Author Topic: GameCube’s Mid-Term Report Card (Read 70686 times)

NWR_Lindy · « **Reply #75 on:** December 26, 2003, 10:27:04 AM »

No, it was actually really lazy of them. Nintendo should take note of the fact that people are developing grass-roots software to play Gamecube games online. Maybe if those people had a legitimate way to play those games online they'd pay a small fee for the service...ya think?

Nintendo should at least do something like battle.net. Scratch that, they should just do ANYTHING. I'd like to see Nintendo actually keep up with what the marketplace is dictating, just once.

silks

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #76 on:** December 26, 2003, 10:46:11 AM »

Quote
No, it was actually really lazy of them. Nintendo should take note of the fact that people are developing grass-roots software to play Gamecube games online. Maybe if those people had a legitimate way to play those games online they'd pay a small fee for the service...ya think?

Whatever gave you that much faith in people? I know if I had a choice between free and pay, I know I'd go for the free. I might buy it from Nintendo, but only because I respect them as a company and don't feel that I should cheat them EXCEPT OH WAIT I wouldn't buy online at all. Because I don't want it.

It's kind of funny, actually. . . all of you are whining about online gaming. . . but you're not going to appreciate it if it comes, you're just going to find something else to complain about. Simply for the sake of complaining. Nintendo is not being lazy because they're not going online, it's just not something they want to do. I'll assure you, whether you think it's more fun or not, thinking of connectivity ideas is a helluva alot harder than just making some online userbase. They could develop and start it easily. It would be a breeze to put in a little more programming so that games are online compatible. But they don't want them to be. I don't know why you people just feel like criticizing Nintendo, but that's all you're doing. You aren't making valid points, you aren't making things any better for anyone, or getting anything done, you're not sending your concerns to Nintendo, so that they'll know. . . you're just sitting here, bitching about it, and that alone makes your argument invalid.

That was, perhaps, a bit harsh. Sorry. But I think that the points you are arguing are petty. But then again, I don't like online gaming. Whatever. I hope I get Mario and Luigi today.

nolimit19 · « **Reply #77 on:** December 26, 2003, 05:22:23 PM »

the problem with forums is that you can talk crap without having to back it up. if all these nerds were talking face to face, no one would talk any smack because they would all be afraid of getting a good ole fashion ass whooping. arguing and talking crap arent the same thing. we got a bunch of people here that dont know the difference...but anyways back to the subject...no matter how fun a game is online or not, i would never pay a monthly fee unless it covered every game for a console and was no more then 15 dollars a month. if i had to pay the same price as the internet connection, you could count me out. what nintendo should do is sell hella advertising so that gamers can play for free, or add 1 dollar extra to online games to make up the difference or something like that. monthly fees wont get anyone anywhere. they will always only appeal to a small group of people.

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #78 on:** December 26, 2003, 05:54:39 PM »

Okay, screw all of you. I got Mario and Luigi, and any doubt I had about Nintendo. . . gone.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #79 on:** December 26, 2003, 07:02:29 PM »

Same thing happened to me with Mario Kart- damn that game is a blast, especially the co-op play.

It's probably the funnest I've had with a Gamecube game since SSBM.

StevePitman · « **Reply #80 on:** December 26, 2003, 07:21:06 PM »

Nintendo's problem is that they don't hype their system in advance. I've been seeing articles about the PS3 for a year now! "The PS3 processor it 1000 times faster than a Pentium 4!", "The PS3 features multi processing in it's CPU!", etc... The Gamecube is clearly superior to the PS2 but they didn't bother to let anyone know that. Nintendo just sits back and says things like "people don't care about graphics, they care about our innovative games". They really have no clue what the casual gamer thinks. The casual gamer is not a hardcore gamer, The casual gamer goes by hype, Hype is spread by other casual gamers.

Think about it.... what have you heard people say? typically you hear things like "Check out the graphics in that game!" or "You can play this game online!". We typically don't hear "I want a Gamecube because I hear that Nintendo is making innovative games!". Nintendo is so far out of touch with the casual gamers. Casual gamers are the majority of the console purchasers, feed them some hype!

I got Mario Kart for Xmas and after about 30 minutes I was saying "is that all?". I can't believe how short it is! and it looks like the N64 game.

Ocarina Blue · « **Reply #81 on:** December 26, 2003, 08:37:40 PM »

You've finished Mario Kart in 30 minutes? That's about 20 seconds per track

And it has huge graphical improvments over it's N64 incarnation, mainly the replacment of sprite with 3D models (on the carts, items etc.)

Hype isn't really something that can be generated by a company unless they stretch the specs for a system a bit (Sony) or if they try to pay off a gaming website or something. I agree hype is good, but past the endless press confrences they've been chugging out, how would Nintendo generate it?

Cowboy Bebop · « **Reply #82 on:** December 27, 2003, 05:21:45 AM »

mouse_clicker, They don't have to pour money into it. It doesn't cost a ton of money to run a match-making service that points two or more gamecubes at each other. They probably could do it with the existing resources at nintendo.com. If they really need to cover any extra expenses they could charge an extra five dollars per on-line capable game.

I agree, Mario Kart co-op is a blast. It's even more fun when you have a large group of actual human beings controling all the characters. Unfortuantly Nintendo wants the only way you can play that way to be if you have 2 GameCubes ($100 each), 2 copies of Mario Kart ($50 each), 2 Broadband adapters ($50 each), 8 controlers ($25 each), and 2 TVs (hopefully you already have these ). That's a grand total of $550. Good for Nintendo sure, but bad for you. Actually it's bad for Nintendo too, because in the above senario, no one is going to buy the Broadband adapters to do all this. Not that they make it easy to get one as it is.

Silks and nolimit19, I don't think a monthly fee service will ever work in the long term. No one is going to pay ten dollars a month to Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. That would be thirty dollars a month, $360 dollars a year. At best they'd have to choose one. Which would still be $120 a year.

Hostile Creation, great you're not interested in on-line games. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are interested in on-line games. I guess none of those people matter because they're not you.

NWR_Lindy · « **Reply #83 on:** December 27, 2003, 07:10:41 AM »

Originally posted by: Hostile Creation

Quote
I don't know why you people just feel like criticizing Nintendo, but that's all you're doing. You aren't making valid points, you aren't making things any better for anyone, or getting anything done, you're not sending your concerns to Nintendo, so that they'll know. . . you're just sitting here, bitching about it, and that alone makes your argument invalid.

My bad man, I thought this was a discussion forum. Next time I'll log on, read your equally "invalid" bitching about the invalid bitching of others, and then log off. Maybe then you'll be happy. By the way, you aren't getting anything done with your posts either. Then again, maybe you are - you seem to be wasting my time pretty effectively.

Originally posted by: Cowboy Bebop

Quote
Silks and nolimit19, I don't think a monthly fee service will ever work in the long term. No one is going to pay ten dollars a month to Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. That would be thirty dollars a month, $360 dollars a year. At best they'd have to choose one. Which would still be $120 a year.

You're probably right. Although I'd be willing to pay $50/year for online gaming (after all, I spend more than that going out to bars with my buddies on any given night), I'm a young professional with disposable income lying around. Teenagers and parents wouldn't have that kind of money to waste on a luxury like online play.

Still, my frustration lies in the fact that Nintendo has done NOTHING to encourage online play in ANY form even though it's blatantly obvious that their customers want it. They released a broadband adapter seemingly for no other reason than to say they have one available. On top of that, they put no effort into online gaming on any level and then have the nerve to say it's not profitable. Of course it's not profitable if there's only one game to support it, developers are given no help, and you have to search high and low to even buy a broadband adapter. It's ridiculous.

silks

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #84 on:** December 27, 2003, 08:14:34 AM »

Quote
Hostile Creation, great you're not interested in on-line games. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are interested in on-line games. I guess none of those people matter because they're not you.

Are you blind? It's the exact opposite- far more people agree with Hostile Creation than those who prefer online games. This is entirely evident by the simple fact that less than 5% of XBox owners subscribe to XBox Live, and even less people play the PS2 online. I think it's quite obvious most people do not care enough about online gaming to pursue it. But I gyess those peopoe don't mattter to you? You'd rather Nintendo spend millions and millions of dollars in setting an online service for the sole purpose of pleasing less than 5% of it's user base, if that? As I've been saying, that's being enormously pretentious and arrogant. It's very self-centered of you to think that Nintendo has to go out of there way to please you.

The Omen · « **Reply #85 on:** December 27, 2003, 08:41:05 AM »

Online gaming is not profitable. But i also believe in offering what your competitors offer. Does that mean jumping into it like MS? Not at all. But having more than one f'n game available for online play could definately help the situation. It appears they do have a couple more games coming up that support online play, and thats great. And while i couldn't care less about actually playing them online, i know there are bozos who would care. And thats the point-those that do care, however small in numbers we think they are, need to be noticed. Having 5 games a year online would be enough to surpress those naysayers, and if it hit Nintendo in the pockets in the short term, maybe it could help in the long term. If not, at least they tried. To me its worth investing in

As for my grade, i give the GC a B. Its probably my favorite console since the SNES, and thats saying a lot. I have about 25 games, and have been pleased with most of my purchases. Every first and 2nd party game i have, i love. GCs impending doom was prophesized since its launch, and to me , its only improved, both in 3rd party support and marketshare.

savanna03 · « **Reply #86 on:** December 27, 2003, 08:44:15 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Quote
Hostile Creation, great you're not interested in on-line games. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are interested in on-line games. I guess none of those people matter because they're not you.

Are you blind? It's the exact opposite- far more people agree with Hostile Creation than those who prefer online games. This is entirely evident by the simple fact that less than 5% of XBox owners subscribe to XBox Live, and even less people play the PS2 online. I think it's quite obvious most people do not care enough about online gaming to pursue it. But I gyess those peopoe don't mattter to you? You'd rather Nintendo spend millions and millions of dollars in setting an online service for the sole purpose of pleasing less than 5% of it's user base, if that? As I've been saying, that's being enormously pretentious and arrogant. It's very self-centered of you to think that Nintendo has to go out of there way to please you.

hold on, i think what he meant was including the PC USER BASE. the reason that PC ONLINE gaming is far more successful and popular than CONSOLE ONLINE because it is FREE and it is READILY ACCESABLE. so if you look at it, ONLINE GAMING IS POPULAR PERIOD. XBOX got a good idea but they screwed it up by creating a PAY PER PLAY service and they shut down the 56 k user base. SONY screwed it up by making the MODEM a separate ACCESSORY. NINTENDO has a great idea about LAN but the problem is, no body has extra TV around... if they can only push a small SCREEN with it, it might got potential.

now the question is, IS IT PROFITABLE??? look at this way, HOW DOES INTERNET SITE AND TELEVISION NETWORK MAKE MONEY??? its all about SPONSERSHIP and ADVERTISEMENT... now if NINTENDO can utilize that idea and use that in their sevice full of ADVERTISEMENT and SELLING OUT, i think it might work... keep it free and ppl will flock in your service. keep it interesting they might stay. now another great idea is let fanatic handle their own service... u might not make any money but you aint loosing it either. think online gaming as an evolution of multiplayer. WE DONT GET CHARGE MORE PLAYING MULTIPLAYER GAMES OPPOSE TO A SINGLE PLAYER ONE, THEN WHY ONLINE GAMING IS DIFFERENT???

Cowboy Bebop · « **Reply #87 on:** December 27, 2003, 09:05:53 AM »

mouse_clicker, do you think the people at warp pipe are paying millions and millions of dollars to provide their service? Yet they're managing to do it, without any help from Nintendo, and they're doing it for free. Maybe, just maybe, it doesn't cost millions to do this. PC game makers have been providing this service free for years. PC games traditionaly sell fewer copies, are harder to program due to the many different PC configurations, and cost more to support then on consoles. Now if it costs millions and millions of dollars to put a game on-line, do you think they'd just give that service away?

I'm being pretentious, arrogant, and self-centered huh? How exactly does providing on-line play to the people who want it, stop the people who don't want to use it from not using it?

I think the low user base for on-line has more to do with Microsoft charging $50 a year for their service, and Sony/Nintendo charging $50 for their Broadband adapters then people not being interested in it.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #88 on:** December 27, 2003, 09:27:50 AM »

Cowboy, YOU tell ME how to set up an online network that is guaranteed to make a hefty profit, that costs little to nothing to set up or run. Do it!

Quote
How exactly does providing on-line play to the people who want it, stop the people who don't want to use it from not using it?

It becomes a matter of practicality- why should Nintendo spend the time, effort, and money to set up an online system soley for less than 5% of it's user basde? Would you release a product that you KNEW no more than 5% of your users would actually support? Would you? STOP thinking about yourself for one minute, will you? Apparently 95% of console gamers, maybe even more, don't want to play games online, so why should that 5% or less get the attention? That's why you're being selfish. Online support is not practical right now- get over it.

nolimit19 · « **Reply #89 on:** December 27, 2003, 10:12:28 AM »

online gaming doesnt need to make a profit, it just needs to break even.

Quote
Would you release a product that you KNEW no more than 5% of your users would actually support?

most games made by a given company on any console will sell to around 5 percent of the console users. and most games cost millions to make too. its not really a valid argument. nintendo should be online, and it is....i think they could support it a little more. that doesnt mean THEY have to make games, but they could at least encourage EA or some other companies to support their online hardware. sure there arent many people to play online, but nintendo hasnt really given its user base the chance to show their support for online gaming. online gaming will be profitable one day, but this isnt that day. if you do online gaming intelligently, you wont lose millions...and it wont cost millions to begin with.

odifiend · « **Reply #90 on:** December 27, 2003, 01:11:31 PM »

I agree with nolimit 19, that Nintendo needs only to break even with online gaming. Also I would like to ask all of you to think about how much money Nintendo really has. In the past, they have bragged about sitting on a war chest of something like several billion dollars. Therefore I argue for online gaming because it's not like Nintendo is spending their money on say curbing public image or better hardware (for better graphics).

odifiend · « **Reply #91 on:** December 27, 2003, 01:13:11 PM »

I agree with nolimit 19, that Nintendo needs only to break even with online gaming. Also I would like to ask all of you to think about how much money Nintendo really has. In the past, they have bragged about sitting on a war chest of something like several billion dollars. Therefore I argue for online gaming because it's not like Nintendo is spending their money on say curbing public image or better hardware (for better graphics).

Ian Sane · « **Reply #92 on:** December 27, 2003, 03:29:20 PM »

I've noticed that Xbox Live is brought up a lot when discussing how profitable online gaming is. However Xbox Live is not a good example. NOTHING to do with the Xbox has been profitable. Most people compliment Microsoft's advertising for the Xbox but if you really think about it that hasn't even been profitable. So should Nintendo not advertise more because it's losing money for MS? No, of course they should advertise more. The Xbox business model is not profitable so you can't say "well this is a loss for MS so Nintendo shouldn't do it". Just selling consoles is a loss for MS.

The PS2 online setup is a much better example because it is almost identical to the Cube setup. I would like to know how profitable that has been. How profitable was SOCOM? How profitable was Tony Hawk's Underground and the various online EA sports games? I imagine that the cost of implementing online play for those titles did not result in a loss. Now not everyone who owns the PS2 version of Madden 2004 plays online BUT the option is there and I don't think EA is losing money by adding that feature. So why not add that kind of support to a game like Mario Kart that can be enjoyed offline, will sell well, and will be a better game because of that added feature?

Cowboy Bebop · « **Reply #93 on:** December 27, 2003, 04:05:06 PM »

Quote
Cowboy, YOU tell ME how to set up an online network that is guaranteed to make a hefty profit, that costs little to nothing to set up or run. Do it!

Ask the people over at the warp pipe, they could explain it a lot better. They're proving it can be done, except for the hefty profit part that is. (They're happy to just break even) I'm not just making this up. They're proving it can be done. Now if you could please provide a link that shows it would be prohibitively expensive and disputes the facts on the table, that would be nice.

Quote
It becomes a matter of practicality- why should Nintendo spend the time, effort, and money to set up an online system soley for less than 5% of it's user basde? Would you release a product that you KNEW no more than 5% of your users would actually support? Would you? STOP thinking about yourself for one minute, will you? Apparently 95% of console gamers, maybe even more, don't want to play games online, so why should that 5% or less get the attention? That's why you're being selfish. Online support is not practical right now- get over it.

Why should they bother with GBA/GameCube connectivity then? How many people do you think actually took advantage of that? How many people do you think will ever use the LAN feature in Mario Kart? Why put out the GBA SP when the original GBA is still selling like hotcakes. Why even develop and release a game like pikmin at all? Why should Nintendo do anything that isn't guaranteed to make them huge piles of cash? I thought they wanted to be innovative. I thought they wanted to reinvigorate the industry. I didn't realize they just wanted to play it safe and maximize their profit margin. I thought they made games, not money. I still don't know why wanting a game to be on-line because I think [gasp] it would make the game more fun is being selfish.

Ocarina Blue · « **Reply #94 on:** December 27, 2003, 05:33:37 PM »

Mouse Clicker: You're talking about setting up servers etc., Cowboy is talking about supporting systems like Warp Pipe. Nobody here cried when there were popular rumours about Nintendo setting up a tunneling network with Gamespy, because it's a fine idea. There is at least potential for demand for online gaming to emerge, PC gaming has been relying on it for a long time, and it's hugely popular. X-Box Live might not be doing well money-wise, but it's generated more talk and hype among gamers than connectivity will ever do. Doing a few small things like supplying Warp Pipe with a few programmers for a week, releasing small sections of their code-base or adding modes that support LAN in more of their games won't cost them millions of dollars, but it will keep 5% or whatever of their userbase happy. I wouldn't go to too much trouble to play my games online, but if it's relatively quick and easy (as it is on the PC, say), then I'd at least give it a go.

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #95 on:** December 27, 2003, 07:04:38 PM »

Quote
Hostile Creation, great you're not interested in on-line games. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are interested in on-line games. I guess none of those people matter because they're not you.

Exactly. They can curl up in a corner and die for all I care.

Quote
My bad man, I thought this was a discussion forum. Next time I'll log on, read your equally "invalid" bitching about the invalid bitching of others, and then log off. Maybe then you'll be happy. By the way, you aren't getting anything done with your posts either. Then again, maybe you are - you seem to be wasting my time pretty effectively.

First off, I never said that I was accomplishing anything more than you. I'm not trying to; I don't need to; I'm perfectly satisfied as it is. You are the one that should be out doing something about this if you're so concerned about it. I can sit here and do nothing, because I've got what I want.

David Cartoon · « **Reply #96 on:** December 27, 2003, 07:09:44 PM »

Okay, for the online thing, I was one of the first to buy PSO and the GC BBA, played for a couple months, got bored by the Diablo-ness of it, then dropped it as time went on. Am I interrested in online gaming? Yes. Am I actively seeking it? Not really.

Now, I recently came into a PS2 modem I've hit the problem that I can't think of a damn game to play on it. Syphon Filter looks like it might be good, and Snake Eater is supposed to have some sort of online properties, but of course, these are a good ways away. SOCOM isn't really my thing, I haven't played a sports game since Super Baseball Simulator 1000. I forget if any FPS' are online on PS2, but I really suck at those actually. Racing games aren't my up my ally and FFXI doesn't seem to interrest me either. What else is there? Am I too picky, or is there a dearth of games here? (To be honest, I'd love to play Crimson Skies and it's various online modes, but I don't have an Xbox)

Just some mild ramblings...

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #97 on:** December 27, 2003, 07:33:30 PM »

Why are we even discussion tunneling networks, then? Obviously Nintendo IS supporting it- I'm sure Nintendo could very easily take legal action against Warp Pipe if they wanted. I don't know if they'd win, but they could. And yet they're not. Tunneling is NOT the same thing as fully online games- that's why I said it was ingenious of Nintendo to include LAN support and then let others set up the tunneling software. Currently Nintendo hasn't spent a dime on Warp Pipe, because it's not even their project, and yet their game is benefiting from it. Nintendo has the perfect online plan- to let everyone else do the work while they don't do a thing. The only problem is, as has been said, Nintendo doesn't advertise it enough to 3rd parties- in fact, I'd bet they don't advertise it at all.

As for Nintendo supporting connectivity instead, it's more popular, more accessible, and best all much cheaper

odifiend · « **Reply #98 on:** December 27, 2003, 08:31:23 PM »

To mouse_clicker: I understood this discussion to be an evaluation of GCN's performance up to this point. Looking at the past five pages we all see this has become a debate on Nintendo's business technique and their opinions on online gaming. Fine.
But the way you speak, it is as if their technique is infalliable and that is simply not true evident by their fall from complete control (70%) of the market to their present state (13%). Your tendency is kind of annoying but even more annoying is your new tendency to think that:
"it was ingenious of Nintendo to include LAN support and then let others set up the tunneling software. Currently Nintendo hasn't spent a dime on Warp Pipe, because it's not even their project, and yet their game is benefiting from it. Nintendo has the perfect online plan- to let everyone else do the work while they don't do a thing."
What the hell kind of stragety is it to do nothing and let your fan's set up your online infrastructure? What's more is you think it is genius for Nintendo to do this? And you think Nintendo planned this? I guess in the category for doing absolutely nothing and not suing people who are only helping them, Nintendo gets an A+. By the way you'd be an excellent teacher.
Nintendo has 6 billion dollars in cash and no debts (TIME Asia). If they really want to stay in the hardware business, it is unacceptable for them not to be exploring something like online gaming. I'm not saying go bankrupt, but an "I'm working on it," from the big N would be so much better than "We're not going to risk only sitting on 5 billion stagnant dollars for the fans... I mean connectivity is great."

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #99 on:** December 27, 2003, 09:07:58 PM »

odfiend, you don't GET $5 billion by wasting ti trying to please less than 5% of your fans.

Also, if you think I think Nintendo is infallible, obviously you've read maybe a few sentences from a few of my posts. Read my editorial and read my posts in the thread- there's a difference between thinking Nintendo's doing very well and Nintendo's infallible. In any case, pointing out the opposing view points in your arguments is called bad persuasive writing- looking wishy washy doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the reader.

News:

Author Topic: GameCube’s Mid-Term Report Card (Read 70686 times)