Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Going Online, Releasing New Games
GamesIndustry.biz has an article up about the Big N's future plans. Shigeru Miyamoto stated recently that Nintendo plans to be fully supporting online play within a few years, with the DS leading the way. From the article: "Miyamoto, credited as the design genius behind key Nintendo franchises including Zelda and Mario, told the magazine that online gaming will reach the mainstream within three to four years, and that Nintendo will be moving in that direction as a result." Gamespot also has details on upcoming Gamecube games, including another Mario, the next Legend of Zelda, Donkey Konga 3, Mario Baseball, and a new Kirby game.
Online gaming is already mainstream. It may not be FPS, but many people I know who are not techs play Hearts online, or some other card game.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
the link labelled "upcoming Gamecube games" appears to just redirect to whatever the current page is :P
Online support for the DS would give them an easy chance to practice. It's a small group of users. And besides, it wouldn't take much bandwidth to serve DS games.
for some reason the second link points back to slashdot.org.....
-=Hinkey=-
The article repeatedly says that Nintendo plans to come online within a 3-4 year timescale. I don't really see that as the near future. All of the current consoles will likely be onto their next versions by then.
If I had just bought a DS, which hypes online capabilites as a major feature, I would be very annoyed that I had to wait 3 years before I got any games that supported it.
redune.com: The World 3.2 Megapixels at a time
The second link should be "upcoming GameCube games". The A-tag has two double-quotes by accident, causing browsers to read it as A HREF=""....
does that name ring a bell? And the lucky people in the states got 56k modems us Europeans were treated to 33k modems. To be honest they should have sold it as an add on over here, there were a host of games that didn't even go online whilst the US versions did, i think UT was one of them and they never even released Bomberman in the UK, i had to get it on import.
"all through my house i set up traps, it seems like the rats have a map, so now i feed the rats crack" - Donald D
That's all they were waiting for? They are going to have a hard time getting in to the market with the Gamecube 2 and DS. Since Microsoft and Sony already have had a major head start. Good Luck to the Big N I respect them alot, but you know they haven't been doing very good compared to Sony or Microsoft.
Nothings impossible if you try. "We must learn to live togther as brothers or Perish apart as fools"-Mlk Jr.
As a diehard nintendo fan since I was 6, I'm glad to see nintendo finnaly join us in the 21st century and go online. Imagine playing Super Samsh Bros. online! Now all nintendo needs to do is to get a 3rd party supporter!
The key word Mr. Miyamoto used was 'mainsteam'.
Online gaming for consoles isn't anywhere near mainstream as of now, even with services like Xbox Live.
Honestly, I would expect this. I don't think Nintendo is really out to piss off their consumers. I think what they're after is quality. Think about it - Nintendo is frequently the last console company to implement something, but it's almost always a high-quality implementation. Remember the SNES' dying days where it was fighting off both SEGA's and Sony's CD-based 32-bit consoles? I remember frustration as my friends played games like Tomb Raider and Virtua Fighter in full 3D while I was left with Donkey Kong Country and its 2D, side-scrolling action. But then came the N64, and while it didn't even scratch the surface of the PSone's success, it definitely blew it away in quality. Games like Super Mario 64 and Legend of Zelda : OoT were rendered in full 3D without load times and pixelated graphics and still maintained the Nintendo quality of gameplay from the 16-bit days. It set a new standard for console 3D games and gameplay.
When Nintendo finally moved to disc-based media with the GCN, they moved because load-times were far less of an issue with the current technology. They waited for it so they wouldn't rub their consumers the wrong way. While I loved the PSone, looking back, the load times were atrocious. Piracy of GCN games is near impossible and they're still able to keep up with the pack in most areas (with only the biggest games suffering from the proprietary media size limit).
The DS is another fine example waiting to unfold. Nintendo is just now doing 3D pocket gaming. There have been plenty of technologically superior portable game consoles capable of 3D, yet Nintendo's gameboy series has always done better in the market. There's no question that the DS is less powerful than the PSP, but I think Nintendo is more concerned with the quality of the game rather than the graphical superiority.
This is not to say that Nintendo made the right choice in waiting to advance their technologies, but I am saying that when Nintendo does enter the online arena, it will be a high-quality entrance, as history has proved. They might lose some sales because online console capabilities is a selling point for some people, but I think Nintendo has sent the message time and time again that they're not after the gamers who want bleeding edge technology; they're after the gamers who want high-quality, rich gaming experiences.
(and yes, I'm aware of Nintendo's forays into the online and CD-based markets)
"You and your third dimension."
If Miyamoto is starting to talk about online gaming, then I think that means that he may already have some game ideas in mind. Up until now, Nintendo has been famously against online gaming. But given the string of Miyamoto hits that have supported the company over the years, if he is talking about online play, then the wheels are finally starting to turn at Nintendo. But I don't really believe it will be 3 or 4 years. If they are serious, I'd guess we'll see some serious NDS online play within about 18 months, maybe something related to Pikmin or Pokemon. Maybe they'll have a bundle with a GameCube wireless router add-on or something. I think an online multiplayer Mario might be interesting, but a real challenge to design and keep the Mario flavor.
Heck, if they're working with Square Enix, we might even see some kind of FFIX NDS connectivity as a proof of concept (wild speculation!). This might be followed by a version of Crystal Chronicles with online elements or full blown online multiplayer.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
This morning a Nintendo PR spokesperson officially announced their new stand on their previous "that online thing wont work, trust me!" philosophy.
Nintendo PR: "OOOOOOPS!"
Wise words there in deed, now back to our regularly scheduled thread show
Go ahead, MOD my day!
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
Not innovate? Nintendo is responsible for the D-Pad, Rumbling controllers, the Virtual Boy, the e-reader, wireless controllers for the NES, and the Game & Watch, among other things. Granted, not all of those were particularly successful, but they were innovative.
http://crummysocks.com
This is not to say that Zelda and Mario are the only upcoming games, but almost everyone -- gamer and non-gamer alike -- Recognizes those names, so Nintendo would be stupid not to use them wherever they can. The key word is 'include'.
I already know i'm going to hell, now i'm just trying to get cable down there.
Perhaps it's because of the broken link in the submission, but it looks like the new Zelda game ditches the cel shaded look and delivers what we were promised in the original GC zelda: realism. See here
Just because a game has the Zelda or Mario name on it doesn't makeit automatically uninnovative... Zelda:OOT and the original Legend of Zelda are both in the same series but both are completely different kinds of games. Both were innovative games for their time. Same for Super Mario Bros. and Mario 64. Metroid. Donkey Kong. Point is that Nintendo has spent a long time building up name recognition for their premier characters and they can now capitalize on that by bringing out new games that feature them.
It's funny you should mention that. Me and a friend were discussing that very topic over lunch last week when both of us had classes canceled. He raised the legitimate point that, from the outside looking in, Nintendo doesn't seem to be innovating that much. I mean, there's well over 40 different Mario titles to date. However, for the most part, I've found that when Nintendo licenses their characters into a new spin-off game, it's actually quite innovative. I can say with a certain amount of confidence that Mario Kart, Mario Tennis and Mario Golf are all really fun and different from any cart/tennis/golf game I've played. If they were simply cart/tennis/golf sims, then it would be a perfectly valid point to state that no innovation has been done, but that is not the case. All of the spin-off franchises brought something new to the new medium of sport, the hallmark "Nintendo quirkiness", or in the case of the Zelda series, you get a graphical overhaul/new battle system/new multiplayer features/new style of story-telling.
With that said, I'm looking forward to Mario Baseball. It will be interesting to see what spin Nintendo takes on the sport.
I really big to differ on the Sony note. Nintendo lost because Sony is just plain better at courting the consumer and the developer. While I'm a huge fan of the Final Fantasy series, there's not a tremendous amount of innovation between 7 and 10, aside from battle system improvements and new characters and story, it's pretty much more of the same. And I wouldn't have it any other way for FF, that's how I like it, but it's not innovative. Generic cookie-cutter sports titles, Yet Another Animated 2-D Generic Marvel vs. Capcom vs. KOF vs. SNK vs. SF games, Yet Another 'I Wish I Was Final Fantasy II So Bad' Sprite-Based RPG, all found a home on the PSX. Sony won because they knew which buttons to press while Nintendo was asleep on the job, not because they were innovative.
"You and your third dimension."
I think that Nintendo probably goes something like "Let's make baseball game", and come up with the idea for the game - then when they need to stick some characters in, they pick from their stock selection of Mario/Zelda, etc.
On the other hand, another company probably goes something like "Let's make a another Mario game". Then when they need to actually have some gameplay, they stick some stock baseball game in.
I think the use of Mario is more to just place their trademark on the game, more than anything. Of course, the name recognition helps as well.
You're reasoning is still a little cloudy, go check all the titles on the PS2 and compare them to the developers and Titles formerly on the SNES, almost every single developer FORMERLY developed for the Super Nintendo before jumping to PS1 which secured the exclusives for PS2's dominance. The reason was the developers jumped ship to PS1 due to superior storage capacity that enabled you to make superior games with more content, better textures, and graphics then you could on a cart, lets face it, Cartridges were measured in mere megabits, a CD is 650Mbytes, there is no way you would want to develop for a cartridge. That is the whole reason Square left nintendo after 3 sequels to its legendary final fantasy series (and its still going strong and sells playstation 2's today), which was the smartest move on Sony's part ever was to get all the best 3rd party devs doing their system totally screwing over Nintendo.
Nintendo lost half their market in one fell swoop because of the mistake that ended up being the N64, all the developers that were formerly developing for the snes TOTALLY abandoned the N64 for the Playstation, Konami with Metal gear (which btw, the original was originally released on Nintendo's NES way back in the day), Street Fighter Series, Tekken, all the best fighting games, and all the Japanese RPG's went to the PSX while the N64 totally got shafted. I couldn't stand how Final fantasy became a PSX exclusive and that sealed the deal and I had to get a Playstation, their worst mistake ever was not realizing that they needed hot 3rd party exclusives to secure #1 and sell consoles. The reason N64 did ok was because of fanboyism and hopes and dreams left over from the SNES era, I remember wishing against fate that N64 would get some good games because my brother recieved one for christmas while I owned a PS1. You have to realize hardware manufacturers like Sony don't sell playstation 2's, the developers sell playstation 2's by developing MUST HAVE games that force you to buy the hardware. This is the way the console industry works. Games drive the hardware sales.
At least 60-80% of nintendos best 3rd party devleopers games and their sequels were all moved over and released on playstation and became exclusives to that platform. This is what killed Nintendo, they didn't realize the power of third party developers until it was too late and they lost the system wars.
While nearly all the developers who formerly made games for SNES didn't release ANYTHING at all worth playing for the N64 if they even released *anything*. Squaresoft TOTALLY shafted the N64 completely as well as every other major RPG maker and most other developers of different genres as well. ALL the developers wanted to develop for the PS1 with that massive storage that enabled near perfect reproductions of many fighting arcade games and FMV and other graphical niceties at the time. FF VII would not have even been possible on those small dinky cartridges. Ocarina of time had washed out textures and practically had to use super compression to get as much content on the ROM as possible.
It is very VERY clear that nintendo lost due to superior hardware primarily because of the storage medium they chose becuase the developers wanted to make great games, what are you going to choose, a 32, 64 or 256Megbit cartridge or a 650Megabyte CDROM??? If you're a developer you can easily, do the math on what kind of game you can create! NES sold 60 something million units with SNES pulling in something like 50-54 Million units, a drop in 20 milllion or so units of market share is MASSIVE compared to their past domination with NES and SNES.
It's very clear why the N64 failed because they didn't realize that they couldn't carry the system by themselves and that a huge library of games coupled with all the hottest 3rd party developers (Konami, Capcom, Square, etc) killed them completely. All the best series on Nintendo in the NES and SNES days are all now practically exclusives on the playstation and playstation 2.
"The reason N64 did ok was because of fanboyism and hopes and dreams left over from the SNES era"
.. weeeee Full Motion Video!!! (Which is what most of the data on FFVII comprised of. I read somewhere that it actually could have been ported to the N64 if not for the insistence on full-rendered graphics all over teh place.)
;)
Actually, that had more to do with the quality games on the N64. There were quite a few must-haves including Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Goldeneye, etc.
" I bet the president of Nintendo wanted to kill himself after he allowed the hardware team to botch N64 hardware design."
I doubt it. It was not botched, nor was it unsuccessful. If anything, it gave Nintendo the ability to survive the battle against Sony.
A.) The N64 was considerably cheaper than the PS2.
B.) Fewer returns due to defective hardware.
C.) Nintendo controlled who published what. That may not seem like a big deal, but the problem with the original Playstation was the flood of crap games that was released on it. I was a games salesman during that time, and ugh, lots of people bought lots of games for the PS1 they just plain didn't like. I don't know what prevented Sony from creating another Atari, but I'm glad it didn't happen that way.
"They placed their bet on closed / inferior storage technology and lost because they are anal about piracy and didn't want people burning their games and they payed for it dearly."
I doubt that was their reasoning, though it's reasonable to assume that was a bright shiny bullet-point while designing the system. The problem is that CDs weren't all that superior. Sure they held more, but the slow access times and delicacy of the medium weren't ideal. Nintendo could have made a 32-bit unit with a CD-ROM... and then what? Sell a system fragile system for $100 more? Be virtually indistinguishable from the PS1? Get lower royalites for every game sold? Wasn't going to happen. Nintendo would likely have produced another Saturn. The fact of the matter was that CDs didn't automatically make Playstation games better. Sony certainly didn't have a Mario 64 on its hands. Developers were probably more attractied to the lower licensing and publishing fees than to the number of megabytes on the medium. I mean, let's be serious for a moment, how useful is having all that storage if a.) RAM is limited, b.) disc access is slow, c.) there's some burning need to use it? About the only real benefit that the PS1 saw was better audio, and
"Part of the reason the original playstation 1 and now the Xbox and PS2 are so popular"
I find this rather unlikely. Especially with the PS1 considering that CD burners didn't become common items until the late 90's when the Dreamcast came along.
As for having clouded glasses, that may be true. I've stated it openly before, and I'll state it here just so there's no confusion: I'm a Nintendo fan and a zealot. I like to think I'm educated enough to be rational during the discussion, but I figured you'd at least appreciate hearing why I'm so thick headed about the topic. However, it also means I've followed their story quite thoroughly. So maybe a little credit is deserved?
G'nite.
"Derp de derp."
The reason was the developers jumped ship to PS1 due to superior storage capacity that enabled you to make superior games with more content, better textures, and graphics then you could on a cart, lets face it, Cartridges were measured in mere megabits, a CD is 650Mbytes, there is no way you would want to develop for a cartridge.
CDs are cheaper to manufacture than carts, thus Sony offered better royalty rates. It wasn't that developers suddenly could do amazing shit with their games on the PSOne (check out those early games, most of them look and play like shit, SNES games coming out at the same time looked better, and often played better-- and even later PSOne games aren't that amazing in the graphics department), it was that publishers could charge the same amount for games, and see more money from the sales. Simple economics says we can make the same game for both systems, but we make more money on each CD versions sold over the carts, so we'll support disk based media.
And all the extra space of CDs got wasted with rendered video, which people were assuming was gameplay video... until they got past the opening to the actual game itself.
That is the whole reason Square left nintendo after 3 sequels to its legendary final fantasy series (and its still going strong and sells playstation 2's today), which was the smartest move on Sony's part ever was to get all the best 3rd party devs doing their system totally screwing over Nintendo.
Let's not forget all the rendered video Square could put on those CDs, nor the boatload of money Sony offered Square to make FF VII exclusive. Yet, SONY made more money off of FF VII than Square did, because Sony was the publisher of the game in North America.
Also, one thing people like you fail to remember is that while the PSOne was selling fairly well, it wasn't until FF VII was announced as exclusive to the PSOne that sales went through the roof. Before FF VII was announced exclusive, there wasn't much reason for people to own a PSOne, especially when most of the games were pretty craptacular looking thanks to the PSOne's very limited RAM.
Nintendo lost half their market in one fell swoop because of the mistake that ended up being the N64, all the developers that were formerly developing for the snes TOTALLY abandoned the N64 for the Playstation, Konami with Metal gear (which btw, the original was originally released on Nintendo's NES way back in the day), Street Fighter Series, Tekken, all the best fighting games, and all the Japanese RPG's went to the PSX while the N64 totally got shafted.
Again, not until FF VII was announced as exlusive and the sales shot through the roof did these developers and publishers jump ship to Sony. Or did we forget that Metal Gear Solid came out around a full year plus AFTER FF VII was announced and released? Street Fighter + load times = crap (in fact, the PSOne had a horrid time doing 2D games at all, because it had so little RAM to load all the sprite animations-- and Sony was very against 2D gaming, with the exception of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night), Tekken = meh (and Soul Calibur was much better on the Dreamcast than the PSOne), and the RPGs went so they could do tons of rendered video-- joy.
You have to realize hardware manufacturers like Sony don't sell playstation 2's, the developers sell playstation 2's by developing MUST HAVE games that force you to buy the hardware.
Right, because Sony NEVER overhyped their specs and told people to forget about the Dreamcast because the PS2 was going to be super dooper better than it and be able to render Toy Story in real time, right? The Sony Hype Machine(TM) is well known. The promise of great games down the road for the PS2 didn't sell them at launch, and certainly the launch games didn't (since almost all were pure crap), the Sony Hype Machine(TM) sold them by touting the DVD playback and the 75 million polygons/second theoretical max of the Emotion Engin
Nothing as of late, however. The most recent thing was Z Targeting in Zelda 64, I reckon. They still stand for quality games, though. I've stuck with them this generation on the GCN.
Was there a second one released only in Japan?
And don't forget the Power Glove, it's sooo bad.
...Metal gear (which btw, the original was originally released on Nintendo's NES way back in the day)...
I just wanted to mention that the original Metal Gear wasn't released for the NES. It was originally released on the MSX. The NES version was a port from the original MSX title. A pretty bad port I should say considering you don't even see Metal Gear in the NES version. If you're a pretty big fan of the series, I'd reccommend downloading a MSX emulator and trying out the original and it's sequel Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake.
-Shawn "If the Name Don't Rhyme It Ain't Mine" Conn
Is this the much heralded Mario 128 that we've been hearing so much (ok nothing) about???? Could it be???????
What? Mario Baseball?! Come on, Nintendo... Mario Sunshine can't be your only Mario platformer to offer for the system!
I'm sorry, but if they hadn't gotten to it first, someone else would have.
I'm f#$king magic!
Whatever, most everything I said was true, most of your counter points were totally off the mark, hence I didn't bother respoding to them. Most of your counterpoints didn't make any sense.
Dreamcast, Sega Saturn and the Sega CD all had CD/Optical disc based hardware and failed because they had no developer support or killer app exclusives to sell the system, you prove once again you responded out of knee jerk reaction rather then rational thought. You couldn't see the forest from the trees in my post, I end my post with my conclusion and you think that invalidates it because some of my points weren't exactly articulated the best.
You're just nitpicking because you have nothing better to do. Look at the numbers in the console industry today, The installed base of consoles PS2 is enormously in the lead and it was because of the dominance they secured with former SNES developers in the PS1 era. That fact sir is indisputable.
They were also the first to go "online" with the Famicom Network and modem.
Microsoft... as always, just playing catch up and stealing all the good ideas.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Add to this mix Bomberman Fantasy Race. Quite fun, fast paced, and evil like Mario Kart.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.