Post by: Darkheart on February 08, 2005, 09:58:16 AM
Aparrently PsP will have 3 count them 3 online launch titles
-Gretzky NHL
-NBA (Untitled)
-MLB (Untitled)
Granted they are all sports games, but Nintendo is ticking me off, they are either really unprepared or they are just getting cocky with their high and almighty attitude. They better do something soon to counter react or Nintendo is going to blow incredible sales that they could potentially get.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 08, 2005, 10:01:15 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 08, 2005, 10:56:04 AM
Nintendo has to reveal its online plans for the DS at E3. With the Cube Nintendo delayed the announcement of their online plans forever and in the end they just plain didn't have any. If the DS online plans are delayed then everyone is going to assume that, much like with the Cube, Nintendo just doesn't have any. Nintendo has created this image of being offline. If they plan on going online they have to give us the scoop soon or they'll miss out. Online is an essential feature now. If they look at all like they have cold feet third parties aren't going to give them a chance and gamers who want to go online are going to buy the competing systems. Nintendo's been telling us to wait for them to go online for too long now. Nobody is going to wait anymore.
If there are no DS online plans revealed at E3 I'm going to take that to mean that the DS will not go online at all because it won't if Nintendo is wishy-washy about it.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on February 08, 2005, 11:28:27 AM
I mean seriously, everyday you come in and start talking gloom and doom for nintendo.
PSP isn't launching for over a month and already you're talking like its already sold 10 times bettern than the DS.
Post by: Darkheart on February 08, 2005, 11:52:13 AM
Psp: Im a multimedia machine
DS: Meh no one wants that stuff we are all gaming baby, but if you want multimedia you can use the practically nonexistant no release date play yan.
Psp: I sport over 25 launch titles
Ds: I have like 10 titles over a 3 month period But you need to buy me cuz i have Mario 64 woot woot
Psp: I have 3 games online available at launch.......you have to pay for them but my online plan is there if you want it
Ds: I have tons of rumors of me going online and many say soon but I am still shaky and have no clue when or if its coming.......
Im not bashing on Nintendo I am just saying that if they want to play the secret card factor, they need to at least say that on such and such day nintendo is going to say something that will rock your world, so stay with us you wont want to miss it.
~Darkheart~
Post by: vudu on February 08, 2005, 12:00:14 PM
QuoteGamesarefun.com was nice enough to put together a list of confirmed US DS and PSP launch titles. You can find it here.
Psp: I sport over 25 launch titles
Ds: I have like 10 titles over a 3 month period But you need to buy me cuz i have Mario 64 woot woot
You'll notice that the DS has 91 confirmed games and the PSP has 71. And that's not counting Pokemon Diamond/Pearl or Super Princess Peach because they haven't been officially announced for the US. PSP is Th3 D00m3d!!1
QuoteI almost have to agree here. Ian's been a great forumer (is that a word) but he's been really down on on Nintendo lately. It makes me wonder if he's a Sony/MS fanboy who has been hanging around for years so we would drop our guard and he could blindside us with "Nintendo is going down the drain". Enjoy the games, forget about the business.
Ian you really need to tone down your optimism pal</sarcasm>
I mean seriously, everyday you come in and start talking gloom and doom for nintendo.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 08, 2005, 12:12:32 PM
Any pessimism I've shown towards Nintendo lately is because I'm such a big fan of Nintendo and don't want them to fail. So therefore if to me it looks like they're heading for disaster I'm going to offer my opinion on it. I don't want the PSP to beat the DS I just think it very likely might so therefore Nintendo should prepare for it.
Nintendo's recent actions and rumoured plans for the future worry me so I'm expressing my concern. I'm not a pessimist I'm a realist.
Post by: Darkheart on February 08, 2005, 12:15:47 PM
Post by: Savior on February 08, 2005, 12:24:28 PM
Im hoping Nintendo suprises all of us and announces their online pla (Which is coming) by March 1st.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 08, 2005, 12:42:07 PM
You know that's not helping your case any. They all say that.
If I cared about online I'd probably agree with you though.
Post by: Darkheart on February 08, 2005, 12:52:27 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on February 08, 2005, 12:56:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Nintendo has to reveal its online plans for the DS at E3.
More like next week. E3's too far away, the PSP will have been onrine in the US for two months by then. =\
Post by: SgtShiversBen on February 08, 2005, 12:56:35 PM
Even though this is I guess good for the people who spend 549$ on a PORTABLE system, in the end...is it really worth it when that's half the price of a good laptop (more than half for my kickass little Avery) and those let you play games online too. BF1942.
Nintendo's plan I hope is better. I don't want to have to wait there for like 10 minutes just so I can join a game and hear them call me "U CAMPER!! ROXORS IS THE BEST!! 1337!!!" I just want to sit on a bus or maybe in a plane terminal and play a nice game of Yoshi's blocks (don't remember the name from SM64DS) or Puyo Pop.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on February 08, 2005, 12:58:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~
seriously now, i do fret to read Ian's posts, but that's merely because they are fairly accurate observations of the state of the industry and Nintendo's quirky behavior. I am afraid of the PSP. My friend (who i thought stopped playin games years ago) is all excited about the PSP. So we know Sony will get at least one sale stateside now.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 08, 2005, 01:19:09 PM
Well obviously sooner is better then later but I think E3 wouldn't be too late. Realistically Nintendo might not have had any clue that Sony was going to be online at launch and thus has to push things foward. So we can give them some slack. I guess you could say that E3 is the latest they can announce plans but in general I don't think two months is that big of a deal. I just picked E3 because that's when people expect major announcements to be made. Pre-E3 people will assume that Nintendo is waiting for E3. But after E3 there's no solid point to wait for so people will start assuming the worst.
Post by: Savior on February 08, 2005, 01:33:38 PM
Post by: mantidor on February 08, 2005, 01:43:22 PM
Post by: Darkheart on February 08, 2005, 01:59:00 PM
Quote
online is way overated, of course in an internet forum most people just cant get that simple fact.
I never thought online was such a huge aspect of gaming as much as I do now. Back in the day when online gaming was just coming out, I thought nothing of it because I always had an aresanal of buddies to come over and play a game. Now being in college and have virtually no time to sit down and play a console game I find my DS to be my only realistic gaming console on the go. All of my buddies have migrated to different colleges leavin me with my little brother whos a die hard x box live fan (leaving no room for peeps who want to play ds) ........ Therefore if Ninty gives me online I actually can play multiplayer games and not feel so alone in the gaming world lol. I mean theres a million Ds's sold and yet theres no one on my campus that has one or at least brings it to school. Where are they where are they.....??? I hope this gives you an idea of why I and many other gamers I know want the DS online.
~DarkHeart~
Post by: mantidor on February 08, 2005, 02:31:40 PM
All this sounds almost utopian, but thats Nintendo's philosophy, or at least what Ive come to understand, and I honestly like it, they are here to make games, they arent trying to make their operating system to control every electronic device in your house (microsoft) and they dont want every single electronic device in your house to be made by them (sony). The bad part is that most gaming related information comes from the internet and avid internet users, and that explains why Ninty public image is so deteriorated.
Post by: jarob on February 08, 2005, 02:56:14 PM
Post by: Savior on February 08, 2005, 03:06:47 PM
Maybe on handhelds... On Consoles its a way of life now. You might not like it but the majority does.
Post by: jarob on February 08, 2005, 03:16:52 PM
People are social creatures, and online playing will grow exponentially because of this fact.
Post by: Mario on February 08, 2005, 04:50:49 PM
Post by: Gamefreak on February 08, 2005, 05:03:59 PM
Now if they announce Wipeout Pure is online... Well 8 player Mario Kart and 16 player Hunters better hurry up cause Twisted Metal and Wipeout online kill the DS's whole lineup.
Post by: heinous_anus on February 08, 2005, 08:53:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Im not saying that you, or for that matter, all of us here dont want online, we do, of course! we enjoy it, (maybe its more like you, I have been bored to death with online gaming), but there are millions of people out there without internet but with a tV and the income to buy a console, thats why Nintendo said "gamers dont want online", they want to please us as much as they can, but they also want all those "offline" people (which are for now the majority) to play games, the want your mom and dad and your grandparents to enjoy their games, and thats what the whole DS, revolution and their supposed "k¡ddie" games are about, a game like resident evil would discourage someone like my teachers to play games, but not Pikmin or Mario Party.
All this sounds almost utopian, but thats Nintendo's philosophy, or at least what Ive come to understand, and I honestly like it, they are here to make games, they arent trying to make their operating system to control every electronic device in your house (microsoft) and they dont want every single electronic device in your house to be made by them (sony). The bad part is that most gaming related information comes from the internet and avid internet users, and that explains why Ninty public image is so deteriorated.
I totally see your point, and I think a lot of Nintendo fans (myself included) think the same way. I like the utopian idea that you talk about, as well. Nintendo has explicitly stated in the past that they are a gaming company first and last, and that will always take supreme priority over anything else.
At the same time, it doesn't hurt to include features like "online play" with your systems just to be able to say that you have it. I still don't think, even with this next batch of consoles, that online play is integral to the gaming experience (it may very well never be), but, at the same time, not offering such a service, or not touting/supporting such a service could prove very costly.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 08, 2005, 09:04:27 PM
Post by: Artimus on February 08, 2005, 09:37:46 PM
There is no more risk in making an online plan than there is in not making one. Some people want to pay, so let them. Then when you figure out how not to charge, do so. But don't alienate those who want to play Mario Kart online. It's stupid.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 08, 2005, 10:01:20 PM
Making an online plan costs money. Not making an online plan costs no money.
"Some people want to pay, so let them."
They'll still lose money. Do you have any idea how much money MS sank into the black hole that is Live just to get the amount of subscribers they have today?
"Then when you figure out how not to charge, do so."
You're missing the point. The whole reason they're trying to figure out how not to charge is so they don't waste money building a service that's worth charging in the first place.
"But don't alienate those who want to play Mario Kart online. It's stupid."
You're right, the vast amount of money you're asking them to throw out the window is the intelligent thing to do.
I personally don't want them to waste ANY time, money or effort on taking games online. I'm sick of online, I get enough of it from my PC. I want them to keep making games and ignoring people like you. I don't care if Nintendo never goes online, because they can survive even if nobody who wants to go online buys their system.
Post by: Darkheart on February 09, 2005, 02:12:33 AM
Quote
I personally don't want them to waste ANY time, money or effort on taking games online. I'm sick of online, I get enough of it from my PC. I want them to keep making games and ignoring people like you. I don't care if Nintendo never goes online, because they can survive even if nobody who wants to go online buys their system.
You know this is becoming ridiculous, just because you get to play games online on your PC that is your reason why I cant play my Ds online. Listen, I see the Ds as a giant test product for them. The touch screen the microphone and everything about the Ds is testing the ground for Nintendo. They could overall see if online would be a market they like to do by setting it up for the Ds and just using it for the Ds. If they end up doing it and doing it well they could port the service over to the Revolution. Oh yeah one more thing since you want them to keep ignoring people like me, you might as well not say it at all. I hope they start listening to their fan base and ask them for what they want. Man, if Ninty actually went and listened to their fans they could be doing 200% better than sony. Think about it how much advice could this site alone give Nintendo to do better.........
~Darkheart~
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 09, 2005, 03:24:01 AM
Where I differ is that I see the games that will come out for the DS and I am genuinely excited. Super Mario Kart, Wario Ware Touch, Animal Crossing, Kirby, Yoshi Touch N Go, Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Polarium, Advanced Wars DS, these are all top-rated games, and although they are sequels they are beloved sequels that will be great to play.
If you notice I listed 10 games for the DS. Nintendo could easily release one game a month now until Christmas of this year for the DS. I just wish Nintendo would release the games earlier. They have several of them finished and ready to release or close to it. The reason they are holding off is there stupid idea that 2 of their games can't sell in the same month. I say release 3 games at once to compete with PSP this March, and I will be happy. I don't care if that causes a drought of games in the coming months...that drought would allow me time to pick them all up.
As for online being the future...yeah online is the future, but how many years will it be until we actually have stable online gaming? Don't try to tell me we have it now. Eventually, in the future I see every game attempting online play, just because its neccessary to sell and they will be horrible. Conker's Bad Fur day for Nintendo 64 is a great example. The multiplayer was horrid, but it was put in there. Now imagine other great single player games with crappy multiplayer just because people wouldn't buy it because its not online. If online is the future it may not be a pretty future.
Post by: mantidor on February 09, 2005, 05:06:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Savior
online is way overated, of course in an internet forum most people just cant get that simple fact.
Maybe on handhelds... On Consoles its a way of life now. You might not like it but the majority does.
whats the percentage of ps2 and xbox owners that go online? its not bigger than 30%, sorry, but thats not the majority.
A more simple example, Halo 2 has already sold almost 6 millions copies, how many xbox live users are? two million at most, and Im exagerating, again its far from being the majority.
Then again Im not saying that online is bad, its just not mainstream for now, but it will be big in the future.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 09, 2005, 05:57:43 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 09, 2005, 06:30:19 AM
Ridiculous as opposed to what? You're saying that if I want them to keep their money for games that's ridiculous? Just because you want to play online I have to deal with lower budget games?
I'm part of their fan base too, remember? And I want good games, not online. Good call there, they should listen to me. And I'm in the majority, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise... the majority either does not have online or does not want online.
"As for online being the future...yeah online is the future, but how many years will it be until we actually have stable online gaming? Don't try to tell me we have it now."
No, no. Online is the past. And it's a very unremarkable past at that. We don't just have it now, we've had it for years in a much better form than all the console fanboys are wetting their pants over, and EVEN THEN it's still just an overhyped service. You're telling me Nintendo should be wasting their money developing an inferior form of something I'm thoroughly sick of? I'm glad they're ignoring you.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 09, 2005, 06:36:01 AM
You cannot please as much as you can with limitations. You can only please as much as you can with OPTIONS. That's what online gaming is, an OPTION for those that want it. People without internet can still play Mario Kart with their friends if it has online multiplayer. There's no rule that an online game can only be played online.
Halo 2 is an online game and it has sold more copies than there are Live users. So an online game has sold HUGE with an offline audience. Providing online multiplayer for games alienates NO ONE. Staying offline alienates more and more each year.
And regardless of who want it the PSP has it so the DS has to match. When people see that one system has a feature the other doesn't they assume the one with the extra feature is better and pay more attention to it even if they have no desire to use that feature. They want the option so if they change their mind later they can use it.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 09, 2005, 06:44:08 AM
"Providing online multiplayer for games alienates NO ONE"
Yes it does, the people who want amazing single player games. I think it's funny how you gave Halo 2 as an example. Just look at the single player in that game, for heaven's sake. Are you telling me if they didn't work on online the single player wouldn't be any better than it is now?
If Halo 2 was offline I might actually have bought an Xbox for it.
Post by: vudu on February 09, 2005, 06:47:41 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 09, 2005, 07:07:49 AM
Doesn't multiplayer period potentially do that? It depends on the developer. Halo 2 supposed doesn't have that great of single player but then neither does Halo. Metroid Prime 2 however has multiplayer and it didn't hurt the single player game at all. Some devs can do it some can't. Plus those offline also bought Halo 2 for it's offline multiplayer. So it didn't alienate any offline gamers, just those without friends. Mario Kart and SSB also are pretty crappy for single players. That's just how multiplayer games are. Interestingly enough online play allows for those without friends to play with at home to play with others.
Your arguement applies more to multiplayer not online play. I guess we should go with one controller port because having 4 is hurting single player games. Somehow the PS2 and Xbox are both online yet quality single player games exist for them.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 09, 2005, 07:40:18 AM
Post by: Artimus on February 09, 2005, 07:44:00 AM
Post by: SgtShiversBen on February 09, 2005, 09:32:25 AM
I do think online would be a great ADDITION, but I don't think it's necessary. Some of y'all might, but that's the beauty of opinions. Like I said earlier, I want to just play some games on here that I can't play at home when I want to and not have to worry about wether or not I'm going to get kicked off, if I can find a hot spot or any of that goodness. Oh well, continue your arguing but in the end both sides are right. Sad what's become of the game industry. We think of it as a business instead of entertainment.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 09, 2005, 09:43:06 AM
You haven't seen the Xbox live cost numbers have you.
"THEY ARE DYING because they refuse to offer options."
That's extremely arguable and opinionated.
"You're saying basically, because it costs money and you don't want it, to ignore it."
I'm saying basically, because it costs money, time and effort and adds NOTHING to my experience, to ignore it. You're saying basically, because you want it, they should waste money giving it to you. If that's the kind of logic that makes sense to you, then I want my Gamecube to have a waffle iron. It won't alienate anybody, right? That's what I'm saying, online to me is like a waffle iron to you. Now let's make this a bit more analogous... I'm asking for Nintendo to offer a waffle iron that takes a billion dollars to produce. Are you going to be happy about that?
"Doesn't multiplayer period potentially do that?"
You know you're setting up a straw man right now. The difference between online and regular multiplayer is that online takes a whole different level of cost and effort to make, and even with exorbitant development time and cost (Halo 2) if the game tries to include online worth noticing, then the single player will most likely suck. If Metroid Prime 2 was online, the single player would suck. Regular multiplayer I can bear because the resources it takes won't hit the singleplayer quality that hard.
"Somehow the PS2 and Xbox are both online yet quality single player games exist for them."
That right there is where you're missing my point. You say there's quality single player games existing for them... but how many more would there be if online didn't exist? Would developers be able to get away with "Game 2: Game 1, now with online!", like they're doing now?
Post by: darknight06 on February 09, 2005, 09:55:54 AM
Yeah, but that game's multiplayer was an afterthought and the amount of time devoted to it could've been sent to the real reason we played that game to begin with, the main adventure itself.
When are people gonna realize Nintendo is a GAME COMPANY. A GAME COMPANY! They are not Sony where they have an electronics division. They are not Microsoft who has the funds from their OS and wherever else right now to get money. Both of those companies are conglomerates with more assets than Nintendo probably ever had in the lifespan of the entire company. Yeah, Sony and Microsoft can throw money into online and lose some here and there, yeah some shareholders might not be too happy about it, but who cares? As long as something major doesn't go wrong anywhere else in the company they won't have much to worry about.
"People say "nintendo needs online for the DS" but don't seem to realize that online entails more than importing a netcode library and throwing a few packets at it. Online requires a server network that can handle the load. Those are EXPENSIVE. If DS online bombed Nintendo would be stuck with a set of costy servers eating money with very little return."
Precisely, and once again yeah Nintendo is a game company, rich or no. Right now console online gaming is still the endeavor of a minority of the gaming populace. Didn't we just hear not that long ago that X-Box live just broke a million? A million out of how many total owners? 12mil? 13mil? Once again, Microsoft can afford the blow of $2.4+ billion on it. Now if Nintendo were to do something similar (which btw is what most devs have gone on the record saying they would want them to do this), get approx the same count of online gamers out of total system owners, and lose the same amount of money off it, all I'll say is that the doom and gloom arguments you're seeing from the media now would be compliments compared to the armageddon that they'll probably start spewing then. Now also keep in mind that they want this to be as accessable to as many as possible, probably wanting to either make it extremely low cost or free. If after that we're still looking at a minority of gamers online, unless they have somekind of miracle solution that will probably screw them up in ways that will affect the rest of the company's operations. And the last thing I want to see is a compromise in game or hardware development because a few people couldn't live without their online Mario Kart.
"No, no. Online is the past. And it's a very unremarkable past at that. We don't just have it now, we've had it for years in a much better form than all the console fanboys are wetting their pants over..."
So true, and this alone is one of the things I personally don't like about the current online gaming situation on a console. Most console online games had died for me because after playing the initial multiplayer aspect of them to death, they got boring and there was really nothing else to really mess with. This might be my PC online gaming experience talking here, but the ability to mod was what kept most titles going long after you got tired of the original multiplayer games. People being able to make their own games within games. Tides of Blood in Warcraft 3 is an example of this as well as many other mods that have been done in various other games.
With that said, Nintendo WILL eventually go online, I don't have a single doubt about that. All the rumors about Square-Enix and the rumblings at IGN (yeah, I know...) all hint at it. Not to mention the fact they put 802.11b WiFi hardware and a jack for a headset on the system. I seriously doubt that they'll neglect it considering that everybody had to pay for that hardware, unlike with the GC modem and broadband adapters.
Post by: Gamefreak on February 09, 2005, 11:09:34 AM
We all know the DS is going online and we all know it will have online voice chat so yeah let's stop arguing since it won't affect anything.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 09, 2005, 11:35:00 AM
No, actually. When the DS and Revolution go online and people start complaining about how much the games suck I can be like Ian and complain about how Nintendo never listened to my advice in the beginning. I'm thinking long-term here, pre-bitching and all that.
Post by: Savior on February 09, 2005, 12:03:13 PM
Hell Socom 1 and 2 have been incredibly succesfull too. Look the sales figures are there, the numbers are there. Online play is 1.Succesfull, 2.A selling point. 3.Here to stay and Nintendo better adapt.
Post by: jarob on February 09, 2005, 01:08:25 PM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on February 09, 2005, 01:22:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"Nintendo is rich, they can afford to waste some money with online play."
You haven't seen the Xbox live cost numbers have you.
Do U have these #'s?
Post by: thepoga on February 09, 2005, 02:25:48 PM
Post by: mantidor on February 09, 2005, 03:04:08 PM
And still Nintendo made the gamecube online capable, and most of you seem to forget about phantasy star, Nintendo didnt have a solid online plan, of course, they had zero online experience and they hadnt found a way to make money out of it, but they give you the option, devs if they wanted could make online games, why they didnt do it? I have no idea ask them.
ok, Im being a bit "ranty"... the problem is I get a little upset when internet forumites dont release they are biased in some way about online, but when you live in a country where internet is still a luxury I think that gives you a more objective view on things.
Post by: jarob on February 09, 2005, 03:17:28 PM
Post by: Savior on February 09, 2005, 04:08:18 PM
Quote
you the option, devs if they wanted could make online games, why they didnt do it? I have no idea ask them.
They have... Specifically the makers of Godzilla DAMM and Burnout 3 have said Nintendo isnt fully supportive of online... they dont produce enough adapters things like that.
Post by: darknight06 on February 09, 2005, 04:41:07 PM
Post by: Artimus on February 09, 2005, 04:44:13 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 09, 2005, 05:50:31 PM
The big deal is that if you spend time and money on online, you have less time and money to spend on single player. Just look at Halo 2 for proof.
"Why do you think having online games hurts single player games? Make money with online games, use that money to make more online games. Very simple. Does not affect single player games. You know, it is possible to have both. Halo 1 obviously made enough money for creating Halo 2. Expand your horzions."
Yes, very simple... except you CAN'T make money with online console games, not if you want to do it right like Microsoft. Nothing else will satisfy the people clamoring for online. There goes that "simple" theory.
"Do U have these #'s?"
No, sorry... they're really old numbers, from before Xbox Live was even launched. I'm sure you can find them if you look hard enough... if I'm not mistaken it was in the billions.
"(The complaints of The single player have NOTHING to do with its Quality, but the fact that you dont play the whole game as Master Chief)"
False. How about repetitive level design, nothing new over Halo 1, misled expectations (you don't even play on Earth for long), horrible glitches and a horrible ending. It's obvious the game was split up into yet another Halo game, and it's obvious they released it early so Xbox Live owners would have a reason to resubscribe. If you look at what Bungie originally intended and promised for the single-player campaign, and then you compare it to the actual game, I don't see how you can be anything but disappointed and pissed off. Every single review I've read of the game goes like "single player is meh but online is where it's at". Well, online isn't where it's at for me, therefore that's just one more game with huge potential that was ruined by the inclusion of online.
Post by: jarob on February 09, 2005, 06:11:44 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 09, 2005, 07:13:26 PM
No, I'm 100% against Nintendo working on anything online. Maybe if they find a way to hire somebody else to take care of it... but I don't want them wasting time, effort or any considerable sum of money on it.
Post by: Artimus on February 09, 2005, 07:52:45 PM
Games like Warcraft III and Starcraft cost Blizzard money to run but you don't see them complaining.
Nor do you see Microsoft complaining about the cost of their online service. Why? Because next gen they're going to give Sony a run for their money.
Post by: thepoga on February 09, 2005, 08:47:04 PM
Post by: darknight06 on February 10, 2005, 05:50:12 AM
I guess so, Blizzard is primarily an online centered developer. Those games were made to be online from the ground up, they make QUALITY online games that are customizable and moddable so that the players themselves can make new games within the game, and there's more than enough of a fanbase buying it (more that what you'll ever see on a console, they've existed long before online and console were ever thought about in America) meaning they know that they'll get enough revenue coming in along with ads from various companies to help pay for it. That and since it's not an MMO, nobodys having to pay for it which guarantees when someone else wants to join in it's as simple as getting the game and whatever updates that might be needed.
"Nor do you see Microsoft complaining about the cost of their online service. Why? Because next gen they're going to give Sony a run for their money."
Once again, it's Microsoft. Have you forgotten that they probably have well over 4x the money of Nintendo? Of course they can blow it on Live, they'll just pick up the slack elsewhere.
Post by: heinous_anus on February 10, 2005, 07:58:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"We all know the DS is going online and we all know it will have online voice chat so yeah let's stop arguing since it won't affect anything."
No, actually. When the DS and Revolution go online and people start complaining about how much the games suck I can be like Ian and complain about how Nintendo never listened to my advice in the beginning. I'm thinking long-term here, pre-bitching and all that.
No one is responding to Ian's earlier point that online sells; when a consumer sees two similar product in a store, and one has just a couple more features than the other one, EVEN IF there's no chance they'll ever use those features, that other product starts to look a hell of a lot better. Like it or not, now that more and more casual gamers exist, this is something that has to be dealt with.
I have lots of faith in Nintendo. I think that, being the best gaming company around, that they would have little trouble creating an easy-to-use, accessible online option for future consoles while sacrificing nothing in terms of quality with regards to their games.
On the other hand, with regards specifically to the DS, I think that the price point of the PSP really is something to make a big deal about. Unlike some folks who may point to the "iPod" generation, I really don't think 22-23 year old college students are going to run out and plunk down, what is it, like $300, to play portable GTAIII or Metal Gear. Listening to music from class to class, on the bus, in class, in the car, etc. etc., are far different than spending that much money on a portable gaming system that probably won't get that much use. (This is all assuming that the 18+ demographic is what Sony is going for...?)
Post by: Gamefreak on February 10, 2005, 12:17:23 PM
So don't say Nintendo shouldn't spend money on online or that it doesn't have the money, cause it does and it's stupid not to use it. Nintendo made more money off the N64 than any companies probably made off of anything in gaming history.
Post by: kennyb27 on February 10, 2005, 02:50:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamefreak
So don't say Nintendo shouldn't spend money on online or that it doesn't have the money, cause it does and it's stupid not to use it. Nintendo made more money off the N64 than any companies probably made off of anything in gaming history.
Look, let's just say Microsoft has lost some two and a half billion dollars setting up and installing their XBox Live service (which is what is looked to in the industry as the "right" way to do online). You claim Nintendo to have some six billion dollars in these "archives" of theirs.
If they lose only the same amount as Microsoft (which is a generous statement considering the age/sales demographic of the two systems), they will have lost some 42% of their "cold hard cash." Now just from a business standpoint, would any company give up nearly half of their cash for any business move? No, not likely at all.
Now from a gaming standpoint, assuming only some 20% of the fan base goes online (which again is generous considering the age group that own GCNs) that would be another not-so smart move. Why should you simply pacify barely one fifth of your market in order to lose nearly half of your cash reserves?
So, in the end, Nintendo is not "stupid" to hold off on online.
Post by: darknight06 on February 10, 2005, 05:06:23 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on February 13, 2005, 04:18:59 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on February 13, 2005, 05:27:15 PM
Anyway, who's up for some space flights on reusable spacecrafts?
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 13, 2005, 05:40:20 PM
Not sure what happened since then, but I'd wager Microsoft spent more money on Xbox and Live after that.
Post by: Gamefreak on February 13, 2005, 06:53:43 PM
MS definately did NOT lose over 2 billion dollars on Xbox live. Their Xbox live budget isn't even anywhere near 2 billion dollars.
The entire budget for managing Xbox and it's games is about 2 billion dollars. And MS sure as heck didn't lose every single dollar they ever spent on Xbox. That's just ludicrous. They lose money on each Xbox, yes, but they make tons of money off of games.
No one with any sort of knowledge would ever believe it takes 2.4 billion to set up and maintain Xbox live. MS charges people yes, but they hardly do anything. They run some servers for games and they make certain features standard across games that support live. Big deal.
PC games are free online. Blizzard doesn't charge people for playing Warcraft III online. There are more people playing Warcraft III online than any Xbox game other than Halo 2, which it probably rivals very closely. Running an online service doesn't cost that much money. They price of maintaining servers is covered in the ridiculous 50 dollars a game costs. PC game companies prove this. Nintendo is just retarded since they think online play isn't profitable. Yes, they won't make as much money as they did before online, but they definately won't lose any amount worth crying over, and they aren't in any sort of financial situation worth worrying about, so why not do it since it will pay off later?
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 13, 2005, 07:06:01 PM
Also, didn't Blizzard have craploads of trouble managing enough servers for WoW?
Post by: heinous_anus on February 13, 2005, 07:20:12 PM
With regards to the server trouble for WoW, I think a lot of that had to do with how ridiculously well the game sold in the first few weeks. I read an interview somewhere where a Blizzard rep. said that based on market research (other massive online games), WoW was only expected to sell X amount in the first 4-6 months; this amount was achieved in a matter of weeks. I don't think Blizzard was ready for the popularity of the game.
I've never heard of difficulties with Warcraft III online.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 13, 2005, 07:29:56 PM
But I don't know. I think I'm in way over my head right now. All I know is that most PC online gaming is free but Xbox Live isn't. There has to be a reason.
I also know I'm thoroughly fed up of online, PC or console. Therefore I have no interest in this topic. If Nintendo can somehow find a solution that everybody loves without wasting money, great, go ahead. But if that means they have less money, time or effort to spend on their actual games, I hope everybody who wants online dies a fiery death.
Post by: Darkheart on February 13, 2005, 08:41:11 PM
Oh btw, I'll choose the firey death thing Paladin as long as I get my DS online and I get a box of HOOTER's hot wings to go with me ^0^
Post by: Artimus on February 13, 2005, 09:04:50 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 13, 2005, 09:53:35 PM
darkheart, I apologize if it seems that way. I'm being relatively tame right now, believe it or not. I just naturally like big confrontations, and arguments are fun.
My argument isn't "since I'm fed up with online gaming everyone should move on with me", I'm not that naive. My argument is "I'm fed up with online gaming and I won't shut up about it."
Post by: Dasmos on February 14, 2005, 12:01:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: darkheart
I've met a whole bunch of cool gamers online.
I met my wife of 58 years while gaming online........that's pretty good seeing as i am only 17 and that online gaming hasn't been "alive" for that long.
Post by: oohhboy on February 14, 2005, 03:48:49 AM
Although I do concide the fact that unlike Blizzard which was alllowed to expand thier servers slowly while each game came online, I do believe Micosoft over invested in online.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 14, 2005, 05:36:22 AM
The only viable system is a server-client model where the server does all the calculations and the clients get copies of the results. If any doubt about certain data arises, the server is always right. Many games call the server the host but that doesn't change the fact that it's an S-C model. All games use this nowadays because P2P just desn't work for data subject to heavy branching. Many games support instant server changes, which means when the server disconnects the clients imediately determine a new server.
What people here get confused about is the master server. Games with user-provided servers use the dev's master server (or that of other match-making services, like Gamespy) to locate other users unless the only way to play is to enter the other guy's IP address. Live is like that. The other kind is the dev-owned game server, where all users connect as clients to a server operated by the dev and the dev's servers calculate the games. That's what MMOs do and I think closed Battle.net works like that as well. The costs are hugely different, a match-making server has much less load (and therefore cost) than a game server, UT2004 has one server, WoW around 80. I'm not sure but I believe MS's servers take a much heavier load because they handle MANY games and some downloadable content plus all Live accounts. I'm not sure what Sega payed for their network.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 14, 2005, 09:41:25 AM
Post by: oohhboy on February 14, 2005, 07:35:58 PM
Post by: Gamefreak on February 14, 2005, 08:45:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
Great. Then why does Microsoft charge for Xbox Live? Is there some additional cost they're trying to cover or are they just being greedy?
darkheart, I apologize if it seems that way. I'm being relatively tame right now, believe it or not. I just naturally like big confrontations, and arguments are fun.
My argument isn't "since I'm fed up with online gaming everyone should move on with me", I'm not that naive. My argument is "I'm fed up with online gaming and I won't shut up about it."
Blizzard games are not P2P. Blizzard provides tons of their own servers and features a centralized matchmaking service (Xbox Live and Halo 2's online interface is completely based on Warcraft III's online interface). The reason World of Warcraft had some problems is because
1) It sold way more than expected
2) Running a persistant world that has to be constantly updated and synchronized perfectly across everyone's computers is much harder and more demanding than something like Warcraft 3 where there are hundreds of 30 minute matches which are completely unrelated to each other and have only 2 to 8 players per game.
Answering your question, the reason Blizzard doesn't need to charge for Warcraft III is because they don't have as many costs to cover. They just develop the game and provide servers, all of which is covered with the games price of 50 bucks.
MS on the other hand needs to charge for Xbox Live in an attempt to make for their losses in hardware. Of course this could have meant that next generation, where MS is not going to suffer huge losses on hardware, Xbox Live could be made free. Unfortunately, Xbox Live and Halo 2's success has proven that consumers are willing to pay $50 a year (not really that much, just the cost of one game) to play online, and I highly doubt MS will see any reason to stop charging consumers who don't know any better. Unless of course Nintendo or Sony announce their own centralized services free of charge.
Post by: Grant10k on February 15, 2005, 06:46:20 PM
The DS is online right now, even if no games use it at the moment. It has 802.11b (or g?) at this very moment, just waiting for some software to utilize it, it doesn’t care who writes the software. Let’s say that Nintendo for whatever reason has announced no online plans, they went up to the podium and said “we don’t feel like it…” or whatever. There is nothing stopping someone like EA from making a crappy EA game and just using one of their BF 1942 servers. They could just use 10% of a server; if the game is a hit (inexplicably like a lot of EA’s games) they can get a new server later to handle the load. Nintendo likes letting people do there own online thing, or at least that’s what they did with the Gamecube (phantasy star (I think it’s spelled with an ph)) so now it’s like a computer without the ability to mod games, for all intensive purposes, all computers/DS’s are online already, starting user base of [a lot]
On a side note, I write my forum responses in Word for the spellchecker, did you know MS Word spellchecker recognizes and capitalizes Xbox but not Gamecube or Playstation? Damn subliminal advertising. At the time of writing this I’m seeing tons of little red squbbles over half this thing.
Post by: Gamefreak on February 15, 2005, 07:48:09 PM
And of course Word recognizes Xbox... By the way, you can add words to Word's dictionary. Just type in a word, and if it's underlined in red by World, right click the world and click "add to dictionary"
Post by: Grant10k on February 15, 2005, 10:00:17 PM
Quote
Actually, IGNDS's Craig Harris says that from what he hears from developers, that's exactly what happened. Nintendo just sat there and thought third parties would make online games on their own, but they didn't want to without Nintendo even acknowledging or supporting online play (like GCN), so apparently Nintendo is currently in the process of making some sort of standardized interface (or maybe just add online software to DS dev kits) to help out developers. Also there is talk that Nintendo and Square (it's unclear if they are doing this together or [separately]) are both setting up servers dedicated to online DS play.
I'm glad they are actually doing something this time, I like the idea of adding online software to the dev kits, so they won't spend too many extra resources trying to get online to work (or letting games ship with buggy online capabilites)
I know how to add to the dictionary, it's just its a little like word recognizing George Washington but not Abe Lincoln; it doesn’t hinder anything it’s just something I noticed.
Post by: vudu on February 16, 2005, 08:21:17 AM
QuoteActually, Word Recognizes Playstion, but you have to spell it correctly--it's PlayStation. However, it doesn't recognize GameCube.
On a side note, I write my forum responses in Word for the spellchecker, did you know MS Word spellchecker recognizes and capitalizes Xbox but not Gamecube or Playstation?
Post by: NWR_Lindy on February 16, 2005, 07:13:07 PM
2) You can't tell me that a server farm for XBox Live would cost billions anyways, maybe several million but not billion.
3) I highly doubt that Halo 2's online development affected the single-player game. The Halo 2 project directors would have simply hired more people to work on either part before the project started...it's not like they'd have a team of 60 developers that absolutely could not change in size. I'm sure Bungie hired a ton of people for the Halo 2 online work, because the people that made Halo 1 probably weren't experts at online implementation.
4) XBox Live is ideal for older gamers that have friends with children, who can't hang out at other people's houses after work. That's why the XBox has really been embraced by thirtysomething gamers - you don't have to have everybody together in one room to have a multiplayer game. People aren't in college forever.
silks
Post by: Gamefreak on February 16, 2005, 10:03:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: kingvuduQuoteActually, Word Recognizes Playstion, but you have to spell it correctly--it's PlayStation. However, it doesn't recognize GameCube.
On a side note, I write my forum responses in Word for the spellchecker, did you know MS Word spellchecker recognizes and capitalizes Xbox but not Gamecube or Playstation?
Actually I just opened up Word.
It recognized Xbox, PlayStation (but not Playstation), and Gamecube.
So I guess you're actually all wrong
Or need updated Word versions...Post by: vudu on February 17, 2005, 08:14:29 AM
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on February 17, 2005, 02:24:27 PM
- 5 Sony titles are going to be fully capable w. online play on the launch day
- Nintendo has cancelled plans to take the DS online
- Nintendo has cancelled PDA software for the DS
- The next Nintendo console will fail because it is launching after the Xbox 2
- in 5 years, Nintendo will be in the same position as Sega
i told the moron that Nintendo isn't announcing any more plans until E3 (like every other company), but you know how those EB employees are: idiots. it's dumbasses like this guy that screwed the GameCube and every Nintendo system from here on out. he didnt bother mentioning the 4 hour battery life for his wonderful PSP.
Post by: SuperMario35 on February 21, 2005, 05:25:26 AM
Post by: darknight06 on February 21, 2005, 06:13:03 AM
According to two friends of mine who used to work for EB, its not so much that they're idiots (some are now, don't get me wrong) as much as it is that usually their jobs are on the line almost ALL THE TIME and if they don't get a certain no. of preorders, or a certain amount of hardware sales, they could very well lose their job. This is why hardly any REAL gamers work at places like that, EB wants people that will sell whatever they want them to, even if it had the production values of something out of a trash can. (Van Helsing) Then theres the whole incentive factor in this where companies pay them to advertise something for a specific amount of time. Add that to the fact that company representatives are always coming by to make sure their products get pimped accordingly.
Now I'm not 100% sure if Gamestop does this too, but I'm led to believe they have a similar policy. However as of late I seem to run into less morons at Gamestop so who knows.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 21, 2005, 06:31:21 AM
Post by: UniversalJuan on February 21, 2005, 06:38:14 AM
Post by: davidlow122 on February 27, 2005, 06:15:13 PM
I should stress this is NET loss. They are not 'making heaps on games and halo 2' on top of this. This already includes all inflows of cash. I believe their income has been about 3 billion for the console, but they have spent 6.2 billion to get back their 3 billion.
What's most interesting of all is the understanding in economic circles that Halo 2 actually lost money. Despite selling 6 million copies, they actually spent more then it made on development and advertising.
Xbox is a mammoth failure. For a comparison, it has already lost over 10x the ammount of money for the parent company then the Saturn did for Sega. So nobody should copy anything they do if they want to remain in viable buisness.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 27, 2005, 06:24:25 PM
Post by: davidlow122 on February 27, 2005, 06:37:31 PM
From Microsofts's own page, scroll down to see that in 3rd quarter 2004, the xbox division "Home and Entertainment" still lost 142 million for the quarter:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY05/earn_rel_q1_05.mspx
(elsewhere it was claimed that it was even more then this)
and their 2nd quarter 2004 xbox loss of 339 million
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+earnings+paint+mixed+picture/2100-7343_3-5280372.html
Here's a link about their first quarter 2004 loss of 204 million:
http://news.gamewinners.com/index.php/news/261/
Experts predict a slightly lower loss (on last year) of about $150 million for the fourth quarter.
Add this to the confirmed $2.5 billion loss to the end of 2003, and you get.......guess what.......at least a 3.4 billion dollar loss!!!!!
Post by: davidlow122 on February 27, 2005, 06:53:51 PM
http://www.smartmoney.com/barrons/index.cfm?story=20040726
So don't give me the 'they're making bags of cash' story, it's a massive financial failure!!!!!
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 27, 2005, 07:01:15 PM
Wow, though. I had no idea they were bleeding THAT much money. I mean damn, they sound like they're hemorrhaging money over there.
Post by: davidlow122 on February 27, 2005, 07:04:43 PM
Still, everyone should see these figures.
Post by: heinous_anus on February 28, 2005, 07:29:53 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 28, 2005, 07:54:55 PM
The people who want Nintendo to do the same thing as Microsoft.
Post by: davidlow122 on March 01, 2005, 01:22:24 AM
And sure, they've made themselves a prescence, but by losing more money then Sony and Nintendo combined make in the hardware/licencing buisness. Yeah, great for the industry to make hardwar a loss making industry as a whole.
Foe this reason among others, xbox is the worst thing to ever happen to videogames. hopefully xbox 2 will fail just as badly and my post is a train wreck will have to drop out (the shareholders won't put up with another money pit).
Post by: darknight06 on March 01, 2005, 05:49:48 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 01, 2005, 07:38:15 AM
The "flush 'em out with dumping" strategy is one MS loves, that's how they took the lead with IE and WMP. I wonder if the EC would nuke MS for the XBox as well (they've already forced MS to make a version of Windows without WMP).
Post by: couchmonkey on March 01, 2005, 09:23:27 AM
Post by: jarob on March 01, 2005, 03:18:56 PM
Post by: heinous_anus on March 01, 2005, 05:38:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"Who cares if the Xbox is losing MS money?"
The people who want Nintendo to do the same thing as Microsoft.
If you think that by establishing a solid online presence at all is "doing the same thing as Microsoft," then I have to disagree. Of course Nintendo shouldn't delve into an online plan that's going to end up costing them out the rear. That doesn't mean that they should continue to avoid recognizing online gaming. There has to be an alternative to what Microsoft does online. Does Sony lose a ton of money off of their online service?
Post by: davidlow122 on March 01, 2005, 06:43:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jarob
They did not loose money on halo 2.
That's what some 'pundits' believe. We'll have to wait for the figures at the quarterly report.
(what I read about it could mean that even with Halo 2, Bungie as a whole still lost money, or hasn't returned on investment.)
Post by: KDR_11k on March 02, 2005, 04:52:29 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 02, 2005, 10:26:20 AM
Like I said before, don't kid yourself. Sony doesn't even have an all-inclusive online service, they just have a name for what other companies are doing on their console.
The only way people will shut up is if Nintendo does the same thing as Microsoft.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 02, 2005, 12:02:05 PM
In addition it'll extend the aging GBA a few more years, this way Nintendo will be able to keep from damaging DS sales while still milking the GBA franchise, at least until they are ready to release the real "Next Gameboy"
Post by: Ian Sane on March 02, 2005, 12:12:09 PM
I would shut up if Nintendo just made an online game. They can use the same plan as Sony, in fact I prefer it. They just need to make their own online titles to encourage others to follow. That's what Sony does differently than Nintendo and that's why the PS2 went online in a significant way and the Gamecube didn't.
I'm serious in that if Nintendo released some good online games that I would shut up about the whole issue even if it didn't encourage third parties.
