Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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!
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
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.
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 $$$
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.
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.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
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.
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.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank