Topic: whats the big deal about virtual console?

[IceCold]

Yeah, I think that was a little sarcasm from Bob

[Ghisy]

Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Yeah, I think that was a little sarcasm from Bob

I thought so too but wasn't too sure!

[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.

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.

[Pittbboi]

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.

[Hocotate]

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.  

[Pittbboi]

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.

[GoldenPhoenix]

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? In the past Nintendo has dabbled in online but nothing like the Wii and it will take time to iron out the bugs like every new online system from a company. So far for a first real attempt at online, Nintendo has done a pretty good job. In regards to knowing the games, I think that is a load of crap to be honest, Virtual Console is offering games that got little attention like the TGX, and I have no doubt people are picking them up who have not played them before.

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.  

[Arbok]

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.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

I really think people need to relax a bit in regards to Nintendo 3rd party, we have to realize that all through GC and N64 eras Nintendo chased away many of their third party developers. It is going to take some time to get them all back, but I definately see it happening because 3rd party games have been selling quite well for Wii which is a pretty new experience for a Nintendo console. After the great success of the Wii in 2006 (3+ million units is impressive) and hopefully in 2007, I think you are going to start seeing more and more come to the Wii.

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.

[Pittbboi]

Quote
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?

Excuses 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.

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.

[Kairon]

There IS NO QUESTION that Nintendo's online is lacking, even compared to Sony. No question at all.

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

[GoldenPhoenix]

Yeah for Kairon and his well thought out post.

[Pittbboi]

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).  

[Kairon]

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: Pittbboi

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).

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  

[KnowsNothing]

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.

[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 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.

[Pittbboi]

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.

[SixthAngel]

I hate how everyone acts like xbox live is some unbelievable experience.  It is alright and nothing more.  Besides the obvious 50 dollars a year charge for basically nothing the rest is just okay.  People that complain Nintendo overcharges shouldn't even try to buy stuff on the xbox live marketplace.  They seem to do nothing (or can't) to stop cheaters and games that come out now still have problems such as Gears voice chat problems.

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.

[Pittbboi]

Well, it's not that Xbox Live is unbelievably great. You're right, it's just adequate.

However, just look at what Nintendo and PS3 are offering, and suddenly "adequate" is a pretty big deal.

[Artimus]

Nintendo needs to get a consistent online presence in their games. If they do that it'll be fine. And make it easier to add friends, too. Make that feature lockable with the parental locks and safety isn't a worry. I just hope they don't make voice chat a standard because I will not play a game if it means listening to 12 year olds curse for an hour.

[GoldenPhoenix]

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.

[Arbok]

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.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

It should be interesting to see where online is at 2 years from now on the Wii.  

[Pittbboi]

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.
   

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi

Quote

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.