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."
they've always been the loveable underdog-an the also make the ALL the console games with the most amazing story lines.... i can't wait to see what comes of this "closer relationship"
I've heard Iwata-san pontificate on this multiple times. He believes MS and (to a lesser extent) Sony have staked too much on online games without thinking through the costs for consumers. To be honest, I agree... for most games in other genres, other than some clearly community-centric and dynamic examples, such as MMORPGS and virtual communities like Second Life, it's not reasonable for users to pay $50 or so for a game, and then pay a monthly fee to play.
The gaming industry needs to make money. But nickel and diming players, especially the younger set that consitutes the bread and butter still, may cause a backlash and revolt like what is happening now in music, and movies.
-- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
I saw a recent Slashdot poll that showed that most people here either like FPS or RPG games. I guess changing tack would mean more of these, if Nintendo wants to really crack the market better. I would like to see some better RPG games, myself.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I really hope that their next system does well. I have a Gamecube, and I really like alot of the different interesting games they come up with. Animal Planet and Pikmin were both really fun.
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
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
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.
The one thing that makes Nintendo stand out above other companies is innovation, as long as their company continues to find new ways to entertain, as Nintendo often does their products will continue to have their place in the market. As much as people initially criticized it the Nintendo Dual Screen looks great and the touch screen features seem like the step in the right direction towards changing the way we play games. As time goes on the number of new genre's and innovations throughout the industry continues to deteroriate. And it's good to see that Nintendo is continuing with their ideas of new ideas in the industry. Having worked on the media side of the gaming industry for many years and only recently retiring from it due to a lack of interest in games (and the lack of significant income from doing so), I strongly agree that the generation of 20s and 30s gamers that have made the industry grow strong is becoming less and less interested in video games and only by creating new and innovative games, rather than cookie cutter rip-offs and sequels can the video game industry continue to thrive.
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
As long as Nintendo wants to make games for a younger audience, offline games should be okay. Kids can amuse themselves with
For the gamer who enjoys true competition and high replay value, however, there is no substitute for the online experience. Starcraft, Counterstrike, Doom III, etc., are examples of this. Other types of online games, such as MMORPGs, allow for a dynamic and social feel that no offline game can authentically replicate.
On the other hand, a well-made online game tends to have a huge replay lifespan. Perhaps that is why Nintendo is hestitant to embrace them?
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.
Um...bullshit? Right now there isn't that big of a market for online play on consoles. And it's certainly the last thing I want in a game console.
Now in the world of PC gaming, it is a must.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
"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."
Wind Waker was directed by Eiji Aonuma, not Miyamoto.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
More observant gamers will note that Nintendo has already tried online since the Famicom (term for Japanese ver. of NES) even before the Internet was in common use! Not only that, I'm gonna quote some stats: In Japan, the sales for Final Fantasy XI (online MMORPG) were around 100,000 aka dismal. In Japan. Final Fantasy games have a near-cult following in japan. Nintendo knows Online Play tanks. If you have to pay for online, it's not gonna be popular. And, if XBOX LIVE (EVIL XOBX in reverse) is the only reason XBOX sold a single console, then I guess that the year before XBOX LIVE came out that no one even touched the things. I bought the XBOX since it looked good at the time (although I wanna gamecube now) and played DVDs too.
I know, all of us here in Slashdot, would find it difficult to believe, but the majority of people who buys games, are playing them off-line. Blizzard for example, who sells millions of units per game, has stated repeatly that only a small fraction of it's player base ever goes online with their games. Although that fraction turns out to be a couple of hundred-thousand players, it's still a small portion of the over-all pie.
With the recent series of MMORPG cancellations, like Ultima X: Odyssey, Warhammer Online, Mythica, and several others, it is no secret that companies are re-evaluating what kind of profit an online game can generate. It is not the easy cash cow that developement houses came to believe it to be.
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.
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 matters, but in more ways than one. Anonymity brings out the latent asshole in far too many people, which can all but ruin a player's experience with any online system that's not completely asshole-proof. I'd rather Nintendo waited on online play until they can perfect it than have them tarnish their image of providing quality, family-friendly games by releasing a half-assed or seriously flawed online system. It's probably true that XBox Live is the biggest attractor the XBox has right now, but I don't think Nintendo wants to be where Microsoft currently is with its XBox. I'm completely happy with Nintendo as a niche player (Apple anyone?), and I think they are too, from the looks of things.
Mike
as long as nintendo continues to market mostly to the kiddy sector I can't seem to convince myself to buy any of their products. For all the games they make a year I can only manage to enjoy a handful, while at the same time other systems like the PS2 and XBOX make a wide range of games where I have more of a choice as to "childish" or "adult". When it comes down to dollars I'd rather spend them on the system I can enjoy more.
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
Online play does matter, but that depends on the kind of game you are playing. I play Xbox Live with games like Rainbow Six: 3 (a FPS) and Project Gotham 2 (a semi-realistic racing game). However, I also like much of the Nintendo franchise (Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc.) however, I can see why Nintendo's focus wouldn't be on online play... these games are all EXCELLENT single player games and I can't imagine wanting to play these multiplayer with a headset with the majority of the people that are playing online. Not to say that Nintendo doesn't make great multiplayer games (Zelda: Four Swords, Mario Golf, etc.) but I don't think that is their strong point.
"Ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space..."
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-
I agree with what you are saying, but there is just one thing:
Just call me Commander Solo
Is it just me, or does this sound like the name of a chronic masturbater?
First with the lack of backwards compatibility (for the NES) in the SNES
Eighty-five percent of Super NES buyers in the first year or so already had an NES. Would the extra $50 (remember, 1991 dollars, 1991 recession) have justified an NES-compatibility coprocessor? How many Power Base Converters (adapters to let the Sega Genesis read Sega Master System carts using the Genesis's built-in SMS-compatibility hardware) did Sega actually sell?
And yes, the Super NES was back-compatible with Game Boy titles. With an inexpensive adapter, it could play all games for the DMG (Game Boy monochrome) platform, except those requiring a link port device.
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.
You're talking bullshit.
/. stating that Capcom "isn't interested in developing more" Xbox titles, simply saying: "There are no plans... It's just not profitable enough.".
Yes, most people buy 1st party stuff on Nintendo consoles. But that's because Nintendo often makes the best games.
Splinter Cell did't sell too well on GC because the release date was lagging behind the other releases (XBox, PC, PS2).
It was Ubi Soft's own fault. If SC's release was not that late and more technically advanced, it would've sold more units.
You also gave Capcom as another example. Interesting, because a few days ago there was an article here on