Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo's Boss On Western Partnerships, Online
Matt writes "It seems Nintendo President Satoru Iwata has once again spoken out, in a talk to the Japan Economic Foundation, and GameCube Advanced has the highlights. Iwata downplays online gaming, citing the example of a PS2 golf sim which outsold its online counterpart [is this Minna No Golf Online, aka Hot Shots Golf Fore!, versus its prequel?] Also, Iwata speaks about Nintendo working with other non-Japanese companies (saying 'We are now holding negotiations with major Western game developers and will be able to conclude a deal by the end of the year if things go smoothly'), and about takeover speculation regarding Bandai [vague talk of 'a closer relationship'.] In addition, he warned again that the status quo in videogames is in jeopardy... 'We are facing a critical situation, in which the number of game players will decrease unless we change tack', Iwata said."
Yay, someone understands! Down with the objectionably cartoony link with the ellipsoid head! (And no, I don't mind cartoon-style rendering if its done right.)
-jim
Sure, Nintendo has a bad rap for making kids games, but remember their history. THey made the Famicom, the NES, the SNES, n64 and GameCube. They were all amazing consoles. And the games, Super Mario 64 has got to be the best game I have ever played, hell, i still get my N64 out and play it ever once in a while.
Hmmmm.. I can understand that the variety of games will decrease over time unless there is some kind of major structural breakthrough, but I don't really see the number of gamers going down IMHO. At some point there will be a huge business interest in pushing the boundaries which will lead to more investment. Hell, there are still addicts to this day playing Doom and all kinds of classics.
Even though in the future there may be fewer original games to choose from, I will still have no life and will still be playing games.
Slashdot in 5 Paragraphs
Iwata also downplayed online, using the example of a PS2 online golf simulation game that did not sell as well as an offline golf simulation game. Iwata says this is "proof that customers do not want online games," and that "most customers do not wish to pay the extra money for connection to the Internet, and for some customers, connection procedures to the Internet are still not easy."
Now, I can understand looking at this and saying - "online isn't the be-all end-all of technologies for consoles", but honestly, an online golf game - most likely the least online-needing sports subgenre there is - used as proof that online isn't a capability people want? What about all the people playing SOCOM on PS2? Splinter Cell on XBox?
Also, I don't see why Nintendo would want to cripple its next console system with lack of good network/Internet features like it did to the GameCube (come on, I love Nintendo, but that was dumb), especially if it will only be seen as lagging by consumers. Also, the not-a-Game-Boy DS will have wireless connectivity, so it's not as if they're abandoning the Internet altogether...
In summary: proof? yeah right.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I find this part interesting. The one area in which Microsoft has been REALLY successful with the XBox is in winning the hearts and minds of western developers. I've found it worrying that Sony and Nintendo might not realize this is happening because they're concentrating on Japanese customers and developers and the XBox is bombing horribly in Japan. I'd be glad to see if Nintendo made actual moves to woo U.S. developers, it would be very easy to just neglect U.S. developers in the console market but this is certainly a foolish thing to do in the long run...
Of course then my question becomes, WHAT IS SILICON KNIGHTS UP TO?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I mostly agree, but just because the business model is lousy doesn't mean that Nintendo should shun online games altogether. They could instead come up with a better business plan (like free or very cheap online access, or open source game servers)
-jim
I can say from experience nearly every offline gaming experience I've had is many times better than online ones. The best multiplayer experiences I've had are with games like Mario Kart, GoldenEye, Smash Bros., Bomberman, Hot Shots Golf (minna no golufu), Culdcept, traditional fighting games (i.e. Soul Calibur), and cooperative shooters (i.e. Radiant Silvergun).
I'm not just drawing experience from console games either. Counter Strike in a LAN setting is tons better than counterstrike online. Rainbow Six (and its sequels) cooperative multiplayer is totally unplayable online compared to on a LAN. RTS games like WarCraft II, StarCraft, WarCraft III, Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Command & Conquer, Total Annihilation, etc have consistently been better in a LAN setting than online. Some of my favorite computer multiplayer experiences were hotseat games like Heroes of Might and Magic or Worms (or Scorched Earth and other derivatives).
I was reminded of the sharp difference between these two experiences after playing a lot of card and board games recently. After the semester ended I jumped on Yahoo! games to get a quick fix and was totally turned off by the cold atmosphere and lack of presence. I have also dumped hundreds of hours into Everquest, Asheron's Call, Dark Age of Camelot, Lineage 2 (beta) and City of Heroes to meet up with the promise of meeting up with my friends only to be turned back by countless gameplay and communications barriers so that for that rare occasion I would meet up and be able to play with someone I knew I was usually having more fun with the person hanging out at my house watching me play than with the person I was actually playing with.
It's just not the same without real people, face to face jumping up and yelling across the room at each other. Sorry, online is a subpar experience in my book. Online gameplay for console games totally uninterests me for any reason. Online gameplay for PC games is only necessary for a LAN. I've tried a large number of games over the years and am fairly conclusive in my position.
"When will Nintendo learn? ONLINE PLAY MATTERS. It's the only reason x-box has sold a single console. Everyone knows it's games suck outside Halo. It's the online part that's saving the system."
Seeing as how Playstation 2 has 40 million owners, but roughly a million are on-line, I'd say that you're full of shit.
"Derp de derp."
For example, XBOX Live isn't sitting on a couple of PC's in somebodies basement, it is a world wide gaming service connecting approximately 1 million gamers together. That doesn't cost nothing, it takes money to run it and Microsoft asks a fee to use it, which I think is entirely reasonable.
As for monthly payments to play games, there are very few XBOX Live games that require any additional fee to play the actual game once you purchase it (however we should be keeping a close eye on EA Games). Indeed many Live enabled games come with additional free downloads (bar the cost of the bandwidth) to improve the game.
I entirely agree that Microsoft must be careful to not price the XBOX Live service too high otherwise younger gamers with limited budgets may not be able to afford the service.
I am an XBOX Live game player, as well as PC Online game player, and even with so called free PC Gaming, someone somewhere is paying for the hosting of PC game servers. Whether it be an ISP providing PC game servers to attract customers or game companies themselves to attract people to buy it, or whether a server is being put onto a corporate network without anyone knowing. Someone is paying for the computer and for the bandwidth to make that server run. There are many that are certainly free to use, there are also many that can only be used by members of an ISP. Someone is swallowing the cost to make it happen to provide fun for themselves and other people.
I very much believe that every console manufacturer is going to be going for online gaming in one form or another in the future for two very simple reasons: Online gaming is fun, and consumers will gain the expectation that games should be online capable.
Is a 2 player mode for PC games, this is something consoles have been doing for years that still is not done on the PC. With consoles moving into the $500+ price range, I would rather just spend the extra $500 on a PC with better hardware.
You nailed two the important catagories of gameplay - solitary and massively multiplayer, but you missed an important third catagory - social "party" games.
These are games that you can get together with a few friends and have a good time. Games like smash brothers, mario party, wario ware, tennis/golf games, pokeman puzzle. These are games that you can pick up and begin playing immediately, and there is really no such thing as beating the game, just beating your friends. And it doesn't matter if you are 8 or 35 they are still fun. These are the types of games that is talking about and they are the types of games that nintendo excells at.
The truth of the matter is that any game that requires a large investment of ones time and attention to be fun will never appeal to more than a small audience - the kids and hardcore gamers. With the cost of producing games constantly rising, nintendo doesn't want to cater(sp?) to the hardcore with their constantly increasing demands and low numbers. They want to make games that are just fun. They don't want to be the next Wizards of the Coast - they want to be the next Milton Bradley.
bullshit.
it definetely isn't the only reason, in fact I make a claim that modchips make a bigger reason percentually for xbox sales than online connectivity(for usage as mediaboxes and of course for PLAYING COPIED GAMES).
most modchippers opting out of the live of course(because they don't want to pay for such a service or play games on such a service or have old modchip installations without stealth option).
of course a mighty big reason goes for halo mp being fun and another reason being the big honking marketing.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
but just because the business model is lousy doesn't mean that Nintendo should shun online games altogether. They could instead come up with a better business plan
Lets see, Xbox Live is currently $50/yr. Thats $4.16 per month. Less than 1 dime and 1 nickel per day to play as much as you want, as long as you want, with whomever you want.
Sadly, Iwata has maintained variations of the, "We are facing a critical situation, in which the number of game players will decrease unless we change tack," line for quite some time--and often applies it to the game market as a whole. Unfortunately, it's less of a factual statement on the condition of the gaming market, and more of an excuse for the fact that many of Nintendo's recent tactics for regaining console market share have failed.
Really, though, the gaming market is quite strong and will likely continue to be quite strong for quite some time... The PS2 has enjoyed very good times, and thus Iwata--if he stays to form--will probably predict the "demise" of the industry every single year that Sony beats Nintendo's console sales into the ground.
Some of the bullet points in that article are just laughable as little more than sour grape, such as, "Iwata downplayed the PlayStation as a 'home electronic appliance,' and not a 'game machine.'" Really, the PS and PS2 are 99% focused on games, so calling them anything other than a "game machine" is rather silly. While I could see that claim being possibly applied to the Xbox, trying to launch it against the PlayStation--which has a simply massive game library--just seems petty.
As for the online games, Nintendo has been continuously out of touch with the online market for quite some time... If he wants to take a good look at online games and their appeal, he should note that Xbox Live! is one of the main reasons the Xbox is managing to roughly keep up with the Gamecube in console sales, or the fact that Square Enix's Final Fantasy XI has been an absolute cash cow for them.
Anyway, not that it's a travesty (pretty normal, actually,) but Iwata is running a business more than actually having deep insight into the future of the industry. His statements seem to be directed in an attempt to lower confidence in Sony and Microsoft--and little else.
-Jayde
What's a sig?
Online play means nothing to me or any of my friends. We're all approaching 30 and the last thing we need in a game is a bunch of 12 year old assholes yelling shit in my ear: YOU SHITCOCK FAGGOT! ROFLFHFHFn. Fuck that noise. Fuck online play. I'll stick with Rogue Squadron, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, and Donkey Konga thanks. Just call me Commander Solo
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
For me anyway, one of the main draws of having a console over just playing PC games is that it's very easy to get a few friends over and we can all play at the same time(well, the situation has changed slightly with the PC, but very few games take advantage of the fact that you can have 4 usb gamepads plugged in at the same time). We can all gather around in someone's living room, drink, eat pizza, game, and chat and generally have a great time. There is still nothing like seeing the face of your friend after his monkey has bounced off a goal. You don't get that in online games, it's very impersonal to me. You can do voice, but it's just not the same; plus you have to contend with latency, you have to contend with cheaters, you have to contend with immature players. :)
The only game I will play online is Warcraft, and usually I only do that when I have my laptop at a friends house and we can be on the same team in the same room.
That is why I am glad Nintendo, for the most part, has shyed away from online gaming(glad they didn't totally avoid it though, or else there would be no gamecube linux
For example, XBOX Live isn't sitting on a couple of PC's in somebodies basement, it is a world wide gaming service connecting approximately 1 million gamers together. That doesn't cost nothing, it takes money to run it and Microsoft asks a fee to use it, which I think is entirely reasonable.
Yep, and given a million gamers a fee of a dollar per gamer per month would be way more than reasonable. Dominant, particularly monopoly, companies like M$ love to pretend that they do not have massive economies scale.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
I love Nintendo to death but I feel that they are heading the way of Sega if they don't change there ways. Online play does matter it may not be the holy grail of gaming that some people make it out to be but you cant ignore it or you will pay in the end. And as an XBox owner I can tell you that online play can make an good game into a great game. And for all you people out there still saying that the only good game on the XBox is Halo need to get out a little more.
Thomas-
It allows Splinter Cell:PT to be infinitely amusing. It allows four gamers to form a sponsored CounterStrike team and WORK playing CS. It gives WarCraft III more playability. Yadda yadda yadda...it's great.
HOWEVER...
I think that in order to get more people playing in Online communities, game makers are leaving behind those without LOADS of cash to tack onto a monthly bill along with Rent, Food and Phone.
I'm glad Nintendo hasn't forgotten those who don't have DSL.
Starcraft, Counterstrike, Doom III, etc. are PC games. Your comparison doesn't make sense.
Yes, I konw... these games have been (or will be) ported to consoles, but how many gamers play the XBox version of CS compared to the PC version.
I doubt the XBox online market is near as big as the PC online market.