Post by: CrYpTiC on February 20, 2003, 01:31:03 PM
Post by: Gamer Donkey on February 20, 2003, 01:33:08 PM
Post by: Demonhunter on February 20, 2003, 01:35:36 PM
Post by: Gamer Donkey on February 20, 2003, 01:39:26 PM
Post by: Scyth3r on February 20, 2003, 02:43:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamer Donkey
I hope thats the surprise in March I read about earlier. PSO didn't really give me a reason to buy a modem, but maybe the GC will be the first console to allow just surfing and playing online like on Candystand. Just a thought. And I know thats why we have computers.
Surfing the internet on the TV is absolutely killer on the eyes! Hell no, that woud be a worthless feature that will make everyone go blind. Why do you think text in games are so much more huge?
They need to keep it efficient and lag free... doesn't look very possible w/ regular 56k modems out there....
Post by: Munky on February 21, 2003, 02:12:36 AM
BTW, I have a question about PSO online. If you have the modem/bb adaptor, and you have PSO, don't you just hook up your internet to your Cube, put the game in, and then play online, or is there another way to do it?
Post by: BlkPaladin on February 21, 2003, 04:03:08 AM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on February 21, 2003, 11:50:54 AM
Also you cant surf on the web with GC
Post by: gopher on February 21, 2003, 12:30:37 PM
Post by: SilverBack1138 on February 21, 2003, 06:20:34 PM
Post by: RickPowers on February 21, 2003, 07:03:23 PM
Quote
Why do they sell the GC online adapters if there is no service?
If Sega hadn't pushed Nintendo to release the adapters, we wouldn't have them today. Sega NEEDED them, and after much stalling, Nintendo finally conceded so that Sega could get Phantasy Star Online on the shelves.
Post by: Grey Ninja on February 21, 2003, 09:36:25 PM
Do you suppose that Nintendo knows this?
Post by: EL Pollo DIablos on February 22, 2003, 02:44:05 AM
Cause im not planning to pay a lot of cash for not to much gaming time.
El Pollo Diablos
Post by: overmind on February 22, 2003, 04:10:21 AM
plus it wont be compatible with things like BT anytime etc so you will have to pay per minute which is a complete joke.
I try playing games like starcraft and delta force 2!! (both a good few years old now and not hits when it comes to graphics or pace.) and i have trouble playing them at decent speeds.
Gamecube online=Lagfest.
dont bother with online games for gamecube its basically designed for offline play mainly anyway and it aint even good at that either to be honest.
Post by: EggyToast on February 22, 2003, 04:25:26 AM
But yeah, most any game is really laggy on dialup. They'll probably have some alternate playability included in games that include online play so that dialup users aren't totally screwed. Something like sharing top scores in mario kart, or trading items immediately for dialup users.
Post by: Grey Ninja on February 22, 2003, 04:46:58 AM
Post by: PGC-Agent Cooper on February 22, 2003, 07:50:22 AM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on February 22, 2003, 02:38:14 PM
Quote
Text I try playing games like starcraft and delta force 2!! (both a good few years old now and not hits when it comes to graphics or pace.) and i have trouble playing them at decent speeds.
Well overmind, The difference between PC and console online is alot of people have different PC and components wich makes it a varring speed. dial up on consoles have low lag. also if you dont like Gamecube really then why are you on these forums. Also about your sig. comment on how GC looks liek a Fisher Price toy it doesnt, GC looks sexy in all 3 color varriations.
Post by: RahXephon on February 22, 2003, 05:17:45 PM
And don't mind people like Overlord, He is just desperate for attention, Father didn't hug him enough or something.
Post by: Animelee on February 22, 2003, 06:39:30 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on February 22, 2003, 07:08:23 PM
Post by: MikeHrusecky on February 22, 2003, 11:53:13 PM
Post by: Agent on February 23, 2003, 10:29:49 AM
Quote
I seriously doubt it. XBL is blowing away the PS2's online community. The GC won't be able to do better.
Oh but it is.
Post by: Scyth3r on February 23, 2003, 10:58:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: AgentQuote
I seriously doubt it. XBL is blowing away the PS2's online community. The GC won't be able to do better.
Oh but it is.
I don't see how the GC online could possibly be any better. Since XBL is broadband only it cuts out A LOT of the work from removing lag (although no matter what, still semi-existant), and since its subscription based with X-Box server it allows much more stability, ease of use, and the ability to play with anyone.
With the GC we already see there are regular 56k modem adapters out. If they choose to do peer to peer networking, that would be quite a downer. I can only imagine the lag, and the unfreindliness of using online games. Theres a reason why XBL is so much better then PS2 online... it's because its subscription based and Microsoft backed. GC has to do the same thing if it actually wants results, but I highly doubt they will. It's too expensive and too risky for them.
I'm expecting free peer to peer networking. It is fact that Nintendo GC owners are a lot younger overall than the other systems.. that would make it less likely that they would have broadband and be the ones footing the bill for it. It just makes sense for them business wise. Sure it will be a nice extra feature nevertheless, but it isn't going to be all great if its not subscriptions based. I'm not expecting much, but I can hope...
Post by: Gamer Donkey on February 23, 2003, 11:12:11 AM
Post by: RahXephon on February 23, 2003, 11:29:12 AM
Post by: MarioFoxZelda on February 23, 2003, 11:45:17 AM
Post by: slide24 on February 23, 2003, 02:43:06 PM
Post by: EggyToast on February 23, 2003, 04:11:16 PM
So, yeah, it really wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo is working on making good netcode so 56k players can be included as well, rather than excluding a ton of players. Microsoft sells its system on being tech-savvy, so it makes sense for them to be BB-only -- the people expect it, since it's "the most powerful console." It also lets MS be lazier with their netcode devkits, as they can make up for bad code with simple speed.
Post by: rodtod on February 23, 2003, 04:44:57 PM
Post by: CrYpTiC on February 23, 2003, 05:31:04 PM
Quote
I don't understand why everyone is so deathly afraid of 56k....I used to play Unreal Tournament and Counterstrike on 56k constantly, and I never really had problems. When I did, it was just the occasional lag and nothing that made me quit playing. If developers program their games correctly and Nintendo sets up an efficient way to play games online, I don't see a problem.
I agree with you 100%. I played Warcraft 2, Diablo 2, Starcraft, even Counterstrike on a 56k and rarely had lag. Now that I have cable I never have lag but 56k wasn't really too bad. The fact that it uses a phoneline is what makes me mad.
About the monthly fee...I hope Nintendo does not charge a monthly fee. If anything maybe a yearly fee of $10
that would be nice. Nintendo could let someone like... Battle.net host their servers or maybe even Sega.
Post by: EggyToast on February 23, 2003, 07:15:41 PM
Most of my complaints with monthly fees for gaming is that the fees are rather high. $9 a month seems low, but after playing online for 6 months (with the first month free), you've bought the game again. If it adds a ton of replay value and fun, then that might be justifiable, but if I want to play 5 or 6 different games, all with monthly fees? That really adds up fast, and the more games you play, the less time you can spend with each one.
I think if Nintendo offers a low monthly fee that's payable in different amounts (monthly, bi-annually, annually), it'll be do-able. Of course, I think they'd have to have some free months included in order to combat the Xbox Live thing, if that's a factor, and something to say "hey, we only have a few games, so we're not charging you for them for a while." If they only have AC2 and Mario Kart online, then that's not a lot of bandwidth and they could host their own servers without a lot of overhead costs, and possibly introduce a small monthly payment for Nintendo Online.
Or, since they seem pretty keen on letting people do their own thing (4 player games out the wazoo), they might simply do a peer2peer network model, which would bypass the need for much bandwidth. All they'd have to provide is the online meeting place for people to go and find games. That just needs chat capabilities (if they ever release a keyboard), or simply a list of available games and the info about those games. They might even release devkits that allow the game developers to set up one cube as a dedicated game server for such games, for people who have 2 cubes or a really fast connection.
Does Xbox live actually test the connection speed? Cos you could get online with 56k with it relatively easy -- just connect it to a computer and bridge the connection over to the modem. hmm...
Post by: Mingesium on February 23, 2003, 07:29:58 PM
Here is what I think that Nintendo should do to cover the cost of online gaming:
Charge $10 extra for online gaming. People will still buy the game at $60.
Profits from online accesories (modems, wave keyboard, wave headset, etc.)
Post by: nonjagged on February 23, 2003, 08:28:12 PM
When Animal Crossing 2 goes online (Nintendo's first developed game with option for playing Online) there may be a surge in online adapters by all the Animal Crossing fans.
Likewise when Pokemon goes online. Likewise when Smash Brothers 3 goes online.
Its just a matter of patience. Im sure E3 will reveal all the aces we need to hear.
Post by: Scyth3r on February 23, 2003, 08:32:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mingesium
Nintendo is going to use a peer to peer for online. That is how its setup for PS2 and XBox live. I doubt that Nintendo would spend the extra money to use dedicated servers.
Here is what I think that Nintendo should do to cover the cost of online gaming:
Charge $10 extra for online gaming. People will still buy the game at $60.
Profits from online accesories (modems, wave keyboard, wave headset, etc.)
Er, XBL is not peer-to-peer. It uses the XBL servers supportd by Microsoft.
You guys are naming games that are lag free from 56k that are not hosted by another. When you connect to battle.net for example, you are connected to Blizzard battle.net servers. They are not being hosted by another individual. Furthermore, YOU the 56k gamer might not notice lag but the person on broadband could potentially suffer horribly.
Have you ever played Starcraft with 8 players on battle.net with a modem? I guarantee you that you will lag broadband users. Try hosting an 8 player game with a modem... that would be even worse...
Phantasy Star online is again hosted by Sega servers. Hence the $10 subscription per month. The lag is virtually non-existant since its not peer to peer and does not really affect another player.
I really do hope Nintendo follows Microsoft in setting up dedicated servers with a subscription program with the $50 a year price tag like the X-Box. Hopefully they dont do the meager P2P method as the PS2... its already been shown to be pretty unusucessful....
Post by: Mingesium on February 23, 2003, 09:10:06 PM
Post by: Alliedrally68 on February 23, 2003, 09:13:36 PM
Post by: PIAC on February 23, 2003, 09:53:51 PM
i loved it, lag free too, despite 1 or 2 spikes every hour or soalso with pso, are they going to charge $10 us to every country? or whats going to happen, because that will make what i pay, being an australian, fluctuate, which might deter me from going online with it
Post by: Scyth3r on February 23, 2003, 10:19:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mingesium
XBox live is peer to peer. I don't know if all games are, but I know that the capcom fighter is peer to peer. That is why their is some lag in the game.
Hehe well technically yes the games themselves are peer to peer. But the X-Box servers are the one thats allowing voice chat, the friends list, stats, and the whole process of finding competitors...
Post by: Gamer Donkey on February 24, 2003, 04:23:46 AM
