Nintendo Dismisses Online For GC Successor

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a GamePro article discussing Nintendo's public attitude to online gaming, even as it extends to the GameCube successor. According to Nintendo's senior VP George Harrison, "[Online gaming] is a consideration. We're looking into it for the next iteration of the GameCube. We just don't believe consumers are ready for it. Right now, no one's paying for subscriptions. The real test comes when you have to start coughing up $15 per month." However, analyst Michael Goodman doesn't concur: "The game console isn't just a game console anymore. It's evolving into a home entertainment system. Nintendo has refused to acknowledge that and it's hurt them."

Comments

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone want to pay to play gamecube games online when no one wants to play gamecube games offline?

Oh Nintendo...

[neostorm]

Personally I don't play my consoles online since I have my PC for that, but this sounds an awful lot like the time Nintendo brushed aside this new-fangled CD technology in place of good-ol cartridges for the N64...

Boy did that work out well. Didn't they learn anything?

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[Tom7]

(Well, the GBA is still cartridge based, and they own the portable scene.)

Don't forget that at the time many CD-based games were just "interactive" postage-stamp movies. I think the craze that nintendo was avoiding was the "multimedia" craze, not so much the "mass data storage on CD" craze.

Personally, most of my favorite games are cartridge based, mainly because the constraints force the developers to concentrate on gameplay, rather than just throwing a lot of graphics and sound at it. Unfortunately most of the games for the N64 still sucked. ;)

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[i8urtaco]

They also brushed aside using CD technology back when Sega came out with SegaCD; the device that arguably and single-handedly started Sega's downfall. That did work out quite well for Nintendo. Except that the CD based SNES ad-on that Nintendo was planning to release turned into the Playstation, so perhaps it was hit-or-miss on that part.

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[Gr33nNight]

It wasnt the medium that was Nintendos beef with CDs, it was the loading time. Remember those games where it took damn near 5 minutes for the game to load? Miyamoto hated that. Once they could figure out how to eliminate (or reduce greatly) loading times, Nintendo embraced CD technology greatly. The same is with online gaming. When Nintendo figures out how us consumers can play online without shelling out money every month (and still make a profit) they will embrace that too.

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[Daetrin]

That's nice in theory, however Nintendo needs to be less in tune with what Miyamoto thinks is a good or bad thing, and more in tune with what the consumer wants to buy.

I don't care what Nintendo's beef with CDs was, looking at the sales numbers of SNES vs Genesis and N64 vs PSX, my conclusion is that they were just plain wrong from the perspective that matters most, sales and popularity.

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[Gr33nNight]

In case you dont realize, SNES did win the console wars of that generation. It was a long battle, and yes the Genesis was ahead some of the time, but the SNES came out on top. Now the N64 is a different story. It is my firm belief that it is because of Square and Enix defecting that the N64 didnt do too swell. They are huge in Japan, and sad to say, during the n64 cycle (and maybe now too), Japan is what mattered most.

Regardless of sales and popularity, the n64 did make a big profit for Nintendo. They did not lose money off of it, and while it might not have been a big of a success as they had hoped, it all comes down to the bottom line: profits.

As for Miyamoto, dear god man open your eyes. He does what he wants, and almost 100% of the time it turns out fun as hell. Animal Forrest is the perfect example. No one in their right might except for Nintendo would have created that game. In the age of sequels and graphics ruling the game machines, seeing a game as novel and creative as Animal Forest is a breath of fresh air. It means Miyamoto is not influenced by anyone, he creates what he thinks is fun, and god bless the man for it.

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[Dsal]

There's no technical hurdle out there preventing players from setting up their own console as a server for their friends to connect to. You can do it with some XBox and PS2 games already.

You obviously couldn't host a huge amount of players, but hosting 4-8 people is doable and enough for most games.

The only reason why more companies don't do this is:

1. The particular game is massively multiplayer
2. They want more money in subscription fees
3. They want total control over how the users play

Otherwise, there's no reason why they can't have it setup for players to have their own servers on their own consoles.

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[Guppy06]

Wouldn't you be tempted to brush aside CD technology when all it had to show at the time was 7th Guest and maybe some Myst?

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[Daetrin]

In case you dont realize, SNES did win the console wars of that generation.

Why yes, i did realize that, in fact, "dear god man open your eyes," that was the _point_. The SNES did great, and Nintendo was all set to dominate the next generation, but when you compare how well the SNES did vs. the Genesis with how well the N64 did vs.s the PSX (one can debate whether it did "badly" or not, but it certainly didn't do great) that's not what happened at all.

Why? Well, the decision to stick with cartridges combined with their treatment of third parties was probably a big part of that, though i don't know for sure.

Sure, they made a profit, the goal is to make as much profit as possible. Coming off of the sucess of the SNES the N64 was a big disapointment in comparison, and if Nintendo knew a sure-fire way to regain that dominance they'd take it in a heartbeat. Likewise, if they knew a certain move would repeat the same loss of marketshare as they experienced moving from the SNES to the N64 they'd avoid it like the plague, even if they knew they'd still be making a profit afterwards.

As for Miyamoto, dear god man open your eyes. He does what he wants, and almost 100% of the time it turns out fun as hell.

Yeah, Miyamoto is great, he doesn't need to be influenced by anyone, but that doesn't mean that Nintendo should make marketing decisions just based off of what Miyamoto does or doesn't like. I think Nintendo would have been far better off letting Miyamoto learn to deal with CDs rather than catering to his preferences as they did. If he's as good as you say (which i happen to agree with) the games would have still been just as good.

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[CashCarSTAR]

In my humble opinion...

The NintendoStation would have been a SegaCD sized flop. Add-on perpherials tend to not do good. With all three companies killing themselves off, console gaming would have died a quick, ugly death.

Nintendo did the right thing, It hink

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[PainKilleR-CE]

Don't forget that at the time many CD-based games were just "interactive" postage-stamp movies. I think the craze that nintendo was avoiding was the "multimedia" craze, not so much the "mass data storage on CD" craze.

While it may not have been out there during the planning stages, the Playstation had been in people's homes long before the N64 came out. I don't think you could say that the PS games were 'interactive' postage-stamp movies.

Also, most PC games and software were shifting to CD from floppy disks at the time, though it's easy enough to put that off as just the requirements of the platform (reality states that games were bloating to upwards of 10MB quite quickly, without the movies).

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[Yorrike]

Add-on perpherials tend to not do good.

Unless you do something worthwhile. Like the GameBoy Player for the GameCube. I can say, without a doubt; Best. Add-on. Ever.

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[PainKilleR-CE]

It wasnt the medium that was Nintendos beef with CDs, it was the loading time. Remember those games where it took damn near 5 minutes for the game to load?

Yeah, it's called Grand Theft Auto.

But if you want to get rid of that loading time, it's not as hard as Nintendo made it out to be, you just make the data you're loading roughly the same size as what you would load from an N64 cartridge, and use a decent speed drive (the second of which Sony did not do in the PlayStation). The load times are simply due to the amount of data being transferred, and not some mystic problem with CDs (though they ARE slower than most other methods of storage). It's not like anyone's going to go out and produce 650MB cartridges for a game system.

Miyamoto hated that. Once they could figure out how to eliminate (or reduce greatly) loading times, Nintendo embraced CD technology greatly.

More like they skipped CD technology altogether and went for mini-DVDs. It's understandable, though, because DVDs hold more data in the same space, and utilize faster drives (the slowest DVD drive I've seen is roughly equivalent to a 10x CD-ROM drive when reading CDs). As a bonus they write the data backwards, which may or may not help the load times (seems to me that the original design of CDs would've taken into account how long it takes to remove data from the disc when they made the spec).

The same is with online gaming. When Nintendo figures out how us consumers can play online without shelling out money every month (and still make a profit) they will embrace that too.

Online gaming has a chicken & egg problem that didn't exist when Sony went to CDs for the PlayStation. You have to get developers onboard to support it, and most developers aren't going to support it if the technology is not widely available. People may make a big deal about the GameCube's market share, but they seem to ignore that the installed base of the GameCube and the installed base of the PS2 network adapter is probably roughly the same, if not in the GC's favour. Of course, finding the network adapter for the GC is almost infinitely harder (though I can find a dial-up modem for it, like I have any use for that without wired phone service in my apartment). If the XBox could bring on more developers, it could show the promise of online gaming, because every XBox has a network adapter.

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[Gizzmonic]

The SegaCD sold 500,000 copies in the US alone. It was the most successful video game add-on in history.

If you're trying to say that the success of the SegaCD goaded Sega into releasing crap like the 32x, CD-X, and pulling the shenangins they did with the Saturn, then I might agree. But taken on its own, the SegaCD was a hit.

Re:Oh Nintendo...

[zonker]

yeah but look at some earlier examples...

sega cd, atari jaguar cd, sega saturn, cd-i, 3do...

most of them were flops. on hindsight nintendo may have made the wrong move, but at the time it seemed right. sony was new to the videogaming business and could very likely have failed in the market like many others before it.

Maybe nintendo's plan is...

[Verloc]

to just concentrate on the pure gaming consoles; I personally think they'd need some better games to do that though. Thank god for Zelda.

Gaming companies are going to create games for the systems with the higest sales numbers; it's the best way to make sure that if you make a good game, it'll sell well.

Nintendo is right

[Zed2K]

The console public really is not ready for online gaming. Online gaming in general is a really neat sounding idea, but its just not what its cracked up to be. No one wants to pay 40-50 for the game then also have to pay a monthly fee to play online on top of their internet costs.

The analyst is wrong. Game consoles are NOT home entertainment devices, they are game consoles. Everyone who has tried to make them more than that have failed in the extras. PS2 dvd player isn't very good. XBox DVD player you had to pay extra to get the remove and abilities. No one is going to want to surf the web on their game console.

Re:Nintendo is right

[Anonvmous Coward]

"The analyst is wrong. Game consoles are NOT home entertainment devices, they are game consoles. "

I think causality is in question. PS2 has a DVD player, and it also sold well. Therefore, the PS2 sold well because of the DVD player.

Actually there is some truth to that. The launch titles on the Ps2 sucked, but in Japan the units were gobbled up because in Japan, DVD players were spendy items and the PS2 was competitive.

However, system sales does not a successful system make. Nintendo may not be in as many homes as Sony, but they sure as hell don't mind the millions of copies of software they sell every few months when they release a new game.

Nintendo's in a better place than Sony. They have a following that'll chase them anywhere they go. Sony, on the other hand, is very much vulnerable to Microsoft or any other ambitious company who wants to make a new console. Sony doesn't have Mario or Fox McCloud to lure people over.

Sony will be kicked out of it's roost one day, but Nintendo will always have it's following. Sort of reminds me of Apple in some ways.

Re:Nintendo is right

[N0decam]

I think causality is in question. PS2 has a DVD player, and it also sold well. Therefore, the PS2 sold well because of the DVD player.

I know that in my case, the fact that the PS2 could play DVD's is why I could get one as early as I did. It definitely increased the WAF. (wife acceptance factor)

She even sat in line with me at midnight on launch day so we could get one. She doesn't even really like playing games much ;)

Re:Nintendo is right

[BigDork1001]

I doubt that the PS3 will sell as well as the PS2 did. A lot of people bought it because it was a game system and also a DVD player.

Well now lots of people have their PS2s with the DVD player. Not only that but an actual DVD player costs a lot less than it did when PS2 launched. So unless the PS3 a great machine with super games why get it. If the PS3 launches with games like the PS2 did Nintendo's gonna bury them. One thing Nintendo does good is make a good gaming console. They don't try to add a whole bunch of other gimmicks that muck up the machine.

Nintendo knows the gaming industry. They've been at it longer than their competitors. I trust them if they say that the on-line gaming isn't ready yet. Below someone posted stats that the on-line gaming is far below expectations. Why should Nintendo invest a whole lot of money and effort into something a small minority is going to use and instead focus that money on research and development to make on-line gaming more viable?

Re:Nintendo is right

[drewmca]

No, the public is quite ready for online gaming, and in fact are paying for and using it right now. My xbox costs $50/year for online gaming and is about the easiest thing in the world to set up. My brother is a die-hard nintendo fan who just moved back to the states. I couldn't get him to play anything besides gamecube games when he came back because he just liked them better (and yes, I have a GC too). But where he's living now, 3000 miles away from me, he has an xbox with live. He has been calling me constantly ever since to play online. It's that compelling, even to someone who prefers nintendo and never got into PC gaming. Plus, we get to talk long distance for free. There's a wide variety of games, and more coming. All of the things that everyone says online gaming has to be are here now with the xbox live. It's easy (remarkably easy, in fact). It's lag free (for the most part). It's relatively cheap ($50/year). Microsoft has already signed up over 300,000 people, which, given their install base, isn't bad. They're really well set up for the next generation of consoles. In 2 -3 years, broadband will be even more prevalent and not having an online strategy will be a HUGE mistake. DOn't get me wrong, I love my gamecube and wish more people would make games like Zelda and metroid. But they're really missing the ball on this one. Every nintendo-head here keeps saying "Nintendo has been in it longer than anyone, they know what they're doing." But Nintendo has a history of ignoring trends in technology (CDs!). Last time around, it cost them the leadership of the fastest-growing industry around. Can they survive another mistake like that?

Re:Nintendo is right

[PainKilleR-CE]

I think causality is in question. PS2 has a DVD player, and it also sold well. Therefore, the PS2 sold well because of the DVD player.

Actually there is some truth to that. The launch titles on the Ps2 sucked, but in Japan the units were gobbled up because in Japan, DVD players were spendy items and the PS2 was competitive.

If that were the case, the mass of returns would've hit long before GT3 came out (Gran Tourismo 3 was the first DVD title on the PS2). The first units that hit Japan couldn't read DVDs properly, and when GT3 was released the consoles came swarming back to Sony. A few consoles that couldn't read DVDs even made it to the US launch, though Sony had promised to have it fixed before then.

However, system sales does not a successful system make. Nintendo may not be in as many homes as Sony, but they sure as hell don't mind the millions of copies of software they sell every few months when they release a new game.

They'd sure like more 3rd party titles making those types of sales, though, since 3rd party titles give a return with almost no investment. Nintendo may talk a lot about not wanting overly-violent games, but I'm sure they'd love to have the money from an exclusive 3rd party title that sells like GTA3 and Vice City did.

Nintendo's in a better place than Sony. They have a following that'll chase them anywhere they go. Sony, on the other hand, is very much vulnerable to Microsoft or any other ambitious company who wants to make a new console. Sony doesn't have Mario or Fox McCloud to lure people over.

Sony may not have Mario (is Fox that big of a deal? The only game I have ever owned with him in it is Smash Bros.), but if Nintendo is forced out of the console business from too many non-successful products in the market, Sony has the clout to get Mario.

Sony will be kicked out of it's roost one day, but Nintendo will always have it's following. Sort of reminds me of Apple in some ways

The console market is fickle. We had Atari, then Nintendo, Sega for a short while, Nintendo again, now Sony. Sure, Nintendo's still around (and I own a GameCube, the first Nintendo console I've bought since the NES), but the majority of their market is in the GBA, not the home console. I expect to see someone take over the top spot eventually, but I suspect that it will be someone no one's expecting. At the very least, the installed base of the PlayStation 2 will keep Sony going for a long while, and the GBA plus 1st party sequels will keep Nintendo going for a while. Microsoft will keep the XBox going on cash reserves until they find some profitable market to shove one of it's successors into, or their shareholders tell them to shove it down a sewer.

Re:Nintendo is right

[Anonymous Coward]

"I own a GameCube, the first Nintendo console I've bought since the NES"

Dude, you missed a metric fuck-ton of good stuff on the SNES.

PSO

[Allison Geode]

well, there's only one online game FOR The gamecube right now. I payed the $10 monthly fee for PSO for about 4 months, but got tired of it. the problem is, nintendo seems to expect third parties (like sega) to fill that void where there is no online multiplayer, and right now, the only really viable market for online console gaming is Live. nobody wants to have to set up their own network: "let microsoft do it for us!" except for sega, who has always boldly gone where no game company has gone before... often to their detriment, since they go there before the rest of the industry is ready to follow.

Re:PSO

[zonker]

please let's not forget sony has a similar attitude towards online gaming, only they support it with their own titles. for 3rd party stuff, they tell them they are on their own...

History Repeats

[Jerf]

How many times can they miss the boat and still survive?

The Super Nintendo was a good product. The GBA was seriously flawed, as evidenced by the success of the GBA-SP, which is also a good product. (BTW, missing headphone port seriously overrated; I got the adapter and still almost never use it when traveling, which given the ease of folding the SP up and slapping it in my pocket is quite frequently. But this could too easily turn into an SP-love-fest...) The N64 was also seriously flawed because Nintendo missed the optical disk trend, and was seriously hobbled by using cartridges as a result.

The Gamecube is, as far as I know, a good product (don't own one, but haven't heard systematic complaints about it), so maybe they're due for a Major Boat Missing again. Will they be able to survive?

Granted, this isn't quite as bad as the N64 going with carts, despite the fact it had been obvious for multiple years that they could not hold enough data, especially for 3D, where a single good texture would be the size of a 1980 megahit videogame. Online gaming in the console arena is too new to be called a run-away success. On the other hand, the trend in the PC world is crystal clear; while not everything has to be playable online, anything that can be, should be, and it will contribute to its success in ways that a non-online experience couldn't have. (Would Diablo have been as much of a success without online support?) If nothing else, online play relieves the game house of the still-nearly-impossible task of writing an AI!

I'd feel pretty safe in predicting that if they don't include online capabilities in the base-unit, or as a really cheaply-priced upgrade, that it will be seen as a mistake on par with sticking a 3D system like the N64 with just cartridges for data storage. People like playing with people and that is not going to change.

In fact, phrase it that way and one almost wonders at the hubris of thinking you can discard the single best AI intelligence there is on your console and still compete against the console systems who will tap that AI to the fullest!

Re:History Repeats

[zulux]

The N64 was also seriously flawed because Nintendo

Not to take away from your post but the N64 - financially, was a sucuess. Nintendo made a lot of money on the N64 - they diden't sell it at a loss for long, and most N64 owners bought a lot of first-party Nintenso titles.

The GameCube is looking to follow the N64 - smallar following than Sony, but very profitable.

Re:History Repeats

[einTier]

Yes, but overall, it was a failure because they lost vast amounts of marketshare to Sony.

Nintendo has really fantastic first party games. And really, that and the game boy are about the only things keeping them afloat.

I've been predicting for years that Nintendo would and should go the way of Sega (offering their excellent titles on all platforms), but they insist on making mistakes and squandering market share.

Re:History Repeats

[Jerf]

Not to take away from your post but the N64 - financially, was a sucuess.

I think you mean that it made a profit, which may be true. But I'm looking at the larger levels: Marketshare, developer mindshare, user mindshare, even cool game mindshare. Sure, some amazing stuff was put out on the system but it was despite of the limitations of the console, not because of the power of the console. Compared to what could, and even perhaps should have been, the N64 bombed.

Part of this is handwaving, because I can't show screenshots, but with my knowlege I can see how the N64 would have looked if its fairly-impressive polygon power was backed up by enough memory to hold real textures; I won't claim it could have unseated the Playstation but the fact is it would have been head-and-shoulders above the Playstation in visual appearence, in a way that it really wan't in the cartridge incarnation. (For a modern demonstration of the importance of textures, compare a last-generation DC game with a first generation PS2 game, before the PS2 developers really figured out how to get textures going across the bus correctly; while the PS2 had more power, the DC's relatively large texture buffers held enough data to make up for the polygon difference handily; frankly some DC games still impress me.)

FWIW, I know more Dreamcast owners in my personal circle of geek friends then N64 owners. In fact I know 3 confirmed DC owners, and I can only think of one N64 candidate (I'm not sure he owns one). And the Dreamcast is typically considered a major failure for Sega, despite being a pretty cool system in a lot of ways.

I'm not trying to be a fanboy or an anti-fanboy (is there a term for that?); I really hate to see Nintendo making what I see as another blunder brought on by excessive conservatism. In this field, it's a "trend" after six months and a full-fledged pattern after two years, but it seems to take Nintendo as many as four or five years to catch on to those things. Given that they do a lot of crazy stuff (that silly little e-Reader, for instance), some of which sticks and some doesn't, this strongly says "insular corporate culture" to me. It's a tribute to them they've made it that far on such an insular culture, but long-term it's still a liability, despite their demonstrated abilities to handle it somewhat.

Re:History Repeats

[scot4875]

Nintendo has really fantastic first party games. And really, that and the game boy are about the only things keeping them afloat.

Umm, I'd just like to point out ... duh? They make good products, and it keeps them afloat. Hell, not just afloat, but practially surfing their incredibly profitable niche.

The way you make that statement, it seems to imply that they should need something more to stay competitive. What else, exactly, do you want from them? Should they also have a slew of crappy games to round out their library?

And the distinction between Nintendo and Sega is this: Nintendo is profitable. Sega wasn't. Comparing the two is just stupid. If you want to compare Sega to somebody, compare them to 3DO. And in turn, compare Nintendo to Apple.

--Jeremy

Re:History Repeats

[savagegus]

I think you missed the point. Nintendo currently offers an ethernet adapter for the game cube and I don't think that would change for a newer system. The issue is whether or not running an online service like Xbox Live is a crippling mistake.

Re:History Repeats

[einTier]

Umm, I'd just like to point out ... duh? They make good products, and it keeps them afloat. Hell, not just afloat, but practially surfing their incredibly profitable niche.

Notice even you say "their ... niche". There was a time not so long ago that Nintendo wasn't a niche player. Why are they a niche market now? Because they haven't paid attention to the market. And they still aren't. If they keep making mistakes, they'll go from a powerhouse to a niche player to a company that is no longer profitable.

What I'm trying to say is that their great first party games are keeping them afloat, and that is not dependent on manufacturing hardware. There's no reason to keep making hardware just because you make great software. In fact, Sega seems to be doing a lot better since they dropped their flawed hardware product lines.

The game boy has kept them afloat for a long time as well, but they've been repackaging and selling the same thing over and over and over again. They've also benefited from a lack of real competition since the original game boy beat out the competition in the early 90's. I'm curious to see what happens when Sony joins this battle.
I'm just not sure that Nintendo really has a case for staying in the hardware business when it seems people buy Nintendo for reasons irrelevant to the hardware itself.

Re:History Repeats

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, Sega seems to be doing a lot better since they dropped their flawed hardware product lines.

flawed? how so? the dreamcast was an excellent piece of hardware for it's time.

Re:History Repeats

[Taurine]

But their 'niche' is much bigger today than the whole market was when they were dominating it. What is wrong with doing very well in a niche? Why does western (well, US anyway) business believe the only way to be considered successful is to have a monopoly?

If Nintendo went after the mainstream, its games would be just like those of Sony and Microsoft, and the consumer would have even less diversity. And people would be crying about how Nintendo don't make those great games anymore, instead of insisting that Nintendo are idiots for not pursuing an unpopular and unprofitable direction (network gaming).

BTW I used to play games on the PC, but as they went into the Quake3 generation I noticed things seemed to be moving in the PC market towards on-line, WHICH DOESN'T INTEREST ME AT ALL. So I got into console gaming, found that the games style was much more fun and didn't force me to interact with some 13-year-old dork on the other side of the planet, and didn't force an expensive hardware upgrade every 6 months.

Seriously, are any of the people here that think Nintendo should do online gaming actually console gamers? Or are they all PC gamers who feel excluded by the Gamecube's resistence to PC style gaming?

Re:History Repeats

[zonker]

nintendo is in business to make money for their shareholders. they are doing that. perhaps they could make more by taking bigger risks. nintendo is an old company like ibm, and tends to stay on the side of minimal risk taking. if it works, it works...

Cable modem cost as well...

[flabbergast]

$15 for the subscription plus the $30~$60 for a cable modem (for those of us in the US). Plus you actually have to buy the game ($40-$60). In the end that's a lot of moolah to play what, F-Zero with 3 of your friends (or enemies)?

Michael Goodman is clueless.

[Viewsonic]

Game Consoles are NOT meant to evolve, they're meant to PLAY GAMES. I don't want an all-in-one-do-everything-WebTV. That's what my PC is for, thats what my Tivo is for. When I buy a console, I want to PLAY GAMES, and that's it! Online games are just an extra feature, there isn't anything special about them, and it certainly doesn't add anything to gameplay unless the single player is horrible to begin with. Playing with friends on a console needs to be done on the living room floor NEXT TO EACH OTHER. Doing it over the cable modem makes it feel so PC like.. It just isn't fun.

Nintendo is wrong

[Kethinov]

The console public really is not ready for online gaming

While that may be true in some circles, I can tell you that I, and friends of mine, have wanted Nintendo to start making online versions of their games for a very long time. Imagine a game as chaotic and infinitely fun as Super Smash Brothers or Goldeneye 007 in a MMO scene and tell me that wouldn't be badass.

Online gaming in general is a really neat sounding idea, but its just not what its cracked up to be. No one wants to pay 40-50 for the game then also have to pay a monthly fee to play online on top of their internet costs.

Last I checked, Quake3 didn't have a monthly fee. People don't want MMORPGs, people want MMOGs. There's a difference. Take a game like Subspace/Continuum. It's MMO, but it's not a monthly fee (hell, it's free to boot!). These are the kinds of games people want. The majority of console and casual gamers don't have time to play MMORPGs in which subscription ensues. They want a good fighting game. Something quick and dirty to pass the time between the erratic work/college shifts.

The analyst is wrong. Game consoles are NOT home entertainment devices, they are game consoles. Everyone who has tried to make them more than that have failed in the extras.

Here's where I agree with you. But I don't agree with your "solution" per se, which is to do nothing. Nintendo may make consoles, but that doesn't mean they are restricted to just that. They could port their games for the PC and develop an online scene. The profit margin of such an undertaking is clearly in their favor, so it's beyond me as to why they don't try it out. Super Smash Brothers or Goldeneye 007 may not be your favorite games, but at least in my area it'd be a big online hit. Case in point, Nintendo should start making online games for the PC. They're quality game makers and they need to crawl out from under the console-only rock. Computers have a future. Consoles do not.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[leifm]

Last I checked, Quake3 didn't have a monthly fee.

yeah, but anyone who felt so inclined could run a quake3 server, which probably isn't going to be the case with console online games. Serving all has to be done by the publisher or whoever, and they aren't going to incur that cost for free.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[burns210]

" yeah, but anyone who felt so inclined could run a quake3 server, which probably isn't going to be the case with console online games."

xbox live lets you run your own game server. atleast on some games.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[Kethinov]

Last I checked, Quake3 didn't have a monthly fee.

yeah, but anyone who felt so inclined could run a quake3 server, which probably isn't going to be the case with console online games. Serving all has to be done by the publisher or whoever, and they aren't going to incur that cost for free.

You're probably right, but that's not how it should be. Online games should always remain decentralized in order to thrive. Nintendo makes online game, Nintendo sells online game client, Nintendo distributes free server program for Win/Linux/Mac/etc. That way anyone and everyone can make a server but the means by which the game is played is still sold. Ultimately, by allowing the masses to setup servers, they save money while still turning a nice profit by selling the game client. Want to profit off the internet? Get the users to do all the work for you!

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[Daetrin]

Why do they even need to have seperate server software? The new MarioKart can run on eight GameCubes over a local LAN, how hard would it be to slap on an TCP/IP protocal and run it through the users' ISPs?

Obviosuly it would require some extra coding by the developers, but there's no need to have a dedicated PC server that i can see.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[Kethinov]

how hard would it be to slap on an TCP/IP protocal and run it through the users' ISPs?

Not hard at all. But that would require me actually buying a GC which I refuse to do. Console games are great, but I'll never buy a console. Computers are so much more useful. So until Nintendo starts selling their games for computers, I'm going to continue to use emulators and play my bought/rented games that way.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[leifm]

Wasn't that in a way how the PS3/cell thing was supposed to work, some huge distributed network powering massive online games? I thought it was a bit ambitious and destined to fail, but it's a nice idea.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[Zed2K]

"Nintendo should start making online games for the PC. They're quality game makers and they need to crawl out from under the console-only rock."

A console game is great for consoles but falls flat on the PC. The same thing going the other way. They are 2 totally different environments with different crowds. Its always been that way and I don't see that changing.

"Imagine a game as chaotic and infinitely fun as Super Smash Brothers or Goldeneye 007 in a MMO scene and tell me that wouldn't be badass."

Those are really good games but stuff like that just doesn't last in the online world. It may be fun for the first few weeks online but then it gets boring. That might just be me though. They haven't found something that really grabs peoples interests yet. Something that will really keep the money coming in.

"They want a good fighting game. Something quick and dirty to pass the time between the erratic work/college shifts."

The big problem with that is time. The people who DO have the time to sitdown and put together a group of people to play an online game is very very small compared to the people who play solo. Its a niche market.

Online gaming needs to be:

1. Easy. Easy to setup, easy to login, easy to use.
2. Fast. No lag. No downtime. It just needs to work.
3. No cheaters. Big problem. This one will probably never be solved.
4. Cross platform. Everyone is trying to do their own thing and noones console will talk with the other consoles for online gaming. Imagine being able to play a game with players using all the major consoles as well as PC to play together. I used to play doom on my mac against those using windows just fine in the 'old days' so why can't different consoles talk to eachother?

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[Daetrin]

Not hard at all. But that would require me actually buying a GC which I refuse to do. Console games are great, but I'll never buy a console. Computers are so much more useful. So until Nintendo starts selling their games for computers, I'm going to continue to use emulators and play my bought/rented games that way.

Well your opinion doesn't really matter to Nintedo then, does it? If you're not buying their console or the games they make they won't see any point in trying to make the game you're not going to buy more attractive to you. As someone who has bought the console and the games, i don't want to have to screw around with a PC server. Half the time i don't even have a working PC at home because i do all my PC gaming after hours at work.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[Morgahastu]

Last I checked, Quake3 didn't have a monthly fee. People don't want MMORPGs, people want MMOGs. There's a difference.

Who's gonna host the servers? That's what I thought.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't host the servers. I played TCP games for a LONG time (Diablo, etc....) on my PC without a server. One user hosts a game...the other 3 join in. DUH. This is NOT rocket science. Nintendo is right. You'll see when renewal comes up for Live! Subscriptions.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[analog_line]

Imagine a game as chaotic and infinitely fun as Super Smash Brothers or Goldeneye 007 in a MMO scene and tell me that wouldn't be badass.

OK. It wouldn't be badass. It would be a failure of staggering proportions, and Nintendo knows this. Microsoft has the money to put a rocket on the "online console" brick and make it fly. Nintendo does not, they know this, and they're not stupid enough to try.

Last I checked, Quake3 didn't have a monthly fee.

You can't run a Quake 3 server onyour console, you have to rely on the console make to do this. Hence, you're going to run into monthly fees, because no one is going to repeat Sega's fatal mistake with the Dreamcast.

These are the kinds of games people want.

If you've got some magic 8-ball that tells you what people _really_ want, you get your ass into the gaming industry RIGHT NOW, because you'll make yourself a hell of a lot of money. However, I doubt that you really have any particular insight into what people at large really want and what they're willing to pay for it. You probably are very aware of what you and your circle of friends and aquaintances will buy, but here's a hint, that ain't everyone.

Computers have a future. Consoles do not.

You could not be more wrong if you tried. If anything, the general purpose computer is well on it's way out as the primary gaming platform. No, it will never go away, but even a home-built $500 machine can't compete on price with the consoles, and that's what really matters. The profits in PC gaming are so ephemeral, Nintendo would be insane to bet any kind of money on such a wild enterprise as porting everything to Windows. Nintendo is making a profit on everything GameCube that they sell. AFAIK, they're the only one making a profit on the console, though Sony may be making a very very slim profit on PS2s now. Microsoft is losing over $100 on every Xbox sold.

Nintendo knows exactly what they're doing. They certainly don't do everything the "experts" think they should, but I don't trust "experts" to be able to wipe their own ass, never mind stuff like this.

Also, while Nintendo isn't raging along in the US market, they're doing FAR better here than Microsoft is doing in Japan. MS has sold what, under 250,000 Xboxes TOTAL in Japan? They aren't idiots. Give them some credit.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[johndoejersey]

Imagine a game as chaotic and infinitely fun as Super Smash Brothers or Goldeneye 007 in a MMO scene and tell me that wouldn't be badass.

Or full of people screaming blue murder and accusing of cheating/being homosexual etc etc.

Super smash bros/monkey ball etc is and always will be better with a group of friends in the same room.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[PainKilleR-CE]

yeah, but anyone who felt so inclined could run a quake3 server, which probably isn't going to be the case with console online games. Serving all has to be done by the publisher or whoever, and they aren't going to incur that cost for free.

XBox Live games can run in a number of ways, including running the server on the consoles themselves, and using the Live infrastructure mostly as a matchmaking service (which is really no different from MS' previous PC gaming service, or any number of pc gaming services). The only time you really need a massive network of dedicated servers is when you either maximize the resources of the server (or client) with your game/server, or when you need to store massive amounts of information about the environment and players (MMO games). Blizzard can afford battle.net as a free service primarily because all it is (prior to Diablo 2) is a matchmaking service (and because they sell advertising on the service), Diablo, WarCraft2 (B.net edition), and StarCraft all run the server on (one or more of) the client computer(s). Diablo 2 still does this in the open (non-regulated) games, as well.

As someone else pointed out, though, you could always release the server as a free download and people could run it on their Windows/Linux/Mac boxes all day (or their modded XBoxes). Or you can have each developer run their own servers, or setup a service like Live that allows developers to setup servers on your network, and piss off EA when you tell them you won't let them take all sorts of customer information from the servers for their games.

Basically, that about covers the way things are being done now, anyway. The XBox offers a service that all online games have to go through, while the PS2 and Gamecube require the developer to do all of the work to get their games online and decide for themselves how they'll work (though Live still gives them some flexibility as to how they work, it's probably much cheaper for developers on XBox to run their online games without dedicated servers). Of course, Sony and Nintendo have given developers the added bonus of knowing that their audience is limited to those that will buy an adapter for their game (or already have an adapter), but then MS has limited things to only people that will buy their service for a game (which is why none of my consoles are online, oh, that and the fact that the DreamCast came with a modem instead of a network connector, and the network adapter is hard to find, and doesn't work with all of the online titles).

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers have a future. Consoles do not.

I guess that's why there's 10 times the amount of console gamers. No, futzing with Directx for hours, playing Warcraft clones to the wee hours, and spending $400 to get 3 more FPS in quake is the real future...

you stupid fucknuckle!

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[indead]

Computers have a future. Consoles do not.

Huh? You do know that computer game sales go down every year, and console game sales go up every year, right?

That said, I like BOTH computer AND console games. But they are very different things, and fun for different reasons.

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[zonker]

one potential problem is controlling cheaters on servers you host yourself. as we've seen in a few other stories about online gaming, it has ruined some games...

Re:Nintendo is wrong

[mink]

"Last I checked, Quake3 didn't have a monthly fee. People don't want MMORPGs, people want MMOGs. There's a difference. Take a game like Subspace/Continuum [subspace.net]. It's MMO, but it's not a monthly fee (hell, it's free to boot!). "

Your example is a particularly bad one IMO because it was a commercial monthly fee game that died. You couldnt even run your own servers, you had to play on theirs.
Once it died it became like you describe.

How well have the other two really done?

[leifm]

I haven't heard much about either XBOX Live or the PS2 online stuff since they launched. I would be interested to see the numbers of XBox in the wild, and the number of those that are using XBOX Live. It seems to me that that the service has a pretty narrow audience. You have to have the XBOX, have to have broadband, have to be willing to get hardware to get it online (cable, hub, WiFi, etc), possibly run cable, and then buy the Live kit. How many people are actually doing this? Same goes for the PS2 network except I would think the audience is a bit wider there since some games will deal with dial-up.

I myself couldn't care less about online gaming, and I think Nintendo is right at this point. For many people it's to much bother, all to get your ass handed to you by somebody who lives to play xyz Online.

And offtopic but I think it'd be awesome if Rockstar used the PS2 network to stream new radio station content in GTA5(or whatever it'll be called). Radio stations were the best feature of that game, and that would be a nifty use of the PS2's online capability.

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[WildBeast]

I know that Xbox Live have over 400,000 subscribers, that's not bad at all. PS2 is planning to have more and more online enabled games.

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[leifm]

400k online is that domestic or worldwide? How many XBOX are there in customers hands?

And if I recall correctly the Live kit was $50ish, and that got you on for 12 months. I assme the cost there will rise eventually, it'll be interesting to see if they can maintain their subscriber base in the fact of a monthly fee. $50 a year has to be a loss leader, that network didn't come cheap.

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[imitier]

But that's, what, about 3% of the 13 million XBox owners out there. I remember reading somewhere that SOCOM for PS2 had sold something more than 600,000 copies, but even assuming that all those purchasers play on-line, that's an even smaller percentage of PS2s out there. I realize there's all sorts of reasons these numbers aren't entirely accurate, but it still seems to me that the on-line playing subset of console owners is very, very small.

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[leifm]

Another interesting thing I have notice, and I could be making a blanket statement here, is that XBOX owners in general don't seem to be a) all that into gaming b) tech savvy. The number of people I have seen wandering around rental places asking how to make their XBOX be online is pretty high. The XBOX also seems to sell to a crowd of older males that seem to see gaming validated as not geeky because MS is making a console, and as you know MS is technology.

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[WildBeast]

400k is worldwide but it just came out in Europe a couple of months ago. I think there are like 6 million Xboxes, not exactly sure about the number.
The price will still be $50/year.

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[Daetrin]

I think if XBox can get 400,000 people online with all the problems going against online gameing that you mentioned, even if that figure is worldwide, it indicates that there's enough potential there to be worth being concerned about for the next generation consoles. 400,000 now could easily turn into 4 million in five years.

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[Anonymous Coward]

You hang out in rental places and observe people? Creepy.

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And offtopic but I think it'd be awesome if Rockstar used the PS2 network to stream new radio station content in GTA5(or whatever it'll be called). Radio stations were the best feature of that game, and that would be a nifty use of the PS2's online capability."

Ya know, that's a pretty neat idea. They could rotate tracks and add new commercials if they ever got the urge (except they might sneak actual ads in there to help pay the bandwidth costs... I dunno about that.) If they ever moved GTA online, they could have a "live" radio announcement for online events that players could go take part in, but you wouldn't find out about it if you didn't have a radio on. Hmmmm....

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[indead]

Except that those 400,000 have a free year with their network adaptor... The real test is to see how many people re-up that subscription.

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[unclethursday]

A little over 500k Live subscribers, worldwide, with a little over 8 million (according to MS themselves at E3) Xboxes shipped. The 13 million unit number you state is from EGM, and they pulled that out of their ass; since they say it's from 03/31/03, and as of 05/14/03 MS said they had shipped a little over 8 million since launch.

Xbox Live is at around a 6.25% saturation of Xbox owners. Ironically, Japan has the highest percentage of Xbox Live subscribers, with around 100k Xbox Live subscribers and only 385K units sold since the Japanese launch.

Thursdæ

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[radish]

The percentage of PC owners who play online games is also pretty small, but do we say that's a failure?

Re:How well have the other two really done?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a job. Try getting one some time.

Better Article

[Ian_Bailey]

The much better article on gamesindustry.biz doesn't leave out some important details that like this article. Mainly:

"Microsoft and Sony have now rolled out online services in all three major global territories for their consoles, but the numbers of subscribers remain relatively low - with estimates for the combined numbers of console online gamers ranging from one to two million players, only a tiny fraction of the 60-million odd installed base of the two consoles." (emphasis mine)

Yes, Sony and (especially) Microsoft may be establishing themselves as an 'online' brand. But they are not getting a very big finnancial benefit out of it, and will it be a big boost in the long run? If brand was all that mattered, shouldn't Atari be ruling the market right now?

Re:Better Article

[gmrc.2]

Those numbers make the ratio sound really bad. The ~60 million (Is that right?) units is comprised of 40+ some million PS2's ... and those one or two million online players are half on Xbox Live. I'm sure you can do the math.

Live is doing pretty well all things considered, its the PS2 that's going to have a hard time going online.

Re:Better Article

[PainKilleR-CE]

You can't really say that 1-2 million people isn't a good target market, though, especially when that's the early adopter numbers. Look at the number of games available at the moment for those two consoles and tell me there's even something there to appeal to everyone that owns each console as an offline title with online capabilities.

As I've said before, the only reason my consoles aren't online is because the titles aren't there yet to get me to shell out the cost for putting them online (an adapter in the case of GC and PS2, Live in the case of XBox; I'd have to buy a hub or change the way my network is setup regardless of which system I put online, so I'd probably have the XBox at least connected if one of the other two had a title (more like a couple of titles) that was at least worth the cost of the adapter for PS2 or GC).

Yes, Sony and (especially) Microsoft may be establishing themselves as an 'online' brand. But they are not getting a very big finnancial benefit out of it, and will it be a big boost in the long run? If brand was all that mattered, shouldn't Atari be ruling the market right now?

Microsoft's looking at building the network so it will be ready at launch for the next-gen XBox. Sony wants PS2 owners playing Everquest (and any other MMO game they decide to port to PS2). Both companies may also look at using their consoles as web appliances or for some other internet-enhanced uses.

As for brands, Atari's brand went down the toilet in the '80's, but Infogrames seems to think it's good enough for them. Enter the Matrix sales were pretty high despite the Atari brand and getting panned by any number of reviews (most of which didn't come out until the sales had already passed 1 million anyway). Consoles are all about building a brand, though, and that is why it's so hard for new-comers to enter the market, unless they already have a well-known name (Sony, Microsoft). Even then, they still have to produce to keep their brand in a good light.

That's why I don't have a GC

[WildBeast]

They should concentrate on multiplayer games. It would be cool to be able to play Mario Tennis and Mario Kart online and it'd be even better if they had a voice communicator but yet again they don't seem to care. Why do I play my Xbox most of all? Because of its variety of voice-enabled multiplayer games.

Re:That's why I don't have a GC

[Gr33nNight]

Maybe you should start gaming on your PC then. It has the largest library of multiplayer games.

Nintendo has and always will be about their kickass first party games. Single player games. The ones I play all the time. There are a whole lot more people who play these types, than ones who play explictly multiplayer games.

I love my gamecube because the single player games for it are some of the best I have ever played. And this is why I purchased it.

Re:That's why I don't have a GC

[hibiki_r]

You're describing the reason why I barely ever play my Xbox: Most "worthwile" games are all about voice-enabled multiplayer, which I simply don't enjoy at all.

Different kinds of gamers, different consoles I guess.

Re:That's why I don't have a GC

[Mike Hawk]

PC games don't generally include voice right of the box for everyone. For those who have actually experienced this (not pre-haters), its an amazing leap forward. Defend Nintendo blindly. Check.

Re:That's why I don't have a GC

[WildBeast]

I guess so, but my favorite game is Splinter Cell and I love the online enabled sports games.

Re:That's why I don't have a GC

[Gr33nNight]

You dont think I havent played a PS2, or experienced Halo w/ X-Box Live with voice enabled? I have. To me, it is not worth all the extra money that is required to perform that function of a game I already shelled $50 out for.

Re:That's why I don't have a GC

[drewmca]

No I don't because Halo isn't live enabled. If you have experienced it, you're the only one in the world. Which doesn't make for a very good multiplayer experience, so I can see why you're not impressed.

Re:That's why I don't have a GC

[Mike Hawk]

Defend Nintendo blindly. Check. Lie about playing other systems. Double-check.

Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[seinman]

Am I the only one who remembers that the SNES had an accessory that allowed you to play online way back in 1995? You'd pop your game into a modem, then stick it in the system, much like using Game Genie. I think they were the first console to do this, in fact. Now they seem to have changed their minds completely.

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[dogbowl]

They were definitely not the first

Atari 2600 Gameline

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[i8urtaco]

Sega Genesis also had something similar. If i fan through my old EGMs I might be able to find the name of it.

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the Sega Channel. It let you download games through a subscription service through your television cable provider but you couldn't play against people online.

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was called X-band, and was available for both the Genesis and SNES. I never had one, but heard that it worked all right for the few games that supported it.

Link: http://www.gamezero.com/team-0/articles/features/x -banding/

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[SophtwareSlump]

X-Band maybe? Made by Taito or THQ? I can't remember which, but I'm pretty sure it was made by someone who had no business making it. I remember thinking about getting the Sega version so I could play 12 player NHL 94.

Sega also had the 'Sega Gaming' channel which was like a PPV cable channel that was offered by Time Warner around the climax of the Genesis. I believe it let you download games to play and they had a cable box that you could plug controllers into. Not positive.

I was too busy setting up atdt strings for Doom :)

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[seinman]

I remember the Sega Channel, my buddy had it. You had a special (and very large if I remember correctly) cartridge that plugged into your Genesis. Plug the cable into it, use it to download games. The selection changed monthly, and you had to wait for the whole game to download each time you wanted to play it. It was cool at the time, but I didn't get to mess around with it much because I had a Super Nintendo.

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[nsda's_deviant]

Your talking about a 3rd Party accessory called <a href="http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:Aayl_c<nobr>O<wbr></wbr></nobr> _plcJ:www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/game<nobr>s<wbr></wbr></nobr> potting/092902/1.html+x+band+online+game&hl=en&ie<nobr>=<wbr></wbr></nobr> UTF-8">X-Band</a> that was sold for SNES and Genesis systems. The accessory wasn't that popular and it was NOT a Nintendo product. To my knowledge this was the first advent of online console play but again, you and I barelly remember this because it failed. The concept has always been popular, play Madden XX with anyone in the world, most people prefer not paying lots of extra money to do something they can just do with their friends. So, I'd have to say the past favors Nintendo...

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[The Briguy]

Your thinking of sega.net, for the Sega Genesis. I remember thinking it was a good idea when it came out (they had it on the Saturn too), but I wasn't ever able to get one - I think it only lasted for about a year.

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[xenocide2]

Actually, you're somewhat mistaken; Nintendo didn't make the product you're thinking of. That was the X-Band, and it was by all acounnts a quality system. However, the system is down now, since the SNES is all but dead ;)

Thats not to say that Nintendo is any foreigner to networking-- they've offered networking options throughout the years. The SNES had a Bandai Satellite, which was sort of like the Sega Channel, only for SNES and broadcast over the satellite. With the release of the 64DD also came RandNET, but again it wasn't a very strong selling point or very popular. And of course, there are networking modules available for the gamecube.

I don't have the numbers for Japan but the XBox Live! service can't be faring well there. XBox has something close to 2 percent of the market in Japan, according to Famitsu. To put that number into perspective, on most weeks, the PSOne outsells the Xbox. I can only imagine that the live! subscription service isn't any better off.

In fact, things aren't much better off in Europe either. It appears that nintendo is simply designing a console with the global market in mind. Well, if you consider online gaming a success in the States, at least. If you don't, its just ignoring idiot analysts.

Instead it would appear that Nintendo is focusing on bringing people together physically, and networking with the most popular gaming (or second most depending on how you count, the given day and the weather outside)system out there: the GBA. Which basically means capitalizing on the forms of multiplayer gameplay they created with the 64 (smash bros, Mario Kart, mario party, star fox) and continuing to bring new forms (Four Swords, Pikmin 2) of multiplayer. You'll notice that a majority of these titles avoid the splitscreen system that plagues typical multiplayer games. Nintendo isn't going anywhere, and will be a force to reckon with for the foreseeable future.

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[PainKilleR-CE]

The cartridge wasn't actually much larger than the normal Genesis game cartridges (about 1/2 again as tall as the Sonic cartridge that came with my Genesis), but it had an adapter sticking out the side of the cartridge near the top where you plugged in the coax cable. Cox cable had it as well, at something like $20/month. It basically revived my Genesis for a while because the only game I had was Sonic, and my parents were willing to foot the bill for the summer rather than renting games all the time.

You did have to wait for the game to download, but it wasn't too long a wait, and you could play that game until you cycled the power or they pulled the game off the service (or pulled your subscription for whatever reason). We played a lot of games we probably never would've rented because of that thing (a good thing, as some of them were very fun and we never would've known), but mostly we just played Mortal Kombat 3.

Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers?

[indead]

There was a modem for the Sega Genesis... Or perhaps the Saturn? My friend had it, whichever one it was for, and I believe you could play a few games online, though it was incredibly, incredibly lame in general.

Parents will not pay two or three times

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents, and that's who we are talking about for most GC games, will not pay for the game, for on-line games fees, for a gaming dial-up provider and for their existing PC dsl/dial-up. If you think AOL or MSN want to pay for high-bandwidth gaming you're nuts. Parents do not want to to hand over their credit cards to their little darlings to go on-line for a recuring fee and who knows what else in expenses.

Plus is just dosent make any cents for publisher to set up a high overhead, high maintance product like on-line gaming when they can outsouce development to some low margin game shop and then just sell mass disk.

On-Line = Pain
Disks = Profit $$$

Re:Parents will not pay two or three times

[WildBeast]

The Xbox Live costs $50/year. That's like the cost of one game. Not much

Re:Parents will not pay two or three times

[SophtwareSlump]

On average though, how many games does a person buy a year? I'd guess only 3 or 4. Sure, I know some people will pick up 3 or 4 games a month, but we're talking about the massses. They probably pick up the annual Madden game, maybe a basketball or hockey game and then a fighting and action game.

Would you want to spend 25% of your gaming budget for online play? I wouldn't. Not until all of my friends have the same console and broadband at least.

Re:Parents will not pay two or three times

[hibiki_r]

50 on top of broadband ISP costs (no modem allowed) and the time/knowledge to set up a home LAN. With the computer in the office and the console in the living room(A typical setup), many houses would need some rewiring or a not-so-small initial investment in WiFi equipment. When you already have a home LAN with computers everywhere, it's all really easy. For Joe Sixpack it might not be that easy.

Just this w/o paying per game. the Basic Live service, with games that don't need much infrastructure server-side. Go try to play Phantasy Star, or the upcoming Galaxies w/o a monthly fee.

Re:Parents will not pay two or three times

[zonker]

that is the current 'bait' price. expect the price of live to go up in the near future...

The Real problem with on-line

[Anonymous Coward]

The Real problem with on-line is latency. Consoles do best at fast reaction games and net just is just not a low latency communication tool.

Status Quo

[Ian_Bailey]

While you're facts are right, I think I disagree with your opinion that Nintendo is trying to duplicate the N64.

The problem with the N64 is that while it was profitable, many owners were unsatisfied with the lack of games. Sure, certain niches were popular (Party Games and Wrestling Games come to mind), but the 'casual gamer' doesn't stick with niches. They want to play the big, glitzy games, and publishers want the big, glitzy games to sell a lot to make up for the extra expenses (see: Enter the Matrix).

If Nintendo merely maintains the Status Quo, they will slowly turn away all 3rd party developers, and all their customers except for the core enthusiasts who love Zelda and Mario.

Nintendo doesn't need to be #1, but they do need a variety of games from a variety of sources to attract the casual gamer (read: easy money).

Don't believe me? Don't take my word for it. Nintendo has recently embarked on an effort to push 3rd party games to a level unprecendented with the company:

They've lowered the per-disc fee they collect to an all-time low.

They have recently bundled a demo disk with new GameCubes featuring only 3rd party games (Splinter Cell, Sonic, Viewtiful Joe, Soul Calibur).

They have started an advertising campaign for big-ticket games coming out months in the future (Star Wars, Soul Calibur)

I'm hoping this big push pulls off, as I am a long time Nintendo fan, but I can't tell if this will be succesful or not, and with the PSP coming out, soon Nintendo will be fighting a war on two fronts.

Probably not a bad assessment.

[pmz]

On-line gameplay looks very expensive to me (money for network adapter, money for game set-up, monthly money for ISP service, monthly money for each on-line game). I always remembered Nintendo at its best with either single-player games or two or four-way games that kids would play with friends. I even played single-player games with friends, where we would take turns or play in a driver/navigator mode.

It seems that on-line games are still in their infancy and are probably fueled most by PC gamers who already incurred the cost of the computer and ISP service. To PC gamers the game fees are really only an incremental cost that is more easily tolerated.

For consoles to really catch on on-line, the prices really need to get driven down, because the main reason for sucessful consoles is large numbers of people too cheap to buy a $2500 gaming PC. For example, consider an average family who recently justified the cost of a cell phone and cable TV in the past several years now confronted with whether to shell out more money per month on on-line games. It took over a decade for cell phones to be in everyone's pocket and often displacing land-line service (rich and poor, it seems); perhaps it will be similar for on-line games.

Re:Probably not a bad assessment.

[erasmus_]

What are you talking about? Let's examine the Xbox vs the expenses that you have described. Money for network adapter? No, the Ethernet port is built-in and comes with the system. Money for game setup? What does that even mean? There is no setup, you buy the game, put it in the console, and play online. Monthly money for ISP service? How is that specific for online gaming? Since you're posting this on Slashdot, I assume you have some way of getting on the Internet as well. I'd be paying ISP charges regardless of whether I did online gaming. Monthly money for each online game? No, you're obviously not familiar with the Xbox online pricing model. First of all, the fee is annual and not monthly ($50 is pretty damn low for a year) and secondly that gets you an account on any Live game. If you're talking about per-game online fees, then you must be thinking about PS2 or PC gaming. I have a gaming PC, but I could never justify spending $10/month on just one game. The console model is much more attractive to me, price-wise. If it seems to you that online gaming is just in its infancy because of pricing, then you're not very familiar with the current state of online gaming.

Re:Probably not a bad assessment.

[pmz]

Money for game setup? What does that even mean? There is no setup, you buy the game, put it in the console...

Buying the game and putting it in the console is pretty much what I meant by "set up". It seems many (most?) on-line games require purchasing something up-front before the recurring fees begin.

Monthly money for ISP service? How is that specific for online gaming? Since you're posting this on Slashdot, I assume you have some way of getting on the Internet as well.

The bread-n-butter of the average internet user is dial-up access via AOL, Juno, etc. at $8/month up to $22/month. If an on-line game works best with broad-band, then that would be an additional $20 to $40 per month. I suppose it depends on what each game requires.

First of all, the fee is annual and not monthly ($50 is pretty damn low for a year) and secondly that gets you an account on any Live game.

That is still a recurring fee, but $50/year is getting closer to a good amount (basically the cost of one game).

...the Xbox online pricing model.

Microsoft will find other ways to get their money from their users. The free marketing data they glean from Xbox Live might be enough, for now, until they learn enough or aquire enough to be able to pull their more aggressive tactics.

On-line console gaming still lacks a "killer app"

[Hamster Lover]

I've looked at the on-line offerings for the PS2, GC and Xbox and by far the Xbox strategy is the most attractive. I know that with my subscription to Xbox Live and an on-line enabled game I can play on-line. The problem is even with the ease of Xbox Live I still do not necessarily want to invest hours of my life playing with complete strangers. It's a nice diversion, but it isn't the end-all-be-all that some companies think it will be. I can see Nintendo's point, to a degree, do they really want to invest all the time and energy into something that few people can either afford or have an interest in? It's the chicken and egg scenario, which comes first, the desire for on-line gaming or on-line games?

When Nintendo does go on-line, it should be a consistent experience like Xbox live coupled with a must have game like the Sims, or whatever.

Whatever does happen with the next console, actually right now, Nintendo needs to get their head out of the asses about adult games. Adults want adult driven games. No, I don't necesarily want to disembowel someone in a game, but give me something more than Pikmin, a little edge, give us the selection and a free hand to third party developers.

I love my Cube and I want to see it given a little more credence that it currently has.

Why different for consoles?

[DrWho520]

Is there a central body that sets up an online environment for PC online games? If you play (played) an online game for PC, be it Ultima Online, Everquest or even Starcraft a few years back, you logged onto to that company's server. Sure, you had to logon to Battlenet for Blizzard games, but those were Blizzard's games. If a company wants to produce an online game for PC, they support the online functionality. Nintendo and SONY have it correct in that game vendors supply the servers.

Now, if Nintendo did it right, they would produce a broadband adapter (they have one for GCN) for the NextGen console and encourage vendors to port online games to the GCN. Ports that allow consoles to connect to the general severs that everyone else connects to. Isn't this what SONY does? No X-Box live type investment necessary. Then, if Nintendo wants to produce online versions of their games, they can support their own servers.

And don't bring up the processor argument, its all about badwidth. Plus GCN has a 400+ Mhz processor (i don't have the numbers, sorry if i'm off a bit.)

Re:Why different for consoles?

[scot4875]

It's a 485Mhz custom Power PC, codenamed "Gekko"

--Jeremy

Re:Why different for consoles?

[EGSonikku]

Erm, what's funny about this? It's true, it's really called gekko and based on the PPC 750. You want funny, look at the XBox ;-)

Re:Why different for consoles?

[PainKilleR-CE]

Is there a central body that sets up an online environment for PC online games? If you play (played) an online game for PC, be it Ultima Online, Everquest or even Starcraft a few years back, you logged onto to that company's server. Sure, you had to logon to Battlenet for Blizzard games, but those were Blizzard's games. If a company wants to produce an online game for PC, they support the online functionality. Nintendo and SONY have it correct in that game vendors supply the servers.

Before Ultima Online, Everquest, etc. you normally downloaded a program like Gamespy, Kali, etc. or went to a website like MPlayer, Won, etc. Most of these programs/websites offered what the game developers did not include: matchmaking for internet- (or just LAN-) enabled games. Only after most of these had been successful for a while did game developers start including browsers in their own games (and many of them licensed the browser software from companies like GameSpy, in fact, I don't use the built-in browser for any games I play online except for battle.net games and MMO games). Even Microsoft had (do they still have it? I think so, they used it for their MMO games as well) an online matchmaking service for games (it's used for the games shipped with Windows XP as well). The vast majority of online games on the PC are supported at least as well through 3rd party software that allows users to browse most of their games through one interface as they are through the software that is built into the games themselves, and most users that play numerous online games prefer these interfaces. It would only make sense that a console have one interface for all of it's online games, unless you were Sony and you wanted to make sure that Everquest was similar on the console to the way it is on the PC.

Now, if Nintendo did it right, they would produce a broadband adapter (they have one for GCN) for the NextGen console and encourage vendors to port online games to the GCN.

Except that producing a broadband adapter means that your users have to find it (I am looking for the GC adapter, I've found one store so far that carries the modem, but they don't get enough of the adapters to keep them in stock for more than a couple days), and you have to convince developers that your users will buy it to play their game. Putting it on the system is not only cheaper per adapter (much cheaper to put it on the system board than to put the connectivity port on the board and then build the piece of plastic with the ethernet port and the connectivity port and the board that connects the two), but guarantees that the users have it.

Ports that allow consoles to connect to the general severs that everyone else connects to. Isn't this what SONY does?

Sony, like Nintendo, produces an adapter that connects to a port that's already on the console. The point to doing this is that modem users can use modems and cable/dsl users can use ethernet, but the reality is that Sony sells only an ethernet adapter (which is really easy to find, probably even easier than the GC dial-up adapter; if Sony does sell a dial-up adapter, then it's at least as hard to find as the GC ethernet adapter, or the DreamCast ethernet adapter that replaces the dial-up adapter that shipped with that console). After that, it's entirely up to the developer to determine how to support it. This means that each game you play online with a console will either cost you money to play each month, or will require some other mechanism to provide incentive for developers to support online play. With EA, the incentive is customer data (the reason they don't support XBox Live). With others it will be advertising. Still others will just use their existing PC support, or will throw all of the server duty on the console (which is no problem if they make the game and server properly).

No X-Box live type investment necessary. Then, if Nintendo wants to produce online versions of their games, they can support their own servers.

Of co

Look,

[Daetrin]

I don't care about your numbers and your demographics or whatever, lack of online capability is a PR killer.

It doesn't matter that most people _don't_ use it, it matters that with the GameCube they _can't_ use it.

Even if people aren't particularly planning on getting online, there are good odds that they'll be influenced by the general atmosphere of "XBox is cool because it has online play and GameCube sucks cause it doesn't." Stop expecting people to be rational.

Microsoft's XBox Live is a selling point, even if people don't ever get around to using it. There have been a lot of games for the PC that advertised their multiplayer capability that influenced my opinion at least a little that i never actually got around to playing online or just played one or two games that way. But i bought the game, which is what's important to the company.

And if they don't think people will pay $15 a month for online service then just let them connect directly to each other through their ISP and host the games themselves. I'm far more interested in playing games online with my old college friends and people i know on the east coast than i am with random strangers i've never met on some online service.

Re:Look,

[prockcore]

It doesn't matter that most people _don't_ use it, it matters that with the GameCube they _can't_ use it.

Why can't it? You know there *is* an ethernet addon for the GC.

The fact is that most games _don't_ use it, not that they can't.

Re:Look,

[Daetrin]

The fact is that most games _don't_ use it, not that they can't.

However most players _can't_ use it, unless they're interested in PSO. They certainly _can't_ use it for 99% of the games. Nintendo isn't advertising the ethernet add-on, they're not encouraging companies to make games that use it, they're openly doubting whether online play is important at all.

Microsoft is screaming "We've got online capability! Look at us! We're cool!" Nintendo meanwhile is saying "We don't think the online experience really matters to msot gamers." Anyone who even notices that you can get an ethernet adapter for the GameCube knows that there are no games for it )other than the aforementioned PSO) and that Nintendo doesn't really plan to support it.

That is not a selling point, and that is not a real ability to use the GameCube online. You don't drive the car if you choose not to buy gas for it. You can't drive the car if the tank is empty and no one is selling gas. Doesn't matter that the car would theoretically go if you had some of the non-existant gas.

Analysts refuse to admit they are wrong...

[ronfar]

The game console isn't just a game console anymore. It's evolving into a home entertainment system. Nintendo has refused to acknowledge that and it's hurt them.

Sigh, this is a lot of nonsense from the we-hate-games analysts. Answer me this, is there a Web browser for XBOX live? Or Playstation? If there is it isn't in the starter kit, or emphasized much. Can you use either of them to download movies or mp3s? I mean without installing Linux/BSD/Custom OS because that will not appeal to the mainstream public.

Would Sony be happy if people were mainly using their Playstation 2s to do something other than play games?

In the US, the home entertainment system is a big cabinet full of technological entertainment equipment, including VCR, DVD Player, Stereo (with integrated CD Player), TV set, TIVO(For some) and Satellite/cable connection. So what is the analyst saying here? That everything is going to be integrated? It always seemed to me that the move was away from integrated systems and toward component systems.

Don't get me wrong, I loved using my Dreamcast to surf the Internet, and I was a freak who never bought a CD player and just used my SEGA CD instead. However, I was abnormal, a geek.

Now, in Japan, the culture of small and compact is better would seem to push XBOX (well, I mean, as second after Playstation 2), since it can double as a DVD and CD player, over the Gamecube. Which is more popular there?

Now, there are advantages to the fact that PS2 and XBOX have CD and DVD capability that Gamecube doesn't. Parents don't have to choose between getting their kid a DVD player or a gamesystem. Still, does anyone see the DVD player market disappearing, seriously?

Frankly, in my opinion, the current status of each system is due to exclusive game content. People aren't buying these as Swiss Army Knife home entertainment systems. The reason why online is important is because if a true killer app online game is released, the system without the infrastructure to roll out their own knock-off as soon as possible may end up hopelessly behind. I want to emphasize the "may" in that sentence, because most of the needed infrastructure (aka, the Internet) is already there. So, like everything else with game systems, this is ultimately only about games. This analysts comment seems to show he doesn't have a clue.

In fact, the closest home appliance to a Swiss Army Knife home entertainment system is the trusty PC. Mainly because the PC can sometimes be used in ways that haven't been thought of by the big corps, or better still in ways that the big corps hate. Even then though, it is mostly geeks who use them that way, though it is slowly filtering down to semi-geek mainstream users.

Re:Analysts refuse to admit they are wrong...

[Mandoric]

Actually, there are Japanese GC variants that play CDs and DVDs. There's no official US release, but the number of imports will likely be quite high once the copied-game protection on the GC is broken, and that may induce the manufacturer (Panasonic, I think?) to begin marketing here, if that's allowed by their contract with Nintendo.

Re:Analysts refuse to admit they are wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, the closest home appliance to a Swiss Army Knife home entertainment system is the trusty PC. Mainly because the PC can sometimes be used in ways that haven't been thought of by the big corps, or better still in ways that the big corps hate. Even then though, it is mostly geeks who use them that way, though it is slowly filtering down to semi-geek mainstream users.

PC is not home entertainment. Tweaking a PC for hours to make it do anything, is not relaxing. Until PCs are easier, they will not replace simple and elegant solutions like the VCR, game console, etc.

Re:On-line console gaming still lacks a "killer ap

[Gr33nNight]

There are some adult games for the NGC. Check out Eternal Darkness, one of the most underrated games out for the console. It seriously kicks ass. You can find it for $20 now, and that is a great price for such an excellent game.

On another note, they do have Resident Evil 1 and 0. 1 is a total remake. New graphics, new rooms etc etc etc and 0 is a whole new game. RE isnt my type of game, but maybe for you its a killer app.

Rent them, then decide, but for the love of all thats good, CHECK OUT ETERNAL DARKNESS

I think Nintendo's basically right

[Ondo]

I agree with Nintendo's stance mostly. They've said that online hasn't been proven for anything except MMORPGs and FPSs, and that seems to be right.

Nintendo, unlike the other console makers, pretty much has to have some sort of kiddie-friendly system in place before they go online, IMO. As much as I want Xbox Live with a voice communicator, having kids randomly hear profanity is not something I would tolerate as a parent.

Fundamentally I think Nintendo can enter the market late and still dominate it. Nintendo makes some of the best multiplayer games, and I expect that could carry over to online games. Just a online Pokemon game would probably kick-start an online service quite well, not to mention Animal Crossing, Mario Kart, and Super Smash Brothers. Retro could probably make a great online FPS, Metroid or otherwise.

Of course, I think Nintendo makes the best games currently, and they're still not doing so well, so my judgement is suspect.

Here's what's funny

[Hellraisr]

I know this kid who has worshipped Nintendo his whole life, and now he is old enough he bought his own game cube.

He bought that rediculous Animal Crossings game, and he told me that it was so great because you can trade items over the Internet. I said oh yeah, how?

turns out you get a code that you write down and you give it to someone else on the net and they and to type it in and then they get that item.

The part that scares me is that he (and I bet millions of other brainwashed Nintendo'ers) think that this is actually a cool way of doing this.

This is 2003. If I have to write something down because a video game told me to, I'm going to stop playing that game. It was cool when Kid Icarus was new. Now that shit should just be automatic. It's a no brainer.

Re:Here's what's funny

[Gr33nNight]

Heaven forbid you have to write something down! Maybe it would be easier for you to shell out $50 to buy a broadband adapter, then a cable modem connection, then spend time setting it all up, just so you can trade a couple items in Animal Crossing (which kicks ass BTW).

What Nintendo has done is save people from all that bullshit, and make a simple pw system for trading items. It takes 2 mins and works great, so whats the problem?

Re:Here's what's funny

[Mike Hawk]

Defend Nintendo blindly. Check.

Re:Here's what's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Whine about Nintendo because you blindly bought an XBox to see DOA 3 cutscenes. Check.

Re:Here's what's funny

[CashCarSTAR]

Actually it is a cool way to do things. It's different.

It means you can trade through e-mail, forums whatever.

It's pretty cool to try and go around and fnd that item you need to reach the next level..nnot my sttyle of game, but I can see whypeople like it.

Re:Here's what's funny

[nicky_d]

The part that scares me is that he (and I bet millions of other brainwashed Nintendo'ers) think that this is actually a cool way of doing this.

It's a brilliant way of doing it, which helped massively with Animal Crossing's success. With private community networked swapping, outsiders would be completely unaware of what was going on in Animal Crossing. But when a public forum needs to have a new folder added purely for AC item swaps, people notice that and get curious about the game and why so many people are engrossed in it. Nintendo simply used the most powerful and effective existing channels of communication instead of reinventing the wheel.

Dismisses

[techstar25]

If you read the article, he says it's a consideration that they're looking into. I'm not sure how that can be seen as dismissing. He's right about one thing though...no one is paying for subscriptions, or at least not enough for Nintendo to care. They have their revenue streams and the money is pouring in. MS and Sony are not exactly making a killing on those online subscriptions. Nonetheless in the future it will be interesting to see where Nintendo takes their console, since ...
Sony is basically making a WWW enabled/Cable TV box/TIVO/DVD/MP3 player that also happens to play Playstation games.
Microsoft is on their way to making a (DRM restricted)Windows PC/TIVO/DVD/MP3 player that also happens to play Xbox games.
Nokia has that digital camera/video/text messaging/cellphone (I think) that also just happens to play games.
Nintendo has one console that ONLY plays games and one handheld that ONLY plays games(third party hardware excluded).
If the MS/Sony/Nokia way was better, we'd all be using sporks in our home for silverware. Me, I like my fork and my spoon separate. ;)

Another thought occured to me...

[Hamster Lover]

I was speaking to some friends about the disparity in on-line gaming that you see between computers and consoles. Obviously, the almost ubiquitous presence of DSL or cable connections for computer users (at least in Canada) and the depth of market penetration for computers feeds the desire for on-line gaming.

If console users could participate in the same on-line games that computer users do, I think we would see a huge increase in on-line play for console owners. Sadly, the only console I see that has the technical and logistical capability is the Xbox. It would be fantastic if I could play Warcraft or similar with a friend regardless of the hardware used for the game.

Just an idea.

Re:Another thought occured to me...

[PainKilleR-CE]

This whole thread really got me thinking about the progression of online gaming on the PC, and the more I think about it, the more I think that console gaming will follow a similar progression, without the added headache of the early years of the internet (and broadband, though it still has some distance to go).

First, there were the early adopters. The people that would do almost anything to play games online. It got to the point that you could download Kali and play games that didn't even support TCP/IP (they supported IPX for LAN gaming) over the internet. This I equate roughly to the people that found ways to play Halo online, even though it doesn't support XBox Live (just LAN gaming via the XBox's ethernet port). Also to the people that bought a DreamCast and the online games available for it, even though the DreamCast's system for playing online was significantly better than what most saw in the early days of online PC gaming.

Then came the wave of PC games that were online-enabled, and no one cared. Tons of games had online play available, and most people didn't bother. This is roughly equivalent to now for consoles, although this would be the early equivalent of those PC days, because there really aren't a lot of titles available, but there are a lot planned to ship this year. During this time, NetQuake was replaced with QuakeWorld, and online FPS gaming boomed on the PC. Then the floodgates opened and eventually along came Diablo and Ultima Online (and Everquest) and everything else. Some variant of Quake, Diablo, and UO/EQ makes up the vast majority of people playing online PC games now (and RTS games, mostly StarCraft/WC3 I'm sure), mostly Half-Life mods (HL being based on the Quake engine), Diablo 2, and EQ (SWG, DAoC, etc). What will happen with console games is that one game will come along that everyone wants to play online. What it is and how it will play no one knows, because FPS games, RTS games, and PC-style RPGs are not big on consoles, and MMO games will never show that all games can support online play. Of course, who knows, maybe SOCOM 2 really will be cheat-proof and everyone will flock to it (I doubt it though).

Then you have the current state of PC gaming: very few titles can really do well without online support, even if no one plays them online. The few cases where that's not true are mass-appeal games that no one could've predicted would've had the sales they did in the first place (the Sims for instance, which so far has flopped online, but sold really well when it was offline-only). I was looking forward to Unreal 2, but didn't buy it when I found out it didn't have multiplayer support. Quake 3 was supposed to be the next great thing in online FPS games, but it turned out that Counterstrike stomped it into the ground with an older engine. People can't predict what's going to be the thing that does it, but it's almost impossible that online gaming won't take off on consoles, because it's already possible, it just needs to be used.

nintendo does have multiplayer, but not online

[Allison Geode]

one thing that gets me is the people complaining "oh nintendo is so silly, not focusing on multiplayer". I disagree, and anyone who has ever enjoyed a good round of Super Smash Bros. Melee probably would, as well. the difference is that Nintendo's Multiplayer is much more intimate and personal. I find my Smash Bros. fests to be much more entertaining than fragging some faceless butthead who will probably just accuse me of cheating for being a better player than him. I rarely play games online anymore, but I play smash bros. at least once a week, and play many other multiplayer games on the console, too. (just last week, we linked several gameboys to the game boy player, had an AWESOME time playing puyo pop on the big screen.) I'd sooner stock up on mountain dew and doritos and have a few buddies over for our weekly game night, than sit in a room alone playing with people I don't know or care about. probably why I canceled my PSO account, now that I think of it: I was having more fun playing that offline in split screen mode with my friends, than I was playing it online with random asshole #87.

Re:nintendo does have multiplayer, but not online

[BigDork1001]

That's exactly why the GC is such a great system. It's the perfect system from having some friends over on a friday night and having a great time. All the goofing around, the smack talk, laughing, it makes for an enjoyable time.

I've tried on-line games and while they're okay there's something missing. Text chatting is so impersonal. If I typed "Get that for me" you don't know if I'm demanding or asking politely.

Would you rather watch a funny movie at the same time as someone else on the other end of a computer or with a group of friends in your house? Which would you have a better time with. That's why the GC is a good system. Unless you don't have friends.

Re:nintendo does have multiplayer, but not online

[Allison Geode]

and if you don't have friends, online multiplayer is NOT something you should be worrying about. :-p

Monthly Fees

[hmaugans]

I don't even pay for games like EQ or AC, there is no way I would pay for a gamecube online gaming plan. Maybe it's just me, but I an content playing my offline games on GC.
----------
Check out Harvest Moon Online
(a free online game based on the SNES game)

MOD UP!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up. Definatly an insightful comment.

Sony just takes advantage of what's new and doesn't take into consideration for if it is going to be good or not. IMHO the PS was a piece of junk. Load time sucked. Games weren't that great for the most part. And they would have hardware problems after a while.

You're right

[Hamster Lover]

I just checked Eternal Darkness out on Gamespot, it gets a fantastic review and the game looks fantastic. Sadly, almost no one I have talked to has ever heard of this game. I am going to have a peek for it at EB.

In fairness to the Cube, we do see pretty much the same games as you get on the Xbox, with some exceptions. It just seems that the heavily promoted games are the "kiddy" flavor that atracts families but not gamers.

Good point though.

Re:You're right

[Gr33nNight]

The 'kiddy' image is what Nintendo needs to shake the most...it is killing them. Alot of gamers today are more worried about image than having fun. They look at Zelda, and think its for kids, and that they will be called kids if they play it. Alot of them do not try it out, and see if they would have a good time playing it.

Capcom releasing Disney Sports games on the NGC doesnt help matters any, and they wonder why they sell like ass...they play like ass too. Buy Eternal Darkness. If you like it, get all your friends to buy it too. This is the only way more 'mature' games will arrive on the NGC. It all comes down to the bottom line: Profits.

Re:You're right

[Mike Hawk]

Way to project your feelings about image vs gameplay onto others. Nintendo wants that image so let them have it. Zelda is not for kids because of the image, its for kids because of the gameplay. I know 4 people who finished that game and not one of them died even once. They were all disappointed. Zelda wasn't always about taking photographs. WTF? Defend Nintendo blindly. Check.

Re:You're right

[Gr33nNight]

I have read reviews about Mario Sunshine being waaayyy too hard (it is hard, but thats what I liked about it). People bitched that it was hard. Nintendo took it to heart, and made Zelda easier. People bitch that its easier. Make up your damn minds. As to defend Nintendo blindly? I am a self admitted Nintendo fan, always have been. But I do have over 15 video game systems, so I do experience multiple console manufactors

Re:You're right

[Anonymous Coward]

I played Zelda all the way through obsessively to the neglect of other important life pursuits like eating. I took a total of five photographs, and none are required for the plot. The size and breadth of Zelda is what makes it positively brilliant. I have never played a game that I so *wanted* to explore completely. I've also never met anyone who wasn't blown away by Zelda. I was certainly the opposite of dissapointed. You seem to have a bone to pick with Nintendo, which is your own right, obviously, but it's strange considering the quality of their own products (third party support on the Cube is depressingly lacking). Nintendo's contributions to the system have been stellar, from Pikmin, Mario Sunshine, Zelda, and, if you can count it, Metroid, have all given me gameplay that I've never seen before, graphics that make me drool all over the controller and style and substance beyond the first party support for both of the other current systems.
I like Nintendo not because I'm blindly defensive, but because they have incredible games. And I haven't even mentioned their stuff for the GBA.

--
FoolsRun

Re:You're right

[PainKilleR-CE]

My girlfriend's youngest brother stayed over for the weekend and it really opened my eyes about a few things. For one, he owns a GC and has a couple of the same games I do (ie a few months ago he talked about Mario Sunshine endlessly). However, now that he's 9, apparently he's too old for those games. All he wanted to play was Grand Theft Auto, and his sister let him play it, but after a while we cut him off (because he was playing it endlessly, and other people wanted to either play a 2+ player game or watch TV, or basically do anything but watch GTA). All he would do after that is gripe about having nothing to do (apparently having 4 consoles with 10+ games for each one isn't enough, but I can't blame him too much for not liking my PS1 selection, since he isn't into RPGs and looks too much towards graphics still). He played Ikaruga for a while (one of my new obsessions on the GC, why I didnt get the game earlier I do not know), but was put off by the fact that he kept getting killed.

Of course, anyone I can sit down long enough to play Zelda, Mario, or Smash Bros. loves it, but most are hesitant at first, and, like I said, the 9 year old is just too old for that stuff now (*laugh*). My gf is hooked on Pokemon Ruby right now, so I don't expect to get her to play anything else until she's at least beat the game once, if not until she's collected as many Pokemon as she can stand to get (and she isn't remotely interested in using the GB Player, which is good for me, since that means I can still use the GC or any other console, or the Player).

I'll have to buy Eternal Darkness, though, as I've heard many others say it's good. If it's not, well, there's always the chance that the 9 year old will play it (bleh, he'll play anything if it's got a rating on it that says he probably shouldn't play it).

Am I Alone Here?

[Guppy06]

It seems that most of the posts on here are generally anti-Nintendo in general and pro-online in particular. Am I the only one here that:

1. Owns an N64?
2. Likes the N64 and its games?
3. Likes the GameCube?

"Should have gone with CDs" this and "Missed the boat" that, I really don't care what the analysts (both real and self-imagined) have to say on the topic: I'm still tickled pink by my N64 library, even if you feel the games were "hopelessly cripled" by the "cramped memory" in the cartridge format.

So Nintendo still isn't pushing the online aspect. So what? If I really wanted to play online games on a console, I would have gotten an Xbox or even a PS2. Guess what: I haven't. Even PC online games don't do much for me (I like being able to shout insults to my opponent in the next room). I myself don't really see how an internet connection could improve my Zelda or Metroid experiences. The only GameCube game I can think of that I'd like an online connection with is Animal Crossing, and even then I'd be perfectly happy with something akin to a Dex Drive.

So you feel that Nintendo is making another "big mistake." So you feel the original GBA was a "big mistake" (and neglect to mention that you bought one anyway). So what? I enjoy playing video games on a purple lunch box and I'm old enough now that other peoples' opinions mean squat to my enjoyment of them.

Re:Am I Alone Here?

[Mike Hawk]

If other people's opinions mean squat, why did you read this thread? Why did you post? Defend Nintendo blindly. Check.

Re:Am I Alone Here?

[Guppy06]

"why did you read this thread?"

Curiousity.

"Why did you post?"

My $0.02.

"Defend Nintendo blindly."

I wouldn't call it that. Simply because I don't own an Xbox or a PS2 doesn't mean I don't own my share of non-Nintendo consoles. Xbox doesn't hold my interest at all while I'm currently waiting for either another price drop (or two) or a PS2 game that I feel would justify the purchase of the console (there was a time when Final Fantasy alone would have been enough...).

Re:Am I Alone Here?

[Anonymous Coward]

What, are you taking a survey? That's the second time you used that phrase "Defend Nintendo blindly." Are you looking for a catchphrase, like "I'll be Back" or "Go Ahead, Make my day"? If you are, the one you settled on makes you look like an MS or Sony Fanboy.

Re:Am I Alone Here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pot, kettle, black. Check.

true, but

[Recoil_42]

you forget that sporks dont work as well as forks and spoons. my XBOX plays DVDs just as well as any other DVD player, plays CDs as well as any other CD player (and has visualizations to boot), can double as an mp3 jukebox just as good as any other mp3 jukebox.... not to mention the stunning games that it is meant for. whereas a spork's spoon side has holes in it and is far too clumsy and blunt to use as a fork; my XBOX performs all the functions it claims to exceptionally.

yes, a spork

[August_zero]

You must have a magic x-box then cause mine doesn't quite live up to that image.

My $200 dedicated DVD player provides a far better picture and has oodles of better options than the x-box DVD player.

My nice, but rather old CD player holds upto 7 discs while my x-box holds but one.

My Gamecube and PS2 has dozens of great games, my x-box has about 6.

Sure the x-box costs what, like $250 and does all sorts of things half-assed, but lets face it: Combined devices just don't usually excell in any one area and the x-box is no exception.

Don't be so hard on Nintendo

[Rayonic]

If Nintendo had no competition, I'm sure that we'd be getting the N64 any year now...

Broken Record Mr Hawk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Repating ourselves a lot today are we?

Need is a very strong word...

[August_zero]

Does Nintendo need online?

Well, their first party titles seem to stand well enough on their own (Mario, Metroid, Zelda etc) but I think that they are looking at this the wrong way.

X-box live isn't all that great right now, and neither is Sony's online plan, but at least they have their foot in the water. With the next generation of systems, MS and Sony will already be seen as online systems. Nintendo doesn't seem to want to get into the pool until they are sure that they can take it over and this in the long run is going to hurt them.

People are excited by the prospect of online console games. Sure, the PC and Mac crowd has had them for decades but for a lot of people it is a new experience. Novelty is going to drive sales, and with the next deluge of systems in 2005 Sony and MS are likely going to base a significant amount of their energies to providing online gaming.

Nintendo just needs to accept the fact that they are going to have to fight a losing battle for online gameplay for one generation before they are going to be able to profit from it. SOny and MS both are bleeding money this time around, but that will change eventually.

Nintendo could likely survive without online play, their first party software still sells well and it will move systems, but their following is going to dwindle, and if they don't try to get online, they are never going to be more than a distant second or third place share of the market.

Most overheard comment from game store employees..

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't even play my Gamecube or PS2 anymore. I just play the X-box."

Am I the only one that hears this jive? I'll bet I've heard it from 15 different employees this year - sometimes I wonder if they get paid for it.

Most game store employees are idiots.

[August_zero]

Ask them what they are playing, I own all 3 consoles and my x-box has the thickest layer of dust on it for lack of good games to play. Maybe I just buy the wrong things.

Re:Most game store employees are idiots.

[reustp]

I would have agree that out of the 3 consoles I own the xbox gets the least amount of playtime. However, the xbox is very easy to mod and it makes a decent media box. I primarily use it now to play Nintendo and Super Nintendo games and watch movies.

Online Gaming

[CashCarSTAR]

Online gaming, to be honest, is overrated.Deatchmatching, to be honest is a waste. Good team-play as well is hard to find. What is fun??

MMORPGs, if you have the time and the money.

Diablo II, for the co-op play.

Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat for team-based FPS

Strategy games

Subspace/Continum for serious skill-based team competition. That's about it.

All PC apps..to be honest. Everything else, IMO dies with typical lag for online games. Predictive models break down for platforming/fighting type games.

Nintendo has the right idea. Ultra-tight controls are wasted on online play. It just would be sub-par for what I expect. Now, I would like to see Nintendo bring out an online adapter for the next-gen, so the option is there. But there's no way to really do it well on a console, so why dilute the quality of what matters? Local competition and one-player goodness.

Re:Online Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you! -1 is the place for true comedy. +5 is the place for brown-nosing hypocrites.

Online Gaming

[Snowspinner]

Online gaming will eternally be marred by the fact that it involves dealing with human beings. To demonstrate the problem with human beings, I invite you to set your moderation threshold to -1, and begin reading Slashdot. When you play online, you are playing with these people.

Online gaming is popular right now among analysts and game makers, because they see that instead of just selling a $50 box, they can sell a $50 box and a $10 subscription every month too. And so quite a bit of fuss is being made about how online gaming is the hot new thing, because companies really want it to be the hot new thing.

Wait for a few more online games to be as massive a debacle as, say, The Sims Online, or Asheron's Call 2, and I'm sure you'll have a much more sensible market that realizes that, yes, online gaming may have some great financial potential, but come to think of it, so does single player gaming.

Meanwhile, Nintendo will have avoided flushing money down the toilet on a bubble market, and will be able to get about the business of making online games once a widescale adoption of broadband, and, more importantly, of home networking exists.

Until then, though, online gaming is a really big loss leader of the sort that Nintendo has never demonstrated much fondness for.

Circle of life...

[tprime]

Lets just call this the circle of life...

(I am sure that I am missing some things and probably have my chronology a bit off, but you get the point.)
-Atari rules the world... Everyone is happy.
-Colecovision and Intellivision come out and Atari dies.
-Sega Master System and Nintendo Entertainment System come out and Coleco and Intellivision die.
-Sony comes out and Sega (as we knew it) dies
-XBOX comes out and... Nintendo Dies?

Whether the consoles dying is a product of superior competition or stupid mistakes (in the case of Atari and current Nintendo) the industry can really only support 2 console systems at once. I guess the saving grace for all of the Micro$oft haters out there is that they probably only have 6 or 7 years left before a Mitsubishi, IBM, Toshiba, etc. system comes out and kills them off...

Feel free to flame me on my lack of accuracy on the timeline.

Re:Circle of life...

[reustp]

Its doubtful Nintendo will just die considering they have billions in the bank and are continuing to make a profit. I don't really agree that the market can only sustain two consoles, while the third place console won't necessarily do great it can still be profitable which it seems is all Nintendo cares about anyway. After all there are still many people who will buy whatever console Nintendo puts out just because its Nintendo.

Nintendo is Right!

[Brother Grifter]

Instead of being another blind believer in Nintendo, I decided to search Google and see what I can find as far as MS's losses in regards to their push with the Xbox. This is what I found. MS is losing billions on the Xbox.

But we all knew this, because obviously their undercutting the costs of producing each Xbox console, but their Live! service isn't helping them either.

Subscription isn't going work, at least not now. Nintendo is not just taking this stance this stubbornly, but simply because they cannot afford to. Only Sony and MS can afford such a venture (loss).

why pay a subscription fee

[Sploozoo]

I see it like this, either I buy the game, and do not pay a subscription fee, or, I get the game for free, then pay a subscription fee. Wtf do you think SOCOM on PS2 is so sucessful? Its gameplay? HELL NO! Its fucking free to play online, so I'll enjoy it regardless of the gameplay issues.