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
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.