Post by: Bloodworth on May 05, 2004, 10:14:33 PM
If people want to argue they can, and if they want to ignore this thread, they can. At least, they won't have to see the same tired conversation pop up over and over where it doesn't belong.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on May 05, 2004, 10:16:06 PM
Post by: Shift Key on May 05, 2004, 10:50:50 PM
But seriously, S-U-P-E-R needs help!
Tell him mouse!
Post by: Mario on May 05, 2004, 11:03:23 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on May 05, 2004, 11:36:09 PM
Battlefield 1942 or whatever the year is, is awesome online. You can call team mates for help, then lay mines down all over the road, then when they drive on by, they BLOW UP. Discuss.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on May 05, 2004, 11:39:02 PM
am i rite or what, mouse_clicker?
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on May 05, 2004, 11:39:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
So i was playing some kid on Top Spin online on my Xbox the other day, i proceeded to 'serve' the tennis ball, and he was all like "I GUNNED U DOWN". Not knowing what i was getting myself into, i replied with "what", and he replied to my confusion with a "DUN THINK UR READYU 4 ONLINE GAMING YET COZ I JUS KILELD U". He was right, i wasn't ready for online console gaming at all. Let this be a lesson to you all. Nintendo has the right idea.
YOU GOT SERVED
Edit: seriously though, I've been playing RE Outbreak pretty much every day since it came out.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on May 05, 2004, 11:47:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: AiAi
Nintendo don't know what they are doing. If they did, they would be near completion of their next Mario game, an online FPS, to steal the hype away from Hayloe 2, and it will be a system seller
A Supaaah Mario FPS???
Yoshi could use his drop dead sexy tounge to steal weapons from other players, Goomba could do nothing at all for lol, the boot would make a return for squish fun time. It'd be awesome.
"DON'T YOU REMEMBER WHAT I JUST TOLD YOU?"
"NOOOOOOOOOO"
*BLAM*
Post by: Ms.Pikmin on May 06, 2004, 04:08:25 AM
Then I decided I really shouldn't do that because it could be seen as flaming.
So, I'll just go back to laughing now.
Post by: Deguello on May 06, 2004, 04:26:14 AM
Anybody up for a rousing game of OutTrigger? Unfamiliar? OutTrigger was a DC game made by Sega specifically to be played online with their spiffy new BBA. Of course it still worked with 56k. I wish I could tell you how I fared against Broadbanders, but by the time I got it, it was too late. Sega had already started stripping off Sega.net and OutTrigger was one of the victims. Of course, I didn't know that OutTrigger was online centric until I got it. But upon realization that the main single player was uber-repetitive junk and the manual pretty much indicated that OutTrig was meant for online play, I realized I owned an essentially broken game.
Trust me, in 4 years, more than possibly sooner, many of the MMORPGs, MMOFPSs, and MMO anythings that are popular right now will be gone as if they never existed. FFXI? I bet that'll be Gone. Planetside? Gone. RE Outbreak? Despite the popularity, I think people will lose interest. World of Warcraft will probably come and go in this period. SW Galaxies? Even THAT novelty will get old. Earth and Beyond is already gone. And not just gone as in discontinued and hard-to-find like Panzer Dragoon Saga. Even if you found a copy of Earth and Beyond, you can't play it.
The worst part about this wholesale erasure is that not only are the games lost to me, they are also lost to the next generation as well. These discs and the bits of data printed on them become worthless. It's hard for an online game to be a classic because of the inherent subjectiveness in "having to had been there" to experience it. The mere suggestion that a company like Nintendo or Namco or whoever "should" make "Super Mario Online" or "Zelda Online" or "Tales of Internetivity"or whatever game with "online" tacked onto the end is totally absurd.
I really have no problems with online features so long as it doesn't encroach the core game design. Because when it does, games have a tendency to disappear for no reason other than some players lost interest or the company that published it wants to pull the plug.
Oh and on a side note, I agree with mouse_clicker lots, so at least now he's just against the World - 1.
Post by: Moonwatcher on May 06, 2004, 05:10:10 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 06, 2004, 05:23:07 AM
Quote
How you can be condescending, arrogant, rude and pretentious.
That's the idea- it is an argument, after all.
I never flame someone outright, though, just for the sake of insulting them. I'm a firm believer that a heated debate brings the best out in both candidates- if both sides see an attack on their side as an attack on them personally, they're going to get more involved in the debate. You could also say it will cloud their judgment, which may be true, but a sterile debate is going to get nowhere. I'm all for respecting each other’s opinions, but as you know, I think "agreeing to disagree" is not the direction a debate should take unless it can't go anywhere else (which is the case with this subject). Keep in mind I don't mean to offend anyone or make them feel bad or anything, and I'm sure the reverse is true as well. I know I seem pissed off a lot on the boards, but I’m never actually mad, it just appears that way. I never say or do anything just to make people feel bad, either, so don't try to villanize me, Ms.Pikmin, if that's what you're trying to do. I suppose I could be nice about everything, but that’s not my debating style, sorry. If you don’t like it you have every right not to debate with me. Also, I don't care if you have a problem with me and tell me- it's not flaming if unless you're outright bashing someone.In any case, I’m glad Bloodworth finally took my advice and put a cap on all the online talk and made this thread.
For future reference, here’s my list of views on online gaming:--Online gaming is not profitable right now
--There is not ample user support for online gaming to justify Nintendo pursuing it
--The majority of gamers do not care about online gaming
--Nintendo is right not to have jumped into online gaming themselves as Sony and Microsoft have
--Nintendo is NOT right to have made the online capabilities of its console as obscure as they have
--Nintendo SHOULD encourage 3rd parties to set up their own online networks for the Gamecube
--Online gaming WILL be very popular and profitable in the future
--Nintendo most definitely SHOULD support online gaming when they have found a profitable and appealing way to do so
--Nintendo should study their competitors' failures and successes and learn from them in order to duplicate the good and avoid the bad
Post by: DrZoidberg on May 06, 2004, 05:51:29 AM
Post by: Bloodworth on May 06, 2004, 06:29:23 AM
Quote
In any case, I’m glad Bloodworth finally took my advice and put a cap on all the online talk and made this thread.
Your advice? Whatever. Heh heh heh. If you gave me any advice, I don't remember it. I just got sick of it.
Post by: Bloodworth on May 06, 2004, 06:33:47 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on May 06, 2004, 07:10:58 AM
Speaking of online games, I've noticed that a lot of the videogame media (particularly IGN) have a real hang-up about it. It's gotten to the point where Nintendo's games are getting penalized by the media for not being online and I think it's silly. Would a full-blown online mode be nice for Mario Kart? Yes. Is the game bad without it? No!
Post by: Ian Sane on May 06, 2004, 07:34:38 AM
This whole forum isn't profitable.
"And I think this magical little Sega-box holds the dark, dirty truth about the fate of all online-centric games. They all have expiration dates."
That's a very good point and I've never been interested in online-only titles because of this reason. What I'm interested in is online multiplayer as an extra feature. Mario Kart for example would work great with an online multiplayer mode. The one player racing would still be intact and you would still be able to play all of the tracks with four player split-screen or with LAN. Online would just be another option. Ideally the setup would be peer-to-peer so that theoretically 10 years later you could still play online with your friends provided you both still had working broadband adapters. And the game is also still perfectly playable even if you don't want to play online. That's the ideal situation and that's all I need from Nintendo.
The idea of playing with an online community doesn't interest me and the "who wants to play with strangers?" argument makes perfect sense. I don't want to play with strangers. I want to play with my friends without having to invite them over and I want to play with people on this forum.
"Would a full-blown online mode be nice for Mario Kart? Yes. Is the game bad without it? No!"
I think the problem there was that they did make a LAN mode which is like half of the work right there. Mario Kart is essentially online-ready as is and Nintendo failed to take the extra step to take it online. If they never bothered to put LAN in they wouldn't have gotten as much flack about the lack of online play.
Post by: couchmonkey on May 06, 2004, 09:55:34 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 06, 2004, 11:19:33 AM
Quote
Your advice? Whatever. Heh heh heh. If you gave me any advice, I don't remember it. I just got sick of it.
I must've asked you to move online discussion into one thread a thousand times- I guess the fact that you finally did was a fluke.
Post by: Rich on May 06, 2004, 11:20:15 AM
Post by: the_zombie_luke on May 06, 2004, 11:30:27 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 06, 2004, 12:16:41 PM
Guess I have to start getting in more arguments...Or not...
But I like what Chunsoft is doing with Homeland, and I would rather see dev teams use p2p instead of a network...
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 06, 2004, 12:44:10 PM
<---------------- What's this?!? Whoever's hosting my avatar (Bill?), you better fix this.
Quote
That is sort of weird, considering a bunch of college students could do it with Warp Pipe.
Heh, look how Warp Pipe is running right now. I'm enthralled they were able to get the system up, but it doesn't run too well- then again, I'd expect that from college students, just as I would expect Nintendo to be able to set up a working online system, if not profitable. Odd.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 06, 2004, 12:45:35 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 06, 2004, 12:50:28 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 06, 2004, 12:52:01 PM
(New link sent in pm)
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 06, 2004, 12:58:19 PM
Post by: Kyosho on May 06, 2004, 01:33:24 PM
You know Yahoo was started up by college students right? Didn't work too well in the beginning, but look where they are now.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on May 06, 2004, 02:53:01 PM
Not everything college students is guarenteed to work, and until warppipe shows some real improvement, I agree with mouse.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 06, 2004, 03:24:49 PM
Quote
You know Yahoo was started up by college students right? Didn't work too well in the beginning, but look where they are now.
And did you expect Yahoo to become the most popular website on the internet? Not quite.
My point was that I didn't expect Warp Pipe to work extremely well, so I'm not surprised it didn't. I am surprised, though, that a huge electronics company like Nintendo couldn't get a satisfying Mario Kart system up.
Post by: Kyosho on May 06, 2004, 04:51:21 PM
Well I did actually for that matter. I used it more than webcrawler, excite, hotbot, and altavista because it gave quicker and faster hits. I never expected Warp Pipe to come off as a huge success because it's difficult when some of the protocols need to be hacked or researched extensively to be used.
Post by: joeamis on May 06, 2004, 05:02:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Moonwatcher
I have no interest in online gaming either. Deguello's point is very valid but not the only strike against it. How about the issue of cost? I can barely afford to buy a console and video game and memory card and extra controllers as it is. By the time your equiped to play an offline game you've invested around $200 and the Gamecube the cheapest console out there! A monthly fee? Out of the question. I'll not deny that the lure of competing in SSBM online or downloading new areas for Pikmin is strong, but not that much.
Arg the thing is like 90% of online games don't have monthly fees. Also buying 3 extra game controllers for your Cube is about $70 after taxes, while a BBA/modem is $45 after taxes. While playing with strangers is a complaint, the upside is you can play multiplayer virtually any time you want with online AND many online games have friend options (I've made many friends through playing online and talk to them often and play together, so that negates the stranger complaint) AND with voicechat (which is becoming the standard) that also goes a ways against stranger complaints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next post from:
the_zombie_luke
Baron of Game On
posted on Thu May 06, 2004 12:10 AM
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.
my response: The people supporting online are not saying it would have saved Nintendo this generation. Comparing the Xbox to PS2 sales with online play as the catalyst for Xbox is just absurd. First of all Sony had a stranglehold on the market before this generation began, they also have backwards compatability, a full year ahead start, and have online play as well (that negates your point in itself). Now in regards to Xbox case, Microsoft had a bad reputation before releasing the Xbox, they debuted with a so so lineup, designed one of the worst controllers for any console (before the S), and it was there first entry into the market. Oh, also MS had to compete with Nintendo as well, with launches a week apart from eachother. Also, Sony had huge exclusive games and still does despite some of them finally being ported to XB.
Finally in response to Deguello, you make a good point BUT the DC is a bad example since it was an abandoned piece of hardware after being out for two years if that. Most online games live a much much longer life than abandoned hardware games. No offense but you probably should've done more research on the game before buying it so you would know it was specifically an online title and an inquiry on forums would've let you know it was abandoned online. Nonetheless your point is still valid, a bit less, but the truth is by the time an online title does get ended it's atleast the next generation of consoles with either a much better sequel and/or much better online games and similar online games to the one ended. By that time you will probably be tired of the ended game anyways too.
Post by: Bloodworth on May 06, 2004, 05:24:35 PM
Quote
the truth is by the time an online title does get ended it's atleast the next generation of consoles with either a much better sequel and/or much better online games and similar online games to the one ended. By that time you will probably be tired of the ended game anyways too.
Right, I mean, who wants to play Ocarina of Time when you can play Wind Waker? </sarcasm>
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 06, 2004, 05:31:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
Right, I mean, who wants to play Ocarina of Time when you can play Wind Waker? </sarcasm>
Right, I mean, who wants to play Ocarina of Time when you can play Wind Waker? </no sarcasm>
^_^
Post by: Chongman on May 06, 2004, 06:13:18 PM
I don't see how it is possible for anybody to think that nintendo hasn't already thuroughly thought over and discussed this "online problem." In past interviews, even, they've clearly stated again and again that they're not abandoning the online market, simply leaving it for the time being until the time is ripe. It's not like they're not working on it at all, in fact, nintendo undoubtedly has been experimenting with online capabilities for a very long time, and by the time it DOES premier, I have full confidence that it will debut WELL. I mean, whatever they do, they will do it well, they've directly promised that about their future online service. Personally, I think that's the better way to go about things, because like it or lump it, not everybody is online. What percentage of the console userbase plays games over the net? Want to know why it's profitable for PCs? Because a network is already and has for a long time been in place. Consoles cant boast such stability. Not everybody has a broadband conection, and whereas 56k play on the pc is horrendous, many are still sluggishly playable, unlike most console games where it's broadband or bust. How much money did microsoft lose again? yeah, that's right, and though it's not directly related, xbox has always pushed its superior online capabilities to the max, but that didn't pay out as well as they ever expected. It's because you need a broadband connection for xbox live, or you might as well use your xbox as a doorstop. And how many gamers can dish out 40+ bucks a month or convince their parents to?
Xbox+games+dsl bill+xboxlive subscription = mucho bills to pay.
Do you think it's impossible that nintendo might come up with something better then this? Either that or something just as good. I'm going to take their word for it when they say they've been working on it extensively, and when nintendo online does come out, i'll be there to see for myself if I was right or not. Perhaps they wont have the standard userbase loyalty the other companies have, but really, online is something you can just jump onto, seriously. It's not like if you have a choice between an xbox title and a gc title that are both online with both reliable services that there is a really viable reason to go for the xbox over the gc and vice versa. I'd rather wait. Online hasn't reached it's peak, not nearly, that's something the next generation will do and I know nintendo will be there to do it right.
Post by: joeamis on May 06, 2004, 07:06:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BloodworthQuote
the truth is by the time an online title does get ended it's atleast the next generation of consoles with either a much better sequel and/or much better online games and similar online games to the one ended. By that time you will probably be tired of the ended game anyways too.
Right, I mean, who wants to play Ocarina of Time when you can play Wind Waker? </sarcasm>
I know I wouldn't, I don't like replaying games I beat and know every last plot twist. It's just boring replaying games that don't have good replay value to them (rpgs, action rpgs).
That's why after going to 6 stores to get the bonus preorder disc I sold it without thinking twice after playing through to the end of the deku tree, it was just too boring.
Post by: the_zombie_luke on May 06, 2004, 07:09:00 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on May 06, 2004, 07:30:38 PM
I think something else that should be noted is that with consoles this phenomenon can be even more of an issue. Since the services are designed for a specific console in mind, Sony or MS can just drop the support for every one of those games in a moment.
Post by: the_zombie_luke on May 06, 2004, 08:32:45 PM
Post by: DrZoidberg on May 06, 2004, 10:18:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: joeamisQuote
Originally posted by: BloodworthQuote
the truth is by the time an online title does get ended it's atleast the next generation of consoles with either a much better sequel and/or much better online games and similar online games to the one ended. By that time you will probably be tired of the ended game anyways too.
Right, I mean, who wants to play Ocarina of Time when you can play Wind Waker? </sarcasm>
I know I wouldn't, I don't like replaying games I beat and know every last plot twist. It's just boring replaying games that don't have good replay value to them (rpgs, action rpgs).
That's why after going to 6 stores to get the bonus preorder disc I sold it without thinking twice after playing through to the end of the deku tree, it was just too boring.
so do you not watch repeates of TV shows, or rewatch movies or anything else either?
Post by: joeamis on May 07, 2004, 09:22:08 AM
I guess I missed the point, I thought the point was that you listed arguably the best game of that generation to want to play again. And to me if I didn't want to go back and play the best game of a past generation then I probably wouldn't like to play the others either. But anyways I did say it was valid and a good point in my first post responding to Deguello, meaning I believe the same thing just not to the degree that he does. I guess I came off as more against it than I am, I was just trying to show the weakness to it not to disprove it. I still get some joy at playing even the oldest games but I look forward to playing new games not old ones.
Post by: Deguello on May 07, 2004, 08:10:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: joeamisQuote
Originally posted by: Moonwatcher
Finally in response to Deguello, you make a good point BUT the DC is a bad example since it was an abandoned piece of hardware after being out for two years if that. Most online games live a much much longer life than abandoned hardware games. No offense but you probably should've done more research on the game before buying it so you would know it was specifically an online title and an inquiry on forums would've let you know it was abandoned online. Nonetheless your point is still valid, a bit less, but the truth is by the time an online title does get ended it's atleast the next generation of consoles with either a much better sequel and/or much better online games and similar online games to the one ended. By that time you will probably be tired of the ended game anyways too.
It wasn't a bad example. At the time of 2000 the DC was a rather successful little console with a good sized online commitment. Just because it got discontinued doesn't mean anything. And why should I have done any research on the game? What if I didn't care about it until I saw it? And what about Joe schmoe, who doesn't read about stuff online? And what if I don't have an internet connection to begin with? Is it MY fault that this game is pretty much destroyed?
And "better" sequels is immaterial. A better example than Bloodworth's is GoldenEye and Agent Under Fire. And I see no such Online game like Earth and Beyond.
Post by: joeamis on May 07, 2004, 08:20:48 PM
Post by: joeamis on May 07, 2004, 08:43:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: DeguelloQuote
It wasn't a bad example. At the time of 2000 the DC was a rather successful little console with a good sized online commitment. Just because it got discontinued doesn't mean anything. And why should I have done any research on the game? What if I didn't care about it until I saw it? And what about Joe schmoe, who doesn't read about stuff online? And what if I don't have an internet connection to begin with? Is it MY fault that this game is pretty much destroyed?
And "better" sequels is immaterial. A better example than Bloodworth's is GoldenEye and Agent Under Fire. And I see no such Online game like Earth and Beyond.
Whoa man calm down. The Dreamcast was not that successful, especially when you compare it's marketshare by this generations standards. It stopped production of the system what Q1 2001 right? PS2 had only been in the U.S. for less than 6 months. DC online size was small compared to todays small standards. It does mean something because it was discontinued, it means the same thing that Bloodworth mentioned for when PS2 and XB are done and online will be discontinued. There was no room for Sega to make any more profit by supporting a discontinued piece of hardware when it had just put them in triple figure million debt and they were trying to become a 3rd party for other companies. Why should you have done research on the game? That's just being a smart consumer. Joe Smchoe who doesn't read stuff online is just unfortunately at a loss, especially if he plans to buy an online title when he hasn't even been online yet. I never said it was your fault at all that the game is destroyed and if you were a smart consumer then you wouldn't be upset to begin with. As for the better sequel comment, Goldeneye is also arguably the best game of last generation. Agent Under Fire is made by a different company...EA The "real" sequel to Goldeneye is Timesplitters 2, which is better than Goldeneye. (I did say sequels and similar games)
Post by: Mario on May 07, 2004, 08:46:43 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 07, 2004, 09:29:41 PM
Post by: Perfect Cell on May 08, 2004, 01:11:39 PM
2.How many people play on Warp Pipe?
These two bits of information which i do not have could help this discussion.
Personally, I feel Nintendo seems to discourage its third parties from making online games. There is no reason why Pandora Tomorow and Rainbow Six have to be online on the other consoles and not on the cube. Nintendo could adapt an online policy like Sonys, which lets third parties take care of the servers and take most of the profits.
Post by: Shadow Fox on May 08, 2004, 02:07:12 PM
QuoteNintendo has ALREADY set up a policy like this; Sonic Team alone reaps profit on official online GameCube titles (PSO I, II, and III).
Originally posted by: Perfect Cell
Personally, I feel Nintendo seems to discourage its third parties from making online games. There is no reason why Pandora Tomorow and Rainbow Six have to be online on the other consoles and not on the cube. Nintendo could adapt an online policy like Sonys, which lets third parties take care of the servers and take most of the profits.
As for Sonic Team's efforts:
-PSO I and II sold around 400,000 copies (with adapters) by the end of 2003, and is believed to have topped 500,000 before the launch of PSO III.
Now I don't know how many global copies of say, Unreal Championship or NFL Fever have sold in comparison, but I'm pretty sure PSO is close to, or more in userbase.
Post by: the_zombie_luke on May 08, 2004, 05:08:57 PM
Post by: The Omen on May 10, 2004, 05:22:46 AM
Nintendo must offer what their competitors offer, as long as its financially feasible. And it is.
Even though online gaming is not profitable now, being innovative often means jumping into the fire. IMO, theres enough evidence that online console gaming will grow and Nintendo should grow with it. Having said all that....
I do not want games that can only be played online. I want the option to play them online. I may never take a game online, or I might end up loving it, especially since all my friends are up north. The only question is, which approach should Nin take? MS or Sony? (I know NIN has already halfheartedly taken the Sony path, but)
The final reason: Nintendo games, more than almost any others, lend themselves online perfectly. 1080, Pikmin, Fzero, AC, SSB:M, Mario Tennis and Golf. Thats one hell of a stable of exclusive content that would kick ass online
Post by: thecubedcanuck on May 10, 2004, 10:09:38 AM
A while back my wife bought me an x-box live online kit and wireless broadband. It took me a month to finally set it up and nearly another month to get set up on live.
Now, I cant put the damn thing down. I play online nearly everyday and love it. It has put a spark back into my gaming like nothing has in years. Just my personal story.
I also believe that Nintendo needs to go online for the simple fact that both their competitors are. Profitable or not, I am sure it will affect sales of next gen consoles. To be the only console without a descent online following by next gen would be a huge mistake.
Post by: CaseyRyback on May 10, 2004, 07:51:32 PM
also for people saying online is not profitable, many of the top companies today would not even be close to being as big as they are without online play. Ubi is a great example of that. Rainbow Six is still the top game on live 9 months down the road and if that does not lead to expanding sales than nothing will. I know the only reason I even buy certain games is the online portion(RS3, Battlefield, UT2K4 and a lot more)
Post by: nolimit19 on May 13, 2004, 05:39:34 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 13, 2004, 06:25:00 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on May 18, 2004, 10:35:42 AM
QuoteWell, what happens when, eventually, those services are dropped? You have simply a shell of a game that, obviously, you won't enjoy much at all.
I know the only reason I even buy certain games is the online portion(RS3, Battlefield, UT2K4 and a lot more)
Post by: CaseyRyback on May 20, 2004, 08:48:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: kennyb27QuoteWell, what happens when, eventually, those services are dropped? You have simply a shell of a game that, obviously, you won't enjoy much at all.
I know the only reason I even buy certain games is the online portion(RS3, Battlefield, UT2K4 and a lot more)
Look online at how many are still playing these games. By the time you are finished playing there will still be a ton of people playing them. Never once in the 9 months I played Raven Shield did I ever have a problem, and I never had a problem with Battlefield or Ut2K4. Online games stick around long after people who use this argument would like to admit. The most popular online game is freakin 6 years old and it ain't going anywhere.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 20, 2004, 08:10:23 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 21, 2004, 07:17:57 AM
Sell them to buy a PS3 or N5.
Post by: Syl on May 28, 2004, 10:51:54 AM
Anyway, to sum it up.
Do online games matter to me: Yes
Will i buy a game purely for its online capabilities: Yes, have and will continue too.
I'm buying a roughly 1700$ dollar computer next week (finally getting everything figured out) and 95% of the reason im buying it involves playing games online.
I love online gaming, it is honestly why i'm thinking about buying an xbox, i'm angry the cube doesn't have online. Sure, i'll still love it for the single player games, but 4 person gaming just isn't enough anymore, espicially when we have a group of 10 people who want to play.
Post by: Deguello on May 29, 2004, 12:17:26 AM
Quote
The most popular online game is freakin 6 years old and it ain't going anywhere.
If you mean CounterStrike, that game is P2P requiring no "Service" to sign up and pay for (except of course, the ludicrous Live verion), and thus will not go anywhere. AND that is a Half-Life mod to begin with. And thus not what I meant by a game disappearing.
However, if you mean Everquest, that's in expansion hell. I severely doubt people are still playing the original, unmodified in any way, and still paying the subscription. If it's even supported.
(Opinion Time) And besides, Everquest, like ALL Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games, are horrible horrible games. NO EXCEPTIONS. They all involve running around killing rats and picking stuff up in the search for a rare weapon. And then chatting with people. And the best part is they charge you monthly for this wonderful experience.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on May 29, 2004, 12:59:29 PM
Also, there are plenty of popular PC games that have been out for years, MOHAA, CS, UT, Q3, many more, people just enjoy different games.
Post by: Deguello on May 30, 2004, 01:06:51 AM
Quote
Also, there are plenty of popular PC games that have been out for years, MOHAA, CS, UT, Q3, many more, people just enjoy different games.
I don't mean those. Last Time I checked, Diablo 2 and those in the quote don't charge asinine monthly fees. So they are exempt. And since those games also have p2p modes and LAN and such in it, the "online mode" will quite possibly last forever.
About Everquest and Lineage and Asheron's Call and others of that ilk, they charge monthly for something that will disappear since they are reliant on core servers
One one hand you have something free that will, as long as there are some people around still interested, still be there 10 years from now. And on ther other, you have something unpredictably finite that you pay for every second of. I like that first one better.
I don't knock online features. I knock paying for them, and I knock their forced integration into core game design at the expense of a good single player. That said, Starcraft RAWKS.
Post by: joeamis on June 01, 2004, 08:43:04 AM
Post by: Syl on June 01, 2004, 01:00:17 PM
which means im very interested in it.
But, the first online title i'll be buying with my new computer is going to be UT2004. That game is just so damn awesome.
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 01, 2004, 02:00:47 PM
Quote
The new MMORPG Guild Wars will not have any fees to play.
You don't have to pay for Runescape either, pleh.
Post by: Ocarina Blue on June 01, 2004, 11:14:45 PM
In short: Runescape's failure = other's sucess.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on June 02, 2004, 02:38:59 PM
Post by: WallOfDoom on June 06, 2004, 09:34:51 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 06, 2004, 02:09:05 PM
Post by: Kyosho on June 06, 2004, 06:48:41 PM
Post by: odifiend on June 06, 2004, 07:50:59 PM
Most families own more than one TV and for these party situations, it isn't unusual to have a friend own a GameCube (esp. to fulfill the controller requirements, and Mario Kart being the 'must own' that it is, it isn't unusual to have another copy of the game either), so most of the requirements are met. But to come up with multiple broadband adapters? When Nintendo itself refuses to support online gameplay? Mario Kart is good but I'll be damned if I'll sink 40 (X N) more bucks on top of the price of admission to play with 4 (X N) people MK: DD!! once in a blue moon.
I was playing Halo with some friends the other day and we decided to hook up another xbox to have more people playing. The most difficult requirement to fulfill was having enough controllers. That is the way it should be. I shouldn't be immediately discouraged from LAN because I have to hunt down non-inclusive, expensive adapters to network Gamecubes. Nintendo has failed even in their diversion from online gaming.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 06, 2004, 08:28:54 PM
Good point. If Nintendo wants online gaming or LAN to be successful next gen the broadband adapter should be part of the console. There should be no reason not to at that point since there won't really be a need for a seperate dial-up modem.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on June 07, 2004, 06:35:02 PM
BTW, I have been to now 6 lans ranging in size from 4-200 people, just so I don't get some claims that I haven't been to enough.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 07, 2004, 07:48:17 PM
Post by: Kyosho on June 08, 2004, 03:06:20 PM
Been there done it already more than 6 times. Like i've said before, not everyone wants to lug their computer + 17"-21" CRT monitors around. I dont see anywhere above where someone pointed out LANs weren't fun. Lans are great every so often, but in no way can it be done a daily less a weekly thing (which is why I like the internet)
Post by: manunited4eva22 on June 11, 2004, 09:38:39 AM
And I have 2 words for if your crt is too heavy 1) LCD, 2) cart
Post by: joeamis on June 11, 2004, 06:34:33 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 11, 2004, 06:42:50 PM
Seriously, though, CRT's aren't that heavy- I move my TV (which is a lot bigger than any monitor you guys have ) on a regular basis without much strain.
Post by: odifiend on June 11, 2004, 07:07:49 PM
Post by: Kyosho on June 12, 2004, 08:13:09 PM
2nd, ppl are lazy. They are not going to jack a cart nor are they going to want to lift big (heavy or not heavy) stuff around for LANning when they can just connect TCP/IP.
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 12, 2004, 08:28:17 PM
Post by: Kyosho on June 13, 2004, 01:27:28 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 13, 2004, 08:41:25 AM
Most developers are lazy, but that sounds like a problem with them, not with low capacity memory cards.
Most people are cheap, but that sounds like a problem with them, not with the N-Gage launch price.
You can't blame laziness or any sort of negative personally trait on a problem. You have to accomodate those personality traits. Nintendo's gone with this "if you're not lazy or a bad developer or a superficial person you'll love this" attitude for the last few gens and it hasn't worked. Sony's whole rise in the game industry is a direct result of them accomodating the lazy consumer and the lazy developer. Devs embraced the PSX because it was cheaper to make games for and they didn't have to work hard to get great sound or great looking cut scenes. Realistically from a pure gameplay perspective the N64 had better hardware since it had better graphics to provide better immersion, a better 3D controller, no load times, and four player support right out of the box. Consumers liked the Playstation better too. The games were cheaper and there were more games to choose from. Both systems had their pros and cons (N64 for example had no load times, it's top games were arguably better, no memory card needed for first party titles) but few bothered with serious research. It required less effort to just pick the Playstation.
So if a solution requires any sort of effort from the consumer it's not a good solution. So having LAN as a focused feature instead of online isn't going to work. Although all forms of multiplayer gaming requires some work online is the easiest for most people to use. You don't even need any friends or extra controlers, just an internet connection, network adapter of some sort, and a console.
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 13, 2004, 10:47:01 AM
No, no, I stand by what I said, besides the fact that it was halfway a joke- it's their problem they're lazy, not mine, not yours, and not anyone else's. Laziness isn't an affliction, it's not a disease, it's a conscious choice to not do anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm not lazy- far from it- I'm just not trying to defend it. What I meant by my comment was as such: the fact that a lot of people are lazy is not a problem with the LAN, it's a problem with them, and I don't see why we should have to comply to the lowest common denominator. But maybe it's not Nintendo's place to enforce that, I don't know. ::rolls eyes::
What I WASN'T doing, though, was trying to say LAN in a viable alternative to a good online plan for next generation- people were coming down harshly on LANs is general and I was defending them.
Post by: odifiend on June 13, 2004, 01:04:15 PM
Most casual gamers are the lowest common denominator.
So as a company that should have them in its demographic, nintendo should make its link-ups easy to get going and lazy proof. Not that Nintendo hasn't done that to an extent, with 4 controller ports right out of the box. But this gen, Microsoft's xbox one upped them with LAN.
Post by: ThePerm on June 13, 2004, 01:21:36 PM
1 they should be made idiot proof
2 I think more is better sometimes
Post by: Berny on June 13, 2004, 04:25:53 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on June 13, 2004, 11:55:48 PM
Post by: odifiend on June 15, 2004, 08:21:27 AM
Basically though Nintendo reminds everyone that they've been investigating networked gaming for 20 years but the cost of data transfer causes, more specifically, online gaming to have a weak market potential.
Fine, whatever, same old, same old. What bothers me is 1) they say this as people are beginning to speculate about the Revolution (didn't Peter Main say that Nintendo would definitely be online next gen?) and 2) they follow this statement with how they are going to challenge online gaming with the Game Boy Advance wireless adapter. WTF??!! On top of this adapter of course having range limititations, that online gaming wouldn't have, from what I understand, this device does the exact same thing as the wired link cable. Sure, it's convenient, but that is barely innovation, let alone an online killer.
If they pushed the wireless capabilities of the DS, it would be tenable, but the wireless GBA adapter?
Anyway I want my networking on a console! GBs have been networked since tetris- that's 20 years. The DS sounds like the epitome of handhelds networking. Move on to consoles, Nintendo. At least make LAN easier.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 15, 2004, 08:58:04 AM
I think the fact that Nintendo's online plans focus on the GBA and DS shows which market Nintendo really cares about. It's too bad because I really feel that the Cube was capable of much more but was held back by a half-assed effort on the part of Nintendo. I really don't want to see that happen with the Revolution. Plus they tend to be thinking too much about an online strategy that works for Japan and not North America. They've talked about having "hot spots" in stores for online portable gaming. Well that works okay in Japan but that sort of model would NEVER work in North America. Canada and the US are just too spread out.
And I really hope they were just trying to hype up the GBA wireless adapter because it's an absolute joke of a product. Games have to designed to use it. That means that multiplayer GBA games that have been released thus far can't use it. That's just unacceptable. This should just be a wireless version of the link cable and thus work with every link cable game.
I do however have hope that Nintendo will incorporate the wireless technology used in the DS in the revolution. Afterall they did say that the DS is a glimpse of what's going to be in store for the Revolution and they do like connectivity. If the DS is wireless and is going to connect to the Revolution the console would have to be wireless as well or there's no point.
Post by: evil intentions on June 19, 2004, 02:51:51 PM
Without online gaming, many people might have lives. ^_^
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on June 20, 2004, 08:07:42 AM
Quote
Without online gaming, many people might have lives. ^_^
I think the proper statement is "Without gaming, many people might have lives ."
Post by: manunited4eva22 on June 20, 2004, 04:46:37 PM
I will try to dig up a picture of it.
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 20, 2004, 04:56:28 PM
Quote
I think the proper statement is "Without gaming, many people might have lives ."
No, I think the proper statement is "Without gaming, many people might not have lives."
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 24, 2004, 10:15:10 AM
Post by: evil intentions on June 24, 2004, 07:32:52 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on July 01, 2004, 07:54:24 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 02, 2004, 12:23:54 AM
Post by: odifiend on July 02, 2004, 06:02:07 AM
I want a t-shirt that morphs into an online infrastructure for the Gamecube or into a legally binding contract that makes Nintendo go online. NO I couldn't guess what could legally bind Nintendo to online but I think I've established that this is a magical t-shirt.
In all seriousness, I've read the Takahashi brothers interviews, and the blurb about Mario Tennis, I find quite interesting. Its absence could be explained by them putting the broadband adapter to use. There was a thread on this a while back and I think the best use we could come up with for a tennis game using LAN was, every player has court advantage. While convenient, that is hardly worth the effort. So it could perhaps be that they are putting M. Tennis online.
However I have read conflicting arguments from Iwata again just recently over at IGN. Again he states that people aren't ready to pay for online gaming, which is true, and the way he says it makes it sound like no such game will come out of Nintendo. So unless Tennis is free, I doubt that the Takahashi bros. will have their way with pleasing those who wish to use the broadband adapter.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 02, 2004, 11:37:36 AM
Post by: odifiend on July 02, 2004, 12:21:55 PM
. Though I think professional behavior in the east has an entirely different definition than the west. Are there ever even sexual harrasment suits? (Don't answer that we're already so off topic.)
Post by: OmniDistortion on July 14, 2004, 10:34:29 PM
Post by: Mario on July 14, 2004, 11:41:04 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 15, 2004, 12:05:39 AM
Quote
So is mouse_clicker the argumentative type?
Wahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You're new here, aren't you?
Oh, and Grandia II is by far the best RPG ever made- anyone who disagrees obviously hasn't played it.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on July 15, 2004, 12:48:12 AM
I have and the original Grandia and Skies is better. If anyone disagrees, they are wrong.
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 15, 2004, 12:52:19 AM
Skies of Arcadia is amazing, too, but I can't let a game where the average random monster encounter is literally every 1.5 seconds be considered the best ever.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 15, 2004, 05:26:53 AM
Post by: Mumei on July 15, 2004, 06:06:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Admittedly the original Grandia is extremely good, indeed right behind 2, but it's sequel improved on the formula and was better overall.
Skies of Arcadia is amazing, too, but I can't let a game where the average random monster encounter is literally every 1.5 seconds be considered the best ever.
Are you playing Skies of Arcadia, or the GCN version? Because you really exaggerate the random battle encounter rate
. And if you have a problem, equip the White Map. The random battle encounter rate goes down quite a bit.And has anyone played Panzer Dragoon Saga? I'm getting it in about 2 months
.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 15, 2004, 07:12:41 AM
Oh and Super Mario RPG is the best RPG ever.
Post by: Mumei on July 15, 2004, 07:27:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Why are we talking about RPGs? Isn't this thread about online gaming?
Oh and Super Mario RPG is the best RPG ever.
Oh... Well it did get off topic awhile ago. And as for SMRPG being the best RPG.... well you are entitled to your opinion
.
Post by: evil intentions on July 15, 2004, 10:13:54 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 15, 2004, 10:42:12 AM
Post by: Mumei on July 15, 2004, 06:18:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: evil intentions
Ian Sane's opinion happens to be a very good one.
I never said he had a bad opinion, I just implied that I disagreed
.Post by: Bill Aurion on July 15, 2004, 07:13:29 PM
No, you are just supposed to be against Mousie...
And Mario & Luigi is the best RPG, with the other two Mario RPGs right at it's heels...
Post by: odifiend on July 15, 2004, 10:08:25 PM
ONLINE IS TEH RULEZ!!!
Seriously though if the Revolution isn't online, I'll be pissed. If you can wi-fi connect DSeseses (teehee I need sleep...), you could wi-fi revolutions with a linksys or whatever. I'm sure Nintendo's goal is getting everyone connected to some high speed service to ensure it is easy for all there consumers to connect. I think that is why Nitnendo seems to be stressing wireless so much as of late because population-dense Japan has various hot spots and probably the occasional wireless router- so it is much easier for the average joe, and non-bill paying kids to gain access to online gaming.
Accessibility is why the GCN's lan mode fails at life also its creation/ separation goes against Miyamoto-sama's wish that Nintendo products be an out of the box experience. Writing this I was questioning why Nintendo didn't just include the adapter in the design of the gamecube, chalking it up to conspiracies against online gaming, but it is that Nintendo is a business that gives people what they want. Do I want to hunt for an accessory that lets you play online? No, but what if they gave you a cube with built in broadband and you used a modem. Or worse yet the reverse. I know I'd be a touch miffed.
So a much better hypothesis (relative
) that I've come up with is that Nintendo releases their two online enabling accessories going against their 'out of the box gaming' ideal. This ain't gonna fly sez Nintendo. We've just made it a task to get online gaming, we've split those that want to game online into to two factions and the cube isn't meeting expectations sez Nintendo. According to the numbers, more people will have broadband next gen sez Nintendo demographilogists. Someone interjects 'even with one kind of connection, Xbox live! is losing money by cubed meters'. Let's wait til next gen to do anything sez Nintendo.Oohhh, some fans are going to be pissed says Nintendo exec.
Hmm, we'll have to put a face out there so loveable that they'll have to understand sez Nintendo exec 2.
Only one man can do this, a co-conspirator for Kirby and SSB games... Iwata! Iwata for president sez nintendo exec 3.
Great! so what do we have in the meantime until next gen? sez nintendo exec.
Connectivity? sez nintendo exec 2.
We're going to need Miyamoto in on this too... sez Nintendo exec 1.
I am praying that nintendo's scrutiny for online gaming at home comes down to the fact that they can't feasibly implement it now (or couldn't then) while giving the options they wanted to give their fans. Iwata is the new president and in charge of boosting moral. You can come of stronger as a leader if you flat out deny scenarios that your own company has thought of before.
For example, just say a reporter asks Iwata, "Isn't there anything new you could do with online gaming?" If Iwata responds there is nothing significant that can be added with the feature for the expense, he is sticking to his guns and being the figure head that he is supposed to be. As much as I hate reading his mantra-like responses, what is the alternative?
"Isn't there anything new you could do with online gaming?" - well we have a bunch of ideas, but we can't implement them, so.. sorry suckers, enjoy PSO and buy our next console for those.
I do hope that Iwata's guns begin to rust before the launch of the Revolution and Nintendo begins to embrace at least the possibilities. The way Iwata continues on nobody will ever believe Nintendo titles will be on-enabled.
How much control does Nintendo of America, Europe, Australia (lol) have over Nintendo of Japan? Can they at least influence there decisions?
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 15, 2004, 10:21:04 PM
Post by: odifiend on July 15, 2004, 11:04:22 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 16, 2004, 03:29:42 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 16, 2004, 07:20:36 AM
No apples in the vending machine PLEASE!
Post by: The Omen on July 17, 2004, 02:44:57 PM
As for RPGs, I like SMRPG , FF2 and Ultima Exodus(NES).
And the Revolution better have a legit online option.
That is all.
Post by: Shadow Fox on July 21, 2004, 06:08:58 AM
QuoteDamn; I almost agree- the ending to Grandia II almost brought a tear to my eye...damn Dreamcast...
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Oh, and Grandia II is by far the best RPG ever made- anyone who disagrees obviously hasn't played it.
Anywho, just to disagree, I'm still volleying between Chrono Trigger and Star Ocean I...hard to decide the best RPG between the two.
-Official Ninja of PGC
Post by: Mumei on July 21, 2004, 07:12:16 AM
Post by: Deguello on August 03, 2004, 09:51:15 AM
What do you mean "no?"
What do you mean "blasphemy?"
Post by: Ian Sane on August 03, 2004, 10:29:55 AM
I'm a pretty pro-online guy but I can't defend that. Mostly because I'm not at all interested in it. That's an example of making a title online for the sake of making it online. It's as bad as those really crummy games we saw back in 1996 that took a popular 2D game (Bubsy, Earthworm Jim) and made it 3D for no reason other than to make it 3D. Back then I was pro-3D but I was against 3D for the sake of 3D. I recognize that 2D and 3D can co-exist just as now I feel that online and offline can co-exist.
Online allows for new possibilities but it shouldn't be shoehorned into games that don't lend themselves to it.
Post by: RCmodeler on August 11, 2004, 02:20:08 AM
- boring compared to other FFs (weak story)
- grew tired of rude people
- grew tired of rude people (I realize that's the same reason, but it was such an *important* reason, it's worth listing twice)
- grew tired of the constant & pointless leveling up
- the monthly fee is burning a whole in my wallet
Online gaming may be "revolutionary", but I don't think it will ever attract the mainstream (read: $profitable$) gamer. It just isn't as much fun and/or worth the cost, and I predict like PC online games, it will be a small (<5%), niche community.
Nintendo is ignoring online gaming, but I don't see it hurting their bottom line. The small 1% who abandoned Nintendo for Xbox/PS2 Online don't matter, because Nintendo is still rolling in the greenbacks.
Post by: Chongman on August 29, 2004, 01:54:15 PM
I agree completely with you, only its probably more like a good 15-20% of the entire userbase that ditched ninty because of a lack of an online plan. It's not because they want to play online, no no, just the fact that it's not there, something less than all the other systems, it just puts a bad spin on the whole deal. Having "online play" means you have more of a mainstream appeal and mainstream appeal is something ninty lost somewhere mid 64 lifespan.
Post by: joeamis on August 30, 2004, 10:15:01 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 01, 2004, 08:49:38 PM
Post by: Chongman on September 02, 2004, 08:44:14 AM
There are people actually playing online? The online userbase is actually growing.?
GREAT!
That means by next gen, it'll become PROFITABLE, and the big N will jump right in.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on September 05, 2004, 06:26:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chongman
jump right in.
LOLLERS
Post by: BlkPaladin on September 06, 2004, 01:04:50 PM
Post by: joeamis on September 07, 2004, 06:54:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlkPaladin
The thing is about those number is they never list all those who cancel their accounts or let it run out. They only list who is current and the average have signed up it looks better that way.
huh? It's not Xbox Live, it's free Sony online. I don't understand part of your second sentence, "and the average have signed up it looks better that way." The average who have signed up do you mean? If they only list who is current, that wouldn't help them because alot of gamers who aren't current who used to be, will be logging back online most likely especially with the best online titles to be released in the near future.
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 10, 2004, 02:57:15 AM
Post by: odifiend on September 10, 2004, 09:09:10 AM
Hopefully not...
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 15, 2004, 01:46:29 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 15, 2004, 08:31:02 PM
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 16, 2004, 04:11:23 AM
Post by: joeamis on September 16, 2004, 04:29:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MaleficentOgre
They could even allow for console against console matches. That's all fanboy's would need, instead of yelling at each other they can go out and shoot the crap out of each other to show which console has the best gamers.
Some games already feature console vs console, and console vs pc. Hopefully the trend continues, with more online titles playable across all consoles.
Post by: KDR_11k on September 17, 2004, 02:21:21 AM
Post by: joeamis on September 23, 2004, 05:29:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: joeamis
The numbers are in, and now Sony has over 1.4 million users playing online since it's debut just 2 years ago. Given the fact that there are not many online titles compared to offline ones, this is pretty good. Even better though is that there are now 1,400 users signing up each day, and almost 50,000 each month.
I just read that the over 1.4 million users playing online ps2, is for the USA alone. Doesn't count any other territories.
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 23, 2004, 07:00:14 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 23, 2004, 09:58:34 PM
Also, Sony said 40% of their american users use dialup so Microsoft excluding modem users might have been a bad move.
Post by: joeamis on September 25, 2004, 06:53:04 PM
As for MS not including modem use for their online games being a bad move is questionable. For one, alot of their online titles would have to be scaled down to be playable for 56k. Another thing to note that is online games this generation are more of a preparation for next generation as far as garnering online gamers. By having only broadband, MS is ensuring it gets alot of the BB users now, and then next generation when 56k online games are much less than the already small amount they're now, they will have those gamers already on board. And finally, MS has over 1 million online gamers, while Sony has 1.4 million (going by each companies most recent #'s). Given the userbase of each system, it seems that MS BB only online was a good move rather than having 56k.
Post by: ghostVi on September 28, 2004, 03:02:23 AM
Post by: Pale on October 13, 2004, 09:01:33 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on October 14, 2004, 01:44:13 AM
Post by: MaleficentOgre on October 14, 2004, 06:43:43 AM
Post by: King of Twitch on August 25, 2016, 01:39:01 AM
Quote from: mouse_clicker
--Online gaming is not profitable right now
--There is not ample user support for online gaming to justify Nintendo pursuing it
--The majority of gamers do not care about online gaming
--Nintendo is right not to have jumped into online gaming themselves as Sony and Microsoft have
--Nintendo is NOT right to have made the online capabilities of its console as obscure as they have
--Nintendo SHOULD encourage 3rd parties to set up their own online networks for the Gamecube
--Online gaming WILL be very popular and profitable in the future
--Nintendo most definitely SHOULD support online gaming when they have found a profitable and appealing way to do so
--Nintendo should study their competitors' failures and successes and learn from them in order to duplicate the good and avoid the bad
Wrong on literally every count, Mouse.
Post by: Khushrenada on August 25, 2016, 02:44:45 AM
Post by: Shorty McNostril on August 25, 2016, 03:38:53 AM
Post by: Agent-X- on August 25, 2016, 02:53:36 PM
Quote from: mouse_clicker
--Online gaming is not profitable right now
--There is not ample user support for online gaming to justify Nintendo pursuing it
--The majority of gamers do not care about online gaming
--Nintendo is right not to have jumped into online gaming themselves as Sony and Microsoft have
--Nintendo is NOT right to have made the online capabilities of its console as obscure as they have
--Nintendo SHOULD encourage 3rd parties to set up their own online networks for the Gamecube
--Online gaming WILL be very popular and profitable in the future
--Nintendo most definitely SHOULD support online gaming when they have found a profitable and appealing way to do so
--Nintendo should study their competitors' failures and successes and learn from them in order to duplicate the good and avoid the bad
Wrong on literally every count, Mouse.
Are you saying that online gaming isn't very popular or profitable at present?
Looks to me like it took over the gaming world to the extent that we will probably never see another single player FPS game from Valve (aka Half-life 3).
Post by: pokepal148 on August 25, 2016, 03:33:25 PM
But this gen, Microsoft's xbox one upped them with LAN.
"Now, what could you do with those XB1 Live titles?"Oh snap.
Post by: Shaymin on August 25, 2016, 04:40:26 PM
Post by: King of Twitch on August 25, 2016, 06:14:27 PM
Quote from: mouse_clicker
--Online gaming is not profitable right now
--There is not ample user support for online gaming to justify Nintendo pursuing it
--The majority of gamers do not care about online gaming
--Nintendo is right not to have jumped into online gaming themselves as Sony and Microsoft have
--Nintendo is NOT right to have made the online capabilities of its console as obscure as they have
--Nintendo SHOULD encourage 3rd parties to set up their own online networks for the Gamecube
--Online gaming WILL be very popular and profitable in the future
--Nintendo most definitely SHOULD support online gaming when they have found a profitable and appealing way to do so
--Nintendo should study their competitors' failures and successes and learn from them in order to duplicate the good and avoid the bad
Wrong on literally every count, Mouse.
Are you saying that online gaming isn't very popular or profitable at present?
Yes. Nobody is playing ExciteBots anymore ;__;
Post by: ThePerm on August 25, 2016, 07:48:39 PM
