Author Topic: psp is online now wheres nintendos plan (Read 39227 times)

Savior · « **Reply #50 on:** February 09, 2005, 04:08:18 PM »

Quote
you the option, devs if they wanted could make online games, why they didnt do it? I have no idea ask them.

They have... Specifically the makers of Godzilla DAMM and Burnout 3 have said Nintendo isnt fully supportive of online... they dont produce enough adapters things like that.

darknight06 · « **Reply #51 on:** February 09, 2005, 04:41:07 PM »

That's kind of interesting, considering that I see them around here all the time on the shelves.

Artimus · « **Reply #52 on:** February 09, 2005, 04:44:13 PM »

I've never seen one on sale.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #53 on:** February 09, 2005, 05:50:31 PM »

"Mario Cart - single player and online. Why not have both in a game? This does not have to be an either or situation. I dont see what the big deal is."

The big deal is that if you spend time and money on online, you have less time and money to spend on single player. Just look at Halo 2 for proof.

"Why do you think having online games hurts single player games? Make money with online games, use that money to make more online games. Very simple. Does not affect single player games. You know, it is possible to have both. Halo 1 obviously made enough money for creating Halo 2. Expand your horzions."

Yes, very simple... except you CAN'T make money with online console games, not if you want to do it right like Microsoft. Nothing else will satisfy the people clamoring for online. There goes that "simple" theory.

"Do U have these #'s?"

No, sorry... they're really old numbers, from before Xbox Live was even launched. I'm sure you can find them if you look hard enough... if I'm not mistaken it was in the billions.

"(The complaints of The single player have NOTHING to do with its Quality, but the fact that you dont play the whole game as Master Chief)"

False. How about repetitive level design, nothing new over Halo 1, misled expectations (you don't even play on Earth for long), horrible glitches and a horrible ending. It's obvious the game was split up into yet another Halo game, and it's obvious they released it early so Xbox Live owners would have a reason to resubscribe. If you look at what Bungie originally intended and promised for the single-player campaign, and then you compare it to the actual game, I don't see how you can be anything but disappointed and pissed off. Every single review I've read of the game goes like "single player is meh but online is where it's at". Well, online isn't where it's at for me, therefore that's just one more game with huge potential that was ruined by the inclusion of online.

jarob · « **Reply #54 on:** February 09, 2005, 06:11:44 PM »

So Paladin, are you 100% against online games? I dont see why you have to keep making your points. I like online games and you dont. Move on.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #55 on:** February 09, 2005, 07:13:26 PM »

"So Paladin, are you 100% against online games?"

No, I'm 100% against Nintendo working on anything online. Maybe if they find a way to hire somebody else to take care of it... but I don't want them wasting time, effort or any considerable sum of money on it.

Artimus · « **Reply #56 on:** February 09, 2005, 07:52:45 PM »

Mario Kart online would not exactly be overly hard. It would take maybe a month or two more if you already had the infrastructure developed.

Games like Warcraft III and Starcraft cost Blizzard money to run but you don't see them complaining.

Nor do you see Microsoft complaining about the cost of their online service. Why? Because next gen they're going to give Sony a run for their money.

thepoga · « **Reply #57 on:** February 09, 2005, 08:47:04 PM »

Hey, whatever happened to that AOL partnership-like thingy with Nintendo? It was awhile ago, but could it have been related to the DS?

darknight06 · « **Reply #58 on:** February 10, 2005, 05:50:12 AM »

"Games like Warcraft III and Starcraft cost Blizzard money to run but you don't see them complaining."

I guess so, Blizzard is primarily an online centered developer. Those games were made to be online from the ground up, they make QUALITY online games that are customizable and moddable so that the players themselves can make new games within the game, and there's more than enough of a fanbase buying it (more that what you'll ever see on a console, they've existed long before online and console were ever thought about in America) meaning they know that they'll get enough revenue coming in along with ads from various companies to help pay for it. That and since it's not an MMO, nobodys having to pay for it which guarantees when someone else wants to join in it's as simple as getting the game and whatever updates that might be needed.

"Nor do you see Microsoft complaining about the cost of their online service. Why? Because next gen they're going to give Sony a run for their money."

Once again, it's Microsoft. Have you forgotten that they probably have well over 4x the money of Nintendo? Of course they can blow it on Live, they'll just pick up the slack elsewhere.

heinous_anus · « **Reply #59 on:** February 10, 2005, 07:58:42 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"We all know the DS is going online and we all know it will have online voice chat so yeah let's stop arguing since it won't affect anything."

No, actually. When the DS and Revolution go online and people start complaining about how much the games suck I can be like Ian and complain about how Nintendo never listened to my advice in the beginning. I'm thinking long-term here, pre-bitching and all that.

No one is responding to Ian's earlier point that online sells; when a consumer sees two similar product in a store, and one has just a couple more features than the other one, EVEN IF there's no chance they'll ever use those features, that other product starts to look a hell of a lot better. Like it or not, now that more and more casual gamers exist, this is something that has to be dealt with.

I have lots of faith in Nintendo. I think that, being the best gaming company around, that they would have little trouble creating an easy-to-use, accessible online option for future consoles while sacrificing nothing in terms of quality with regards to their games.

On the other hand, with regards specifically to the DS, I think that the price point of the PSP really is something to make a big deal about. Unlike some folks who may point to the "iPod" generation, I really don't think 22-23 year old college students are going to run out and plunk down, what is it, like $300, to play portable GTAIII or Metal Gear. Listening to music from class to class, on the bus, in class, in the car, etc. etc., are far different than spending that much money on a portable gaming system that probably won't get that much use. (This is all assuming that the 18+ demographic is what Sony is going for...?)

Gamefreak · « **Reply #60 on:** February 10, 2005, 12:17:23 PM »

Actually, Nintendo definately has the biggest operating budget for games of all three companies. Nintendo has no debt and 6 billion dollars in cold hard cash just sitting around that they can spend purely for games. Sony definately doesn't, and I don't think the execs want to leech money from other departments, and MS has already constantly increased its games budget and it's lost all that money pretty much...

So don't say Nintendo shouldn't spend money on online or that it doesn't have the money, cause it does and it's stupid not to use it. Nintendo made more money off the N64 than any companies probably made off of anything in gaming history.

kennyb27 · « **Reply #61 on:** February 10, 2005, 02:50:17 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Gamefreak
So don't say Nintendo shouldn't spend money on online or that it doesn't have the money, cause it does and it's stupid not to use it. Nintendo made more money off the N64 than any companies probably made off of anything in gaming history.

Look, let's just say Microsoft has lost some two and a half billion dollars setting up and installing their XBox Live service (which is what is looked to in the industry as the "right" way to do online). You claim Nintendo to have some six billion dollars in these "archives" of theirs.

If they lose only the same amount as Microsoft (which is a generous statement considering the age/sales demographic of the two systems), they will have lost some 42% of their "cold hard cash." Now just from a business standpoint, would any company give up nearly half of their cash for any business move? No, not likely at all.

Now from a gaming standpoint, assuming only some 20% of the fan base goes online (which again is generous considering the age group that own GCNs) that would be another not-so smart move. Why should you simply pacify barely one fifth of your market in order to lose nearly half of your cash reserves?

So, in the end, Nintendo is not "stupid" to hold off on online.

darknight06 · « **Reply #62 on:** February 10, 2005, 05:06:23 PM »

To kind of follow up on what kennyb was saying, there's also something else that needs to potentially be considered here. Microsoft lost that 2.4 while charging people. If Nintendo wants their network to be as accessable as possible with little to no fees, chances are unless they come up with some miracle solution, they could stand to bleed even more than 2.4 billion.

KnowsNothing · « **Reply #63 on:** February 13, 2005, 04:18:59 PM »

kenny, I have no idea if those numbers are right are not (seems a bit high, can't be arsed to check), but those losses are about the cost of a NASA reusable spacecraft. Which could be the spacecraft used to discover a new earth to inhabit when we use up the resources on this one. So basically, Xbox Live net loss is THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF EARTH. And that's just so far.

kennyb27 · « **Reply #64 on:** February 13, 2005, 05:27:15 PM »

Heh, I honestly have no idea what the numbers are. I was just throwing around the numbers that other people were. I guess we could figure that although the actual numbers may change the percentage has to be somewhat right...right? (Or am I just shooting arrows into space--or for that matter at the sun?)

Anyway, who's up for some space flights on reusable spacecrafts?

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #65 on:** February 13, 2005, 05:40:20 PM »

I think $2 billion was actually Microsoft's initial investment in the Xbox, and I remember a lot of it was earmarked for Live.

Not sure what happened since then, but I'd wager Microsoft spent more money on Xbox and Live after that.

Gamefreak · « **Reply #66 on:** February 13, 2005, 06:53:43 PM »

lol
MS definately did NOT lose over 2 billion dollars on Xbox live. Their Xbox live budget isn't even anywhere near 2 billion dollars.
The entire budget for managing Xbox and it's games is about 2 billion dollars. And MS sure as heck didn't lose every single dollar they ever spent on Xbox. That's just ludicrous. They lose money on each Xbox, yes, but they make tons of money off of games.

No one with any sort of knowledge would ever believe it takes 2.4 billion to set up and maintain Xbox live. MS charges people yes, but they hardly do anything. They run some servers for games and they make certain features standard across games that support live. Big deal.

PC games are free online. Blizzard doesn't charge people for playing Warcraft III online. There are more people playing Warcraft III online than any Xbox game other than Halo 2, which it probably rivals very closely. Running an online service doesn't cost that much money. They price of maintaining servers is covered in the ridiculous 50 dollars a game costs. PC game companies prove this. Nintendo is just retarded since they think online play isn't profitable. Yes, they won't make as much money as they did before online, but they definately won't lose any amount worth crying over, and they aren't in any sort of financial situation worth worrying about, so why not do it since it will pay off later?

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #67 on:** February 13, 2005, 07:06:01 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Warcraft 3 peer-to-peer?

Also, didn't Blizzard have craploads of trouble managing enough servers for WoW?

heinous_anus · « **Reply #68 on:** February 13, 2005, 07:20:12 PM »

I'm completely ignorant, so forgive the question; what does Warcraft III being peer-to-peer have to do with the costs of running an online network? If the answer is "peer-to-peer is insanely cheaper," then why not set up a network like that? It's a genuine question asked out of ignorance - I have no clue how these things get set up...you know, behind the curtain.

With regards to the server trouble for WoW, I think a lot of that had to do with how ridiculously well the game sold in the first few weeks. I read an interview somewhere where a Blizzard rep. said that based on market research (other massive online games), WoW was only expected to sell X amount in the first 4-6 months; this amount was achieved in a matter of weeks. I don't think Blizzard was ready for the popularity of the game.

I've never heard of difficulties with Warcraft III online.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #69 on:** February 13, 2005, 07:29:56 PM »

As far as I know, there's nothing stopping any games on any of the three systems being peer-to-peer, which means that the gamers host the games and there are no other servers (is that right?). Nintendo wouldn't have to actually add anything, would they?

But I don't know. I think I'm in way over my head right now. All I know is that most PC online gaming is free but Xbox Live isn't. There has to be a reason.

I also know I'm thoroughly fed up of online, PC or console. Therefore I have no interest in this topic. If Nintendo can somehow find a solution that everybody loves without wasting money, great, go ahead. But if that means they have less money, time or effort to spend on their actual games, I hope everybody who wants online dies a fiery death.

Darkheart · « **Reply #70 on:** February 13, 2005, 08:41:11 PM »

My biggest prob Paladin is that you keep it making it sound like " since im fed up with online gaming everyone should move on with me" While this may not be the message your aiming to get across to us it sounds that way. I for one have recieved cable internet within the past year and all these online games are still new to me and I for one love online gaming. I even use it to play my friends that live only a few blocks away. It just is more convienient for us to boot up the pcs or xboxes at 2 a.m. instead of staying at each others houses that late. I've met a whole bunch of cool gamers online and I believe online gaming should be considered another genre in gaming. Everyone may not like RPGs so they stay away from them and they stick to the genres they want to support. If Nintendo does go online with the DS I encourage you Paladin to vote against it with your dollars and dont buy the product. I am fully supporting the Ds to go online but I refuse to push my opinion on anyone else in here or outside the forum. People are individuals so let them do what they feel necessary.

Oh btw, I'll choose the firey death thing Paladin as long as I get my DS online and I get a box of HOOTER's hot wings to go with me ^0^

Artimus · « **Reply #71 on:** February 13, 2005, 09:04:50 PM »

Paladin, Warcraft has servers. Blizzard has like 30 or something servers in North America for Warcraft. You log onto Battle.net and such. Diablo however is 0% P2P, it's entirely on Blizzard's servers. It's pretty much the PC version of XBOX Live.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #72 on:** February 13, 2005, 09:53:35 PM »

Great. Then why does Microsoft charge for Xbox Live? Is there some additional cost they're trying to cover or are they just being greedy?

darkheart, I apologize if it seems that way. I'm being relatively tame right now, believe it or not. I just naturally like big confrontations, and arguments are fun.

My argument isn't "since I'm fed up with online gaming everyone should move on with me", I'm not that naive. My argument is "I'm fed up with online gaming and I won't shut up about it."

Dasmos · « **Reply #73 on:** February 14, 2005, 12:01:57 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: darkheart
I've met a whole bunch of cool gamers online.

I met my wife of 58 years while gaming online........that's pretty good seeing as i am only 17 and that online gaming hasn't been "alive" for that long.

oohhboy · « **Reply #74 on:** February 14, 2005, 03:48:49 AM »

Microsoft charges for Xbox live to create the impression that for a successful non MMPOG game servers requries you to pay. As far as I am aware, Xbox Live games don't support anything above 16 players, so there wouldn't be any excuse not to use peer to peer match making servers.

Although I do concide the fact that unlike Blizzard which was alllowed to expand thier servers slowly while each game came online, I do believe Micosoft over invested in online.

News:

Author Topic: psp is online now wheres nintendos plan (Read 39227 times)