Gamecube MMORPG Back From the Dead

Drakken writes "GamesAreFun.com is reporting that Chunsoft has updated their Homeland website with three new movies, two of them showing off online play. For awhile, Homeland (a GameCube MMORPG) was thought to be cancelled, but it seems it's alive again. This is significant because Homeland will be only the second-ever online GameCube game, making use of the GC's broadband adapter." Probably a JP only release.

Comments

Nintendo's biggest problem

[genrader]

The biggest problem with Nintendo that I have seen is the fact that they think they know what gamers want, but they don't. Gamers want online gameplay. Nintendo says "we are sure that gamers aren't ready for this yet" but look at how many people play online with a Ps2 and Xbox? Xbox Live is mad, if GameCube had good online games with something along the lines of Xbox live I think they'd be doing a lot better.

Nintendo has said that they are sticking to what gamers want, but they don't know. I know several people who bought an Xbox soley so they could play a console online, a few of those people would have bought GameCubes for online play if it would have had it.

Re:Nintendo's biggest problem

[nocomment]

FWIW I think the popularity of the DS might show this to Nintendo...at least I hope it does.

Re:Nintendo's biggest problem

[Guppy06]

"Gamers want online gameplay. Nintendo says "we are sure that gamers aren't ready for this yet""

No, Nintendo says "Here's the broadband adapter and here's the modem. If you want anything else, go bug the game companies." The reason we're not seeing as much online games on the GCN as we have on the PS2 and Xbox is that Nintendo isn't bending over backwards to run everything but the servers (or even the servers as well), instead expecting game companies to take a PC-esque "Do it yourself" approach.

And in many ways this is the same tactic they're taking with the DS: wireless capabilities are provided, but they expect the software companies to be the ones to do something with it.

Re:Nintendo's biggest problem

[incom]

Actually, I'd say it has more to do with no incentive for gamers to buy the gamecube broadband adapter, and thus no incentive for developers to take advantage of the adapter, and on the cycle goes. With Microsoft, they used substantial marketing and first party game support to boost live, not to mention built-in networking. And for the PS2, it doesn't have THAT many online gamers per system owner, and sony did do some developer and marketing pushes to compete with microsoft. If nintendo would have released something like mariokart, or metroid prime2, with the broadband adapter included, and good online functions for those games, they could have had something.

Re:Nintendo's biggest problem

[SetupWeasel]

How much money is the "online" XBOX making? If you said negative one billion dollars, you would be right!

Re:Nintendo's biggest problem

[Gothic_Walrus]

Look at the kinds of games for each system, and you'll see that Nintendo is right.

While online play covers a wide variety of genres, there are two in particular that are played (from my experience) much more frequently online: first person shooters and sports games.

Nintendo has never been known for sports games. Ever since the Genesis era, Nintendo has lagged behind in sports titles. If you bought a system for sports gaming, you bought a Genesis, a Dreamcast, an Xbox...because everyone knows (or thinks) that Nintendo's consoles just can't handle the sports games as well as the other consoles can.

Similarly, Nintendo has never been known for first person shooters. They've still got the most family-friendly reputation, despite apparent attempts to change that (Eternal Darkness, exclusive Resident Evil titles). More importantly, the one shooter that WAS incredibly successful on a Nintendo console - Goldeneye - was popular because of its multiplayer...where you sat next to the people you played against.

The games Nintendo succeeds with are ones that require interaction between others. Hell, Animal Crossing (and Pokémon, to an extent) is built almost entirely on social behavior. If you took games like those two online, you'd lose something. Trading a Pikachu for your best friend's Dragonite isn't the same as swapping with someone across the continent that you've never met and will never speak to again. The same holds true for other titles in Nintendo's stable as well. Playing Mario Kart or Mario Tennis against a nameless, faceless 13 year old takes something away from the experience. The fun with these titles is playing against friends, relatives, people you know.

It could just be my opinion, but I think that Nintendo has a damn good reason for not including online play in their titles. They'd lose what makes their games so much fun to play.

Re:Nintendo's biggest problem

[Lynxara]

I think it's more a problem of not knowing what American gamers want. When viewed in light of the Japanese marketplace, most of Nintendo's recent decisions are fairly understandable, if not always optimal. Only a few, like the early DS release in the US or the upcoming "grown-up" Zelda game betray even a moderate concern with the demands of the American market as it stands.

what was the first?

[nocomment]

I've got a GC, I'd love to play it online. Hello, Nintendo? You there? helllooooo....online Zelda? I f this homelad game is made into engrish, I'll buy it, and the GC adapter. Looks neat. Sort of like an online Zelda (in a windwaker sort of way).

Re:what was the first?

[chris462]

What, exactly, would you do with an online Zelda?

The LoZ series is all about becoming the Hero of Time. The only thing I could see appealing with online Zelda would be an online implementation of Four Swords, but even that isn't terribly interesting.

The problem I have with online gaming (esp. MMORPG) is this mentality where I have to shell out $50 for the game itself then, on top of that, a fee just to play it. If I can somehow acquire the game for free, I have no problem paying the $10/mo, since I'll get five or six months out of the game and still "break even."

I also despise the swarms of 13 year-old kids on these networks that do nothing but talk trash and single-handedly ruin the experience for most of the gamers I know. I have a hard time paying money to be that frustrated.

Online play is appealing, but not nearly as appealing as innovative hardware and software. Nintendo has come, time and again, with new and unique games and hardware. Starting with the Legend of Zelda on the NES to Super Mario 64 and, most recently, Pikmin and the Nintendo DS. What have Microsoft and Sony done?

Really?

[CrazyJim1]

I was at g3 several years ago, on my only game developer job interview. I kept ranting and raving about how big online gaming would be, and how theres a monopoly that needs to be capped in it(which amazingly no one has achieved yet). Anyway its funny I didn't get hired by 919 sports though because that company just had half their company split into Verant who was making Everquest. It didn't dawn on me until later why I was getting blank and cold stares from the people in 919. For a game company to still not see the multibillion online market is beyond me.

Fanboy Apologist

[warmgun]

To me, it seems Nintendo thinks the hurdle is more technological than econmical, despite what they say. To play the Nintendo games that people want online, such as Mario Kart or Samsh Bros., you really can't suffer any lag. Many can attest, the slightest mismovement in Smash Bros. will cost a precious point. By waiting another generation of consoles, Nintendo is ensuring a qaulity service instead of one seemingly slapped together at the last minute.

Third game, not second.

[Fred Or Alive]

The Gamecube has two games online:

Phantasy Star Online Episode 1 & 2
Phantasy Star Online Episode 3 - CARD Revolution.

Assuming you count the two different PSO games as being separate games. You could count it as 1.5 games instead or something I suppose.

Nintendo appeal.

[TheGeneration]

Nintendo likes to put out games that are quality. I know that when I go out and buy a game for the Gamecube that it is far less of a crap shoot than with other systems. The problem though is that they have completely opted out of some genres of gaming that I am interested in. For example the Dance Dance Revolution (DDR) style game which are fun (yes, you can admit it) but the only game they have in that style is Donka Konga... wich has a set of bongos. Where am I going to put bongos in my apartment?

They also completely skip the strategy genre. This is primarily dependent on the fact that it's a console, and strategy games historically haven't done well. I feel though that there are enough buttons on the controllers now to allow strategy games to be fun to play. Maybe I'm crazy go nuts.

Nintendo's skipping of the MMORPG genre is a bit weird though. This would seem like a natural source of long lasting revenue stream. It could possibly be related to the number of consoles on the market, possibly it's not enough to make the endeavor profitable on the Gamecube which is has not sold as well as the PS2. What I don't understand is why a software company can't make a cross platform MMORPG. Perhaps part of the problem is that patching on the game discs is impossible since they are read only. You have to get the game righ straight out of the door.

Re:Nintendo appeal.

[xenocide2]

They've completely skipped the strategy genre? Hardly. Advance Wars 2 and Fire Emblem are both resurrections of some of the earliest strategy games available on a console. Fire Emblem inspired a whole slew of knockoffs, from Shining Force to Ogre Tactics. Perhaps you meant real-time strategy, the genre which you might place the game Pikmin into?

I think that Nintendo is focusing on two things: creating new franchises unlike anything you've seen before (we call that innovation) and milking their brands with sequals (often called the antithesis of innovation). Dance Dance Mario doesn't seem to fit into either of those two categories.

Nintendo not pushing a MMORPG is a smart move; they want people dropping money on new games, rather than being locked into playing the same game for years. Square, as you probably know, has made a cross platform MMORPG. I don't know if the PS2 and PC owners use segregated servers, though. Even more frightently, an MMORPG represents a huge risk; you have to put down the cash for infrastructure, advertising, customer support, billing, and networking. That kind of risk means you'll be looking to minimize it, by using franchises already well established. Their options: Pokemon, a hugely popular franchise with the credit cardless demographic, and Fire Emblem, which hasn't made a big splash outside the portable market in the US.