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."
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
:-)
Me too. How about an RPG FPS?
I'm hoping that more and more types of games start incorporating RPG elements... I like good, real-time action but I also want character development and a good storyline.
"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""
What planet are you from? Nintendo monopolized the game industry in the late 80s like Microsoft can't to this day. It took the combined efforts of Atari Corp. and Atari Games Corp/Tengen through the court system to get Nintendo to drop their licensing agreements that stated that if any 3rd party developer made a title on the NES, it could not be ported to any other competing system. That policy hurt not only the Atari 7800, but the Sega Master System and the NEC TurboGrafx16 (T16). During that era, the Japanese version of the T16 known as the PC Engine, was the dominant system because every title was available on it. NEC brought the system to America only to find out they couldn't release hardly any of the games it enjoyed in Japan to Stateside. The Sega Genesis did not have a large amount of support from 3rd party developers either; Tengen was one of the strongest (and prominent) because they had an axe to grind with "The Other" Beast of Redmond.
Nintendo's later ineptitude lost the monopoly that they partly built upon their own merits. First with the lack of backwards compatibility (for the NES) in the SNES, and then with the failure to embrace CD-Roms.
The problem with the game industry is Nintendo is no longer a competent player in it.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
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.
Samir Gupta is actually just one of the mini-bosses. You have to get through several of those, at increasing levels of difficulty, to reach the Boss which the article quotes.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
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.
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
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.
What planet are you from? Nintendo monopolized the game industry in the late 80s like Microsoft can't to this day. It took the combined efforts of Atari Corp. and Atari Games Corp/Tengen through the court system to get Nintendo to drop their licensing agreements that stated that if any 3rd party developer made a title on the NES, it could not be ported to any other competing system.
You don't quite have your facts straight on this. Nintendo had exclusivity deals with various third parties just as they (and Sony, and MS) do now. That has not, nor will it ever, change. What Atari sued Nintendo over was their "seal of quality" program, in which Nintendo would not legally allow third parties to develop software for their system without their permission. Atari basically did not want to pay Nintendo's licensing fees and thought this amounted to a monopolistic business practice. The reason for the program from Nintendo's view was obvious, though: it was a direct response to the American game crash of 1984, which was partly caused by a glut of unlicensed, poor quality games on the market. In fact, Atari lost that lawsuit, and Nintendo won the lawsuit they later filed against Tengen. Otherwise the entire video game industry would not exist as it does today - there would be no reason for any company to make game hardware.
Whether or not you agree with the policy, Atari is hardly the good guy you're making them out to be. Remember that it was Atari who first sued Activision for developing games for the 2600 - Atari didn't think third parties even had a right to exist, licensed or not. By the time of the NES, Atari was on the ropes and out of desperation formed Tengen so they could play both sides of the fence - develop for their own systems under the Atari name and for competitors as Tengen.
Remember also that Tengen illegally released their own version of Tetris for the NES, which was subsequently pulled from the market and damages awarded to Nintendo, who owned the copyright for home console systems.
That policy hurt not only the Atari 7800, but the Sega Master System and the NEC TurboGrafx16 (T16). During that era, the Japanese version of the T16 known as the PC Engine, was the dominant system because every title was available on it. NEC brought the system to America only to find out they couldn't release hardly any of the games it enjoyed in Japan to Stateside. The Sega Genesis did not have a large amount of support from 3rd party developers either; Tengen was one of the strongest (and prominent) because they had an axe to grind with "The Other" Beast of Redmond.
This is completely, completely wrong. First of all, the PC Engine was never the "dominant system". It was more popular than it was here, but it was always second to the Famicom/Super Famicom. Second, NEC's problems in this country were of their own making, not Nintendo's - there was nothing preventing them from releasing many of their most popular games here, they just chose not to. Same goes for Sega. It's true that many of the third party games released in Japan were never released here, but that's true now of the PS2 and GameCube as well - we're just not that big into dating sims, hentai games and other genres that are all the rage over there. It's got nothing to do with licensing. And it sure doesn't explain why NEC and Sega didn't bring some of their own most popular first party titles over here - it was simply ineptitude on the parts of these manufacturers.
And lastly, Tengen was never as big as you seem to think they were, and they were only in business for a short time before their legal issues shut them down (the licensing issue went back and forth in the courts for a while before Nintendo prevailed). Some of their games were quality games but they were always a second-tier publisher, similar to a company like THQ today (which Sega uses to release a lot of their games on other systems, similar to how Atari used Tengen).
I'm not saying N