's likely your fault.

If the Wii wasn't a glorified Gamecube would this happen?  If Nintendo wasn't an entire generation behind on online gaming would this happen?  Right there you have two BIG "what if"s that throw a wrench in the whole thing.  We don't even know how Nintendo would do if they were on an even playing field because they NEVER are and it's always their own damn fault.

[Adrock]

Can you tell the difference between a game running 60fps and when it's not exactly 60fps?

Yes. I even looked it up. Especially side by side, anyone could. More to the point is that the original ran at 60 fps. If it truly didn't make a difference, why would Mark Turmell and Mark Turmell be so adamant about it?

And I never asked you to believe my "assesment" of the framerate, but it doesn't mean I'm gonna swallow piss just because they call it lemonade.

Not directly but you keep saying that it doesn't make a difference. Clearly, it does to the people making the game. It's a sad day when gamers are bitching when developers are trying to make their games run better.

BTW, where was this commitment to "quality" when they released Deadspace on the Wii?

EA Canada didn't develop Dead Space Extraction.

[TJ Spyke]

Most people can not tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, and for the majority of games it makes no difference. In a fast paced game like this it might matter, but for most games it doesn't make any difference and only the most hardcore of people would notice.

[Mop it up]

I'd like to see some data which shows most people can't tell the difference between 60FPS and 30FPS. We're talking about reducing the framerate by half, there's a pretty big difference between the two. I think it's more that most people don't care; in television shows it doesn't really matter, and most games are still perfectly playable at 30FPS so long as it's stable. 60FPS mostly just makes animation more smooth and is easier on the eyes, though it can be beneficial in some fast-paced games.