Author Topic: OFFICIAL Online Mouse_Clicker vs the world thread (Read 41585 times)

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #25 on:** May 06, 2004, 12:52:01 PM »

Weird, because I was indeed seeing the smiley...I'll put it up on Photobucket instead...

(New link sent in pm)

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #26 on:** May 06, 2004, 12:58:19 PM »

hey! stay on topic! *_*

Kyosho · « **Reply #27 on:** May 06, 2004, 01:33:24 PM »

"I'd expect that from college students, just as I would expect Nintendo to be able to set up a working online system, if not profitable. Odd. "

You know Yahoo was started up by college students right? Didn't work too well in the beginning, but look where they are now.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #28 on:** May 06, 2004, 02:53:01 PM »

Really? Did you know fedex was too? Do you know what else was made by college students? Pets.com, I rest my case.

Not everything college students is guarenteed to work, and until warppipe shows some real improvement, I agree with mouse.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #29 on:** May 06, 2004, 03:24:49 PM »

Quote
You know Yahoo was started up by college students right? Didn't work too well in the beginning, but look where they are now.

And did you expect Yahoo to become the most popular website on the internet? Not quite.

My point was that I didn't expect Warp Pipe to work extremely well, so I'm not surprised it didn't. I am surprised, though, that a huge electronics company like Nintendo couldn't get a satisfying Mario Kart system up.

Kyosho · « **Reply #30 on:** May 06, 2004, 04:51:21 PM »

"And did you expect Yahoo to become the most popular website on the internet? Not quite"

Well I did actually for that matter. I used it more than webcrawler, excite, hotbot, and altavista because it gave quicker and faster hits. I never expected Warp Pipe to come off as a huge success because it's difficult when some of the protocols need to be hacked or researched extensively to be used.

joeamis · « **Reply #31 on:** May 06, 2004, 05:02:10 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Moonwatcher
I have no interest in online gaming either. Deguello's point is very valid but not the only strike against it. How about the issue of cost? I can barely afford to buy a console and video game and memory card and extra controllers as it is. By the time your equiped to play an offline game you've invested around $200 and the Gamecube the cheapest console out there! A monthly fee? Out of the question. I'll not deny that the lure of competing in SSBM online or downloading new areas for Pikmin is strong, but not that much.

Arg the thing is like 90% of online games don't have monthly fees. Also buying 3 extra game controllers for your Cube is about $70 after taxes, while a BBA/modem is $45 after taxes. While playing with strangers is a complaint, the upside is you can play multiplayer virtually any time you want with online AND many online games have friend options (I've made many friends through playing online and talk to them often and play together, so that negates the stranger complaint) AND with voicechat (which is becoming the standard) that also goes a ways against stranger complaints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next post from:
the_zombie_luke
Baron of Game On
posted on Thu May 06, 2004 12:10 AM
It is clear Nintendo will be online with the N5, so complaining about the GameCube being offline is pointless. The argument that online would have saved Nintendo this generation is wrong. The X-Box has online play, yet it has come nowhere close to the PS2 sales anywhere.

my response: The people supporting online are not saying it would have saved Nintendo this generation. Comparing the Xbox to PS2 sales with online play as the catalyst for Xbox is just absurd. First of all Sony had a stranglehold on the market before this generation began, they also have backwards compatability, a full year ahead start, and have online play as well (that negates your point in itself). Now in regards to Xbox case, Microsoft had a bad reputation before releasing the Xbox, they debuted with a so so lineup, designed one of the worst controllers for any console (before the S), and it was there first entry into the market. Oh, also MS had to compete with Nintendo as well, with launches a week apart from eachother. Also, Sony had huge exclusive games and still does despite some of them finally being ported to XB.

Finally in response to Deguello, you make a good point BUT the DC is a bad example since it was an abandoned piece of hardware after being out for two years if that. Most online games live a much much longer life than abandoned hardware games. No offense but you probably should've done more research on the game before buying it so you would know it was specifically an online title and an inquiry on forums would've let you know it was abandoned online. Nonetheless your point is still valid, a bit less, but the truth is by the time an online title does get ended it's atleast the next generation of consoles with either a much better sequel and/or much better online games and similar online games to the one ended. By that time you will probably be tired of the ended game anyways too.

Bloodworth · « **Reply #32 on:** May 06, 2004, 05:24:35 PM »

Quote
the truth is by the time an online title does get ended it's atleast the next generation of consoles with either a much better sequel and/or much better online games and similar online games to the one ended. By that time you will probably be tired of the ended game anyways too.

Right, I mean, who wants to play Ocarina of Time when you can play Wind Waker? </sarcasm>

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #33 on:** May 06, 2004, 05:31:58 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
Right, I mean, who wants to play Ocarina of Time when you can play Wind Waker? </sarcasm>

Right, I mean, who wants to play Ocarina of Time when you can play Wind Waker? </no sarcasm>

^_^

Chongman · « **Reply #34 on:** May 06, 2004, 06:13:18 PM »

I don't see how it is possible for anybody to think that nintendo hasn't already thuroughly thought over and discussed this "online problem." In past interviews, even, they've clearly stated again and again that they're not abandoning the online market, simply leaving it for the time being until the time is ripe. It's not like they're not working on it at all, in fact, nintendo undoubtedly has been experimenting with online capabilities for a very long time, and by the time it DOES premier, I have full confidence that it will debut WELL. I mean, whatever they do, they will do it well, they've directly promised that about their future online service. Personally, I think that's the better way to go about things, because like it or lump it, not everybody is online. What percentage of the console userbase plays games over the net? Want to know why it's profitable for PCs? Because a network is already and has for a long time been in place. Consoles cant boast such stability. Not everybody has a broadband conection, and whereas 56k play on the pc is horrendous, many are still sluggishly playable, unlike most console games where it's broadband or bust. How much money did microsoft lose again? yeah, that's right, and though it's not directly related, xbox has always pushed its superior online capabilities to the max, but that didn't pay out as well as they ever expected. It's because you need a broadband connection for xbox live, or you might as well use your xbox as a doorstop. And how many gamers can dish out 40+ bucks a month or convince their parents to?

Xbox+games+dsl bill+xboxlive subscription = mucho bills to pay.

Do you think it's impossible that nintendo might come up with something better then this? Either that or something just as good. I'm going to take their word for it when they say they've been working on it extensively, and when nintendo online does come out, i'll be there to see for myself if I was right or not. Perhaps they wont have the standard userbase loyalty the other companies have, but really, online is something you can just jump onto, seriously. It's not like if you have a choice between an xbox title and a gc title that are both online with both reliable services that there is a really viable reason to go for the xbox over the gc and vice versa. I'd rather wait. Online hasn't reached it's peak, not nearly, that's something the next generation will do and I know nintendo will be there to do it right.

joeamis · « **Reply #35 on:** May 06, 2004, 07:06:10 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
Quote
the truth is by the time an online title does get ended it's atleast the next generation of consoles with either a much better sequel and/or much better online games and similar online games to the one ended. By that time you will probably be tired of the ended game anyways too.

Right, I mean, who wants to play Ocarina of Time when you can play Wind Waker? </sarcasm>

I know I wouldn't, I don't like replaying games I beat and know every last plot twist. It's just boring replaying games that don't have good replay value to them (rpgs, action rpgs).
That's why after going to 6 stores to get the bonus preorder disc I sold it without thinking twice after playing through to the end of the deku tree, it was just too boring.

the_zombie_luke · « **Reply #36 on:** May 06, 2004, 07:09:00 PM »

Remember when Iwata said that users should not be charged online game fees? I still don't see Nintendo going online this generation, but two years will not be a long wait, for SSBM online. Wait, a second, yes it is! Right now it's disappointing that Nintendo did not go online, but the N5 will be online, so perhaps I could save a few Falcon Punches for you rowdy PGCers!

Bloodworth · « **Reply #37 on:** May 06, 2004, 07:30:38 PM »

I think you missed the point Joeamis, it could be any game, and there's nothing saying that you had to have played the older game. I know that I like to go back and check out PlayStation or Dreamcast games that I missed or I'll pull out Metal Gear on NES and try to beat it since I still haven't gotten to the end. I still haven't played Paper Mario. The fact is that if a game's main enjoyment comes from its online components, and those components are dropped, you're out of luck.

I think something else that should be noted is that with consoles this phenomenon can be even more of an issue. Since the services are designed for a specific console in mind, Sony or MS can just drop the support for every one of those games in a moment.

the_zombie_luke · « **Reply #38 on:** May 06, 2004, 08:32:45 PM »

I guess that is true. At least with Warp Pipe, you could go online long after the GameCube was discontinued, provided you could find other players. That is why peer to peer seems to be a natural choice. I can still play so many older PC games online, such as UT and even Doom 2! It will be interesting to see if Microsoft and Sony maintain a service for the PS2 and X-Box, when the X-Box 2 and PS3 are released.

DrZoidberg · « **Reply #39 on:** May 06, 2004, 10:18:13 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: joeamis
Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
Quote
the truth is by the time an online title does get ended it's atleast the next generation of consoles with either a much better sequel and/or much better online games and similar online games to the one ended. By that time you will probably be tired of the ended game anyways too.

Right, I mean, who wants to play Ocarina of Time when you can play Wind Waker? </sarcasm>

I know I wouldn't, I don't like replaying games I beat and know every last plot twist. It's just boring replaying games that don't have good replay value to them (rpgs, action rpgs).
That's why after going to 6 stores to get the bonus preorder disc I sold it without thinking twice after playing through to the end of the deku tree, it was just too boring.

so do you not watch repeates of TV shows, or rewatch movies or anything else either?

joeamis · « **Reply #40 on:** May 07, 2004, 09:22:08 AM »

I just about never rewatch old movies, maybe my memory is too sharp because it's just rehash to me. As for tv, same deal except the simpsons & seinfeld, but i'd say it's due part to see episodes i never saw before, i don't pay as much attention to the reruns often i'll have them on and not even watch them sometimes because it's too familiar, and also i think theres something timeless about humor, you know hearing an old joke can still make you laugh or thinking about something funny in the past will still make you laugh. So I guess if the game was funny it would be alot more worth playing again, but barely any games are funny like tv can be, it's just not in their nature to be.

I guess I missed the point, I thought the point was that you listed arguably the best game of that generation to want to play again. And to me if I didn't want to go back and play the best game of a past generation then I probably wouldn't like to play the others either. But anyways I did say it was valid and a good point in my first post responding to Deguello, meaning I believe the same thing just not to the degree that he does. I guess I came off as more against it than I am, I was just trying to show the weakness to it not to disprove it. I still get some joy at playing even the oldest games but I look forward to playing new games not old ones.

Deguello · « **Reply #41 on:** May 07, 2004, 08:10:30 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: joeamis
Quote
Originally posted by: Moonwatcher
Finally in response to Deguello, you make a good point BUT the DC is a bad example since it was an abandoned piece of hardware after being out for two years if that. Most online games live a much much longer life than abandoned hardware games. No offense but you probably should've done more research on the game before buying it so you would know it was specifically an online title and an inquiry on forums would've let you know it was abandoned online. Nonetheless your point is still valid, a bit less, but the truth is by the time an online title does get ended it's atleast the next generation of consoles with either a much better sequel and/or much better online games and similar online games to the one ended. By that time you will probably be tired of the ended game anyways too.

It wasn't a bad example. At the time of 2000 the DC was a rather successful little console with a good sized online commitment. Just because it got discontinued doesn't mean anything. And why should I have done any research on the game? What if I didn't care about it until I saw it? And what about Joe schmoe, who doesn't read about stuff online? And what if I don't have an internet connection to begin with? Is it MY fault that this game is pretty much destroyed?

And "better" sequels is immaterial. A better example than Bloodworth's is GoldenEye and Agent Under Fire. And I see no such Online game like Earth and Beyond.

joeamis · « **Reply #42 on:** May 07, 2004, 08:20:48 PM »

update... this evening I decided to do what I was thinking about the last few weeks. To up my game collection. I used to own just about every system since atari 5200, but sadly sold just about everything. So I bought 17 regular NES games At Gamestop. After using my Gamestop card and the deal going right now I got 40% off everything. Came to 37 dollars instead of like 58. Anyways the motivation for doing it was to up my collection as I bought some games I only knew by name, as well as some old favorites among what was left. But now I want to test them all and find out what the ones I never played are like mostly to examine the game design and for nostalgia. It is ironic that I might want to play them for more than a few sittings since the purchase was mainly to start establishing a collection that will one day be respectable. So quite possibly I may regret the inevitable loss of online titles as much as you. I would appreciate it if people could come post about some of the games I bought, like what they remember about them and if they have any stories associated with them. And maybe how rare some of them are. I'm gonna make the topic in Other Systems, thanks in advance (and no I'm not Cloudstrife for making that last comment) lol.

joeamis · « **Reply #43 on:** May 07, 2004, 08:43:26 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
Quote

It wasn't a bad example. At the time of 2000 the DC was a rather successful little console with a good sized online commitment. Just because it got discontinued doesn't mean anything. And why should I have done any research on the game? What if I didn't care about it until I saw it? And what about Joe schmoe, who doesn't read about stuff online? And what if I don't have an internet connection to begin with? Is it MY fault that this game is pretty much destroyed?

And "better" sequels is immaterial. A better example than Bloodworth's is GoldenEye and Agent Under Fire. And I see no such Online game like Earth and Beyond.

Whoa man calm down. The Dreamcast was not that successful, especially when you compare it's marketshare by this generations standards. It stopped production of the system what Q1 2001 right? PS2 had only been in the U.S. for less than 6 months. DC online size was small compared to todays small standards. It does mean something because it was discontinued, it means the same thing that Bloodworth mentioned for when PS2 and XB are done and online will be discontinued. There was no room for Sega to make any more profit by supporting a discontinued piece of hardware when it had just put them in triple figure million debt and they were trying to become a 3rd party for other companies. Why should you have done research on the game? That's just being a smart consumer. Joe Smchoe who doesn't read stuff online is just unfortunately at a loss, especially if he plans to buy an online title when he hasn't even been online yet. I never said it was your fault at all that the game is destroyed and if you were a smart consumer then you wouldn't be upset to begin with. As for the better sequel comment, Goldeneye is also arguably the best game of last generation. Agent Under Fire is made by a different company...EA The "real" sequel to Goldeneye is Timesplitters 2, which is better than Goldeneye. (I did say sequels and similar games)

Mario · « **Reply #44 on:** May 07, 2004, 08:46:43 PM »

I'd rather play Super Mario 64 than Super Mario Sunshine. If Super Mario 64 was only enjoyable with online support and it's online support was axed, then I wouldn't be able to play it, and that'd make me a sad panda.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #45 on:** May 07, 2004, 09:29:41 PM »

I thought you were a platypus.

Perfect Cell · « **Reply #46 on:** May 08, 2004, 01:11:39 PM »

1. How many copies of PSO have sold for the Gamecube?
2.How many people play on Warp Pipe?

These two bits of information which i do not have could help this discussion.

Personally, I feel Nintendo seems to discourage its third parties from making online games. There is no reason why Pandora Tomorow and Rainbow Six have to be online on the other consoles and not on the cube. Nintendo could adapt an online policy like Sonys, which lets third parties take care of the servers and take most of the profits.

Shadow Fox · « **Reply #47 on:** May 08, 2004, 02:07:12 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Perfect Cell
Personally, I feel Nintendo seems to discourage its third parties from making online games. There is no reason why Pandora Tomorow and Rainbow Six have to be online on the other consoles and not on the cube. Nintendo could adapt an online policy like Sonys, which lets third parties take care of the servers and take most of the profits.

Nintendo has ALREADY set up a policy like this; Sonic Team alone reaps profit on official online GameCube titles (PSO I, II, and III).

As for Sonic Team's efforts:

-PSO I and II sold around 400,000 copies (with adapters) by the end of 2003, and is believed to have topped 500,000 before the launch of PSO III.

Now I don't know how many global copies of say, Unreal Championship or NFL Fever have sold in comparison, but I'm pretty sure PSO is close to, or more in userbase.

the_zombie_luke · « **Reply #48 on:** May 08, 2004, 05:08:57 PM »

Nintendo did make it so third parties would not be charged royalties if they made online GameCube games. It was a good plan, but with Nintendo limiting supplies of online adaptors, and not saying very many positive things of online play has scared away the third parties. Except for Sega.

The Omen · « **Reply #49 on:** May 10, 2004, 05:22:46 AM »

My stance:

Nintendo must offer what their competitors offer, as long as its financially feasible. And it is.

Even though online gaming is not profitable now, being innovative often means jumping into the fire. IMO, theres enough evidence that online console gaming will grow and Nintendo should grow with it. Having said all that....

I do not want games that can only be played online. I want the option to play them online. I may never take a game online, or I might end up loving it, especially since all my friends are up north. The only question is, which approach should Nin take? MS or Sony? (I know NIN has already halfheartedly taken the Sony path, but)

The final reason: Nintendo games, more than almost any others, lend themselves online perfectly. 1080, Pikmin, Fzero, AC, SSB:M, Mario Tennis and Golf. Thats one hell of a stable of exclusive content that would kick ass online

News:

Author Topic: OFFICIAL Online Mouse_Clicker vs the world thread (Read 41585 times)