Post by: ViewtifulJoe on December 29, 2006, 04:06:49 PM
Post by: Strell on December 29, 2006, 04:08:02 PM
Post by: darknight06 on December 29, 2006, 04:12:04 PM
Post by: UncleBob on December 29, 2006, 04:12:32 PM
What's the big deal about iPods?
What's the big deal about Madden?
What's the big deal about anything?
It's for some people, it isn't for others. 'meh.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on December 29, 2006, 04:12:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulJoe
It just seems like a waste of money when you could just as well download an emulator for free online.
Or you could LEGALLY SUPPORT THE COMPANY.
Seriously, if you don't want to use the VC, then just DON'T F**KING USE IT! You don't need to make a goddamn topic about it, because we don't care.
Post by: ViewtifulJoe on December 29, 2006, 04:13:57 PM
Post by: The Omen on December 29, 2006, 04:28:41 PM
Quote
if you dont care then dont post
He doesn't care about the whining of idiots, but he does care about the rampant, blatant stupidity of it all.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on December 29, 2006, 04:44:10 PM
I don't know about SB but I am tired of re-posting my rants and opinions regarding the VC.
Post by: MorningStar on December 29, 2006, 05:30:38 PM
Post by: MarioAllStar on December 29, 2006, 05:54:30 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 29, 2006, 06:05:37 PM
But enough moralizing! There is a non-moral impetus to this as well. ROMs are ugly. VC emulation is beautiful. I hated playing games on a computer, and even with a pad the experience was ruined. You can't even play multiplayer easily. As a scar of ROMs, I now and forever hate Seiken Densetsu 3, the sequel to Secret of Mana. I HATE A GAME BECAUSE OF THE ROM AND AM NOW RUINED FOREVER FROM THAT GAME, MY EYES ARE FOREVER CLOSED TO WHETHER THE GAME IS GOOD OR NOT BECAUSE OF THAT ROM GIVING ME HORRIBLE PLAYING EXPERIENCES! *ahem* Simply put, VC emulation is worth the money because of the immense benefit it gives to my experiences of the games.
It's like buying a good first-party controller instead of a crappy third party one. Even if they were giving away their crappy controllers I wouldn't use 'em, because their qwuality ruins the experience. That's what the VC is to me.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: segagamer12 on December 29, 2006, 06:48:51 PM
Post by: TrueNerd on December 29, 2006, 06:55:24 PM
Super Mario 64 has never looked/played so good. Virtual Console justified.
Post by: Kairon on December 29, 2006, 09:17:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulJoe
None of the games are diffrent and they can get kind of repetative (super mario bros).
1. Faithful releases of old games is a retro gamers dream. There are countless old games from the NES and SNES era that are fine just the way they are, and don't need some developers today going in and mucking things up in the hope of making them "prettier"
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulJoe
or at least add online capabilatys to supersmash bros or mario party. It just seems like a waste of money when you could just as well download an emulator for free online.
2. It costs money to add new features or to reprogram them. This is a ridiculous course of action when the games are ready for release already, as is, and Nintendo can better spend that money in making new things instead of messing with the past...
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulJoe
Nintendo should make new arcade games like the 360 and ps3s downloads
3. In fact, instead of retooling old games, hopefully Nintendo takes the manpower they save and instead do a little bit of this, as well as make new traditional games. One wonders as to whether Wii Sports could have been downloaded over the VC, for example... or a Wii version of Brain Age?
HOWEVER, games like Wii Sports and Brain Age are WAY TOO mass market and non-gamer to ever be released on the Virtual Console exclusively. Hardcore gamers connect their rigs to the net, and some casuals. Non-gamers do not, they get bored or get discouraged and are less likely to jump through the hoops. This already suggests that the Virtual Console should NOT be the delivery system for major games, because it basically splits the userbase by requiring internet connection to play... not a mass market play. Only niche, indie, low budget and hardcore titles will ever call VC their true home.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Rancid Planet on December 29, 2006, 09:51:34 PM
No,you guys actually "clean" your room once or more per decade. Ha! Not me. I'm pretty sure if I dig far enough under my bed I can find a TG-16 under there. And I've never even pwned one. And were I in you poor shmucks' shoes then I would also be looking forward to playing through the old Zelda games, The Donkey Kong Country titles, Goldenye 007, No Mercy, the SMB titles, Super Mario Kart, Dragon Warrior, The T.M.N.T series etc. But not me. Nope. I'm literally up to my neck in outdated console software. I mean it's honestly starting to turn into a virtual Big Lots in my digs.
And in a weird way...I'm kind of proud of that.
Post by: IceCold on December 29, 2006, 10:19:59 PM
Post by: Artimus on December 30, 2006, 12:41:06 AM
Post by: Requiem on December 30, 2006, 12:54:26 AM
it'll become a big deal then...
Post by: Strell on December 30, 2006, 01:35:48 AM
Wait until they put out Chrono Trigger, Mario RPG, Ogre Battle, etc etc etc.
People will shut up at that point.
Post by: Hocotate on December 30, 2006, 02:31:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Well, I was raised not to steal. I've had my moments of legal and moral grey areas, but I'd like to avoid them as much as I can. Also, I feel bad for stealing from something I respect. I believe that degrades me, and that in the act of stealing I am degrading my own evaluation of what is worthy of my attention. If I truly think a game is good, aren't I a hypocrite in not paying that game its respects with good money? Life is all about prioritizing, and while I don't judge others for prioritizing games low enough to "steal" them, I personally find that if I don't care enough to pay good money for something, then it isn't interesting enough to me anyways and not worth my time to begin with.
I can't agree more.... I agree so much its almost scary actually. Worded very nicely too
Post by: Pittbboi on December 30, 2006, 02:57:29 AM
I will concede that Nintendo may have its reasons for not releasing ALL of their games at once (like some would like), but in order for Nintendo's virtual console to become a major hit and have a chance at being comparable to what XBox360 and PS3 are offering they NEED to have most - if not ALL- of their library available for download by the end of 2007. The really need to pick up the pace. The virtual console can be a major draw, but it cannot be a buffer for the lack of Wii content in incomplete state it's in now. These are fun games, but Nintendo needs to realize that these are OLD games and it's not cute to treat them like new releases (the general "are you sh*ttin? me?" reaction to SMB being the big Christmas surprise should be proof).
Virtual Console Mondays may a fun thing to look forward to, but at the rate Nintendo's going, the bulk of their library wont be on the VC until near the end of th Wii's life. A lot of people won't admit it now, but when the VC was announced the first thing people did was come up with a list of the games they were going to buy. Not too many people are going to sit around and buy titles as Nintendo releases them if they're not what they want, and most people already KNOW what they want and it sucks that there's a chance that some of those titles won't come out until possibly years from now.
Nintendo needs to focus on getting most of their titles on the Virtual Console before the end of 2007 (preferably by Q3) and then spend the rest of the Wii's life promoting NEW online games/content.
Post by: Chode2234 on December 30, 2006, 03:01:04 AM
I have bought VC games, but because I feel that have value added above the pirated versions. But I don't buy them because there is some sort of moral question not to. When it comes down to it, I would rip Nintendo off for as much as I could, the assumption being that they would do the same thing to me. Capitalism at its finest.
Post by: Strell on December 30, 2006, 03:08:33 AM
Taken from CAG:
I'm sorry, but the VC is totally a "if you don't want it, don't buy it" scenario.
If you want to pretend you don't know wtf you are doing for the sole purpose of bitching about a price that you know before purchasing a game, that is your own damn fault.
I think a lot of the anger regarding the VC comes from two kinds of people: 1) people who think the pricing sucks, and 2) zealot nerds who are harboring a lot of residual angst over their squashed dreams resulting from "the promises Nintendo made with the VC," which centers around the ideas that bounced tossed to and fro prior to the VC's full functionality being shown.
In other words, all these people who are up in arms about it from the second group - where the author clearly sits - had all these dreamy thoughts about the VC a priori, which included things like "it will have tools for indie development," or "it will spruce up the graphics," or "you'll be able to use characters from one game in another," or "it will include online multiplayer," or "it will harness the Wii's power to deliver 60 FPS," or "it's going to include (insert obscure game that dreamer can't live without apparently, even though it's totally subjective)." All of that was the work of lonely little boys on the internets, and while I'd kill for them to come true, that doesn't change the fact that Nintendo never rolled them out like delicious apples on the forbidden tree.
The pricing sucks. I haven't bought any because of the pricing. And it doesn't help that B&M stores - the only potential source of deals - are f*cking consumers with inflated prices (Best Buy sells the cards for 22.99, and I've seen them 29.99 at other places).
But you can't call this being "tricked." It's called being screwed with - there's a difference. And to justify this labeling with "Nintendo is in it for the money" is laughable. Of course they are. That was the whole damn idea of the VC to begin with - that it was a total cash grab.
There's every reason to be angry about the VC, but at no time is it being snuck under your eyes like contraband, unless you're just a damn fool that wants to piss and moan because you think that'll get mommy to make it all better.
Post by: Ceric on December 30, 2006, 05:19:34 AM
Post by: Strell on December 30, 2006, 05:46:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
So Strell if you I get you placement of certian people would you make good on your promise above? ;P
This post I do not understand!
MAKE STRELL ANGRY!
GHWARAAAAAAAAARGH~!
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on December 30, 2006, 06:04:23 AM
Do you think any company is any different whats a company to live off if they didn't have any profit margins? At this rate im surprised that no one is bitching about how microsoft forces you to buy 1000 points, 2000 points or ect (1000 MS points = 12.50) and you will always have points conveniently left over but enough to buy pointless crap like game pictures or themes. Or how Sony is making you buy PSone games on a PS3 then your forced to transfer it to a PSP just so you can play your 7.99 PSone purchase.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on December 30, 2006, 06:04:31 AM
Do you think any company is any different whats a company to live off if they didn't have any profit margins? At this rate im surprised that no one is bitching about how microsoft forces you to buy 1000 points, 2000 points or ect (1000 MS points = 12.50) and you will always have points conveniently left over but enough to buy pointless crap like game pictures or themes. Or how Sony is making you buy PSone games on a PS3 then your forced to transfer it to a PSP just so you can play your 7.99 PSone purchase.
Post by: segagamer12 on December 30, 2006, 06:34:51 AM
NOTHING you can say will justify steeling period as far as I am concerned. You can call them greedy bastards all you want, the truth is they are a business who is out to make money, there is NOTHING wrong with making money. There IS something wrong with steeling.
Post by: ViewtifulJoe on December 30, 2006, 08:56:56 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on December 30, 2006, 09:20:45 AM
Post by: Strell on December 30, 2006, 09:20:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulJoe
well plenty of us have already payed for the games once so i wouldent concider it "stealing" because a game is a game wether you play it on the computer or on the n64. There just is no need for me to buy the games twice.
That's called a convenience fee. It's the same reason people pay a dollar more for movie tickets if they can buy them in advance and print them out to avoid lines. Or why someone buys a DSLite, even though they own a DS. Or pays for better tasting food when you can get more from Taco Bell.
While I agree there ought to be a way to transfer games to the VC that you physically own, that would defeat the entire purpose from the get go.
Post by: segagamer12 on December 30, 2006, 09:29:51 AM
try again.
that was to viewtiful whats his name above not you strell.
Post by: ViewtifulJoe on December 30, 2006, 09:42:40 AM
Post by: MorningStar on December 30, 2006, 10:09:51 AM
Nintendo is a business and their main priority is to make money. They are not here to make things convenient for us (although sometimes they will if they make money along the way) at their companies expense. They put the VC on the Wii to make money and to "make it convenient for us to have all the games from past systems on the same one". They just happen to make money as well. I respect and love Nintendo and wouldn't think of "stealing" or emulating their games (except for the situation above), but I still don't think the VC is fairly priced or decent enough for me to defend.
Post by: SixthAngel on December 30, 2006, 10:22:58 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 30, 2006, 12:05:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulJoe
first of all why would any one buy the Classic NEs Super Mario bros for GBA
Nintendo has made so much money off of their Nintendo classics series on the GBA at $20 bucks a pop it isn't funny. You're not willing to rebuy your Disney Robin Hood movie (I got it for Christmas) on DVD even though you have it on VHS... and that's ok. But clearly, you're in the vast, VAST minority, economically speaking.
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulJoe
your argument makes no sence because nintendo dosn't lose money wene i download an emulator but they do if you steal an actual game cart.
So... you're saying that shoplifting is worse than emulating. Good job!
Seriously, SOMEBODY is being stolen from in both situations. In the first situation, Nintendo isn't getting paid because you're downloading a ROM instead of buying the game. In the second situation, the retailer is forced to lose money thanks to criminal activity.
The only common thread is that you've just gotten a free game at the expense of others.
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulJoe
its just the same a going to the store, buying a cd and then loading it into itunes. I alredy own the cd it now it wouldnt make sence to pay itunes download on my computer would it?
I really don't care personally if you already own the game and you have a ROM for it. That's a legal and moral grey area, but one that is just too nitpicky to really care about. But do you really think that most people who use ROMs have the original games for each ROM? Heck... I know I wouldn't! (hypothetical! hypothetical!)
But... does this mean that you view the VC in the same light as iTunes? Because if you're going to argue against iTunes, then you're going to argue against something that's been legitimately accepted by the market, the mainstream, the media, and popular culture to boot. Might as well rail against the moon.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on December 30, 2006, 12:33:33 PM
Post by: Pittbboi on December 30, 2006, 01:34:46 PM
Sure, Nintendo is a business, and like EVERY BUSINESS they're trying to make money (people should stop saying that--it's stating the obvious x10). However, a good business knows how to sell you their product and make you feel good about it, like you're getting more bang for your buck and like you're actually pulling one over on the company, when in reality they're making a killing.
Other businesses make you feel had, like the only reason you're buying the product is because there's no comparable alternative and your desire for the product slightly outweighs the cost. You want what they're selling, so you're not being tricked, but the price makes you feel like you're giving way more than it's worth. And that's not a good feeling. Nintendo has done a lot of this, and the proof is in the fact that even people who are buying VC games and defending them, they're still admitting that they think the price is too high.
Nintendo could definitely learn how to make people feel better about buying from them. People who feel good about their purchases are more likely to remain loyal to the company they purchase from, where with people who feel like they're consistently being had usually flee the first chance they get (Nintendo definitely has experience with this).
Post by: UncleBob on December 30, 2006, 01:38:59 PM
By this, I mean, Sony, of course. Did you see that frickin' awesome "All I want for Xmas is a PSP" site? Damn, that's some customer loyality. It puts my Nintendo Shrine to shame.
Post by: Artimus on December 30, 2006, 01:46:20 PM
Post by: Pittbboi on December 30, 2006, 01:56:22 PM
Post by: UncleBob on December 30, 2006, 01:58:33 PM
And there was a study done once showing that Eggs are good for you.
Research can provide many answers.
Post by: MorningStar on December 30, 2006, 02:00:46 PM
So far, using the VC, I've downloaded Toejam and Earl and SMB and feel ripped off on both accounts. SMB doesn't have the charm that it used to have and isn't very good (in my opinion) when compared to SMB 3, SMW, etc. TJandE used to be one of my favorite games and when I found out it was being released for the VC, I was ecstatic. Needless to say, I downloaded it and was utterly disappointed. All in all, I feel I got ripped off. Is it Nintendo's fault? No, but I still don't feel like the games were worth my money.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on December 30, 2006, 02:02:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulJoe
I dont own a wii yet but i dont understand why every one thinks the vitulal console is so great. None of the games are diffrent and they can get kind of repetative (super mario bros).
I agree, every single game on the Virtual Console and hell, everything NES, SNES, Mega Drive and TG-16 ever had to offer are the same thing. None of them are different! Sim City is the exact same game as Alien Crush! Wario's Woods is just a rip off of F-Zero! And it is indeed shocking that these games don't change gameplay each level. I just spent an entire level running and jumping in Super Mario, why can't level 2 be a first person shooter and level 3 a house building simulation! What the hell, Nintendo.
Quote
Nintendo should make new arcade games like the 360 and ps3s downloads or at least add online capabilatys to supersmash bros or mario party.
Nah, they shouldn't bother with new games for the VC. Because you yourself just said the ones on there at the moment are all the same! I agreed! We had a jolly good time! Why should they waste their time with new games that'd just be the same!
Quote
It just seems like a waste of money when you could just as well download an emulator for free online.
And you posting this here seems like a waste of time when it's clearly a GameFAQs style thread. What are you doing with a Wii anyway? Since all video games are the same, you could just download Pong and you'd have every Wii game ever made.
Post by: Rancid Planet on December 30, 2006, 02:07:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
I think it's pretty obvious out of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft fans, which company has the "more loyal" customer base.
By this, I mean, Sony, of course. Did you see that frickin' awesome "All I want for Xmas is a PSP" site? Damn, that's some customer loyality. It puts my Nintendo Shrine to shame.
That's the standard type of Sony fanboyism. And it reeks of insecurity. I think the average person in the Nintendo nation is generally on the intellectual side of things and doesn't feel the need to defend himself and his gaming position to the masses on a constant cycle of immature, overly defensive tripe fed to you via his blog and updated YouTube of the week videos consisting mainly of 13 year old, spoiled, white, suburban, pukebag manchildren smashing a DS in half with a billy club.
At any rate. I think in a Six Sides of Steel match a Nintendo fanboy would CRUSH a Sony fanboy. Because the Nintendo fanboy is all buff and stuff thanks to getting his Wii age down to a consistent 25 average. His ability to bowl on a pro level game ALONE would allow him to rip the Sony fanboy's head off and just as the last bit of life flickered from his fallen opponent's eyes, take out his Wii controller and overhand smash his head through the ring mat.
As the Nintendo fanboy celebrated victoriously in the ring, waving his nunchuck about in a triumphant manor, he would look down upon his smoten arch rival and think to himself "He's as dead as the concept of expanding the PSP's marketshare!"
Yeah. Then he'd pull off his mask and it would turn out he was Goku from DragonBall Z...and he would fly away...and then I'd touch a boob...that'd be cool.
Post by: segagamer12 on December 30, 2006, 04:40:45 PM
Also as far a VC goes, a LOT of games are rare and hard to find, those games being on VC will be a blessing and make it a really cool feature.
Post by: RampanT on December 30, 2006, 06:39:18 PM
I totally agree with Pittbboi - in that there is still an overwhelming feeling that the purchases 'do not feel good'. In the UK - an N64 game costs £7.50, SNES/Genesis - £6, NES - £3.75. This is a little too high I feel. The pricing should be (at highest) N64 - £5, SNES £3.50, NES - £2. I think this would represent an acceptable pricing level, which still lines Nintendo's pocket in a healthy manner, but would reduce the feeling that you are not quite getting value for money.
Note - I actually still have my original N64 and SNES and all the software. But for convenience, and if the pricing was right, I would gladly re-purchase all my favourite titles for the VC. But I can't help but feel that the pricing leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth.
Even if Nintendo gave some discount to multiple game purchases, that would perhaps ease the pain. ie - Buy 3 SNES games get a NES game for free or such like. No doubt I will still buy most of my favourites, but I will also feel the need to gripe a bit about it.
Post by: Kairon on December 30, 2006, 07:40:51 PM
but that's ordinary though right?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: RampanT on December 30, 2006, 07:58:33 PM
The Wii cost £180 over here, which is $360.
So yeah, you can imagine that with a price structure of N64 = $15, SNES =$12 and NES = $7.50 - you guys would probably not be happy either.
Post by: Ghisy on December 30, 2006, 09:45:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
Did you see that frickin' awesome "All I want for Xmas is a PSP" site? Damn, that's some customer loyality. It puts my Nintendo Shrine to shame.
Wasn't that a fake site made by the marketing guys from Sony? Cause I remember reading somewhere it was...
Post by: IceCold on December 30, 2006, 09:52:38 PM
Post by: Ghisy on December 31, 2006, 12:59:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Yeah, I think that was a little sarcasm from Bob
I thought so too but wasn't too sure!
Post by: Hocotate on December 31, 2006, 02:23:42 AM
Quote
except it is steeling regardless if you have a N64 cart or not, that doesn’t give you ownership of the program contained on that cart.
Quote
So if I own Super Mario Bros on NEs that makes it ok for me to steel a copy of Classic NEs Super Mario bros for GBA? try again.Quote
I agree completely Segagamer12.
Post by: Pittbboi on December 31, 2006, 05:55:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Hocotate
This thread is full or nubs who need something to complain about Nintendo for and this is the best they can do. First Pittboi trys to say Nintendo will have a drought in Software releases in early 2007 and claims Sony will wipe the floor with them... That alone shoots his credibility down, now this. Are you going to try and say Sony and MS offer better alternatives to the VC? lol go ahead and try.
What the hell...? Dude, you're going to have to do a little better than that. I think the fact that you used "nubs" as a serious insult shoots any credibility you thought you had out of the water.
I never said anything about Sony wiping the floor with Nintendo. I think you're getting me confused, or maybe you're just trying to cover for the fact that you really have nothing of worth to say. What I did say was that Nintendo's taking ideas that could thoroughly cream what both Xbox360 and PS3 are offering and screwing them up in various ways. Sony isn't going to mop the floor with anyone, but the fact that Sony is offering a better online service than the VC with their train wreck of a system is pathetic. Seriously, your head has to be leagues up something if you think the VC is topping anything in its current state. We get a sprinkle of titles, over-priced and decades old, while Xbox360 (and to a lesser extent, PS3) are offering access to their back library, classic games, AND loads of new content. So far, the only thing selling Nintendo's virtual console is nostalgia for the Nintendo of yore, and that's if you like the handful of games they've released on it.
The virtual console CAN become a major draw, but that's going to require Nintendo waking up and actually giving a damn about online content.
As for a drought, we won't know if the Wii will have a drought early 2007 until we actually get there. However, let's look at what we do know: There are less titles scheduled/announced for the Wii the first half of 2007 than any other system; there is very little variety in the games we do know about, not to mention that most of the titles that are announced are mini-game compilations and first party titles. All of this makes it really hard to believe that there won't be a drought.
Post by: Hocotate on December 31, 2006, 06:26:02 AM
Quote
I think the fact that you used "nubs" as a serious insult shoots any credibility you thought you had out of the water.
How can anyone interpret "nubs" is a serious insult?
Quote
I never said anything about Sony wiping the floor with Nintendo.
You said Nintendo's first half of 2007 releases were lacking and gave an example of all the PS3 games you thought were going to be out within the same time frame (most of which won't likely be out till much later). If you weren't suggesting Sony being superior in that regard, then why did you use them as an example?
Quote
Sony is offering a better online service
lol.
Quote
The virtual console CAN become a major draw, but that's going to require Nintendo waking up and actually giving a damn about online content.
If you expect Nintendo to have all of their AAA titles out from the get go then you need to stop and think for a moment. If Nintendo released their best right up front that leaves for nothing down the road...Third parties? They won't support it because their games won't sell due to the flood of Nintendo's products. Timing the releases is a good thing. Look at the titles available for download on the PS3, then VC... because clearly you have not yet.
Post by: Pittbboi on December 31, 2006, 07:52:01 AM
Quote
You said Nintendo's first half of 2007 releases were lacking and gave an example of all the PS3 games you thought were going to be out within the same time frame (most of which won't likely be out till much later). If you weren't suggesting Sony being superior in that regard, then why did you use them as an example?
You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying that in an attempt to talk up Sony, but I was just stating that facts, and them's be the facts at this point. PS3 does have more titles scheduled/announced than the Wii currently does, and what the Wii does have lined up is terribly lacking so far. I barely play WiiSports and I don't like mini-game games unless I'm with a group of people and vodka shots are creatively incorperated into the gameplay. And I barely tolerate first person shooters (though I can be drawn in by some). I love RPGs and Action and Fighting games so when I'm done with Zelda what's going to be there for the type of gamer I am? Not much, it seems (and FF:CC doesn't count. That game sucked balls).
In no way was I trying to imply that Sony has it in the bag, just pointing out that despite all of Nintendo's success with the Wii, they STILL have got a lot of work to do. One thing I will credit MS and Sony with is that they seem to better understand the importance of having all your bases covered, where with Nintendo success in one area usually means they're extremely lacking in another.
Quote
lol.
Yeah, I think it's funny, too, because so far Sony's been the example of what NOT to do, and yet their online IS better. Heck, the very fact that they're offering new arcade content makes it better than the virtual console at THIS point in time.
Quote
If you expect Nintendo to have all of their AAA titles out from the get go then you need to stop and think for a moment. If Nintendo released their best right up front that leaves for nothing down the road...Third parties? They won't support it because their games won't sell due to the flood of Nintendo's products. Timing the releases is a good thing. Look at the titles available for download on the PS3, then VC... because clearly you have not yet.
I just don't see it that way. The virtual console at this point has been a cash grab, and Nintendo knows it. They are not holding off on releasing their titles to make it easier on third parties. To believe that is to think that only Nintendo made great games for past consoles, and that certainly isn't true. When the VC was first announced I made a mental list of games I knew I was going to buy when they were available, and most of them WEREN'T Nintendo games. If Nintendo released most of their titles for the VC right now I really don't think anybody is going to be sitting in front of their wii thinking "Oh, I really want Chrono Trigger, I think I'll buy that righ--oh wait! look at all these NINTENDO games! F*CK Chrono Trigger!" This may be a bold statement, but at this point the Virtual Console really is only a draw for gamers who KNOW these games, and most gamers aren't going to buy a title they're not interested in simply the games they want aren't available. They'll just be frustrated.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 31, 2006, 08:03:50 AM
Personally my problem with you is you are constantly bad mouthing and attacking Nintendo, it gets quite tiring when the same guy NEVER has anything positive to say. It is fine to be critical but when someone is constantly saying the sky is falling, I tend to not take their opinion very seriously. If you are so excited for PS3 games, get one, and enjoy your innovative sixaxis controller with games that may or may not go multiplatform.
Post by: Arbok on December 31, 2006, 08:10:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
I love RPGs and Action and Fighting games so when I'm done with Zelda what's going to be there for the type of gamer I am? Not much, it seems (and FF:CC doesn't count. That game sucked balls).
As opposed to the PS3 which has Virtua Fighter coming up for 2007 and... hmm... not much until the end of 2007. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you strike me as a very impatient person in nature Pittbboi. If you really are demanding a constant flow of great titles from a just launched console, both physical and virtual, I think the best suggestion for you would be to pick up all three consoles. You can then pick up the best the trio has to offer and there is no need to be constantly flustered as to how Nintendo is spacing out their own releases.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 31, 2006, 08:19:52 AM
Unlike previous generations Wii has a pretty big userbase just a MONTH after launch, coupled with the unique low development costs, it would be crazy for 3rd parties to NOT start developing projects for Wii if sales remain relatively constant. But like I said it will take time, Nintendo still has some work to do to attract 3rd parties back, but if game sales are any indications they are already doing a decent job of it with developers like Ubisoft and EA.
Post by: Pittbboi on December 31, 2006, 08:29:42 AM
QuoteExcuses excuses. Said it before and I'll say it again. We were led to believe that one of the reasons Gamecube didn't go online was because Nintendo was working on the infrastructure for the Wii. And now we see that that was a lie. It's not that I was expecting Xbox live on the first shot, but be honest, WiiConnect seems like it was thrown together a week before launch.
Pittboi have you even considered that the reason why Sony's online may be better than Wii is because Sony has had well over 5 years to create an online infrastructure?
Quote
Personally my problem with you
Personally I don't care what your problem with me is, but I'm bored...
And that's the total cop-out argument "if you don't like it, get a PS3/Xbox." I love Nintendo, but that doesn't mean I have to like everything they do, and the only reason I complain is because I've been a Nintendo faithful since the NES, and I'm glad Nintendo is finally getting all of this good press, but there's much that they still need to do and as of right now, as a gamer I do feel left out. I love Zelda, and there are some great games down the road that will only be on the Wii, but that doesn't mean Nintendo can't do no wrong this gen.
And don't be so dramatic. I won't deny that I am very critical of the Wii right now, but I have given them their credit. And I'm not going to lick Nintendo's behind, which seems to be what most have to do around here to be considered a "fan."
Oh, and I've been religiously following "planet gamecube" since the days of Billy and Louie the Cat, so I thought it was about time I started posting around here. Ian can't be the only skeptic.
Post by: Kairon on December 31, 2006, 08:49:59 AM
BUT, the Wii is the console that needs online the least. Hardcore gamers care about online gameplay, but how many XBox 360 hardcore gamers actually use gold membership? Only the most hardcore of the hardcore. It's actually an AMAZING feature, but it's a feature that's aimed at the hardcore market, i.e. the ones who shouldn't have Nintendo as their first choice anyways.
Nintendo, with a blue ocean mass market strategy, needs to hold different priorities. They need
1. To draw in lapsed gamers who played NES and SNES but have lost interest since... The VC achieves this with its targeted nostalgia aspect.
2. To offer experiences that can be had out of the box with simple setup and control, much like Wii Sports did. For this reason you will NEVER see Wii Sports or similar non-gamer aimed titles offered exclusively on download: non-gamers don't connect to the internet. You will also see fewer games with online as a major component, because such games won't be able to take advantage of the non-gamer market.
Both of these priorities aren't online structure friendly.
Also throw in that Nintendo is the sort of company that
1. Isn't technology based like mega consumer electronics Sony, or Corporate Kings of the World Microsoft, thus they simply will NEVER have as robust online networks as these competitors no matter how hard they try... If Nintendo pursued online it would be the same as if they pursued high graphics: they would be attacking their opponents strengths by pretending to be something they're not. It's a foolish decision.
2. Unlike Sony and MS, Nintendo can't afford losses. They need to stay profitable to ensure their future in a market as high-risk and high-investment as the videogame market. The fact of the matter is that the videogame market for console makers is lucrative, but is VERY, VERY risky and dangerous and no company in its right mind should ever want to enter into it. You can just look at Sega for an example of a company that did so much right, yet was losing so much money and eventually disintegrated under the weight of making expensive videogames and consoles and initiatives.
Thus, when you look at Nintendo you see a lot of cost-cutting measures in their online infrastructure.
Finally, there's the added point that Nintendo simply doesn't believe that online is important to their own games. Miyamoto and the inheritors of his philosophy are concentrated on local, one-player experiences more akin to isolated japanese gardens (someone wrote a thesis paper comparing Miyamoto's work to Japanese gardens in fact) than to america-esque games of "tag" (aka FPS deathmatches). Nintendo's been experimenting in the online field ever since the Famicom, but it's never truly clicked with their own games.
All this taken together, and it's no wonder that Nintendo isn't the premiere choice for online gaming. The PC is. (Hahahaha.... wait, that's true!) The only wonder is that people expect such a thing from them at all.
...
Oh, and looking at the Jaqpanese VC sales charts, you can see exactly why Nintendo should space out and hold back their games. Under the withering onslaught of Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda Link to the Past, one top 10 sales chart I saw had only 2 third party games. Even the arcade version of Super Mario Bros. outsold every other third party game. You can't bury your head in the sand compared to such onslaught.
And whatever you may personally think of their release rate, Nintendo is apparently on a 4-year plan. The only reason we're disappointed now is that we expected them to hand us everything on a platter, which, in hindsight, was very ridiculous and pie-in-the-sky of us. Our logical minds should be ashamed.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 31, 2006, 08:56:43 AM
Post by: Pittbboi on December 31, 2006, 09:51:28 AM
Quote
1. Isn't technology based like mega consumer electronics Sony, or Corporate Kings of the World Microsoft, thus they simply will NEVER have as robust online networks as these competitors no matter how hard they try... If Nintendo pursued online it would be the same as if they pursued high graphics: they would be attacking their opponents strengths by pretending to be something they're not. It's a foolish decision.
This has to be the argument I hate THE most. Ok, so Nintendo isn't nearly as big as Sony and Microsoft, but Nintendo is a multi-BILLION dollar company and, unlike Sony and Microsoft, all of their money can be devoted to their only focus: gaming. Microssoft and Sony have to worry about their losses in not only the gaming industry, but EVERYTHING ELSE they're involved in. Nintendo is a lot bigger than even their most die-hard fans give them credit for. 200 million devoted to advertising alone? Twice as much as the all-powerful Microsoft? Nintendo has shown that they can very well wave the power stick around when they want to. Nintendo is stable enough to be able to take a few losses, and in my opinion that's their problem: Nintendo is so focused on immediate profit from every single move they make they absolutely refuse to take a risk on something that can prove profitable in the long run. Just look at Microsoft with the Xbox. MS bit the big one last year and took some heavy losses, but it put them in the position this gen to steal some major thunder from Sony, and NOBODY thought that was possible.
But heck, even that's beside the point. I'm not asking for a service comparable to Xbox Live even at this point. Just one that isn't broken. One that is actually always connected and fulfills the promises that NINTENDO made. One that has even a smidget of provocative content, you know...like they said there would be. Nintendo is capable we KNOW Nintendo is capable. There doesn't need to be a WiiLive, because we have seen Nintendo take something small and do some truly magical things many times in the past. Nintendo doesn't have to have Microsoft money, Nintendo has the capability of doing something wonderful and unique with their online service if they would just...well, give a damn about online.
Quote
Finally, there's the added point that Nintendo simply doesn't believe that online is important to their own games.
If that were the case then why bother at all? If Nintendo really doesn't care about online I'd rather they state that plainly and focus on what they do best, instead of making all these promises and not delivering. That's NINTENDO'S doing, not their fans. Our logical minds shouldn't be ashamed for dreaming of things Nintendo leads us to believe are possible or will be done (though I will admit that sometimes the fans do come up with some farfetched things Nintendo never made mention of considering).
Post by: Kairon on December 31, 2006, 10:10:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
they absolutely refuse to take a risk on something that can prove profitable in the long run. Just look at Microsoft with the Xbox. MS bit the big one last year and took some heavy losses, but it put them in the position this gen to steal some major thunder from Sony, and NOBODY thought that was possible.
By stealing thunder, you mean of course that they're tracking at or below original XBox sales, on track to sell only 25 million consoles worldwide, and STILL losing money on the order of being 6+ billion dollars IN THE RED?!?!?! And they're stilll losing money, making it less and less likely that they'll break even by the third generation or 2012 or whenever like they originally stated. I don't care how much money Nintendo has in cash, just one generation of Microsoft's excess will WIPE THEM OUT. You are severely underestimating the amount of financial risk that is involved in putting out a videogame console.
But make no mistake. MS isn't in this business to make money. They're in this business to make sure that videogame consoles never challenge their profits in the OS business on PCs.
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Nintendo has the capability of doing something wonderful and unique with their online service if they would just...well, give a damn about online.
They HAVE done some wonderful things with connectivity already. They've done Nintendogs bark mode, Forecast and News Channels, child-safe online experiences and Animal Crossing's social-oriented asynchronous gaming. These are all wonderfully innovative things... that hardcore gamers, like you and me, care little about. Such is the nature of hardcore-centrism.
Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiQuote
Finally, there's the added point that Nintendo simply doesn't believe that online is important to their own games.
If that were the case then why bother at all? If Nintendo really doesn't care about online I'd rather they state that plainly and focus on what they do best, instead of making all these promises and not delivering. That's NINTENDO'S doing, not their fans. Our logical minds shouldn't be ashamed for dreaming of things Nintendo leads us to believe are possible or will be done (though I will admit that sometimes the fans do come up with some farfetched things Nintendo never made mention of considering).
Well, I was wrong. Nintendo considers online important... for Miis, for Virtual Console, for AC-esque messages from Nintendo telling us about cool things, and for the eventual Animal Crossing Wii.
So actually, Nintendo is VERY up front about what it believes online is about, and if you look at Nintendo's current Wii Connect 24 set-up, its perfectly suited for all of the above tasks. Nintendo's disinterest in player-matching manifests as the backseat focus on BWii, Strikers Charged, an absent FF:CC and a late 2007 SS:BB expected release.
Once again, who's to blame, Nintendo, or us for seeing something that, if we were really looking with unclouded eyes, really isn't there?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 31, 2006, 10:16:29 AM
Quote
Just look at Microsoft with the Xbox. MS bit the big one last year and took some heavy losses, but it put them in the position this gen to steal some major thunder from Sony, and NOBODY thought that was possible.
Just chiming in here to say that MS lost something around 4 billion on the Xbox...and that number was from a while ago, so it's likely to be loads more. So they stole some thunder away from Sony, big deal. They have a long way to go before you can ever say the Xbox was a good idea....Nintendo on the other hand stole even more from both MS and Sony, while still remaining highly profitable. That's not a very strong argument on why Nintendo should spend more.
That said, I actually agree with you on some points. I agree completely that Nintendo needs a much better online service. Trying to connect on Mario Kart is a hilarious adventure; first we hook up on MSN, then we all try going into the Friends room at once. After ten minutes of "woo! three blinky things! I hope it doesn't disconne- DAMMIT" and "oh ****, everyone else connected but ME," we try some different techniques. All going in one at a time, going in while in pairs, waiting for one person to connect and then sending others in, etc. It's like a BATTLE, trying to outsmart Nintendo's matchmaking service which tries its hardest NOT to match people up. Then when we finally get to racing, the whole thing falls apart by the third course.
So yeah, your service needs improvement Ninty. See me after class.
Post by: MorningStar on December 31, 2006, 10:32:50 AM
I'd rather not get into this whole debate any further. However, someone said that Pittboi strikes them to be a cynical person; he isn't cynical, he's just a realist. He's demanding Nintendo to do what is realistically possible.
Post by: Pittbboi on December 31, 2006, 10:33:43 AM
Quote
Just chiming in here to say that MS lost something around 4 billion on the Xbox...and that number was from a while ago, so it's likely to be loads more. So they stole some thunder away from Sony, big deal. They have a long way to go before you can ever say the Xbox was a good idea....Nintendo on the other hand stole even more from both MS and Sony, while still remaining highly profitable. That's not a very strong argument on why Nintendo should spend more.
Well, yeah, I'll admit that was a little extreme for an example, but I stand by my point. Microsoft took some HEAVY losses last gen, but still, the risk they took has put them in the better position this time with the 360, and not a worse one. As big as it was, it was risk Microsoft was big enough to weather. I'm not implying that Nintendo needs to throw away billions of dollars. But, well, losses aren't always a bad thing. And, if it takes a small initial loss to get get their online system up to par (I don't think it would take a loss, just initiative, but whatev), they should do it. If this new gen has shown us anything so far, it's that If any company can get the average person to care about online gaming, it's Nintendo.
Post by: SixthAngel on December 31, 2006, 10:37:18 AM
Honestly who cares about the crappy new arcade games that the xbox gets. I think UNO was the biggest selling live game. I want the games the vc is going to offer that I loved and that I missed. There are already games I want on the vc from both categories. The Wii's only negative online aspect is that games aren't playable online yet. That is pretty big to the hardcore but will soon be fixed.
Post by: Pittbboi on December 31, 2006, 10:42:31 AM
However, just look at what Nintendo and PS3 are offering, and suddenly "adequate" is a pretty big deal.
Post by: Artimus on December 31, 2006, 10:48:14 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 31, 2006, 10:55:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MorningStar
While I don't completely agree with Pittboi, he brings up some very valid points.
I'd rather not get into this whole debate any further. However, someone said that Pittbboi strikes them to be a cynical person; he isn't cynical, he's just a realist. He's demanding Nintendo to do what is realistically possible.
Sorry, no he is someone that is constantly complaining. In order to be critical you must balance complaints with praises, what they are doing right what they are doing wrong. As it stands Pittboi sounds like a constant complainer with nothing positive to say, at least Ian makes good points every now and then. In regards to Nintendo being a multibillion dollar company, that is true, but they don't have the resources like Sony or MS to take huge losses. Does Wii's internet service need work? Definately but it still is a work in progress since it is a brand new undertaking by Nintendo, even Live didn't get to where it was without some dreadful growing pains.
Post by: Arbok on December 31, 2006, 11:02:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Well, yeah, I'll admit that was a little extreme for an example, but I stand by my point. Microsoft took some HEAVY losses last gen, but still, the risk they took has put them in the better position this time with the 360, and not a worse one.
Microsoft went into the console business stating that they would take a loss on the first two generations of systems (Xbox and the 360, although of course unnamed at the time) and finally pull in a profit on the third incarnation... Are they set to do this? Hard to say, their share has of course grown since the Xbox debated, but the 360 hasn't done much to improve that so far. It was the hot item of the 2005 Holiday period, but demand has been crippled past then as it appears to have primarly catered to those who loved the first system, while it has done rather poorly in most overseas markets.
That does not sound like a position a video game only company like Nintendo should be taking, or would even be able to pursue for long.
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
I'm not implying that Nintendo needs to throw away billions of dollars. But, well, losses aren't always a bad thing. And, if it takes a small initial loss to get get their online system up to par (I don't think it would take a loss, just initiative, but whatev), they should do it.
Nintendo is a very fiscally conservative company. They may be willing to take risks when it comes to innovate things, sometimes with great results (DS) and sometimes not (Virtual Boy), but when it comes to financial decisions they tend to play it safe.
The question here is if taking a loss on a more robust "online system" would be worth it from a fiscal standpoint. My answer is no, due to the amount of money Microsoft has established in theirs and that I don't see it being as big of a draw outside of "hardcore" gamers. The type who will buy two systems in a generation anyway. The Wii has online abilites. They may not be great, but it's there and free, and for the vast majority of consumers that will probably be all that matters.
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
If this new gen has shown us anything so far, it's that If any company can get the average person to care about online gaming, it's Nintendo.
And they would want that... why? If this generation will show us anything, IMO, it's that online play is not something joe average cares about yet, or will even trouble themselves to set up.
Not saying that I don't enjoy online play myself, of course, as I can't wait to play Brawl with other skilled players... but I think many overstate its general draw power for consoles.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 31, 2006, 11:09:57 AM
Post by: Pittbboi on December 31, 2006, 11:26:39 AM
Quote
Sorry, no he is someone that is constantly complaining. In order to be critical you must balance complaints with praises, what they are doing right what they are doing wrong. As it stands Pittboi sounds like a constant complainer with nothing positive to say,
...ok?
I'm not going to sit here and list the positive things I have said about Nintendo, that would be trivial. I'm here to talk about Nintendo in the way that I want, in the threads that interest me. I'm not here to debate me. Heck, the fact that Wii is the only next gen console I have, and most likely will, invest in despie the fact that their early titles really don't appeal to me should speak enough of my loyalty to Nintendo.
However, since I have invested in Nintendo's new system, as a Nintendo fan and consumer I have a right to voice my opinions, no matter how negative they are.
Quote
And they would want that... why? If this generation will show us anything, IMO, it's that online play is not something joe average cares about yet, or will even trouble themselves to set up.
And this leads back to what I said about Microsoft and Sony understanding the importance of having all their bases covered. I mean, geez, some of you are actually trying to convince me that online gaming appealing to only a certain demographic of faithful gamers is valid excuse to not support it. That honestly troubles me. It's one thing to not make hardcore gamers your primary focus, but this smacks of trying to cast them aside completely. "Online gaming is not something to focus on, only the hardcore gamers want it." When did hardcore gamers stop mattering? And heck, I don't even consider myself a hardcore gamer. Just one that would like to see Nintendo work its magic with online.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 31, 2006, 11:39:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiQuote
However, since I have invested in Nintendo's new system, as a Nintendo fan and consumer I have a right to voice my opinions, no matter how negative they are.
Yeah you have that right, doesn't mean you are being constructive though. Maybe you should consider a PS3 since you are more interested in its titles, seems kind of silly to constantly state how much better the competition is and still only own the system that is inferior with genres you don't want.
Post by: Arbok on December 31, 2006, 11:42:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
And this leads back to what I said about Microsoft and Sony understanding the importance of having all their bases covered.
Given the price point of the two, I think they are doing anything but "covering their bases" to most consumers. They have made the two systems extreme luxury purchases, much more so than any mainstream console before them. Having features and genres covered doesn't help much if you forgo entire economic classes with both console prices and increased software prices. Not to mention added fees for online play with the 360.
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
I mean, geez, some of you are actually trying to convince me that online gaming appealing to only a certain demographic of faithful gamers as a valid excuse to not support it.
Nintendo is supporting online abilities at no additional cost to the consumer. I never questioned the idea to support it, I think its importance is overstated was my point, simply the idea of throwing a lot of money at it to quickly improve the service, which I don't see having the fiscal benefit that you do it would seem.
Post by: LunaticFringe on December 31, 2006, 11:45:22 AM
Amen brother, amen...
I agree with everything he has pretty much said. His "negativity" only shows how he cares for the company. He wants whats best for Nintendo as we all do. I do have to agree with him, I think Nintendo could make small changesthat would significantly increase its online appeal.
If any company can make people care about online it's Nintendo, no doubt.
Step One: SSB:B with online support...
Post by: Pittbboi on December 31, 2006, 11:50:54 AM
Quote
Maybe you should consider a PS3 since you are more interested in its titles
Ugh, for the last time I DON'T want a PS3. The PS3 is the biggest mistake Sony's ever made, and I'm really having a hard seeing the PS3 continue to sell after the initial support wears off (oh, and it most definitely will). It's only that initial support that I'm envious of. And Nintendo's solution to this lack of good initial support seems to be folding their arms and yelling "there will be no dought!" repeatedly when all signs point to one, instead of working with what they have.
Lately it seems being a Nintendo fan requires an arc-load of patience, and it's getting frustrated. I want to hear less "it's coming" and more "it's here!"
Post by: Kairon on December 31, 2006, 12:01:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
And this leads back to what I said about Microsoft and Sony understanding the importance of having all their bases covered.
Given the price point of the two, I think they are doing anything but "covering their bases" to most consumers. They have made the two systems extreme luxury purchases, much more so than any mainstream console before them. Having features and genres covered doesn't help much if you forgo entire economic classes with both console prices and increased software prices. Not to mention added fees for online play with the 360.
QFT. BTW, stop the darned passive-aggressive hate. Pittboi isn't flaming, he's being civil, and he's also being very intelligent. (Doesn 't mean he's right though!
)But anyways, its ridiculous to say that we're discarding the hardcore gamer. Nintendo is still trying to cater to the hardcore gamer, It's just that they are cutting back on the package they offer because they realize that their priorities lie elsewhere. Hardcore gamers still get Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem, retro games, and new IPs like Disaster from Nintendo. It's just that extras, like robust online networking and old school controls and high end graphics aren't part of the deal. This makes a lot of sense given Nintendo's adjusted priorities, and given their "second console" stance.
I still believe in that second console stance actually. I truly believe that the most hardcore of hardcore gamers should NOT consider a Wii as their first purchase. They should concern themselves with the PS3 or X360. I'm fine with that. Nintendo's fine with that. The Wii isn't competing remember? The Wii is a second console. Buy the Wii second. "Hardcore gamers" are not Nintendo's #1 priority, so rightfully the Wii shouldn't be hardcore gamer's #1 priority either. The Wii should be their #2 priority.
...uh... but this is weird. "Hardcore gamer" is a strange label. I sometimes consider myself one, especially looking at my gaming expenditures, but the fact is that while I think like a hardcore gamer, I PLAY like a casual, lapsed, or nintendo one. Oh well... I try not to take these labels too seriously. After all, I own purely Nintendo consoles, despite my ready love and or defense of the much maligned Halo and GTA franchises (which Nintendo fans everywhere CONTINUE to undervalue immensely). I guess even the Nintendo fanboi labels, which I so dearly cling to, doesn't readily apply.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on December 31, 2006, 12:08:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Lately it seems being a Nintendo fan requires an arc-load of patience, and it's getting frustrated. I want to hear less "it's coming" and more "it's here!"
Lately? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... *ahem*
Anyways, do you really not think that Sony could simply be saved by the hard work of third parties who, despite the PS3's utter failure as a console, deliver good games on it much like they did with the PS2 before? I, for one, am NOT ready to discount games such as Heavenly Sword, MGS4 and FFXIII, nor the work of so many hard working, earnest, but exploited third parties slaving away to make PS3 titles work... nor the amazing God of War Franchise and Ico team either.
Quote
Originally posted by: LunaticFringe
Step One: SSB:B with online support...
Second step: Animal Crossing Online! ... or do Hardcore gamers not care about that?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Arbok on December 31, 2006, 12:09:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
BTW, stop the darned passive-aggressive hate.
It's unavoidable with me in almost any debate, regardless of topic... although more so when dealing with Smash Bros, which thankfull this topic doesn't...
Post by: Kairon on December 31, 2006, 12:14:33 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: UncleBob on December 31, 2006, 12:18:00 PM
Post by: MorningStar on December 31, 2006, 12:32:28 PM
Post by: segagamer12 on December 31, 2006, 12:32:41 PM
EDIT:
Ok Im back. So wow, how the crap did we go from taling about the virtual console to Sony is better than Nintendo!?
pittboi, I commened you for taking a stand for your view that much is good. But not everthing Nintendo does is going to be in your best interest. I am confused though, do you have a problem with the Virtual Console all together or just Nintendos entire approach to online?
I agree wholeheartedly that they need to take it more seriously, and I think they are on the right track to do that. I had my doubts at first but seeing that they gave us a pretty easy to use web browser, which Live does NOT have, and they have allowed the only features worth browsing the net on a console anywas to work then its fine by me.
BUT I disagree entyirely with what has been stated about VC, the whole point is to attract gamers who have not played Nintendo games since NES or SNES days, and to attract the Sega fans to the system. It is also a way to experience old games that otherwise would be difficult to find.
Without getting into moral or legal implications of ROMS, lets got hat route a second, even if you WANTED to download ROMS for Turbo Graphix, where are you going to find them? or the emulators?
Now getting into the legal areas that are NOT grey, ei backup rights etc.
It IS illegal to run an emulator on yor PC of a Nintendo system as THEY own the intellectualy property right sot the BIOS of the system and they hold patents toe hte sysetsm iner workings. Therefore to run an EMULATOR that will play NES games, at least in the US, is STILL illegal and this was settled. I am not very good at finding links so I wont bother but you can look it up if you dont beleive me.
Now I am not saying that you specifically were for or against roms, I just wanted to make that point to whoever was for roms.
Now Someone compared it to Itunes a while back, well heres my reply to that, with Itunes you HAVE the right and means to rip songs off of Cds you legally obtained and then copy them to you I-pod.
With Wii you DO NOT have the right to rip ROMS from your NES carts and copy them to your Wii even if the carts were legally obtained. The ROMS supporters all seam to have one thing in common, and thats they have nor egards for other peoples property, they think its OK and therefore do not consider it steeling no matter what evidence a person prvides to the contrary.
So if you are OK with steeling download the roms and emulators and be happy and stop trying to convince people who aren't ok with it to do it.
Even if the Virtual Console games are "overpriced" which I do not think they are, then you have other options available to you. If you would rather pay for the cart and hook upt he real system then DO THAT. If you have the old systems then get on ebay and and buy the games you want, but considering NEs carts cost $5.15 to mail out Priority Mail, which is a full our of work for the vast majority, it still cost more to get those NES games that way.
I am a video game collector and have a website where I sell used video games and have worked in used video game stores and have freinds who own used video games stores, and I have enough experience to say that VC is not overpriced condisdering the convienece factor and how easy to find games it is. So right now the good games arent all out yet, the y will be eventually. Besides which there already are some GREAT games out even now worth getting that are easier to find and less costly on VC than thier respective systems.
Post by: Arbok on December 31, 2006, 12:36:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
wow. this topic is getting interesting. ill come back latter gotta got o store now but keep it going
Seems the man nipple diversion has caught segagamer12's attention...
Post by: segagamer12 on December 31, 2006, 01:06:21 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 31, 2006, 02:08:49 PM
. For me personally I will probaly end up getting a PS3 down the line, just not yet.
Post by: RampanT on December 31, 2006, 02:24:59 PM
Quote
And this leads back to what I said about Microsoft and Sony understanding the importance of having all their bases covered. I mean, geez, some of you are actually trying to convince me that online gaming appealing to only a certain demographic of faithful gamers is valid excuse to not support it. That honestly troubles me. It's one thing to not make hardcore gamers your primary focus, but this smacks of trying to cast them aside completely. "Online gaming is not something to focus on, only the hardcore gamers want it." When did hardcore gamers stop mattering? And heck, I don't even consider myself a hardcore gamer. Just one that would like to see Nintendo work its magic with online.
I'm not sure why some people have it in for Pittbboi. As far as I can see, all of the points he has made are valid. The criticism is constructive and fair. Nintendo has done many great things with the Wii - but it's approach to online gaming as a whole is a complete joke. I was thoroughly disappointed with the online aspects of Mario Kart DS. What a total waste of an opportunity. A game like Wii Sports could also have been an online classic. Nintendo's stubborn view on security with regard to the friend codes etc just makes the whole experience incredibly frustrating.
Forget the sodding Weather Channel, forget the News Channel - they are a total waste of effort. They should be concentrating their efforts in providing a stable and usable online platform for games. This is no longer something reserved for 'hardcore gamers' - this is something that is very much the norm. Yes, your Grandmother is not going to be interested in online gaming with the Wii she purchased - but a huge portion of the market is. Nintendo have had YEARS to conceive an appropriate online gaming structure - and there has been 2 consoles from Microsoft in that time that have set a decent example on how to make it work.
Post by: Hocotate on December 31, 2006, 03:07:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
I barely play WiiSports and I don't like mini-game games unless I'm with a group of people and vodka shots are creatively incorperated into the gameplay. And I barely tolerate first person shooters (though I can be drawn in by some). I love RPGs and Action and Fighting games so when I'm done with Zelda what's going to be there for the type of gamer I am? Not much, it seems (and FF:CC doesn't count. That game sucked balls).
I don't like this, I don't like that... why did you buy a Wii then?
Quote
Yeah, I think it's funny, too, because so far Sony's been the example of what NOT to do, and yet their online IS better.
We are talking about the VC, dowloading games.... Show me how the PS3 is offering more/better games for download on the PS3? Just the fact that you cannot play PSX games without a PSP is enough to count it worse than the VC.
Quote
In no way was I trying to imply that Sony has it in the bag
Then don't down talk Nintendo and use Sony as an exapmle of doing it right (when they are clearly not).
Quote
One thing I will credit MS and Sony with is that they seem to better understand the importance of having all your bases covered
MS understands the importance of having their bases covered? .......Japan? The X360's titles are still very niche, much like the original Xbox. And the PS3 doesn't have much of anything right now. The truth is Nintendo's competition isn't doing any better than they are. The 360 suffered a drought, and the PS3 will definately as well.
Quote
To believe that is to think that only Nintendo made great games for past consoles, and that certainly isn't true.
No. You will notice how Nintendo games sell better than 3rd party games, look at the sales.... Some say one of the reasons why the GCN lacked support was because of how "When you release on a Nintendo console, you're greatest competition is Nintendo itself." You want Nintendo to release everything at once and drown out 3rd parties.
Quote
I won't deny that I am very critical of the Wii right now, but I have given them their credit. And I'm not going to lick Nintendo's behind, which seems to be what most have to do around here to be considered a "fan."
I understand that you are trying not to be viewed apon as a fanboy but if you truely are a Nintendo fan, why the constant negativity? I know you are trying to be like Ian (you said this yourself), but even he knows when Nintendo is doing things right and to give praise where it is due. If Nintendo's decisions bother you this much then maybe you should look into another console.
Post by: Pittbboi on December 31, 2006, 07:07:01 PM
Post by: Pittbboi on December 31, 2006, 07:27:22 PM
Quote
I am confused though, do you have a problem with the Virtual Console all together or just Nintendos entire approach to online?
I don't have problem with the virtual console all together. I have always said that the virtual console has the potential to cream Xbox Live and PS3's service. I just don't think Nintendo's taking full advantage of it. Heck, if everyone is honest with themselves for just a second most will admit that we all thought the VC would be more than it ended up being. The virtual console's potential won't be realized until Nintendo gets the majority of their games online, and at this rate that's going to be a few years. Nintendo needs to be able to say "Your favorite games from the past? On the virtual console. now." for it to be a major draw. This handful of titles per week thing they're doing just doesn't cut it. Honestly, by the end of 2007 the virtual console needs to be fully realized. Nintendo needs to get on the ball.
That, and as smooth and slick the interface is, I don't see it remaining organized once WiiConnect becomes bogged down with loads of content. They really need to focus on making it an adequate service because it definitely has the potential.
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 31, 2006, 07:30:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok It's unavoidable with me in almost any debate, regardless of topic... although more so when dealing with Smash Bros
The game or me...or both?
Post by: Hocotate on January 01, 2007, 01:22:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Ok, this entire post isn't worth a drop of response. You can find the answer to all your questions in everything I've posted thus far. Seriously, whoever you are, if you don't have something better to say...
Just proving you wrong is all, your failure to a response shows it
I have read your previous posts, and while you have some adequate points, the majority of your views are contradicting and flawed.You place too much importance in online, if it means that much to you then the 360 is a nice console. Nintendo will give us free online, the system is still very young and the online aspects of the console will flourish soon. I'm sick of you whining about wanting everything now, your a Nintendo fan, by now you should know patience :p The DS took some time but look at it's dominance now! I feel the Wii will be similar in that regard. The Wii has been doing wonders and is a great console, I feel you expect a bit too much from video games and prioritize online gaming. The X360 is the console for you friend.
Post by: Pittbboi on January 01, 2007, 03:43:49 AM
Quote
Just proving you wrong is all, your failure to a response shows it
My failure to respond only proves that I was pissed drunk from bringing in the new year, but if you want a better explaination for why I don't take you seriously...
Quote
I don't like this, I don't like that... why did you buy a Wii then?
Because I like Nintendo? Seriously, this point is absolutely ridiculous. Are you really trying to suggest that if I don't like mini-game games and first-person shooters then I shouldn't own a Wii? Are you really saying that, as a Nintendo consumer, I should just accept what meager scraps they give and not expect better and more varied games from them? And if I do I should just give up on Nintendo because it's not going to happen? Are you really trying to say that I'm wrong for expecting the online service that Nintendo promised us we'd have right out of the box? You don't have to agree with me, but I have a right to want these things, and these are things Nintendo needs to provide is they want to keep their promise of making a console that's for everybody.
Quote
We are talking about the VC, dowloading games.... Show me how the PS3 is offering more/better games for download on the PS3? Just the fact that you cannot play PSX games without a PSP is enough to count it worse than the VC
It's not about which games PS3 is offering online, because whether or not you like them is completely subjective and will just lead to a pointless argument. And it's not that that i'm trying to argue all of their online content is great, anyway. What Sony's online plan has over the VC right now (I say right now because this can change if Nintendo wakes up) is content, a variety of old and new content.
Quote
MS understands the importance of having their bases covered? .......Japan? The X360's titles are still very niche, much like the original Xbox. And the PS3 doesn't have much of anything right now. The truth is Nintendo's competition isn't doing any better than they are. The 360 suffered a drought, and the PS3 will definately as well.
What does Japan have to do with this? I meant they have all their basses covered in regards to content, not markets. And besides, Japan not taking to the Xbox isn't because they haven't tried. Hello? Blue Dragon? As far as games go, Xbox360 pretty much has all its bases covered. Sure, when it launched it was first-person shooter fest, but quicker than it seems like the Wii is going to be MS made sure that every genre was covered on their system by decent games.
Quote
No. You will notice how Nintendo games sell better than 3rd party games, look at the sales.... Some say one of the reasons why the GCN lacked support was because of how "When you release on a Nintendo console, you're greatest competition is Nintendo itself." You want Nintendo to release everything at once and drown out 3rd parties.
Duh Nintendo games sell better, their back library is filled with great games. But once again you've misunderstood me. When you're competing with Nintendo in a contemporary market then it makes sense for Nintendo to give 3rd parties breathing room. But we're talking about the virtual console here. OLD games. Old games that are going to appeal to people who have already played them or always wanted to play them. There's no competition there. As great as Nintendo is, I don't think anybody is not going to buy their favorite 3rd party games because Nintendo games are present.
Quote
I understand that you are trying not to be viewed apon as a fanboy but if you truely are a Nintendo fan, why the constant negativity? I know you are trying to be like Ian (you said this yourself), but even he knows when Nintendo is doing things right and to give praise where it is due. If Nintendo's decisions bother you this much then maybe you should look into another console.
Um, Not trying to be like Ian. I've just been following these forums for years and in that time I've seen this place become a sea of Nintendo-can-do-no-wrong-ism, and more realistic and fair opinions like most of those of Ian's get drowned out by sheer numbers. I've had something to say for a long time now, and I'm saying it. I have that right (especially now that I have a Wii and it's becoming more and more apparent that it's not going to be an everybody console for a good long while to come). And if you read my posts I do credit Nintendo with some things. I credit them with the skill and potential and heart to do even better than they're doing now. Good things come to those who wait, yes, but in the past Nintendo has used that adage as an excuse to not deliver without actually saying they're not going to deliver. Gamecube online, anyone?
Ugh, I'm too hung over for this...
Post by: Artimus on January 01, 2007, 03:50:31 AM
Ummm...what content? They have hardly any PSX games available for download (and they're not even for the PS3, they're for the PSP). What else is available?
"Old games that are going to appeal to people who have already played them or always wanted to play them. There's no competition there."
I don't think you understand the consumer well. A large part (majority?) of video game console owners have not owned older systems. A huge portion just started gaming in the late 1990s. These people are going to use the virtual console to play games which, despite being old, are new to them. I'm sure this Christmas saw a ton of young children playing Super Mario Bros. for the first time. I have owned every Nintendo console and yet I've downloaded two games so far, neither of which I'd played before. A lot of the VC sales will be classics people love and want to play again, but just as many (or more) will be new experiences for the buyers. Mario, Zelda, Sonic, etc. will always be bought because they're loved, but so many games weren't played. The Genesis and Turbo Grafix games alone provide the staunchest Nintendo fan new games.
So, there is absolutely competition. People have a set amount of money they're willing to spend at a time. If you have classic games that people say good things about but you've never personally played, you're more likely to buy it if there aren't 50 games you have played available. Not to mention by releasing games slowly over time Nintendo keeps VC Mondays exciting and people always have something to look forward to. At 3 games a week that's still over 150 games a year, and some weeks see twice that many! If the VC averages 300 games a year that's 1200 games in four years. You'd be hard pressed to find 1200 amazing games from the available systems. It just makes no sense for Nintendo to release all their games at once as they'll only hurt the sales of those games and third party games. If you have a big super Monday announcement of Super Mario RPG you'll sell more copies than if you release it the same day as FFIV, VI, Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Breath of Fire 1 & 2 and Chrono Trigger.
Now, days like today are stupid. Crappy games like Tennis are way overpriced and you'd be an idiot to buy it (unless you were collecting them all). Among the three console makers there's no reason every week can't have at least one amazing game, as well as 2-4 great or good ones. But the selection right now is solid (if a bit skimpy on the SNES/N64 side). There are many games worth buying and if you've bought them all and beat them all already, as well as played and beat all the worthwhile launch titles, then you play a LOT of video games and that's your own doing. There are thousands of hours of playtime for the Wii already and it's certainly one of the richest launches ever.
I can't help but feel your complaint amounts to nothing more than your personal favorites not being available yet.
Post by: SixthAngel on January 01, 2007, 04:17:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Because I like Nintendo? Seriously, this point is absolutely ridiculous. Are you really trying to suggest that if I don't like mini-game games and first-person shooters then I shouldn't own a Wii? Are you really saying that, as a Nintendo consumer, I should just accept what meager scraps they give and not expect better and more varied games from them? And if I do I should just give up on Nintendo because it's not going to happen? Are you really trying to say that I'm wrong for expecting the online service that Nintendo promised us we'd have right out of the box? You don't have to agree with me, but I have a right to want these things, and these are things Nintendo needs to provide is they want to keep their promise of making a console that's for everybody.
What did they promised out of the box that you didn't get? They never promised games would have online play at launch. The system has only been out for a MONTH and already has a great variety of games. If you want a years worth of games at purchase don't get a system at launch. You knew what you were getting into when you bought it at launch. If you didn't like the offerings it had at the time do you expect us to feel bad when you still got it?
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
What does Japan have to do with this? I meant they have all their basses covered in regards to content, not markets. And besides, Japan not taking to the Xbox isn't because they haven't tried. Hello? Blue Dragon? As far as games go, Xbox360 pretty much has all its bases covered. Sure, when it launched it was first-person shooter fest, but quicker than it seems like the Wii is going to be MS made sure that every genre was covered on their system by decent games.
He brings up Japan because xbox doesn't have many games at all that appeal to the market. Blue Dragon is one game and it isn't even in the US yet to give us a jrpg. That does not make all their bases covered even in the US. For someone that likes rpgs and hates fps you think waaaay to much of the 360's lineup.
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Duh Nintendo games sell better, their back library is filled with great games. But once again you've misunderstood me. When you're competing with Nintendo in a contemporary market then it makes sense for Nintendo to give 3rd parties breathing room. But we're talking about the virtual console here. OLD games. Old games that are going to appeal to people who have already played them or always wanted to play them. There's no competition there. As great as Nintendo is, I don't think anybody is not going to buy their favorite 3rd party games because Nintendo games are present.
They will also appeal to people who have never heard of them before, such as gamers that started on the playstation or anyone else new, which is a lot of people.
To say there is no competition there is a joke. If there were 300 games out for vc right now only a small amount of games would get any sales (mostly nintendo) and even those sales would be relatively small. Why would a company like square release any games for the vc when the returns are going to be hardly worth it especially compared to the compilation discs/gba releases? By spacing and releasing games they all get attention and third parties are encouraged to release more games and better games because it is seen as an actual revenue source.
I really am confused how you say ps3 or even xbox live has better content then the vc. You say it is subjective but what are these games that people would rather have then Zelda and SMB? UNO?
Post by: Strell on January 01, 2007, 04:33:53 AM
The VC's method of entry is being done to try and maximize profits for third parties. Nintendo would crush them with their own IPs in about 2 seconds flat. If they can prove to other third parties that their games will sell, then they will get more games down the line. Which is to say that XXobscureGameYouCan'tLiveWithout from NowDefunctCompany will actually appear.
This is all entirely a calculated business decision, and at no time is it a failure that is contradictory to earlier comments Nintendo made. They have only said it was available. They never once said they'd have a huge library up front.
If you disagree with this - that it is a business decision through and through - then you're never going to be happy with it.
Besides, if I picked up a Wii and on day one - or some time reasonably close - they DID have a huge library of titles to download, I can guarantee you I'd take a huge chunk of change purely at VC downloads instead of Wii games. Doing that is counterproductive to Nintendo's plans as well, 'cuz they need to prove games can sell even with a whacky new controller. I wouldn't even have thought to try out Monkey Ball, Rayman, or Elebits, 'cuz I'd be too happy with Super Mario World, Ninja Gaiden, Chrono Trigger, etc etc.
They've got to balance the games out to 1) get more on there from third parties, and 2) to ensure they don't directly compete with Wii games. I don't think scenario 2 is going to be very likely, but it could have been.
If you don't like this, you can complain about it, but don't pretend that you have it figured out better than Nintendo, who has a lot of people working on just these sorts of things to maximize their profits.
Post by: Pittbboi on January 01, 2007, 04:53:42 AM
Quote
I don't think you understand the consumer well. A large part (majority?) of video game console owners have not owned older systems. A huge portion just started gaming in the late 1990s. These people are going to use the virtual console to play games which, despite being old, are new to them. I'm sure this Christmas saw a ton of young children playing Super Mario Bros. for the first time. I have owned every Nintendo console and yet I've downloaded two games so far, neither of which I'd played before. A lot of the VC sales will be classics people love and want to play again, but just as many (or more) will be new experiences for the buyers. Mario, Zelda, Sonic, etc. will always be bought because they're loved, but so many games weren't played. The Genesis and Turbo Grafix games alone provide the staunchest Nintendo fan new games.
Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I think the virtual console in its current form appeals almost exclusively to people who know these games, be they current or ex gamers. I don't think young kids who weren't around/too young to remember when Mario MEANT good gaming fired up their Wii (if they had one) on Christmas opened the virtual console and went, "Holy F'in Sh*T Batman! It's Super Mario!" These are good games to you are I, because we remember the time when these games were new, gorgeous, innovative and the talk of the town (Well, I'm 20, so I wasn't that old then, but I still had an NES
). To most people who don't know these games, from what I've seen, they think these games are old, blocky, and too hard to play.Quote
At 3 games a week that's still over 150 games a year, and some weeks see twice that many! If the VC averages 300 games a year that's 1200 games in four years. You'd be hard pressed to find 1200 amazing games from the available systems. It just makes no sense for Nintendo to release all their games at once as they'll only hurt the sales of those games and third party games
Who says that people have to bulk buy? You're right, if every game is available at one time, it would cost a pretty penny to buy all the games you want right then and there. But who's actually going to do that? I know that I would pick some games that I want to play right then (all of which wouldn't be Nintendo games), and then come back later. The one thing that having all of your titles on the system at once has over slowly releasing them is that you'l havel options. Right now you don't have options, you can only take what they give you. Even if a friend recommends a game or there has always been one you wanted to play, you hve to WAIT until it's available. And with all the SNES games there were and the rate at which Nintendo is releasing them, who knows when that'd be.
There no advantage for the consumer for slowly releasing these games the way Nintendo has. The only advantage that I can see is Nintendo possibly squeezing more cash out of the impatient "well, it's not what I want, but I need to get something" gamer.
Quote
If you disagree with this - that it is a business decision through and through - then you're never going to be happy with it.
Of course it's a business decision, but business decision doesn't exactly mean good decision. Nintendo's remained pofitable all this time, but it hasn't kept their market share from not slipping every generation (but this one, hopefully)
Post by: Strell on January 01, 2007, 05:09:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Of course it's a business decision, but business decision doesn't exactly mean good decision. Nintendo's remained pofitable all this time, but it hasn't kept their market share from not slipping every generation (but this one, hopefully)
I really don't think the VC is ever going to honestly be calculated as a reason for or against a system when it comes to the average consumer. They are more interested in the controller, not the fact that they can now download Urban Champion. In that respect I don't think anyone - save for the hardcore gamers who made their decisions long ago - will give a sh*t about what the VC does or doesn't have. At best a consumer at the store will be told "oh it can download old games." But that is not a make or break scenario, and it never will be. Again, the people who care and know about it made their decisions LONG ago as to which console they want, and downloadable content is really more or less a bonus at that point.
As for the business decision being good or bad, there's no way for us to tell. Someone upset or whining about it doesn't mean it is bad. All it means is that they are upset and/or whining about it. Unless Nintendo released figures that said just how much they've sold of everything, we'll never know if it was a good idea or not. And something tells me only Nintendo has access to those figures and isn't going to let them out. But we'll know if it was a bad idea down the line if we start seeing sales or something.
Post by: segagamer12 on January 01, 2007, 05:32:47 AM
Dude, pitboi, I am not attacking you seriously so please dont get offended, the point I am trying to make is that the virual console, as you can see form all the replies, has been a big deal to so many people alread. You do not HAVE to like it, but please for the sake of those who do quit complaining about it because your not going to change anyones minds. If you dont want to get teh games then dont, but dont act liek it was a dumb idea for Nintendo to release the games the way they are when so many people think contrary to that.
Post by: Artimus on January 01, 2007, 05:56:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I think the virtual console in its current form appeals almost exclusively to people who know these games, be they current or ex gamers. I don't think young kids who weren't around/too young to remember when Mario MEANT good gaming fired up their Wii (if they had one) on Christmas opened the virtual console and went, "Holy F'in Sh*T Batman! It's Super Mario!" These are good games to you are I, because we remember the time when these games were new, gorgeous, innovative and the talk of the town (Well, I'm 20, so I wasn't that old then, but I still had an NES
Most console owners are not hardcore fans of video games like we are. They buy old games for new experiences. They also don't know crap about graphics. They're the same people who buy millions upon millions of GBAs even after the DS has been out two years. They're the same people who bought hundreds of thousands of copies of Super Mario Bros. classic collection. Yes hardcore gamers will buy a ton of VC games, but people who have never played them will as well. You're totally ignoring the casual gamer, and they are by far the biggest portion of console owners.
Post by: Pittbboi on January 01, 2007, 06:40:04 AM
Quote
Hell I have already spent $80 on VC games alone and thats nothing for me. I will gladly ontinue to spend $20.00 a week on the thing as long as it continues to have games I want.
No offense, but that statement alone is enough for me to not consider what you say to be an example of the popular opinion.
Quote
If you dont want to get teh games then dont, but dont act liek it was a dumb idea for Nintendo to release the games the way they are when so many people think contrary to that.
Really? Because I see a lot of people who don't like various things about the virtual console. It's not as if I'm the only complainer amongst seas of praise for the VC. On the contrary, you'll find people who like it mixed in with a few that don't, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who has absolutely nothing bad to say about it. I've read too many articles, listened to too many podcasts, and read to many message boards to not know that the popular opinion right now is that the VC is falling short of its incredible potential.
Quote
Most console owners are not hardcore fans of video games like we are. They buy old games for new experiences. They also don't know crap about graphics. They're the same people who buy millions upon millions of GBAs even after the DS has been out two years. They're the same people who bought hundreds of thousands of copies of Super Mario Bros. classic collection. Yes hardcore gamers will buy a ton of VC games, but people who have never played them will as well. You're totally ignoring the casual gamer, and they are by far the biggest portion of console owners.
Well, we'd need to see figures to be precise, but I still stand by my point. I won't deny that there are probably some casual/non-gamers out there taking a chance on a few VC titles out of curiosity, but I'm almost certain that the majority of VC patronage is coming from the hardcore. Heck, at this point in the game it's still pretty safe to say that the majority of people who own a Wii right now are hardcore gamers, as you still have to go through absolute hell to find one.
The GBA isn't a good example of casual gamers not knowing about or caring about graphics for several reasons: 1) it's a handheld, and it's only been recently that people have been expecting handhelds to perform with high quality graphics. That sway won't exist on a console. 2) The GBA is still somewhat fresh, new games are still being released for it, and old ones are getting face lifts. 3) You buy a GBA for these games. The expectation is there. Not the same for the Wii, where the VC is supposed to be a lovely addition. As someone said earlier, most of the casual gamers want the Wii for the controller. Most don't really care about virtual console outside of knowing it exists so you can download "old games."
Post by: The Omen on January 01, 2007, 06:57:12 AM
Quote
Quote
If you dont want to get teh games then dont, but dont act liek it was a dumb idea for Nintendo to release the games the way they are when so many people think contrary to that.
Really? Because I see a lot of people who don't like various things about the virtual console. It's not as if I'm the only complainer amongst seas of praise for the VC. On the contrary, you'll find people who like it mixed in with a few that don't, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who has absolutely nothing bad to say about it. I've read too many articles, listened to too many podcasts, and read to many message boards to not know that the popular opinion right now is that the VC is falling short of its incredible potential.
After 6 weeks, I fail to see how the VC is falling short of its potential. I chalk this talk up to the rather tedious "I want it all now" attitude more than a lack of quality games.
Post by: Kairon on January 01, 2007, 01:09:37 PM
Nintendo doesn't need to beat Sony or MS. They need to be able to advance their visions of what videogames mean and are. You need to be profitable to do that, not imperial. Let's not forget that Nintendo isn't competing, and that the Wii is a second console. Nintendo's only real goal is to stick around to try to make great games on great game hardware. Marketshare is nice (and it's often an indicator of just how great their games are in the end), but it's a completely peripheral concern.
We shouldn't forget the big picture after all... when Microsoft's in the industry, it's only a matter of time before you're either defunct, marginalized, or bought up. The only thing you can play for with an eventuality like that is the survival of your entity, and the survival of your ideas. If Nintendo expands the market but loses the marketshare war, they'll have won. If Nintendo wins the marketshare war, but videogames don't change, then the Wii was entirely pointless.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: segagamer12 on January 01, 2007, 03:00:27 PM
So effing what! who the hell cares about popular opinion dumb ass. Dude I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and be civil, but I read yor praises of the VC ion the Nintendo Online plan thread and you sir are an idiot. You praise it in one thread and bash it in another.
Post by: greenblob on January 01, 2007, 03:57:50 PM
Anyway, anyone ever heard of Kaillera? Using certain emulators, you can play games from NES, SNES, N64, arcade, Genesis, PS1, and a bunch of other systems online. I normally wouldn't use ROMs, but the prospect of being able to play these games online was irresistable. And guess what one of the most popular games is. That's right, Super Smash Bros for the N64. If Nintendo were to release modified versions of some of these games on the VC including online support, fixing some bugs these games had, or adding multiplayer to games that seem like multiplayer would be a no-brainer but don't have it for some reason or another (like F-Zero), it could mean a jump in VC downloads and happy customers.
Also, online gamers = hardcore isn't true. Take a look at WoW, MapleStory, Counter-Strike, Starcraft, etc. Most of the people who play these games online aren't hardcore gamers. Nintendo really needs to get online going.
Post by: IceCold on January 01, 2007, 04:53:48 PM
Post by: Pittbboi on January 01, 2007, 06:10:27 PM
Quote
I like it this way too; I don't want too many good games clumped together, because then I'm sure I'd miss many of them.
How the heck would you miss them, they wouldn't be going away. I think a lot of the virtual console defense is made up of people thinking that you HAVE to buy all the games you like the second they come out, and sure, if that was the case the way Nintendo is currently would make sense. But that's not the case. If Nintendo released all their games at once, the option for what game you want to purchase at which time would always be there.Having all your games out at once appeals to more people, you can't even argue that. You get the gamers who want obscure titles as well as gamers who KNOW what they want. With Nintendo's current setup they're limiting themselves to the gamers who want what they're currently offering.
Seriously, basic economics shows that sometimes choosing the option that immediately max's out profits isn't always been benefitial in the long run. A lesson Nintendo's learned the past two generations.
Post by: Kairon on January 01, 2007, 10:27:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: greenblob
Take a look at WoW, MapleStory, Counter-Strike, Starcraft, etc. Most of the people who play these games online aren't hardcore gamers.
Two of those games are made by Blizzard, whom even casual gamers know make must-buy-no-matter-what games, another one of those games is a flash based MMO which has NO INSTALLATION at all and probably has a user base in the range of 50,000 (i.e. horrible numbers for console, sustainable for cheap PC games), and *ahem* Counter-Strike is nothing if not hardcore.
Also... all of those games are on PCs. PC online is vastly easier, more accessible, more casual friendly and rarely an added purchase (since people have the internet for e-mail anyways), PCs are unparalleled in their ability to offer online experiences.
Besides, real casual PC players play Online Card Games.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on January 01, 2007, 10:28:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Seriously, basic economics shows that sometimes choosing the option that immediately max's out profits isn't always been benefitial in the long run.
I guess we're arguing over whether this is the "sometimes."
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: segagamer12 on January 02, 2007, 05:54:10 AM
Even if I am in the minority, which I may very well be, it doesnt change the fact that tehre ARE gamers out there willing to buy TONS of VC games.
Ok to keep it civil I will say this cuz I maybe am getting too defensive, I DO agree that it is slow coming, I dont want to sound like I am ok with a two ro three games a week update cuz i am not I would like them to releae more games sooner, but I understand why they dont so i deal with it. I dont complain now because SEGA, who despite what others may say, is my favorite game maker and I LOVE most of thier games. As long as they continue to support the VC I will continue to support VC, of course once the NES and SNES games I want become available I will be getting thier games.
I just wish that Nintendo would advertise the VC a little more so that non gamers or lapsed gamers can hear about it in addition to the wii remote so they can make a better descision. My paretns were sold on Wii sports alone, but once they found out it could play Sim City they immediately asked when is tetris coming. They will surely buyone for those two games.
The virtucal console has the POTENTIAL to be a HUGE selling point for Wii, and I think down the road it WILL be once the remote novelty starts to die down and they need to remind people of the systems other features. There are otehrs, like I know three so far, who are turned off by the remote, its fine I understand thier view point cuz I was turned off for the longest time too, but the VC has them considering the Wii where as the funny remote wasnt enough to convince them. Anywyas thats all stuff I said before so maybe Ill let this topic die down or at elast not keep it going.
I didnt meant o soudn offensive either pitboi so I want to apologise if I came off like it cuz I do see your points event hough you dont see mine.
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 02, 2007, 06:47:09 AM
In other words, games I can't get already or play in flash.
